TwIsTeD Reflections

TwIsTeR's Lakers

2010-12-16T03:15:00.000-08:00

TwIsTeR Insights: Party Politics

2010-07-15T08:28:00.000-07:00

I was in the Net when I encountered an article (http://sg.yfittopostblog.com/2010/07/15/100000-more-foreign-workers-needed-pm-lee/). While the article was a rather boring report on the influx of foreign workers in Singapore, I was intrigued by the insightful comment by a 21-year-old named Legion. Here is what he said:

So this is what you get when you voted for PAP in 2006?

They bring in more foreigners to compete with your rice bowl.

I bet those who voted for PAP never expected this to happen. Still want to vote for them, and them destroy your future??

My vote counts: 10 reasons why I cannot vote for the PAP in the next election. By yaevlejunce

That so many Singaporeans behave like sheep and recite the prescribed mantra all the time about our government (namely, that we owe it all to them) really only reveals the plight of our people. Not only are Singaporeans amongst the lowest earners in the developed world in monetary terms, they are also almost definitely the poorest in the faculty to think for themselves, as a result of the education system.

Now that I am 21 and of age to vote, I am unable to vote for the PAP in the coming election because there is such an urgent need to send across a strong signal through their very thick skulls that there is a problem in the way it’s running this country. I am not a member of the Opposition, and I do not want the Opposition to take over this country, but because there will always be too many sheep in Singapore anyway, we need every vote FOR the Opposition, just to manage to produce a dent in the PAP’s smugly expected results. There will always be the apathetic, the boot-lickers, the cowardly, and the ignorant to ensure they win eventually anyway.

The difference we can make, however, is how much it wins by. Perhaps if it loses a GRC or two (and the GRC is a PAP invention), they will shake off their slumber and start ruling Singapore as a Republic, that is, for the public, for the People (rather than for personal interests).

Remember how LKY said he will send in the army if there ever is a “freak election” and the PAP is voted out of Parliament? In every other country, when the people vote out the ruling party, it is called a mandate. It is only in Singapore that such a vote is called a “freak election”. Also, whose Army is it anyway? Is it the Army of the people of Singapore – who have just voted out the PAP? Or is it the Army of the PAP?

I list here ten out of the many other reasons why I am unable to vote for the PAP:

1. I will not render unto Caesar what is not Caesar’s

Given that Singapore’s poor are amongst the Developed World’s poorest, while living standards are amongst the highest in the world, it is not difficult to see why the Government’s ridiculous salaries are distastefully inflated.

The President earns $3.9 million, the PM $3.8 million, the MM and SM $3.5 million each, all other ministers between $2 to $3.2 million and all ministers of state between $1.5 to $1.8 million. These salaries do not include MP allowances, pensions and other sources of income such as Directorship, Chairmanship, Advisory, Consultancy, etc to government-linked and government-related organisations or foreign MNCs, etc. And why are they allowed to work for foreign corporations in the first place? Weren’t their ridiculously-high salaries justified with the excuse that it’ll be THIS excessive precisely so that they will focus on doing their ministerial jobs? Where is the check and balance in this government?

How much do you earn in a year?

In contrast, President Obama earns a more reasonable US$400,000, with US$50,000 expenses. Our most junior ministers are paid more than twice of what the most powerful man in the world gets! Hong Kong, with the same scarcity of resources as Singapore, half the developable land area, but with double the economic success, only pays its Chief Executive Donald Tsang HK$371,885 (US$47, 678). No other nation in the world, no matter how rich or corruption-free, pays it leaders anywhere near ours. That is good enough to show that the PAP rhetoric about their paycheques is plain rubbish (incidentally, “rubbish” seems to be one of LKY’s favourite words).

Adding to that, it had the cheek to raise its own salary right before a GST hike in 2003 and 2004. GST was raised again in 2007 to 7% from the original 3%. And of course, the PAP salaries have been rising accordingly as well.

It claims it needs to be paid similar to the private sector, but this is the public sector for a reason – you choose to work in the government to serve the country, not your pockets. Arguing that “talents” need this monetary incentive to join the government only goes to show what kind of people are being attracted – greedy, selfish, money-minded elites who see the Civil Service as nothing but a more glamorous avenue to the big bucks since their main reason for serving is not for the good of the country, but for money.

I cannot vote for a government that decides its own ridiculous salaries DESPITE a very strong public opinion against it.

2. Incompetence

Despite paying astronomic salaries to these patron saints of Singapore, there is much to be desired from their performance. Surely, if we are paying the highest government salaries in the world, it is not unreasonable to simply expect these people to do their job. The recent Bukit Timah Floodings, however, is a case in point showing why this expectation may be misplaced.

Environment Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said that the government knew the diversion canal was not big enough to take the rainwaters. He claimed that because this sort of “freak events” occur only once every 50 years, there was nothing the government could do about it. The Bukit Timah Canal was constructed in 1972, almost 40 years ago – about time something that happens “once every 50 years” would occur. Additionally, meteorologists reported that ‘this flood comes three years after one of Singapore’s worst floodings in recent history, in December 2006‘. 50 years indeed. But alas, our $2.8 million/year Minister was unable to foresee such a simple thing – even while knowing the canal was not big enough! Well, the PUB is planning to work on expanding it now – pretty late or early (depending on where in Singapore you live), since the next time we really need it will be 50 years from now, according to the Minister.

3. Double standards

It is a well-known fact that GIC and Temasek Holdings, Singapore’s two sovereign wealth funds, are both headed by members of the Lee family. Both have reported a ridiculous loss of $41.6 Billion and$39.91 Billion respective and have yet to answer to the real stakeholders – Singaporeans – on how this could have happened. No one has taken responsibility or issued explanations or anythingat all. In fact, the state media has been glaringly silent on the issue. Why aren’t we Singaporeans hearing anything about ourmoney?

“When we invest, we invest for the long-term”, Lee Kuan Yew, who heads GIC, said when Temasek Holdings purchased Bank of America shares and then sold it off a few months later, losingbetween US$2.3 to US$4.6 billion just like that.

That is more than $80 Billion in total from the blood and sweat of Singaporeans, down the drain because of bad decisions made by individuals whose multi-million dollar paycheques remain secure no matter how many mistakes they make. In contrast, the Resilience Package tapped into Singapore’s official reserves to withdraw $4.9 billion, and that effort to help Singaporeans in genuine need required hours and hours of debate.

While we should rightfully acknowledge the good that the PAP has done for Singapore, it is often taken for granted that Singaporeans believe a blatant lie that the country’s affluence is owed to the PAP and Lee Kuan Yew’s efforts. No, it came from the efforts of allSingaporeans. Hong Kong did not have a strongman like Lee Kuan Yew to dictate their lives from toilet habits to whether they could hear their own dialect on TV, and yet they have achieved double of what we have – and their people are involved in the political process, not dead and apathetic like our population. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Singapore, with its strategic location and hardworking population, would not have reached its present affluence under a less money-minded David Marshall or someone else.

Moreover, the oft-used justification for the lofty salaries of the government is that the private sector pays its leaders similar salaries. Well, in the private sector, there is such a thing asaccountability. Where is Temasek Holdings’ accountability? Where is GIC’s accountability? Where was Wong Kan Seng’s accountability when his Ministry slipped up time and time again? Where is Yaacob Ibrahim’s accountability? What exactly happens when a minister makes a mistake in Singapore? Where is the Fourth Estate to play its role as a watchdog?

4. Blatant lies

We are probably the only country in the world that has had its MPs possibly blatantly lie in Parliament and yet achieve high rankings on corruptibility. Anyone remember the mention of White Horses in Parliament? Practically every NSF believes that there is such a thing as White Horses, yet right there in Parliament, an affront to the ideals of democracy, transparency and integrity in this country, our leaders possibly lied to its people (I am not sure if they really did lie, but that so many people believe that White Horses still exist begs the question). If it could do that once, it could have done it before, and it can do it again. What is the point of wearing white, trying to look pure, if you are a liar? If they did lie, I cannot vote for such blatant liars to be my leaders – especially when they lie about such things NOT for the good of the country, but for their own interests, for the unfairly selective comfort of their own children at the very expense of the equality this country was founded upon.

The media in Singapore is entirely controlled via Singapore Press Holdings, headed by a former PAP minister, Dr Tony Tan. Masquerading as an independent paper, the Straits Times, while not necessarily fabricating facts on its own (at least I hope not), blatantly twists them. For example (extracted from here), the media was full of praise of Temasek CEO Ho Ching for earning a few million dollars on paper, but failed to highlight her disastrous investment decisions such as buying the shares of Barclays bank at a high and selling them at a low a few months later.

The Straits Times credited the Singapore Internal Security Department for providing the crucial “intelligence” which led to the capture of escaped terrorist Mas Selamat Kasteri by the Malaysian Special Branch. It turned out that the operation was part of a joint collaboration by the Malaysian, Singapore and Indonesian police and the Singapore ISD actually played only a minor role in the capture of Mas Selamat, but the Straits Times did not mention this to give the public the full picture, choosing rather to mislead Singaporeans into believing that ISD had indeed “redeemed” itself.

Without a free press in Singapore, Singaporeans are robbed of access to real and accurate news that does not include propaganda and spins that mislead. They are robbed of a crucial check and balance in the form of the Fourth Estate that acts as a watchdog to ensure the government is doing its job. Afterall, government corruptibility has more often than once been revealed solely because of a free press, an example of which is the Watergate Scandal. A free press will act as a check on corruptibility, not sky-high salaries. In the end, if media content is regulated by the government, it is Singaporeans who stand to lose.

5. Operation Coldstore and the 1963 General Elections

The 1963 Singapore General Elections was the toughest and most critical the PAP ever faced. It had already suffered two by-election defeats and the number of seats it held was 26 – holding a majority by just one seat.

On 2 February 1963, just a few months before the elections, Operation Coldstore was launched and more than a hundred people were arrested and detained without trial, including the Secretary-General and other key members of the Barisan Sosialis, the PAP’s biggest threat.

Despite the heavy blow, which was obviously undermined the Barisan Sosialis’ success at the Elections, they won 33.2% of the popular vote and the PAP took 46.9%. What do you think the PAP would have gotten if it hadn’t carried out Operation Coldstore?

And why do Singaporeans not know about such an important aspect of their national history?

6. Lim Chin Siong

Lim Chin Siong was recruited into the PAP by Lee Kuan Yew in 1954, and his immense popularity amongst the Chinese won a large amount of support for the PAP. When Lim Chin Siong was arrested by the British in 1955 for anti-colonial activities, the PAP promised the electorate to release him if they were elected, in order to gain votes.

At the age of 22, Lim Chin Siong was elected into the Legislative Assembly, and he was so popular among the people that Lee Kuan Yew was prompted to promise that he would be ‘our future Prime Minister‘ (guess who became PM instead?).

However, he soon grew disillusioned with the PAP and left to form the Barisan Sosialis in 1961. Under the pretext of being a communist, he was detained without trial under Operation Coldstore for SIX YEARS until he was forced to renounce politics and went into exile in 1969. Up till today, there is hardly any concrete evidence at all that he was ever a communist. Yet, it was the reason he was eliminated from the precarious 1963 General Elections. Imagine being removed from your family, being locked up for 6 years, NEVER given a trial, and then thrown out of the country, all because you are popular and the government fears you?

Lee Kuan Yew himself said of him “I liked and respected him for his simple lifestyle and his selflessness. He did not seek financial gain or political glory. He was totally committed to the advancement of his cause“. This was the kind of men who sincerely fought with their lives for the good of the country. And they were persecuted and crushed by the PAP in order to snatch power. Contrast the lives of such men with the kind of PAP MPs we have today.

[13th Dec '09 - Edit: Click here to read about Operation Spectrum, launched in 1987 under that terrible ISA again. Over 20 people were detained without trial under the accusation of a Marxist conspiracy. After being released a few months later, they repudiated their earlier confessions, alleged ill-treatment by ISD officers while in detention, and were arrested the very next day(how come this sort of efficiency is lacking with real threats like Mas Selamat?). Ten days later, the government announced that a proposed commission of inquiry into the allegations made by the detainees was no longer necessary as the signatories have since recanted their statement while in detention. Hmm, I wonder why.

Excerpt from their statement:

"...we were subjected to harsh and intensive interrogation, deprived of sleep and rest, some of us for as long as 70 hours insides freezing cold rooms. All of us were stripped of our personal clothing, including spectacles, footwear and underwear and made to change into prisoners' uniforms.

Most of us were made to stand continually during interrogation, some of us for over 20 hours and under the full blast of air-conditioning turned to a very low temperature.

Under these conditions, one of us was repeatedly doused with cold water during interrogation.

Most of us were hit hard in the face, some of us for not less than 50 times, while others were assaulted on other parts of the body, during the first three days of interrogation.

We were threatened with more physical abuse during interrogation.

We were threatened with arrests, assault and battery of our spouses, loved ones and friends. We were threatened with INDEFINITE detention without trial. Chia Thye Poh, who is still in detention after twenty years, was cited as an example. We were told that no one could help us unless we "cooperated" with the ISD.

These threats were constantly on our minds during the time we wrote our respective "statements" in detention.

We were actively discouraged from engaging legal counsel and advised to discharge our lawyers and against taking legal action (including making representations to the ISA Advisory Board) so as not to jeopardise our chances of release.

We were compelled to appear on television and warned that our release would depend on our performances on tv. We were coerced to make statements such as "I am Marxist-inclined..."; "My ideal society is a classless society..." ; " so-and-so is my mentor..."; "I was made use of by so-and-so..." in order to incriminate ourselves and other detainees."

This is another reason why I will not be able to vote for the PAP. I cannot bring myself to support such a brutal and callous government which treats its people as such. And I cannot support its continued use of the ISA in Singapore, in spite of its usefulness in handling terrorists (who is the real terrorist here?), because time and again, history has shown that it is innocent Singaporeans who will suffer most from such a law that allows the government to conveniently eliminate all threats to itself - not the nation - without trial, without evidence, without accountability of any kind.]

[Edit: 15th Dec '09 - Click here for yet another forced confession account.]

7. Singaporean students need to learn a fair and accurate history in school

The fact that practically no young Singaporean knows about important people like Lim Chin Siong, or even David Marshall, our first Chief Minister, is testament to the spectacular failure of our education system. All they ever learn about our country’s history is LKY and Raffles, LKY and Raffles, LKY and Raffles, and maybe a bit about the War. No wonder our students find history boring. No wonder our students do not feel attached to this country because their knowledge of its history is so shallow.

Why has MOE removed the important bits of Singapore’s history from schoolbooks? The bits about Operation Coldstore (and the realities behind it), the historic Anson by-election, the real founder of the PAP (who, by the way, is not surnamed Lee), our ex-President Devan Nair, Ong Teng Cheong’s request – which was never granted to the day he died – to be given a list of Singapore’s reserves (because as President he needed to know what he is protecting, since the President’s role is to be Protector of the Reserves – and did you know that the President’s role is that, by the way?), etc. Why are Singaporeans being robbed of their history and then accused of being apathetic?

8. Traumatic MP-experiences and MPs who fear death by The Chair

The kind of PAP MPs that Singapore is ruled by today is a worthy cause for Trauma.

In short, a married couple went to see their MP because their eldest son recently passed away from a naval accident while serving NS. They explained that their younger son will be serving his NS soon and requested for an exemption because of what had just happened. They said that it’s been a traumatic time for them. And the MP replied “What traumatic? After two months, you won’t be traumatic”.

As if insensitive MPs are not enough, the PAP is fielding hyper-sensitive wimps behind the shadows with their GRC Trick. Tell me who on earth has ever been afraid of being killed by an aluminium chair slammed against a door? And where is the sympathy? Where is the waving it off as “an honest mistake” especially when there was no harm done?

The GRC, by the way, was invented by the PAP. The fact that it seems to engage in gerrymandering (drawing up election borders in its favour) goes to show the extent it is willing to go just to stay in power. The GRC is also unfair because constituents are forced to vote into Parliament men and women they do not really want to have. This whole system, however, was implemented without asking Singaporeans, of course. The PAP decided it wanted to have the GRCs, and it passed the law to have the GRCs. No say from the people at all. Is this democracy? Is gerrymandering for the good of the people?

With such people ruling the country, it is honestly difficult to believe we are in good hands. Contrasted against the lives of men such as Lim Chin Siong, it is hard to rule out the severe suspicion that the MPs we have today are joining the Government for personal interest, not the nation’s.

9. Money. Of course it’s all about money.

Singapore claims it pays its ministers astronomical salaries because “talents” need to be attracted from the private sector – this is simply saying that our ministers serve the country just for money.

Also, their pay is pegged to GDP growth – which is why it is no wonder that everything in this country seems to be focused on the economy. The government is so caught up in money-making because its salaries are pegged to it! Moreover, if Singaporeans are attuned to the mentality that money is all there is to life (and many, many Singaporeans are), then they will be less bothered about the other compromises to their civil rights, and less likely to be concerned about what their government is really doing, so long as the money keeps flowing in. What a cheap people we have become.

10. What Singapore needs is change

Lastly, by voting for a significant change to the status quo, Singaporean youths will become less apathetic, seeing that, for the first time in their lives, CHANGE is really possible in this country, and that they can make a difference in deciding for the future of Singapore.

The PAP will also be less complacent if it meets with a stunning defeat. Its cold Point 8-type ministers will also learn that it is Singaporeans they are supposed to be serving, not themselves. They will learn to treasure their constituents, to sincerely listen their opinions and to truly help them – all these are SUPPOSED to be their job in the first place.

People will also start to dare to join the Opposition. The only reason why I do not wish for the Opposition to take over the government is because it is incompetent, and it is incompetent because talented men and women who are concerned about the aforementioned issues, do not have the courage or faith in the system to step forward and join the Opposition (hell no, not with a law like the ISA in place). But if the PAP faces a defeat that is significant enough, trust in the democratic system of Singapore will finally be restored and the politics of Singapore can be revived to more than just dead rhetoric.

Of course we are grateful for the many, many good things the PAP has done for Singapore. It has been an excellent government in many ways (especially economically – I wonder why). However, it has also been found lacking in many aspects. Politics is not a charity, as they would themselves say with regard to the Opposition, and we cannot vote for a government simply because it used to serve the people well. If it has lost its focus, then support for the Opposition is the only way to make them regain this focus. No one ever says “I have a good salary already, please donot give me a pay rise”. Everyone wants improvements to their lives, and if we care about this country, we should seek improvements to the way it is run as well, even if we are satisfied with this country to start with.

My vote counts. So will yours. Vote wisely.

I have long stayed away from discussions of politics. Not because of apathy, definitely not. But more because the opinions involved within politics, especially concerning the support of political parties or lack thereof, are founded upon data which could be subjected to heavy bias. We tend to search out the data or facts that support us and ignore the ones that disprove our claims. However, although I disagree with some of Legion's assertions, it is still a refreshing take from the normally-dull, or worse stupid, commentary of politics.

First, I would like to point out something. All governments have flaws. All of them. No matter how balanced the power of the system is, they will have a failing or ten. It comes with the handling of great power and responsibility (wow, spiderman reference!), complexity in managing the many aspects of the country and dealing with the inefficiencies of a large, structured organisation. The fact that the PAP has been able to succeed in so many aspects of governance (housing, education, a lack in corruption, an ever-improving economy) is nothing short of a miracle, as many of the younger population (like Legion) have taken for granted. In regards to these miracles, which I remind you are very much still present (and are, in fact, improving), many of the other issues that Legion has brought up, legitimate or not, are insignificant and smells of nit-picking.

Nitpicking? Some of you are probably incensed. The detaining of Lim Chin Siong, Operation Coldstore, loss of billions from Temasek Holdings etc are a representation of gross moral standards and manipulation to retain power. Let us not deceive ourselves, in order to get to power, manipulation of factors are guaranteed involved. It is the changing of the status quo after all, and to change that, the factors have to be influenced in some way. No, I do not approve of dubious and shady manipulations, but hey, this is politics, what else did you expect? The important things to note in judging a government is whether the people are affected or not.

Which brings us to the next point. Why are Singaporeans so politically apathetic when so many people elsewhere are out protesting on streets?Well, the biggest reason of all for that is simply because Singaporeans are content. Have you wondered why, elsewhere in the world, the poorer people are out in the streets protesting while the wealthier ones stay at home or even support the current power? It is common sense really, the wealthy people are content and prefer the status quo, while the poorer classes are not. Even in powerful countries like the USA, England and Japan are facing a myriad of problems in specific components of governance like lavk of quality and high crime rates. Comparatively in Singapore, we are one of the few rare countries in the world in which the people are truly contented. Yes, other factors do play a part, but this is without a doubt the biggest reason. If the average Singaporean suddenly finds himself without a job, or getting mugged every other week or forced to look up to a highly-corrupt government, you can sure as hell bet that they will be very much into politics, inaccurate history or not.

And about our people's so-called low wages. This corresponds with our country's relatively low standard of living. Our standard of living is one of the cheapest in developed nations. This means that our nett wages (wages - expenses for living) is still very high. And even if it is true, come on, saying that we have one of the lowest wages in developed nations is like saying that we got last competing in the finals of the Olympics, you are still a goddamned good athlete. Look on the roads and count the number of Mercedes or BMWs, do we have the right to complain of our wages?

My last point pertains to the original article that was commented on in the first place. I, without a doubt, agree in the PM's assertion for the influx of foreign workers. The reasons for this is because of a declining population, an improving economy and Singaporeans rather snobbish preference of high-paying jobs. Have any of you played the game Tropico before? If you have, you will understand what I'm saying. The nationalists of your country are consistently dissatisfied and pushing that you disallow immigrants (foreign workers). Yet, when I switched that option on, I was faced with a HUGE problem. Slowly, but surely, my burgeoning economy was had a lack of workers to run it. Which is exactly the problem that Singapore faces today. The economy is predicted to expand by 13 percent next year! (far and away impressive for any developed country) Jobs are opening up, but Singaporeans are still not reproducing. We have had a declining population despite the Governments pleadings not to(it was fun typing that). So increasing economy with no increasing population? To make matters worse, Singaporeans prefer jobs with high pay(duh) and will not settle for less. So who fills up the openings for construction, heavy industry or other so-called low-end blue-collared jobs? Why foreigners of course. They are not stealing our jobs, they are getting jobs that we never wanted in the first place.

Twister Insights: Impact of Statistics in the NBA

2010-07-07T00:05:00.000-07:00

Statistics impact us in our everyday life. It is the summary of the big picture which concisely expresses facts and understanding into many aspects of our sports viewing and depiction of facts.

The NBA is full of it. From the normal statistics of simple rebounds, assists and field goal percentage to the new-age advanced stats that involve things like +/-, PER, efficient field goal percentage, all to try to better understand the sport I love and most appropriately represents life on a general stage.

However, we tend to fall into the trap into believing that statistics is the one-shot, end-all answers to our questions. We take a particular statistic, and attach a sentiment to it, without looking deeper into what the statistic represents and how it is derived and factors that may affect it. One example is the assist, which I have long contended is one of the most misleading statistic in the NBA

An assist is awarded to the player for the pass that leads to a field goal. So it is automatically assumed that the player with the most assists are the better passers or have better court vision. But is that really true? Is the best pass really the one that leads to the point? How often I have witnessed players that have passed to players that are tightly guarded, but the player still manages to convert it, even if there was another player with a mismatch or a loose guard on him. Does that assist count? What about the pass that leads to another pass for the score? The assist is not awarded to him, but he has contributed to the play that lead to the point, is there no recognition in terms of stats? There are countless passes that are far smarter than the ones that lead to the point: The pass to the outside player to reset the offense, the pass that swings to the overloaded side of a zone defense, the inbounds pass that brought the ball in play.

Furthermore, there have been numerous players that simply passed around the 3 point line to a 3 point shooter that converts the point. That pass is infinitely easier than, lets say, a pass through traffic to a dunking forward, with no pressure on the passer whatsoever since he isnt the one taking the shot. How many players have racked up assists from that one play? (*cough Chris Paul cough*)

There is also the sentiment that the player with more assists are the most unselfish ones. How is that so? Case in point, as a life-long Laker fan, I've watched Kobe throughout his career. He has been the Lakers best passer his whole career, yet many of his detractors call him selfish, especially the time when Shaq left him, due to his plummeting assist numbers. This drop was because of 2 reasons: 1. The coaching staff gave him the green light to score if he felt like it and 2. the passes he still provides at the same rate were missed by decidedly inferior players (Lakers starters at the time were Smush Parker, Kwame Brown and Luke Walton!!) With the return of quality teammates, his assists went back up, and suddenly everyone is calling Kobe unselfish again, despite the fact that he continues to pass at a high rate.

Assists is also more of a by-product of the system the team employs, rather than the player itself. If the team employs an offensive system that revolves around the creative and passing ability of a specific player (i.e. Lebron James, Chris Paul, Steve Nash) their assists would surely go up. In a read-and-react offense such as the Triangle offense that the Lakers employ, assists tend to be spread out evenly, lowering the assists numbers of potentially good passes and increasing the number of poorer passes, and assists tend to be a function of their basketball IQ more than their court vision.

Another example of misleading numbers is all of the defensive statistics. How on earth do you quantify defense? It is supremely difficult to quantify good footwork, timely rotations, help defense and basketball IQ. Blocks could mean the player is jump-happy or opportunistic(*cough Lebron cough*); steals could be a result of matador defense (a gambling form of defense that may bite you in the ass). The best stat i can find is opponent offensive efficiency, yet this is tempered by the fact that there are times the offense will score on you no matter how good a defense you play.

I could go on to other statistics that have misled people (rebounding, point in the paint, PER, +/-) butI am too lazy to. To make matter worse, these numbers are affected by factors such as changes in NBA rules, pace of the game a team prefers to play (lik all D'antoni coached teams are all hyper-fast paced thus producing unreal numbers).

So how do you get an accurate depiction of the game? It is simple: WATCH THE DAMN GAME. Judge for yourself. Teams have won despite losing in numerous statistical categories, because of the hustle that cannot be quantified. The statistics are a good reference for the those that watch the game to understand certain facts deeper and as a summary, but that is all it is: a summary and a poor representation of the game as a whole. Such is a fact you cannot quantify life, it is also close to impossible to quantify basketball.

P.S. Someone read this and asked me about points, and how it can be an end-all stat. It isn't.The first point scored and the game-winning point in a close game have different weightage, though they all awarded the same. A 2-point jumpshot has a different meaning than a 2-point 360 dunk in a pivotal point of the game, and provide different motivational, mental and emotional qualities.

TwIsTeR Insights: How To Be Happy

2009-09-28T11:43:00.001-07:00

Don't you think this is a strange post? How to be happy? It sounds like I am trying to be a motivational speaker all of a sudden. Many people have their own ideas of what happiness is. Could it be hanging out with friends? The act of making love? Letting your hair loose to the beat of the funkiest tunes? Even the idea of being alone could equate to pure bliss for some individuals.

But I am not providing solutions to individuals on how to be happy. At least not in the short term run of things. I am giving long term solutions in helping your life become a little more joyful, to set a course sailing to 'better lands', so to speak. True happiness as stated above depends on the individual, but perhaps a little change of perspective might go a long way in our journey to find this elusive 'happiness'.

So what gives me the right to provide such advice in the first place? I'm a pretty happy-go-lucky guy. I hope. I'm pretty contented with my life, much of that is a result of how I see or view things. Is that enough?

1. Don't care what other people think

It is strange. Human beings who aim to be the same or similar are so completely different and unique. Yet, faced with an issue, the thoughts vary from person to person, in small ways or large. Therefore, in a course to be happy, which in itself a unique road for each individual, there will come a time of inevitable conflict. Therefore, this journey, specific to you and you only is a boast of the spiritual individuality we each possess.

For a most common of examples, a parent prohibiting a son or a daughter to take up a career that he/she loves, perhaps setting a path pre-built for the young child. What if this person does not wish to follow that path? Hence my advice on the first point.

Conflict leads to a state of being 'unhappy'. But we are looking for a being content in the longer term. For the short term will definitely pull up surprises of many sorts, the long term is far easier to shape and control.

Of course, im not asking everyone to exclude everyone else from their lives. Take in what others have to say. Turn it around, flip it, examine it carefully and consider it. If you like what you see, accept it and adopt it. If not, do not be afraid to turn it away, no matter who says it. Which leads me to my second point...

2. Avoid being close minded

To be close-minded is to shut your mind to the dizzying array of choices life presents to us. In a way, life itself is a series of choices, and being close-minded is the most effective ways to shut away most options. Even the options that may best suit you or one that you may enjoy the most.

How do we become close-minded? From birth, our minds open to the world as a clean sheet. No knowledge of anything, no prejudices, no morals. But as we grow up and learn these knowledge, prejudices and morals, our minds subsequently take it as truth. Ironclad, irreversible truth. And in so doing, we close up our minds to what we consider as inappropriate, or foolish or immoral.

For example, homosexuality. If one learnt that taking part in homosexuality or knowing a homosexual is unethical, be it from our parents, our friends or our teachers, especially at a young age, we close of our minds to the avenue. We will view gays with a different light. We will see them as people who lose themselves in immoral acts. We confuse what is right to what we think is right, the basis of self-righteousness.

Many of things we have come to accept as truth from birth has to be closely examined to understand if those ethics or prejudices is who we are. In so doing, perhaps we would make friends with homosexuals, instead of being affronted by them; or respect another person's religion; or maybe, god forbid, understand a little of the human race a little more. And as a result of this understanding, we appreciate human nature and yourself as a whole. And be much happier for it. All in all, it is about trying to...

3. Look at the bigger picture

Looking at what you are doing as a part of a whole, and not as a sum of itself. And in so doing, we realise that certain things we argue, gossip and gripe about is comparatively insignificant and petty. This is not an easy perspective to adopt, especially when troubles and problems seem to blow up in your face, making it especially difficult to look past.

So how do we do so? First, try not to see the problem at hand. Go and enjoy a small pleasure that distracts you or calms you down. A cup of coffee perhaps, or smelling of roses, even backpacking to somewhere exotic or familiar. And as you do so, take note of your surroundings and try to take pleasure in it. The feel of the breeze, the smell of coffee, the rush of adventure? Let your mind dwell in that pleasure and let your thoughts expand. And after you do so, take a peek at the problem. Just a peek. And try to see it in a different perspective. Does it seem smaller to you somewat? Does it have a silver lining within there? Maybe even a solution?

This perspective is not only useful in dealing with problems, but also helps a great deal in understanding your own psyche, and the ever-frightening philosophical questions of life.

4. Death is a natural aspect of life.

Many of us fear death. I did, once upon a time, and probably still do. To face one's mortality is like facing a great darkness, completely unknown.However, as frightening as the unknown might be, death is the one great truth of all. So we must accept it, in its whole.

So lets take a look at how we try to delay death. We concern ourselves with our health, we worry about how we appear. Do I seem older to you? Eating that will give you cancer. Lose weight, now! These efforts can sometimes go overboard to being overzealousness and unnecessary worry. Life becomes a list of prohibitions and caution.

That makes life a little more stale and boring. In the face of death, which we eventually face, would you prefer to be fat person who is a connoisseur of taste galore or a health nut who eats only one or two food groups? This, of course, links back to point number 2.

5. Enjoy what you do.

To do so, would pertain to 2 things. To make the choices in actions which you prefer, or to find enjoyment in a current job. To make the happier choice is left to the individual on which they prefer, such as the age old question: Would you prefer a miserable job with higher pay or a happy job for far less?

However, the choice to be happy is often unavailable, and we are forced to make do with more miserable choices. Which is where the latter comes in to play. How do you find enjoyment in your work that may be dull or stressful. This is where the first 4 points definitely come into play. Look at your well-being. You are most probably alive and well, and will continue to live so. Check. You have time to enjoy small pleasures. Check. You have friends and family that are care for you. Check. Now, ask yourself, is this job really that bad? If so, is there any way to make it better? For example, is there a way to make a dull job more interesting? Or a stressful job less stressful?

Often in life, when it is all said and done, we look back on past struggles and realise that somehow, we actually enjoyed ourselves. That we learned and we matured in the process of these struggles, which counts for something.

6. Expand yourself

Now, if life is all about choices, then how do you make life better? Quite simply, increase the number of choices. This is a proactive and invigorating approach to life.

Do not be afraid to learn something new. Acquire a new skill. Speak a new language. Talk to people, all sorts of people. Try and get to know them. Bend the rules, or even break them. Read and gain knowledge. Form opinions and debate. Then accept new opinions or hod fast to yours. Find out what is going around you. Solve problems or irrelevant puzzles. Travel. Experience.

Don't find excuses for not doing any of those things. Do not think you are always right, for right and wrong in life doesn't really matter. Be confident, but not arrogant. Be brash yet insightful; strong, yet accepting.Learn to do your best, prepare for the worst, and always be pleasantly surprised. Look out at the world, full with challenges, emotion and people and give it a big smile.

TwIsTeR Insights: Vids Of Men, Women And Marriage

2009-09-07T03:22:00.000-07:00

TwIsTeR's Lakers: Funny Interview With Kobe Bryant

2009-08-09T13:00:00.000-07:00

TwIsTeR Insights: Analysing Religion

2009-07-20T23:24:00.000-07:00

I remember in 2005 as I was flipping through the papers, when I encountered an article reporting the fall of a very strange cult.

The Sky Kingdom is a commune led by Ariffin Mohamad. Also known by the title of Ayah Pin, Ariffin preaches the gospel of love and the fusion of all major religions, including Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. He is an illiterate man who claims to be a reincarnation of the Gods of all those stated Religions and claims to hav a following of thousands.

The Sky Kingdom is made up of 6 acres of land in Terengganu. Within it, there is a two storey high structure, shaped like a giant pink teapot(Lol), symbolising the showering of blessings of God on all of mankind. Next to it is an umbrella-shaped building and other other objects, such as a fishing boat and a vase. Oh yah, the vase has holy water within it. The Sky Kingdom has a population of 400 plus.

The Ayah Pin's followers do not follow any specific doctrine, and are free to follow any faith they choose, since all the prayers ultimately go to him, as a God of all religions.

Of course, this was all in 2004. As the popularity of the cult grew, the Islamic government of Malaysia and Terengganu started to get nervous. Jail sentences and prosecution on its followers failed to deter the cult from growing, which led to an outright eradication of the cult. The once-colourful land of the Sky Kingdom is replaced by a barren wasteland with the Ayah Pin fled to Thailand.

Here is the strange thing about religion and its rose-tinted glasses. How many of us thought this very strange? A man who claims he is god? A giant teapot? Yet, how is this different from your very own religion? A man who claims he is God must be wrong, yet many listen to the Gospel spoken through the Son of God? What if Jesus was just like the Ayah Pin, only that information has been distorted through history, erasing his faults and lifting him to Messiah status? The simple fact that Jesus died for his faith will only enhance his image, as compared to the Ayah Pin in the Sky Kingdom.

Lets compare the similarities in the Sky Kingdom and Christianity (since im familiar with it). They both preach the love and avoiding of sin in Mankind. Their followers have sworn that they are better off then before they were int he religion. Both also preach tolerance to religion, although one can say that the Ayah Pin cult was more of a union or fusion of the major religions, leading this point to be moot. In a way, this makes all the major religions in the world similar in this particular sense.

Now the differences. One can ask, if Christianity and the Ayah Pin cult are so similar, why did the Ayah Pin cult failed and Christianity fluorish to such an extent. Luck and timing would be the answer. The Ayah Pin cult's circumstances were not different than Christianity's. Both were prosecuted, with the Ayah Pin growing within a moderate Islamic administration and Christianity's esoteric beginnings facing Roman prosecution. The main difference was the fact that Constantine, the Roman Empire's first Christian Emperor came into power, leading to tolerance for Christianity as a cult and eventually to acceptance as a religion. The Ayah Pin cult did not have such fortune. If Constantine did not exist in power, would have Christianity dissipate into the many pages of history?

Another reason was how the central figure of the religion reacted to the prosecution. Jesus stood his ground against the powerful Roman Empire, which led to his death. Death of the central figure is a powerful message to unite the religion, allowing the religion to fluorish. Think about it: several thousand years after his death, followers are still using his death to preach and convert. On the other hand, Ariffin fled to Thailand, which leaves the following disorganised and without resolve.

The third reason was the fact that the religion was at different stages of time. A Malasian official once said that the fact that the Ayah Pin cult was able to gather such a large following and also stand the test of time was testament to the fact of a failure in the system and the lack of education to the people. I agree partially. I think that people who are ignorant will stay ignorant, educated or not. However, education also provides the analytical skills necessary for us to distinguish right or wrong, or the truth from the false. The simple fact that we are able to read about this and laugh at how ridiculous it is, is proof that as educated individuals we can determine the lack of common sense. Education and the evolving formulation of thought was far more sophisticated than, say, 2000 years ago.

For myself, the main failing of the reasoning of religion stems from the fact that it is a system born from faith. Faith in something that cannot be proven, nor disprove. Thus, many followers of religion adopt a circular form of reasoning such as, I believe in God because He exists. or I believe in Him because I have faith. This is equivalent to saying that I know a caterpillar is an insect because it simply is. Since religion is difficult or impossible to explain in terms of reasoning or logic, many followers fall back on the supposition that religion is about the heart, more than the head. Which is where the circular logic starts.

Religion is impossible to analyse without looking at personal morals or principles. Personally, the reason why I have not adopted a religion, even though i do believe in higher being, is the fact that not one religion is able to distinguish itself from the other that makes sense. What makes Catholicism so different from Islam? What makes Christianity doctrine so much more important than the fusion of religious beliefs in the Sky Kingdom? Followers can claim that you have to be in it to understand, in other words to use your heart more than your head, but the fact remains that you have not been able to distinguish or differentiate your religion from another, apart from the different doctrines and traditions.

I prefer to bring religion down to a more personal level, then raising it up on a higher pedestal of the O Great One form. To love someone, in a human relationship, I believe you require equal parts heart and head. Strong practical reasoning paired with powerful, passionate love. If I am to love, let alone worhship, a higher being, I require that much of a balance.

Let me digress. Of course, it isn't wrong to believe in a God of your choosing. However, I believe that such a choice is a deeply personal one, one that you share only with yourself and others of common interest. The act of preaching or conversion is, to me, an act of disrespect to the beliefs and principles of the person being preached to. Unless the person approaches another with the distinct intent to learn more about your religion, wouldnt it be disrespect to your personal believes and morality if you were asked to change it by another? Doesn't it speak of the sense of self-righteousness or arrogance?

To wrap it up, it is perfectly resonable to assume that the continued conundrum that is religion is going to be a source of human inspiration and ignorance all at the same time for years to come. It leads me to wonder if religion is more a product of human psychology and human nature than a product from a higher being. What do you think? Is what I type unreasonable?

TwIsTeR's Lakers: A Look Into The Finals

2009-07-06T12:52:00.000-07:00

Brilliant video below. A few things to note for those non-NBA fan readers out there.

The NBA Finals consists of the best in 7 games.
One team has to win 4 games to win the whole thing.
Homecourt advantage goes like this: 2 games at Home for the Lakers followed by 3 games in Orlando and 2 final games back in LA.
Game 1 was a blow out in the Lakers advantage, thrashing the Magic 100 to 75
Game 2 was when the Magic fought back hard against the Lakers. However, Courtney Lee from the Magic missed a perfectly passed alley-oop, and the game went into overtime, where the Lakers pulled out a win, 101-96.
Game 3: Orlando was smoking hot, seemingly hitting every shot they took. They shot a finals record in history of 63% overall and an amazing 75% in the first half. However, the Lakers somehow managed to keep it close. Kobe Bryant, the Lakers perennial All-Star however managed to miss 5 straight free throws as the Magic went on to win it 108-104.
Game 4 saw Dwight Howard from the Magic becoming a monster, especially on the defensive end when he blocked 9 shots, a Finals record. The Magic rode his power to a 5 point lead. The Lakers went for a quick 2 points from a beautiful Bryant-to-Gasol pass. Fouling Howard, he shockingly missed both free throws, giving the Lakers a chance to catch up the 3 point lead. As the final second ran down, Derek Fisher hit the clutch 3, tying the game. He would later hit another clutch 3 pointer in overtime, helping the Lakers win 99-91
Game 5 witnessed an emotionally drained Magic team fight an inspired Lakers force. It was hardly a fight. 99-86.

Enjoy.

TwIsTeR Ramblings: The King of Pop

2009-06-28T13:30:00.000-07:00

Rest in peace, Micheal Jackson.

TwIsTeR's Lakers: The Sweetest Thing About A Victory Is The Journey

2009-06-15T07:15:00.000-07:00

The year is 2004. It's offseason after which I've watched my Lakers get pummelled in Finals for the first time since I started as a fan. In 5 games, to Detroit. I cant really say it was painful, as I had spent most my time on last-minute studying for the small matter of my up-coming mid years during the J2 (To say that I wont be able to concentrate was an understatement).

There I was, slowly tortured as the days went by, watching as my favourite team got dismantled from within. First was the ultimate bombshell. Shaq got traded away for Lamar Odom, Caron Butler, some loose change and a packet to twisties. Then, the rest slowly disappeared, as if in silent acknowledgement the Lakers could no longer win together. Why not! I silently scream back. Come back Fisher! Come back Horry! Rick Fox, where are you going?! Phil Jackson, oh god please, not you too...

And that was it, my beloved Lakers that was 3 consecutive Championships was no longer. All was left was an empty shell of its former self, a stark contrast in just one offseason. To say I struggled as a fan was to put it lightly. This is no longer my team, I would try to persuade myself, there is only Kobe, Luke Walton, Brian Cook and the packet of Twisties left. I should leave too.

The next season, I tried to forget all things Lakers. There wasn't much to see anyway, as the Lakers did not enter the playoffs the first time in a looong time. I considered supporting other teams. Houston Rockets with my favourite Chinese player in Yao Ming, Orlando Magic and Tracy McGrady, etc. However, the Lakers always remained in the back of my mind. I was unable to forget them, and when they won or lost, my heart, unwittingly, went along with them. Thats when I knew, I was a Laker Fan for life.

So when the following season came in 2006, i hopped back onto the bandwagon, knowing full well that being a fan of a team that loses more than it wins is going to be painful. Andrew Bynum arrived as a 17 year old, the 10th pick in the 2005 draft. I smiled as the Lakers looked to rebuild around Kobe Bryant. Then my smile turned to a frown when Caron Butler, one of my favourite Lakers players, was traded for Kwame Brown. This later turned out to be a HUGE mistake as Caron went on to become an all-star, and Kwame as a failure. Then my smile came back, when I heard the exciting news that Phil Jackson was coming back!

Phil Jackson immeadiately set things in order, as the Lakers managed to advance into the Playoffs once again, with Kwame Brown and Smush Parker in its starting lineup no less. Kobe Bryant shouldered much of the scoring load, including an incredible 81-point game (second most in NBA history) that completely blew my mind away. In the playoffs, the Lakers could not make a stand. Out in the first round, kicked around by a dominant Phoenix Suns.

2006-2007 came with a few surprises, as the Lakers brought in Radmonovic, with much potential as a three-point scorer to complement Kobe. The Lakers, despite Radmonovic not performing, outperformed any, incuding my, expecations by maintaining an impressive winning run. Wow, I thought, We are getting better as a team. Players were getting better, as they meshed better and shot better. Then, as if fate dictated it, a horrible avalaunche of injuries arrived in bunches. Lamar, Kwame, Radmonovic, and even Kobe had their share of injury woes in that cursed season, sending it downhill. They still managed to enter the Playoffs, and even pulling a 3-1 surprise on the Phonenix Suns before succumbing to mounting pressure, as any inexperienced team would. As a fan, i grew tired.

In that very offseason, in a kick-first reaction to the playoff loss, the ultra-competitive Kobe Bryant lashed out at his own team. He demanded to be traded then rescinded his demands right before reinforcing it again, with a condition that he will leave unless a fellow all-star calibre teammate is brought in to share his load. This Jerkyl-Hyde reaction was horrifying to witness from the Laker's best player. Should the Lakers trade him, their hopes for another championship will fly out with it. I didn't know how to react to it.

Kevin Garnett was on the trading block that year, and the Lakers officials tried their hardest to woo the future hall-of-fame player. Garnett considered, before joining the Boston Celtics, the Lakers eternal rival. Kobe was bound to get even more pissed.

Yet, the Laker management didn't yield to his demands. Instead, they brought in Derek Fisher, Kobe's old teammate from the Three-peat period. Unable to secure an all-star, many predicted the Lakers may not even reach the Playoffs as a reaction to Kobe's outburst. I, however, had a quiet confidence in this team. I felt that, many sports fans have short-term memories, and many forgot that if the injuries had not happaned in the previous season, they would have been pretty good. Not good enough to challenge for the trophy, but good enough at least to make a serious run in the playoffs. Furthermore, the team was young, and is bound to get even better.

As the Lakers played their first few games, I noticed a strange sort of confidence in the Laker players. That was not the look of a team panicking after an offseason of terror, nor was it a look of a team that was divided. In fact, it was a team looking to win and win it did. Andrew Bynum, blasted by Kobe through unofficial media, turned into a gigantic force as the Lakers won game after game, catapulting them to the top of the Western Conference. I was elated to say the least. Furthermore, the Lakers manage to secure Trevor Ariza from the Orlando Magic in a trade that sent Maurice Evans and Brian Cook over. I loved that trade, and knew that good things were on the way.

Then Andrew Bynum got a season-ending injury as my hopes fell with him. Without him, the Lakers would have to revert back to Kobe Bryant carrying the load, like in previous years. Doom was in the air.

The date is 2nd February 2008. The all-star game and the trade dateline was fast approaching. I entered my comp to check on my usual Laker news after a night out with the family. Then it appeared in front of me: ALL-STAR FORWARD PAU GASOL HAS BEEN TRADED TO THE LOS ANGELES LAKERS. I blinked, and re-read the headline, hands shivering. Nope, no hoax, my eyes weren't deceiving me. I yelled and ran to pound on the door of the toilet where my poor brother was trying to get some peace and quiet. "The Lakers got Gasol! THE LAKERS GOT GASOL!!" My brother shouted back, "What!! Who they give up?"

I had no idea. I ran back to the computer, this time to finish reading the article. The Lakers traded away Javaris Crittenton, Marc Gasol and Kwame Brown plus a first round pick. Oh my god! They didn't touch Fisher, Andrew Bynum or Lamar Odom. OH MY FREAKIN' GOD! That was like getting a gold bar in exchange for a packet of twinkies!

Buoyed by one of the most lop-sided trades in the history of the NBA, the Lakers went into a winning spree, with Pau Gasol fitting into the Lakers' complex Triangle Offense perfectly. Anf there they rolled as the Western-Conference Champions and inot the Finals for the first time since the horrible 2004 loss to Detroit.

In the Finals however, they had Garnett and the Celtics blocking the way. Armed with the best record in the league, and a hunger that the Lakers have not yet come to understand, they won the Lakers in 6 games, including 39 point whooping in the ass in Game 6. The Lakers left with green confetti pouring on their heads, humiliated and beaten. The Trophy seemed soooo close, yet so far. My heart cried for them.

To me, the Lakers needed that loss. That hunger I was talking about earlier, it grew to unmeasurable heights. They have tasted the finals, and were yearning for the Championship. It was in their eyes when the season started. It was in their faces when they won or lost. The 2008-2009 was going to be fun.

The time I am typing this 11.41 pm, 15 June, 2009. It has been 12 hours since then. 12 hours after time expired with the Lakers winning the Orlando Magic in 6 games in the Finals. 12 hours since the image of Kobe and Phil Jackson have lifted the Trophy. 12 hours since Kobe has won his 4th NBA title and his first Finals MVP trophy. 12 hours since Phil Jackson won his 10th Chmapionship ring, more than any other coach ever. 12 hours since I saw tears in the Lakers eyes. 12 hours since I saw champagne fall from the heavens.

1 year since they have been humiliated by the Celtics.

1 and a half years since they got Pau Gasol.

2 years since the series of injuries and the offseason of nightmares

3 years since Phil Jackson came back.

4 years since the Lakers were in unfamiliar ground at the bottom.

5 years since the 2004 loss to the Detroit pistons and the eventual dismantling of a young fan's dream team.

Congratulations, Los Angeles Lakers. You deserve it.

TwIsTeR Insights: Exploring The Grey Area

2009-06-03T09:26:00.000-07:00

Human beings are exceptionally neat creature by nature. We enjoy clean streets and clean shores. We enjoy sorting and making it neat. Not many of us dare to get our hands dirty, figuratively or literally speaking. It is this compulsion to cleanliness which leads us to classify and compartmentalise every thing that we do. We are labelled immeadiately after we are born, wrapped in either a blue towel or a pink one. We created maths, an eternal realm of absolutes and accuracies. We hate, absolutely hate, messiness. In everything.

Unfortunately, when it comes to philosophy, moral issues or just life in general, things are seldom neat. They involve something that we avoid alot: The Grey Area. Yes, that grey area. Not balck, nor white, but freakin' grey.It sucks for us human beings, who enjoy the thoughts of rationalisation, and the neatness of compartmentalisation that requires us to think less. Questions start to form. Despicable questions such as How grey is grey? Closer to white or to black? What does this grey signify? So, with this grey, do we go with the white measure or the black measure in terms of action?

Therefore, we decide to choose a side, either white or black. Since the grey is still grey, we are divided: The Whites in one side, the Blacks on the other. So, with 2 divided sides, we humans do what we are so good at doing when there is an opposing party. We fight. One shouts "It has to White!!" The other screams back "No, you bloody @#$^ !! It has to be #$% Black!!" And there they fight, 2 opposing sides, perhaps for all eternity, all because neither side can simply agree that it is simply grey.

What exactly am I talking about? My answer to you is, pick something. The issue of abortion? Science vs Religion? Atheism vs Religion? Religion vs Religion? Communism vs Capitalism? Racism? Sex? So many complex issues, many of which have been fought about in wars. You see, humans love to rationalise, but do not enjoy thinking. They love to bring up reasons. Reasons on why god exists. Reasons why homosexuals ought to be prosecuted. Reasons to save the Earth. But when asked to think; to go beyond ourselves and consider the other side, many of us shudder in fear. Why? Because in or der for the Whites to consider the side of the Blacks, or vice versa, they have to cross the hated boundary of the Grey. In other words, they have to think, and we abhor it.

We will say, what for think? It is black because of this reason or that reason. Which of course the Whites will come up against with their own reasons.

In fact, this has trenscended complex issues and into our tastes. We dare not venture into the grey area to experiment with something that we are not used to. A friend of mine told me that she only listens to Chinese music. And asked her, "Only chinese? Nothing else? No English music? Or Tamil?" She looked back at me, with a face full of disgust, "What English? Tamil? No way lor. Only Chinese." By saying this satement, she is literally putting her foot down, psychologically that there are no good Tamil music, or any other music for that matter. We are the same. How many of us has listened to a genre of music, lets say heavy metal, and dismissed it right away after one song. Why? Perhaps that one song was the only lousy one? Perhaps you might enjoy part of the performance, i.e. the electric guitar, rather than the whole band? Why dismiss the grey area?

The lists goes on. We have to be right, or have to be wrong. It cannot be a little of both. It cannot be that we are neither right nor wrong. For example, stealing is wrong. A statement that condemns the people who steal to feed their family. Or murder is wrong. What if the man you are murdering is Hitler, and therefore save many many lives by doing so? Morality cannot be defined by the niceness of black and white. The way society is built, or the way human nature is, morality issues areprobably all different shades of grey.

It is also prevalent in politics. In the States, are you a democrat or a republican? Why cant it be both? For certain issues, im a democrat, for others, im a republican. By putting my vote into one party, will deny the other parties' good points.

This is the exact definition of thinking outside the box. The box is societies views that are force fed into us. Views that we have learnt to accept as the truth. Systems that we have to follow. Rules that we have to obey. To think outside the box is literally to dig deep and think beyond these contraints. To be extremely messy. Its no wonder why many great thinkers are untidy by nature, from their appearance to their handwriting.

Im not saying don't have an opinion. Far from it. In fact, I'm pleading with you to have an opinion, one that is thought over and weighed. And it doesnt have to be clearly cut decision that conforms to people's idea of classification. For example, for me personally, I believe God exists. But I do not believe in prayer. So why not? Give it a try. Think deep when asked abt issues. Do not be afraid to give your own opinion, radical as it may be. Look on both sides of an issue. Lets not be afraid of the Grey Area.

TwIsTeR's Lakers: More Kobe vs Lebron Muppet Commercials! (and the old one I posted)

2009-05-21T05:00:00.000-07:00

Just when you thought one wasn't enough...

TwIsTeR Truths & TwIsTeR Ramblings: This Is Me Ranting

2009-05-16T12:00:00.000-07:00

I dont rant. I just dont, because it is pointless. So why isit, these few days, Ive been ranting? Ive been feeling a weird sense of melancholy lately. I was told it is not depression, since depressed people dont make jokes and laugh at other people.

Then, it occured to me. I've been feeling like this because of everything that is happening around me. Normally, bad news dont affect me much, I can pretty much take things in stride. But, now that i think about it (normally, I avoid thinking negatively, so Im kinda oblivious) there has been an awful lot of shit happening, not to me, but to the people around me, and in turn (I suspect) affects me.

My girlfriend got her face scarred by New York Skin Solutions, for example. (If you are reading this, DO NOT GO THERE!!). Sorry, dear, if you are reading this, I couldn't hold it in. She paid a huge undisclosed sum of money to get her face treated, only to ger pimples forcefully popped. Not to mention her momentous decision to finally take a stand to her parents. Then there is the goddamn exams, which all my dearest university friends, muggers and non-muggers alike, are fretting over, even getting depressed over. There is Shoe, who has officially turned into a zombie now that her boyfriend, who doesnt seem to like me, went back to his hometown for 4 weeks. There is my beloved cousin, who recently broke up with the girlfriend, and has to have me come over for 2 nights so depression wont set in. And of course there is my exams and the fact that I purposely missed a major exam for the first time in my freakin' life.

Other than that, everything is just dandy. I sure hope my brothers (or 1 cock and 1 sister, for those who did my facebook quiz) are doing fine

The funny thing is that I didnt realise the cumulative effect on all these events on me only now. This strange feeling of sadness that is not sadness, loneliness that is not loneliness, frustruation that is just not. I could only call it... melancholy. This is huge for a person who seldom, if ever, get depressed. I dont even know what depression is supposed to feel like.

I enjoy helping people. Well, people close to me specifically. I help all the same i.e. with my utmost best. And perhaps, this is why I'm absorbing in this form of emotional stress, because of my ability to help take burdens off my friends onto my seemingly invincible back. Only that it is not invincible, and cracks are starting to show. Small cracks mind you, nothing major, no emo-ness yet. But cracks nontheless.

Well, while I am at it, I my and as well create a constructive argument. Why do people rank friendships? Does a person who knows you longest neccessarily know you best? If you confess everything to a psychologist who has only just had you as a client, ill bet the psychologist knows more about you than your best friend for years. What does best friend even mean? Most... love? alikeness? time together? kinship?

I have already come to an understanding that no one knows me for who I am. I have come to that understanding for years already in fact. Nope, Im not moping like some idiot, I'm just speaking fact. And I don't blame anyone for that fact, for I think I don't even know myself. So no one knows me inside out, not even my girlfriend. I think the person closest to that kind of kinship, is probably Shoe, and I havent even met her properly yet.

But that doesn't mean I love her. So, the link between friendship and romantic love, to me, is non-existent. I dont agree with the people that say that there can't be platonic love between a girl and a guy. Such a view is narrow-minded, in my opinion, and discounts the possibility of a beautiful platonic friendship without the introduction of romance.

So why is it that we get so caught up getting jealous over our partners friends? They have nothing to do with your relationship. Why do friends get jealous over another friend's partner? Is your friend not allowed to feel happiness in romance while you are there?

I put all my friends on the same plate, the same platform. None have priority over the other, as long as they have gained my trust. If all came to me with problems, so help me god, I will help every one of them together. Melancholy be damned.

TwIsTeR's Lakers: MVP Chalkdust

2009-05-13T03:17:00.000-07:00

This ad is priceless. Smart that nike chose to use the Kobe vs Lebron dynamic to create this funny muppet ad. Love the seen-it-all veteran feel of Kobe and the hyped-up new-guy-in-the-block view in Lebron. You know what will be a good ad? Have Kobe and Lebron go one-on-one, and pay the winner a few more thousand dollars. Priceless to say the least. Kobe will kick Lebron's ass.

Maybe an anaylysis on Kobe vs Lebron when I have time in the future.

TwIsTeR's Lakers: The Play That Won Me Over As A Laker Fan For Life

2009-05-09T11:45:00.000-07:00

In honour of the first nba game that I've ever watched...

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Not for the Jia Kang Dang (Even though I am one)

2009-05-08T12:43:00.001-07:00

This is for those who went through 2 years of the biggest waste of time shit in your entire life.

the mrbrown show: army fighting language

Posted using ShareThis

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Dances that make me swoon

2009-05-06T12:34:00.000-07:00

JabbaWockeez!!

Just when you think Ballet is for sissies...

MJ!!

JabberWockeez in Step up 2!!

Ballet-hip hop fusion and my favourite dance so far.

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Music that make me swoon

2009-05-06T11:04:00.000-07:00

Im just posting songs that I love.

Took this one from Shu Fen's blog.

Im a sucker for classics.

Listen to the lyrics of this one properly.

I guess this post could be very, very long.

TwIsTeR Insights: Life-cycle Of A Relationship

2009-05-02T10:26:00.000-07:00

Seen my previous post of the 10 Tips On How To Maintain A Relationship?

Here is more concerning phases of a relationship from an expert.

Are They The One?: The Life Cycle Of A Relationship

P.S. I know I said I won't update in a while. I lied.

TwIsTeR Thoughts

2009-05-02T05:27:00.000-07:00

Some things to note. I shall not update for a while, with TwIsTeD Reflections or with The 13, as I prepare for the #$%^ exams.

Some of you have noticed I took down the tag board. No one is using it, so there is no point. So please, write your thoughts through the comments of each post, and I will reply as promptly as possible.

From the 22nd to the 28th, I have vowed to write out a post on international relations each day in preparation for my IR exams (yah, thats my 'studying'). So, bear with me if i sound lik I am answering an exam question, becos I am.

I have also persuaded the brilliant and dreadfully honest Siah Shu Fen of Vicissitudes of Life! (man, that is a bitch to spell) to give me a guest post in a topic of her choosing. It will be posted after my exams. I am also considering writing short stories concerning The 13 and posting it here.

Thanks for reading!

TwIsTeR Insights: Beautifully Imperfect

2009-04-27T10:12:00.000-07:00

Ever been irritated by someone that you cared for? I mean, deeply irritated. It could be a character flaw, an annoying habit or a physical trait. It could be a mole in the wrong place that spoiled that perfect appearance, or that stubborn streak that, well, stubbornly refused to change.

Many relationships break because of these reasons. Were they attracted to one another? Yes. Were they in love? Yes. Were they suited for one another? They would say no. Why? Then they would list reasons that would be petty beyond belief. He left the toilet seat up all the time, she has pimples, he farts too much.

This is when intimate relationships fall apart because people have no less expectation other than the "Perfect One". News flash! We are NOT perfect. The person you are in love with is as much a human as you are. They are bound to have things that you wont like. Things that he definitely wont reveal when you just started dating. Things she wont say for fear to drive you away. Things that are rude, socially unacceptable, irksome. In other words, human.

As we human being chase after perfection, we tend to forget that we are mortals. Nothing wrong with the noble chase, but lets not delusion ourselves at the fact that we are who we are. We have to accept these flaws in ourselves and in others in order to correct them. We have to love these imperfections in the ones we care. Because it makes them who they are. It makes us who we are.

So why harp on them? Why focus on the negative so much? I believe for every sinful thought comes a benevolent, selfish thinking. You see, the holes in our emotional psyche, our principles, our appearances are what makes are truly beautiful; awesomely miraculous.

The perfect human being would be a robot. We aim for acceptance and conventional thought, which leads to cognitive dissonance. We strive for perfection in our speech and actions, under proper decorum or programming. We bottle up emotion and morality for efficiency and cold, hard fact. I, for one, do not want to be a robot.

So, girls, dont harp and nag on the small details that are so insignificant in the long run. Guys, get your head out of whatever football game is on and focus on the girl beside you. Try to see past mistakes and flaws; learn to accept them for who they are. Do not be close minded and unreasonable and you will soon find more reasons to love the people you care even more. I promise.

It is only imperfection that complains of what is imperfect. The more perfect we are, the more gentle and quiet we become toward the defects of others.

Francois de Fenelon

A diamond with a flaw is worth more than a pebble without imperfections.

Chinese Proverb

Endeavor to be always patient of the faults and imperfections of others for thou has many faults and imperfections of thine own that require forbearance. If thou are not able to make thyself that which thou wishest, how canst thou expect to mold another in conformity to thy will?

Thomas a Kempis (1380 - 1471)

Assert your right to make a few mistakes. If people can't accept your imperfections, that's their fault.

Dr. David M. Burns

UPDATE: The Mr.BrownShow had something else to offer to the above video. Hilarious.

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Why Guys Should Never Jump The Gun

2009-04-24T11:33:00.000-07:00

TwIsTeR Truths: Aim and Achieve (or A Tribue To A Junior College)

2009-04-20T03:28:00.000-07:00

I can't say that I had a great time in Junior College. Being in a class of over-achievers created a circus of students comparing of test results didn't really sit well with me. For one, I'm a true blue slacker and studies was never ever been my first pirority (I just think there is more to live for than results and am not willing to sacrifice two years of my life for that).

There were many regrets entering JC. Like I should have gone to a polytechnic instead (as you can see,Im not very study oriented), or that I should have gone to the arts stream (My literature was the only subject that secured an A in O levels beside E-Maths. Im very passionate about the subject, but Im more passionate in Biology which is only offered in the Science stream)', or maybe the fact that other JCs were available to me(I was backstabbed to prevent me to enter ACJC, was in CJC my first three months; was admitted into NYJC after that before appealing out. My appeals were accepted by MJC and TPJC, and I had to choose the latter. Meanwhile, someone told me that should I had the courage to apply for one of the top JCs in Singapore in TJC, I would have been submitted through my swimming. Argh! Out of the choice of 6 freaking JCs, I ended up in this one).

But there were some positives. First there is the group of close friends that completed me and truly care for me. That was especially apparent when witnessing their expressions from my attitude right before the A levels. Second was the better understanding of human nature. The class, being overun by the female species, was a hot bedrock of gossip. During classes, it was fun to pretend to sleep and listen into the hot gossip, backhanded compliments and rivalries over petty issues. It was fun.

Thirdly was the chance to captain the swimming team of TPJC. We were a small group, 9 of us. Our club was closed down when we reached JC2, thanks to the bith of a principle, in a supposed 'merger'. Reason for the close down? Not enough manpower and money. The coach in JC1 had to be dismissed and they assigned the head of PE to handle the remains of the club. So guess who was left to coach the team? But it was tuly an enlightening experience, that taught me much about leadership. In the Inter-school competition, the small defiant group of 9 performed well, qualifying for the finals in both medley relays and freestyle relay. And furthermore, I had qualified for the 100m backstoke, the first time in 4 yrs since i qualified in sec 2. It was also the first time TPJC had a swimming finalist for an individual event. Damn, those were the times.

The last but not least was the fact that I met my beloved girlfriend in JC. Being in the same class, we were the root of much of the aforementioned gossip, which created alot of consternation for the relationship. Add that to over-concerned teachers, and you have a relationship destined to break under pressure. But im glad to say, we have grown stronger ever since.

TwIsTeR Ramblings: If Atheists Rule the World

2009-04-14T08:39:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, when you wonder through youtube, you might encounter bullshit like this. Im still hoping this is a joke, although it is not funny. Jesus Christ...

Lies, damned lies and...

TwIsTeR Insights: Guns

2009-04-09T09:38:00.000-07:00

I was flipping through blogs as part of my usual routine, when I saw a post on Techvixen that stirred something within me. Anger was the emotion.

She was describing of a recent massacre in Binghampton where 13 people died at the hands of a single gunman, before he killed himself. More than 98 shots were fired from a Beretta and a .45.

My initial reaction was outrage. Why must this happen? When are people going to get the message? This is not an isolated. There was Columbine, which inspired the documentary "Bowling for Columbine" directed by Micheal Moore. There was the all-too-recent Virginia Tech shooting. And now this.

In my opinion, the problem is the availability of guns and legalization of the sales of firearms. The widespread availability of guns has driven crime through the roof, so much so that guns are needed for the protection of the people. Guns protecting from guns. Its pathetic and sick, not unlike countries hoarding nuclear weapons(another issue that pisses me off-Why North Korea? Why?).

I mean the gunman killed 14 including himself. And was capable of so much more. 98 shots were fired (more than three times the full magazine of a m16 issued by the SAF), most hitting targets, with one victim shot about 11 times. Imagine he had the presence of mind to fire 1 round per victim. Furthermore, unused magazine clips were found, dropped in the process of reloading. THERE WAS FREAKING UNUSED AMMO??!!

Gadget Vixen kinda disagrees with me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and her view is worth a look over. Take a look at our interesting discussion in the comments of a topic that has been a hot political topic in the US for years.

12 Comments on "Guns - Most Dangerous Gadgets of all. American Civic Association Shooting"

twj986
05/04/2009 at 11:49 am Permalink
What you said is true that guns are just tools and it is people that need to be educated. Yet, we cannot control how humans behave and think. In my opinion, the fact that gun shops exist and readily available, legal or not, is waiting for disaster to happen. And it did. Many time over. Banning all guns to civilians is the only way to prevent firearms from being readily available. One good example is my country in Singapore, where firearms are something you don’t see very often than, say, texas. The number of deaths by shooting are also significantly lower. When are people going to get the hint?
gadget Vixen
06/04/2009 at 7:43 am Permalink
Hmm, not sure if I agree there. Those who want to seriously hurt you have the means of getting a gun. If guns are made illegal in the U.S., this takes away a method of defense from people who are actually law abiding citizens and would NOT get a gun illegally. Guns are so ingrained in American culture that outlawing them will not suddenly get criminals with guns to throw their weapons away - they’ll just be able to shoot more people, who are now even more defenseless.
Besides, there are plenty of stories popping up in the news about people defending themselves with guns and saving their lives.
twj986
06/04/2009 at 2:31 pm Permalink
Nope, banning guns will not solve the problem. Not in the short term. Neither is treating a cancer. Banning guns will present huge problems in terms of crime: Criminals still possessing weapons and law abiding citizens not. Yet, the situation is never so simple. What is to stop a law abiding citizen to suddenly undergo depression and firing at people? Banning guns wont stop the problem, but at least it is the first step in limiting the gun-related problems. Criminals get arrested, firearms will be seized; slowly, eventually, the problem will start to diminish. That is much better than letting the guns be available to any tom dick or harry, law abiding or not.
There are other means of self-protection. Other means that could also not mean endangering your or your aggressor’s lives. Not quite as compelling or as persuasive as a gun, no doubt, bt the alternatives are available. In my opinion, weapons are exclusively meant for the enforcement agencies like the police and military to do what they are supposed to do: protect us.
tech Vixen
07/04/2009 at 7:35 am Permalink
I have to admit I don’t quite understand the comparison to cancer. If we were able to just ‘ban’ aka cure cancer all of a sudden it really would solve the problem of people dying from it, wouldn’t it?
I guess we just think differently about it. The way I think of it is if I am under attack by an aggressor then I don’t really care about endangering his/her life. I want to save my own. I’m not the one who attacked them.
We’ve heard plenty of stories about police misusing their powers, including tasering children and innocent people. Where do we draw the line?
twj986
07/04/2009 at 2:34 pm Permalink
sorry, I should explain the cancer metaphor a little more. Most cancer patient undergoing treatment normally get worse before they get better. Alot worse in fact. That was what i meant in the scenario if guns were banned.
As for endangering lives, it goes both ways. Ive been in the military before, and ive heard stories of soldiers injured or even killed because of stray bullets or mishandling of firearms. And we are talking about soldiers whom are trained i the use of firearms. What more when dealing with untrained civilians? Are we capable of handling such a big responsibility of holding a firearm? The answer for most civilians is no.
As for police misusing their powers, im sure that is far more unlikely and far less dangerous than if a certain person suddenly starts firing at people. Look at the Virginia Tech case for example. Or even the case that you have brought up. These were done by civilians, not the police. Furthermore, most police are psychologically checked and held accountable for every firearm they own.
gadget Vixen
08/04/2009 at 4:52 am Permalink
Ah, thanks for explaining the bit about cancer!
The thing is that those who want to use firearms to kill people will get them. There have been many cases where people did, indeed, use the firearms to protect themselves. Had these law-abiding citizens not been in possession of a firearm they could be dead right now. Either way people die.
How do we know that people suddenly going crazy and going on shooting sprees is more common than a corrupted police officer? Is it really more likely that a person will suddenly grab a gun and start shooting his family?
twj986
08/04/2009 at 11:11 am Permalink
Well, if anyone do go on a killing spree, it will be all over the news, corrupted or not. So, when was the last time a police officer went on a killing spree, as opposed to a civilian? Hardly, if any. One reason is because the police are never assigned more ammo than they are needed, whereas civilians are able to hoard weapons and ammunition at will.
As you said, either way, people die. Yet, would you rather have deaths and go closer to a solution in terms of limiting firearms, or deaths without any step closer to a solution. How much can u educate people and train civilians in the use of guns? I agree many lives were saved from the usage of guns, but it is because of this availability of firearms which is why they need firearms to protect themselves. It is a vicious circle, and it need to stop somewhere, even if it means costing lives.
It is precisely this availability of guns which is why steps have to be taken in confiscating them. Lets pretend you are a psycho (lol), and you grab the nearest weapon you can find to kill someone. I doubt that a crazy person will search for a firearm when there is, say, a kitchen knife available (people under psychosis have a limited ability to plan ahead). Obviously, a kitchen will kill far less people as compared to the gun.
tech Vixen
08/04/2009 at 9:32 pm Permalink
You bring up a very good point and I have to say that I don’t have a valid argument against it! I can’t say I’m totally swayed on the subject of whether guns should be legal or not, but I’m definitely going to be doing a lotmore thinking about it.
twj986
09/04/2009 at 2:44 am Permalink
It is just that I kinda feel quite strongly about the subject. Thinking deeper into an issue will be the first step to solve our world’s problems, as opposed to policies for the sake of policies or plain inaction.
Would you mind if I publish our conversation on my blog? Ive been interested in the relation of crime and guns for quite some time and had wanted to blog about it.
gadget Vixen
09/04/2009 at 5:32 am Permalink
I don’t mind if you publish it at all

So what do you think? Should guns be banned? Are humans the real reason why these crimes happen and not the guns themselves? Feel free to join in the discussion.

Manufacturer Recalls Hollow Point Bullets That Fail To Explode Inside Targets

TwIsTeR's Lakers & TwIsTeR Truths: Basketball Memories

2009-04-05T07:37:00.000-07:00

As I have mentioned before, basketball has been one of my greatest passions. And I have travelled throughout Singapore, chasing that particular game that stirs emotions to such an extent. Though my bball activities have toned down, to say the least, it still creates an impact of my life. Of course, you should know that im blogging this while undergoing cold turkey from bball over the last few weeks, in preparation of(or the attempt to preapare for)my exams.

The memories of the game does not mean the event was significant. But it stayed in my head. My recounting of such events is particularly biased, since it is from my point of view.

Before i start, I should tell you what kind fo player I am, if you have not read this post of my basketball pals and myself. I am primarily a defensive player, defined by my ability to guard practically any position. This has changed alot since my secondary school days, where the thrill of offence was my drive in the game. I operate best in the low post and high post, since im 1.73m tall and 78kg (low height and heavy weight = greater center fo gravity). My favourite position is the small forward position, though I can play any other position other than two-guard. I feel the greatest weakness of my game is my shooting ability, which is inconsistent at best.

Memory1: The year is 2001 and I have already defined myself in the neighbourhood courts. People (godbies, peers, pros,etc) call my by 'Botak!' from my crewcut hairstyle. I was young, cocky, and full of confidence in my speed and offensive ability.
There is one group of players, however, I cannot win. Girls. Yes, shorter, physically weaker girls. But girls that play basketball are particularly scary. They have no fear, no matter how tall you are. They do not notice the differences between sexes and have no qualms with bodily contact and crashing head-first into you. And add that to lethal shooting and you have a potent combination.

Guy on the court avoid body contact with girls. 'Bullying' is frowned upon, so any form of defence, especially blocking shots, are followed by disapproving eyes, shaking of heads and, god forbid, cracking of knuckles.

The thing abt neighbourhood ball is that winning to the only thing that can keep you on the court. Win the game, stay on the court for the next challenger. Lose and wait your turn. And I want to play... as much as possible.
So imagine my horror when I see a group of sec 4 girls, 5 of them, coming down to join in the games of 4 on 4. or in their case, 4 on 5, since they are girls and deserve a handicap. All sec 4 girls were from school team.

My team started to panic, since we are the surviving team on the court; we have won 5 straight games and plan to keep it that way. No contact with girls means the loss of rebounding. No contact also means no defence, especially when there are 5 of them. We are going to lose.

They turn to me. I reply, "pass to me. Im going to shoot three pointers." Now, if you remember, I am a supremely inconsistent shooter; the strategy was risky at best. It was the best we could have come up with.

I checked the ball as I saw the bevy get into position. Impenetratable without any contact. Once I received the ball, I launched it up. Hit!

Check again. Launched again, this time the girl jumped at me with slim fingers right in my eyes, and her body leaping towards me. The ball left my hand. HIT AGAIN! I was on a roll. Till now, I cant recall how I managed to hit that shot. It was distracting.

The girls have locked onto me already and knew I was their primary threat. Crap. A check is followed by the close proximity of 2 bodies. No space to launch a three. I pass to a teammate and run to the diagonal of the hoop at the threepoint line. the teammate promptly pass to me as I jack up the shot before the 2 girls manage to catch up.

That game was the first and last time I managed to hit all 7 threepointers Ive attempted, winning the game by my lonesome and sending the bevy back with 0 points.
Memories 2:The year is 2004. My jc was organising a basketball tornament. I gathered a group of players, a mixture of j1 and j2 peers who had never played with each other before. Yet, we had good talent, and had the opportunity to win the whole thing, since the school team players were not participating.

We called the team Tian Zui, or Sin from Heaven. Sounded cool. We had one practice session, which showed off our decent talent.

The first match came, and I was late. Overslept. I rushed to the court and hurried to hand in the application, being the team captain. What happaned after that was a memory I have tried to forget.

Trouble brewed when the j1s told me that they had a soccer match on that very same day. They had to leave the game halfway. That left less than half the players we had on the team.
So I started with the j1s, seeing as they had to leave halfway aniwae.They were too good for the opponent, overwhelming them and pushing the team to a good 20 point lead.

Then they had to leave, leaving 6 players remaining. One of them was not very good, whom i had put into the team roster to fill up the space.So that left 5 competent players. I fielded all 5 players, myself included. Then disaster struck. I was called for 3 quick fouls. I turned to the referee and shouted "What the...!" Before I could even utter the last word, I was whisted for the technical, and sent out fo the game. I still say the referee didnt like my face.

Being sent out, I had to field that one remaining player, and things went downhill from there. They caught up quickly. Since my teams bench was at the side of the scoreboard, I couldnt see the score. I didnt know they had caught up. When I checked, I realised the lead had shrunk to a mere 1 point lead.

As if things couldnt have gotten any worse, Marcus inbounded the ball that was intercepted. That led to two quick points and a lead with around 10 seconds left. The team inbounded the ball and watch helplessly as Marcus missed the three pointer.

We lost. In the first match of a knockout tornament. Disgrace of the century.

Till now, I know things were my fault. I could have called for a timeout. But I had no idea that that was an option. if I came earlier, I could have asked. The timeout would have helped me discuss things with the team and allow Kaijun to that the 3, rather than our center, Marcus. I could have not lost my temper and not get fouled out of the game. Otherwise I wouldnt have to put in that certain player into the game.
I sworn off bball that day to my girlfriend. It was too painful to watch a ball bounce. The self-imposed curfew lasted 3 days.

More to come later.

TwIsTeR's Ramblings: Luck

2009-03-24T10:52:00.000-07:00

Chance

We agonize over it. We curse it. We wish it. We bless it. Luck is the one thing that human beings have spent ages trying to comprehend. We just can't get by the concept of chance. Probably because it is one of the few aspects in life that we have no control over. Sure, we can improve the chances by taking rational steps, but it is still chance nonetheless.

Luck is linked to superstition. And it is in human nature to be superstitious. Walking under a ladder? Or cross a path of a black cat? Friday the thirteen? All of these superstition seem to bring about bad luck. They are are also attempts to control the fortune that we have.

We are all superstitious. Some less so than others, but still is. It is present when we wish another good luck. It is there when we avoid funerals. It is in the things we think we see when the lights go off.

This phenomena of superstition also seem to be more pronounced in people who deal with luck in close proximity. Athletes, businessman or even criminals were shown to be extraordinarily superstitious. NBA players were known to follow a routine before entering the game, hoping for an improvement in the one aspect of the game that could mean win or lose.

Therefore superstition is expected. It is tolerated. The problem arises when it starts to control our lives. When it affects how we think and operate. im sure I do not need to elaborate, all of use know of a certain person in our lives who are overwhelmingly superstitious, and build their lives, actions and emotions around such events that do not make any sense. In fact supserstition is so ingrained into our society it is presented not as superstition but as culture. I have mentioned this somewhere before.

How do we lessen the impact of superstition? How do we cut down the ignorance? Education is one answer. The superstitious tend to be lesser educated, often facing poverty. That is not to say all educated men aren't superstitious, but the numbers are significantly less so. For example, in China, many of the people facing poverty tend to believe in spirits and are willing to sacrifice livestock to appease them. This is vastly different from the Chinese living in more modernised cities such as Shanghai.

The other way is to have security over our beliefs and our values. I am a firm believer that nothing will come to harm you if you did not give any reason for it to. Therefore, I do not believe that walking under the ladder will cause anything other than the chance of the ladder falling on top of you. Nor do I believe that, should ghosts and spirits exist to upset a poor person's luck, they would be so petty as to take small trivial things as offense to them.

Let me dwell on that a little further. Using logic, why would ghosts, according to chinese belief. come through the gate of hell to prey on the innocent? Why would they come and bother people because they, say, step on a patch of grass? When the person has done nothing wrong to hurt them when they are alive? If you think about it, if ghosts do exist, I think it will more likly to be Casper than to be poltergeist.

Of course, one can never be sure. So why worry about it? Why fret about it? Why let something like that affect your life? Be thankful of what we have, and have faith that we are safe, and we will be alright.

Sometimes we're on a collision course, and we just don't know it. Whether it's by accident or by design, there's not a thing we can do about it. 
A woman in Paris was on her way to go shopping, but she had forgotten her coat - went back to get it.
When she had gotten her coat, the phone had rung, so she'd stopped to answer it; talked for a couple of minutes. 
While the woman was on the phone, Daisy was rehearsing for a performance at the Paris Opera House.
And while she was rehearsing, the woman, off the phone now, had gone outside to get a taxi.
Now a taxi driver had dropped off a fare earlier and had stopped to get a cup of coffee. 
And all the while, Daisy was rehearsing.
And this cab driver, who dropped off the earlier fare; who'd stopped to get the cup of coffee, had picked up the lady who was going to shopping, and had missed getting an earlier cab.
The taxi had to stop for a man crossing the street, who had left for work five minutes later than he normally did, because he forgot to set off his alarm. 
While that man, late for work, was crossing the street, Daisy had finished rehearsing, and was taking a shower.
And while Daisy was showering, the taxi was waiting outside a boutique for the woman to pick up a package, which hadn't been wrapped yet, because the girl who was supposed to wrap it had broken up with her boyfriend the night before, and forgot.
When the package was wrapped, the woman, who was back in the cab, was blocked by a delivery truck, all the while Daisy was getting dressed.
The delivery truck pulled away and the taxi was able to move, while Daisy, the last to be dressed, waited for one of her friends, who had broken a shoelace.
While the taxi was stopped, waiting for a traffic light, Daisy and her friend came out the back of the theater.

And if only one thing had happened differently: if that shoelace hadn't broken; or that delivery truck had moved moments earlier; or that package had been wrapped and ready, because the girl hadn't broken up with her boyfriend; or that man had set his alarm and got up five minutes earlier; or that taxi driver hadn't stopped for a cup of coffee; or that woman had remembered her coat, and got into an earlier cab, Daisy and her friend would've crossed the street, and the taxi would've driven by.

But life being what it is - a series of intersecting lives and incidents, out of anyone's control - that taxi did not go by, and that driver was momentarily distracted, and that taxi hit Daisy, and her leg was crushed. 

-Benjamin Button

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Macbook Wheel

2009-03-12T06:32:00.001-07:00

I laughed like hell when I saw this. Hope Techvixen will see this.

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

TwIsTeR Insights: Credit Crunch Explained in Simple Terms

2009-03-09T10:00:00.000-07:00

Stupid bubble. Stupid liquidity crisis.

TwIsTeR Insights: The Joy of Sex Talk (or Nature vs Society part 2)

2009-03-08T13:39:00.002-07:00

Saw this on Sunday Times(8 March 2009) by Chua Mui Hoong. Brilliant article that kinda replies on the topic of Nature vs Society, especially in the roles of sex between sexes. Liza, i hope you are reading this.

She writes:

The joy of sex talk - Remember that old saw 'Men give love to get sex, women give sex to get love?' Well, it's here to stay.

As you read this on a Sunday morning, chances are you've come across conversations like these in your life, or been told of such exchanges:

She: You don't love me anymore. We never talk.
He: You talk all the time. We never have sex. You don't love me anymore.
She: I'm not in the mood for sex when I feel you don't love me.
He: I want to have sex with you all the time, isn't that proof that I love you?
She: See! You can only think about sex. You don't love me as a person anymore.
He wants sex to feel loved, she needs to feel loved to feel like having sex.

We say such differences spring from the gender gap. Men are from Mars, women from Venus. In the eternal conundrum that is the dance between male and female, there are many theories as to why the sexes differ in modes of communication, in the way they love and in their approach to sexual bonding.

Is it social conditioning? Evolutionary biology - where evolutionary pressures conspire to shape the behaviour of men and women over the centuries? Or are such differences hard-wired into the brain? I did my usual 'research' on topics like these: I read perfunctorily. I talk to friends. I consult myself.

A fascinating book, The Female Brain, by neuropsychiatrist Louann Brizendine, sums up recent research on this topic. According to her, brains of men and women are hard-wired differently and respond differently to hormonal and chemical changes, and these differences affect the way the sexes respond. When it comes to sex, the area in male brains devoted to sex is three times as large as a woman's. Enough said.
Studies of the prairie vole, small furry animals said to belong to the 3 per cent of species of mammals which are monogamous in habit (the percentage apparently includes humans), help shed light on the brain chemistry in love.

Prairie voles get into a frenzy of non-stop mating for 24 hours when they meet - and then bond for life, nesting together and raising their young together.

Scientists say mating releases two key hormones influencing social behaviour - oxytocin and vasopressin. Oxytocin is well-known among readers of women's magazines as the 'bonding' hormone. When under stress, women gather in groups and talk things out. When I go through an emotional upheaval, I call close friends for breakfast, dinner or supper, and inflict the hows, tos and wherefores of my situation on sympathetic ears. (I do the same for my friends.) Never mind that all that talking doesn't solve anything. The bonding releases oxytocin and makes us feel better able to cope.

Men don't have that kind of patience. A friend went to meet a childhood buddy who had just gone through a divorce. He told the grieving husband: 'I give you 15 minutes to moan. After that, get on with your life.' Then they went on to talk about school days and guy stuff. Apparently it's considered acceptable to make your friend condense his misery into 15 minutes flat. And then expect lifestyle changes to be made, problems solved. 'Otherwise, don't call me next time.'

When my former schoolmate wanted to talk about her boyfriend problems, we met for lunch, stayed for tea, then had dinner. We were together for eight hours. We had a great time and left cheerful, rejuvenated - and no nearer a solution. Oxytocin makes women feel bonded, secure, loved, making them more inclined to feel sexual. In other words, they are in the mood when they feel loved.

Men's social attachment however is influenced by vasopressin, a hormone that boosts a man's energy, attention and aggression. Sex releases vast amounts of vasopressin in males, triggering pleasure centres in the brain, and strengthening attachment to the female engaged in the activity. In other words, sex makes him feel more loving. Thus the dictum about a woman needing to feel loved before she wants sex, and a man needing sex to feel and express love may be grounded in brain chemistry, fuelled by the different actions of brain chemicals.

Studies of prairie voles show that sex releases oxytocin and vasopressins in males. Oxytocin makes him recognise and feel bonded to one particular female (and not just any female he has sex with). Knock off that gene and the creature forgets not only who its partner is, but also who its friends are. Oxytocin and vasopressin both activate the pleasure chemical dopamine, which sets off a positive feedback loop - whereby more coupling with one particular partner releases more of the hormones which activate the brain's pleasure centre - bonding the pair strongly for life.

Scientist speculate that a similar biochemistry loop of love takes place in humans. In fact, some scientists think there is a 'monogamy gene' for men. Prairie voles which are monogamous, have a tiny piece of DNA other varieties of voles lack. When the montane vole - a different species of voles with multiple partners - is injected with this missing gene, it suddenly turns into a devoted partner, and spends more time frolicking with its offspring. Such genetically modified voles are less inclined to run off with a younger female.

Might the same be true of human males? Could the propensity for monogamy be - at least in part - genetically determined? If so, women might want to ask for a DNA test for their men to ascertain if they have enough of the requisite vasopressin gene. With bewildering theories on gender gaps, what's a man and woman to do, in the daily communication battlezone?

In the interest of preserving gender harmony, let's just consider the important facts: Men's sex centres are three times the size of women's. When men have sex, they feel bonded and relaxed - the way women do when they talk to their friends.
Why, women should just see sex with their husbands as similar to a good heart-to-heart talk with their girlfriends: As a (male) form of communication.

She: I'm really tired. I need a cuddle and a heart-to-heart talk to de-stress.
He: Sure, let's cuddle and talk my way. Then we'll talk your way.

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Music to the Ears

2009-03-08T12:50:00.000-07:00

Piano pieces by padawan 2. I'm so proud of her.

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Finance and Economics (or 2 Idiots Trying to Act Smart.)

2009-03-08T12:05:00.002-07:00

Im too tired to blog nowadays. Especially after the stone cold stunner of Liza's comments on my post of Nature vs Society (and brilliant ones at that):P. I was going to give a finance post, but man, im too freaking lazy. So instead, I copied paste from desmond's note as we discuss on various financial aspects in a prim and proper way. In other words... 2 idiots trying to act smart. Enjoy.

Desmond's note:

Be it bonds, funds or anything that is sold by banks or institutions, how much do you know about it. Even the money market fund or our banks could be vulnerable.(have you ever thought of it)

Taking insights in the Madoff and now standford ponzi scheme, of what scales are local issues such as sunshine empire.. Fixed Deposits are structured deposits are getting so complex, that risk is taken off the balance sheet and borne by investors such as us, suckers.. While they intelligently keep the investment fees, brokerage fees and fund management fees.(Arbitrage) The clauses state that any small exposure of section11 for a structured deposit, could render the fund worthless(eg. Lehman Bros). The prospectus doesnt even give full details of the companies invested, only the sector. Yup, banks are too big to fail! So without knowledge in the banking and finance, securities or investment sectors, we are all just making the rich richer and safer. Where is the ethics of the finance sectors that we trust so much, should we just revert back into putting our $ into Milo tins?(not promoting Nestle)

Its true that only in crises that we observe the full effects of the risk or schemes.. Only at such times are regulators able to fish out crucial loopholes and compare them with benchmark indexes, question their credibility and freeze their assets. Its always a fight between regulation and financial innovation. Talking about the lag, money and bonuses still leads the way up front, after that, RUN FAST!

Its a game of bluff-Bluff or be fooled. So its not dont invest, if you dunno wtf you investing in, dont! just bloody heck ask someone who knows la, zzz (third person)

PS. I wonder if I can find a banking job after posting this, haha.. Prob update with more figures later.

Tay Wenjie at 5:13pm February 20

no way you are getting a job for this man... this is obvious lor... u haven't realli said anithing insightful other than the lure and consequence of a bubble economy. Investors are not suckers... should everyone start being risk adverse and keeping money in tin cans, our global economy will not be even close to the standard we are in, liquidity crunch notwithstanding.

Ethics in finance is like art, you have rely on what you believe is right and wrong. What is unethical to you, is perfectly lawful business to another. Therefore, one can argue that its makes perfect business sense to maximise the profits, otherwise don't get involved in finance. While Im not supporting dubious schemes such as Standford Ponzi or Sunshine Empire MLM, Im just saying it would be downright silly to judge other forms of investment just based on the 1 or 2 rotten apples.

Ronnie Chan at 7:13pm February 20

Probably I'll just put some of my thoughts on this issue here too. The biggest problem is the issue of risk and reward. Probably when times were good, no one bothered about risk, only the reward. Now that times are bad, people tend to focus on risk and not reward. That's why you can see the stock indexes in free fall.

The problem with ethics is usually the gray area where the law doesn't cover. With respect to the law-ethics divide, i'll leave you a quote from my text on ethics.

"When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken" - Benjamin Disraeli

Desmond Ng at 11:00am February 21

cool, juz more to write about =)
I oso wan to prepare a doc to compare all the different policies, and to what extend each better or minimal impact

Desmond Ng at 11:44am February 21

Ron and WJ, the ethics part was to contrast between knowledge and playing on the arbitrage risk free return which the financial system creates as profits everytime a person invests.
Which leads to WJ point- if we do not pump in liquidity, how will we grow. free-banking theory? hmmm..

Not that investors are suckers, but we are just playing on a global gambling table.(no link to IR). If we do not calculate our risk, not mathematically, but by not doing our homework, we are gambling! We might as well play scissors, papers, stone. 33% chance its a draw, 33% chance win, 33% chance lose. Assumed under normal situations and no psychology or fixed pattern observed.

'judge other forms of investment just based on the 1 or 2 rotten apples'
there exists every oppurtunity to tamper results, balance sheet restructuring, different performance measures, worse, scam. Such can be minimized to the minimum, just how?
Evidence:Nick Leeson 827m pounds losses (barings bank 1995)
-Hmmm, law? To be cont..

Desmond Ng at 12:00pm February 21

Ron, behavioral finance, market over and under reaction leads to opportunities for contrarian and momentum strategy depending if the asset has been over or under priced. Through Efficient market hypothesis, the market should accurately reflect the states of the publicly available situation and self correct through competition. Fear exist just so that the risk we take is more and higher future returns, so we are indeed compensated. Other than naked short selling, haha..
Damn, I lack the law part for argument. But too much twisting on procedures, even money laundering. And its crazy debating with lawyers. We can link it to crime* instead for the discussion.

My stand is still defensive on the investors point of view as victims of the financial system.

Cool, direct application of knowledge. But all we stated so far is of a systematic and economic viewpoint. Damn hard to use direct Finance concepts in an argument.

Tay Wenjie at 12:45am February 22

Well... Finance is a subset to economics... so nothing wrong there...

Here is the thing... The argument for free market forces in linking to the Efficient Market Hypothesis is severely flawed due to numerous factors. Many of these factors are based on human error and judgement, and the intervention of regulation. A good example is the 700+ billion US$ economic stimulus package in an effort to help (directly or indirectly) failing banks. The interesting thing abt crisis is that it streamlines the economy of a country, making it more efficient through a financial survival-of-the-fittest type of environment. If perhaps the banks were allowed to fail, perhaps that would streamline the already-frail banking industry to be more resistant to future bank runs or liquidity crisis.

In truth, there is no real right or wrong answers, just unproven theories until someone has the balls to test them out.

Tay Wenjie at 12:59am February 22

To the part about gambling, it is simple. If you dont do your homework, you will take on unnecessary risk, and you have to be willing to pay the price. You also have to accept the reality of the situation of the economy.
In truth, nothing dealing with big money is realli perfect in the ethical sense, bt the advancement of technology combined with the strict policing of trades has lowered the usage of money scams, accounting fraud and dubious schemes. True, they do exist, some even to large scale. But from what ive seen, most firms have actually left the fraud or scheme worse off when they went into it (see Enron fraud). Perhaps the best type of free market policy is to allow market forces to operate under the watchful eyes of the law.
If you ask me, to introduce ethics into financial world is equivalent to playing a piano to a bull. The concerns of ethics has to be upheld by policymakers and enforcers, but the actual traders will always feel that money-making is their right.

Desmond Ng at 7:57pm February 22

Crises are different from market correction, being more of systemic risk. Survivor of fittest, over-competition, induces more profiteering leading to greed and financial innovation for the wrong reasons. Letting the banks fail would be as good as our money being hedges for bank losses.

Well, not really into nationalisation of banks, but if there would really be greater availability of risk free deposits, sets the clear difference between them and investment banks. The investment banks would have to offer higher interest, to compensate the risk taken. But the policy makers would have to rake their brains earning the required returns, and clearing short term demand for withdrawal. Would also greatly slow down the development of the banking sector.

Den again, are we growing TOO rapidly beyond control? We take steps controlling money supply. Hmmm, how does a govt control growth? taxes too obvious, haha..

*Ethics-Finance, where $ involved, just no ethics, concluded, haiz..

Tay Wenjie at 11:23pm February 22

When banks fail, there will be loss of jobs, money, angry customers, etc. But that as opposed to trying to keep banks who had made poor business decisions afloat? Banks are businesses still, we have to remb that. So if poorly run banks are repeatedly resuscitated by govt funds, wont that suck out more of the people's money as compared to the hedges? Its a painful but necessary in my opinion.
The thing about crisis is that is does streamline the economy, making it more efficient. Poor performance workers are retrenched, prices are lowered, poorly run businesses fail, which leads to a drop in that 'over-competition' u mentioned. The best companies emerge, generally reinstating consumer confidence and a recovery in the economy in general.So, in a way, an economic crisis is a form of market correction, if govts would just let it. True, profiteering does exist in a greater extent, but it is not as if the country's enforcement agencies suddenly disappears.

Desmond Ng at 1:38pm February 23

Cool, you should read up on islamic banking. Try 'Revving the Islamic Finance Growth Engine by Karyn Wang'. We cannot assume govt money=people's money. Yup, its taxes, but directly affected. We can just move or just take PR for example.

Mergers and acquisitions, haha, damn, skipped that lect, lol.. KK, i got half of the stuff up, so i will re-draft den discuss again. At least facebook has some uses, lol

Tay Wenjie at 8:40pm February 23

Well, even if govt money does not = people's money, a bankrupt govt will mean bad news to the people. There are discrepancies in terms of definitions, but for the sake of this discussion, i dont think the details are realli necessary.

Cool, look forward to it... tho I prob shld spend more time studying n less time going facebook and replying your crap..

Desmond Ng at 11:25pm February 23

Haha, to start a journal, you gotta have a starting point to work towards ma =)

Desmond Ng at 11:17am February 24

Just a last note. There is absolutely nothing wrong with securitisation leading to the current sub prime induced credit crunch to recession.
Securitisation, the process is in simply termed moving of assets off balance sheet for the banks. Well, technically, there is no wrong between sharing of risk with insurance companies on toxic debts, rating of agencies who risk their reputation and consumers who share the risk with banks for higher returns. BUT, they are now, transferring risk and NOT sharing risk. So when the sub-prime hit, someone must fail/fall. If not the banks, not the insurance companies, not the agencies, and obviously not STUPID consumers like us, who does the debt go to? Innocently, the government, lol.. Too big to fail, or doomed to fail.

Im not going to say who is right and who is wrong. I think both of us have too little knowledge on the subject. So it is really trying to act smart.

TwIsTeR's Ramblings: Cool shit

2009-03-03T10:29:00.000-08:00

10 Resonant Chamber
Uploaded by Scorpiotistic

Awesome Drummers - Funny home videos are a click away

Twister Ramblings: Nature vs Society

2009-03-01T06:11:00.000-08:00

Our body is a miraculous thing. Every action, every thought, every emotion created by the synergy and efficiency of cells. It is like gigantic jigsaw puzzle of a million, trillion pieces assembled together to reveal a brilliant masterpiece.If there is any miracle required for proof of God, our very own body, capable of great acts and thoughts, is, to me, proof enough.

Our body and, in extension, our nature is built to survive despite the surroundings. Nature has given our bodies the ability to adapt to our surroundings. Yet, as our society changes in a blinding pace, our natural instincts, created or evolved to help us survive, has become a hindrance instead. Our nature has failed to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

Case in point: Why is it there is a huge number of obese people in developed countries? The evidence is staggering, the more developed a nation is, the greater the number of overweight people. Why is that so? The obvious answer would be the impact of a life in luxury, the increase in rich food available due to wealth and the lack of exercise due to exceedingly busy schedules. Yet, here is the strange thing. These educated people continue to eat themselves to death, even in full knowledge that it is harmful to their health. Why? We cannot claim that eating is an obsession (although in some cases it really is) since eating is considered a necessity for survival.

The powerful urge to eat stems from our instinctual desire to store nutrients. Back in men's early days, food was scarce, and dependent on game and gathering. This scarcity has cause our bodies to adapt, storing excess nutrients as fat in case of times of need. Fast forward to the present, this characteristic hasn't changed much. And as we gulp down our food to prepare for the starvation that never comes, our body gets larger horizontally.

Why is is that men are more likely commit adultery? A theory put forth by Teng Soong is that men are naturally polygamous while women are monogamous. The reason for the difference also seem to lie in our roots. In the past, when men were the hunters and women were the nurturers, the survival rate of hunting and gathering while exposed to prehistoric animals of gargantuan size and harsh climate is significantly low. Lets say at 25%. This meant that the number of men to women is at the ratio of 1 is to 4. Men had to be polygamous in order for the species to survive and reproduce, while women stayed largely monogamous. Again, the impact of this in current society can be seen in the large number of divorces, adultery, or slow-growing or declining population in developed countries like Germany or Japan.

Here is another interesting example. Question: Why is it that that we have a higher propensity to consume when we have a higher income? Why is it that people will manage to spend away millions of dollars after just winning the lottery in just a few days? These are not isolated incidents, but consistent throughout since the study of economics. To put the question closer to home: Why is it we spend more money on the days we receive our paychecks, or within the week in anticipation of receiving our pay?

According to Teng, one theory is that in the days of rampant food scarcity, the sole form of resource to men was food. And since technology to preserve food was not developed yet, the best thing we can do is to engorge ourselves, relying on our own body fat as a form of storage as explained by the first example. In current society, the form of resource has changed but not that primal instinct to indulge ourselves when the resource is present.

As we ponder on these examples, it is important to note that the separation from these instincts are what separates us from animals. We have to consider for ourselves the consequences, be it in our own ethics, health and other factors.

Lets discuss. Should we abandon our instincts completely? Or is there perhaps some room for compromise? Can we adjust society to suit these instincts, or should we just hold firm? Do you have any other examples of Nature vs Society that you care to share? What are your thoughts to the matter?

How do geese know when to fly to the sun? Who tells them the seasons? How do we, humans know when it is time to move on? As with the migrant birds, so surely with us, there is a voice within if only we would listen to it, that tells us certainly when to go forth into the unknown.

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross

Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey "people" .People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war.... Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of the rest....

C.S. Lewis

Instinct is intelligence incapable of self-consciousness.

John Sterling

The instinct of nearly all societies is to lock up anybody who is truly free. First, society begins by trying to beat you up. If this fails, they try to poison you. If this fails too, the finish by loading honors on your head.

Jean Cocteau

TwIsTeR's Lakers: Basketball Statistics

2009-02-15T09:02:00.000-08:00

There is a growing phenomenon as the sport of basketball slowly increasing in popularity. People began to view basketball not just as a sport for enjoyment, for spectators and players alike, but as a mathematical puzzle or problem. They begin to come up with statistical aspects that seem to determine the production of the game. Points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals become part of the numbers game as people try to take the complex sport and break it down to simpler, easier to understand models.

Yet, anomalies started to occur more and more often. The game of basketball refused to be understood. True enough, the stats showed a bit of the efficiency of the players, but it never showed how a player can benefit his team, basketball being a perennial team sport. The current statistical model was also inadequate to show the defensive aspect of the game; blocks and steals couldnt be a true indicator.

So the statisticians, like ESPN's John Hollander, introduced new revolutionary statistics to try to explain away the game. PER, efficient field goal percentage, +/- were new statistical aspects in the team and individual level. Opponent field goal percentage (the 3 point line, in the paint and the mid-range) and forced turnovers and overall defensive rating was introduced to bread down the defensive aspect. Pace factor was also included to level up the discrepancies of how pace influences the outcome of performances and wins/loses.

Yet, statistical anomalies appeared time and time again, defying the completeness of the models. Players like Shane Battier, as stated in this brilliantly written article by Micheal Lewis, seemed to be helping his team without posting any significant statistical impact. In his article, he writes:

"The virus that infected professional baseball in the 1990s, the use of statistics to find new and better ways to value players and strategies, has found its way into every major sport. Not just basketball and football, but also soccer and cricket and rugby and, for all I know, snooker and darts — each one now supports a subculture of smart people who view it not just as a game to be played but as a problem to be solved. Outcomes that seem, after the fact, all but inevitable — of course LeBron James hit that buzzer beater, of course the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl — are instead treated as a set of probabilities, even after the fact. The games are games of odds. Like professional card counters, the modern thinkers want to play the odds as efficiently as they can; but of course to play the odds efficiently they must first know the odds. Hence the new statistics, and the quest to acquire new data, and the intense interest in measuring the impact of every little thing a player does on his team’s chances of winning. In its spirit of inquiry, this subculture inside professional basketball is no different from the subculture inside baseball or football or darts. The difference in basketball is that it happens to be the sport that is most like life."

He continues:

There is a tension, peculiar to basketball, between the interests of the team and the interests of the individual. The game continually tempts the people who play it to do things that are not in the interest of the group. On the baseball field, it would be hard for a player to sacrifice his team’s interest for his own. Baseball is an individual sport masquerading as a team one: by doing what’s best for himself, the player nearly always also does what is best for his team. “There is no way to selfishly get across home plate,” as Morey puts it. “If instead of there being a lineup, I could muscle my way to the plate and hit every single time and damage the efficiency of the team — that would be the analogy. Manny Ramirez can’t take at-bats away from David Ortiz. We had a point guard in Boston who refused to pass the ball to a certain guy.” In football the coach has so much control over who gets the ball that selfishness winds up being self-defeating. The players most famous for being selfish — the Dallas Cowboys’ wide receiver Terrell Owens, for instance — are usually not so much selfish as attention seeking. Their sins tend to occur off the field.

It is in basketball where the problems are most likely to be in the game — where the player, in his play, faces choices between maximizing his own perceived self-interest and winning. The choices are sufficiently complex that there is a fair chance he doesn’t fully grasp that he is making them.

Taking a bad shot when you don’t need to is only the most obvious example. A point guard might selfishly give up an open shot for an assist. You can see it happen every night, when he’s racing down court for an open layup, and instead of taking it, he passes it back to a trailing teammate. The teammate usually finishes with some sensational dunk, but the likelihood of scoring nevertheless declined. “The marginal assist is worth more money to the point guard than the marginal point,” Morey says. Blocked shots — they look great, but unless you secure the ball afterward, you haven’t helped your team all that much. Players love the spectacle of a ball being swatted into the fifth row, and it becomes a matter of personal indifference that the other team still gets the ball back. Dikembe Mutombo, Houston’s 42-year-old backup center, famous for blocking shots, “has always been the best in the league in the recovery of the ball after his block,” says Morey, as he begins to make a case for Mutombo’s unselfishness before he stops and laughs. “But even to Dikembe there’s a selfish component. He made his name by doing the finger wag.” The finger wag: Mutombo swats the ball, grabs it, holds it against his hip and wags his finger at the opponent. Not in my house! “And if he doesn’t catch the ball,” Morey says, “he can’t do the finger wag. And he loves the finger wag.” His team of course would be better off if Mutombo didn’t hold onto the ball long enough to do his finger wag. “We’ve had to yell at him: start the break, start the break — then do your finger wag!”

This seem to have encompass what I wrote in my post of basketball as a complex sport. In its unique nature that seems to simulate life in fast forward, it becomes exceedingly hard for statistics to be more than vaguely accurate, just like it is when computing life's decisions.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

-Mark Twain

Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses lamp posts... for support rather than illumination.

-Source Unknown

Statistics are no substitute for judgment.

-Henry Clay

TwIsTeR Insights: Emotion

2009-02-12T08:31:00.000-08:00

Sorry for not blogging, my schedule has not put me in that contemplative mood suitable for my blogging, and it seems that it will not let up. Damn exams are approaching close and closer. Well, with that...

Emotions are essential in dictating our actions, our decisions. In fact, for some of us, it is the primary driving force of how we act. A study was done on people who do not feel any emotion, caused by damage to the part of the brain that is responsible for it. It was shown that, in terms of decisions, they were indecisive. Worse than indecisive, in fact, since they simply cannot make decisions that go beyond logical thinking, like "do you prefer the red dress or the green one?".

Yet, despite that, our efficiency-driven culture emphasizes on the fact that we should repress emotions, to be detached from yourself, so to speak. It is true, powerful emotions normally deprives the person the ability to think rationally, rendering that person "inefficient". The best thinkers and scientists of our time were known to be abnormally detached.

How we deal with these emotions are also intricately linked to our character that defines us as unique individuals. Do we swallow our emotions? Do we use one emotion to cover another? Or maybe we just wear our emotions on our sleeves, ready to cry, laugh and jump for joy at the drop of the hat? The strange things is that we all have the same emotions, yet, because of our character, react so differently to that same feeling.

I have come to the conclusion that emotion cannot be controlled directly by our will. It is how we truly feel, even if we try to deny its existence. So, to say "don't feel sad" is kinda contradictory of what emotions are.

However, emotion is also depends on perspective, which lies the true form of control. Although we cant change the way we feel, we can change the perspective to alter the way we feel. And we do it so often in our everyday lives that we are not even aware of it. Take the concept of 'sour grapes' for example. We can truly desire for some thing, yet if it proves to be unattainable, we dismiss it as flawed or perhaps not worthy of our attention after all, thereby changing our perspective to change our emotions.

Many would say that it is not being true to yourself. That is, to me, a strange statement. What is this 'yourself'? How do you know if it is truly you. To be true to yourself means to accept whatever emotion you initially feel, good or bad, without exception. Why accept emotions like anger or sadness if it does nothing to help you?

Im not saying sadness or anger are never useful. There are times anger is needed, like standing up for urself for instance. Sometimes sadness is required, to get in touch with another fellow human being for example. Yet, there are times these emotions just leave you devastated, when the issue does not merit such an emotion. For example, a girl who cries when her dress gets torn, or a student that angry when he heard he got AAAB for his A levels (that wont be me, like ever).

The only way to NOT feel emotion is to truly detach your self away from your body. This out-of-body experience is the same as viewing the world with indifference, an emotional retreat. It is probably the ultimate change in perspective. It can be useful, in dealing with problems that affect one in a great deal. However, a word of caution, prolonged use can actually cause damage to a person's psyche. It can create an apathetic view of life, which lead many to suicide.

So how can we get rid of excessive emotions? Like i said before, we cant. But we can alter the way we feel by changing our perspective. We can think "Hey, this dess is just a piece of cloth anyway, why go overboard?" Or "Well, this result just delays me a little further in the long run, it wont prevent me from being successful if I work hard." In fact, most problems that seem to affect us so turn out to be insignificant or inconsequential in the bigger view of things. So while we must enjoy the little things in life, we must also be able to take a step back to get a different perspective, especially when we are down.

P.S. Hey deb, this post is for you. If you are reading this, hope you feel better and give a little smile.

Pain (any pain--emotional, physical, mental) has a message. The information it has about our life can be remarkably specific, but it usually falls into one of two categories: "We would be more alive if we did more of this," and, "Life would be more lovely if we did less of that." Once we get the pain's message, and follow its advice, the pain goes away.

-Peter McWilliams, Life 101

The advantage of the emotions is that they lead us astray, and the advantage of science is that it is not emotional.

-Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bustling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.

-Dale Carnegie

The sign of an intelligent people is their ability to control emotions by the application of reason.

-Marya Mannes

Men decide far more problems by hate, love, lust, rage, sorrow, joy, hope, fear, illusion, or some other inward emotion, than by reality, authority, any legal standard, judicial precedent, or statute.

-Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Immortal Ideas (or the mortal desconstruction of them)

2009-02-05T11:50:00.001-08:00

Ideas are very strange. They are invisible, intangible, ethereal. It is useless, yet so very powerful. Ideas are what drives the human race. It is the birth of innovation and the start of apathy. Ideas are concepts used to create works of arts or wonderful inventions. It is used to solved complicated problems and serve as inspiration for an individual, a country or the human race.

Which is why I value ideas alot. Im a writer by nature, and ideas are essential for my work. It was also the basis of my very childhood. Which is why I cannot forgive any action taken to destroy a good idea. What do I mean? Ideas are useless if no action is accompanied by it. Therefore, the action has to live up to the quality of the idea or concept that was imagined or created. If a writer has a great concept or storyline, yet has poor command of english, or woeful attention to detail, the idea is irrevocably destroyed, never to be recovered again. Sure, another can take up the idea to renovate and redo, but part of the quality of the idea is lost already. People can brand it as a copy, or simply dismiss the work as the first piece was bad. The idea has lost its value and its originality that made it so very valuable in the first place.

Which is the reason why i cannot imagine how beautiful concept can be so utterly, so terribly ripped apart in the monstosity of the movie called 'Inkheart'. It was as if it was taken from a 10 year old child's writing. The acting, in my opinion, was brilliantly done, especially by Brandon Fraser, the camera-play and casting was also above average. The writing and plot, however, was so horribly screwed that I wondered how i managed to waste 10 bucks in a rare midnight movie with my girlfriend on that piece of shit.

And the concept was wonderful. In my hands, or anybody's hands for that matter, together with such a budget, i could have created a wonderful piece, or at least infinitely better than the current trash. It was simple, a gifted individual with the ability to create what he reads out loud into real life. A clever, unique, original concept. Yet, it was borne through a fool of a writer. Given a chance, I swear I will shoot the fellow who destroyed it.

The writer couldnt decide a theme for the movie. Was it a romance movie? An action movie? Or a fantasy movie? He flirted from one theme to the next, never completing any of it. As he did with the storyline which had barely any coherence to it. Characters are supremely incomplete, sprouting out abilities that leave the poor viewer completely bewildered.

How on earth did Brandon Fraser's daughter suddenly become a silvertongue (those people with the ability to bring fiction to reality)? How did that ali baba character suddenly learn to blow fire from Dustfinger? Why did brandon fraser jump, run and hide to save his wife when all he needed to do was bring some books (like maybe a war book with lots of guns?) and just bloody use his ability? How did the mother get read out of a book that wont contain her name in it at all? Why must a person be sucked in as a replacement (which i think is a pretty lame idea)? What the f#$% is story of inkheart (inkheart is the story most referred to in the movie) in the first place? Why must they go through all the stupid trouble to go find the author of Inkheart to get the manuscript of the book, and not bloody hell use it in the first place? How come Dustfinger can be so stupid? How on earth did the writer manage to suddenly declare ali baba to be in love w brandon fraser's daughter? How on earth did the bloody motherf%^king writer manage to create this piece of $#!t and who's the dumbass ignoramus that approved it?

Most ironical thing about it? It was a movie about books *starts sobbing*.

Okay... I think im done ranting. Seriously, I recommend all to go watch it to c how bad it is. Dun pay for it though, go download off the net. Its not stealing, cos it is not worth to pay a bloody cent for it.

Update: I just heard that this wasnt even an original idea but an adaptation of another film. Which makes it that much worse. You take another person's idea and you destroy it. It wasnt even your own.

P.S. On a slightly more cheerful note... This is damn funny. (Warning: more cursing that this post)

TwIsTeR Insights: Superstition

2009-01-26T06:50:00.000-08:00

Albert Einstein once said, "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." That much is true. We all have made stupid choices in our lifetimes, all we needed to do was to learn from it.

Now here is the problem with tradition, it forces people to make stupid decisions again and again. It is no coincidence that I'm blogging about this on Chinese New Year, as it is always around this period when I see superstition and tradition hamper the actions of goodwill and friendship.

Now, many people, my girlfriend included, view that I'm being insensitive to various cultures and their respective traditions. I would like to ask, "How so?" My view is that tradition have to serve a purpose, even if it is a small purpose, without adversely affecting other people. Tradition for the sake of tradition is devoid of meaning.

For example, the exchanging of red packets is to show a form of generosity to a younger generation, which in turn is reciprocated by a respect to the elderly. That is a purpose. However, when giving out of hong pao degenerates into money counting, suspicion and spoilt brats, I say just do away with the tradition.

Tradition, like laws and rules, also tend to lose its purpose after an extended period. Times change, a fact we all have to accept; technology and livelihood is fluid in the long run. The thing about laws is there is at least an 'expiry date' where at the end of the 'expiry date', the law will be reviewed. Tradition does not have such an expiry date, as one tradition presses the next to follow suit.

One such chinese tradition is the burning of 'hell notes' during the 7th month. The concept of the hungry ghost festival itself is ridiculous and borne from superstition. It is during this 15 days where lots of paper is being burnt in metal drums as dark clouds being spewed into the sky. People with asthma, or highly superstitious, hide indoors. And for what? To 'bribe' our own ancestors not to haunt us. If the purpose is to pay respects to the dead, it is excessive. Joss sticks is just as traditionally accepted and more environmentally friendly.

Another example is the concept of not going to 'bai nian' within the year if a member of the family has passed away, with the suspicion of spreading the bad luck. A family had insisted mine to come over, even after the death of my maternal grandfather. Yet there were stringent rules. My family was not allowed to greet them with auspicious Chinese New Year greetings, nor were we allowed to exchange mandarin oranges or red packets. Superstition trumps over relevant tradition. Could you imagine the awkwardness when my family was greeted at the door and we couldn't say 'gong xi fa chai!"

We should never ever let superstition take over our own actions. It invites paranoia as it allows events outside our own control into our world and we try our best to control it. Many make no sense and is truly ridiculous. Chun told me once her family invited a renowned feng shui man to redesign her house. The result was pleasant and she truly felt more at ease with her surroundings. However, she noted that it was a clever usage of space that allowed the room to feel more spacious, or to allow more sunlight into a dark room to make the space more comfortable. Nothing to do with the entry of good luck through the arrangements of the furniture.

Let me give you one more example before I wrap it up. Why isit the roads in singapore slow to a crawl whenever there is an accident? Nope, the cars are no longer blocking the road; the traffic police is quite efficient in improving the flow of traffic. The reason is because of stupid drivers slowing down to catch the number plate of the vehicles involved in the accident, for 4D. The belief that good luck would be borne from bad, in a screwed understanding of 'ying' and 'yang', propelled this ridiculous behaviour, and causing many cranky Singaporean drivers to be late.

So i say to hell, pun intended, with auspicious dates, designs and numbers. Gone should we change the way we act because of superstition. All tradition that hold no meaning should be ignored immediately.

On a side note,

HAPPY CNY EVERYBODY!

TwIsTeR's Lakers: Andrew Bynum

2009-01-23T04:48:00.001-08:00

The year was 2005, and the Lakers were coming off a horrible season where they missed the playoffs for the first time in years. It was a year indicative of the Lakers rebuilding their team. Kobe Bryant, the lakers' lone all-star was not getting any younger, and team had to be built to win NOW. Therefore, the 2005 first round draft pick became all the more important for the rebuilding process.

Thats where the Lakers shocked everyone. They had to win NOW and therefore many thought the lakers would pick an NBA-ready player, with little training or nurturing required to be ready for the tough NBA court. Instead, the Lakers went with 17-year-old Andrew Bynum straight out of high school, making him the youngest NBA player picked in all time.

Andrew Bynum was born in Oct 27, 1987 at the height of 7 foot tall. His size did not compensate for this height, looking scrawny next to other NBA centers. His selection left many scratching their heads in wonder. He was extremely young and immature, an obvious project that could very well fail. At the 10th pick, he was considered a waste of a draft pick. Many criticized his work ethic and his passion for the game.

For myself, I was intrigued. I decided to reserve my judgements till Ive at least seen him play. And when I did, I was impressed. He was called into the game by hall-of-fame coach phil jackson to go help defend the uber-dominant shaquille o'neal, being the only player with enough height to match what many considered the best center of all time.

he was humiliated almost immeadiately after entering the game. Home-schooled by the NBA veteran wanting to prove no young'un is going to come into his home. Shaq muscled with bynum, dunking over him with such force that left poor bynum sprawled on the floor. Everyone not a laker fan laughed at the sight, and every laker fan sighed in what seemed to be an expected result.

Something incredible happened after that. Bynum just got up and sprinted down the floor, fire in his eyes. He positioned himself at the high-post and demanded the ball. Kobe passed it to him, and after two dribbles, he spun so quickly that the heavier Shaq could not catch up, slamming the ball in, to the delight of all Laker fans. And down the floor, he gave shaq a message that he was not in the least bit intimidated. Shaq got pissed.

Don't believe me? Here's a video.

No passion my ass.

Bynum soon developed a work ethic that impressed perennial work-horse, Kobe Bryant. He matured rapidly, and help shoulder the lakers into becoming a contender after just three years of rebuilding, extremely fast for any team. His latest game against the Clippers as I'm writing this, he went super-nova for 42 points, 15 rebounds and 3 blocks. This one young man, right now at a age of 21, that Im going to keep track of.

TwIsTeR Ramblings: The Bush Doctrine

2009-01-20T07:26:00.000-08:00

I was actually planning to write on the influences of NBA coaching in TwiSteR's Lakers, much as I know you guys hate to read about the NBA on my blog. But the up coming exams have forced my hand to discuss something closer to my heart of my favourite subject, perhaps, of all time: International Relations. Furthermore, tis post comes just before the inauguration of America's first black president and during Israel's invasion into the Gaza; talk about sweet timing.

Why did i mention these particular history-making events? Well, because Im going to discuss terrorism, the intimate topic in any American election. Terrorism, to put it simply, is the act of using fear to achieve a certain end. As a result, when we speak of terrorists, it sometimes depends on the context of the source. For example, a Palestine bomber would be labeled as a terrorist in Israel, but definitely not among the Hamas, who consider their act simply as a following of their Jihad against Israel.

No topic of terrorism is ever complete without mention the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, when George W. Bush pushed for his ~~own jihad~~ war on terrorism and created the infamous Bush Doctrine. On a side note, the fact that such an idiot managed to get himself elected for 2 terms is, to me, proof of the ignorance of the American people when it involves in choosing the most important man in the world. Thank god for Obama.

Anyway, it is interesting on the way Bush treated the September 11 attack as if it was an attack against his own ego, pushing almost immediately against the Afghanistan's Taliban regime, and subsequently against Iraq's Saddam Hussein. It was an ego move, to say the least. Americans wanted some form of action, and the president decided to attack and invade the countries that are seemingly involved in it.

Why you may ask. Many IR scholars have stressed the need for America to protect its interest, and to do so in a decisive manner. However, it seemed to me that the attack on both these sovereign nations was akin to taking action for the sake of taking action. That is to me worse that not doing anything.

Well, the US payed the price for it. The backlash of anti-Americanism within the Islam-centric has give the radicals a great amount of fuel. Any form of 'moderate' talk would be considered siding with the infidels. Fresh recruits swarmed to join terrorist cells across the world, making the world an even more dangerous place to live in.

It seems unfair that the world has to pay for one man's stupid mistakes, but that is the reality that we must live in. Mistakes have to be learnt. Terrorism is not about countries fighting wars against each other. It is intangible, with no visible borders or frontlines. A war on terrorism is basically a war on ideals. In other words, the use of arms would only help the terrorists.

So what must we do? For one, we must educate ourselves to the point of view of the terrorists. There must be a reason for them to bomb and kill. That reason must be attacked, for without that ideal, the bomb will never go off. We cannot follow Bush's example and try to pummel the problem on the head with a crudgel like a common bully.

America views itself as the benign hegemon, the upright and virtuous superhero in the frightening international anarchy of the world. Many believe, this is inherently important to maintain stability in the international system. I sincerely disagree. I think that to depend on one country for 'leadership' would be jolly good if the rest of the countries are in on it, but drastically frightful if a large number of states disagree.

It is like having a leader without being democratically elected. Ironic. America's presidency is the single most undemocratic election in the world: a few hundred million people voting for 6.7 billion people. So while i do not agree that if the international system would remain as an international anarchy without a hegemon is good for peace, meaning using a balance of power as the sole source to keep countries in check, I do not think that a hegemon would be that much of a stabilizing factor to be that much different. Not if half of the world do not see the US eye to eye.

The Bush Doctrine is just another example of America striking out to protect the 'values' of Democracy and Capitalism (as if other economic and political systems have a 'lack of values'). Other incidences include the Cold War (where it could have led to a serious nuclear-themed war), the Vietnam War (where if the US just left things as they were, Vietnam would still not threaten), the Gulf War, etc.

The question is whether we should follow suit or not. As a sovereign state, we have the right to take a stand. Each country does. That is not to say we should adopt anti-americanism, as i believe that the States as the hegemon is inherently better than say, China, as the reigning superpower. But each states government must not follow leadership blindly, and try to tackle international issues, like terrorism, the smart way, and together.

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Order and Chaos

2009-01-12T06:24:00.001-08:00

One f the recurring theme in the latest popular batman movie, the dark knight, is order and chaos which i didnt touch on in my post of it. Order and chaos is philosophically related to how we judge our morality, if it is based on the structuring of society and its rules, or lack thereof.

The Joker had a point to prove. That without the law, human beings would morally degenerate. That without an enforcement of order available, such as the police or the batman, we would blow each other up at the very first chance at it. And he was almost proven correct.

One particularly captivating scene for me is when the joker the joker spoke to Harvey to give him that "little push" over the edge.

The thing about chaos is that it is tempting. The proof is out there, when people go to clubs to loosen up. They drink, dance, let their hair down and basically be a totally complete person. A person without restrictions or rules. Chaos. In that very scene, the joker tempts Harvey with that very chaos, except to a greater extent, appealing to the dark side within Harvey we all know is evident. Leaving things up to chance is basically chaos bounded by the rules of reality, which the joker claims to be "fair".

So the morality of caving in to chaos is apparent in everyone of us. What holds us back? What keeps us in order. Rules, definitely play a part. What sort of rules? Rules, such as the law, does play apart. The question, however, becomes very important if the law is not enforced. Do we become deranged animals, murdering, raping and stealing at the drop of that realisation?

I believe the more important rules are those that we, or at least I, hold close to our own heart. In other words, our morality. It exists in each one of us as the tenets against this chaos, which is so tempting. Should we abandon these tenets and yet still follow the rules because of the law, we can safely say that we are being ruled by fear. The fear of being caught for example. And chaos breeds from fear.

Another thing about chaos is that it is spontaneous. It doesnt require thinking, or rationalising. Which makes it all the more appealing. Who enjoys the process of tedious thinking compared to spontaneous chaos, especially when one experiences both?

Fortunately for us, we have both these tenets and the spontaneity, and a balance has to be reached. I never said chaos was evil or bad. It is like fire: warm and refreshing if controlled, death and destruction if not.Too much order in our lives would mean the lack of spontaneity, the lack of fun, making our lives all the more mundane. Too much chaos, and then we see our lives, or worse other lives, receive the consequences.

All of which, in the end, boils down to our actions. Our actions shows that the tenets exists, not the other way around. In order words, our actions are not borne from these tenets, but validate them. Which is why a man who steals, seldom stops stealing. Which is why a man who murders also find it difficult to stop. On the other hand, the action of NOT stealing shows that the tenets of order does exist in a certain person, and making it easier for him NOT to steal the next time around, validating the morality or rules which we bind ourselves to.

So back to the Dark Knight, the eternal battle of Batman vs The Joker represents the fight between order and chaos. The element of the law is largely ignored, cos it simply doesnt matter. What matters is the rules we bind ourselves to, which is what batman represents, an incorruptible manifestation of the tenets within ourselves. That opposed to the Joker who "just wants to see the world burn".

TwIsTeR's Lakers: Defence

2009-01-05T00:57:00.000-08:00

As the lakers recovered from a bad finals memory, where they lost to the hated Boston Celtics, they came into this season with one mission in mind : Defence. That was the difference makers between the laker team and the celtics. One team hustled and rebounded the ball with fervor, the other was less physical and was allowed to be intimidated.

And as they came into the season, defend they did, topping the league in defence for at least the first 10 games. However, a drop off in defense occured causing the lakers to drop to 4th place in terms of defence.

The thing about defence is that it is very different from offense. It takes a different form of mindset, a different set of muscles and different tactics to perform well in either field. Offence is the more glorified of the two; when one does well in it, everyone takes note. Defence on the other hand is akin to rubbish duty to bball players- dirty work. Apart from the spectacular block or game-changing steal, defence is normally under the radar, especially if it is effective.

I've always prided myself to be a good defensive player. It will be my primary selling factor if i had to market my skills. Since i never bothered by the spotlight, although i do enjoy it on occasion, i never really looked to excel offensively, apart from my younger, more naive bball days.

here are some tips for any bball players who want to learn a thing or two about defence, or non-players who may be interested in the inner-workings in this simple, yet complex game.

1.Defence is an attitude

You cannot just play defence for one minute and not play in the next. To do so would allow the offensive player to catch his breath, and gather his rhythm back. When two players go one-on-one, who has the advantage? The offensive player in bball always has the advantage. Therefore, in order to take away that advantage, defence has to be switched on as long as the ball is in play. As phil jackson, the hall of fame coach of the lakers, mentioned before- "Offence is easy, defence is work."

2. Defense is half of the game and therefore takes as much importance as offence

Defence i feel is the most overlooked aspect of the game. The reason, i believe, is because it is unquantifiable. Offence can be broken down rather neatly into assists, field goal %, offensive rebounds, etc. Defence, on the other hand, has just steal, blocks and defensive rebounds, and none of which is able to qualify a player is better defensively than another. In fact, most writers put defense as just another aspect along with assists, rebounding and points, making it seem that defence is just one-quarter of the whole game when it is employed half the game.

3.In order to be a good defensive player, one must have experience.

An experienced player normally have a better understanding of how offensive players move. Experience provides understanding of sizes and length, of speed and strength, of shooters and slashers, of passers and rebounders. Experience does not equate to the number of games played, although that helps. Experience is equal to the different kinds of players being played with; the more players you try to defend, the better you would understand the game.

4. Defense is not about blocks or steals

These are the more glamorous plays in the defensive aspect, which sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the normally dull, gritty defensive work. Which is why godbies always aim to go for the block or the steal, when there are more effective methods with less risk.

Less risk? Yes, blocks and steal are risky. Enthusiastic blockers, normally godbies with superior athleticism, tend to leave their feet with a small head fake, taking them out of the picture defensively. A steal forces a defender to leave his all-so-important spot between the offensive player and the basket. This means that if the steal fails, it is normally an easy basket for the offensive player.

5. Defence is about disruption

So defence is not about steals or blocks. The purpose of a defender is to simply make the offensive player to miss or turnover the ball. To do so requires a mindset of disruption. Disruption=footwork. Footwork requires practice of the side-to-side movement, also known as lateral movement or the 'crab walk'. This allows the defensive player to reach a spot before the offensive player does, disrupting rhythm and movement. Disruption can also be accompanied by other tactics: Blocking of eyes of a taller player, quick sudden movements to disrupt concentration of shooters, physical intimidation of skinnier players and even the harmless foul.

6.Understand your own strengths and weaknesses.

Impose your strengths on the offensive player and use ways to compensate for the weaknesses. If the attacker is stronger? Use his strength against him by shifting his center of gravity constantly. Is he taller than you? Stay closer to him as taller players are more self-conscious when shorter players are close to him. Is he faster? Stay a feel steps back so you can react in time when he makes a move. Does he have more stamina? Use energy saving, yet effective tactics to recover your breath when defending.

7. No offensive player is perfect

Each offensive player has a weakness, small as they may be. All players have it. It is the duty to analyse offensive players to pick out their weaknesses. Weaknesses can be the tendency to go only one side (normally to the left of the defensive player), signals that they are going to shoot (like a small step backwards or weighing the ball in their hands), preference of passing to a certain player (like the team's star player). Height, weight, strength, focus and basically anything can be used as weakness.

8. Basics in Defence

If you just aren't good at analysis, then remember the basics of defence and positioning.

For shooters, go closer to the players and into their personal space to make them feel uncomfortable.

For slashers and dribblers, take a step away from them to compensate when they speed to the basket so you can catch up to them. And always, always remember to stay in between the offensive player and the basket.

If you know what hand a player favours (whether he is left or right handed when he dribbles to the basket), force him to use the other hand with your positioning.

If you are weak defensively, do not block or steal unless you are certain of success.

9. Here are some more-advanced tips.

When a player is dribbling in front of you, analyse and take note of his tendencies. The rhythm he dribbles the ball, the fluidity of his movements, the hand he favours, the kind of player he is, etc. After analysis, take action in disruption using those information.

Systematically take down one weapon at a time. This is especially useful if the offensive player is a versatile attacker. When an offensive player realised a move of his has been disrupted, he is unlikely to go back to it again, preferring to return to his other attacks. This way, you can take away one weapon at a time till he is left with nothing.

10. Basketball is a team game

Same with defence. Defence is also based largely on strategy. Traps, double teams, strong-side zone, full court press. Strategies can be both complicated and simple. For your average neighbourhood court, advanced strategies are seldom used, so understanding of simple strategies, namely zone and man-to-man, is enough. However, team defences require time spend with each player to understand each other's tendencies, and training.

During man-to man, if the offensive player is a strong player, funnel the offensive player when he drives into your team mate, creating an effective 'trap' this trap is normally situated in the offensive player's weaker side, creating a bigger effect.

During zone, normally a 2-3 or 3-2 zone in the neighbourhood courts, all 5 players follow the movement of the ball, with each player protecting a region, or a 'zone'. The strategy is simple. If the ball goes inside to the post, the players collapse in, smothering the inside player. If the ball goes out, the defence spreads out to formation again.

TwIsTeR Insights: Altruism

2008-12-28T21:55:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the delay; the festive season realli kept me busy.

About a month ago, I had a great conversation with deb about altruism. She believes that there is no such thing as true, pure altruism. I did, or at least i thought i did. Throughout the conversation, I was convinced by her argument.

Firstly, altruism means to perform an act of kindness, without any wish to receive anything in return. In other words, to do something good with no real intention of getting any benefit.

I was thinking: surely there has to be an act of kindness that is burely benevolent. Human beings, by nature, are capable of both great good and great evil. I believe there are acts there are with purely evil intentions, like the intention to cause harm and suffering. So on the flip side, I believe that there has to be an act of pure goodness.

Of course, when thinking rationally, 'has to be' is the phrase that spoils most expectations. The things about good deeds is: there is always something beneficial that is reaped from it. always. And therefore, when one does perform a good deed, one expects some form of returns.

Am i confusing you? Let me try to explain using an example. When a man sacrifices his life for the country, he expects to receive some benefits in return. What sort of benefits would a man going to die expect? That his sacrifice would help his country in some way. That his sacrifice can perhaps bring a certain form of fame or martyrdom to his name. All these are actually selfish thoughts, but they do no neccessarily mean that they are evil thoughts.

Another example, perhaps, is the simple act of donation. So, what do we get in return? We donate in hope to make this world a better place for another. We donate to have that warm, fluffy feeling that comes with each benevolent act. We donate to show others that we are kind. All of these acts are selfish thoughts. Yes, i did type correctly. Hoping for a better situation for another and making an effort to help tt person is a selfish act.

The problem with our thinking is the thought: selfish=evil. We were brought up to believe that when we do something for another, a selfless act, is the right thing to do and the opposite, a selfish act, is not. But what we do not realise, as we depart from naivety, is that selfless acts are performed with the thought of selfish intentions. And selfish intentions does not necessarily mean that it is a bad thing. You wish to help someone. That is something you want, and therefore a selfish thought. You reach out a hand to help that person. That is a selfish act for acting on the selfish thought.

You may start to wonder: why is this so? Because, I answer you, every good deed comes from within us, and it takes a good portion of self to perform that deed. Nothing to be ashamed of, just understand that there is no such thing as true altruist intentions.

Want to understand further of what I am saying? I recommend books written by Ayn Rand, a modern day philosopher. Go read books like Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.

One of the greatest diseases is to be nobody to anybody.
-Mother Teresa

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
-Ayn Rand

TwIsTeR Truths: Imperfections

2008-12-16T06:25:00.000-08:00

By the tone of my previous posts, I may seem to portray a certain arrogant attitude to some. Don't say I didn't warn you. However, I believe this post may throw a dose of humility into this blog.

Perfection is overrated. A perfect man, should such a being exist is most definitely a boring man, living in a mundane lifestyle. Imperfections are what make us what we are, makes us human, humbles us and teaches us values worth keeping. Love would not exist between two perfect beings, as true love is defined by the flaws of being. For example, to fall in love with a girl would require you to accept the flaws of the person, while to love a perfect being could very well be superficial.

Therefore, here are 10 of the most embarrassing problems with me, spoken as truthfully as I can.

1. Careless
If you saw me playing basketball or badminton, many would say that I'm agile and quick feet. Well, they will say that until I sprain my ankle. I have a strange sense of balance, which is exceptional when riding a bike, or on the court, yet downright clumsy when I'm on the ground. This has earned me a multitude of sprained ankles, sprained necks, sprained fingers... In other words, more injuries than i have joints.

2. Temper
I believe I had touched on this before. Let me elaborate. When I was in signals, I had physically engaged this pai kia platoon mate, because of mutual dislike, outside the camp. It earned me a bloody nose, but the matter was settled when fellow platoon mates pulled us apart. I have sincerely regretted that to this day. The reason for fighting? It was that, essentially, I didn't like his face. I never felt so disgusted with myself, fighting for such a low down reason. Of course, being the bastard that he is, I never apologised. Nevertheless, that was not even the full extent of my anger. And i never want to find out what that is.

3. Low will power
When I set my mind on something, anything, I will excel in it. Not a boast, just a fact. It has been proven in academics, in sports, in the arts. The problem is I'm not fond of putting my mind into something. To me, it takes extraordinary amount of energy, and the returns are never enough to justify that loss of energy. I know... excuses, yet it is one of my many fatal flaws. Im the kind that when I can see the end, it is no longer interesting and would cease any effort. This flaw has proven to be the most grievous compared to the rest.

4. Too much big picture
Similar to the the above, yet different. I remember an old Garfield comic, with Garfield commenting: Apathetic people are different from lazy people. Apathetic people don't care. Lazy people care, they just don't do anything about it. Yet laziness has never been a constant flaw. There are many times when I have put in the utmost effort, normally in the things I enjoy. Swimming, writing, basketball, tuition. These are just some of things I have put in, or used to put in, a lot of sweat and blood into. Yet, there are just times...

5. Details...
I just don't notice them. I'm a very big-picture kind of guy, which kinda explains why the means do not mean as much to me as the ends. Therefore, when it is time to micromanage, to zoom in and analyse, to notice the little things, I usually fail. I enjoy seeing life and purpose in the big picture that sometimes I forget, or forgo, the little things that make up that life or purpose, because of the seeming insignificance fo it. For example, studying for a test does not seem important since we are going to die anyway. I know, flawed rationalizing.

6. Disorganised
If you entered my room or seen my desk before it is cleaned up, or even my handwriting, you will understand. What most people don't know is that there is a method to my madness. Should you arrange or tidy up my room, I would find things harder to locate. In the chaos, there exist a routine and an order. My mom doesnt see it that way though.

7. Over-rationalising
I am normally a highly rational person, as a reader of my blog can attest. Sometimes, I take it over the top. The problem with rationalising is that it has to be conclusive, with no room for error. Sometimes, I make that error, and yet continue with the analysis, falling prey to obstructions such as assumtion, ignorance and bias. Rationality must be conclusive and exhaustive. At times, I find myself regretting for not taking a path into consideration. Chaos theory, perhaps, to some extent.

8. Low confidence
This may come as a surprise to some. My biggest critic is myself, as I have constantly questioned my actions. This is probably due to my scatter-brain, haphazard nature that has forced me into many mistakes. Therefore, I sometimes become cautious into making a mistake, damaging my confidence to some extent. This is also the primary reason why I am totally lousy at focus-based games, such as pool, archery, golf or even shooting the basketball. I have conquered and corrected a large portion of this flaw, but the foundation has been laid within me and will probably haunt me till the day I die.

9. Poor short term memory
I just have a lousy short term memory. I can forget what I'm about to say, what i was going to do, the name of the person I'm speaking with, even if the person just introduced himself to me. Thank god I have a girlfriend that has an excellent short term memory to help me in this department.

10. Socially awkward
This is the most embarrassing flaw, which i have saved for last: I can't talk to girls. There, out in the open. Before talking to the opposite sex, especially if she is attractive, I tend to stutter and panic. It doesn't help that I have flaws 1, 3, 5, 8 and 9. I have never confessed to a girl before, for if I ever did like a girl, I would have spoken very little, if ever, to her. Normally, speaking to the opposite sex, and to a lesser extent to guys, I have to plan what I say, which may backfire on me, as it did many times. This is different from when I'm online. Thank god for MSN.

11. Chinese
Sometimes I wish i wasn't born chinese. Nothing to do with chinese culture or roots or all that stuff. In fact, Im deeply fascinated with Chinese culture. Its just that, my aptitude in that language is disgustingly poor i might as well fill up the migration papers now... In bilingual Singapore, no less. To make things worse, people thinks that my standard in the language is actually lower than it alr is, no thanks to the fact that i sound like a foreigner when attempting to speak it. My comprehension for basic mandarin is actually not too bad, the problem is speaking from my end. It sounds... weird. So, when you are speaking mandarin to me, and i reply with a 'huh?', it is not that I dont understand, is that i genuinely didnt hear you. So try not to switch to English that quickly, alrite?

12. I can't take compliments well
You heard of people who cant take insults well, due to their temper? Yea, well, Im the total opposite. The problem in this social nightmare(to me) is how to respond to a "good job!" or a "nice pass!". Do I say "yea, i tink so too" and sound like an arrogant bastard? or do I say "nah, it was alrite" and sound like Im rejecting the compliment? It is a total dilemma to me. Normally, I just dip my head and mumble something, that may have the reaction of either of those 2 scenarios. Thing is: I love compliments. Like who doesn't, rite? But I seriously love all the ego-boosting flattery, fake sentiments or otherwise. So, if I respond to your compliments, please dont take it any other way other than a great, big "Thank you!"

13. Im fat
'Nuff said.

There you have it. As I'm typing this, Im positively red in the face, sheesh. I know it is 13 and not 10, but seems like I got more flaws than I would prefer. I never liked any of my flaws and have taken some measure to correct them, but we know that is difficult, isn't it.

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Batman

2008-12-05T21:46:00.002-08:00

When the Dark Knight movie was released, it left many of us in awe. We were stunned by the sublime combination of tension, psychological thriller and visual effects. In my opinion, it was the one true film that represented Batman perfectly.

I have always been a fan of Batman. He is the perfect human being, defeating villians with a mixture of cold, logical deduction, martial skills and money. No powers were required, unlike his outlandish DC heroes comrades like Superman or Wonderwoman.

But the main reason that so intrigued me was the use of psychology and philosophy within the comics and the Dark Knight. Batman was not the happy-go-lucky superhero that the previous films try to portray, blame it on sugarcoating for kids. He was an anti-hero, not unlike Venom form Marvel, Constantine from Vertigo's Hellblazer and Spawn from Image.

An anti-hero is one where the so-called hero will go through means that would most likely disagree with the majority of ppl in order to achieve their form of justice. Batman is supposed to be like that. He would use interrogation techniques that left villians with broken limbs, ignore traditional forms of law keeping like the police to investigate murders and basically willing to do anything at any cost to achiever his ends, unless it involved guns and killing.

In so doing, Batman puts forth numerous questions to our morality. From the latest film, questions such as 'Will you sacrifice a single life to save many?', 'Would you take away privacy, and in a larger extent freedom, of ordinary citizens to cope with terrorism?', 'Would you sacrifice your own life for others?' and 'What is truly incorruptible form of justice look like?' are asked. Such questions were bound to batman from the very beginning.

Another aspect of batman that I enjoy is the psychology involved. Any psychologist or psychology student should study Batman as a case study. Question: When was Batman truly born? Was it the time when Bruce Wayne witnessed the death of his own parents? or perhaps when he went around the world to study the meaning of Justice and Morality? Or even when he was training in the mountains?

Other issues within Batman and Bruce Wayne was which was the true essence of the character? The flamboyant Bruce Wayne or the cold, unfeeling Batman? This seems like split personality given form to me. Furthermore, after prolonged crimefighting, what will his psychological profile be like?

Batman accumulated numerous allies throughout his career. Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl, Batwoman, the Spoiler, Sasha Bordeaux, the Oracle and, of course, Alfred were just a few examples of allies that helped Batman almost exclusively. This however also brought more questions as the storyline goes on. Questions on how Bruce treats them: Are they considered family as he claimed? Or perhaps a small army? Does he seem them as troops or allies? Batman seems to understand that he is unable to fight crime and corruption on his own, yet prefers to be the loner that he is.

Of course, the questions of whether Batman is needed by Gotham or by Bruce Wayne is ever-present. In fact, it seems to be the main reason that prevents Bruce Wayne from having a sustainable love-life, even if the other party involved was fighting crime with him or not. Whether Bruce actually enjoys being Batman and fighting crime in the dark is without a doubt. The control of power in the night, armed with an arsenal of gadgets, Batman is perhaps a manifestation of Bruce's dark side. This question is pressed further by the numerous psychotic villians that seem to turn up. Many have questioned that perhaps it was Batman's presence that attracted these lunatics, such as Catwoman, the Penguin, the Scarecrow and most terrifying of all, the Joker. The eternal chicken-or-the-egg issue is a valid one, considering that Gotham never had such characters before the Dark Knight showed up.

I invite Janell, Teng Soong, Tannie and other psychology-loving friends to give me a comment or 2 on Batman. It would be fun to discuss this intriguing character.

TwIsTeR's Lakers: Basketball (Part 2)

2008-12-01T10:56:00.002-08:00

Basketball is a strange game. It is a great game to watch, as everything is exposed to the viewer. Expressions are not covered by masks(unlike ice hocky, american football), player's build are exposed for all to see(unlike american football or waterpolo) and skill levels are obvious (unlike gymnastics or golf). Anyone can watch a basketball game and immediately pick out who is good and who is not, no matter what level it is played at(NBA, Olympics, neighbourhood court). Even if the person watching does not know a thing about the game.

Yet, at the same time, there is always more about basketball. No one has a complete or total picture of the game. Even the players themselves do not comprehend the game in its totality. The story of basketball cannot be told completely by statistics, unlike baseball or soccer. So while the game is being exposed to such an extent to anybody who watches the game, it seems that there is always more under the surface, like an iceberg. The simplicity, yet complex nature of the game is what makes basketball such a contradictory sport. Which may be the reason why I fell in love with it. Im equally contradictory.

Perhaps im confusing you. Let me try to explain. There are more factors within affecting the game of basketball than any other sport in the world. Lets go through some factors.

Pace
Bball is known as a fast paced game with points being scored in a hurry. However, the pace, while fast compared to golf or soccer, can change a great deal. In an NBA game a slow paced game can average as low as 70+ points to as much as 140+ points not including overtime. That is a range of almost 50 points. Almost half of what the NBA team average scores. No other sport is dictated by pace to such an extent, despite bball having the 24 sec shot-clock.

Range
What other sports has that much concerns of where you shoot from? The further you are from the basket, the harder it is to shoot. Yes, I do know that the same holds true for other sports. But what about the 3 point line? An additional point awarded for being that range, creating a whole new dimension of the game. Soccer do not award extra points if you fire in from half the field away, much as many would like to.

Fouls
Interpreting the rules of bball is an art form. Different people have different thinking of what the rules are. For example, the NBA hardly calls the traveling violation yet most school competitions are not as lenient. No other sport has that, other than the interpretation of diving in the penalty box in soccer.

Team vs Individual
Take 2 teams of any sport and put them head-to-head. Assume both team are of equal strength and talent. Can an individual just forgo the team concept and go solo against the other team and win? The answer is a big NO, except for basketball. There is a strange phenomena that can a player can just score, no matter what the defense does. Will it occur often? Nope. Bt it has happened numerous number of times to various players, regardless of skill level. Thus, it is entirely possible one man can win the entire team on his own.

I must elaborate on this further. Assume that one of the players is extraordinary while the rest are mediocre. Does he shoot a difficult shot, knowing that he has a higher chance of getting it than his teammate, even though his team mate has an easier shot? It is a problem that has plagued many great players(Micheal Jordan, Kobe). It seems that only in basketball does such a dilemma occur to such an extent.

Size
Does size affect other sports? Yes. Taller soccer players have a higher chance to header the ball, while wider waterpolo players have the girth to push around smaller players. However, in basketball, the size of the players greatly affects the game. Since the basket is put at a height, tall usually means an advantage while wider players can bully people in the post. Smaller sized players are normally quick and hard to keep up, while thin players have the finesse to squeeze through crowded spaces. In truth, no one physical aspect is better than the other. Tall does not mean you are better than shot, even with the same skills.

Offence vs Defence
Another age old problem in basketball. Why the argument, one might ask. Because, a game can be won when forgoing one or the other. A power offensive team can just overwhelm another team while playing little defence. On the other hand, tight D can constrict your opponents to the extent that they score less than you do, even if your offence is horrible. Of course you would want to be good at both. But that is seldom the case as offense and defence normally affects each other. A player focusing on defence does not usually have the same production offensively. So a focus on one aspect is usually required.

Complexity in Defence
In the world of defence, bball is more difficult to perform than any other sport. There is just too many factors to involve. Spacing, other offensive players, your own team mates, the restricted area (the dreaded 3 second rule), etc. It normally takes an NBA team years to formulate an effective defensive strategy, unlike the soccer premier league in England.

There are other factors; to write them all will make this a veeery long post, and it is long enough as it is. Other factors include numerous skill sets, positions of the players, strategies (both complex and simple), aggressiveness of the player, etc.

Im not writing this post to proclaim that basketball is the best sport in the world. That is up to the individual. IM just commenting that basketball is a diverse and complex sport, though it may seem relatively simple and straight forward to the average viewer.

To clear any misconceptions, I must state that I do not only enjoy the game of basketball. I love other sports such as badminton, soccer, waterpolo and swimming. But that exposure to other sports has me even more convinced of the diversity and complexity within the sport of basketball.

TwIsTeR's Lakers: Basketball Kakis

2008-11-29T08:05:00.000-08:00

A basketball kaki is a friend whom you can expect to play with. It may not be a frequent thing, but they are the first people on ur mind when u just feel like shooting some hoops with someone. You might know him well, or you might not, it doesnt matter. With basketball as the common language, you are friends anyway.

Some historical background about the clique that i currently play with. In JC1 there was an inter-faculty basketball competition. Made out of players who are not familiar with each other, let alone play with each other, my team, called Tian Zui, lost in the first round and got kicked out(I was depressed for days). But there was unexpected side effect, it brought serveral players together as kakis.

Marcus and Teng Soong were in that team and we played with each other frequently after the competition ended. By pure fate, we ended up playing together with my primary school friend, and my shi fu in bball basics, Zhi Feng.

The 4 of us den started inviting more and more kakis, as our small basketball troupe started to grow. I'm going to do something fun for once in this blog. Im taking each of my basketball kakis and link them to an NBA player. Those who do not know the NBA, or just plain uninterested in basketball, is best to ignore this post.

So... Roll call!!

Name:Teng Soong
Nickname: Larry Birdman
Position: Small FOrward
NBA Player:

The best offensive player on our team, sans passing, the best i could come up with for him is Dirk Nowitzki.

Lethal from distance, with a nice soft touch. Avoids contact, uses finesse, have pathetic defense, poor rebounding for their height, and have a mean mid-range jumper. Difference in shooting range though(Teng is more mid-range while Dirk is a former 3 point champion).

Name: Marcus
Nickname: I have no idea. Someone please give him one. How about the 'Paddle':P?
Position: Center
NBA Player:

Tallest player on the team and part of the founding 4.

Strong rebounder with inconsistent offense. Brilliant one moment, cold the next. Both also enjoy the occasional mid-range jumper. Difference in height(Randolph is onli 6-9, below average for his position).

Name: Zhi Feng
Nickname: the Clerk
Position: Point Guard, Shooting Guard, Small Forward
NBA Player:

Hard to choose, but Jose Calderon is the best I can come up with.

Highly efficient with very few turnovers. Both have a devastating change-of-pace move and high on-court IQ.

Name: Wenhui
Nickname: Sleepy
Position: Point Guard, Shooting Guard
NBA Player:

Almost perfect fit with Monta Ellis.

A very stylish player, coming up with sometimes-impossible shots out of nowhere. Flashy passer with high turnover rate. Less-than-average 3 point shooter. Difference lie in mid-range shooting(Monta is usually lights out).

Name: Kai Jun
Nickname: Monkey, Froggy
Position:Point Guard
NBA Player:

A difficult choice. Was either Devin Harris or Jordan Farmar.

Quick point guard. Scores in a hurry and an above-average defender. Both have fantastic ball control. Biggest difference is that Kai Jun is left handed while Ellis is right handed.

Name: Benjamin
Nickname: Rubber-band Ben
Position: Center, Power Forward
NBA Player:

Our best rebounder by far.

Powerful rebounder despite small stature for their position. Consistent outside shot. Ben, however, doesn't block shots that often.

Name: David
Nickname: Medic
Position: Point Guard, Shooting Guard
NBA Player:

Best player on the team. Period. He might disagree with the selection though.

Game changer. Can switch on or off offensively whenever he wants to. Lockdown perimeter defenders. Emotional leaders on the court. Main difference lie probably in jump height.

Name: Jin Hui
Nickname: 3 step man
Position: Center
NBA Player:

Hardest for me to choose. Once compared to the great Charles Barkley. Can't really disagree with that. However, I'm using current NBA players.

Step 1: Pass the ball to him in the inside. Step 2: He pivots. Step 3: He shoots and scores. Elton Brand is almost automatic on the key, with a variety of skills and a dominant rebounder and interior defender. Difference lie in body type.

Name: Wee Cheng
Nickname: Backstabber
Position: Shooting Guard, Small forward
NBA Player:

Quickest hands in the team. He probably already stole your ball before you even realised.

Super fast hands. Great passer with a reliable jumpshot. Difference is greatest probably in the speed.

Name: Xinhe
Nickname: Starhub
Position: Point Guard
NBA Player:

Wish he was around to play more often.

Skilled at directing the offense. Quite slow for their position. Usually available for the outside jumper.

Name: Jia Hao
Nickname: Energizer Battery
Position: Shooting Guard, Small Forward
NBA Player:

Soft spoken but high energy.

Spark plug off the bench. Strong rebounder for his position. Very quick. Reliable jumper and aggressive defender. Differ most in aggressiveness.

Name: Wenjie
Nickname: Twister, Left-hand Hooker(what a horrible nickname)
Position: Point Guard, Small forward, Power forward, Center
NBA Player:

haha... my opinion of myself. Therefore, not accurate.

Versatile but weak-minded. Tend to enjoy being in the background, content with passing, playing defence or rebounding. Both left handed. Inconsistent Shooting. Difference lie most in height. (Lamar Odom is 6-11, above average for small forwards/power forwards).

So what do you think of my selections? Disagree? Lemme know. All comparisons are done in relative to the neighbourhood court. Like the NBA scaled downwards.

TwIsTeR Insights: The Relevance of Philosophy

2008-11-27T08:45:00.000-08:00

What is the first thing that comes to mind when the word 'philosophy' comes up? Most of us would probably think of old men with weird names, like Plato or Socrates, sitting together and coming up with troublesome questions such as 'what is the meaning in life?' or 'why does the universe exist?'

It is because of this reason which why majority of people tend to shun philosophy. It is viewed as a subject without any quantitative findings, which makes most students even more uncomfortable. To make matters worse, majority of the questions asked within the realm of philosophy seems to be without any answers, unlike, say, science.

That is where the concept of philosophy is wrong. Philosophy is not a subject, it is a way of life. The answers are simply not important, it is the questions that matter, and the pursuit of these answers. Or rather the emphasis on the journey, than the destination. You do not need to know who Democritus is to be a philosopher. If you are studying about Plato, you are studying history more than philosophy.

Science is also not different from philosophy; it is the result of it. Early scientist in ancient Greece, cradle of western civilization at that time, were mainly philosophers in pursuit for the answer. Rather than trust in mythology that was persistent at that point in time as the 'true' answer of existence, they investigated nature, and science was born. The word 'philosophy' itself means 'love for wisdom' in Greek.

Philosophy does not refer to set rules. The sentence that starts with 'My philosophy is...." in itself does not make any sense. Philosophy, in fact, ignores rules. It ignores general perception, it ignores other's opinions, it ignores lifestyles and upbringing. It teaches us to break these rules in order to find that 'true' answer, impossible to find as it may be, and be better for it.

So what do I mean by philosophy is a way of life? As I have said before, the essence of philosophy is to question. Question what? To question everything. From your existence to the universe, from why your younger brother is so irritating to Death. Everything. And in doing so, you will find more meaning in the actions you perform. Brushing your teeth every morning will no longer be a routine, it would become a quest. Studying for a test wont be just another necessary thing to go through, but a chance to gain knowledge. When each action has meaning to it, you will find that your life itself will have a purpose.

I'll bet many of you would half expect me to type 'Carpe Diem!', another famous philosophy, but what i have said is true. It is ironic that while searching for answers to those important questions, as silly as each question may seem, the answers probably lie in the search itself.

Furthermore, one would also enjoy a greater sense of calm. Minor troubles do not seem to hurt as much, in fact they seem rather petty, while the joys in life are enhanced. As your life is enriched, you will view the lives of others in a different light. If only we would simply question.

"Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
the philosophy which does not laugh
and the greatness which does not bow to children."
-Kahlil Gibran

TwIsTeR's Lakers: Basketball (Part 1)

2008-11-23T07:52:00.000-08:00

My love affair with strange sport of tossing an orange ball into a tall hoop started when I was 8 yrs old. My mom had bought a ball, knowing that she has to expose me to different sports to find my niche. It was a cheap, rubber ones, painted in red, white and blue. When I touched the ball, at that age, I felt like it was a part of me, instantly merging, integrating into my very being. I couldn't wait to test out the new toy.

My mom drove me down to a neighbourhood court, and watched quietly as i attempted to throw the ball in. The hoops seemed so tall, an unattainable goal. But it only made me more determined. Again and again, the ball went up. Some missed the rim totally, and some clanged hard off. And there were those oh-so-close shots that just wont go in.

I've seen people hit shots like it was nothing and I knew I was weaker in skill and strength. But hey, the ball nearly went in didn't it? That means I was nearly as good as them, doesn't it? That was how i thought of my skills when I reflected on the small shoot around. I had only needed to practise a bit more, before I will enter the league of the pros such as those in secondary school.

However, that, of course, was not going to the the case. I played ball constantly by myself after the first encounter, but never really found myself a good basketball kaki until I was Primary 5 when I met up with Zhi Feng. He taught me the basics, and we played together with Li wei, another classmate of ours. We progressed steadily; Zhi Feng went to the basketball team at the Chinese High, now called Hwa Chong Institution; I practiced on my own, since my own basketball school team's training clashed with my swimming training.

We became competent in the game. I rose to the top of the hierarchy in the neighbourhood court, using superior speed and height to beat most people. I then travelled around with a ball, looking for more and more people to play with or against. My dismal defence start to pick up as I went to courts in Hougang, Buona Vista, Ulu Pandan, Marine Parade, Bedok, Tampines, Jurong, Clemnti and countless other courts I cant remember where.

The people I played with were the best part. I saw gangsters that play with each other. I saw that they can be honest and caring, yet malicious and brutal. I met noobs and taught them what I knew. I was awestruck by girls with skills a thousand times higher than mine. I was stunned guys towering 2 meters above me. I met up with foreigners that have no language platform similar to mine except for basketball. I played one-on-one with blacks from the US and got elbowed, kneed left, right and center for it.

My brother, influenced by me and the stylish aspect of the game, joined in the fun. We had characterized 'hood players into different categories: Noobs, godbies, peers, god-pros and pros.

Noobs would be those with limited or no experience in the game. The causual players that are just in it for fun. Win or lose, it doesn't matter.

Godbies have limited-to-average experience on the court, and think they can beat anyone. They clothes are always stylish, and they always try to be the leader on the court, either by barking instructions or by trying to score the most points, usually trying to score against multiple opponents. Then enjoy bullying noobs on the court, for it makes them feel good about themselves. They wont take a loss for an answer, and would almost surely will blame someone else for it. As you can see, I hate this group the most, and they are, unfortunately, the predominant group in most courts.

Peers are people with decent standard, and choose not to brag about it. My favourite group to play with by far as the games are usually competitive and fun. They are usually willing to share the basketball and are not above taking any advice.

God-pros are the same as godbies, except that they are much better in terms of skill. they are the people who layup, shoot or dunk over your head, and would make sure you remember it. And you cant do anything about it cos they are usually just that good. The worst kind in all the groups, and thankfully not many.

Pros same as peers, except they are much more skilled. If a god-pro rubs his skill in your face, call a pro friend to help you trash the guy's ass, so you can see the look on his face.

Looking back now, it seems laughable that a small rubber ball was able to propel me into the world of 'hood bball. It is quite remarkable actually.

TwIsTeR Insights: 10 tips to maintain a relationship

2008-11-19T01:04:00.000-08:00

If you go to a bookshelf on relationships, you will notice there are lots of books on how to start a relationship and how to maintain a marriage, both of which I have zero experience. Yet, in 5 yrs of beautiful(and not-so-beautiful) togetherness with my girlfriend has taught me a trick or ten on how to keep the engine running. But i must stress that the relationships im talking about are the serious kind, not the type where you get tog to see what it is lik or just plain infatuation.

In romance, after u get the girl or guy, there are 3 phases. There may be more, but i probably have not reached that stage yet.

First is the Quarreling Stage. This is the roller coaster ride where couples come into terms with having a girlfriend/boyfriend. It is when couples straighten out issues among themselves. The issues will vary, from the important ones such as physical relationship(sex), money(who pays for the meal?), communication (why you never call me last night?), religion(Church? what is that?) to the petty issues (Why did you step on my toe?... You have bad breath...Can you stop tapping you foot...etc)

Many couples do not last past the first stage, which may take up to a month or more depending on how long the quarrels can be. The best advice to most couples is to ride it out, and settle them as quick as possible.

When you can get past that portion, you will reach the blissful Honeymoon stage. This is the best time in a relationship, where quarrels are few and the benefits of going through hell start to come. That is not to say no major quarrels will turn up. This of course depends if u exited the roller coaster feeling sick or thrilled.

This however brings up the long-run issues, where couples start to ponder about the future with their partners. Issues, such as attitude, education or occupation, previous accomplishments, third parties(or ex-es), marriagability and of course parents, start to arise. But since these issues take time to solve, it is not as much a rollercoaster ride as the previous stage. However, the issues are serious nonetheless, and couples must take proactive action in solving them.

The 3rd stage is what i like to call the Plateau stage, where the relationship start to slow to a standstill. Because of the slow pace of the previous stage, and when one gets used to the presence of the other, people tend to take the other for granted. In this stage, the problems and negative traits within the relationship seem all the more glaring and the grass rapidly seems greener in the outside.

Many have fallen prey. Call it the 7-year itch, as the saying goes. A party has to start being imaginative with the relationship and his/her partners. This is the time when couples should try going to places that are new for dates, or anything outside the norm of repetition and routine.

Without further ado, I will give 10 quick tips to all those with a Loved One out there:

1. Set down rules

At the start of the relationship, settle down a few rules that both parties can agree upon and keep at it. If you break a rule, face the music. Rules can be things like no sex till marriage, settling of quarrels before we go to bed, never mention breakup until all solutions have been exhausted, etc (btw, these are some of the rules in my own relationship)

2. Compromise.

This is a hard thing for many, as it is hard to draw a line on what is fair and what is not. But trust me, if the issue does not go to either one's way after an extended period of time, a compromise is for the best.

3. Change yourself, but not too much.

Similar to the previous one, but applied for the longer-run. To change yourself shows a dedication to the relationship, and adding oil into the engine. However, we must always maintain a certain amount of self. Learn where to put the foot down as to when changes should go. If the changes are good for you, go for it, if not discuss with your partner on why you should change. (i.e. If your partner is telling you to stop smoking, just stop. If the partner is asking you to change your fashion sense, you can choose to put your foot down here.)

4. Settle arguments as quickly as possible.

Quarreling is essential for the relationship. If you do not quarrel with your partner, you are NOT in a relationship. However, extended quarrels are detrimental to a relationship's well-being. It wears down emotionally on all parties involved and generally not healthy. Settle it fast, either by giving in, compromise or hard sell, whichever is the best option to maintain the relationship. Extended arguments generally lead to breakups.

5. Respect your partner for their decisions

There will be decision where you just cannot agree with her. It may not be anything to do with you, but you feel like he/she is heading down the wrong road i.e her job. Trust your partner to do the right thing and suck it up, esp if he/she is being stubborn about it.

6. Communicate honestly

I know some out there may think that there must be some secrets among couples and I say it depends, on your partner. On things where your partner is being obviously unreasonable, perhaps it is best to keep it from him/her. However, if the partner can take it, tell it upfront, with the details included. Leave out sarcasms, raised voices when communicating about serious topics.

7.Know the differences in male and female

Men and women think and feel differently. and this would affect the relationship. Women are generally more vocal about their feelings (men just shut up and listen) and men usually do not voice out their displeasure or discomfort(women just shut up and show your support quietly). Other differences include solving of problems, ego in a different fields, handling of parents, sex, etc. Find out more about your partner before you judge him/her as he/she may not have the same way of doing things as you.

8. Skinship

I'm not talking about sex specifically. But it is shown that a couple with greater physical intimacy usually last longer. 'Skinship' is another way of communicating love, perhaps the strongest way. This may range from the hugs and kisses to actual sex. However, it is vital not to treat skinship as entertainment but as communication, and both parties must realise that. Progress slowly; if you are serious about having a sustained relationship, there is no hurry. But progress nonetheless.

9. "Break up" is a phrase only used as a last resort

And by last resort, I do really mean last resort. Normally that is not the case, as couples end the relationship too early, and realise it only after the deed has been done. So when should a couple break up? Only when one party does not love, or respect, the other anymore.

10. Coming to a decision, it is equal parts Heart and Head.

It is good to be passionate in a relationship. However, if the it is a serious issue, to think using your heart, ie to be overly emotional, is bound to lead to serious consequences. Use you Head when thinking through problems, rationally discuss with your partner. On the other hand, do not be cold to him/her and show that you do care. Equal parts Heart and Head.Those who are overly emotional, usually girls, try to curb it and think rationally, and those who are too calculative, usually guys, open your Heart more than your partner.

I do hope these 10 tips has helped you in your respective romance. Good luck!

TwIsTeR's Lakers: WWE and the NBA

2008-11-13T10:13:00.002-08:00

Can't we all just get along?

TwIsTeR Truths: Religion (Part 3)

2008-11-12T10:30:00.000-08:00

Those who have read my previous post may have noticed that I left out the elaboration on the 'god' part. Reason why is because that part resides a little closer to my heart. To elaborate on it would reveal my view on the divine, which would be egoistical in a supposed unbiased piece.

I do not belong to any religion. Which is no way means that I am not a religious person. Does that confuse you? Let me explain.

While I did explain that the 'man' part and the 'god' part are equally important pieces in any structured religion, it my view that the 'man' part can be ignored. Not because I do not like traditions, regulations(ok, mayb not this) or places of worship, but because of the fact this stuff often gets in the way of objectivity when concerning religion. But in the end, I firmly believe that the belief on the 'man' portion is left up to the individual, as long as the two parts do not mix.

So the important question: Do i believe in God? The answer is yes. Which god, however, I can and cannot say. I would say all the Gods and none of them. I just believe in a higher power.

Why? No, not because of faith, as you know by now im not a believer of blind faith. No, not because of upbringing. I come from a family composed of free-thinkers, even though I did go to a christian kindergarden and secondary school. Nope, none of those. The answer is logic.

Logic? How did I come to the conclusion that God exist through logic?

Well, the answer had to be derived on unbiased grounds, without assumption. So i cannot go and assume god exists because i fear death and require the comfort that he does exist. Even though i admittedly was spurred to find an ans by precisely that reason. So, after searching Men for years, i found the answer in nature and science.

It is strange that im eloping seemingly 2 extreme faculties together. I believe that science exists because of god. The existence of God is generally residing in miracles, something which the scientific faculty scoffs at. But the result of science is, to me, a miracle in itself.

How does millions of cells, fuse into tissue and systems work cohesively to form a complex lifeform? And from that lifeform, develops intelligence to study, analyse and form conclusions?How on earth did the Hydrogen cycle just fall into place? Together with the nitrogen cycle? By coincidence? Impossible, the odds are way too great to comprehend. How does the elements of nature fit so perfectly into a nicely formed jigsaw puzzle in this place called earth, while physics run chaotic in the chaotic universe around it?

Logically, it cannot be done. Yet, it is there, miracles before our very own eyes while we search for men who walk on water. My conclusion therefore lies in an external power, changing the odds, making these miracles possible, allowing life to exist.

Furthermore, I also believe that life has to have a higher existence then contribution as fertilizer to the ground. We live years of intelligent life, of struggling, of joy, of pain. There has to be a higher purpose, otherwise, there is no point in living in general. Earth my and as well be Mars.

To finish off, I would like to quote from one of my favourite visual novels in Watchmen by Alan Moore.

Dr Manhatten, a near-godlike being, is being persuaded by his ex-girlfriend, who is crying, to come back from Mars to save Earth. He is convinced. When asked why, he replied,

"Thermo-Dynamic miracles... Events with odds against so astronomical they're effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing. And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive; meeting; siring this precise son; that exact daughter...

until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged.

To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold...

that is the crowning unlikelihood.

The thermo-dynamic miracle.

But if me, my birth, if that's a thermo-dynamic miracle... I mean, you could say that about anybody in the world!

Yes

Anybody in the world.

But the world is so full of people, so crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace and we forget...

I forget.

We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from another's vantage point, as if new, it may still take the breath away.

Come... Dry your eyes, for you are life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg; the clay in which the forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints clearly.

Dry your eyes...

and let's go home."

"As far as we can discern,
the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning
in the darkness of mere being"
-C.G. Jung

TwIsTeR Insights: Religion (Part 2)

2008-11-08T08:09:00.000-08:00

Many of you have heard this story. I think it is worth repeating.

A man was stranded on a rooftop in a huge flood. And what a flood it was. With such strong currents, anyone would have been swept away should he try swimming. The man, however, was a pious believer of the Catholic faith, and was not shaken by the circumstance.

A rescue boat came, shouting for him to climb on board. He refused, saying 'God will save me'. Hindered by the strong currents, the rescue boat had no choice but to leave him be.

A rescue helicopter came. 'Quickly, grab the rope!' the rescue team shouted. The man shouted back, 'Don't worry about me! God will save me!' Due to the strong winds, the helicopter had no option but to leave him there.

The man, predictably, died in the flood. When he died, He asked God, 'God, why didn't you help me?' God replied,'My friend, I sent you a rescue boat and a rescue helicopter to save you, but you refused. What was I to do?'

From my previous post, I probably led you to believe that I do not believe in God or in a religion. Honestly, that cannot be further from the truth. But more about me later.

When the Da Vinci Code was published, it created an uproar from pissed off Catholics. For myself, I found it an entertaining, if fictional, writing. Yes, I know that stating that the facts are true when it is not is unethical. But, if anything, it revealed to me more about each individual's view on religion, particularly their own.

I understand why the catholics were angry about the book(although Dan Brown published another book putting catholicism in a better light in Angels and Demons). Dan Brown underlined Catholicism's ugly past, like dragging skeletons out of the closet for the world to see, using falsities, half-truths and whole truths to entice the expose even more.

However, the basic underlying points in Dan brown's book is relatively true. Religion indeed does have a beginning, normally as an occult with esoteric interests. A religion's rise to power is normally met with large resistance against the mainstream beliefs, typically leading to bloodshed.

A good example will be the religion of Islam. It is a relatively new religion, in being for a mere 2000 years, a considerably short time for a mainstream religion. Yet, presently, it is the second largest religion in the world, constituting about 1.8 billion muslims.

So if you should follow Islam's rapid rise to power in 2000 years, you would read about a huge amount of bloodshed, from assassinations to the fight for Jerusalem. The same can also be said for Christianity.

So the thing i wanted to highlight to you is the two different sides in the nature of religion in general. So what separates the 2 sides? To put it simply- man and God.

Let me try to explain. Religion is really made up those 2 components. Yet, many inside the religion, or out of it, cannot differentiate the 2. Unable to distinguish one from the other will only lead to a flawed perception in their religion which in turn leads to the rose-tinted glasses.

So, how to distinguish the 2? It is rather simple, actually. For the man portion, it involves the rules, rituals, the traditions and the places of worship. Up to this point, many of you are probably thinking: Isn't that the whole part of religion already?

If you are thinking like that, your perception is already flawed. Lets take a common man-made item that is normally confused with the 'God' portion: the Bible.

The Bible is Men's oldest publication, translated the largest number of times in a variety of languages, read all over the world and quoted countless number of times that it will make Shakespeare grow green in envy. However, the Bible did not drop from the sky. It was not written by god's own hands. It is actually a collection of stories, collected from various wise men, or prophets, and compiled, edited and subsequently published. it was written in a multitude of languages, mainly Hebrew, Aramaic and even Greek, thus requiring translation into a common language.

Therefore, the Bible is a man-made product. And men are liable to make mistakes as I have mentioned in Socratic Irony. So forgive my skepticism when I do not believe that a man built an ark with help from God, to rescue God's Creation from a huge torrential flood. To me, the Bible is merely an inspiring guide, available to anyone, regardless of religion. Should anyone take what the Bible says as pure fact, is a faithful fool.

Okay, so the question comes again: What is the point of making repeated blasphemous remarks? Let me ask you this: If your priest told you to sacrifice your life in the name of God to bomb a mosque in Sudan, will you do it?

If yes, pls stay away from me. If no, like many rational christians, then you are listening to the 'God' side of religion, not the 'man' side. To follow the other path would put yourself to work for power-hungry men, not the all-powerful being.

This point is normally followed by: Then what is the point of having churches then? We my and as well pray at the sanctuary and convenience of our home, since the church is a 'man's' side of the equation.

To answer this question, I will tell you what my aunt told me before. The church as a place of worship is not the primary purpose, since true prayer can be done any place, any time. The church is a place where a community can gather to celebrate God together. Thus, by interacting with 'Men' around you, will you truly know god, which brings me back to the above story.

I believe the 'man' portion of religion is just as important as the 'god' portion. The problem is distinguishing the two, and make your own ethical judgments based on that, instead of blind faith.

TwIsTeR Insights: Religion (Part 1)

2008-11-04T04:51:00.000-08:00

Religion is a strange subject. Rarely does even mentioning the subject evoke such an emotional response. What more a careless statement? This post could very well land me in jail should even 1 phrase, no 1 word, be misinterpreted. Misinterpreted u ask? Yes, because while I do not belong to any religion, I carry no specific discrimination to any specific religion. So any perception that I am so is misinterpretation.

I'll let you in onto my very first argument with my girlfriend. I had this theory which i told her, and started to regret doing so almost immediately. I said that I believe that free-thinkers, people without a religion, have a more objective view on religion, as opposed to people within the religion. My thinking was that people within the religion will be, in small part or large, will be affected by bias when it comes to viewing other people's religion, let alone their own religion. Boy did she fly off the handle. Let me inform you, my girlfriend is not a very staunch catholic, and is rather tolerant of criticism, yet we had a very quiet evening tt day.

Did what i say make any sense? I think it did. The reason why religions clash with each other so often, is partially because of this 'rose-tainted glasses' perspective. Each religion tends to view that their religion is the 'best'. Yes, that is generalising. I agree that there are members within the religion that do not have such a perception, but such people are rare. Most have the feeling that his/her religion is the 'right' one, the 'true' one. Which is why the radical view of other religion's members to be infidels are actually present in the moderates. Maybe not to such an extent where you will be bombing buildings, but more like soft whisperings at the back of the head.

So, is there a way to change this perspective? Yes, there is. But it involves in a change of perception of the individual's own religion, in order to be more tolerant of others. This is no easy task, since religion is bonded with one's core, lik a central pillar. To see religion in a different way is to demolish that pillar, and rebuild it in a different way. Difficult for some, near impossible for others, depending on how staunch they are.

This allows little room for error, in a world with religious diversity. This is especially so when countries rule from a religious standpoint. This allows lesser chance of cooperation from the get-go, the rose-tinted glasses preventing any objective decision to be made. Countries such as Israel, Palestine and even the United States have had confrontations with countries, because they feel that it is their divine right to do so, though they may claim otherwise. For example, the war on Terrorism by the U.S. may not be motivated by purely benign reasons.

This, ironically, supports the realist paradigm in international relations, which has been the predominant paradigm for thousands of years. Religion, of course, provides many positives aspects on the individual level, such as motivation to live, faith, hope, kindness. HOwever, collectively in a larger scale, such as communities and countries, religion simply cannot co-exist together. Why? Because of people's perception of their own religion. Is it flawed? To me, yes, and I will discuss this further next time.

TwIsTeR Ramblings: Friendship

2008-11-03T08:34:00.000-08:00

Just had a very entertaining conversation with Claire, an old colleague from my CPF days(before army). Here is how I knew her. When i saw her, i was intrigued by her overall looks, complete with funky red-rimmed specs. Nope, not love at first sight tt kind of thing, just intrigued. Bt we talked very little at our time in CPF, although apparently I left a good impression on her(i suspect flattery). But we did exchange emails and it was through msn that we started to talk, as if we are old frens. In fact, she was the one who convinced me to enter Banking and Finance.

Mayb we already were already good friends. Which is why i felt it strange. On how the impact of the internet can actually strengthen relationships between people who hav hardly met, or even met at all. What constitutes a friendship,or rather what creates friendship, if it is not face-to-face interaction? After pondering on this question for a while, I did not, could not, come to a satisfactory answer. Which is why this is a TwIsTeR Ramblings and not TwIsTeR Insights- Im just rambling out my thinking.

First of i must set the context straight here. Im not toking about casual 'friends' or acquaintances. Im not toking about the people you just say 'Hi' and 'Bye' to (which is what Claire and I were when we were colleagues). Im toking abt the special bond that exists between you and that other person. No, not love, at least not that type of love, or lust, jus pure plain platonic friendship. That friend is one who you can tell ur true feelings to, one that you can feel comfortable with, spoken or even with just the mere presence.

So what constitutes that friendship? Must there be interaction involved, internet or otherwise? I think not. Lemme explain. Imagine this: 2 students studying together for an examination together. They dont know each other. One forgets to bring the oh-so-important calculator. The other lends the forgetful one an extra calculator, without a word. They enter the examination hall, and leave as friends. Has it occured to you? It has for me, so i know it is true. The bond was already been built, through a small token of kindness, and should the 2 meet n speak to each other again, they will realise that they have become frens.

The mistake is thinking that it is the speaking that triggered that friendship, and not the action of lending the calculator. True, the 2 may not meet again, or speak again after the event and the bond will fizzle out. But that does not mean the bond was not there in the first place.

So, back to the question: What constitutes a friendship? It is sad that sum people freely, carelessly call ppl their friends. And yet, these friends take advantage of them, talk behind their back, etc. in a purposeful, spiteful manner. With friends like this, who needs enemies? So the title of friendship cannot be freely given, even if one wants to.
Because, if the bond is absent, you can call the relationship what you want, but it is not friendship.

So the answer is not either the 2. You cant call a relationship a friendship if it is one-sided; interactions, while it may help the friendship) it doesnt cause it. Could it be shared interest, and therefore creation of a bond? I highyly doubt it, as friends who are totally different from each other does exist.

My theory, while far from a conclusive argument, is that friendship is a subset of love, or vice versa. It is strange putting intangible values such as love and friendship into a mathematical type of scenario such as subsets, but one cannot argue the 2 are closely related. So to answer what causes friendship, or what constitues friendship is probably the same as what causes love?

If that is the theory, then that is where the questioning stops, since is a mystery for even the best psychologists. If we could find out what causes love, we can manufacture love, something which is impossible to do. Perhaps the best answer is that it just happens, and just enjoy it, appreciate it.

P.S. To my friends, thank you for your guidance and your love. Thank you for listening, for giving, for confessing, for telling the truth.I hope that we may remain as friends, for even if time tears us apart, friendship still binds us indefinitely.

" A friend is one to whom one may pour out all the contents of one's heart, chaff and grain together, knowing that the gentlest of hands will take and sift it, keep what is worth keeping and with a breath of kindness blow the rest away."
- Arabian Proverb

TwIsTeR Truths: Personality Test

2008-11-01T07:54:00.000-07:00

Took a personality test that Janell recommended. Dunno how true it is though.

Introverted (I) 51.35% Extroverted (E) 48.65%
Intuitive (N) 53.66% Sensing (S) 46.34%
Thinking (T) 53.85% Feeling (F) 46.15%

Perceiving (P) 66.67% Judging (J) 33.33%

Explanation (From what i know):
Introversion vs extroversion is understandable enough.

Intuitive vs Sensing describes the way we perceive information, either through intuition(instincts) or our senses(our 5 senses).

Thinking vs Feeling is how we make decisions, either through objective logic or subjective feelings.

Judging vs Perceiving is how we deal with life on a day-to-day basis. Organised and purposeful(Judging) or flexible and diverse(Perceiving). According to Janell, girls are usually a J type while guys are the P type.

So, lets continue...

INTP - "Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population.

Enneagram Test Results

Type 1	Perfectionism	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	36%
Type 2	Helpfulness	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	56%
Type 3	Image Awareness	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	56%
Type 4	Sensitivity	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	33%
Type 5	Detachment	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	63%
Type 6	Anxiety	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	40%
Type 7	Adventurousness	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	63%
Type 8	Aggressiveness	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	63%
Type 9	Calmness	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	80%

Your main type is 9
Your variant is sexual

type	score	type behavior motivation
9	24	I must be peaceful and easy to get along with to be happy.
5	19	I must be knowledgable and independent to be happy.
7	19	I must be high and entertained to be happy.
8	19	I must be strong and in control to be happy.

Main type	Variant

I'm not sure... but doesnt this personality test reflect what i said abt in my post "soul of a Gemini?"(Look at the borderline percentages)? I think my friends and family have a better judge of that. But this personality test realli did give me a better perspective of myself, except the variant part. What the f@#$ does that even mean? Any thoughts?

More info on my type at personalitypage.com:

Portrait of an INTP - Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving
(Introverted Thinking with Extraverted Intuition)

The Thinker

As an INTP, your primary mode of living is focused internally, where you deal with things rationally and logically. Your secondary mode is external, where you take things in primarily via your intuition.

INTPs live in the world of theoretical possibilities. They see everything in terms of how it could be improved, or what it could be turned into. They live primarily inside their own minds, having the ability to analyze difficult problems, identify patterns, and come up with logical explanations. They seek clarity in everything, and are therefore driven to build knowledge. They are the "absent-minded professors", who highly value intelligence and the ability to apply logic to theories to find solutions. They typically are so strongly driven to turn problems into logical explanations, that they live much of their lives within their own heads, and may not place as much importance or value on the external world. Their natural drive to turn theories into concrete understanding may turn into a feeling of personal responsibility to solve theoretical problems, and help society move towards a higher understanding.

INTPs value knowledge above all else. Their minds are constantly working to generate new theories, or to prove or disprove existing theories. They approach problems and theories with enthusiasm and skepticism, ignoring existing rules and opinions and defining their own approach to the resolution. They seek patterns and logical explanations for anything that interests them. They're usually extremely bright, and able to be objectively critical in their analysis. They love new ideas, and become very excited over abstractions and theories. They love to discuss these concepts with others. They may seem "dreamy" and distant to others, because they spend a lot of time inside their minds musing over theories. They hate to work on routine things - they would much prefer to build complex theoretical solutions, and leave the implementation of the system to others. They are intensely interested in theory, and will put forth tremendous amounts of time and energy into finding a solution to a problem with has piqued their interest.

INTPs do not like to lead or control people. They're very tolerant and flexible in most situations, unless one of their firmly held beliefs has been violated or challenged, in which case they may take a very rigid stance. The INTP is likely to be very shy when it comes to meeting new people. On the other hand, the INTP is very self-confident and gregarious around people they know well, or when discussing theories which they fully understand.

The INTP has no understanding or value for decisions made on the basis of personal subjectivity or feelings. They strive constantly to achieve logical conclusions to problems, and don't understand the importance or relevance of applying subjective emotional considerations to decisions. For this reason, INTPs are usually not in-tune with how people are feeling, and are not naturally well-equiped to meet the emotional needs of others.

The INTP may have a problem with self-aggrandizement and social rebellion, which will interfere with their creative potential. Since their Feeling side is their least developed trait, the INTP may have difficulty giving the warmth and support that is sometimes necessary in intimate relationships. If the INTP doesn't realize the value of attending to other people's feelings, he or she may become overly critical and sarcastic with others. If the INTP is not able to find a place for themself which supports the use of their strongest abilities, they may become generally negative and cynical. If the INTP has not developed their Sensing side sufficiently, they may become unaware of their environment, and exhibit weakness in performing maintenance-type tasks, such as bill-paying and dressing appropriately.

For the INTP, it is extremely important that ideas and facts are expressed correctly and succinctly. They are likely to express themselves in what they believe to be absolute truths. Sometimes, their well thought-out understanding of an idea is not easily understandable by others, but the INTP is not naturally likely to tailor the truth so as to explain it in an understandable way to others. The INTP may be prone to abandoning a project once they have figured it out, moving on to the next thing. It's important that the INTP place importance on expressing their developed theories in understandable ways. In the end, an amazing discovery means nothing if you are the only person who understands it.

The INTP is usually very independent, unconventional, and original. They are not likely to place much value on traditional goals such as popularity and security. They usually have complex characters, and may tend to be restless and temperamental. They are strongly ingenious, and have unconventional thought patterns which allows them to analyze ideas in new ways. Consequently, a lot of scientific breakthroughs in the world have been made by the INTP.

The INTP is at his best when he can work on his theories independently. When given an environment which supports his creative genius and possible eccentricity, the INTP can accomplish truly remarkable things. These are the pioneers of new thoughts in our society.

Jungian functional preference ordering:

Dominant: Introverted Thinking
Auxiliary: Extraverted Intuition
Tertiary: Introverted Sensing
Inferior: Extraverted Feeling