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 Truths & TwIsTeR Ramblings: This Is Me Ranting
TwIsTeR Ramblings: Not for the Jia Kang Dang (Even though I am one)
the mrbrown show: army fighting language
Posted using ShareThis
Im a sucker for classics.
Listen to the lyrics of this one properly.
I guess this post could be very, very long.
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...
TwIsTeR's Lakers & TwIsTeR Truths: Basketball Memories
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.
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.
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.
I laughed like hell when I saw this. Hope Techvixen will see this.
Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard
TwIsTeR Ramblings: Finance and Economics (or 2 Idiots Trying to Act Smart.)
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.
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.
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
I oso wan to prepare a doc to compare all the different policies, and to what extend each better or minimal impact
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..
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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
Cool, look forward to it... tho I prob shld spend more time studying n less time going facebook and replying your crap..
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.
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?
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....
Instinct is intelligence incapable of self-consciousness.
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.
TwIsTeR Ramblings: Immortal Ideas (or the mortal desconstruction of them)
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)
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.
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".
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.
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.
- Arabian Proverb
This is for those who have read my storyblog.
my brother has written a small side story to the one we are writing currently. Same setting, different timeline. I'm wondering if he is going to continue on it. Highly doubt it though, considering the slacker that he is. But the character is different, i guess because it was my brother's concept unlike the rest of the 13 (sorry, bro. Dont mean to brag).
