Yesterday, I went for a standup comedy show staged by a famous American Hollywood comedian. The test for a great comedian, is always a live show. He was really good live. Props for that.....slapstick not exactly my perfect cup of tea, but he was pretty damn good.
Which got me thinking about humour. See, I think funny people fall into 6 categories:
1) button-pushers
2) manic-depressive (pple in these 2 categories are somehow almost never mutually exclusive, but need to push buttons to create a funny line. For e.g. excessive "your mother" and "cunt and fuck" jokes)
3) outrageous (can be clean, dirty. They don't push too much buttons but are just so factually funny they are brillant. I think they are more versatile then the above 2 types)
4) The clueless joke (oh dear)
5) The trying joke (clueless)
6) The trying joke (say another word and I'll slap yr face!)
You get your kicks from people in categories 1 - 3. Fine. But let me elaborate more on those in Category 5 & 6. One of the saddest things in life is a self-proclaimed funnyman. And they both belong to Category 5 & 6. But there's a key difference between them.
Category 5ers are those who try to be funny but fail miserably in their desperate attempt. But you see the sincerity and such wide-eyed genine effort that it's almost wrong to disappoint them. So, you pat them on their heads, pacify them and act like you're almost geniunely tickled. They'll buy it.
Category 6ers are those who try, are not clueless and yet, expect a somewhat half decent intellectual response to their sad sad joke. Usually, these righteous self-proclaimed "look at me" types try to antagonize you to illict a legit response, that I swear, out of pity, there are many times I try not to stare open-mouth while trying to think if I should even attempt to respond.
Category 6ers. Do the world a favour and stop antagonizing simple folk like us, becos it's not only lame, it's tiring and it reeks of your lack of self-confidence.
My favourites are Category 3 & 4. Good day!
Friday, February 18, 2011
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The seller shouldn't blame the buyer for hoarding, especially if they are selling and selling! (whether it's cheap chickens or US dollars)!
Recent IMF figures showed Beijing had currency reserves of US$2.447 trillion, the largest in the world and nearly 30% of the global total.
Washington maintains that China purchases large amounts of dollars to keep the yuan artificially low, which distorts global trade by boosting Chinese exports.
So the world and U.S. especially, is blaming China for keeping the yuan low. But I'm wondering, the U.S. is happily minting so much USD and selling U.S. treasuries to solve their domestic structural problems (basically, the subprime crisis); what do they expect the world and China to do? Not buy USD? Of coz they're gonna buy and stash it up (even in biscuit tins, without interest, hahaha). Anything to hold bargaining power by holding onto US dollars.
China maintains they will move the exchange rate gradually. And I think they are right. Whether or not they mean it....it......it. bleah...;P
Hahaha. Look, I just think it's a cycle. At some point, China too, is gonna feel inflationary heat and buying power will go back to the U.S. since the Coach bags are getting cheaper and cheaper. Then as US dollars become cheaper and cheaper, manufacturing jobs will go back to the States anyway. In fact, some Chinese companies are already opening factories in the U.S. and hiring Americans!
Washington maintains that China purchases large amounts of dollars to keep the yuan artificially low, which distorts global trade by boosting Chinese exports.
So the world and U.S. especially, is blaming China for keeping the yuan low. But I'm wondering, the U.S. is happily minting so much USD and selling U.S. treasuries to solve their domestic structural problems (basically, the subprime crisis); what do they expect the world and China to do? Not buy USD? Of coz they're gonna buy and stash it up (even in biscuit tins, without interest, hahaha). Anything to hold bargaining power by holding onto US dollars.
China maintains they will move the exchange rate gradually. And I think they are right. Whether or not they mean it....it......it. bleah...;P
Hahaha. Look, I just think it's a cycle. At some point, China too, is gonna feel inflationary heat and buying power will go back to the U.S. since the Coach bags are getting cheaper and cheaper. Then as US dollars become cheaper and cheaper, manufacturing jobs will go back to the States anyway. In fact, some Chinese companies are already opening factories in the U.S. and hiring Americans!
Climate Change - Finger Pointing Not Constructive
10 Oct 2010
UN Climate change conference 2010 - Tianjin, China
So I'm at home and reading the papers on a Sun afternoon. At the conference, China hit back yesterday at US claims that it was shirking in the fight against climate change, likening criticisms from the Obama administration's top climate envoy to a pig preening itself in a mirror.
Mr Todd Stern (US chief climate negotiator), in remarks at a US university, said Beijing could not insist that rich nations take on fixed targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions while China and other big emerging nations adopt only voluntary domestic goals.
Mr Su Wei (senior Chinese climate change negotiator) countered that Mr Stern's claims were a diversion from the US failure to make big cuts in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases causing global warming.
China is the world's top greenhouse gas polluter after the U.S.
"In fact, it amounts to doing nothing themselves and then shirking responsibility. They want to place the blame on China and other developing countries", Mr Su told reporters in Tianjin. He likened the US criticism to Zhubajie, a pig featured in the Chinese classic Journey To The West, which in a traditional saying preens itself in a mirror.
"It has no measures or actions to show for itself, and instead, it criticises China, which is actively taking measures and actions," Mr Su said of the US.
Erm, I don't get it. Both are the top greenhouse gas polluter in the world. Who cares what categorization of the type of country they are. Can't someone just recategorize China as not emerging and already merged? Then China would have to have fixed targets to cut greenhouse emission, alongside the U.S.
BOTH, U.S. and China, should have COMMON fixed targets to cut emissions. And quit squabbling!
UN Climate change conference 2010 - Tianjin, China
So I'm at home and reading the papers on a Sun afternoon. At the conference, China hit back yesterday at US claims that it was shirking in the fight against climate change, likening criticisms from the Obama administration's top climate envoy to a pig preening itself in a mirror.
Mr Todd Stern (US chief climate negotiator), in remarks at a US university, said Beijing could not insist that rich nations take on fixed targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions while China and other big emerging nations adopt only voluntary domestic goals.
Mr Su Wei (senior Chinese climate change negotiator) countered that Mr Stern's claims were a diversion from the US failure to make big cuts in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases causing global warming.
China is the world's top greenhouse gas polluter after the U.S.
"In fact, it amounts to doing nothing themselves and then shirking responsibility. They want to place the blame on China and other developing countries", Mr Su told reporters in Tianjin. He likened the US criticism to Zhubajie, a pig featured in the Chinese classic Journey To The West, which in a traditional saying preens itself in a mirror.
"It has no measures or actions to show for itself, and instead, it criticises China, which is actively taking measures and actions," Mr Su said of the US.
Erm, I don't get it. Both are the top greenhouse gas polluter in the world. Who cares what categorization of the type of country they are. Can't someone just recategorize China as not emerging and already merged? Then China would have to have fixed targets to cut greenhouse emission, alongside the U.S.
BOTH, U.S. and China, should have COMMON fixed targets to cut emissions. And quit squabbling!
Monday, January 25, 2010
Is Your Heart In The Right Place
Is It Important Enough
Before we go further, I think one has to ask themselves, is this sentence important in the first place. Or you're the type to "see what happens". Sometimes, it's ok to see what happens, but chances are, everything will become just that. The results are kind of lacklustre. If a person sees this sentence as important, chances are, they will fight to get there and stay there. Example, I want to be a good parent (see what happens attitude) VS the other person "I want to be a good parent" (and shows up for every school event, takes an active interest and participates in their kids' lives, etc). Or an employee who goes to work and (see what happens) VS "I want to do well" and goes the extra mile. Logic will tell you which person will do better. This attitude predetermines everything.
Knowing & Defining It
Now, if one determines that it is important to acknowledge this sentence, then you have to determine the "right places". The "right places" mean different things to different people. For some people, the "right places" can mean, a good career. For some, it can mean, being a good friend. Or it can even be as small as "I'm a good cook". Are you there? Are you doing the things to get you there?
Expectations Before Getting There
When you've defined it, you have to see if it's realistic. For example, if you're like 1.60 meters and want to play in NBA, it's not realistic. So have to give it up. Going down this road is just going to give you alot of heartache and disappointment. But if it's realistic, e.g. go for it. Let God take care of the rest.
The commitment of getting there
I think getting there is a journey. For the things that matter, it's tough. And I don't mince my words. It's really putting in the effort and actions, consistently, over a period of time. Forming new habits if need be, and ditching old ones. You have to be prepared to change your perception and life for it. It's easy to say "I give up" when the going gets tough. Or it's easier to say, I change my "place". But when I mean commitment, it's come hell or high water, you get your heart to that place you want it to be in the first place.
If The Place Is Meant To Be Yours
So you want it bad. But unfortunately, it's not up to one to completely decide. At the end of the day, it's still fate. If it's meant to be yours, it will be, through time, commitment and effort. But to clarify, "right place" means big picture. You can still want to be in the "right place", but the circumstances is wrong. The definition of the "right place" still stays the same, but the circumstances is not in your favour. Example, you love kids and want to have kids. The "right place" is "you want kids". But you cannot have kids - the circumstances is wrong. This doesn't change your right place of "you want kids". I think humans are resilient though and in many cases, if one wants it bad enough, it can still happen (e.g. adoption). That is why I emphasized in the previous point of your own commitment of getting there.
I Got There
And if you got there, you should feel happy and calm. Celebrate and savour for as long as you can. Life itself is transient, grab the good stuff while it lasts!
Your Own Expectations on Staying There
Don't mistake staying there to be all rosy. Again, I think it all boils down to attitude. Do you look at what you have with complacency over time? Or do you view it as a good thing and you're grateful for it? If you're those type of person who expects 100% in life all the time, I think u'll be disappointed because 100% does not exist in life. So there's really no point expecting the impossible. Rather, it's better to adjust one's expectations and be grateful.
Before we go further, I think one has to ask themselves, is this sentence important in the first place. Or you're the type to "see what happens". Sometimes, it's ok to see what happens, but chances are, everything will become just that. The results are kind of lacklustre. If a person sees this sentence as important, chances are, they will fight to get there and stay there. Example, I want to be a good parent (see what happens attitude) VS the other person "I want to be a good parent" (and shows up for every school event, takes an active interest and participates in their kids' lives, etc). Or an employee who goes to work and (see what happens) VS "I want to do well" and goes the extra mile. Logic will tell you which person will do better. This attitude predetermines everything.
Knowing & Defining It
Now, if one determines that it is important to acknowledge this sentence, then you have to determine the "right places". The "right places" mean different things to different people. For some people, the "right places" can mean, a good career. For some, it can mean, being a good friend. Or it can even be as small as "I'm a good cook". Are you there? Are you doing the things to get you there?
Expectations Before Getting There
When you've defined it, you have to see if it's realistic. For example, if you're like 1.60 meters and want to play in NBA, it's not realistic. So have to give it up. Going down this road is just going to give you alot of heartache and disappointment. But if it's realistic, e.g. go for it. Let God take care of the rest.
The commitment of getting there
I think getting there is a journey. For the things that matter, it's tough. And I don't mince my words. It's really putting in the effort and actions, consistently, over a period of time. Forming new habits if need be, and ditching old ones. You have to be prepared to change your perception and life for it. It's easy to say "I give up" when the going gets tough. Or it's easier to say, I change my "place". But when I mean commitment, it's come hell or high water, you get your heart to that place you want it to be in the first place.
If The Place Is Meant To Be Yours
So you want it bad. But unfortunately, it's not up to one to completely decide. At the end of the day, it's still fate. If it's meant to be yours, it will be, through time, commitment and effort. But to clarify, "right place" means big picture. You can still want to be in the "right place", but the circumstances is wrong. The definition of the "right place" still stays the same, but the circumstances is not in your favour. Example, you love kids and want to have kids. The "right place" is "you want kids". But you cannot have kids - the circumstances is wrong. This doesn't change your right place of "you want kids". I think humans are resilient though and in many cases, if one wants it bad enough, it can still happen (e.g. adoption). That is why I emphasized in the previous point of your own commitment of getting there.
I Got There
And if you got there, you should feel happy and calm. Celebrate and savour for as long as you can. Life itself is transient, grab the good stuff while it lasts!
Your Own Expectations on Staying There
Don't mistake staying there to be all rosy. Again, I think it all boils down to attitude. Do you look at what you have with complacency over time? Or do you view it as a good thing and you're grateful for it? If you're those type of person who expects 100% in life all the time, I think u'll be disappointed because 100% does not exist in life. So there's really no point expecting the impossible. Rather, it's better to adjust one's expectations and be grateful.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Global Warming - Are We Sure of The Cause In The First Place?
So, here I am, reading a very interesting article on Sat, in the Singapore Straits Times, about global warming and all its jazz, and the other possible contributions to it.
All this hype, and then, there appears, a trickle of statistics to show that perhaps, it IS jazz. Not 100% of course...I think, there is just not enough reliable data at this point to prove anything. But, enough has been proven to show that "when carbon emission was xxxxxxxxxxx, global temperatures did NOT increase"
But does this mean we don't do anything about global warming? I think knowledge itself can change things, not the fact itself (really, only God knows if it's true!). And I truly believe, he will reveal it in his own time. And I have faith in this.
I think if it's revealed in advance, it's meant to be intervened. Erm, otherwise, it wouldn't be revealed in advance in the first place! So even if it comes true, never mind lah, at least, the world dies trying to change things, and not just sitting there, waiting for catastrophy to happen!
All this hype, and then, there appears, a trickle of statistics to show that perhaps, it IS jazz. Not 100% of course...I think, there is just not enough reliable data at this point to prove anything. But, enough has been proven to show that "when carbon emission was xxxxxxxxxxx, global temperatures did NOT increase"
But does this mean we don't do anything about global warming? I think knowledge itself can change things, not the fact itself (really, only God knows if it's true!). And I truly believe, he will reveal it in his own time. And I have faith in this.
I think if it's revealed in advance, it's meant to be intervened. Erm, otherwise, it wouldn't be revealed in advance in the first place! So even if it comes true, never mind lah, at least, the world dies trying to change things, and not just sitting there, waiting for catastrophy to happen!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Morality - Doing Good
What is the definition of Morality? Secular and/or religious view. No writings, just some questions to see your own reaction as you read on:
- If you are a social worker in India and helping the poor but you are an aethist, does it mean you will go to hell?
- If you earn a high salary to feed your family, but your job is a scientist to push out drugs to the consumer market, without having fully tested them, are you moral?
- If you are a private banker, and you are helping to grow the portfolio of wealthy customers, knowing a huge chunk of it is dirty money, are you moral? Did you know a guy blew the whistle on this and got promptly fired?
- Can you be a monogamous swinger? Is it moral?
- If a guy cheats in a marriage, but is a good father and husband (brings home bacon, treats them very well), is he moral?
- If you are a drug runner to get money to buy milk for your baby, are you moral?
- If you are involved in prostitution (giving or receiving end), are you moral?
- Do you think a lesbian couple with a happy good kid are moral people?
- If your mother is an alcoholic, do you think she is moral? Can you still love her?
- If you are a social worker in India and helping the poor but you are an aethist, does it mean you will go to hell?
- If you earn a high salary to feed your family, but your job is a scientist to push out drugs to the consumer market, without having fully tested them, are you moral?
- If you are a private banker, and you are helping to grow the portfolio of wealthy customers, knowing a huge chunk of it is dirty money, are you moral? Did you know a guy blew the whistle on this and got promptly fired?
- Can you be a monogamous swinger? Is it moral?
- If a guy cheats in a marriage, but is a good father and husband (brings home bacon, treats them very well), is he moral?
- If you are a drug runner to get money to buy milk for your baby, are you moral?
- If you are involved in prostitution (giving or receiving end), are you moral?
- Do you think a lesbian couple with a happy good kid are moral people?
- If your mother is an alcoholic, do you think she is moral? Can you still love her?
- If you kill a person in self-defence, protecting your baby, are you moral?
- If you steal office stationery, are you moral?
- If you cheat in a test, are you moral?
- If your foetus is tested to be abnormal and you choose to abort it, are you moral?
- Euthanasia - right or wrong?
- Cloning - right or wrong?
Moral Standards
As you read the above list, I hope it starts you thinking about how you view the world and yourself. The above is just a small list. Too many times, people just argue and argue when it's really about grey areas that doesn't have a standardized definition anyway. Individual moral standards does not always equate to societal moral standards. And even societal moral standards are not consistent. It's grey and varies from different scenario to different scenario.
Looking at Morality with Different Eyes
And it gets more complicated. How does one view morality? Through a secular view? Through religion? Through philosophies? Through the legal system? A convicted thief, stealing milk powder for his baby is penalized by the legal system. But his intent was good. Morally, how do u dictate whether what he's done is right or wrong?
Morality can also be expressed through the eyes of philosophies. For example, Charles Darwin's concept of evolution and natural selection, if looked at, in a purely scientific point of view, can justify what would be considered wrong by most people's standards. People don't do evil, they are just what they are. The fittest survive. Hitler is not evil, he's just a guy with a glib tongue, who has a personality disorder, born in the right time to ensure his "destiny" was carried out. He was the fittest. Another example would be peodophiles and serial killers. Are they mentally ill? Or is what they are doing wrong? If they are condemned as wrong, they will remain as such. But if the cause of their behaviour is mental illness, then their treatment would be different. It would be to medicate them with drugs, lock them up, etc. Condemning them would only make them worse.
To summarize, morality can be viewed through many eyes, whether it's religion, philosophies, legal, etc. And standards vary.
Personally
So what do you choose what's best for you? Personally, at this point in time, I have taken a side, albeit skeptically on an intellectual basis. I do believe though, you have to choose a point of view. This is to ensure some consistency and order in an individual and society.
I've made a conscious choice to see life through rose-tinted glasses (romantic view); and act accordingly through this view. To believe in the innate goodness of people, which forms the basis of humanity. I think there is a reason for all human beings doing unacceptable things (unacceptable as defined by the majority of society's realm of acceptable behaviour). They mostly become bad due to circumstances (most of the time, not loved enough), reasons (7 sins of greed, lust, pride, wrath, gluttony, sloth, envy), and are sick (mental illness that create serial killers). I don't think anyone really deliberately chooses to be bad.
To simplify, one can look at the sunset and admire its beauty. Or, one can view the sun as a bright star that happened to be near enough to earth to be viewed. I choose to see the sun in its beauty.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Financial Crisis 2008 - Blame Game, Washington VS Wall Street
Here's my take on blame game:
Washington VERSUS Wall Street
50/50
It's a tie!
WASHINGTON
Washington is designated to be a policing body. I think abolishing the Fed is not good, becos they are needed to make sure the economy is healthy. Sure, they didn't do a good job, but I think it's not becos of the Fed itself generally speaking, but specific problems, e.g. greed, inefficiencies, wrong person for the jobs, and personally, a biggie for me, ideologies.
Erm, I'm talking about?Alan Greenspan's "laissere fare" school of thought...very much U.S. style capitalism. Sorry, not sure if I spelt it correctly, haha. His school of thought created the bubbles. Free and self-regulating markets - cheap money leading to easy access to financing and inadvertedly, soaring housing prices. Of which bundled up happily into financial products floating around the financial markets.
Back to the point - maybe more of a voting system needs to be in place to have checks and balances even on ideologies!?
Washington's fault - ideologies, power of lobbyists over Washington, other problems....I suspect, many people not doing their job properly, etc.
Wall Street
Greed is wat drives Wall Street. Tat's wat it is. I think greed is ok, as long as it's not abused. And greed WILL be abused unless there a serious and strict regulations. I mean, wat do u expect Richard Fuld to say? Of coz, he's gonna pimp up the compensation structure and maximise his gains (bonus), no? I mean, to them, isn't that what working like a dog is all about?
But for the record, I do agree too, that bonuses should be severely taxed (AIG) if these very people are not performing like they are supposed to. The general public needs to be appeased. Although it's quite a shame becos I don't think it's all their fault. It's really the macro factors, the state of the markets. They are just unlucky....their predesuccessors were alot luckier!
Wall Street's fault - created by the creation of derivatives known as the sub-prime loans, and greed, etc.
Love/Hate Relationship Between Wall Street and Washington (this conflict needs to be addressed)
It's all about power. Power defined as money and decision making powers. Both of which, the cards are held by the govt (decision making powers) and the big-ass corporations/private sector (money). In my view, the power balance is 50/50. I would even say, it's a love-hate relationship. Both sides need each other although, there's a serious conflict of interest. Conflict of interest mean - no checks and balances on how much govt officials and lobbyists can influence each other. For e.g. can a lobby group give US$1bn to a govt campaign? Is it legal? I believe there are some changes on this area with the Obama adminstration. This is crucial to Ron Paul's "changing the culture of Washington"
I think lobbyists will always have power and greed, simply becos they can. Forget about changing this part of human nature, regulations need to be changed. Not more regulations, NEW regulations, to limit the power and greed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)