The Difference Between Shocking, Appalling and Outrageous

Story taken from https://mybikeshopsg.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/sad-news-we-lost-a-good-friend/.

Shocking:

A drunk driver ploughed his car into a truck and instead of the car turning turtle, the enormous truck tips over and is badly damaged.

Appalling:

The drunk 19-year-old driver demanding to know why only he, and not the driver of the truck, was tested with the breathalyser.

Outrageous:

The driver's parents arriving at the scene, blithely ignoring the fact that their son had injured 2 and killed 1 and only being concerned with whether their son would go to jail.

Oh and of course, they were driving a brand new 5 series BMW.

RIP, Paul.

Woe Betide Catholics in Singapore Wishing to Teach Biology in the Future

Woo! The Archbishop of Singapore has requested that the students in Singapore not be taught how to use a condom as part of sexuality education.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/Story/STIStory_628317.html

His reasons?

He said that the Church's teaching 'concerns marital acts, since marital acts are the only ethical sexual acts in the eyes of the Church'.

He added: 'If we present to our young people how to use the condom outside marriage, just in case you need it, it would be as though the Church is teaching us how to sin less grievously which makes no sense.'

His viewpoint is, of course, supported by Ms Wendy Louis, executive director of the Archdiocesan Commission for Catholic Schools.

Elaborating on his note, Ms Wendy Louis, executive director of the Archdiocesan Commission for Catholic Schools, said teaching students how to use condoms was an instance of a 'compromised message'.

Hmmz.... I suppose then, students could be taught about condom usage simply so that they could gain more knowledge? You know, to get a complete picture of human sexuality? And to know more about the world around them?

Oh ya, I forgot, youngsters of this age are extremely curious; they might decide to carry out a practical based on their new found knowledge and we couldn't have that happening, could we?

If only I could believe those students I taught to be so curious and so in search of knowledge. This is Singapore and the average student in the average school are so squirmish about the topic that he/she is unlike to even read up on it by him/herself, let alone carry out an experiment. -.-"

We're taught so many things in school "just in case we need it". Like how to calculate the overall resistance of resistors in parallel and what protons, neutrons and electrons are. Knowledge which till this day I only use to pass on to the next generation. This is, of course, discounting nearly everything I've learnt in History, which I have blithely forgotten (and been recently forced to revisit grrrrrr).

Well, yes it's against the Catholic teachings to use a condom. But what if someone asks why? Won't you want Catholic students to be able to give an informed answer?

"Er, it prevents conception, which sex is all about, so it is not right."

"And how is this conception prevented?"

"Hmm. Wear condom already cannot have baby."

"How come? Baby cannot come out? The condom block it?"

"Eh, actually I don't know leh."

"I heard sometimes wear condom still can have baby, you know. Why har?"

"Oooohh! This one I vaguely know! Teacher got say, is because use wrongly!"

"Can use wrongly meh. Put on girl instead of guy ah?"

"Er... er... er..."

Tell me, Archbishop Nicholas Chia, what is wrong with giving Catholic students the knowledge (and pride) to say this: "Condoms are a form of barrier contraceptive. They prevent conception during sex by preventing the sperm from meeting the egg (ovum, if you prefer to be more scientific). Life is sacred because God bestows it on us, thus any act that prevents this is not right."?

And why need the students be taught HOW the condom is used? So they know why condoms fail sometimes, and why it is the USE of the condom, not the actual prevention of conception that is against Catholic believes (that is, as long as you use a condom, you are sinning whether or not conception occurs).

Oh well, I am but one voice. Thankfully my mother didn't prohibit me from learning this topic in school, though, or I'd never be able to be a Science teacher.

Who, by the way, advocates no sex before marriage, and no sex with anyone other than your spouse. (At least during such lessons =P)

Is it Truly Best When You Say Nothing at All?

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
~Martin Luther King Jr.

Happily Ever After?

“Marriage is for life.” What is your opinion?

Marriage is an institution in which the romantic relationship between a man and a woman is acknowledged by the state, a religious authority, or both. With the ‘modernisation’ of society, a concept known as ‘divorce’ has been introduced, allowing for a couple joined in marriage to be separated. I, however, believe that marriage is for life, and feel that the commonly-used marriage vow tells us exactly why marriage should last a lifetime.

“… for better for worse, for richer for poorer …”. It is certainly much easier to go through life with someone by your side, sharing every one of your burdens with you. Joys are also not meant to be experienced alone. Picture getting a long deserved promotion and a big raise, and then going home to an empty house, with nobody waiting to hear your piece of good news. Humans were not meant to walk this earth alone, and in marriage they find companions for life.

When a man marries a woman, he agrees to stay with her “in sickness and in health”, agreeing to shoulder the responsibility of standing by the other, whatever problems they encounter. If one were to abandon one’s spouse simply because one suddenly had to take care of him or her, or due to the fact that he/she no longer earned as much as before, what kind of human would one be? Furthermore, a divorce tends to adversely affect the children, who are seldom the actual cause of the breakup.

Thirdly, the couple has agreed “To have and to hold, from this day forward … till death us do part.” In making such a promise, they willingly enter a contract that binds them for the rest of their life. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses”; thus, as neither party was forced into marriage, both should fully consider what it entails before signing on the dotted line. After they have taken their vows, a couple should honour them and stay together for the rest of their lives.

On the flip side, there are unhappy marriages — marriages in which one or both spouses have extra-marital affairs or where spousal abuse is present. In such cases, many are of the opinion that the abused should be relieved of his/her vows so that he/she can pursue his/her own happiness, or that marriages cannot be salvaged after adultery has been committed. If such a situation arises, it would be good if the parties involved could take a step back and think about the day they got married. Surely there must be a reason they chose that particular person to spend the rest of their life with, and also a reason why the other person chose them. Love can be rekindled if people want to try; to err is human, to forgive divine.

“To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.” — this common vow holds the answers as to why marriage should be for life. If artistes such as Colin Raye and Savage Garden can sing about “love surviving death into eternity”, I do not see why a man and a woman joined in matrimony cannot honour their pledge to spend their lives on earth together.

Non-vegans, please do NOT demand that I not serve shark's fin at MY wedding

Do We Really Love Our Animals?

Many people keep pets: dogs, cats, fish, terrapins, rabbits, the list goes on. Pets have been said to relieve stress and bring joy to those who own them. Ask any pet owner if he really loves his animal, and you are likely to get a resounding yes. They may fully mean what they say, but is this answer true in all senses?

Gandhi once wrote, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the ways its animals are treated.” Singapore is considered by the United Nations as a developed nation. However, if she was to be judged by Gandhi’s standards, she may, perhaps still be considered as ‘developing’ because the majority of her population eats meat and allows animal testing to take place. In 2002, Singaporeans consumed a staggering 71 kilograms of meat per person. This, of course, pales in comparison with the 120 kilograms per capita for the United States. However, given our Asian heritage and the emphasis on carbohydrates such as rice in the daily diet of Asians, this amount is simply enormous, especially when this figure is put side by side with the average for Asia: 28 kilograms. To meet this great demand, humans have invented devices known as ‘slaughter-houses’ and ‘factory farming’.

‘Slaughter-houses’ — the term itself it not a nice one. The vast majority of people who eat meat do not bother to consider the pain an animal goes through so that they can enjoy their hamburger; it does not even occur to most that their meat comes from something that once breathed and moved around, just like they currently do. Supermarkets nowadays with their packaged foods only serve to further conceal this gruesome fact from their modernised customers. A single trip to a slaughter-house can turn many hardcore carnivores vegetarian; perhaps it would be good for those who never intend to set foot in one of these establishments to consider why.

The invention of ‘factory farming’ can be used as evidence to show the innate ability of humans to put themselves in front of all else, such as in their gross misinterpretation of Niccolo Machiavelli’s “the ends justify the means”. As the name suggests, ‘factory farming’ is a process in which animals are raised in confinement in highly overcrowded conditions so that one can obtain a high yield with minimum input. To receive a greater total in net production, animals are often overcrowded to the point where they balance precariously on the fine line between life and death; antibiotics and pesticides are often used to keep them on the side of the living as long as they can be of service to humans. The very fact that factory farming is carried out despite individual animals being less productive (due to their inability to move, eat properly etc.), simply because there is greater productivity per cage of animals, clearly shows us that humans care way much more for themselves than for their animals.

A common argument in support for the meat industry is that the human body requires meat — we would not have canines if we were meant to be herbivores. However, studies have shown that we can get all the necessary nutrients from plants. In fact, vegetarians are believed to have a healthier diet than meat eaters. The eating of meat has been linked to the contraction of colon cancer due to the amount of iron it contains; certain plant foods, on the other hand, have been known to protect the body from cancer. Also, vegetarians can worry less about heart disease which is associated with the saturated fat found in red meat.

Animal testing is yet another way that humans show their lack of respect for the animals around them. To ensure that products are safe for human consumption or use, tests have to be conducted on them before they are let out into mainstream circulation. And what better subjects for scientists to use than animals: living, breathing specimens with systems that model our own. The law prohibits, and rightly so, the use of human subjects for such experiments. Many people think that animal testing is ethically acceptable because animals, unlike humans, are not rational, thinking beings. The words of philosopher Jeremy Bentham are a perfect rebuttal to this, “The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor, ‘Can they talk?’ but rather, ‘Can they suffer?’”

The terms ‘vivisection’ and ‘LD50’ are common in animal testing. ‘Vivisection’, defined by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) as “the practice of experimenting on live animals”, literally means ‘cutting alive’. Every day, live animals such as mice, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs and monkeys are burnt, starved, irritated, shocked, mutilated, poisoned and electrocuted, all in the name of research. ‘LD50’ stands for ‘Lethal Dose, 50%’, which is the amount of substance that kills off half the members of a tested population, and is used as a general indicator of the substance’s toxicity. Consider the number of animals that have to die slow, painful deaths so that the LD50 of a drug can be determined. Can we truly say we love our animals if we allow such suffering to occur?

A poster on the wall of an animal research facility attempts to explain the need for animal testing. A leukemia patient, a little bald little girl, weakened from chemotherapy stares out at you with her big, brown eyes, imploring you to understand that animal testing is necessary as part of the research for the cure to give her a new lease of life. It is hard for any of us who have not experienced first-hand the effects of cancer to fully comprehend what that little girl is going through, or even to know the grief of her family members. Advocates who seek to put an end to animal testing will be quick to point out that hundreds, if not thousands, of animals will have to die for the creation of this drug. The seemingly irrational words of George Orwell in his book Animal Farm come to play here: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. Although scientifically classified as part of the animal kingdom, Man has always seen himself as superior to all the creatures around him, and as such, he justifies using them for his own purposes. There is also another fact to consider — that the treatment is useful to not only that one patient, but all current and future patients as well. This is a valid argument, provided that every piece of research produces an effective drug. Every year, many hopeful new medicines are found to be lacking. The numbers simply do not add up. Humans cannot claim that they really love their animals if they are willing to sacrifice so many of them in the hope of finding cures.

Thankfully, the majority of us is not so far detached from our emotions, or consider ourselves so much higher on the evolutionary scale than animals, that we can stomach a steak if we were forced to watch the cow being butchered just before part of it is served to us on a plate. However, ignorance is a poor excuse for a non-vegetarian who makes use of products that have been tested on animals. Owning a pet does not automatically make one a lover of animals. As long as we, humans, continue with our carnivorous ways and allow animal testing to be carried out, we do not really love our animals.

It's all coming back to me now

"It's All Coming Back To Me Now"

There were nights when the wind was so cold
That my body froze in bed
If I just listened to it
Right outside the window

There were days when the sun was so cruel
That all the tears turned to dust
And I just knew my eyes were
Drying up forever

I finished crying in the instant that you left
And I can't remember where or when or how
And I banished every memory you and I had ever made

But when you touch me like this
And you hold me like that
I just have to admit
That it's all coming back to me
When I touch you like this
And I hold you like that
It's so hard to believe but
It's all coming back to me
(It's all coming back, it's all coming back to me now)

There were moments of gold
And there were flashes of light
There were things I'd never do again
But then they'd always seemed right
There were nights of endless pleasure
It was more than any laws allow
Baby Baby

If I kiss you like this
And if you whisper like that
It was lost long ago
But it's all coming back to me
If you want me like this
And if you need me like that
It was dead long ago
But it's all coming back to me
It's so hard to resist
And it's all coming back to me
I can barely recall
But it's all coming back to me now
But it's all coming back

There were those empty threats and hollow lies
And whenever you tried to hurt me
I just hurt you even worse
And so much deeper

There were hours that just went on for days
When alone at last we'd count up all the chances
That were lost to us forever

But you were history with the slamming of the door
And I made myself so strong again somehow
And I never wasted any of my time on you since then

But if I touch you like this
And if you kiss me like that
It was so long ago
But it's all coming back to me
If you touch me like this
And if I kiss you like that
It was gone with the wind
But it's all coming back to me
(It's all coming back, it's all coming back to me now)

There were moments of gold
And there were flashes of light
There were things we'd never do again
But then they'd always seemed right
There were nights of endless pleasure
It was more than all your laws allow
Baby, Baby, Baby

When you touch me like this
And when you hold me like that
It was gone with the wind
But it's all coming back to me
When you see me like this
And when I see you like that
Then we see what we want to see
All coming back to me
The flesh and the fantasies
All coming back to me
I can barely recall
But it's all coming back to me now

If you forgive me all this
If I forgive you all that
We forgive and forget
And it's all coming back to me
When you see me like this
And when I see you like that
We see just what we want to see
All coming back to me
The flesh and the fantasies
All coming back to me
I can barely recall but it's all coming back to me now

(It's all coming back to me now)
And when you kiss me like this
(It's all coming back to me now)
And when I touch you like that
(It's all coming back to me now)
If you do it like this
(It's all coming back to me now)
And if we, , ,

Accepting Job Offers

As usual, the trains of thought of the online Straits Times readers baffle me.

In response to an article "Job-seekers reject offers", many readers have written in with their comments. These people appear to be from 2 main factions:

1. Those who have been actively seeking for jobs but have been unsuccessful, or know someone in that situation.
2. Those who wish to complain about the rising number of foreigners in the Singapore workforce.

I have absolutely no idea how foreigners in the Singapore workforce can be related to Singaporeans rejecting job offers, no NC about those comments =P.

From reading the comments from people in Faction 1, I cannot help but feel sorry for this group of people. They can see a problem, but they don't know what the problem is. Their main complaint is that they would accept any job offer, and may in fact be in dire need of ANY job offer, but none have been forthcoming; they thus feel that it is highly inappropriate for 40% of key business sectors to have received rejections.

Instead of asking the applicants WHY they have turned down the offer, I suspect these poor jobless souls should ask instead, "Why do you, who already HAVE a job, want to compete with ME who has NO JOB?"

Perhaps they have missed out an important line in the article: "About 38 per cent say the candidates told them their employers had made a better counter-offer..."

As likely as not, many of the applicants who rejected the job offers already have stable jobs. I find it disturbing that this fact doesn't seem apparent in the minds of those making the comments. Could it be that they actually can TOLERATE the fact that some people wish to better themselves and are hence looking for jobs despite the fact that they already have one?

Well then, in this case, they should not begrudge the fact that these same people are rejecting the jobs because of the unsatisfactory terms.

No. I really don't know what they teach in Singapore schools these days that make the average Singaporean unable to understand what an article is trying (or NOT trying, as is often the case with the Straits Times) us.

This fact became even more apparent when a friend told me that he believed that the article in the previous post was true simply because it was by the Straits Times. No insult intended on his intelligence here. There is just, basically, something sorely lacking with Singapore's education system.

Sadded!

"Yeah," Replies Bill Clinton

Yesterday, I chanced upon this article from the Straits Times:

Jun 29, 2010
Navy may need to blow well
WASHINGTON - THE US Navy may have to blow up a ruptured well gushing oil into the Gulf of Mexico if efforts to cap the leak with relief wells fail, former US President Bill Clinton said on Monday.

'This is a geological monster,' the former president told CNN. 'That is one heck of an oil well. There's more oil down there than I ever dreamed.'

Mr Clinton said the 'most important thing is to fix the leak,' followed by the need to keep the oil from reaching shore, minimise the damage and then 'figure out what went wrong and hold them accountable, whether it was somebody in British Petroleum or someone in the US Government'.

Asked if he was concerned that the two relief wells currently being drilled may not work, Mr Clinton said 'yeah' and said blowing up the well 'may become necessary'. 'The navy could probably stop it, but there are all kinds of consequences that would have to be considered,' Mr Clinton said. 'You could stop that well, but what else might you do that might upset the ecostructure of the Gulf?'

The navy would not need to use a nuclear weapon, Mr Clinton said, explaining that the navy could simply 'blow up the well and cover the leak with piles and piles and piles of rock and debris'. Mr Clinton expressed concern that there was little else the federal government could do if BP's experts failed.

'Unless we're going to do all that, we're dependent on the technical expertise of these people at BP,' Mr Clinton said. Mr Clinton insisted that BP is 'trying to do the right thing' and should be given more time to plug the leak. He also defended President Barack Obama who has been criticized for failing to show sufficient emotion when dealing with this and other disasters. -- AFP

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_547078.html

Wow. I never knew that the Straits Times ever published anything so entertaining to read! To me (and one of my colleagues) at least, this news is actually Onion-worthy! I don't usually read the papers, but if they are going to print amusing articles like that every day, I will definitely make Straits Times-reading a daily habit!

Just to clarify matters, the article with its link is posted up there to show it actually exists; currently (30 Jun 2010), the article is still there, accessible by the link, but is no longer linked on the side bar with the other articles.

And am I worried about the Straits Times hunting me down for plagiarism issues? Nahhhhhhh.... This is such a minuscule blog; nobody can be bothered with us. Googling for "The navy would not need to use a nuclear weapon, Mr Clinton said, explaining that the navy could simply 'blow up the well and cover the leak with piles and piles and piles of rock and debris'." turns up many exact hits, including sites like

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?c=AME&s=TOP&i=4691384 and

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/29/2939851.htm.

=P.