What’s the point?

Recently, had someone leaning on my shoulder and lying on my lap. Nope, nothing of that sort. He was sorta drunk and i had to send him home.

As much as i knew it meant nothing, it was really nice to be taking care of someone, to be needed or wanted. A long time back, i wanted to be protected, then i wanted to protect. Now, it doesnt matter what i want to do.

I earlier spoke of my celibacy phase. Now, even counting the discountable episode, it is gonna be 1 year.

I realise where i am contributing to this whole loneliness issue, but i cant bring myself to do otherwise. When i dun want what i can get, and cant get what i want, i have decided, thus far, to just have nothing at all.

As another year approaches, i am thinking of doing all those things that i shd have done long ago.

I am gonna get chastised for being uncooperative by my small group of friends. Maybe, they will realise with time, that this is for the better. Better for everyone.

And so, all i want for Christmas is …. peace. Not the world type, just of the mind type. I should get it right? After all, i havent been naughty this whole year

"I think it’s better to have someone, even if it hurts, even if it is the most painful thing you have done, even if it’s the most painful thing you’ve ever had to do. I think it’s better to have someone."

Do you know about the NEO-PI-R test? Neither did i, till i learnt that i had taken it as part of some personality profiling test for self-devt. It categorises the findings into 4 areas:

1. Problem-solving skills
2. Planning, organising and implementation skills
3. Style of relating to others
4. Personal style

It was about 5 pages of analysis, with the caveat that no particular trait is good or bad, it depends on the context. After reading it, realised they could have summarised my profile in 1 word.

Bastard.

Never knew i was that horrid, or that what i thot was ok behaviour would be seen so negatively. My positive trait was my intellect. My negatives included (but not limited to) selfish, arrogant, disorganised, lack ambition, competitive rather than cooperative, low flash point. I was thinking about how accurate this was.

To a large extent, i think it is true now that it has been pointed out to me. But i also realise that this is true at this point in time. Some years back, i would have come across as more people-oriented rather than task-oriented. The last few years made me rethink some of my assumptions - eg. that people are basically good - and that made me a lot more suspicious of those around me. There have been instances where the goodness in people shone through but i have learnt that if i dun look out for myself, noone else will. Yes, all these come across as excuses, but none of it really matters to anyone anyway.

As i end the year and look for resolutions, these will come in handy to help me formulate those abandoned-on-2-Jan goals. However, i somehow think i will try to modify certain behaviours so i dun seem so nasty, rather than actually change my paradigm. So long as certain things dun change in my life, i think i will be better off in the long run if i stick to those beliefs. Better to be disliked than vulnerable, i think.

We hear the economy is in the doldrums and it may take a year or so for recovery. That, i just realised, is possibly too optimistic.

You NEED to watch this video from 60 Minutes on The Mortgage Meltdown. I thought the subprime crisis was almost over and the issue was slowly turning around, despite some hiccups. If the analysis in the video is correct, we are nowhere near the bottom and things will get much worse - or minimally as bad as this year - when the Alt-A and Option-ARM loans end up in defaults. 2011 is predicted to be the year of the next massacre. The bottom of the crisis is at least 2 years away! How long more to recovery from there?!

No job switch for the next 2 yrs at least then. And hopefully can save up enough funds to make an investment when the market hits near bottom. Though i wonder if i will ever be able to save up that much. And, i am especially risk averse, so, not to worry, will not make any impulse decision on this. Thanks for your concern though

MinLaw has rebutted criticisms that the law treats the rich better than the poor, by Subash Anandan, President of Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS). Article here.

These are lawyers involved in the criticism and rebuttal, so i am pretty sure they are well-trained in logic and arguments. Heck, it is their livelihood.

Thus, it was interesting for me to note the way MinLaw had rebutted. The cases cited are called ‘erroneous’ and MinLaw states that the law treats everyone equally. That is a ‘bare assertion’. Just cos you say so doesnt make it so. You need to prove it.

And the proof? One of Anandan’s clients cited in the criticism was rich but did not get treated better. Hmmm. I would have expected them to show how ALL the cases cited are not evidence of differential treatment. Cos one example is possibly ‘erroneous’ does not mean that, therefore, ALL the cases cited are ‘erroneous’. I am sure there is a term in the philosophy of logic that shows how this is not a valid argument to use but just dunno what it is.

In these times when everyone is forced to tighten their belts, it is good that Play Entertainment is offering some older movie titles for free.

I haven seen any of these 10 machines before - but hey, i live in a poor neighbourhood, so unlikely we were their target market. Quite likely my youngish Gen Y / Z nephews and nieces would know about it thou.

But beware of the catch. It is free for a day, so dun end up in a situation where you owe them late charges. You will possibly also end up in a database, so be ready for ‘communication materials’ coming your way. All that aside, a good deal, no?

On an unrelated note, i just may be getting wiser. I actually am trying not to spend on any big ticket items, even thou i can afford some of the stuff i have wanted for a while. Then again, does a leopard change its spots?

This film is sooo full of bittersweet memories. Just caught it again when it screened on Ch 5 yesterday.

I ‘discovered’ it before many others when i was on holiday overseas. Happened to just chance upon it when i had nothing else to do that day and caught it alone.

The first part of the movie is mostly about the sadness, heartache, agony and misery of love, both lost and newly found. The second part brings sweet happiness to some and a bittersweet way to deal with it for others.

Of course, some of the plotlines resonated more with me. My favourites would be Emma Thompson crying when she realises there is someone else in her husband’s life; the guy who loves Keira Knightley, poignantly saying ‘it’s self-preservation’ and ‘Enough. Enough’; and Laura Linney silently crying when Rodrigo Santoro leaves the office sometime after the botched night. Silent tears and unspoken sadness never lose their power over me. Yes, seems it is the sadder bits that resonate with me. I have been thru those periods where it is clearly one-sided, yet to reach that point where it is reciprocated. Possibly, the ’yet’ is redundant.

But all that aside, despite the heart-wrenching pain, it is a nice feeling, even when you know that it will never come to fruition. An impossible fantasy, rationally enough, is more comforting than utter realism of the bleak and despondent future. Even when you know that fantasy will morph into the bleak and despondent future you were trying to avoid. So much for fat hopes and slim chances.

Maybe 1 line should resonate more with me than others. When Colin wants to go to America, his friend tells him that he is ‘a lonely ugly arsehole’. Hey, you talking to me?

Kind of a pity that the storyline of the body doubles has been dropped from the edited version on tv. In the matter of the flesh, there was purity of the heart.

And as the year comes to a close, with christmas just round the corner, it all just gets more depressing.

With 16 days left of this year, is there a miracle in the making?

Surprise me.

US Auto industry bailout has died in the Senate. I understand the possible ramifications and effects on the US and global economy. But seriously?

The United Auto Workers’ Union has refused to accept the negotiation because of the proposed steep wage cut which brings its workers’ salaries in line with those of Japanese carmakers in the US, like Toyota and Honda. Their current hourly wage is about US$30, which is similar to the workers in the Japanese plants. This is already more than what i, as a graduate, am earning in Sg. Add to that the pension, medical benefits, and it goes up to US$69 per hour! You got to be freaking kidding me! That is over S$100 per hour!! And these are auto-industry workers, not psychiatrists or bankers!

And here in Sg, we do not want to legislate a minimum wage policy! No doubt, Sg’s plan to ensure its competitiveness should work for Singapore’s long-term future. So happens that Singaporeans suffer in the meantime. Are Singaporeans collateral damage in Singapore’s success? What kind of logic is that for a govt to use when deciding policy?

I was searching for a certain bag brand on Google and thru 489 degrees of separation, ended up chancing upon the word Reverse Stranger in the Urban Dictionary.

Am i just getting old and not keeping up with the latest developments in sexual lingo?

Did any of you even know this term exists? Seriously?

Wow, this DBS-FOTF-Pink protest is really heating up. Check out these letters:

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_311937.html

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_311974.html

Of course, there are the others on blogs and the Business Times article (which i dunno how to link here) on this topic.

So, DBS pulls out its publicity on FOTF tie-up and people write in to say the bank should not have caved in to pressure. More publicity than before. Even those who had no idea about the tie-up now do, AFTER the publicity was pulled out.

Some things i want to point out. FOTF has ‘tenuous link’ with the American organisation? Are you for real?

Noone ‘forced’ DBS to withdraw its support. Some people expressed their concern and said they will not be clients of DBS if this continues. It is up to DBS to decide what to do. You give the activists too much credit if you think they are able to make this bank change its policies (heck, even the NTUC Sec-Gen could not make them change their policy on retrenchment!). DBS made the decision - a BUSINESS decision. Now, if DBS reinstates its support, are we gonna argue that some people ‘forced’ DBS to revert? Let’s not confuse a bank’s economic self-interest with ‘conscience’ - if such a thing even exists for a corporation.

The LGBT people are ‘anti-family’? Hey, how did that sleight of hand happen? And what is ‘anti-family’ anyway? It isn’t as if gay people dun want to have families. To begin with, they are born into one. They are the ones who take care of their aged parents when the married kids (straight people, these) refuse to live with them (case in point, moi). Therefore, it seems ‘family’ is defined by marriage. But some gay people also want to marry! See? It is not that they dun want family, just you dun let them. Like that, whose fault?

All things aside, since the issue is about DBS’ policy, why isnt DBS saying something? Why are we bickering among ourselves? Let the bank come out (pun unintended) and say what it feels and everyone can then decide where to keep their money.

By now, you must be very familiar with my whining about how noone wants me.

In a sorta candid discussion with some friends, it sorta candidly came out that they could not see any reason why someone would want me. Not in so many words, but ya. Seems the people closest to me think i have nothing to offer.

Some part of me tells me to just go ahead and hook up with some guy who will be bad for me, just so i can say i was attached, once, in my lifetime.

Another part says … i am not lucky enough to even have that bad luck!

Haha.

Was planning this morning to give details on how the DBS promotion works where money is donated to the Children’s project by Focus on the Family (FOTF) only when at least $300 is spent and only when a bear is redeemed - ie. no redemption means no donation.

Yes, yes, yes. I was trying to find loopholes to excuse my lack of principles and continued charging to DBS cards. (how the hell did DBS tie up with practically every store in the island for their discounts?) However, before i sluttily sold the remaining bits of my soul for any more $1.75 discounts *yes, i am that cheap), it has been announced that DBS has ended the promotion due to feedback from the public (mostly LGBT clients).

I am impressed!

However, i am also confused. Their statement says they will remove the Christmas Charity campaign, yet Trevvy "understands" that DBS is still contributing to FOTF. 

That aside, a bit too late to drop publicity right? I just got the mailer last night with last month’s credit card statement. As did probably the other 4 million people in Sg.  

DBS pulls publicity under pressure BY Team Trevvy (Updated) DBS bank drops FOTF campaign publicity after pressure from angry gay customers but is still contributing to the anti-gay group. 02/12/2008

Singapore’s biggest consumer bank hastily recanted its campaign to contribute a part of its credit card customer’s spending to anti-gay Focus on the family (FOTF) after strong pressure from angry gay customers who have been registering their displeasure to the bank through emails and calls. After Trevvy’s report last week, Trevvy members have indicated that they have contacted DBS bank to register their displeasure, backed with information of FOTF’s anti-gay activities, with many threatening to close their accounts. Several have also posted on Trevvy forums and Facebook to call for a boycott of the bank. On Tuesday 2 December DBS released the following statement in its latest response to customers complaining the FOTF campaign: We would like to reiterate that it was never the intention of the Bank to discriminate against any group through this initiative. Nonetheless, given the feedback received and to demonstrate that DBS believes in diversity and inclusion, we will be removing the Christmas charity campaign with immediate effect. DBS will continue to play its part to support the community at large and we hope to have your understanding and support. DBS’ statement prior to this defended its decision by insisting that FOTF is a registered charity and the contribution is for a children’s learning centre. However, Trevvy understands that DBS is merely dropping all publicity and is discussing with FOTF regarding the amount the bank will contribute towards the learning centre. Giving his take on this incident, media analyst Ted Young told Trevvy, "I think DBS did not expect such a strong response from the gay community, especially from many of its own customers who threatened to cancel their credit cards. While we are uncertain of the exact details, it is clear that DBS has realised that the fallout—image and the potential loss of revenue—outweighs its obligation to continue the campaign. However the fact remains that DBS will still be giving money to an anti-gay group." The original campaign would have DBS contributing up to S$15,000 towards FOTF when credit cardholders spend a minimum of $300 on weekends at selected malls from 14 November to 21 December.