Comfortable - John Mayer: Once again, a soft, melancholic melody combined with John's unique accent. Nothing fancy, just the simple story of a lost love. Perfect for turning the lights down late at night, sipping on a glass of wine, and remembering a love that slipped through your fingers.
Collide - Howie Day: Scrubs just keeps churning out great tunes for listening. Besides great episodes, I mean. Another nice, easy listening.
Closer - Joshua Radin: Another song I heard recently in Scrubs. An excellent vocal performance by Joshua, leaping and bounding over the scale with consummate ease.
Forever Love - 王力宏: My friend's girlfriend, Eunice, sent me this song by Leehom, whose music I had not previously sampled. A bit much with the falsetto, I thought, but a catchy tune nevertheless.
空中飛人 - 李克勤: An altogether disappointing album from Hacken, who has set very high standards with 飛花, Let's Celebrate, 愛不釋手, Ever Last, Custom Made, and Smart I.D. 聽傷口説話 is the only recommendable song of the entire CD.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Just Like a Newcomer?
Someone told me not to expect too much from my brothers and sisters. Having been gone for a year, I'm probably more akin to a newcomer than an old friend, she said.
I beg to differ.
If I were in fact a newcomer, I'd comfortably sit at home and wait for them to call me and care for me. I wouldn't get all antsy about nobody sparing the time to ring me up; I could just find other friends to hang out with.
But no. Instead, I'm stuck here at home, wondering if I ought to be calling them since they won't call me. Dilemma. Wondering whose responsibility it is to call.
Just like a newcomer? I think not.
I beg to differ.
If I were in fact a newcomer, I'd comfortably sit at home and wait for them to call me and care for me. I wouldn't get all antsy about nobody sparing the time to ring me up; I could just find other friends to hang out with.
But no. Instead, I'm stuck here at home, wondering if I ought to be calling them since they won't call me. Dilemma. Wondering whose responsibility it is to call.
Just like a newcomer? I think not.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
The Joy of Football
For two hours, I had nothing on my mind but football.
No girls, past present or future. No degrees. No careers. No bumps and bruises. No parents. No friends. Nothing but football.
And it felt so good. So pure. So true. So simple. So beautiful. A game where the sole objective is to place a ball in the goal more times than the opposition, using any means within legal limits.
For two hours, the ball was all that mattered.
No girls, past present or future. No degrees. No careers. No bumps and bruises. No parents. No friends. Nothing but football.
And it felt so good. So pure. So true. So simple. So beautiful. A game where the sole objective is to place a ball in the goal more times than the opposition, using any means within legal limits.
For two hours, the ball was all that mattered.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Telephony
The invention of telephony bridged distances the way wormholes (supposedly) warp spacetime. Anyone could call anyone else over a sophisticated network of wires in a matter of seconds, wherever they are on the planet. This is especially true with mobile telephony technologies.
So why haven't I got a cell phone yet? Well, whichever kind of telephony you're talking about (traditional vs. mobile vs. internet), you always have one person calling another. That's what phones are for, so you can call someone or so someone can call you. So it sort of defeats the purpose of having a phone if you have nobody to call or nobody wants to call you.
That is, I think, why I haven't got a cell phone yet.
So why haven't I got a cell phone yet? Well, whichever kind of telephony you're talking about (traditional vs. mobile vs. internet), you always have one person calling another. That's what phones are for, so you can call someone or so someone can call you. So it sort of defeats the purpose of having a phone if you have nobody to call or nobody wants to call you.
That is, I think, why I haven't got a cell phone yet.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Sweet Dreams are Made of This
It's interesting to note that, while I had bad dreams nearly every night in Switzerland, ever since coming home, I've been relatively free of nightmares. In fact, last night (or more accurately, this morning) I had a particularly pleasant dream. Not that I'd share with you the details, of course.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Hot Model-cum-Teacher Pleads Insanity
Meet Debra Beasley Lafave.The 24-year-old Floridian, formerly a model before becoming a middle school teacher, is pleading "not guilty due to insanity" to four counts of "lewd and lascivious battery" and one count of "lewd and lascivious exhibition". Each carries a maximum 15-year prison term.
Police said she had sex with a 14-year-old boy - whom she chaperoned on a school field trip - five times in early June, 2004.
Debra's lawyer, John Fitzgibbons, will file notice of an insanity defence. "Debbie has some profound emotional issues that are not her fault," Fitzgibbons had said late last year. Then, after the pretrial hearing yesterday, he reiterated her "emotional stress" and that she "did not know right from wrong", asking the reporters gathered outside the courtroom, "What teacher in her right mind would do something like this?"
Fitzgibbons had hoped to settle this case outside of court, but plea bargaining broke down when he felt the prosecutors wanted Debra to serve too much prison time. "To place an attractive young woman in that kind of hell hole is like putting a piece of raw meat in with the lions," he said. "I'm not sure she would survive."
There are issues to be examined here:
1. The use of "insanity" as an acceptable defence/excuse for committing a crime.
2. The gender equality issue involved in this case, in terms of both the perpetrator and the victim.
As the general population of this post-modern society becomes more me-centric, more and more people are looking to shift responsibilities - and subsequently, blames - onto other parties. It's never "my" fault anymore; always somebody else's. How many times have you heard of lawsuits resulting from careless restaurant patrons spilling hot coffee and burning themselves, or unwatchful parents letting their children get hurt at the playground or at home? Now, apparently, Fitzgibbons wants to argue that it wasn't Debra's fault that she had illegal extramarital sex with her student, because she had "profound emotional issues" that were outside her control, citing the tragic death of her pregnant older sister four years ago as the primary factor.
So, essentially, Fitzgibbons is saying that a person need not and cannot be held responsible for his actions if he has an excuse for it. Gee, well isn't that nice? I'm sure 90% of the criminals currently locked up in North America had "profound emotional issues" that led them to commit the most heinous of crimes. Why don't we let them all out on the basis that they had no control over these issues? Wouldn't that be nice? Sure would save us taxpayers a bundle not having to pay for their living expenses, not to mention their education, recreation, and freaking cable TV.
Seriously, I don't give a crap if her sister died. What she did to the 14-year-old boy is sick, and she needs to be locked up for it. If you think she won't survive, that's too bad; she should've considered that before riding the boy. And let's not forget: if it were a 24-year-old man screwing a 14-year-old schoolgirl, you'd all be thirsting for his blood.
Pleading insanity is akin to saying, "Don't hold me responsible for what I've done because I'm crrrraaaaazzzy! I don't have to take responsibility for anything I do because I'm crrrrrrrraaaaaazzzzzzyyy!!" If you're not responsible for your own life and your own actions, then pray tell, who is?
Lock her up in a cell. Let the other prisoners have their way with this fine piece of meat. Or, if the medical examiners do indeed determine that she's crrrraaaazzzy, then lock her up in an asylum. It's all the same to me.
One of Those Nights...
Tonight is one of those nights where nothing is coming to me. Not a constipation of ideas; just a complete lack of.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
What to make of the Canadian same-sex marriage bill?
Recently discussed the Canadian same-sex marriage bill issue with a friend in Toronto, the Canadian symbol of gay pride.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Marriage was an instutition before governments, and governments have neither the right nor the power to change its definition.
And the reasoning that gays and lesbians were discriminated against under the previous definition of marriage between one man and one woman? Merrian-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996) defines "discriminate" as: to make a difference in treatment or favour on a basis other than individual merit. Well, as far as I can tell, we weren't discriminating against gays and lesbians under the old laws. Let's see: could straight people marry someone his/her own gender? I'm afraid they couldn't either. So how was not allowing gays and lesbians marry someone his/her own gender an act of discrimination? If nobody was allowed to do it, then there could not have been any discrimination going on, since discrimination presumes a "difference in treatment". And believe you me when I say that gays and lesbians could in fact marry under the old laws. Really, they could! They were as free as the rest of us to marry someone of the opposite sex! Where was the discrimination?!
One more example here. Suppose a Canadian wanted a say in American politics. He wants to vote in the next American presidential election. But - surprise, surprise! - he's told by the authorities that he's not allowed to vote, because he's not American. What do you say here? "Hey! That's discrimination!" Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds? But that's exactly what's going on right now with this bill!
So if there was no discrimination, what the hell was this bill all about? What the hell was this bill supposed to fix, exactly? If you want to bring up the stuff about tax benefits for married couples, let's try to figure out why they exist in the first place. I would argue that married couples get tax breaks because they form families - the basic unit in a society - and are seen as beneficial to society in general for rearing and nurturing children - the next generation of society. Homosexual unions cannot bring forth such prosperity; rather, their failure to reproduce is particularly detrimental to society in general. In fact, I would even go as far as saying "homosexual unions are cancerous to society". Just as cancer cells consume nutrients but do no meaningful good to the body as a whole, so too do homosexual unions receive all the benefits but contribute nothing positive to society. Even children adopted into such "families" (for the lack of a better term) are bound to grow up with a twisted perception of the world.
So that's my controversial blurb of the week. If you share a similar view, I'd love to hear from you. If you disagree with what I said, well, you can take your opinion and shove it.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Marriage was an instutition before governments, and governments have neither the right nor the power to change its definition.
And the reasoning that gays and lesbians were discriminated against under the previous definition of marriage between one man and one woman? Merrian-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996) defines "discriminate" as: to make a difference in treatment or favour on a basis other than individual merit. Well, as far as I can tell, we weren't discriminating against gays and lesbians under the old laws. Let's see: could straight people marry someone his/her own gender? I'm afraid they couldn't either. So how was not allowing gays and lesbians marry someone his/her own gender an act of discrimination? If nobody was allowed to do it, then there could not have been any discrimination going on, since discrimination presumes a "difference in treatment". And believe you me when I say that gays and lesbians could in fact marry under the old laws. Really, they could! They were as free as the rest of us to marry someone of the opposite sex! Where was the discrimination?!
One more example here. Suppose a Canadian wanted a say in American politics. He wants to vote in the next American presidential election. But - surprise, surprise! - he's told by the authorities that he's not allowed to vote, because he's not American. What do you say here? "Hey! That's discrimination!" Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds? But that's exactly what's going on right now with this bill!
So if there was no discrimination, what the hell was this bill all about? What the hell was this bill supposed to fix, exactly? If you want to bring up the stuff about tax benefits for married couples, let's try to figure out why they exist in the first place. I would argue that married couples get tax breaks because they form families - the basic unit in a society - and are seen as beneficial to society in general for rearing and nurturing children - the next generation of society. Homosexual unions cannot bring forth such prosperity; rather, their failure to reproduce is particularly detrimental to society in general. In fact, I would even go as far as saying "homosexual unions are cancerous to society". Just as cancer cells consume nutrients but do no meaningful good to the body as a whole, so too do homosexual unions receive all the benefits but contribute nothing positive to society. Even children adopted into such "families" (for the lack of a better term) are bound to grow up with a twisted perception of the world.
So that's my controversial blurb of the week. If you share a similar view, I'd love to hear from you. If you disagree with what I said, well, you can take your opinion and shove it.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
The Mathematics Behind the Birthday Game
For those of you who've ever been to the Stampede, you should be familiar with the Birthday Game. That's the one where you place a buck or two in the square with the name of your favourite month, and hope the 14-sided die will show the same month. Some of you are still placing money in one square at a time, while some of the shrewder ones have decided to cover all the bases by buying up all twelve months plus New Years and Christmas. I'm here to discuss strategy for this particular game, so hopefully next year you'll get a better return on your investment.
First, we need to make an assumption regarding the die. In order to keep things simple, we'll assume that we have in our hands a fair die; that is, the outcome of a roll is truly random and each face has an equal chance of landing on top on any given roll. This means the probability of each outcome is assume to be P(NY) = P(Jan) = P(Feb) = ... = P(Dec) = P(X'mas) = 1/14.
Now a quick refresher course in probability.
1. P(2 faces) = 2 x P(1 face) = 2/14 = 1/7 (Probability of winning if we buy two months)
2. P(7 faces) = 7 x P(1 face) = 7/14 = 1/2 (Probability of winning if we buy seven months)
3. P'(1 face) = 1 - P(1 face) = 1 - 1/14 = 13/14 (Probability of losing if we buy one month)
4. P(1 face & 1 face) = 1/14 x 1/14 = 1/196 (Probability of winning twice in a row if we buy one month each time)
5. P(1 face 1 face) = 1/14 x 13/14 + 13/14 x 1/14 = 26/196 = 13/98 (Probability of winning once if we play twice, buying one month each time)
As we already know, buying all 14 squares results in P(14 faces) = 1. This is the safest route for somebody simply looking to score a stuffed animal for his girlfriend who's throwing a tantrum, but it's certainly not the wisest investment.
Let's begin by splitting up our bets into halves. That means (2) where we now have a 1/2 chance of winning in each round by buying seven squares. That also means we can now play two rounds with the same amount of money. Combining (2), (4), and (5), we see that:
P(7 faces & 7 faces) = 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 (Probability of winning twice in a row)
P(7 faces 7 faces) = 1/2 x 1/2 + 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/2 (Probability of winning once out of two rounds)
Voila! By introducing a 1/4 chance of not winning anything, we've also introduced a 1/4 chance of winning twice in a row, while keeping the chance of winning at least once at a respectable 3/4.
What if we took it one step further? How about three rounds of 5 squares? This requires us to buy a total of 15 squares, one more than in previous cases, but let's just see how our chances are:
P(5 faces) = 5/14
P(three wins) = (5/14)^3 = 125/2744 (~4.56%)
P(two wins out of three) = (5/14 x 5/14 x 9/14) x 3 = 675/2744 (~24.6%)
P(one win out of three) = (5/14 x 9/14 x 9/14) x 3 = 1215/2744 (~44.3%)
P(no wins) = (9/14)^3 = 729/2744 (~26.6%)
By introducing a further 1.6% chance of not winning, we see that we've bought ourselves a nearly 5% chance of winning three times in a row. Granted, this is a rather slim chance, and you have to be pretty lucky to win three stuffed animals for that tantrum-throwing girlfriend of yours, but your chances of winning at least once remains relatively unchanged at around 73.4%, fairly close to the 3/4 (75%) in the previous case. So, in my opinion, no reason to be parsimonious over two bucks, and who knows, maybe you'll be the one in twenty who gets to go home with three stuffed animals and one happy girlfriend.
Onto four rounds of 4 squares: (that's 16 squares total)
P(4 wins) = 256/38416 (~0.666%)
P(3 wins) = 2560/38416 (~6.66%)
P(2 wins) = 9600/38416 (~25%)
P(1 win) = 16000/38416 (~41.65%)
P(no wins) = 10000/38416 (~26%)
The improved odds over the last (3 rounds x 5 squares) scenario is partly due to the fact that we're now buying 16 squares total. Nevertheless, the improvement in the odds of three wins out of four makes this an attractive option, since the odds of winning at least once is also increased to just under 74%.
Of course, I've tried to keep the total number of squares as close to 14 as possible here for the sake of comparisons, but there's no stopping you rich folks from increasing the stakes now is there? So what if we decided to increase the stakes by 50% over two rounds? That is, let's buy 9 squares each round instead of 7. So here's two rounds of 9 squares:
P(9 faces) = 9/14
P(two wins) = (9/14)^2 = 81/196 (~41.3%)
P(one win) = (9/14 x 5/14) x 2 = 90/196 (~45.9%)
P(no wins) = (5/14)^2 = 25/196 (~12.8%)
By not scrimping on your stakes, we've cut the winless chances by nearly half, simply by upping your stakes by less than half (from 14 to 18). What if we went a little further and did 10 squares each time for a total of 20?
P(10 faces) = 10/14 = 5/7
P(two wins) = (5/7)^2 = 25/49 (~51%)
P(one win) = (5/7 x 2/7) x 2 = 20/49 (~40.8%)
P(no wins) = (2/7)^2 = 4/49 (~8.16%)
Eureka! We now actually have better than one in two chances of winning twice in a row. And still we've upped our expenses by less than 50%!
I hope this entry has helped you rethink your strategies for the next time you visit the games at the Stampede. Certainly, these carnies have ripped us off collectively long enough. It's time to play the odds and try to win one back for the masses. Or two. Or three.
P.s. Of course, as I stated at the beginning, I've assumed a fair die for simplicity. To improve your chances further, I would suggest you try to observe the patterns of the die. I've heard reports of certain faces showing up more often than others. Use this to your advantage when deciding which squares to buy; this will increase your chances even more!
First, we need to make an assumption regarding the die. In order to keep things simple, we'll assume that we have in our hands a fair die; that is, the outcome of a roll is truly random and each face has an equal chance of landing on top on any given roll. This means the probability of each outcome is assume to be P(NY) = P(Jan) = P(Feb) = ... = P(Dec) = P(X'mas) = 1/14.
Now a quick refresher course in probability.
1. P(2 faces) = 2 x P(1 face) = 2/14 = 1/7 (Probability of winning if we buy two months)
2. P(7 faces) = 7 x P(1 face) = 7/14 = 1/2 (Probability of winning if we buy seven months)
3. P'(1 face) = 1 - P(1 face) = 1 - 1/14 = 13/14 (Probability of losing if we buy one month)
4. P(1 face & 1 face) = 1/14 x 1/14 = 1/196 (Probability of winning twice in a row if we buy one month each time)
5. P(1 face 1 face) = 1/14 x 13/14 + 13/14 x 1/14 = 26/196 = 13/98 (Probability of winning once if we play twice, buying one month each time)
As we already know, buying all 14 squares results in P(14 faces) = 1. This is the safest route for somebody simply looking to score a stuffed animal for his girlfriend who's throwing a tantrum, but it's certainly not the wisest investment.
Let's begin by splitting up our bets into halves. That means (2) where we now have a 1/2 chance of winning in each round by buying seven squares. That also means we can now play two rounds with the same amount of money. Combining (2), (4), and (5), we see that:
P(7 faces & 7 faces) = 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 (Probability of winning twice in a row)
P(7 faces 7 faces) = 1/2 x 1/2 + 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/2 (Probability of winning once out of two rounds)
Voila! By introducing a 1/4 chance of not winning anything, we've also introduced a 1/4 chance of winning twice in a row, while keeping the chance of winning at least once at a respectable 3/4.
What if we took it one step further? How about three rounds of 5 squares? This requires us to buy a total of 15 squares, one more than in previous cases, but let's just see how our chances are:
P(5 faces) = 5/14
P(three wins) = (5/14)^3 = 125/2744 (~4.56%)
P(two wins out of three) = (5/14 x 5/14 x 9/14) x 3 = 675/2744 (~24.6%)
P(one win out of three) = (5/14 x 9/14 x 9/14) x 3 = 1215/2744 (~44.3%)
P(no wins) = (9/14)^3 = 729/2744 (~26.6%)
By introducing a further 1.6% chance of not winning, we see that we've bought ourselves a nearly 5% chance of winning three times in a row. Granted, this is a rather slim chance, and you have to be pretty lucky to win three stuffed animals for that tantrum-throwing girlfriend of yours, but your chances of winning at least once remains relatively unchanged at around 73.4%, fairly close to the 3/4 (75%) in the previous case. So, in my opinion, no reason to be parsimonious over two bucks, and who knows, maybe you'll be the one in twenty who gets to go home with three stuffed animals and one happy girlfriend.
Onto four rounds of 4 squares: (that's 16 squares total)
P(4 wins) = 256/38416 (~0.666%)
P(3 wins) = 2560/38416 (~6.66%)
P(2 wins) = 9600/38416 (~25%)
P(1 win) = 16000/38416 (~41.65%)
P(no wins) = 10000/38416 (~26%)
The improved odds over the last (3 rounds x 5 squares) scenario is partly due to the fact that we're now buying 16 squares total. Nevertheless, the improvement in the odds of three wins out of four makes this an attractive option, since the odds of winning at least once is also increased to just under 74%.
Of course, I've tried to keep the total number of squares as close to 14 as possible here for the sake of comparisons, but there's no stopping you rich folks from increasing the stakes now is there? So what if we decided to increase the stakes by 50% over two rounds? That is, let's buy 9 squares each round instead of 7. So here's two rounds of 9 squares:
P(9 faces) = 9/14
P(two wins) = (9/14)^2 = 81/196 (~41.3%)
P(one win) = (9/14 x 5/14) x 2 = 90/196 (~45.9%)
P(no wins) = (5/14)^2 = 25/196 (~12.8%)
By not scrimping on your stakes, we've cut the winless chances by nearly half, simply by upping your stakes by less than half (from 14 to 18). What if we went a little further and did 10 squares each time for a total of 20?
P(10 faces) = 10/14 = 5/7
P(two wins) = (5/7)^2 = 25/49 (~51%)
P(one win) = (5/7 x 2/7) x 2 = 20/49 (~40.8%)
P(no wins) = (2/7)^2 = 4/49 (~8.16%)
Eureka! We now actually have better than one in two chances of winning twice in a row. And still we've upped our expenses by less than 50%!
I hope this entry has helped you rethink your strategies for the next time you visit the games at the Stampede. Certainly, these carnies have ripped us off collectively long enough. It's time to play the odds and try to win one back for the masses. Or two. Or three.
P.s. Of course, as I stated at the beginning, I've assumed a fair die for simplicity. To improve your chances further, I would suggest you try to observe the patterns of the die. I've heard reports of certain faces showing up more often than others. Use this to your advantage when deciding which squares to buy; this will increase your chances even more!
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Schwül
That's a new word I learned in German class: schwül. It translates into "stifling", which is pretty much how I would describe Calgary weather at the moment. I can hardly sit still in the heat, and I'm sweating so much my undies are clinging to my crotch. Not a pleasant feeling.
Making plans for tomorrow (er, today) morning, although something could still come up last minute to change all of it.
Just installed Final Fantasy VIII onto my laptop. Have to start all over again. Same goes for VII. Don't you hate it when you lose your saves for epic adventure games?
Watched the Brazil vs. Hong Kong match from Chinese New Years on tape today. Highlights include Roberto Carlos' rocket of a goal, Hong Kong's single goal in a 7-1 mauling, and, best of all, Robinho's octuple stepover. That's right, eight freaking stepovers in a row. And my uncle said it's impractical...
Anyway, since I have to be up around 7 tomorrow (or today), I'm gonna try willing myself to sleep in this schwül night. Gute Nacht.
Making plans for tomorrow (er, today) morning, although something could still come up last minute to change all of it.
Just installed Final Fantasy VIII onto my laptop. Have to start all over again. Same goes for VII. Don't you hate it when you lose your saves for epic adventure games?
Watched the Brazil vs. Hong Kong match from Chinese New Years on tape today. Highlights include Roberto Carlos' rocket of a goal, Hong Kong's single goal in a 7-1 mauling, and, best of all, Robinho's octuple stepover. That's right, eight freaking stepovers in a row. And my uncle said it's impractical...
Anyway, since I have to be up around 7 tomorrow (or today), I'm gonna try willing myself to sleep in this schwül night. Gute Nacht.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Oh the Idiocy!
Second day of summer classes. Beautiful weather outside, and I'm stuck indoors doing German and Pure Mathematics. German I didn't mind so much. In fact, I got all the permissions to audit the course. It was the PMAT course that drove me nuts. Sitting in a classroom with idiots who ask stupid questions and cannot understand the simplest of proofs. I literally banged my head on the table barely an hour into the three hours of suffering.
And to make matters worst, minutes before 8 o'clock, I realized I had forgotten to place my parking ticket on the dashboard. When we finally got our break at 8:25, I hurried over to my car, but sure enough there was the warning slip sitting neatly under the wiper. And to add insult to injury, the ticket was issued at 7:55. Perhaps it was just some cosmic coincidence that I realized my folly precisely when I was being issued the warning.
Acutually, I wanted to talk about something else tonight. It's about the professor of the PMAT class. At the beginning of the lecture, she told the class that she'd just had a baby five weeks ago, and asked for our patience and understanding if she seemed slow on any given day due to fatigue. I couldn't help but think that was a bit sexist. As a matter of fact, very sexist. I can't imagine a male professor being given the same leniency for childbirth. Like I've always said, equality between the sexes is a load of crock.
And to make matters worst, minutes before 8 o'clock, I realized I had forgotten to place my parking ticket on the dashboard. When we finally got our break at 8:25, I hurried over to my car, but sure enough there was the warning slip sitting neatly under the wiper. And to add insult to injury, the ticket was issued at 7:55. Perhaps it was just some cosmic coincidence that I realized my folly precisely when I was being issued the warning.
Acutually, I wanted to talk about something else tonight. It's about the professor of the PMAT class. At the beginning of the lecture, she told the class that she'd just had a baby five weeks ago, and asked for our patience and understanding if she seemed slow on any given day due to fatigue. I couldn't help but think that was a bit sexist. As a matter of fact, very sexist. I can't imagine a male professor being given the same leniency for childbirth. Like I've always said, equality between the sexes is a load of crock.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Friday Came and Went
Okay, okay, so Friday didn't quite go as I expected or planned.
But so what? I'm not going to let that affect how I live my life.
Let's talk about something a little more positive. Today's sermon by Pastor Kwek: "Our Lord of the Rings" really hit home. Even more than last week's sermon on holiness by Reverend Lee. (Li?)
He reminded me that, rather than looking left and right for Miss Right, I need to focus on improving myself and growing within Christ, such that I may one day become a blessing to my wife.
He also pointed out that differences between husband and wife should be opportunities for growth and appreciation rather than sources of conflict. He suggested that Adam, the first man and the handiwork of God, was incomplete by design. Eve, as Adam's helper, was meant to complement him where he was lacking.
Which rasies a point: is it really necessary or even desirable then for men to be "in touch with their feminine sides"? And how much "equality" must we extend to women? What is the Christian stance on these questions?
But so what? I'm not going to let that affect how I live my life.
Let's talk about something a little more positive. Today's sermon by Pastor Kwek: "Our Lord of the Rings" really hit home. Even more than last week's sermon on holiness by Reverend Lee. (Li?)
He reminded me that, rather than looking left and right for Miss Right, I need to focus on improving myself and growing within Christ, such that I may one day become a blessing to my wife.
He also pointed out that differences between husband and wife should be opportunities for growth and appreciation rather than sources of conflict. He suggested that Adam, the first man and the handiwork of God, was incomplete by design. Eve, as Adam's helper, was meant to complement him where he was lacking.
Which rasies a point: is it really necessary or even desirable then for men to be "in touch with their feminine sides"? And how much "equality" must we extend to women? What is the Christian stance on these questions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
