I considered my first Magnum Opus to be my post on product integration, but I feel my post on the off topic section of the VillaTalk forum about Atheism might be pretty darn close.

Anyway my rant was in response to a guy named Chindie who posted:

"I'm suggesting that a learned person hasn't learnt enough if he remains a religious nut"


So my response to this was:

Okay let's say what Chindie says is true, and that as long as a man is learned enough he will automatically reject God.

So let's assume that under this paradigm, we have a Christian man, who spent 3 years studying all the logical arguments against a God and becomes learned enough to automatically reject his belief in God.

Now the question is, would it be possible for him to still have any other reason to believe God? Yes. It is possible. It is possible that his personal experiences are so metaphysical, so spiritual to his own being that it takes precedence over all the logical arguments that according to Chindie, SHOULD automatically force his rejection of his belief in God.

Why should the man consider the criteria of logic, science and reason more important than the criteria of his personal experiences? Or vice-versa? Surely it is up to him to decide which is more important to him. So neither believers nor atheists can tell this man that one criteria is more valid than the other. It has to come down to his own choice because his existence is his own.

If this man were to choose that he thinks the criteria of logic, science and reason is more important and more valid to him that the criteria of personal experiences then it's fine.

But it's not alright for atheists to put their criteria out there as an absolute that cannot be challenged, and deny this man a choice to decide for himself which criteria is more important.

Because in actuality once again, there is an implicit suggestion that the criteria of logic, science and reason HAS TO BE the only consideration of any being on planet Earth. It seems a little bit tyrannical isn't it, restricting people's freedom of choice by saying: "

"Hey look here, this is the only criteria that you HAVE to make your decision on God by, okay? You can't choose for yourself which criteria is more valid, because we know best, we KNOW that this criteria HAS TO BE the only one that you have to consider for your belief in God. It doesn't matter that it's your life, and it's your existence at stake here, you have no say in the matter! You have no choice in the matter! Our criteria is the only one you have to abide by. Sorry."

In essence this is the gist of the atheist argument.

On a principle level, why are you deciding for an individual what's best for his existence?

Who are you to demand that these people judge God based on your criteria.

You can't. So what does that mean for the argument?

You can't force people to accept that the atheist criteria of science, logic and reason is more important than the religious believer's criteria.

Unless of course, you believe that it is right for YOU to decide what's best for other people's existence. If that's the case, then please feel free to tell me that you feel that way and please explain why you do. I shall respond with my own set of arguments as to why I believe that is wrong. This is an assumption, but I believe, most people will not hold this view. Forgive me if I am mistaken.

Likewise, Christians, Hindus and Jews can't force people to accept that their criteria of personal experiences is more important than the atheist criteria.

So where does that leave us? At a stalemate once more. Which was one I said in my original post nearly 10 pages ago. This stalemate exists.

So why not live and let live?

I remember watching a documentary a while back about what would happen to the world if Man just completely vanished. 

Needless to say, it was rather fascinating. It involved seemingly intelligent men from different fields of science postulating about what would happen to the world in that scenario. They predicted that the skyscrapers and buildings in our cities would give rise to a brand new ecosystem whereby descendants of domesticated housecats would hunt birds who would nest in our concrete towers. The graphic illustrations on the program showed a sprawling rainforest climate on the very highest of floors, a intriguing display of nature evolving and growing around the constructs of men. 

Anyway, most of you will know by now that my sister's wedding was a weeks ago, and as it is for most brides, my sister moved in with my brother-in-law. 

Now the interesting thing is that now her room is vacant, a brand new ecosystem has developed. My sister's old room has now turned into the de facto laundry room. The rungs on the staircase to her loft bed have been converted to hanger racks, the iron and the ironing board now have a permanent place in my sister's room as does our family's collection of washed clothes. 

Anyways, school has started again, and apart from the four 8 am classes, life isn't so bad. Bounty's still a stubborn pain-in-the-ass when I'm trying to groom him, and he's getting more and more demanding. My Mum thinks he may be getting on a bit, as even though he's only 5, that's a middle-aged man of 30+ in dog years, or so I'm told. 

I know I should probably record the event of my sister's wedding down here, for archival purposes, and I'm sure I will when I have the time. 

But I should do it soon while the memories are still fresh in my head. 

Oh, last weekend I played as keeper in the SP street soccer courts. I flung my sorry ass all over the place, and as a result, the areas around my knees and my left elbow has been banged up pretty bad. My right thumb also was damaged - my gloves really doesn't offer much protection anymore - as I absorbed the full impact of a shot with that area of my palm. Although now it's healed up quite adequately, on Saturday after the tournament,  I couldn't bend my thumb backwards at all.  

But it was a great experience, I've gotten over the psychological hurdle of hurting myself while diving now ...  I'm fearless, brave and a wee bit crazy.

When I told Albert(another keeper on that day) of my injuries, he responded: " That's because you dive like superman, but you're not."

My team actually made it to the semis out of 6 teams, not a big achievement but still it's one. We drew 2-2 with the eventual winners in normal time, then we lost 2-0 on penalties. I only managed to keep one out, but it was fairly flukey. I felt the ball flick off the side off my head as I was diving and it hit the crossbar as a result. 

Anyway it's been great writing again. I've kinda lost the joy for it. At least until now. I think just about everyone I know is aware that I'm currently on a non-fiction reading spree, but after End of Food I'm going to re-read Shadow of the Wind and then start on the sequel which I purchased a few months back. 

Maybe I'll find time to squeeze in some Koontz. One of the Leigh Nichols novels I bought in March still has not been touched. And the Dennis Lehane book I bought when I was in Malaysia for MDOs is also lying on my shelf. Yes, one of the reasons I bought the book was because the author is my namesake. 

Anyway that's enough writing for tonight. 

I ought to go to read some more of End of Food, but I doubt I'll get any reading done tonight. 

So anyways. 

As the eternally ebullient Rajan says:

Cheers. 

Dennis, out. 

Since it's the hols, I finally got to reading Malcom Gladwell's The Tipping Point, which I purchased from Kino many many many moons ago. 

Anyway,  it examines the notion of the 'Tipping Point'. The magical moment when certain behaviors, products, sub-cultures 'tip' and spread like wildfire. It examines the cause of the popularity of trends and fads, why they just suddenly explode onto the scene and 'infect' so many in society.

Now this has piqued my curiosity in the incidents that has occurred in DMC 04 over the past couple of months. Members of 04 will know this phenomenon as 'Koreanism'. 

As with the many societal epidemics described in Gladwell's book, what happened was this. 

Initially there wasn't such a huge fuss about K-pop, we all knew Sha was korean-crazy since the first year, but then things changed this year, when suddenly, Koreanism spread like wildfire. 

What was the tipping point? 

Why did Koreanism spread so rapidly and quickly?

One of the options could be that the nature of product changed to such an extent that it passed the tipping point and became so very popular. 

Another option would be that the few people who were crazy about Koreanism were so voracious with their spreading of the message that it eventually 'infected' the rest. 

The final but less likely option would be that the context(environment) changed, and even though the product remained the same, the changing environment somehow 'tipped' it into becoming a fad. 

Now I don't think the 3rd option is really applicable in this case, as I don't think much has changed in way of environment the past few months. 

The former 2 options however, seem highly plausible. I do think the nature of the product has changed to an extent, the catalyst being the annoying Wondergirls single that dominated the radiowaves for months. The success of that Korean single 'tipped' Koreanism into the mainstream. 

And of course the voracious efforts of Sha and co. in proselytizing others to Koreanism.

Ok I guess my post is over. I shall continue with my book. Good stuff really. 

And I just wanted to update my blog to be honest. It's been inactive for a while now. 

Night, homies!

 In the tradition of Pieces of the Scientist comes a Snow Patrol/The Police remix ...

She is so adorable! And Craig Ferguson adores her as well, she's been on his show like a dozen times. I've spent the afternoon watching all the youtube clips of Bell on the Late Late Show. 

The man who marries her is a very lucky man. 

 When I was in Primary school I watched a lot of  local Chinese productions. Yeah, despite my faltering Mandarin, I still could follow the ubiquitous Channel 8 9 o'clock serials through the use of subtitles. 

Anyway today I suddenly received inspiration to research on local productions and I stumbled across two of my favorite Channel 8 shows ever. 

顶天立地(The Reunion) and 我来也(Heroes in Black). 

I thoroughly enjoyed both at the time(when I was P5!) and I especially remember the Friday nights when my younger sis and I would be watching Heroes in Black from 9 to 10, Survivor from 10 to 11 and then the Amazing Race from 11 to 12. All in the comfort of my parent's air-conditioned room, on their waterbed. We also had silly sumo pillow fights during the adverts, which involved both of us stuffing pillows into our shirts. 

Anyway, The Reunion was a great action flick involving 3 former NS buddies. It had an interesting concept. The series started off with a Christmas Eve party, where a Mexican stand-off ensues between Chew Chor Meng, Tay Ping Hui and Terence Cao. The series goes on to tell us the story of how the 3 guys got to there, beginning with their NS experience, where they became close friends and then carried on with the different paths they took.  Terence Cao, initially a happy-go-lucky fella becomes a dangerous international terrorist, after being betrayed by Chew Chor Meng, and is now sought after by Tay Ping Hui(now a special ops agent), It was not just a great action series, but the story and character development won me over. And Cao really was brilliant in this, his transformation from carefree guy to devious villain was so convincingly real. I dug the hell out of this show. 

Heroes in Black was a period piece set in ancient China about a Robin Hood-esque vigilante named 我来也(played by Li Nanxing). Due to pure laziness I shall post a summary I found online: 

"As an officer in a battle, Song Dou(Li Nanxing) witnesses the arrogance and self centered attitudes of the top officials towards their underlings. After the war, as a lowly constable, he resolves to right wrongs. But when his efforts proves to be futile, he becomes "Wo Lai Ye", a masked figure in black, punishing the corrupt, rescuing the innocent and redistributing the wealth that he has taken from the rich among the poor. The magistrate and his allies need to keep thinking of different ways in which to capture him as he eludes them. As the masked hero, he rescues Liu Fei Yan(Fann Wong), a forthright, outspoken, shrewd young female restaurant entrepreneur.

Song Dou falls in love with Liu Fei Yan, but she only loves "Wo Lai Ye", holding his real self in contempt. When Feng Pobo(Bobbie Yeung), a rich and powerful righteous official from the Capital, visits their city and falls in love with Fei Yan, a hilarious love triangle occurs involving Song Dou, Pobo, "Wo Lai Ye" and Fei Yan."

To keep things short, it was a really funny show. On hindsight there were parts of it that were very romantic-comedy like, and the story was quite interesting as well, There was also great cast of interesting supporting characters, Vincent Aw playing one of Fann Wong's chefs, as well as veteran actor Henry Thia providing the cringe-worthy humor. 

I haven't watched much Channel 8 shows recently, the only one in recent memory being Like Father, Like Daughter, which was a rather charming series. 

I don't and continue not to understand the recent hype with The Little Nonya. My parents were crazily addicted along with half the country but I can never understand why. Admittedly, I watched a few episodes but it never captured my imagination or interest the same way The Reunion or Heroes in Black did.

Perhaps if they started showing reruns of those, people would give those critical acclaim as well, since Channel 8 dramas have become the 'in' thing once again. 

Let me just end off with the opening themes of 顶天立地(The Reunion) and 我来也(Heroes in Black). 





I do hope some of my readers have watched these shows as well, and can relate to their awesomeness.  

 </lj-embed>

I swear Segel is high here. Funniest interview ever. 

 As the title suggests, this post will be about Paul Rudd. 

He's been around the Apatow arena of romantic comedies of a while now - The 40 year old virgin, Knocked up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and more recently -  Role Models and I Love You, Man where he starred as the leading man. 

Now there's this ineffable dorky charm about Rudd's characters, this blokeish, everyday man with a gentle personality who's caught up in a uncomfortable situation. 

In my opinion, Paul Rudd as a main lead cuts across all demographics, among the established Hollywood 'frat' pack of leading funny men - Will Ferrel, Ben Stiller, Seth Rogen and the likes, his characters are the ones that audiences can most connect to. 

Stiller's dopey frown and cowardly lion persona and Will Ferrel's and Rogen's crass, gross-out humor have worn a bit thin, but Paul Rudd's likeable, if slightly vanilla portrayals of sweet, well-meaning blokes can really help engage the audience.

Just a thought.

Today after taking the MBTI personality test during OM tutorial, I've been researching my personality type.

An INTP - Introverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving

And so much of the features of an INTP is so uncannily similar to myself.

Some aspects of an INTP person.

"INTPs are more apt to be arguing in order to convince themselves that what THEY think is indeed true."  - my blog posts case and point. 

"INTP types are quiet, thoughtful, analytical individuals who enjoy spending long periods of time on their own, working through problems and forming solutions. They are curious about systems and how things work."

"INTPs tend to be less at ease in social situations or in the "caring professions," although they enjoy the company of those who share their interests. They also tend to be impatient with the bureaucracy, the rigid hierarchies, and the politics prevalent in many professions."

"INTPs frequently puzzle over a problem for hours on end, until the answer suddenly crystallizes in a flash of insight."

The list goes on. It's astonishing how accurate this test really is. I do like spending time alone and I am a very pensive person. But I shalln't go and list out all the INTP character aspects, because as Jose said, INTP is similar to me, not me to it. 

It's no big deal. Somehow I feel that it is though. It is very calming to know that I am not alone. And that there are thousands of other INTPs out there. 

I feel a strange sense of camaraderie and belonging now, it's like I've discovered a whole other world of people like me, and boy is it a good feeling. 

I am not alone. 

With all my recent ponderous entries, I have decided to post something that people would actually enjoy viewing.

So although this is probably a year late, here are 2 satirical parodies of the 08 presidential race.



The second clip features Ray Wise who plays the Devil on CW's Reaper. He is deliciously evil.

 I realize a serious flaw in my 'ideal' education system. It doesn't account for human nature. 

If I set up such an open and free kind of education, whereby students can get the knowledge and skills for ANY kind of field or career they so choose, then I run a serious risk of having too many people applying for the more lucrative jobs. 

Because ultimately at the end of the day, people still have material wants, and they would like to attain the highest standard of living as possible. So many would prioritize the pursuit of wealth over the pursuit of knowledge. Take a guy who's really passionate about local hawker fare. You would think under my system, he would study local recipes, learn the authentic techniques of preparing such meals etc. But if there is equal opportunity for this guy to get the same kind of knowledge and skills that a bigwig businessman would require, wouldn't he rather go for the more high-paying job?

There still could be some kind of solution to this problem, whereby the students will eventually sort themselves out once everyone realizes that going for the same thing is stupid(because the neglected areas become the more lucrative because of the lack of interest; and they all can't get the top executive jobs)  but there is going to be this initial flaw in the system, and as a debater I know this kind of cost is far too heavy, and it's very hard to justify the long-term benefits of this policy, when there's this HUGE immediate harm to the economy in the short-term; it's very hard for the Government to justify that we're looking at long-term, 50, 100 years down the road, and that makes all the harm at first okay. The Government exists to serve the people that voted them in, the people of the present who expect that the money they give in taxes will directly or indirectly benefit them. Long-term policies that take 10-20 years before it bears fruit for the people, still can be justifiable, but honestly, as an average tax payer, under Dennis's system, why would I care about my great-great-great-great grandkids having an ideal education? Why should I suffer so much in the short-term, let the Government bring us so much initial harm just so that kids 100 years later can be educated the right way? 

As such, the Dennis model of education is completely unfeasible. 

And also today, I was watching a discussion on Prop 8(I know old news) ... suffice to say it was a pretty bad one, with homosexuality is a choice vs homosexuality is genetic being the main arguments on both sides. It was a shitty discussion. 

For those of you who don't know Prop 8 was a resolution passed in California that delegalized same sex marriages. Which means that homosexual couples couldn't get married legally anymore, and they'd also be denied all the exclusive rights that come with it.

Shrawan(our debating coach) always told us that in a Prop 8 debate, don't pass a value judgement on homosexuality, but instead focus arguments on the exclusivity of the legal term of marriage to ONLY heterosexual couples - what the term 'marriage' should really entail. 

And today I saw it. 

There are many fundamental differences between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage, namely in the areas of conceiving, child-rearing(how it affects a child's social behavior and development because he/she doesn't see male-female interaction in his parents - very important figures for a kid growing up) etc. and that necessitates such exclusivity. Because they are SO different, and there are many aspects of a heterosexual marriage that are extremely important, which homosexual marriages lack, that is the reason why there needs to be a distinction between what constitutes as 'real' marriage and what is not.

Of course there will always be plenty of counter arguments to this, the typical the harms are too small. For eg. Legalisation of homosexual marriages will bring about the equality of homosexuals in society. As a Government we have a responsibility to our citizens to make them feel like equals, to makes sure others in society view them as equals etc. and any form of legislation that distinguishes between homosexuals and heterosexuals; such legislation will never give the homosexuals the same status as the other people in society. Principally they deserve such recognition, even if there is all these differences in conceiving, child-rearing etc. 

I'm just writing these arguments on my blog so I have a record of it. I don't want to forget these anytime soon. Might be useful, who knows when the next homosexuality debate may be around the corner, this issue can be relevant just about anytime. It always becomes relevant now and again. Same thing with the Somali pirates. Or North Korea and Nuclear testing. 

 About the issue of giving exam tips being unethical in nature, I beg to differ. 

Educators have a responsibility to themselves, their profession; a responsibility to society and a responsibility to the students he/she is teaching to educate them as best he/she can. 

In the pursuit of a higher level of education, the Singapore government has to help incentivise the educators in the system to give students a more complete, more holistic education. And if educators know how to impart this holistic education to their students, if they want to do so, the Govt. should take all measures to help facilitate and incentivise educators to do so.

If a teacher feels like he/she can help create an environment more productive for imparting a holistic education, then by all means, the Government should give them the freedom to do so. It doesn't matter what kinds of harms it may cause, how unfair it might be to other students, how it might affect the system of meritocracy; if it helps a teacher better educate the students on a higher level, it's justified. 

It doesn't matter what harms are generated. We're looking at a HIGHER level of education. You have to decide whether you want to take a tokenistic stand for the system of flawed meritocracy in the education system or whether you want to encourage a higher level of education in schools. 

The reason why people will cry that this is unfair is because most of society deems education as the assessment of your hard work through examinations. They don't want that systemic gauge to be compromised. They think that it's unethical to give others a competitive edge they didn't work for. 

Then I pose again, is it ethical to deny students the holistic quality education they deserve? Is it ethical to encourage the focus of students to be on scoring and not LEARNING? 

Removing this kind of mentality, removing this kind of culture, and fostering in a new kind of learning experience, that should be the way to go. Yes, there are a lot of harms in allowing teachers this kind of freedom in the current education system, but it will help move us towards a more proper holistic kind of education, where there's not so much emphasis on scoring as there will be on learning. 

I hope that I will get to see the day where students in Singapore will receive that higher level of education that they deserve. 

Because we want to breed thinkers. 

To quote someone on a philosophy forum:

"It is historical fact that the public school system was not intended to develop men of letters, but rather to produce a standard pool of employees."

It's time to change that. Some economic suffering in the short-term is more than enough justification for that higher level of education our citizens deserve. 

But it will be very difficult. The present generation is too selfish to think of the well-being of the future generations. In my kind of system where there's no examinations, a lot of businesses would be disincentivised to come and invest in Singapore. They don't know what kind of employees they will be getting, Singaporean workers would be something of an unknown quantity. They'd rather not risk it. But why do we have to stick to the conformities of the world? Why not be a leader? 

Because in the long run, when people see that the students that come out of my ideal education system, are of a much higher calibre than the current muggers, it will pay off, as Singaporean employees will be so much more desirable than they are now. Of course eventually, people who want to specialize in certain areas have to undergo the necessary job training, but that will be when they are working adults. The first 18 or 20 so years of their young lives? Give them exposure to a whole range of knowledge, let them LEARN what they want to and then when they want to, they will be even more prepared for the career of their choice. That's what will make them so highly desirable in whatever industry they choose. 

The Government needs to take small but significant steps to developing this kind of education system. It may take 50 years, a 100, maybe even more to achieve this educational utopia, but it's worth it, no matter how great the cost. 

 Yesterday, a facet of this debate which I was aware of but had never really thought was valid came into the picture courtesy of my law lecturer. 

She argued that examinations and the mugging that comes with it, whilst not an indicator of one's intellect, is an indication of one's discipline and diligence. And she went to make the link that since grades were an indication of how disciplined a person was, the higher one's grades are, the more disciplined they are, and institutes of higher education like Universities are justified in having criteria for grades, because the people they get are those who have shown academic excellence through discipline and thus has a higher chance of doing well in their institute. 

She also then argued that yes,even though there are people who blindly memorize, the people at the very top of the academic ladder are those who does possess intellect and discipline, and that's the meritocracy in the education system. If you really are smart, you still can get what you deserve. 

But here is where I want to draw a distinction. There is a difference between mugging discipline and thinking discipline. What examinations assess is mugging discipline. What the good grades represent is how disciplined you were in mugging.  It's supposed to be an indicator of how successful you'll be in the particular institute, because you've shown this ability to work hard. 

While that sounds right, in higher educational institutes, discipline is not 'transferrable', just because you have the ability to work hard, doesn't mean you have the ability to think hard. You see, the thing that examinations at the lower level does not assess is that of thinking discipline. 

Let me just explain this. Majority of the subjects in Primary, Secondary and even JC level does not assess thinking discipline. And in many cases, not even an ounce of thinking discipline is assessed. Let me give examples through certain subjects. 

Let's start with Math. The annoying thing about Math in the PSLE and O'Level exams is that in the preparation for it, what teachers do is go through EVERY single possible type of question and show the students the applicable solutions. The teachers don't teach the solution, they SHOW the solution. They show what formulas they used to get to the answer. The students then go on to memorize all these solutions to the various kinds of sums, and all that a mugger has to do, is copy and paste the formulaic solutions to whatever questions come up. That's what they do, and as a result, they can easily get super high grades. What pisses me off about this is that the people who actually have a better appreciation and understanding of Math, their thinking discipline is not as proportionately assessed in the examinations. 

What do I mean by that? First let me talk about my own experiences. In sec 3 and 4, during Math classes, whenever my teacher would start on a topic, she would go through the basic formulas in the beginning, and for homework, give us variations of the basic questions she taught and more advanced questions. Basically the homework consisted of sums which you had to just 'plug' in the formula she taught and you would get the answer and other questions which required a more thinking approach, because it wasn't taught yet. For the more tougher questions that required a lot more thinking than 'plugging' in formulas, majority of the class couldn't reach that level of thought, but a few people in my class could, the one I remember most fondly of was an eccentric Indonesian named Marco. He and I were always the one who could solve them. And during afternoon extra classes for Math, where my teacher would give the whole class a sheet of problems to do, there would always be the basic ones, and some complex ones. And not surprisingly, Marco would always get there first. He would solve the complex problems with ease whilst everyone was still struggling over it. His understanding of the Math topics extended to BEYOND just 'plugging' in formulaic solutions. 

Now I want to talk about thinking discipline. Do you think people like Marco could just naturally see the next level? No. To some extent it might have been, but the thinking discipline involved comes from the activity of understanding the mechanics of the formula. How it works, why it works ... as I've mentioned before, people view Math as a superficial practice practice subject, but it is layered with intricacies and complexities, that people with thinking discipline can actually appreciate. 

But the depth of Mathematical understanding in the O's, was limited to a very superficial 'plugging' in formula level, and it mostly only gauged the mugging discipline of students. Whereas on an epistemological level, shouldn't Mathematical exams be testing more on one's appreciation and understanding of it? Rather than how much formulaic solutions they are able to 'plug' in? Because let's face it, if on the day of the O'levels, if people opened the booklet and there were entirely new questions from the topics, new questions that didn't require new formula knowledge, but new questions that required students to actually THINK of how to solve them using the existing formulas - most of the students would fail miserably. Because Math as a subject has been transformed into something that doesn't require much thought. Now people might say, well, that's why there's often 1 challenging question in the examinations to help the Math intellectual to distinguish himself from the rest. But isn't that a major problem that in the % allocation of questions, questions that assess the mugging discipline outnumbers the ones that test thinking discipline by 9-1? Shouldn't examinations test more on an individual's thinking discipline rather than his mugging discipline? And Math is not the only subject guilty of this, FFS, humanities like History, Social Studies and the Languages have been reduced to a superficial level. The way to answer standard sets of questions are taught to the students, hell the teacher even deconstructs and teaches the students a formulaic way to write certain essays. Where is the cognitive and linguistic flexibility that these subjects are supposed to assess?

And digressing a little, there's clearly a problem with the education system when you see that a few years ago, parents complained about the PSLE Math paper, which consisted of 1 or 2 thinking questions that were not taught in class. Clearly, the Singapore Government has entrenched such a deep-rooted culture of mugging = educational success, that people are being educated on a very superficial level, and no one even seems to realize that their kids are not thinking! When the kids can't even do anything OTHER than 'plugging' in formula then something is clearly WRONG! What education is this? On a principle level this is wrong in so many ways. 

But moving on, as my lecturer so nicely put, thinking skills, intellect etc. all require a tremendous amount of mental discipline. And I've seen it for myself too. My good friend Jose devotes a lot of his time to reading autobiographies of Buffet and Munger, as well as philosophical texts by Hume and Smith. And even I'd like to think to a lesser extent, that my many months of devotion to Beetham also qualifies as discipline as well. And not all forms of thinking discipline has to relate to what you are studying. A vital part of thinking discipline is actually exposure to a whole range of other kinds of knowledge, helping one gain a more complete understanding and analysis of the world around him. 

I'd like to categorize 3 kinds of people now - 1. those who possess mugging discipline only, 2. those who possess thinking discipline only, 3. those who possess both. 

Now clearly in terms of meritocracy, those who possess both disciplines get their due. If they mug as hard as the rest, and continue to increase their own cognitive capacities through thinking disciplines, then they will get where they deserve to in the education system. But as I wrote in a philosophy forum, students already are very busy people, and people who maintain their own thinking disciplines does so at the expense of their mugging time. They will have less time to mug compared to a pure mugger. Isn't it fundamentally wrong for someone who wants to pursue other kinds of non-syllabus thinking disciplines, actually have to work HARDER than the pure muggers? Because thinking disciplines take up A LOT of time, it requires a lot of devotion, I've seen it with Jose. And so even if you have to mug less to achieve the same results as the pure muggers, isn't it wrong for someone who wants to learn more about the world, and wants to be knowledgeable actually SUFFER for his pursuit of knowledge? The worst part is that all the thinking and reading a person may have done are not reflected in grades, because, examinations are mugging questions centric and not thinking questions centric. So for all their thinking discipline, only the mugging is reflected in their grades. 

Now let me talk about the 2nd group of people - those who possess thinking discipline but not mugging discipline. To clear up misconceptions, it's not that these people are lazy bums, who sit around all day doing nothing. As I've explained people with thinking discipline has to spend a lot of time and a lot of devotion to reading, thinking, analysing. These people simply defined, place more emphasis on thinking discipline rather than mugging. Some people in this group may be a little extreme, as they see absolutely no point in memorization, they see no educational and epistemological value to mugging, so unlike the 1st group of people with thinking discipline who can force themselves to mug like hell as well as maintaining thinking discipline, some of these people don't really give a 2 hoots about mugging. 

But let's look at higher educational subjects now. What kind of discipline would it require more of? Mugging discipline or thinking discipline? 

Clearly, it's thinking discipline. Take Mathematics for instance, would the aforementioned Marco or a pure mugger do better? Definitely Marco. In terms of meritocracy, he deserves it, because he has acquired and probably spent time developing that thinking discipline. Whereas the mugger only has exposure to Math on a simplistic 'plugging' it in level. Now if Marco falls in the first group of thinking people who can mug, good for him, he has got into where he deserves, and now he's well equipped to learn the subject to the extent that it's supposed to.  But what if Marco falls into the the second group of thinkers who don't mug as much, who don't place as much emphasis on mugging as reading, thinking and analysing, he and these people will most likely get lower grades than the pure muggers and might not even make it to the course of his choice.

Let's look at another example, Jose and I.

I have a GPA of 3.1 and he has a GPA of 2.9(if memory serves me right). There's no doubt that we are going to find it very difficult to get into university. Say for instance I do decide I want to pursue political science in the University, it will be very difficult for me to do so with my poor GPA. But a pure mugger who gets a perfect 4.0 or perfect grades for his A levels, well, he will get into it, no problem. But all my Beetham, all my Rosseau will put me in a much better position to study it, and arguably, it makes me more DESERVING to get into the course than him. 

So clearly there is no LEGITIMATE meritocracy in the education system. Because even if you look at examinations as a indicator of discipline, clearly, it only accounts for mugging discipline. 

So does the educational system have legitimate meritocracy? No. 

But now let us look at the issue of education on a principal and more epistemological level. Shouldn't the pursuit of knowledge allow equal access to the kind of knowledge that an individual wants to learn? When there's so much in the world that interests various people, why should the Government pass judgement on other kinds of knowledge and say, oh for the first 16 - 18 years of your life, Math, Science and Physics and Humanities, as determined by society, is more legitimate than other forms of knowledge? I can understand the argument of certain subjects being required to instill basic literacy, but why for God sake's would you stretch it out to 16 - 18 years? Why not, as Jose suggested, teach basic literacy to the populace for a few years, then let them pursue the knowledge that they want and DESERVE to pursue. If the great thinkers of history wasn't given the chance to think of and learn WHATEVER they wanted, where the hell would we be today? Right now we are putting this restriction onto our people. We are not letting them study whatever they want to until they reach higher education. And even then there is strict criteria, and severe limitations imposed - people who might want to study law might not have the sufficient grades to do so. 

People will think I'm crazy to quote Nigel, but even in his melodramatic eccentricity, his point was valid, whether he knew it or not. The education system IS flawed (to a degree unimaginable) and the ultimate conclusion that CAN be drawn is exactly how Nigel put it:

The Education system sucks. 

Dennis, Out. 

 10:56

That's what it said on the screen of the turquoise coated laptop. 

The library courtyard was empty. The late afternoon crowd that had filled the place earlier were now gone, no doubt back to their homes. The greenhouse like structure now housed no one, and unlike the bright cheery interior it had in day, it was now dark and eerie, with occasional flashes of colored light coming from the inside - the Discovery Channel was still on. 

On one of the wooden tables around the courtyard, a boy sat in peaceful tranquility, the tunes of Camera Obscura serenading him in the lonely night. 

The boy wiped the sweat off his brow - the walk here had been short but arduous.  Behind him, the generators hummed sporadically, as if hesitant to interrupt nature's nightly song. 

The boy sighed. Another night in SP. And this time, he wasn't going to leave until he got his studying done. 

Dennis didn't have the best of the starts to the day. He stirred when the dawn was still breaking. The sun had barely come up, and the sky still retained the slight pinkish-purple hue of the night, as if the world was reluctant to see the darkness depart, like 2 lovers who refused to accept that their night was over. Awake Dennis was, but he put his head back down on the pillow; he too didn't want to bid farewell to his own amore, the temptress that was sleep. 

At 9, his alarm went off, and resisting the seductive and enticing arms of sleep, he got out of bed and got ready for debates. The shaggy-haired boy plodded through his morning routine perfunctorily, washing up and putting on some clothes. He packed his bag and filled his water bottles, and as per his usual routine, he went to walk his dog. Dennis had his system down to a tee. He would get everything ready first, and then bring his canine companion down for his early frolicking through the grass. Never fond of carrying items in his pockets whilst walking his furry friend, Dennis always left the house door unlocked, so he wouldn't have to be carrying a heavy pair of keys with him. And when he was done with his brotherly duties, the self-proclaimed Captain Awesome would bring his dog back home. After a quick clean of Bounty's paws, he would then put him back into the cage, and proceed to leave the house for his destination - wherever that may be. 

But this morning, our protagonist forgot one small but significant detail. He was the only one home.

So when Dennis came back home with the happily walked dog, and saw that he'd mistakenly locked the door, he stood outside the door to his house; with Bounty sitting down beside him, head tilted to the side and with a quizzical look on his furry face, as if questioning, "What's wrong? This isn't part of our routine ..."

This indeed was not part of their routine. It was an unprecedented predicament. Everything was supposed to flow like clockwork. But just one small accidental push of the padlock had disrupted the balance in Dennis's little universe. 

He looked around. So did Bounty. But the pooch took it one step further, clamoring for his attention by standing on his hind legs and pawing away at Dennis's trademark khaki 3/4 pants. 

"What are you waiting for? I want my bath!" 

One could only imagine what was going through that simple yet complex canine mind of Bounty's. 

But doggy theatrics aside, Dennis's quick survey of the place had given him a solution. 

The Neighbors ...

I should ask them to let me use their phone to call for help!

At first glance whilst this was a simple seemingly obvious decision, Dennis regarded it with apprehension. 

11 years the boy had stayed in Dover. And not once, not once had he gone inside his neighbor's place. And he wasn't bothered about it either. There was a silent, mutual agreement(or so he assumed) between his neighbors and him that their spacial proximity didn't mean anything. The typical social construct of building a trusting, cordial and gossipy relationship between each other wasn't going to be. And it remained that way for 11 years. Minimal interaction. Not even 'hi's or 'bye's. They barely acknowledged each others' existences.

But now the boy had to talk to them. With trepidation he pressed the doorbell. 

He waited. It appeared no was at home. A overwhelming ambivalence came over him. Relief over the non-interaction and frustration over his current predicament, this cognitive dissonance was causing massive internal weirdness.

Bounty flashed him another quizzical look. 

"Whatcha doin'?"

Dennis could almost feel those words being transmitted to him by his faithful companion. 

The door creaked open ever so slightly, and the elderly lady who was his neighbor looked out the tiny crevice, wondering who had such a need to see her. 

"I forgot my keys ..." 

Dennis blurted out almost instinctively.

Nothing. 

Seeing the lack of comprehension on his neighbor's face, Dennis tried a different tact. 

"Wo wangzi xuo shi" (I forgot my keys)

Dennis stammered in haltingly bad Mandarin. 

"Wo keyi yong dianhua ma?" (May I use the phone?)

The elderly lady let him in. 

"Bounty, sit."

The boy ordered his quadruped friend. The dog looked at him with what seemed like annoyance, but Dennis wouldn't budge on this, he didn't want his dirty poodle to leave muddy paw prints all over the neighbor's floor.

*if I as the narrator may break the fourth wall, on hindsight, Dennis really should have known better than to trust a mischievous imp like Bounty ...

He went in, and the place was beautiful in its austere simplicity. There was a large wooden rocking chair in the hallway, and the elderly husband was just sitting there, watching the world go by. And when he noticed the boy, his face lit up with genuine hospitality. As the wife let Dennis to the phone, a explanation of the situation ensued. It was one however, that our dear old protagonist was unfortunately not privy to. He was never good with dialect. 

"Yao cha ma?" (Would you like tea?)

The old man's offer left Dennis speechless, he had no idea how to respond. Being the ultimate bullshitter, Dennis was seldom stunned. He could BS his way through anything. He'd spent his whole life doing it. But such a simple gesture of hospitality by a neighbor that he'd neglected for 11 years of his life ... it silenced Captain Awesome. 

Eventually, in faltering Mandarin, Dennis responded. 

"Xie Xie, keshi bu yong la" (Thanks, but there's no need)

Still ebullient and smiling in his rocking chair, the old man returning to his carefree and undoubtedly peaceful past-time. 

Now, sitting at the completely dark courtyard, with the only source of light being that of the glow from his MacBook Pro, the boy smiled at the recollection of that memory. 

One day, he thinks, one day I too shall watch the world go by. 

But just not tonight ... 

 Not awesome. 

Had a 6 inch one today for breakfast ... it wasn't that nice. I think I'll stick to cold cut trio or subway club ... unless Meatball Mariana changes my mind - I've yet to try that one. 

But anyway, after Big Mike's appraisal, and having built up such high expectations for the sub, I was kinda let down. 

But product integration is still the way to go, I did still try it in the end, didn't I?

 In Alan Sepinwall's open letter to NBC on why they should renew Chuck, he made a very interesting argument about product integration ... 

Link

1. Product integration. It's more necessary than ever, as you try to make money while more and more viewers are using their DVRs to skip commercials. And few shows on your air are better-served to shill for the sponsors than "Chuck."

I couldn't help but muse about it today. And the more I mused about it, the more it made sense to me. Traditional Tv ads that air during commercial breaks have been suffering a decline in its effectiveness and reach. Firstly there's the lack of tuning in. The modern generation hardly watches shows on Tv anymore. Many people get their fix of their favorite shows through online means, be it through streaming sites like hulu, megavideo, youtube or just downloading via torrents or otherwise. And what they see online is just the pure unadulterated content of the show. No ads in between. So the reach of advertisers has diminished in this extent, as a large portion of their viewers are turning to online viewing; and these viewers do NOT get to see the ads that the advertisers want them to. 

And those who are left, the people who still watches shows on the telly, do the ads really reach them? The answer is no. People nowadays are very busy, with schedules that constantly fluctuate. They can't stick to a committed time slot - for instance, they can't tune in to NBC every Monday night at 8 week in week out - it's extremely difficult to follow a 22 episode series at a fixed time slot for 22 weeks. It's possible, but it's difficult for any working adult, and even teenagers nowadays are very busy. So it's no surprise that people use their DVRs(Digital Video Recorders) to record their favorite shows and watch them at their convenience. The DVRs record the whole 1 hour in which the show is broadcasted, and that includes the commercial breaks in between. But as Alan Sepinwall pointed out, many people just skip through the commercials.

The ultimate reason however, as to why Tv advertising is becoming less effective is simply because no one really likes commercial breaks anymore.  Of the people who record shows, very few sit through the commercial breaks, most just skip all the nonsense and carry on with the show. And for those who are watching the live broadcast and can't fast-forward, they often take the opportunity to take a piss or get more snacks. They don't want to sit through the commercials. 

So who do the advertisers really reach in the end? 2 narrow groups of people -

1. the ones who watch the show live and willingly sits through the commerical breaks. 

and

2. the ones who record it and willingly sit through the ads instead of fast-forwarding.

Here's the big question though, why do people not like commercial breaks anymore?

Let me run through the history of advertising on Tv. 

When it first started out way back when Tvs were first invented, people paid attention to Tv ads because it was one of the few sources of information on what products was out there - and during commercial breaks, they stayed on to view those ads to have better knowledge of what products existed in the market. But as time went by, advertisements on Tv started to lose value, it started to lose the pull it once had. Why? Because the diversification of the media and the emergence of the internet ensured that consumers could get their information elsewhere. And in this technological age, where almost everyone has access to a computer, they can find out whatever they need online.In this developed world, the consumer knows what he wants. And he can find out what product fulfills his wants through online research or just by asking around. Since the consumer maturity of the average citizen has gone up, and people realize that advertisers are just trying to make themselves look good,  people don't really see as much of a need now to watch ads to help them with their purchase decision. The only thing ads offer to people now is perhaps that of entertainment value.  But even then not every ad can be entertaining or fun. And the occasional ones that are brilliant, video -hosting sites make sure you get to view them. So when an average Joe is sitting home and watching his favorite show, and a commercial break comes on, he would prioritize the continuation of his show over the information/entertainment value of the commercials. 

The point I'm trying to make now is that few people in our modern age willingly sit through Tv ads. And for those that do, the ads that they see are no longer as persuasive or as effective as it was many years ago. Why? Because consumer maturity has increased so much.

So then what are the problems I've identified thus far? 

1. The Reach of Tv advertisements is getting less - fewer and fewer people are seeing them.

2. Tv Ads are no longer as persuasive or effective as they once were. 

Although people would still continue to use Tv advertising, because they need to get the message 'out there'; and although that is a bloody good reason -  smart people, however would tell you that using viral videos is a better way of getting the message 'out there' -  I feel that a better more effective way of Tv advertising has emerged. 

Product Integration. 

Now people will say, hold on a second. Hold on. Isn't that just a fancy way of saying product placement? Tv shows tried that before and it was a huge disaster. No one likes a show which shamelessly advertises products. People are turned off by that. But no. Product Placement and Product Integration are two different things.The distinction lies in the semantic differences between the 2 words. Placement suggests a state of just being present, whereby Integration suggests not just that but also an element of cohesiveness, in this case, of blending in with the fabric of the story. Let me show you what I mean. 


This is a scene from Chuck, whereby Morgan bribes Big Mike with a footlong from Subway ... it wasn't out of place, it wasn't off-putting, if anything it was entertaining. And it fit in well with the whole Buy More storyarc of Chuck, whereby Morgan's bribe actually allowed Emmet to get promoted to store manager, and this whole scene was just a part of Emmet's devious plot. Anyway, it was an advertisement for Subway, within the show, but what makes it different is that it tied in with the storyarc, it wasn't something that seemed out of place, if anything, it seemed logical and actually in character for Morgan and Big Mike to do something like that. And the humorous allusion to Big Mike sleeping with Morgan's mom at the end topped off that scene, giving it a piece of comedy that's so distinctively Chuck. The scene overall is completely natural. 

Now what happens here is that a lovable character from the Chuck universe, is openly endorsing the Chicken Teriyaki Sandwich from Subway, and the way he eats it and describes it, that form of advertising actually has so much going for it. 

You see, the problem with viewers when they are smacked in the face with Tv advertisements during commercials is that they have no emotional investment in whatever ad they are viewing, they feel nothing for that specific ad - unless of course it's one of those episodic story ads - and thus the ad is not so effective. For instance, if I saw an ad for Subway's Chicken Teriyaki Sub which had some cute concept behind it, chances are I wouldn't feel compelled to try it. Would I have any positive brand sentiment? Probably not. I would feel the same. 

But when Big Mike eats it, and enjoys it, it makes me wanna try it out, and especially the next time I pass by a Subway, I would think, hey let me try out the Chicken Teriyaki sub. And the reason I would feel that way is because Subway would evoke happy emotions - when I think of Subway, I would associate it with Big Mike chomping down on a sub, it's a feel-good factor that's developed because of the viewer's emotional attachment to the character and to the show. That sort of response cannot be garnered through normal ads. 

And it doesn't just stop there. When you have product integration on a show like Chuck, with a massive cult following, it's fans are extremely supportive of the sponsor. Especially when it's a 'on the bubble show', shows that always are in jeopardy of being cancelled. 

Here is a screenshot from the Facebook page of the Save Chuck group. 

All of these initiatives were fan-generated. This kind of voracious, loyal support for Subway, this kind of response from the fans of Chuck, it cannot be obtained any other way. The power of the fans of popular Tv shows 'on the bubble' make them an extremely effective marketing tool all on their own. They even managed to get Zachary Levi, who plays the main character Chuck, to help them with their plan, and he went to a Subway in Birmingham, UK, stood behind the counter and made sandwiches for everyone present. That kind of publicity event, would normally take the company huge wads of money to execute, and even then the response among the consumers would be nowhere as massive as it was for this event. But because it was self-generated, because it was an initiative by many Chuck fans, there was a sense of ownership, heck even kinship, and they all rallied together and generated so much free publicity for Subway. 

Yes. Subway had only signed on to Chuck as a product placement sponsor, but the amount of benefits it reaped from the fans' response of the show is incredible. 

Another screenshot of the FB group plus a fan response to Alan Sepinwall's letter. 







The kind of brand loyalty Subway built amongst the Chuck fans just by being 'there' is once again something unobtainable through normal Tv ads. 

The point I'm trying to make is that fans of 'on the bubble' shows, are a extremely voracious and undyingly loyal bunch, who are easily mobilized, highly vocal and thus can generate a lot of publicity and spread the 'feel-good' factor of your brand. They are extremely powerful and influential in doing whatever it takes to keep their show alive, and if you are a sponsor of the show, you will directly reap the benefits of their passion.  Furthermore, these large groups of people will always forever feel indebted to the sponsors who supported their show, who helped keep THEIR show alive. Because that's the way it is. There's this sense of ownership among the fans - this is their show, and you helped keep their show alive. They will shower you with so much undying loyalty for the rest of their lives, because they will forever associate Subway as the saviour of Chuck. 

Just imagine the opportunities! Every Tv season, a whole new bunch of shows come out from the different stations - NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX etc. There will always be 'on the bubble' shows, and the fans of these shows will always be the same as those of Chuck's. They've emotionally invested so much of themselves in it, that they will fight tooth and nail for it. 

Imagine if a company like Pukka Pies decided to sponsor Pushing Daisies when they were about to get canned and dumped a large wad of advertising cash on ABC's table, requesting for the show to be kept alive; Pushing Daises fans would forever be grateful and Pukka Pies could even get Lee Pace(Ned) to serve pies to the fans or something. Imagine all the free publicity, and the amount of influence on consumer behavior that Pukka Pies would be able to have. They could make it such that all Pushing Daisies fans associate Pukka Pie outlets as the 'Pie Hole' - the fictional pie store in the Pushing Daises universe. Or something to that effect. 

The possibilities are endless. 

But all this is just the sponsorship side of the Product Integration argument. Being product-placement sponsors for 'on the bubble' shows is a great aspect of Product Integration, but Product Integration on a general level works across all shows. Moving back on to more examples of why Product Integration is superior to standard Tv ads, let me just show you guys another video. 
 

This is a clip from Weeds, whereby U-Turn, the likable Black Gangsta thug endorses the Prius line of Automobiles from Toyota in a comical fashion. The amount of positive association to the Prius brand generated subsequently is again, one-of-a-kind. 

For people who watch Weeds, when they see a Prius, they'll immediately be reminded of the humorous association that Weeds brought to it. "Good for 'sneaking up on Motherfuckers!'. It's a feel good factor associated to the brand, and it's something that's so hard to obtain in the current age, attaching positive brand sentiment to a product.

Product Integration is also very flexible, and the product in question doesn't even have to be shone in a super good and positive light. Let's just make use of a hypothetical example. 

Imagine if you will, that Burger King has just launched its new Veggie Burger, and wants to try the product integration approach. They decide to do so on Supernatural. Picture this scene. 

It's a grey misty morning, Sam and Dean are brushing their teeth in front of the Impala off the side of a country road. Dean asks Sam whether they have any food. Sam replies that he left a burger in the back seat. Dean goes to the backseat, reaches inside a BK paper bag and grabs the burger. He unwraps it and takes a bite. He spits it out. 

Sam looks at Dean with his trademark pensive disapproving eyes. 

Sam: Why'd you do that?

Dean(wiping his mouth with his sleeve; grunting): This burger tastes like cow feed. What the hell was it?

Sam: It's the new Veggie Burger. 

Dean walks away. 

Sam: Where are you going?

Dean: Off to brush my damn teeth. 

Okay it's not the best, but you get my point. For those of you who don't know, Dean is a tough guy character on Supernatural who loves meaty hamburgers. 

Reaction among the fans would go along the lines of something like this:

Fan Girl A: OMG I can totally understand why Dean spat it out! The new burger is weird! But he was so cute eating it! 

Fan Girl B: It's not that bad actually ... I tried it a while back. I can understand why Sam bought it for Dean! He eats WAAAY too much junk food! Sam is such a good brother! 

Seriously, Supernatural fans, especially the female ones are particularly crazy about the 2 male leads. 

Anyway, the thing is, it creates buzz and curiosity for the new product. You wouldn't get that from simple Tv ads. 

You must understand that the modern day Tv viewer doesn't just stop at the end of the episode, he/she goes online and discusses the show with other fans, sharing the best moments of the episode - what was funny, which actor totally acted his/her ass off, which guest star was hot etc. 

And product integration would ensure that your product would be among the discussions. As long as it's done in a tasteful fashion and adds some kind of value to the episode. I mean if Dean mentioned in passing he was going to get a coke, that doesn't really warrant online discussion would it. The Production Integration needs to be fun, entertaining, and most importantly add something to the story. Then it would be truly effective. 

At the beginning of this piece I identified 2 problems with traditional Tv advertising. The lack of Reach, and the lack of Effectiveness. 

So how does Product Integration solve these 2 problems?

On the reach issue, clearly, one of the biggest problems was convincing people to sit through the commercials during the show. But now the choice isn't there anymore. The advertisement is in the show, and is part of the story - whether it be a humorous moment or otherwise - if done right, people won't think of it as annoying product placement, but as something that adds value to the story. Even if they do think it's annoying, they are not going to skip the ad, they'd have to skip part of the show, and the viewers who do tune in, and the viewers who do record, love the show and enjoy it. And although most viewers are not as fanatical as the viewers of 'on the bubble' shows, most of the modern day viewers don't like missing any part of the show. And the best part about this is, all the online versions and all the downloaded versions of the episode will feature the advertisement, because although all these sources cut out the commercial breaks, they can't cut out part of the show just because it references/shows a product right? Immediately the Reach has a drastic increase in size.

On the effectiveness issue,  the creation of positive brand sentiment and association clearly helps in terms of brand loyalty and also helps generates buzz through online discussions about the episode. As long as the Product Integration is done right, all these benefits will fall into place. 

So ultimately I feel that Product Integration is the new way to go. All indicators point to more people watching or downloading shows online(where the commercial breaks are cut out), and to keep these people within reach, to make sure you create some buzz/positive sentiment about your brand/product, there's only one solution. 

Product Integration. 

It is the future. Companies have to adapt to the changing times and realize that. 

Dennis, Out. 

                                                                                                         By Dennis Chiang

A trip to Jurong East is always one to savour. It's a quiet, somewhat sleepy area that's almost tranquil in its quiet beauty. Elderly couples playing croquet, kids mucking around in the playgrounds and of course, the football.

The game at Jurong East stadium last night saw a 6-goal thriller with 2 teams not afraid to attack and defenses that weren’t the best. Having led by 2 goals twice during the match, Gombak United would have felt disappointed with the result, and this will be seen as points dropped in the title race.

The turnout was surprisingly decent for a midweek fixture and there was a tremendous atmosphere in the ground.

"Albirex is like Arsenal," Phillip, an Albirex season ticker holder and close friend of mine often said, "always doing all the fancy stuff but no end product.”

I would agree. Albirex play lovely stuff, but in the rough and tumble of the S-league, sometimes it just doesn't cut it.             

As the game kicked off, Albirex started the brighter, Ryuta's early cross from the right nearly finding Takase in space. From the get-go, it was evident that Gombak was going to be happy sitting back and playing on the break. It didn't come as much of a surprise - it was typical away-team strategy, and with their roadrunners in Kinglsey and Casmir, it would be an incredibly effective one. So despite Albirex's early dominance, you always sensed that Gombak would score first as they always looked dangerous on the break, with Casmir's forceful running causing plenty of problems. 

And their tactic bore fruit, an Obatola penalty after good work from Casmir and a Kingsley header from 5 yards following a deflected cross propelled them into a 2 goal lead within 18 minutes.

But Albirex bounced back in the 23rd minute, a long ball into the box finding Takase, who cushioned the ball with his chest, spun his defender and fired a low shot past the keeper all in one fluid motion. The home crowd roared in delight.

"When I watch Chelsea(a great defensive team) defend ... ", Phillip was also a Chelsea fan, " and then I watch Albirex, I really cannot take it."

His words rang true as Gombak struck back 10 minutes later, a terrible bit of miscommunication between goalkeeper and defender ending with Casmir firing into an empty net.           

3-1 to Gombak.   

Half-time came along and I went out for some light refreshments. The apple pie I bought was largely unsatisfying, but the tub of Japanese rice with curry was delicious. For 4 dollars I thought it was extremely reasonably priced as well.

The second half saw Albirex get off to a flyer. A great cross from Sunaga found its way to Matsumoto, who powered home with a header into the top corner. 

3-2 and it was game on. 

The early goal seemed to give Albirex plenty of belief, and in the 64th minute, when Fadhil Salim could only parry a long-range shot from Akiyoshi to his right, Kenji picked it up on the byline and from an impossibly acute angle, curled it across the keeper and into the opposite corner. A spectacular goal from an outstanding player.  

3-3. 

As the half wore on, it became harder for Albirex to keep up their high-tempo game as their players tired, and gaps started to appear. Gombak pushed Obatola further forward to take advantage, but he conspired to miss a series of gilt-edged chances.

As the board went up for 4 minutes of injury time, the home support roared in delight. 

Over the noise, I heard the punters sitting below me discussing the bets they should have taken. 

"Eh, got 50 dollar for 4-4, you know."

And the way things were going, it certainly seemed possible. Both sides were really going for it. But after a bruising 4 added minutes of tackles, fouls and yellow cards, the ref blew his whistle and it was all over. There were cheers on the ground, some groans, but overall it was great game, not only for the neutral, but for both sets of fans.

696 words 

 What is wrong with me?

I am honestly quite frustrated ... today at SMU was horrible. 

I am past the stage of self-deprecation, I'm more frustrated than anything now. At MDOs, I really improved towards the end of the competition. I was sharper, faster - my mind processed things so much more quickly ... and although I wasn't as brazenly bold as Asshole Dennis at MIDC, I was confident, and I had good rebuttals and speeches. I came out with sound arguments, developed it to the extent it needed to be ... 

I was so happy after MDOs, I was finally on my way to becoming a decent debater ... but since then everything has gone haywire ... 

I dunno why, after the cocky asshole Dennis phase, I've reverted back to timid, nervous has-nothing-to-say Dennis. 

What in the world is wrong with me?

Actually I do kinda know what's wrong.

I miss Viha. 

In debating terms I am a feeder ... he's supposed to just talk and talk and talk during prep time, and most of the case/arguments should come out. That's how a feeder works. But I'm a very inefficient feeder, I spout everything and anything that's even remotely important, and so out of all the verbal diarrhea I spout, my other teammates have to pick out the gold nuggets amongst the shit. 

With Viha at MDO's and a few times during training, whenever I just went on and on about what I think is important, she would pick those little nuggets up and polish them into gold. I can't tell you how satisfying it is to just rattle on merrily and then Viha coming up and saying we have 3 arguments there. 

It's so bloody awesome!

Of course it's not just me talking, Viha also talks, and her input is super succinct, relevant and just simply sweet. After you hear it, it's like, "Ahhh, that's the stuff, that's what needs to be said."

So whenever I prep with Viha, it's really nice, because there's a certain kind of synergy, I always feel ... come the end of prep, we will have a case, we will have sufficient arguments. I feel confident, I feel excited, because I know what to say. 

But without someone like Viha, I'm basically quite useless. 

When I am with Sarah and Laura though after 30 minutes of prep, I don't ever feel confident, because I always don't have any solid arguments for myself as the second speaker. The case is just barely out, and all the arguments I've thought of just goes into the first speaker's speech. 

I think it's simply that among the 3 of us, we can't set up cases. We're all on the same level of the debating curve.

We need a case-builder, someone who can see what case needs to be built and how it should be built etc. 

When Sarah and Laura doesn't prep with me also, whoever is deputizing for them as 2nd speaker also always has not much to say. 

And that's the same with me without Viha. When I'm on a team with any other 2 people apart from Viha, I can't get much to say under my own speech.

Ahh.

So I've identified the problem.

How do I fix it?

We need a case-builder. Either one of us 3 develops that ability, or we really can't stick together. We can never get proper cases out. 

We all aren't strong in that area ... 

I often feel like shit though, like it's my fault because most of the time, the arguments I set up is always a case of so near, yet so far. Take today's first debate for instance, I identified the issue of America's need for energy-independence, and all the reasonings under it was right etc. 
But the angle in which that was argued - in terms of political compromise - was completely off-tangent. I basically screwed the whole debate during prep by pursuing an angle which wasn't there!

But even if it was off-tangent, the worst thing was I went up there and sounded like gibbering monkey because quite frankly I had nothing! I had thought of nothing other than the basic case and the arguments under it.

God, if only I was smarter. 

I just came back from my cousin's place. Needless to say, we nerfed. Hence the title. 

Kenneth's alias in the nerfing circle is nerfnerd ... but he's not the only one. 

My cousin Ben and I spent most of the night firing at our ersatz shooting range with his Nerf recon rifle model ... that's what he told me it was called. I don't know much about nerfs apart from my exposure to them through Kenneth. For those who don't know what they are, they are just spring-loaded rifles with styrofoam sponge pellets as ammunition. 

Anyway this was Ben's model. 

Dennis, Out.