There are some things that are hard to square, just like quadratic expressions. But I think I have some of them figured out.
For starters, why do smokers exercise? My explanation is that the exercise strengthens their lung functions and enhance their capacities, and help them absorb the deadly chemicals in the cigarettes better.
Why do people not wash their hands after using the toilet, especially before a meal in some eating place? The food they've ordered are too bland and they could do with additional spices.
Why do people not move to the back of a bus or the middle of the train? That part of the vehicle is not going to where they are going.
Why do people not understand that they should avoid smoking before serving a customer? Good service should not include making me share the stinking air your exhale.
Why do people not shower in the morning, even though they stink? Deodorant is too expensive. In any case, their bodies are already producing environmentally friendly, green "fragrance".
Why do people not add enough washing detergent to their laundry? They want their "eau de naturale" to keep their clothes perfumed.
Why do people not think that maintaining quiet is necessary in public? They are hard of hearing.
This list can go on. And perhaps this way, I just have to secretly despise some people without overtly getting more pissed with the rest of them.
Showing posts with label insidious stupidity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insidious stupidity. Show all posts
Monday, August 09, 2010
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Honestly?
Apple admits iPhones' signal bars give incorrect readings
Problem goes back to the earliest iPhone, the firm says. In many cases, phones displayed two more bars than they should have.
Look here, people. Apple is a fruit!
Singapore MRT vandal to appeal his sentence. Convicted Swiss vandal Oliver Fricker has filed an appeal against his sentence, his lawyer Derek Kang told Bloomberg News. The 32-year-old was convicted last month after pleading guilty to spray painting two carriages of an MRT train with his accomplice, Briton Lloyd Dane Alexander.
Eh, goondu! Clean your freaking ass and take the 3 lovely strokes like a man. Be thankful it is only 3 strokes. If I were the judge, I would have awarded you more than just three strands of the famed Singapore "kway teow" (cane).
A lorry with a crane on it had crashed into a 4.5m-high overhead bridge along Bukit Timah Road just before the turn into Sixth Avenue at about 10.30am. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) decided to remove a portion of the bridge due to safety concerns.
Ha! So bloody Singaporean! Rain only, cannot drive.
Problem goes back to the earliest iPhone, the firm says. In many cases, phones displayed two more bars than they should have.
Look here, people. Apple is a fruit!
Singapore MRT vandal to appeal his sentence. Convicted Swiss vandal Oliver Fricker has filed an appeal against his sentence, his lawyer Derek Kang told Bloomberg News. The 32-year-old was convicted last month after pleading guilty to spray painting two carriages of an MRT train with his accomplice, Briton Lloyd Dane Alexander.
Eh, goondu! Clean your freaking ass and take the 3 lovely strokes like a man. Be thankful it is only 3 strokes. If I were the judge, I would have awarded you more than just three strands of the famed Singapore "kway teow" (cane).
A lorry with a crane on it had crashed into a 4.5m-high overhead bridge along Bukit Timah Road just before the turn into Sixth Avenue at about 10.30am. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) decided to remove a portion of the bridge due to safety concerns.
Ha! So bloody Singaporean! Rain only, cannot drive.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Singapore Flyer Showdown
Two friends and I were waiting for our Singapore Flyer ride. We patiently gave way to a horde of progressively barbaric people on an organized trip. We did not mind letting them go up first; after all, the idea was for everyone to have a good time.
The last group of people from the organization, however, did not want to move forward for their ride despite the three of us giving them wide berth in the waiting area. We were hence asked to go ahead into the next arriving capsule.
And for some strange reason, the group behind us felt it was fine to just board the same capsule when they were beckoned on by the ushers. Common sense dictated that they wait for the next one.
Of course, they came on and made enough noise in a poorly noise-insulated cabin with bare floors, hard seats and single layer glass panels. And if the quality of their lives directly depended on the amount of noise they could make, then they are probably trying to live like gods. You get the point.
My friends and I were offered audio players which we hold to our ears if we wanted to know where to look and make sense of what we see. There is a reason why we needed to hold those players close to our ears; noise is not welcome in the capsule unless you are in search of a splitting headache after the 37 minute ride.
As the doors of the capsule closed, I already made my stand clear about the noise generated by the group: If I were in a different group, I would have waited for the next capsule. Isn't that why the group refused to go up earlier?
The noise abated for a while and soon the din reached ear splitting levels. The people were distributed across the capsule and as each group began to speak louder, the next group had to speak even louder to be heard. I was hearing absolutely nothing from the audio player despite it being turned to maximum volume and me nearly attempting a direct implantation of the device into my ear.
I have had enough.
So I placed the player down and said - loudly enough - "What's the point of the player? It's so noisy there is nothing I can listen! Whole bunch of *profession deleted* who cannot behave in public!"
Eerie, awkward silence ensued.
Great. I love it. I'm loving it indeed.
I will no longer suffer in silence. I shall no longer put up with nonsense. I love the new me.
As the ride went on, the group made some noise here and there but nothing at the levels as before. Logically, in a shared space, one has to be conscious of the people around them. We all give up something in a shared space. I lost an opportunity to speak with my friend from Hong Kong because of these intruders. We won't speak because we don't want to disturb the peace. But if we had a capsule to ourselves, we might just have the conversation.
Given the way most of the folks behaved after my outburst, it was pretty clear that they are aware they have gone overboard. A quick reflection - given their work, they are always asked to reflect on their actions - will tell them that they have invaded the personal space of outsiders in their midst.
As the ride went on, I turned around and spotted a older woman, probably coming 60s, gesturing to her colleagues in the capsule before ours (i.e. above us, as the flyer rotated on its centre). She was showing that she had to zip her mouth and then she raised her finger up her temple and showed screwing motions.
Ah, if that is not inviting another rebuke. So I told her, "Eh, you don't have to do that. What's wrong with being told off when you are overly noisy?"
She argued that she's calling the flyer management to ask if making noise is allowed in the capsule.
No, I didn't go ballistics. I just wondered if so many years in her job made her go nuts. What is it that is not in her culture that does not tell her that making that much noise and affecting other people is wrong?
I replied that some noise is fine but that amount of noise was plainly unacceptable. I reiterated that if they had wanted to make so much noise, they could have waited for the next capsule. (You do the math: There are 28 capsules and a ride is 37 minutes. In less than a couple of minutes, the group could give everyone instant deafness in a nutshell!)
She then said that she was on her first trip up the flyer and was very excited and her colleagues too. And now they have to ride in such silence and she felt very sorry for herself. She said that she feels sorry to be told off by a foreigner.
I told her it was my first trip too. And I am equally sorry that I had to tick them off this way because they simply went overboard.
And then the next stupider thing happened: One of her colleagues said, "You have the audio players and we don't have any. So how do we not make noise when you take all those players?"
Oh my god. If God made them think before they spoke, they would probably have looked just half as stupid. On our way in, we saw about 50 or so audio players at the entrance. We were asked if we wanted these players. Given that the group of folks were around 80 (max) and that most of the earlier 3 groups had not taken those players, these people up in the capsule would have had an opportunity to take a player if they had wanted.
Excitement or not, this was a lame attempt to salvage anything. If anything at all, I had more respect for those who were aware that they had gone overboard and generally kept quiet.
Old woman insisted that she will write to the management to ask if she can make noise. I told her to go ahead and write. You know, I have so little regard for her and her profession that I had in good mind to drop her minister an email and ask if her behaviour was becoming an employee of the state. But I won't do that; it is not in my interest to make her lose her job or my tax payer monies might be used to keep her alive thereafter.
I also reiterated that a reasonable noise level is acceptable and I won't complain about that. The ride went on later and the group did resume making some noise. However, they did watch themselves and policed the noise levels.
As a fellow Singaporean, I am appalled that we have fallen that far on social graces. Have we forgotten that we are not the centre of the universe? Have we disregarded that in our need for gratification, there are others who are seeking the same and our actions might have deprived others of it?
I may not have done a great job here myself but on hindsight, an outburst was still the best decision; I was certainly not in the mood for a protracted quarrel, which I was fairly certain the outcome of any request since among them was this quarrelsome old lady who is also impervious to reason.
What was the woman thinking when she made those gestures? Haven't we been guilty too of critising the Mainland Chinese for their uncouth, noise-making, and public peace disrupting behaviour but yet do the same in private?
Who are we to throw stones when we live in the same glasshouse? Who are we to tie the proverbial witches to the stakes for stoning and burning when many of us are witches too, except we are closeted?
How is loud noise in an enclosed space an acceptable behaviour when we, flyer visitors, are offered audio players that played only into our ears and not blasted through a public sound system? How is loud noise acceptable when most of members in that group will tell their charges to shut up (or words to that effect) if the noise levels get too high, and make that noise in an open room?
And how is it that old folks Ms Contrarian's age have forgotten basic manners, courtesy, consideration and etiquette? Was she not taught?
On my way out, I went to the ticketing counter and provided feedback on the ride can be made better through sound proofing, off-peak crowd management (especially relating to organizational outings) and capsule design. Oh, and I hope Ms Contrarian writes in and gets a reply to tell her that "for the comfort and pleasure of all riders in the capsule, people should keep their volume down."
To end, I'm going to borrow BHD's closing:
Life is short: Don't waste 37 minutes of it riding the Singapore Flyer.
The last group of people from the organization, however, did not want to move forward for their ride despite the three of us giving them wide berth in the waiting area. We were hence asked to go ahead into the next arriving capsule.
And for some strange reason, the group behind us felt it was fine to just board the same capsule when they were beckoned on by the ushers. Common sense dictated that they wait for the next one.
Of course, they came on and made enough noise in a poorly noise-insulated cabin with bare floors, hard seats and single layer glass panels. And if the quality of their lives directly depended on the amount of noise they could make, then they are probably trying to live like gods. You get the point.
My friends and I were offered audio players which we hold to our ears if we wanted to know where to look and make sense of what we see. There is a reason why we needed to hold those players close to our ears; noise is not welcome in the capsule unless you are in search of a splitting headache after the 37 minute ride.
As the doors of the capsule closed, I already made my stand clear about the noise generated by the group: If I were in a different group, I would have waited for the next capsule. Isn't that why the group refused to go up earlier?
The noise abated for a while and soon the din reached ear splitting levels. The people were distributed across the capsule and as each group began to speak louder, the next group had to speak even louder to be heard. I was hearing absolutely nothing from the audio player despite it being turned to maximum volume and me nearly attempting a direct implantation of the device into my ear.
I have had enough.
So I placed the player down and said - loudly enough - "What's the point of the player? It's so noisy there is nothing I can listen! Whole bunch of *profession deleted* who cannot behave in public!"
Eerie, awkward silence ensued.
Great. I love it. I'm loving it indeed.
I will no longer suffer in silence. I shall no longer put up with nonsense. I love the new me.
As the ride went on, the group made some noise here and there but nothing at the levels as before. Logically, in a shared space, one has to be conscious of the people around them. We all give up something in a shared space. I lost an opportunity to speak with my friend from Hong Kong because of these intruders. We won't speak because we don't want to disturb the peace. But if we had a capsule to ourselves, we might just have the conversation.
Given the way most of the folks behaved after my outburst, it was pretty clear that they are aware they have gone overboard. A quick reflection - given their work, they are always asked to reflect on their actions - will tell them that they have invaded the personal space of outsiders in their midst.
As the ride went on, I turned around and spotted a older woman, probably coming 60s, gesturing to her colleagues in the capsule before ours (i.e. above us, as the flyer rotated on its centre). She was showing that she had to zip her mouth and then she raised her finger up her temple and showed screwing motions.
Ah, if that is not inviting another rebuke. So I told her, "Eh, you don't have to do that. What's wrong with being told off when you are overly noisy?"
She argued that she's calling the flyer management to ask if making noise is allowed in the capsule.
No, I didn't go ballistics. I just wondered if so many years in her job made her go nuts. What is it that is not in her culture that does not tell her that making that much noise and affecting other people is wrong?
I replied that some noise is fine but that amount of noise was plainly unacceptable. I reiterated that if they had wanted to make so much noise, they could have waited for the next capsule. (You do the math: There are 28 capsules and a ride is 37 minutes. In less than a couple of minutes, the group could give everyone instant deafness in a nutshell!)
She then said that she was on her first trip up the flyer and was very excited and her colleagues too. And now they have to ride in such silence and she felt very sorry for herself. She said that she feels sorry to be told off by a foreigner.
I told her it was my first trip too. And I am equally sorry that I had to tick them off this way because they simply went overboard.
And then the next stupider thing happened: One of her colleagues said, "You have the audio players and we don't have any. So how do we not make noise when you take all those players?"
Oh my god. If God made them think before they spoke, they would probably have looked just half as stupid. On our way in, we saw about 50 or so audio players at the entrance. We were asked if we wanted these players. Given that the group of folks were around 80 (max) and that most of the earlier 3 groups had not taken those players, these people up in the capsule would have had an opportunity to take a player if they had wanted.
Excitement or not, this was a lame attempt to salvage anything. If anything at all, I had more respect for those who were aware that they had gone overboard and generally kept quiet.
Old woman insisted that she will write to the management to ask if she can make noise. I told her to go ahead and write. You know, I have so little regard for her and her profession that I had in good mind to drop her minister an email and ask if her behaviour was becoming an employee of the state. But I won't do that; it is not in my interest to make her lose her job or my tax payer monies might be used to keep her alive thereafter.
I also reiterated that a reasonable noise level is acceptable and I won't complain about that. The ride went on later and the group did resume making some noise. However, they did watch themselves and policed the noise levels.
As a fellow Singaporean, I am appalled that we have fallen that far on social graces. Have we forgotten that we are not the centre of the universe? Have we disregarded that in our need for gratification, there are others who are seeking the same and our actions might have deprived others of it?
I may not have done a great job here myself but on hindsight, an outburst was still the best decision; I was certainly not in the mood for a protracted quarrel, which I was fairly certain the outcome of any request since among them was this quarrelsome old lady who is also impervious to reason.
What was the woman thinking when she made those gestures? Haven't we been guilty too of critising the Mainland Chinese for their uncouth, noise-making, and public peace disrupting behaviour but yet do the same in private?
Who are we to throw stones when we live in the same glasshouse? Who are we to tie the proverbial witches to the stakes for stoning and burning when many of us are witches too, except we are closeted?
How is loud noise in an enclosed space an acceptable behaviour when we, flyer visitors, are offered audio players that played only into our ears and not blasted through a public sound system? How is loud noise acceptable when most of members in that group will tell their charges to shut up (or words to that effect) if the noise levels get too high, and make that noise in an open room?
And how is it that old folks Ms Contrarian's age have forgotten basic manners, courtesy, consideration and etiquette? Was she not taught?
On my way out, I went to the ticketing counter and provided feedback on the ride can be made better through sound proofing, off-peak crowd management (especially relating to organizational outings) and capsule design. Oh, and I hope Ms Contrarian writes in and gets a reply to tell her that "for the comfort and pleasure of all riders in the capsule, people should keep their volume down."
To end, I'm going to borrow BHD's closing:
Life is short: Don't waste 37 minutes of it riding the Singapore Flyer.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Celebrating the Noughties: A decade of collective stupidity
1. 2000 - the new millennium.
For Pete's (or insert name of your favourite Mathematician) sake, can you count?
I still have not figured out how we could begin the third millennium in the year 2000. Ok, this is involved mathematics and for those who are mathematically challenged, go to point 2. For those who have some basic inkling of basic mathematics, this should not be difficult.
Anno Domini begins in year 1. 1000 years in a millennium, so end of the first millennium is year AD 1000 and the beginning of the second millennium is AD 1001.
Go figure.
2. 2001 - Sept 11.
How is it that before and after 9-11, we are still none the wiser how we can combat the terrorist scourge? Will doing nothing be the same as doing everything?
3. 2002 - Share markets enter "Dot Com-a"
If the dot com bubble didn't burst totally a few years back, those glycerin-held up bubbles bust in 2002, sending sharemarkets round the world into a wild tail spin.
How could people invest blindly?
4. 2003 - SARS hit the world.
Oh why, oh why didn't SARS wipe out enough people to make the world a better place. With a mortality rate of less than 1 percent and with less than 10 000 people infected worldwide, this was the single big bang non-event. SARS eventually went out of fashion in 2006.
Until today, people are still screening for this and that because they are afraid of some pandemic. Lookie here. Pandemics are good because they are nature's way of regulating the population.
5. 2004 - High heels for high life?
Donations for tsunami victims included high heel shoes. The ignominy of that still rankles me.
6. 2005 - Hurricane Katrina
Too big, too clumsy, too little, too late.
7. 2006 - Birds hit by flu
The H5N1 avian flu becomes endemic in birds. The world worries about inter-species transmission. In reality, other than STDs and AIDS spreading via a certain male species of an edible poultry, nothing terribly exciting happened. Still, governments spent a lot of money culling birds to stem the spread of the disease.
8. 2007 - Boom times!
Human greed priced people out of the property market, led them to over invest in the investment instruments market, and allowed some to live overly opulent lives. Some will live to pay for it in time to come.
9. 2008 - Nature makes a second try at population control
The world was introduced to the AH1N1 flu strain. This strain is to become pandemic proportions in 2009. Unfortunately, the world also got saved by the AH1N1 vaccine.
I hate to say this but I'm not sure I want to be there when Mother Nature unleashes her full fury on humankind.
10. 2009 - Greed is good.
In 2009, we reward recklessness, greed and avarice. Governments bailed out banks and stood guarantor for investments products gone bad. Governments stepped in to keep institutions that are "too big to fail" going. In short, we lined the pockets of the wealthy with the blood, sweat and tears of the poor who can hardly afford cotton lint.
What events made your list?
For Pete's (or insert name of your favourite Mathematician) sake, can you count?
I still have not figured out how we could begin the third millennium in the year 2000. Ok, this is involved mathematics and for those who are mathematically challenged, go to point 2. For those who have some basic inkling of basic mathematics, this should not be difficult.
Anno Domini begins in year 1. 1000 years in a millennium, so end of the first millennium is year AD 1000 and the beginning of the second millennium is AD 1001.
Go figure.
2. 2001 - Sept 11.
How is it that before and after 9-11, we are still none the wiser how we can combat the terrorist scourge? Will doing nothing be the same as doing everything?
3. 2002 - Share markets enter "Dot Com-a"
If the dot com bubble didn't burst totally a few years back, those glycerin-held up bubbles bust in 2002, sending sharemarkets round the world into a wild tail spin.
How could people invest blindly?
4. 2003 - SARS hit the world.
Oh why, oh why didn't SARS wipe out enough people to make the world a better place. With a mortality rate of less than 1 percent and with less than 10 000 people infected worldwide, this was the single big bang non-event. SARS eventually went out of fashion in 2006.
Until today, people are still screening for this and that because they are afraid of some pandemic. Lookie here. Pandemics are good because they are nature's way of regulating the population.
5. 2004 - High heels for high life?
Donations for tsunami victims included high heel shoes. The ignominy of that still rankles me.
6. 2005 - Hurricane Katrina
Too big, too clumsy, too little, too late.
7. 2006 - Birds hit by flu
The H5N1 avian flu becomes endemic in birds. The world worries about inter-species transmission. In reality, other than STDs and AIDS spreading via a certain male species of an edible poultry, nothing terribly exciting happened. Still, governments spent a lot of money culling birds to stem the spread of the disease.
8. 2007 - Boom times!
Human greed priced people out of the property market, led them to over invest in the investment instruments market, and allowed some to live overly opulent lives. Some will live to pay for it in time to come.
9. 2008 - Nature makes a second try at population control
The world was introduced to the AH1N1 flu strain. This strain is to become pandemic proportions in 2009. Unfortunately, the world also got saved by the AH1N1 vaccine.
I hate to say this but I'm not sure I want to be there when Mother Nature unleashes her full fury on humankind.
10. 2009 - Greed is good.
In 2009, we reward recklessness, greed and avarice. Governments bailed out banks and stood guarantor for investments products gone bad. Governments stepped in to keep institutions that are "too big to fail" going. In short, we lined the pockets of the wealthy with the blood, sweat and tears of the poor who can hardly afford cotton lint.
What events made your list?
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Case Study: How to throw a bitch fit
You are to read the following case study very carefully before you attempt the questions that follow. Answer each question in continuous prose. Each answer should not exceed 250 words. You have 48 hours to complete this assignment.
You should type out your answers on A4 or Letter sized paper, 1 inch margins all round, 12 point Times New Roman font. You may submit your answers online in the comments column following this post.
You are reminded not to repeat your points in different answers. You are reminded of the need for clear and concise writing.
Scenario
I was shopping for a new rice cooker when a Chinese PRC woman started kicking up a big fuss at the store.
She accused the service staff of being rude to her; some snarky remark was involved, or so it seemed. Ms PRC shouted at the service staff for not answering her question on how good a pot she was interested in was and also pointed out that the side comment that was made about her type was not appropriate.
Ms PRC then started screaming. In addition, she took to banging and kicking the items at the store.
Questions
1. What did Ms PRC do wrong?
2. What should Ms PRC have done?
Reflections
1. If you were Ms PRC, how would you have reacted in this situation so you can extract maximum benefit from the stall?
2. Do you think it is ethical to extract maximum benefit from the stall? Why?
Role Play
1. Imagine you are a shopper in the store who thinks one of the two women is out of line. Write a retort to show how you could take the side one of the women and start hurling insults back at the "bitch".
2. If you are the manager of the store, explain how will you resolve this issue.
Higher Order Thinking Skills
1. In our social context where we are trying to attract foreign talent to contribute to our workforce and population, how do you think you will help these foreign talent integrate themselves into our society?
2. Do you think soft skills, such as child bearing, child rearing, fighting, quarrelling, screaming, shouting, accusing and insistently talking loudly everywhere, should be part of the criteria for admitting foreign talent? How would one test such skills?
You should type out your answers on A4 or Letter sized paper, 1 inch margins all round, 12 point Times New Roman font. You may submit your answers online in the comments column following this post.
You are reminded not to repeat your points in different answers. You are reminded of the need for clear and concise writing.
Scenario
I was shopping for a new rice cooker when a Chinese PRC woman started kicking up a big fuss at the store.
She accused the service staff of being rude to her; some snarky remark was involved, or so it seemed. Ms PRC shouted at the service staff for not answering her question on how good a pot she was interested in was and also pointed out that the side comment that was made about her type was not appropriate.
Ms PRC then started screaming. In addition, she took to banging and kicking the items at the store.
Questions
1. What did Ms PRC do wrong?
2. What should Ms PRC have done?
Reflections
1. If you were Ms PRC, how would you have reacted in this situation so you can extract maximum benefit from the stall?
2. Do you think it is ethical to extract maximum benefit from the stall? Why?
Role Play
1. Imagine you are a shopper in the store who thinks one of the two women is out of line. Write a retort to show how you could take the side one of the women and start hurling insults back at the "bitch".
2. If you are the manager of the store, explain how will you resolve this issue.
Higher Order Thinking Skills
1. In our social context where we are trying to attract foreign talent to contribute to our workforce and population, how do you think you will help these foreign talent integrate themselves into our society?
2. Do you think soft skills, such as child bearing, child rearing, fighting, quarrelling, screaming, shouting, accusing and insistently talking loudly everywhere, should be part of the criteria for admitting foreign talent? How would one test such skills?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Fundamental Mistakes 2
Longevity is not a desirable result of medical advancements. Instead, extending the human lifespan is the probably worst mistake that medical science have made for several reasons. First, humans should not tamper with nature. We have a life expectancy of around 60 years for a reason. Second, longevity comes at the end of a person's lifespan and not in the middle. Society has not managed to adapt to the new needs of the modern human-turtles. Third, medical measures have not moved with the times. Many of the health indicators are still based on data gleaned from my great-grandfathers' generation.
Human life expectancy is determined by the surroundings that a person is in. Where there is poor sanitation and malnutrition, people live shorter lives but while they are alive, they give birth to more babies. Where there is good sanitation and abundance of food, people live relatively longeer lives but they may decide to have fewer babies but instead invest more heavily on developing them. Such is the nature of natural selection.
What we have done now is to extend life years beyond accepted norms through medical intervention. Human lives are extended beyond their actual use by dates. Transplants, surgeries, vaccines and other interventionist measures have helped humans live longer. However, such a move runs counter to what nature intends for humans.
A certain amount of attrition along the human life cycle is necessary so that the larger Earth environment can be in equilibrium with the human population. What is happening now seems to be that the environment is strained because not enough deaths are happening. This is disastrous to Earth, especially when the increase in the life expectancy actually cause the older folks to strain on the younger folks, rather than make them contribute towards alleviating themselves as the burden on others.
This development is marked in the way society fails to move in tandem with increases in life spans. Even until now, with the average Singaporean gaining 15 years of life over the past generation, the Singaporean society has just increased retirement ages in baby steps from 55 to 57 to 60 to 62. Even then, raising the retirement ages have met with stiff resistance from both companies and workers alike.
One cannot really fault the companies for not willing to hire the overpaid, underperforming old fogies. The labour movement recently coined the term, "Cheap, fast and good," to spur the Singapore workforce to bounce back and become leaner, more productive and deliver higher quality products after emerging from the financial crisis. Think about it, how could we keep the old folks cheaply? We make them retire and then rehire them on contracts at reduced salaries. How can we make them fast? We move them down the job ladder because they should take on less responsibilities to justify their lower pay. Hopefully, they can keep up with the quick march that the companies demand of their younger colleagues in the lesser jobs. How can they be good? This is up to the management to decide and one litmus test is the renewal of their employment contracts.
Age increases have not been kind to the people, since the economically productive years have not risen in tandem with longevity. It is not a surprise, however, since the human body is designed to deteriorate and eventually self-destruct once it peaks at between 18 and 21 years of age. We have not managed to unlock the mystery to keep the body well-oiled and highly functional. We have only managed to stop the body from finding the self-destruct button fast enough. And perhaps we have also managed to find certain restart buttons to help the human body run a while longer on extra or borrowed time. And such times are often at the end of the human lifespan, where the body is no more than a mere vessel to keep the soul in.
Such a sorry state of development brings about certain questions that bear rethinking. For instance, have biologists barked up the wrong tree? Who insisted that longevity was the only acceptable measure of medical advances? What about higher weights, taller heights, higher blood pressure, higher cholesterol levels, higher liver enzyme levels, higher blood lipid levels, lower bone densities, higher IQ, fewer neonatal illnesses, lower infant death rates, among other measures?
I have just thought about how I am considered way off the charts for certain measures when my indices are compared against charts applicable to my great-great-great-great-grandfather. I could be thin like my ancestor too. I can have my blood pressure, cholesterol and what not, all lowered till I meet the indices left behind by my ancestor. However, that would mean that I might have to spend 6 to 8 hours of my waking time exercising in a gym to simulate the living style of my agricultural ancestor. My great-great-great-great-grandfather probably spent his waking hours foraging or growing crops, moving around on his feet at all times. He may or may not get enough to eat - he probably did get enough to eat, so much so that he passed on a copy of the fat gene, which I inherited.
Take a step back and think about it. If I had to spend most of my waking hours exercising, then I would never have been able to push papers as a bureaucrat or lecture in an airconditioned classroom and sit down and exercise ONLY my brain to grade papers.
My lifestyle is entirely different from my ancestors'. How then can I be measured against those indices? And if I could, then how can I contribute anything at all to economic growth?
It probably does not take a rocket scientist to realise that there is a huge contradiction here but why do we still indulge ourselves that what we are looking at is the truth? It is not, because the earth is telling us that we have got it all messed up. And it is a big time mess up.
Honestly, I am not at all happy to have to pay for the collective human stupidity. I will eat all the meat I want, all the eggs I want and all the food I want. And since I get to have it, I will use all the medical services I need. Until one day the powers that be come to their senses, an ordinary man like me should just live out each day like it's his last day on earth.
Who knows? It just might be.
Human life expectancy is determined by the surroundings that a person is in. Where there is poor sanitation and malnutrition, people live shorter lives but while they are alive, they give birth to more babies. Where there is good sanitation and abundance of food, people live relatively longeer lives but they may decide to have fewer babies but instead invest more heavily on developing them. Such is the nature of natural selection.
What we have done now is to extend life years beyond accepted norms through medical intervention. Human lives are extended beyond their actual use by dates. Transplants, surgeries, vaccines and other interventionist measures have helped humans live longer. However, such a move runs counter to what nature intends for humans.
A certain amount of attrition along the human life cycle is necessary so that the larger Earth environment can be in equilibrium with the human population. What is happening now seems to be that the environment is strained because not enough deaths are happening. This is disastrous to Earth, especially when the increase in the life expectancy actually cause the older folks to strain on the younger folks, rather than make them contribute towards alleviating themselves as the burden on others.
This development is marked in the way society fails to move in tandem with increases in life spans. Even until now, with the average Singaporean gaining 15 years of life over the past generation, the Singaporean society has just increased retirement ages in baby steps from 55 to 57 to 60 to 62. Even then, raising the retirement ages have met with stiff resistance from both companies and workers alike.
One cannot really fault the companies for not willing to hire the overpaid, underperforming old fogies. The labour movement recently coined the term, "Cheap, fast and good," to spur the Singapore workforce to bounce back and become leaner, more productive and deliver higher quality products after emerging from the financial crisis. Think about it, how could we keep the old folks cheaply? We make them retire and then rehire them on contracts at reduced salaries. How can we make them fast? We move them down the job ladder because they should take on less responsibilities to justify their lower pay. Hopefully, they can keep up with the quick march that the companies demand of their younger colleagues in the lesser jobs. How can they be good? This is up to the management to decide and one litmus test is the renewal of their employment contracts.
Age increases have not been kind to the people, since the economically productive years have not risen in tandem with longevity. It is not a surprise, however, since the human body is designed to deteriorate and eventually self-destruct once it peaks at between 18 and 21 years of age. We have not managed to unlock the mystery to keep the body well-oiled and highly functional. We have only managed to stop the body from finding the self-destruct button fast enough. And perhaps we have also managed to find certain restart buttons to help the human body run a while longer on extra or borrowed time. And such times are often at the end of the human lifespan, where the body is no more than a mere vessel to keep the soul in.
Such a sorry state of development brings about certain questions that bear rethinking. For instance, have biologists barked up the wrong tree? Who insisted that longevity was the only acceptable measure of medical advances? What about higher weights, taller heights, higher blood pressure, higher cholesterol levels, higher liver enzyme levels, higher blood lipid levels, lower bone densities, higher IQ, fewer neonatal illnesses, lower infant death rates, among other measures?
I have just thought about how I am considered way off the charts for certain measures when my indices are compared against charts applicable to my great-great-great-great-grandfather. I could be thin like my ancestor too. I can have my blood pressure, cholesterol and what not, all lowered till I meet the indices left behind by my ancestor. However, that would mean that I might have to spend 6 to 8 hours of my waking time exercising in a gym to simulate the living style of my agricultural ancestor. My great-great-great-great-grandfather probably spent his waking hours foraging or growing crops, moving around on his feet at all times. He may or may not get enough to eat - he probably did get enough to eat, so much so that he passed on a copy of the fat gene, which I inherited.
Take a step back and think about it. If I had to spend most of my waking hours exercising, then I would never have been able to push papers as a bureaucrat or lecture in an airconditioned classroom and sit down and exercise ONLY my brain to grade papers.
My lifestyle is entirely different from my ancestors'. How then can I be measured against those indices? And if I could, then how can I contribute anything at all to economic growth?
It probably does not take a rocket scientist to realise that there is a huge contradiction here but why do we still indulge ourselves that what we are looking at is the truth? It is not, because the earth is telling us that we have got it all messed up. And it is a big time mess up.
Honestly, I am not at all happy to have to pay for the collective human stupidity. I will eat all the meat I want, all the eggs I want and all the food I want. And since I get to have it, I will use all the medical services I need. Until one day the powers that be come to their senses, an ordinary man like me should just live out each day like it's his last day on earth.
Who knows? It just might be.
Fundamental Mistakes 1
The climate crisis will never go away until we realise that a consumption driven economic growth model comes at a price. If the only way to grow is through consumption, then there will come one day where there isn't anything left to consume.
Just take one simple example: How many cars can you own before you run out of metal, oil, roads, commonsense?
Just take one simple example: How many cars can you own before you run out of metal, oil, roads, commonsense?
Saturday, December 12, 2009
You can't fly!
Never mind what you think.
How does one expect to cross a 5 lane junction with 6 seconds on the count down timer on the green man?
How does one expect to do it when one is a plump woman who thinks if she takes what she thinks are big strides, she'll take off like an Airbus 380?
How does one expect to cross a 5 lane junction with 6 seconds on the count down timer on the green man?
How does one expect to do it when one is a plump woman who thinks if she takes what she thinks are big strides, she'll take off like an Airbus 380?
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Freaking Frustrated For F***?
I gave Four F grades, actually Five, but then after a thorough review and convincing myself that I have been too demanding in my grading, I reduced it to Four.
I am Freaking Frustrated. Did I teach so badly that my students did not manage to learn anything or have I expected too much from the knuckleheads who slipped past admissions this year?
I have people who make A grades and I also have people who end up with C grades. In fact, like the other two Assignments 2 in my earlier terms, the students are categorized into their respective mastery levels on this assignment and, thus, their likely end of course grades.
I am largely ok with a pigeon holing exercise. It is a course requirement that students have to be graded. But in the past terms I only had to deal with very few D grades; this term, I get a handful of F graders to manage. The bulgeoning C population is common for this assignment. It is a paper where one synthesizes two texts to support one's thesis statement. One either does the synthesis fully and correctly or one underdoes it. If one falls short at the synthesis, then the grades drop to the B range. If one falls short at the summaries (and, inevitably the synthesis thereafter), one drops to the C range. Poor writing will cause futher grade drops. My Fabulous F grades are, in all honesty, harder to get than an A grade. I am that certain, sure, confident and proud to say. I reward effort when writing falls short. But how does one reward a paper that is 25% short of the minimum page length? Or a paper that averages 10 mistakes per 8 line paragraph? Or a student who writes whatever s/he feels like writing, with scant regard for the rubric of the assignment?
I try very hard to reflect if it were my poor teaching that caused such a disaster. Well, it seemed like a disaster to me when I have to award Fs in this manner. Ok, let us assume that I taught badly. Then how do you explain the nearly half of the students who got A and B grades? They were spread across both my sections! And how do I explain the other nearly half of the students who got C grades, those who were already weak to begin with, as evidenced by their Assignment 1 performance? If I had taught badly, then surely the assignment question, having gone through a round of eyeballing by the course coordinator, would have explained clearly the demands of the assignment?
The reading packages and the remedial website resources would have also played their part in helping the lost sheep to find their way home. And what about my open email communication channel where they actually have direct access to me via my home email? My students even have my cell phone number, for f***'s sake!
Another consolation I have is the fact that I have assigned short writing pieces to the students for them to practise writing thesis statements, topic sentences and paragraphs. They were also required to use evidence from their reading articles to support their arguments. The marks the F graders received on those assignments are actually indicative of the students' real writing and reasoning abilities. Those fellows are the ones scoring 3 and 4 out of 10. And to not demoralise too much, I set a minimum score of 3 marks on all these short pieces. Any written sh*t would have gotten 3 marks if it were submitted.
On a related note, the fellows who bombed Assignment 2 are the intended recipients of my earlier email telling them of the importance of reading and coming to class prepared. I shouldn't have to or need to feel sorry for them.
The circumstantial evidence of my not having derelicted my duties is complete. I should feel vindicated. Still, I feel Freaking disappointed. A colleague told me to get rid of that "secondary school teacher" mentality in me. "Why should you care, Eugene?" he would ask. "They are already adults and if they are not bothered to get up to speed with the demands of university, why should you mother them?" Well said.
He is a dear friend of mine and he's been really helpful to me ever since I began teaching at that institution. I should lay down my burden and not labour under these rotten straws that threaten to break my back. I shall only help those who bother.
I shall push on and perhaps give a few F grades at the end of the course to the truly deserving. Perhaps Darwin's theory can take over and straighten out the population some...
Of course, Four rounds of reviews later, there are only two students who received F grades (pending confirmation). I'm almost certain my grade distribution will stand. The rest are upgraded but are given stern warnings to buck up.
I am Freaking Frustrated. Did I teach so badly that my students did not manage to learn anything or have I expected too much from the knuckleheads who slipped past admissions this year?
I have people who make A grades and I also have people who end up with C grades. In fact, like the other two Assignments 2 in my earlier terms, the students are categorized into their respective mastery levels on this assignment and, thus, their likely end of course grades.
I am largely ok with a pigeon holing exercise. It is a course requirement that students have to be graded. But in the past terms I only had to deal with very few D grades; this term, I get a handful of F graders to manage. The bulgeoning C population is common for this assignment. It is a paper where one synthesizes two texts to support one's thesis statement. One either does the synthesis fully and correctly or one underdoes it. If one falls short at the synthesis, then the grades drop to the B range. If one falls short at the summaries (and, inevitably the synthesis thereafter), one drops to the C range. Poor writing will cause futher grade drops. My Fabulous F grades are, in all honesty, harder to get than an A grade. I am that certain, sure, confident and proud to say. I reward effort when writing falls short. But how does one reward a paper that is 25% short of the minimum page length? Or a paper that averages 10 mistakes per 8 line paragraph? Or a student who writes whatever s/he feels like writing, with scant regard for the rubric of the assignment?
I try very hard to reflect if it were my poor teaching that caused such a disaster. Well, it seemed like a disaster to me when I have to award Fs in this manner. Ok, let us assume that I taught badly. Then how do you explain the nearly half of the students who got A and B grades? They were spread across both my sections! And how do I explain the other nearly half of the students who got C grades, those who were already weak to begin with, as evidenced by their Assignment 1 performance? If I had taught badly, then surely the assignment question, having gone through a round of eyeballing by the course coordinator, would have explained clearly the demands of the assignment?
The reading packages and the remedial website resources would have also played their part in helping the lost sheep to find their way home. And what about my open email communication channel where they actually have direct access to me via my home email? My students even have my cell phone number, for f***'s sake!
Another consolation I have is the fact that I have assigned short writing pieces to the students for them to practise writing thesis statements, topic sentences and paragraphs. They were also required to use evidence from their reading articles to support their arguments. The marks the F graders received on those assignments are actually indicative of the students' real writing and reasoning abilities. Those fellows are the ones scoring 3 and 4 out of 10. And to not demoralise too much, I set a minimum score of 3 marks on all these short pieces. Any written sh*t would have gotten 3 marks if it were submitted.
On a related note, the fellows who bombed Assignment 2 are the intended recipients of my earlier email telling them of the importance of reading and coming to class prepared. I shouldn't have to or need to feel sorry for them.
The circumstantial evidence of my not having derelicted my duties is complete. I should feel vindicated. Still, I feel Freaking disappointed. A colleague told me to get rid of that "secondary school teacher" mentality in me. "Why should you care, Eugene?" he would ask. "They are already adults and if they are not bothered to get up to speed with the demands of university, why should you mother them?" Well said.
He is a dear friend of mine and he's been really helpful to me ever since I began teaching at that institution. I should lay down my burden and not labour under these rotten straws that threaten to break my back. I shall only help those who bother.
I shall push on and perhaps give a few F grades at the end of the course to the truly deserving. Perhaps Darwin's theory can take over and straighten out the population some...
Of course, Four rounds of reviews later, there are only two students who received F grades (pending confirmation). I'm almost certain my grade distribution will stand. The rest are upgraded but are given stern warnings to buck up.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Some are stupid, others are...
Worse, of course.
Here are a few things that make me cringe.
First, I wonder how a person can repeatedly stab himself/herself in the heart with a small knife (see 1:43). This is the most incredible phenomenon. I really want to see it happen. People take a stab in the abdomen and can hardly move after that. Multiple stabs in the heart... ROFL.
Second, can two bodies be buried in the same plot (2:37)? I know it is possible to have adjacent plots.
Third, how can there be two couples with only two people died (2:53)? Did I miss something?
Honestly, this youtube video makes me feel a little more forgiving towards the students whose papers I'm grading now. It seems like few people are capable of logical thought these days.
And the youtube fellow got it right. The horrendous content "will make (me) cry." What has this world come to?
Here are a few things that make me cringe.
First, I wonder how a person can repeatedly stab himself/herself in the heart with a small knife (see 1:43). This is the most incredible phenomenon. I really want to see it happen. People take a stab in the abdomen and can hardly move after that. Multiple stabs in the heart... ROFL.
Second, can two bodies be buried in the same plot (2:37)? I know it is possible to have adjacent plots.
Third, how can there be two couples with only two people died (2:53)? Did I miss something?
Honestly, this youtube video makes me feel a little more forgiving towards the students whose papers I'm grading now. It seems like few people are capable of logical thought these days.
And the youtube fellow got it right. The horrendous content "will make (me) cry." What has this world come to?
One gets it right!
Got this youtube video in my email this morning.
Honestly, this is what I wish I could do to parents out there when I first began teaching.
I stand by my belief that some people ought to be neutered and never be allowed to have children. After all, we should not let stupidity propagate.
Oh, but then we begin to welcome foreign talents [sic].
Honestly, this is what I wish I could do to parents out there when I first began teaching.
I stand by my belief that some people ought to be neutered and never be allowed to have children. After all, we should not let stupidity propagate.
Oh, but then we begin to welcome foreign talents [sic].
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Exasperation 4
I have had enough! As I can no longer tolerate any more nonsense during my lessons, I sent out the following as a part of a larger email to my groups.
Class Conduct
"COURSE X" requires all students to come in prepared for the lesson. During my rounds in class on Tue 1 Sep as well as during the previous few lessons, I noticed many of you came in to class prepared. At least you have read the articles and tried to come in prepared. Thank you and keep up the good work. However, I also observed that some of you did NOT read before coming to class. You know who you are; you were trying very hard to evade detection (especially when I ask for volunteers for class presentations) and were furiously trying to catch up during the discussions. I am not oblivious to your unbecoming behaviour. There is another telling sign of your unprepared state: Your reading is annotation-free. Surely, there are questions that you might have, clarifications that you might need or notes that you can make to remind you of the idea flow of the passage.
Reading and making sense of the assigned readings is the first and most elementary step in a student's preparations. Coming in prepared is also the minimum respect students show themselves, the minimum basic courtesy they show their friends and the minimum effort students put in to being contributors in the group. Given that you are freshmen, I have already given you a two week grace period for you to get used to university life and get up to speed with the demands of university classes. At this point, you have exhausted all the goodwill that I can possibly offer. I HAVE RUN OUT OF PATIENCE AND TOLERANCE FOR STUDENTS WHO COME TO CLASS UNPREPARED.
From the next lesson onwards, students who have entirely annotation-free article printouts and claim that they have read and understood the assigned article shall immediately take the floor and lead the class in the discussion of the article. At the same time, they must be able to answer all the questions that I have regarding the article. If any student is unprepared or if I deem him/her unprepared, the student will be removed immediately from the lesson and may be considered ABSENT. It is my duty to remind that the university's absenteeism policy will still apply.
We can all be very adult when handling matters related to class conduct; if students cannot behave like adults and be responsible for themselves, I will have no choice but to resort to management methods meant for younger students.
Class Conduct
"COURSE X" requires all students to come in prepared for the lesson. During my rounds in class on Tue 1 Sep as well as during the previous few lessons, I noticed many of you came in to class prepared. At least you have read the articles and tried to come in prepared. Thank you and keep up the good work. However, I also observed that some of you did NOT read before coming to class. You know who you are; you were trying very hard to evade detection (especially when I ask for volunteers for class presentations) and were furiously trying to catch up during the discussions. I am not oblivious to your unbecoming behaviour. There is another telling sign of your unprepared state: Your reading is annotation-free. Surely, there are questions that you might have, clarifications that you might need or notes that you can make to remind you of the idea flow of the passage.
Reading and making sense of the assigned readings is the first and most elementary step in a student's preparations. Coming in prepared is also the minimum respect students show themselves, the minimum basic courtesy they show their friends and the minimum effort students put in to being contributors in the group. Given that you are freshmen, I have already given you a two week grace period for you to get used to university life and get up to speed with the demands of university classes. At this point, you have exhausted all the goodwill that I can possibly offer. I HAVE RUN OUT OF PATIENCE AND TOLERANCE FOR STUDENTS WHO COME TO CLASS UNPREPARED.
From the next lesson onwards, students who have entirely annotation-free article printouts and claim that they have read and understood the assigned article shall immediately take the floor and lead the class in the discussion of the article. At the same time, they must be able to answer all the questions that I have regarding the article. If any student is unprepared or if I deem him/her unprepared, the student will be removed immediately from the lesson and may be considered ABSENT. It is my duty to remind that the university's absenteeism policy will still apply.
We can all be very adult when handling matters related to class conduct; if students cannot behave like adults and be responsible for themselves, I will have no choice but to resort to management methods meant for younger students.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Rubbish Rushes in to Fill a Vacuum
Lost Generation by Jonathan Reed
I am part of a lost generation
and I refuse to believe that
I can change the world
I realize this may be a shock but
“Happiness comes from within.”
is a lie, and
“Money will make me happy.”
So in 30 years I will tell my children
they are not the most important thing in my life
My employer will know that
I have my priorities straight because
work
is more important than
family
I tell you this
Once upon a time
Families stayed together
but this will not be true in my era
This is a quick fix society
Experts tell me
30 years from now, I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of my divorce
I do not concede that
I will live in a country of my own making
In the future
Environmental destruction will be the norm
No longer can it be said that
My peers and I care about this earth
It will be evident that
My generation is apathetic and lethargic
It is foolish to presume that
There is hope.
And all of this will come true unless we choose to reverse it .
Read the message, then read it again in reverse.
Which generation do you belong in?
---@---@---
Guess what? As I arrived at work, I saw the lost generation. The latecomers, the stragglers, the lost souls, the headless ghosts, the useless bums, the lazy bones... And there were all made to stand outside the office while the rest went through the passage.
Me? I am part of a lost generation. I will tell you that money will make me happy. More money will make me more happy. Ok, bad English. Still, you get the point.
Happiness comes from within. It can't come from anywhere else. I don't laugh or gloat at others' misery. But having money can make me happy.
I am part of a lost generation. Despite me telling my employers that they are not the most important things in my life, I can't stop working. Because I need money. Remember, money will make me happy.
My family is more important than my work. But they will have to take a back seat. Don't forget, money will make me happy. And money makes them happy too.
I don't believe in spending money to be divorced in 30 years. I can't afford that. So I won't marry and won't have children. This way, my money is all for I, me and myself. And money will make me happy.
Environmental destruction is part of nature. Global warming has to do with the less than perfectly circular orbit of the earth. The hell I care about spending any of my hard earned money on environmentally friendly nonsense. Why should I pay others money and make them happy? I should amass my wealth. After all, money will make me happy. Perhaps I should want to be buried in a dollar bill mache coffin. To be buried in money will make me happy.
I am not apathetic and lethargic; watch my energy levels as I throw myself at money. I already know there is no hope (for the hopeless others). Might as well now work towards getting them to bequeath me their money...
All together now: Money will make me happy.
I am part of a lost generation
and I refuse to believe that
I can change the world
I realize this may be a shock but
“Happiness comes from within.”
is a lie, and
“Money will make me happy.”
So in 30 years I will tell my children
they are not the most important thing in my life
My employer will know that
I have my priorities straight because
work
is more important than
family
I tell you this
Once upon a time
Families stayed together
but this will not be true in my era
This is a quick fix society
Experts tell me
30 years from now, I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of my divorce
I do not concede that
I will live in a country of my own making
In the future
Environmental destruction will be the norm
No longer can it be said that
My peers and I care about this earth
It will be evident that
My generation is apathetic and lethargic
It is foolish to presume that
There is hope.
And all of this will come true unless we choose to reverse it .
Read the message, then read it again in reverse.
Which generation do you belong in?
---@---@---
Guess what? As I arrived at work, I saw the lost generation. The latecomers, the stragglers, the lost souls, the headless ghosts, the useless bums, the lazy bones... And there were all made to stand outside the office while the rest went through the passage.
Me? I am part of a lost generation. I will tell you that money will make me happy. More money will make me more happy. Ok, bad English. Still, you get the point.
Happiness comes from within. It can't come from anywhere else. I don't laugh or gloat at others' misery. But having money can make me happy.
I am part of a lost generation. Despite me telling my employers that they are not the most important things in my life, I can't stop working. Because I need money. Remember, money will make me happy.
My family is more important than my work. But they will have to take a back seat. Don't forget, money will make me happy. And money makes them happy too.
I don't believe in spending money to be divorced in 30 years. I can't afford that. So I won't marry and won't have children. This way, my money is all for I, me and myself. And money will make me happy.
Environmental destruction is part of nature. Global warming has to do with the less than perfectly circular orbit of the earth. The hell I care about spending any of my hard earned money on environmentally friendly nonsense. Why should I pay others money and make them happy? I should amass my wealth. After all, money will make me happy. Perhaps I should want to be buried in a dollar bill mache coffin. To be buried in money will make me happy.
I am not apathetic and lethargic; watch my energy levels as I throw myself at money. I already know there is no hope (for the hopeless others). Might as well now work towards getting them to bequeath me their money...
All together now: Money will make me happy.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Suffering Fools
I suffer no fools. No, I don't. And I will not hesitate to tell the fool off.
That is perhaps why clowns have no place in my heart. Neither does Mr Bean. Folly is the way of the weak, the veneer behind which a person hides his/her inability and shortcomings.
Fools have the innate ability to ask seemingly smart questions but, to the trained eye, such questions betray their vacuous minds.
I rapped a student twice today for asking stupid questions. And then I ignored her and many others when they asked foolish questions. So contrite were the questions that their other classmates actually told them to work out the sums in their own calculators and see how stupid their questions were.
Still, the start of a beautiful week was marred by these foolish ones.
That is perhaps why clowns have no place in my heart. Neither does Mr Bean. Folly is the way of the weak, the veneer behind which a person hides his/her inability and shortcomings.
Fools have the innate ability to ask seemingly smart questions but, to the trained eye, such questions betray their vacuous minds.
I rapped a student twice today for asking stupid questions. And then I ignored her and many others when they asked foolish questions. So contrite were the questions that their other classmates actually told them to work out the sums in their own calculators and see how stupid their questions were.
Still, the start of a beautiful week was marred by these foolish ones.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Hypocrisy Hour
Oh, the BLASPHEMY!
So I was right all along.
Advertise your hypocrisy.
Show off your crocodile tears.
Celebrate in mere symbolism.
Save one lamp hour to spend it in other ways. Charge your cameras! Take pictures. Upload to your computer and share with the world. People will come and visit and look at your pictures. Choke the bandwidth. See our collective sympathy for our own misdeeds.
What a sick and cruel joke to play on Mother Earth.
So I was right all along.
Advertise your hypocrisy.
Show off your crocodile tears.
Celebrate in mere symbolism.
Save one lamp hour to spend it in other ways. Charge your cameras! Take pictures. Upload to your computer and share with the world. People will come and visit and look at your pictures. Choke the bandwidth. See our collective sympathy for our own misdeeds.
What a sick and cruel joke to play on Mother Earth.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
B*** S***
On Saturday, organisers hope to get 1 billion people to believe and take part in their BS.
These 1 billion people are supposed to switch off every d**n thing in their homes and live in total darkness and quiet to save an hour's worth of electricity.
These 1 billion people are supposed to believe that our philandering ways have led to a crisis called global warming.
These 1 billion people are supposed to think that their turning off their electrical equiment for an hour, and then blasting them the rest of the year - regardless of need - to make up for it, is going help preserve the earth for a period of time enough for a new generation to spawn.
1 billion of such people are already in existence. We don't another 1 billion. We don't need to be them. Look at the people around the world who have no electricity. Oops, make it no home, not even basic shelter. Aren't they the most ardent supporters of your BS? They have more than sufficiently atoned for our sins. Why should we pretend that we need to disrupt the sick system even more.
These 1 billion people are going to tax the generators so badly at the end of their 1hour of hypocritical BS when they reignite all the equipment at the same time. If I suffer a power outage, I'll engage all other sane folks to initiate a class action suit against the perpetrators of such BS.
How can 1 billion people, almost 15% of the world's population, all be tricked into believing that global warming is a man-made occurrence? Haven't scientists shown with historical ice ages that the earth is merely going through a hot stage now, and then our next ice age will come later?
1 billion *more* morons. That's an assault on our combined IQ scores. For that one hour, we lose all the geniuses to the drama-mamas, who think with their hearts and groins rather than their brains. Didn't some people suggest that the 1 hour of BS be spent in fornication? How that idea sucks! How is the heaving and panting not adding to greenhouse carbon dioxide gases? And then what happens when our population grows by another 200 million more in 9 months?
Fortunately, these 1 billion people will NOT include me.
The world will end. But it will not be because of me, but because of the 1 billion people who have chosen to vote for "This Planet." Earth Hour? For heaven's sake, grow a brain for a start.
These 1 billion people are supposed to switch off every d**n thing in their homes and live in total darkness and quiet to save an hour's worth of electricity.
These 1 billion people are supposed to believe that our philandering ways have led to a crisis called global warming.
These 1 billion people are supposed to think that their turning off their electrical equiment for an hour, and then blasting them the rest of the year - regardless of need - to make up for it, is going help preserve the earth for a period of time enough for a new generation to spawn.
1 billion of such people are already in existence. We don't another 1 billion. We don't need to be them. Look at the people around the world who have no electricity. Oops, make it no home, not even basic shelter. Aren't they the most ardent supporters of your BS? They have more than sufficiently atoned for our sins. Why should we pretend that we need to disrupt the sick system even more.
These 1 billion people are going to tax the generators so badly at the end of their 1hour of hypocritical BS when they reignite all the equipment at the same time. If I suffer a power outage, I'll engage all other sane folks to initiate a class action suit against the perpetrators of such BS.
How can 1 billion people, almost 15% of the world's population, all be tricked into believing that global warming is a man-made occurrence? Haven't scientists shown with historical ice ages that the earth is merely going through a hot stage now, and then our next ice age will come later?
1 billion *more* morons. That's an assault on our combined IQ scores. For that one hour, we lose all the geniuses to the drama-mamas, who think with their hearts and groins rather than their brains. Didn't some people suggest that the 1 hour of BS be spent in fornication? How that idea sucks! How is the heaving and panting not adding to greenhouse carbon dioxide gases? And then what happens when our population grows by another 200 million more in 9 months?
Fortunately, these 1 billion people will NOT include me.
The world will end. But it will not be because of me, but because of the 1 billion people who have chosen to vote for "This Planet." Earth Hour? For heaven's sake, grow a brain for a start.
Watch where the f**k you are going!
In a matter of less than 20 metres, a wheelchair guy nearly ran over the toes of another guy walking alongside him because he needed to steer the wheelchair out to look at the girl walking beside him, whom he was talking to.
I nearly crashed into some bozo who barged out of the bookstore, waved to a girl and then stopped dead in his tracks.
Man, I bet they were unable to move properly because their gears got stuck between their ball bearings and wheels.
I wish I had simply crashed into the bozo and brought him down. I'd enjoy some physical contact. And perhaps someone *else* can go to the ER for a change.
Yes, all for looking at and getting stunned by girls.
Sex-starved idiots!
I nearly crashed into some bozo who barged out of the bookstore, waved to a girl and then stopped dead in his tracks.
Man, I bet they were unable to move properly because their gears got stuck between their ball bearings and wheels.
I wish I had simply crashed into the bozo and brought him down. I'd enjoy some physical contact. And perhaps someone *else* can go to the ER for a change.
Yes, all for looking at and getting stunned by girls.
Sex-starved idiots!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Mr Stubborn
Me: Ok, have you looked through my comments in your essay draft and do you have any questions?
MS: Yes, I want to explain some of the things you said.
Me: What are the parts you are unclear?
MS: Why you say this part is not clear? This is what the article says.
Me: Oh, really? Show me the essay?
MS points to the part.
Me: You see, you are quoting something out of context. You need to provide some kind of transition to show why you can make a statement like this, and then you must provide the source of the information. You cannot make claims without any evidence or without acknowledging sources, especially when the claims are not yours. And if they are yours, you all the more need to provide proof, because such claims are highly argumentative and not everyone will agree.
MS: But this is what the essay says. Why must I need to write (the transition)?
Me: You see, whatever you have written before does not naturally lead to this conclusion. Therefore, you cannot make logical leaps like these. Your readers will not be able to understand, much less appreciate, what your point is.
MS: Then what about this part? Critics (of organ transplants) are obstructing organ transplants.
Me: Are you sure?
MS: Yes. Critics are insisting that the Dead Donor Rule (DDR) is followed and (the patient must be dead for at least) 3 minutes (before the pronouncement of death can be made). This way, they are obstructing organ transplants.
Me: I don't think you can make a case this way. You can say that the critics of organ transplants demand that the DDR and the timing for pronouncing death are followed because they do not want deaths to be hastened for the sake of harvesting organs.
MS: Then this is obstructing.
Me: No. Obstructing is more like they are stopping the organs from being transplanted. What they are doing here is to demand that strict procedures are followed.
MS: But then the organs cannot be used.
Me: Yes, the problem is two-fold. Critics want the death procedures to be followed and as a result, the lack of blood to the organs after death may render the organs unusable. But critics do not obstruct (organ transplants). They are just making sure that the potential donors die and remain dead. You cannot claim more than what is stated in the article.
[This is really a nuanced argument. It is hard to argue for obstruction. Unless they are like Greenpeace activists steering their boats into the path of the Japanese whaling fleet, how can the requirement to merely follow rules be obstruction? I would have acquiesced if he argued that the critics rely on stringent rules on dead donors, which in turns cause the number of transplantable organ to be reduced. In addition to obstruction, the Me vs MS exchanged included a disagreement on the correct use of "merely" and "only".]
MS (referring to another point): Why can't I make my point this way? Why must I have proof?
Me: Can you show me your articles? Oh, but these articles are short case studies and many discrete examples. There are no arguments in there for you to use for defending your claims.
[MS used 8 printed sides of articles, mostly from those trashy self-help websites to write a 10 page academic research paper where he intends to argue that the quality of life of patients needing transplants may be improved if the tranplant laws are relaxed.)
MS: Can't I derive my own arguments from the examples?
Me: How can you derive your arguments?
MS: I read the example and I think of an orginal argument to explain.
Me: How can an example be used to prove a claim? You need to have many examples before you can find out trends to make conjectures. Claims are advanced stuff!
MS: So what's wrong with me coming up with claims?
Me: Ok, fine. Suppose you want to argue... (look at his draft) that a legal environment that is less stringent can reduce the number of black market organ trades. So where is your evidence on this?
MS: Here. (Shows me a 4 line paragraph in a 2.5 page long article.)
Me: You need to write a 10 page essay with 4 supporting articles. A point like this (a legal environment that is less stringent can reduce the number of black market organ trades) will take about 3/4 to 1 page to complete. So you only one piece of evidence in the form of an example?
MS: No, no! The other two passages (out of three) also have this point.
Me: Show me.
[MS flips the 4 sides to high heavens but find nothing. I notice that the paragraphs in those two articles are mainly two to three lines long.]
MS: I can't find it now.
Me: No problem. Tell me, those two articles are also giving you examples only, right?
MS: Yes.
Me: Then what authority are you going to rely on? What kind of evidence do you have?
MS: I can write my own argument.
Me: How do you write your own argument?
MS: I use the examples and write your own argument.
Me: This isn't going to work. Look, you cannot rely on examples or mere case studies to write an argument. You need to have arguments from authorities. People who are experts in this field write claims but these claims are based on large number of cases or if they have extensively followed certain cases over a long period of time. Their arguments are therefore more believable than our own arguments. Are you a transplant expert?
MS: No.
Me: Neither am I. The point is, if your essay is going to be a rehash of the examples, then you are flogging a dead horse. What you need to do is to come up with a position or a claim and then support your position by citing the evidence you have, both from the experts and from examples. You can imagine your claim as an umbrella under which the information you find is placed below to prop the umbrella up.
MS: What's the difference? Didn't you say that if I repeat the evidence, I'm flogging a dead horse? So what are you doing differently?
Me: I have a claim which is backed up by claims from other experts and examples from them. I am quoting research and proposing to extend the boundary of the subject under discussion. I did not merely find evidence that I think will work and then fix the arguments to fit it. I make arguments that can be defended, not one that is applicable only for a case.
You are extremely good at taking things out of context. You have done it for assignment 2 and you've done badly. You've done it for the draft and done badly for it too. Now, even when I have explained what you should do, you ignore parts of what I tell you and simply take the discussion out of context and place words in my mouth.
I don't contradict myself. I am very clear what needs to go into the essay.
[MS is visibly shocked.]
In the context of the point "a legal environment that is less stringent can reduce the number of black market organ trades," what I expect to see is very clear. I will need an argument or a claim of this by some health ministry of some country, some health analyst, or some healthcare observer. I need to see evidence of black market activity in countries with stringent laws (say, Singapore) and what the people are doing to procure organs from black markets from within or beyond Singapore and I need to see a contrast example say for Iran where laws are lax and the number of black market trades is lower. This way, you can support your argument and prove your point.
Your chosen articles are way too short. There is no way you can find anything of substance or value there unless you change the articles. Examples do not an argument make. You need to appeal to the experts.
Academic research writing has a convention you have to follow. The kinds of evidence that are admissible in research are more or less restricted to a few types. You are unlikely to be able to conduct experiments by yourself to then analyse the results. You cannot depend on discrete examples to generalise (findings). Things do not work this way.
MS: So I'll need to work on the articles and find things with arguments.
Me: Yes. Don't you find it odd that your Assignment 3 articles are so elementary compared to the prescribed articles for Assignments 1 and 2? If such kiddy readings can be used for academic research, then why do I bother to kill myself by making students work on those readings?
You can decide whatever you want to do with your work but this is far from what is acceptable. Please work on it.
[MS picked up his materials after the gruelling 30 minute exchange, which was 20 minutes overtime, and walked out of the room. As he walked out and the door closed, I heard murmurs of approval from the rest of the students waiting for their turn for conferencing. Some of the students after MS credited my for my tremendous patience and not biting MS' head off. I am amazed myself.]
MS: Yes, I want to explain some of the things you said.
Me: What are the parts you are unclear?
MS: Why you say this part is not clear? This is what the article says.
Me: Oh, really? Show me the essay?
MS points to the part.
Me: You see, you are quoting something out of context. You need to provide some kind of transition to show why you can make a statement like this, and then you must provide the source of the information. You cannot make claims without any evidence or without acknowledging sources, especially when the claims are not yours. And if they are yours, you all the more need to provide proof, because such claims are highly argumentative and not everyone will agree.
MS: But this is what the essay says. Why must I need to write (the transition)?
Me: You see, whatever you have written before does not naturally lead to this conclusion. Therefore, you cannot make logical leaps like these. Your readers will not be able to understand, much less appreciate, what your point is.
MS: Then what about this part? Critics (of organ transplants) are obstructing organ transplants.
Me: Are you sure?
MS: Yes. Critics are insisting that the Dead Donor Rule (DDR) is followed and (the patient must be dead for at least) 3 minutes (before the pronouncement of death can be made). This way, they are obstructing organ transplants.
Me: I don't think you can make a case this way. You can say that the critics of organ transplants demand that the DDR and the timing for pronouncing death are followed because they do not want deaths to be hastened for the sake of harvesting organs.
MS: Then this is obstructing.
Me: No. Obstructing is more like they are stopping the organs from being transplanted. What they are doing here is to demand that strict procedures are followed.
MS: But then the organs cannot be used.
Me: Yes, the problem is two-fold. Critics want the death procedures to be followed and as a result, the lack of blood to the organs after death may render the organs unusable. But critics do not obstruct (organ transplants). They are just making sure that the potential donors die and remain dead. You cannot claim more than what is stated in the article.
[This is really a nuanced argument. It is hard to argue for obstruction. Unless they are like Greenpeace activists steering their boats into the path of the Japanese whaling fleet, how can the requirement to merely follow rules be obstruction? I would have acquiesced if he argued that the critics rely on stringent rules on dead donors, which in turns cause the number of transplantable organ to be reduced. In addition to obstruction, the Me vs MS exchanged included a disagreement on the correct use of "merely" and "only".]
MS (referring to another point): Why can't I make my point this way? Why must I have proof?
Me: Can you show me your articles? Oh, but these articles are short case studies and many discrete examples. There are no arguments in there for you to use for defending your claims.
[MS used 8 printed sides of articles, mostly from those trashy self-help websites to write a 10 page academic research paper where he intends to argue that the quality of life of patients needing transplants may be improved if the tranplant laws are relaxed.)
MS: Can't I derive my own arguments from the examples?
Me: How can you derive your arguments?
MS: I read the example and I think of an orginal argument to explain.
Me: How can an example be used to prove a claim? You need to have many examples before you can find out trends to make conjectures. Claims are advanced stuff!
MS: So what's wrong with me coming up with claims?
Me: Ok, fine. Suppose you want to argue... (look at his draft) that a legal environment that is less stringent can reduce the number of black market organ trades. So where is your evidence on this?
MS: Here. (Shows me a 4 line paragraph in a 2.5 page long article.)
Me: You need to write a 10 page essay with 4 supporting articles. A point like this (a legal environment that is less stringent can reduce the number of black market organ trades) will take about 3/4 to 1 page to complete. So you only one piece of evidence in the form of an example?
MS: No, no! The other two passages (out of three) also have this point.
Me: Show me.
[MS flips the 4 sides to high heavens but find nothing. I notice that the paragraphs in those two articles are mainly two to three lines long.]
MS: I can't find it now.
Me: No problem. Tell me, those two articles are also giving you examples only, right?
MS: Yes.
Me: Then what authority are you going to rely on? What kind of evidence do you have?
MS: I can write my own argument.
Me: How do you write your own argument?
MS: I use the examples and write your own argument.
Me: This isn't going to work. Look, you cannot rely on examples or mere case studies to write an argument. You need to have arguments from authorities. People who are experts in this field write claims but these claims are based on large number of cases or if they have extensively followed certain cases over a long period of time. Their arguments are therefore more believable than our own arguments. Are you a transplant expert?
MS: No.
Me: Neither am I. The point is, if your essay is going to be a rehash of the examples, then you are flogging a dead horse. What you need to do is to come up with a position or a claim and then support your position by citing the evidence you have, both from the experts and from examples. You can imagine your claim as an umbrella under which the information you find is placed below to prop the umbrella up.
MS: What's the difference? Didn't you say that if I repeat the evidence, I'm flogging a dead horse? So what are you doing differently?
Me: I have a claim which is backed up by claims from other experts and examples from them. I am quoting research and proposing to extend the boundary of the subject under discussion. I did not merely find evidence that I think will work and then fix the arguments to fit it. I make arguments that can be defended, not one that is applicable only for a case.
You are extremely good at taking things out of context. You have done it for assignment 2 and you've done badly. You've done it for the draft and done badly for it too. Now, even when I have explained what you should do, you ignore parts of what I tell you and simply take the discussion out of context and place words in my mouth.
I don't contradict myself. I am very clear what needs to go into the essay.
[MS is visibly shocked.]
In the context of the point "a legal environment that is less stringent can reduce the number of black market organ trades," what I expect to see is very clear. I will need an argument or a claim of this by some health ministry of some country, some health analyst, or some healthcare observer. I need to see evidence of black market activity in countries with stringent laws (say, Singapore) and what the people are doing to procure organs from black markets from within or beyond Singapore and I need to see a contrast example say for Iran where laws are lax and the number of black market trades is lower. This way, you can support your argument and prove your point.
Your chosen articles are way too short. There is no way you can find anything of substance or value there unless you change the articles. Examples do not an argument make. You need to appeal to the experts.
Academic research writing has a convention you have to follow. The kinds of evidence that are admissible in research are more or less restricted to a few types. You are unlikely to be able to conduct experiments by yourself to then analyse the results. You cannot depend on discrete examples to generalise (findings). Things do not work this way.
MS: So I'll need to work on the articles and find things with arguments.
Me: Yes. Don't you find it odd that your Assignment 3 articles are so elementary compared to the prescribed articles for Assignments 1 and 2? If such kiddy readings can be used for academic research, then why do I bother to kill myself by making students work on those readings?
You can decide whatever you want to do with your work but this is far from what is acceptable. Please work on it.
[MS picked up his materials after the gruelling 30 minute exchange, which was 20 minutes overtime, and walked out of the room. As he walked out and the door closed, I heard murmurs of approval from the rest of the students waiting for their turn for conferencing. Some of the students after MS credited my for my tremendous patience and not biting MS' head off. I am amazed myself.]
How irresponsible is that?
A student missed the draft submission deadline last Friday. Fine, since many students asked for and were granted extensions (yes, don't doubt me, my fuse has become much longer and more inert these days), I decided to give her an extension by 24 hours to Saturday, 5 pm without her asking for it.
On Sunday just past midnight, I checked the returns against the namelists and realised five students have missed their Saturday, 5 pm deadlines. So I wrote a note to remind them to send in their papers soonest possible. I asked them not to ask for any more extensions but to send in the papers once they receive the email.
Papers streamed in. One girl placed the draft in my school mailbox on Saturday afternoon. Hey, I'm not that well-paid to go there. Another guy did the same late Friday and apologised for his shortsightedness in not sending a soft copy. No problem either.
A second girl explained she misunderstood our conversation regarding her submissions and thought she had a longer extension than that. (Of course, she did not write me the email to confirm, which I didn't bother to point out). I accepted her explanation and granted her an extension to Sunday 5 pm. See, Mr Nicer and Nicer guy, right?
Another guy wrote to say that he's still helping out with his family after his cousin got killed in an accident. Fine, he got an extension to Monday, noon.
And there is Miss Ying YIN Ack Shen, who did not bother to reply to my email. She submitted her draft on Monday at 1 pm and promptly asked to be granted a writing conference since I won't be in school on Thursday. However, on 10 Mar, I already informed the entire class of my absence and the affected students signed up for new conferencing slots! She had her excuses and her story but until she can produce the medical certificates to support her "I was very sick" excuse, I don't think she can escape the penalty for 3 absences. I mean, how sick can one be? No student can claim that s/he/it cannot contact me because my email and cellphone contacts are permanently at the top of the announcements list in the class page on the university network. Anyone, she will likely pay for her irresponsibility; one writing conference counts for 3 presences or absences for the 14-week, 28-meeting course. Good luck to her!
I cannot believe how infinitely more patient I have become but certainly, the limits still exist. Just watch it when I swipe my tail at you.
On Sunday just past midnight, I checked the returns against the namelists and realised five students have missed their Saturday, 5 pm deadlines. So I wrote a note to remind them to send in their papers soonest possible. I asked them not to ask for any more extensions but to send in the papers once they receive the email.
Papers streamed in. One girl placed the draft in my school mailbox on Saturday afternoon. Hey, I'm not that well-paid to go there. Another guy did the same late Friday and apologised for his shortsightedness in not sending a soft copy. No problem either.
A second girl explained she misunderstood our conversation regarding her submissions and thought she had a longer extension than that. (Of course, she did not write me the email to confirm, which I didn't bother to point out). I accepted her explanation and granted her an extension to Sunday 5 pm. See, Mr Nicer and Nicer guy, right?
Another guy wrote to say that he's still helping out with his family after his cousin got killed in an accident. Fine, he got an extension to Monday, noon.
And there is Miss Ying YIN Ack Shen, who did not bother to reply to my email. She submitted her draft on Monday at 1 pm and promptly asked to be granted a writing conference since I won't be in school on Thursday. However, on 10 Mar, I already informed the entire class of my absence and the affected students signed up for new conferencing slots! She had her excuses and her story but until she can produce the medical certificates to support her "I was very sick" excuse, I don't think she can escape the penalty for 3 absences. I mean, how sick can one be? No student can claim that s/he/it cannot contact me because my email and cellphone contacts are permanently at the top of the announcements list in the class page on the university network. Anyone, she will likely pay for her irresponsibility; one writing conference counts for 3 presences or absences for the 14-week, 28-meeting course. Good luck to her!
I cannot believe how infinitely more patient I have become but certainly, the limits still exist. Just watch it when I swipe my tail at you.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Grandma vs Double Decker
Morning bus to the MRT. Took 89, which was unusual, because it was not my favourite but. I prefer to take 5 or 6 instead.
Stopped at the stop opposite White Sands. There was a surge of passengers getting on the bus as I alighted.
After pushing my way through the zombie crowd either looking at their handphones or finding their momentum after getting out of bed (hey, I'm fast as long as I am on my feet, regardless of the time of day. I don't really know how to walk slowly.)
As I approached the pedestrian crossing, I happened to see a double decker bus stopped right after the bus bay exit. There was a little crowd there. It was but 6.45am and people being people, a crowd was not...
Oh, I see. There was a 60-ish old woman, rather plump, facing down. From the looks of where she lay and where the bus stop, the outcome of the match was pretty evident. Before the lights turned green for me to cross, an ambulance approached.
Hard for me to have any sympathies. She was knocked down three steps from the pedestrian crossing. No reason for her not to use the official crossing. If she decided to dash across the road, then what? I feel sorry for the bus driver though. Perhaps only drivers will have more sympathies for the bus driver.
True, it was an accident which probably could have been avoided, but often, looking at the erratic way residents of my town dash cross roads with minimal warning to the drivers, this is probably an accident waiting to happen, a life waiting to be taken.
I don't know. But maybe she died...
Stopped at the stop opposite White Sands. There was a surge of passengers getting on the bus as I alighted.
After pushing my way through the zombie crowd either looking at their handphones or finding their momentum after getting out of bed (hey, I'm fast as long as I am on my feet, regardless of the time of day. I don't really know how to walk slowly.)
As I approached the pedestrian crossing, I happened to see a double decker bus stopped right after the bus bay exit. There was a little crowd there. It was but 6.45am and people being people, a crowd was not...
Oh, I see. There was a 60-ish old woman, rather plump, facing down. From the looks of where she lay and where the bus stop, the outcome of the match was pretty evident. Before the lights turned green for me to cross, an ambulance approached.
Hard for me to have any sympathies. She was knocked down three steps from the pedestrian crossing. No reason for her not to use the official crossing. If she decided to dash across the road, then what? I feel sorry for the bus driver though. Perhaps only drivers will have more sympathies for the bus driver.
True, it was an accident which probably could have been avoided, but often, looking at the erratic way residents of my town dash cross roads with minimal warning to the drivers, this is probably an accident waiting to happen, a life waiting to be taken.
I don't know. But maybe she died...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)