Jed seems to have taken a liking for Elmo, and one of the ways to keep him quiet is to Youtube Elmo videos for him to watch.  Some are quite cool, like these :

But this one is mildly disturbing, to say the least :

All the jogging has not helped.  Upon the advice of my dietician (Joyce), I’ve embarked a new lunch diet today comprising fish soup and bread which, I vainly hope, will allow me to squeeze back into trousers that I could last fit into four years ago.

While at an open air public car park today, Joyce swung her side of the car door open a little too widely and, apparently, bumped the door into the shiny black Mazda next toe us.  The driver, a male, who had just parked his car, got out to examine the "damage".

(Frowning) "Excuse me, I think your wife bumped into my car when she opened the door".

(Apologetically) "I’m sorry".

"I don’t mean to be fussy, but there’s a small bump here".

(Getting out of my car to examine the "damage") "I’m sorry, but I don’t see it".

(Putting his finger at where the "bump" is) "It’s here.  If you bend over and look carefully, you will notice that there’s a bump on the surface".

(Squatting down to look at the car again) "I’m sorry, but I really don’t see any damage".

What followed was a mild, ten minute exchange over whether Joyce had damaged the man’s car.  In order to get on with life, I finally decided to pay him about half of what he claimed would be the cost of repairs.  I suppose I needn’t have to - he couldn’t have sued me successfully for damage which was non-existent or, even if there was some damage (which is denied), which couldn’t be proved to have been caused when Joyce swung our car door into his car (which is also denied).  However, as matter of principle I thought that, well, if we had indeed molested someone’s chattel (which is denied) and he was unhappy about it, maybe we should give him some compensation.  So we paid him $30 out of the $50 that he asked for.

I guess I could have given him the entire $50 and avoided the rather lengthy exchange altogether.  But as another matter of principle I could not allow myself to give that man $50 just to spend on repairing a very minute (if not non-existent) bump on his car.  I can think of better things to do with $50 and I felt that, by giving him only $30, maybe he’ll do something useful with the money instead of fixing the imaginary bump (hopefully this does not include buying the Lunar New Year grand draw TOTO).

This man’s obssession over keeping his car in pristine condition also amazed me.  I don’t think he was trying to cheat me; he sounded genuinely upset over the apparent damage to his car, and I truly believe that he would eventually use the $30 I gave him to fix his car.  But I can’t see how anyone who constantly worries about whether his car will get damaged will ever be happy in life.  I mean, let’s get real, can you seriously expect your car to never can bumped into or scratched, especially when parked in a public car park ?

To be honest, I would be a little upset too if someone bumped his door into my car.  However, I can’t imagine asking the driver of next car to compensate me unless the damage was serious and obvious.  Especially not a driver of a typically beng car like my black Lancer (I guess I don’t look beng enough).  I personally believe that cars exist (partly) to protect its passengers from being injured, and not the converse which was the perverse philosophy which the man today apparently subscribed to.  I would rather my car be scratched than myself or my family.

On another philosophical note, I think today’s incident is a sad example of how people can misplace their priorities in life.  I don’t think there’s anything very wrong in taking some pride in the things that we have (or in accumulating possessions) - how wonderful our condos look, how cool our cars seem, how immaculate our rooms appear, etc. - but if these become an obssession, they will be the cause of unhappiness if not grief.  That’s because the novelty and beauty of these objects do not last.  We should rather spend our efforts on the things that really matter.  What really matters I suppose would differ from individual to individual, but for those who would listen to wise counsel from the Bible, this is what Jesus said :

"Do not lay for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.  For where your treasure is, there your heart will also be."  (Matthew 6 : 19 - 21)

As a result of chatting online about literature and philosophy with a friend recently, I’m in a slightly reflective mood.  And while driving to work today, it dawned on me that our world would be a lot poorer if we did not have religion and, in particular (pardon my biased Christian mind), Christianity.

You see, it suddenly occurred to me that a lot of words that we use have religious roots, that these words would not have the nuances that they have now (or even have existed) if not for religion, and that the world would be a lot poorer, if not entirely meaningless, if it did not have the use these words (or these words with their present connotations) to describe itself.

Take, for example, the word "sacrifice".  That word, generally, has a positive connotation.  We use it to describe the noble spirit of a parent who gives up something important for his or her child (eg. donating his liver), or a soldier who takes the bullet for his comrade.  We say that the parent "sacrificed" his organ for his child, or that the soldier "sacrificed" his life for his friend.  However, if the word "sacrifice" did not exist, or did not bear the same noble connotations, then these transactions would sound clinical.  For example, the "parent donated his liver to his child", or "the soldier allowed himself to be shot instead of his friend".

"Sacrifice", however, has a noble meaning ascribed to it because Jesus voluntarily "sacrificed" Himself on the cross, dying the death that man should have died for sin. 

If not for Jesus, "sacrifice" would only have the awful and bloody meaning of the animal (and sometimes human) sacrifices that some primitive civilisations used to (and still) engage in.  That would lead to "sacrifice" being used only in an ignoble and negative sense, such as : "she sacrificed her principles to claw her way to the top" or "he sacrificed his colleague to avoid being blamed for the mistake".

Take, as another example, the word "grace".   It is commonly used to describe a person who is kind, and who perhaps shows charity, compassion or generousity to others for no good reason other than being "gracious" by nature.  But "grace", too, has theological roots.  When used in relation to God, it refers to His freely given, unmerited favour and love to man.  "For it is by grace you have been saved …", writes Paul in the New Testament letter of Ephesians 2 : 8, meaning that it is because of God’s freely given, unmerited favour and love that we are pardoned from sin, and not because of how good or how great we are.

If we did not have religion and, in particular, Christianity, then we would not be able to see and describe our world meaningfully, by ascribing a positive or negative value to our experiences.  The "parent donated his liver to his child" and "the soldier allowed himself to be shot instead of his friend" - and so what ?  These are just events that happen, brought about in part by choices made by certain people, but otherwise random and meaningless.  It is only when we use the word "sacrifice", with its rich religious roots, to describe these acts, that they become meaningful.

I’d like to meet the atheist who is able to describe his world meaningfully without using a single word which has religious roots.

We brought Jed to Pasir Ris park this weekend, where Joyce heard some of the most appalling language being used at the swings.  A girl, who was trying to clamber onto a swing on her own, was warned by her concerned father (not once, but twice) not to be too vigorous in more or less the following words

Be careful or else you will tear your hymen.  Then you will not be a virgin anymore and no one will want to marry you.

I guess this is one family where sex education starts (really) young.

I won’t pretend I’m not disappointed.  I am.

I was told I was too young.  Both in terms of age, as well as looks.  Age is a strange precondition for employability in a time when talent trumps seniority.  And is an exercise in double standards when the chief executive is young mandarin.  Oh well, that’s the public service for you.

For the first time, I suppose, looking younger than my age didn’t work in my favour.  (It was nice though, to hear the uncle photocopying my CV last night call me "boy".)

Thankfully, in the job that really matters, age isn’t an issue.  David was just a teenager when God annointed him as future king of Israel, and when he confronted Goliath (1 Samuel 16 - 17).  At the other extreme, Moses was eighty years old when he led the Israelites out of Egypt (Acts 7).

"Do not consider his appearance of his height, for I have rejected him.  The Lord does not look at the things man looks at.  Man looks at outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."  (1 Samuel 16 : 7)

On a separate note, I suppose that since I can’t change my circumstances, I will have to learn how to better adapt and remain faithful to my present one.