Half baked survey or half baked analysts?

While many do not bother much about surveys and survey findings, the latest survey by the Institute of Policy Studies is gaining some traction to the extent that some took it quite seriously. We have a race relations problem. You mean we don’t have a race relations problem until this survey came about? Or do they mean that we won’t have a race relations problem in the future if the right things are done? Heheheh, I didn’t know there are so many children around.

I did a very interesting survey myself and the results were stunning. 10% of the respondents said they will kill their parents. 30% said they will like to swap their parents. 40% will want to sell their wives. 60% of women would want to change their spouses. And 30% are very happy with their mother in laws. This survey was conducted without the input of race, so it is race free. The respondents were from all the races. Would the result be different if race is added? I dunno, but for sure it will rub people up the wrong way and they will be many stereotyping of the races by the analysts and the readers. And they will tell you, see, all racists!

Why would there be 10% wanting to kill their parents? Don’t they love their parents? Should this simple question elicit a 100% result or near there, that they all loved their parents? And 30%, horror, so many want to swap their parents, not happy with the parents who gave birth to them. As for the men who wanted to sell their wives and the wives who wanted to change their spouses, shouldn’t this be the natural response, or should the number be higher given the fact that familiarity breeds contempt, or once you get too close the spots became obvious and more difficult to live with?

And there are 30% who are happy with their mother in laws, the most undesirable part of a marriage equation! Should this be down to 1%?

Should the survey findings be different? Nay, when human nature is concerned, the results are likely to be the same like among every few good men or women there will be a few creeps, a few mad, a few insane. Does anyone really expect a survey on human perceptions of things or opinions be perfectly skewed in one way or another? Just like the Institute of Policy Studies survey, are the 20 or 30% of so called undesirable traits bad, unacceptable or should not be there that people are alarmed by them?

Even if the same person is to take a survey questionnaire, his answers would be different by the days and by his moods or by his gains or losses in the casinos. Surveys or analysts or readers that do not understand the flirtatious and superficiality of human nature would be worked up by the findings of surveys when in fact the answers are just the norm, something that will hardly change because human nature is such, unreliable, fickle and full of themselves.

So is it the problem of half baked surveys, or half baked analysts or half baked respondents? Or is it the fault of half baked readers that find survey results disagreeable or enlightening?

Nobel Peace Prize recipient Obama is a joke

They gave him a peace prize without knowing whether he is a war monger or a peace keeper. Now in his second term as the President of the USA, Obama has proven to be just as eager to conduct war instead of peace. He continued to wage wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan only to shift the tension to East and South East Asia.

Now he is thinking of starting another war in Syria and he said he is going to attack Syria with or without the approval of the UN. In other words, he is defying the world and world opinion, just like George Bush. He is going to war in Syria and rejecting international law which needs the approval of the UN. And the reasons given for this new invasion is very similar to Georgie’s WMD lie. This time the lie is that Assad, the President of Syria, has used chemical weapons to attack the rebels.

The truth is still uncertain and in more probability the work of the Americans or its allies to give the justification for an attack on Syria. And the Americans arrogantly concluded that it must be the work of Assad and not themselves. They have already decided, or fixed the issue and no one is going to prove otherwise. They are the white knights, the good guys, going to save the Syrians. They are going to bomb Syria.

Are they? What if there is conclusive proof that it was the Americans and their allies that used chemical weapons? Would this Nobel Laureatte be prosecuted in the IJC for crimes against humanity?

Go view this interesting video, http://2012indyinfo.com/2013/09/08/obama-torn-to-shreds-by-fox-news-over-syria-seriously-a-must-watch/

Change the Singapore Dream – Kishore

This call sounds like insanity. If it is to dream for the moon, perhaps it may be more agreeable. But to dream to downgrade and give up cars as a convenience, is like telling Sinkies to downgrade to a 4 rm HDB flat that cost $1m and only 60 sq m. But what Kishore did was to be provocative, to think tangentially, to walk the unbeaten path. It is always refreshing to think a bit wild, to be unorthodox, to sound a bit insane but to get people out of their comfort zone.

The only weakness in this dream is that he forgot that this is an unnecessary dream if the planners did not go bonkers to follow the economists blindly. We need critical mass to have a sustainable economy. And that critical mass was 2m, then 4m, then 5m then 7m then 10m. And we can build to heaven’s high or deep down and get closer to living hell. Sure the possibilities are unlimited given the expansiveness of the human mind. But there is a cost involved, just like the insane Medishield Life to cover all and sundry, young and old, healthy and sick. Who is going to pay for it or where is the money coming from?

Car ownership is a luxury, and more than a luxury, it is freedom to travel, it is progress, it is what human beans strived to better themselves and their way of life. It liberates the constraints of time and space. Why all the cries for progress, for economic growth, for technology only to abandon it because some economists got their numbers mixed up and forgot the good from the bad? Do we want economic growth only to abandon our dream of car ownership? Do we want to abandon the dream for landed properties or owning a 1000 sq m home or bigger? Do we want to dream of only eating in foodcourts and hawker centres? It is regressive thoughts surely. Why do we ever think of downgrading, downsizing, giving up the good stuff and con ourselves that less is good, no cars is good, smaller flats, the smaller the better? Idiotic isn’t it?

But if I am the rich and powerful, and living in a 5000 sq m homes and owning a garage of luxury cars, I would not mind conning the daft that no cars is good, and living in a dog’s kennel is quality living.

Kishore said we have to give up the Singapore dream of owning cars, he fell short of saying we also have to give up dreaming of a 1000 sq m 5 rm home as well. And I quote, ‘We have to give up this insane dream of owning a car and replace it with an ecosystem of a public transport system that makes it irrational to own a car.’  I would like to suggest that we should give up this insane dream of a bigger population and replace it with a friendly ecosystem and allowing more people to own cars and living in bigger homes. Just cut the shit in growing the population to consume more of the little land we have. In this case, smaller population is good, and there are many countries that are small in population but doing much better than us and with much better quality of life. And their land mass is also bigger, with more space for living and recreation.

The insane dream is 6.9m that will make life a living drudgery to many average Sinkies. They will be reduced to slaves of the economic system while a small elite will continue to live in sprawling landed homes and owning several cars and laughing at the idiocy of the easily conned Sinkies.

There is a need to recalibrate where we are going and how not to destroy our ecosystem and make it more favourable to living than to working for the sake of working. Yes the planners need to change their insane dream and come down from high heavens to uplift everyone to a higher plateau. They need to plan in such a way that there will be more space for living, for bigger homes and for more cars and more roads. And please, no need creative shit to down size the furniture to make the small space look bigger.

The moment the Sinkies start to accept to downgrade their dreams, they are heading towards a colony of mindless ants or bees, busy, busy, busy all for nothing. We must have dreams, big and better dreams for a better tomorrow.

KNN, why we work so hard for?

Dismantling the CPF Minimum Sum Schemes

The govt’s hold on the people’s CPF savings is growing to become a sore point among the hard up citizens that have not enough cash and struggling to make ends meet with some ended up borrowing from the loan sharks. And the painful thing is to see the money, tens of thousands or more in their CPF statements. Would it be a case of want to laugh also cannot laugh, as the money is as good as untouchable. Now with the new proposal for a compulsory Medishield Life Insurance, this is indeed going to be a decisive point that could be a game changer in the next GE.

Now I am wondering would there be a political party that would make this an election issue, to pledge to dismantle the minimum sum schemes and to put a stop to this compulsory Medishield Life Scheme. The alternatives need not be a total change but to give the people an option, to opt in or to opt out of the minimum sums schemes as well as the Medishield Life Scheme.  If these schemes are intrinsically good, there will be many CPF members who would voluntarily leave their money in their CPF savings for the higher interest rates. In the case of Medishield Life, those who want and have the money to pay would still be opting for it while those who do not want can opt out.

Any political party that is offering the people a choice, the free will to opt in or out of these schemes would definitely be very well regarded and rewarded by the voters. So far, other than the ruling party that gave the people no choice, the other parties are keeping very quiet about this, also giving the people no choice. I think the people must be hoping that one of these parties would stand up to offer the people a real alternative to choose what they want, what they think will be good for them, and not be compelled to leave their money in the CPF or to pay for an insurance scheme that they did not want.

Would there be a choice in the next GE for the people to choose a party that will be will more willing to listen and would not force the people into no choice positions or no choice schemes? It would be a very refreshing platform and let’s hope the alternative parties will consider such options seriously in the next GE.

Who is the liar? Putin or Obama/Kerry?

 Putin has gone on record to say that the rebels were behind the chemical attack and not Assad. His commentary was published in the NYT, ‘…there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke the intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists”.
 
If one is to look at the intent and the outcome of the chemical attack, it is very clear who would want to commit such an act and who has the reason to do so. Similarly, the Assad govt would have the least reason to use chemical weapons to invite an attack. They are not idiots to want to invite an American attack knowing that the Americans have drawn a red line on chemical attacks. People should not take the patronizing position that the Assad is daft and unthinking.
 
On the other hand, Obama and Kerry spoke with a blank face to the American people and their allies that it was the Assad govt that attacked the rebels with chemical weapons, exactly like what Colin Powell did at the UN. So who is telling the truth and who is lying? One of the two parties must be lying, telling white lies to the Americans and to the world.
 
Remember the sinking of the South Korean naval ship Choenan and the killing the sailors on board. They even fabricated the weapon used with hastily written words to deceive the world that it was from North Korea until they were proven to be fake.
 
With all the wild accusations in this case, not much different from the accusations of WMD against Saddam Hussein, to discover the truth it is best to look at the intent and the consequences of the act. Who will benefit from the act and who will suffer from the act? This kind of deduction is the most logical as it is based on the premises that all the parties are intelligent and rational people.
 
How many more lies would the liars say before their noses grow to one foot long? The liars in this case are evil and wicked, using chemical weapons to serve their private agenda and killing innocent Syrians and wanting to kill more. Is there justice? Is there a God to punish such compulsive liars?
 
The American people are no fools and will not be fooled again. The British have already shown their middle finger to Cameron. And there are many Americans out there gathering evidence and protesting against an attack on Syria with another lie. Obama and Kerry are looking more devilish by the days.