Archive for the 'Theories' Category

If Athletes are Gods, Where are the Miracles?

This is the most interesting thing I’ve read all week.

John Amaechi, a retired NBA player famous for being the first ever NBA player to come out of the closet, offers his opinion on why athletes should speak out more on certain issues:

…that if you would be a God, even if it is just a God of the stadium, then you should perform a miracle every once in a while.

And that doesn’t mean a triple salchow, it doesn’t mean a perfect vault, it doesn’t mean a game-winning shot. It means, occasionally, if you are a God, you do something that affects the world. And I don’t see that from any athletes–whether it be the Dream Team or the gymnasts or somebody else–from any country.

And I think it’s disappointing, because I think even now, if Michael Jordan stood up and said, ‘You know what, let’s really do something about the inequity of education in America,’ then I think it would change.

Of course, John is likely referring to the athletes who are participating in the Beijing Olympics this year who are generally mum about China’s poor human rights record both recently and in the past.

Honestly, I don’t necessarily blame the athletes for not speaking out. The athletes’ top priority in Beijing is to represent their home countries in achieving Olympic glory, and I would bet that most of them certainly can do without the distractions that will be brought about by speaking out on certain sensitive issues.

John further adds:

If you have people that can force people, families, who have almost nothing, to pay 150 pounds or dollars for shoes, then what can’t they achieve? Politicians can’t get 150 pounds out of families with nothing. Politicians have to give families with nothing stuff for them to believe in them. These people are so powerful that they make these families who have nothing buy stuff from them.

So yeah, I think they have the kind of power to change the world. I think it’s an awesome responsibility, and I can see why people wouldn’t want that. However, if you’re a God, every once in a while you’ve got to show it.

Source: Washington Post (via TrueHoop)

On this point though, I can’t really say I disagree with John.

Top tier professional athletes like Tiger Woods, LeBron James, and David Beckham do hold tremendous influential power over the public, and with great power certainly comes great responsibility.

I also think John’s example is spot on - I’ve seen it first hand where poor kids will scrape together enough money to buy expensive Air Jordans even if it means secretly skipping lunch for a few months to do so.

Although the Olympics may not be the proper forum to do so, I do wish more influential people in the world can use their power to influence positive change.

And this should extend beyond just professional athletes and “Gods of the Stadium”, but to other celebrities and public figures who the public generally holds in awe.

I’m also talking about our “revered” Singaporean rulers and leaders who demand nothing less than the full respect and obedience of all Singaporeans for the so-called good that the leadership has bestowed upon our nation.

If you truly believe you are a God to the people, and demand the respect worthy of a God - then show us that you are capable of miracles once in a while, and undo your own morally outrageous acts, will you?

Why Guys are Superficial and Girls are Materialistic

Ever wondered why guys are generally characterized as superficial creatures whose #1 priority when looking for a mate is beauty and good looks?

What about girls, who generally are portrayed as status or money chasers when they are choosing their boyfriends or husbands?

Are these generalizations accurate and fair?

Well… sure! Is anyone really denying that? ;)

OK, fine. So why is that so?

It’s because of evolution, of course!

According to The Logic of Life, which is the latest book by “The Undercover Economist” Tim Harford, it can all be traced back to our ancestral roots.

Tim writes:

In the ancestral environment, it is fair to assume, a baby with two parents looking after it stood a much better chance of reaching adulthood than a baby whose single parent had to do the rearing as well as the hunting and gathering.

And that was essentially where the modern concept of couple pairing and marriage evolved from.

Tim further adds:

Since a woman needed the physical strength to bear and rear the baby, youth and health - for which beauty is a reliable indicator - would top the list of male desires.

And how about for guys?

We can imagine that a father’s role in raising children, primarily, was to provide and protect: perhaps the most able hunters would have been in most demand as long-term partners, or the strongest fighters, or the canniest at making political alliances. All these attributes would have translated into high status. And in modern times, we have a very reliable indicator of high status: wealth.

And so the truth is out. It’s not our fault for being superficial, ladies. It’s all science and evolution’s fault. :roll:

So don’t blame us men for gawking at pretty girls and preferring good looks over everything else when we are choosing our mates.

And in return we promise we won’t blame you gals for gawking at investment bankers and chasing eighty-nine year old Texas billionaires when you are choosing your mates.

Deal? ;)

StarHub Cable TV is an Example why Monopolies are Bad

I just received a letter from StarHub Cable TV this week. They have wonderful news for us subscribers!

…we are pleased to present to you the new Lifestyle Basic Group and a new tier, Basic Upsize. With this new packaging, we hope to extend a wider picking of channels that you will find easy to select and enjoy.

[snip]

Henceforth, Family Plus is no longer available for subscription.

I’ll spare you the details, but in a nutshell they replaced one add-on tier (Family Plus) with a weaker version of essentially the same thing (Basic Upsize), and introduced one new Basic Group that counts towards one of your Basic Groups when you are choosing a subscription plan.

And the good news doesn’t stop there:

In addition, if you currently do not subscribe to a Value Pack or any channel/group on the Digital Add-on Tier, the monthly rental fee of $4.28 for the first digital set-top box will apply. With this and the new channels added, there will be a price revision of $3.21 from your July bill.

So the bottom line is this - Right now I’m paying $38.52 (incl. 7% GST) per month for 3 Basic Groups and the Family Plus add-on tier. After the reorganization, I now need to pay for 4 Basic Groups and the Basic Upsize add-on tier, as well as start paying $4 more for set-top box rental, and I still lose access to at least three channels! (Eurosportnews, Zone Reality, BBC Entertainment, and I think even Boomerang)

So I am paying three bucks more a month, and I still lost value.

And if I insist on paying no more than the $38.52 I’m currently paying right now per month, the way that the channels are newly packaged forces me to drop no less than 8 channels.

Yes, $tarHub is basically saying, “Screw you guys. What are you going to do, drop us for mio TV?”

There are also some sleight-of-hand dirty tricks that $tarHub is trying to screw us with:

  1. Eurosportnews, once part of the Family Plus tier, now moves to the uber-expensive Sports Group. %$#&!
  2. Pop quiz: E! Entertainment - one of the most popular channels on cable TV today talking about Hollywood - belongs in which Basic Group? Surely the “Entertainment” group with other Hollywood-related channels such as AXN, MTV, and Star World, right? Wrong! It belongs in the newly created Lifestyle (!!?) group with other obviously-related channels :roll: such as Discovery Science, Discovery Home & Health and the Asian Food Channel. E! is basically anchoring the Lifestyle group, otherwise people will drop it faster than you can say, “money grubbers”.

And how did $tarHub come up with this brilliant new packaging?

We take several factors into account when we select channels for our new Lifestyle Basic Group and Basic Upsize Tier. These include the appeal of each channel, how it complements the others in the group, feedback from customers and our commercial negotiations with the channel provider. (emphasis mine)

Right… like I believe any customer will feedback to $tarHub asking for reduced value at a higher price.

You will never see this happen in a place like the United States or Taiwan, where multiple viable cable TV providers actually have to compete with each other for subscribers. And this is not even counting the alternatives, such as satellite service providers like DirecTV. In Taiwan, the government even puts a cap on how much cable providers can charge (550 NT$ - or about 25 SGD - based on 2006 numbers I can find). And what can you typically get with 25 Singapore bucks per month? Over 100 channels, including premium channels such as HBO, Cinemax, and for those who are interested, even pornography.

In Singapore however, where $tarHub is the only viable pay-TV provider in town and satellite dishes are banned, they can get away with this kind of stuff. Just raise your prices every year (like last year) and laugh all the way to the bank.

(On a side note: it’s as if all the monopolies in the world knows that the world will crumble into financial ruin soon, and thus everyone wants to get their last shot in grab as much money as possible. How else can you explain why despite high inflation and a looming fear of a global recession, oil prices, and now cable TV prices, are still steadily increasing?)

And why does the government allow $tarHub to operate more or less as a monopoly, and not to mention continue to disallow satellite dishes?

Well, you may get all different kinds of answers, such as, “SCV deserves it, since it spent $600 million to cable the whole island”, or, “satellite dishes are a threat to our national security.”

My guess? Well, if you have one cable TV provider, perhaps it’s much less work for MDA to enforce its censorship rules and to dole out its “financial penalties“. :)