que pasa

It's an age old adage that it'shappier to give than to receive.  This article tries to explain why that is.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually need to reach a certain level in wealth before you can start giving, because I've heard about and met people who seem rather happy without being rich at all.

Maybe like the article says, it's about finding meaning in your life.  You've worked so hard to get to where you are but it's always been about you or stuff/people related to you.  So now that you amassed a certain pot of gold, you want to make a social contribution and let your money to speak for what you believe will make the world a better place.

Alternatively, maybe it's not about giving away wealth or money to be happy, it may be more about what it takes for you to be content.  In other words, your giving is more about an excess of what it takes to be satisfied than how much wealth you actually possess.

I love McDonald's breakfasts… especially the Sausage Egg McMuffin. 

So while I have no idea who the inventor is, out of my undying loyalty to the product, I feel that I should put it out here that the inventor of the core concept has passed away.  Seems like he was a genuinely nice guy.

In another of those ego-stroking things that I do, I decided to check out how much this blog is worth here.

Laddies and gennelmen, I am pleased to announce that sandy.blogspirit.com is worth $22,581.60!!!

Not too shabby, lol.

The Vatican has put together a list of seven "social" sins as follows:
1. 'Bioethical' violations such as birth control
2. 'Morally dubious' experiments such as stem cell research
3. Drug abuse
4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty
(Original article here)

The seven deadly sins are pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth.

In one of the early chapters of "The Kite Runner" by Khaled Hussein (which is a pretty good book by the way), one of the characters' father tells his son, with regards to what he's learning in religious school,

'"No matter what the mullah teaches, there is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft. Do you understand that?"

'"When you kill a man, you steal a life… You steal his wife’s right to a husband, rob a children of his father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone’s right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness. Do you see?"'

I can see the logic to that actually, and I think that perspective could be used to interpret the seven deadly sins. I don't quite feel that it is all encompassing though, but good enough for a general rule of thumb.

One thing I have realized is that my position on what constitutes sin is now grey. I can't see things in black and white anymore. As much as the church would like things to be clear, it's very hard to have such high moral standing when life in the commercial world has so many complications.

I've done my share of grey things so I do not have the right to judge. I hate calling sin "sin" because it makes me sound and feel "holier-than-thou" when I’m not. I suppose the solution would be to not participate in grey activities but I realize that in my line of work at where I am, it's impossible. So maybe, you say, I should get out of this job altogether. But that brings us full circle to why I'm here in the first place.

So I'm keeping my eyes focused on my exit, I must keep plugging at it.

In the continuing saga to make Beijing ready for the Olympics, here are more recent act-of-will activities so that you know how hard they are trying.

1. Chinese food will be 'totally safe', so no foreign food shall be allowed in the Olympic village.  (Read this)

2. There shall be sufficient toilet-bowl-type washrooms installed to cater to the foreign visitors as they are not used to the squatting type that is the average Chinese is used to. (Read this)

Great movie starring Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman.

Nice simple story, funny when you're not expecting it, lovely cast.  It's a keeper.

I just read this article that supports cheerleading as respectable and a sport.

There are two kinds of cheerleading, the really professional one with stunts, music, state and national competitions (like the kind you see in the movie "Bring it on"); and the pom-pom girl/guy groups to ra-ra the crowd at a stadium. Apparently even some American presidents have been cheerleaders of the former category before.

In my opinion, both types of cheerleaders command respect and require at least a minimum athletic prowess and daring. Especially tough for the girls, I mean, can you do splits with such ease, dare to be flung and thrown around, cartwheel across the floor whenever and wherever? Some say that cheerleaders are bimbos, while that may be true in some cases, I think it’s fair to say that some of the best athletes out there aren’t known for their intellectual prowess either.

But you know what I else I respect about cheerleaders? That they some how are armpit-fat-and-cellulite free, or have minimal amounts of such fats. I mean, think about those tight tops that squeeze the fats around the armpit region, and the short skirts that expose the full length of your legs. Those fats are very hard to get rid of or deal with.

Call me silly, but they've got some secret within the profession that I think many girls want to get their hands on.

So I just read this article and I’m going to be pretty candid here because I’m that kind of "friend".

I have close guy friends. Some of them are married/attached. We realize it's a delicate situation because it's likely that their wives/girlfriends aren't going to understand why our close friendship should exist.

Am I attracted to these guys? I won't deny that I think some of them are be pretty great and that I have wished before that I knew them and had snagged them earlier. I mean that's the whole point of how you get to being good friends right? There must obviously be something in their character to keep the prolonged click. And being the person that I am, they clearly must look good enough for me to stand being in their presence for an extended period of time.

I will confess though that it takes control and a clear head to resist acting on any sudden impulses, tempting as they are. So why then would I choose to keep such relationships?

Friendships with these guys are different compared to close friendships with girls. These guys seldom need comforting, it's more of a hey-i-have-a-problem-do-you-have-any-ideas-or-what-do-you-think? And I enjoy that sort of conversation because it's nice sometimes to just put that emotional side away and just deal with the real problem, that's a good way of showing genuine concern too. Or it's really just a what's-going-on-and-hey-did-you-know thing. We just wanna have a good time and hang out.

But we never get too personal because I think we know that's the no-fly-zone. Don't go there because if you get to the next level, the lines get blurrer and blurrer. I respect these guys for that and I wish that their other halves would give them more credit.

But here's the thing right, what if it were me who was on the other side? I can see myself being jealous, insecure and all, although I REALLY REALLY hope I won't be. Then again, shouldn't I be cool with it because I've been on the other-other-side?

Or, maybe it's not the woman who has the issue. Maybe it's the guy. Maybe he doesn't think his woman confident enough to let him have his female friends. After all, doesn't having friends of the opposite gender make you more aware of how they think and therefore help you relate better to your partner?

Anyways, I feel privileged to have close friends among guys and girls. And if you knew me, you'd know that I'd never cross the line.

I love good stirring speeches. 

The kind that makes you want to believe that everything said is possible.  The kind that makes you realize that this world is bigger than what you deal with everyday. 

I think that Obama’s latest speech, “A More Perfect Union”, is one of those.

Here is the full length of his speech.

You've probably read about the riots and bloodshed, you've probably seen some sort of video footage. In fact, you probably know more than me. I am experiencing censorship to the max.

I can't access Youtube because the great firewall of china has blocked it off.  Trying to access it through a proxy is also almost impossible.  The local papers offer biased reporting like this and this - that only the protestors are violent and the authorities are victims - because the news I am getting from other sources suggest otherwise.

But to be fair, I suspect even the foreign papers' sources may also be somewhat tainted as it's really hard to get it straight from the horse's mouth. I am not hearing much about it on TV either.  Kwi even told me that mobile and telephone lines were being cut off to reduce information flow... maybe that explains the difficulty I had with my internet access in the afternoon too.

The repercussions are rippling through everything Chinese. Stock markets fell again today, internet censorship is at a high again, more athletes are thinking of withdrawing from the Olympics, even Taiwan politicians are using the Tibet situation as a foreshadowing of things to come. 

Although the riots are said to have reached the western part of Sichuan Province, they have not reached Chengdu and thus far I am safe. I want to thank those of you who checked in on me to see if I was ok. I appreciate your concern.

Update @ 18 Mar: Was on the phone yesterday with a friend and we were talking about the situation in Tibet, I think we must have used certain keywords too many times because our call got cut off like 4 times at least.  Methinks they're tapping the phone… freaky.

Update @ 19 Mar: 2 students were killed in Chengdu yesterday apparently, something to do with the riots. 

Update @ 20 Mar: Increased security for Tibetans in Chengdu, read this.