would you shave off all your hair in return for a $100,000 donation to charity? that question popped into my head this morning for no apparent reason than to mess with my vegetable state of mind. where do all these questions even come from??!

maybe once, eons ago, when i was young and impulsive, and all gungho about life and saving the world, i could have said yes. but even that is a narcissistic pretense of being all selfless and generous. i was a gawky self-conscious kid who wanted the whole world to like me. i don't believe i would have gone around with a bald dome for a few months to prove that i am all noble and charitable.

now that i'm a 40 year old, seemingly more confident woman, oblivious to the opinions of others, whom i now know are even more insecure than i beyond the layers and layers of pretentious exhibitionism, will i?

you will think that i would at least consider the possibility, since i claim not to care about what the public thinks of me being an extinct and protected bald-headed eagle. life however gets more complicated as you grow older and your thoughts follow in tandem. the first response that comes to mind is, heck i have that money, why do i need to shave off all my hair in order to get more to give it away? i've already got it in my pocket and all i've to do is loosen the purse strings and issue a cheque. which makes me wonder why all the rich wives and spouses of filthily wealthy politicians are so passionate about making appearances in support of fund-raising charities. many famous charities are chaired by people who can drown in their own money, but yet they are trying to raise more funds. is it alright to do charity with other people's money but not their own? i'm sure they are also donating on the side, but really, how much, i do wonder. they manage to raise $100,000....$1,000,000 even, and that is still merely loose change for them. the cynical side of me have no doubt that heading charities are great publicities and feed wonders to the narcissistic ego.

famous people are good for raising public awareness for the charity, the innocent and naive side of me argues. that's why i usually like to throttle her, she pulls me, my mind and my opinions to very different extremes. why do charities need public awareness if one filthy rich person can fund it full-time? public awareness so that other people are aware of the goodness that one is doing? devil-angel-devil-angel. i change sides faster than doctor jeckyl and mr hyde.

the other argument against shaving my crown glory is what becomes of the $100,000. oh, i believe i can come up with a thousand reasons just so that i will not have to concede. my cynicism has reached a point where i am cynical even of my own intentions and actions. not very fun. i know for a fact that the victims of the charities will not receive $100,000 in full. fair enough, given all the operating cost and pockets of greedy people that it has to fill. in the us of a, some charities employ professional fund-raisers and give them as much as 94.3% for their fees. probably why i see so many people from all types of charitable organisations standing around with their stalls in shopping centres with people who don't look very kind and volunteer-like asking you for your money. how can i tell the difference? i think it was the dollar signs shining a little too brightly in their eyes.

what can i say? charity is big business.

so, will i or won't i? definitely not. i don't need to sport a bald shiny head to announce that i am already doing charity and i don't need to let the whole world knows which charities i support, how much and when.