sometimes i don't get it. i can still see her name printed in black and white. i can still see her signature in my hands. the ink looks so black and fresh, like it was just signed yesterday. i can just imagine her hunched over her desk signing these, one paper at a time. how can someone that feels so near be gone forever from the face of the earth? how can something that is still so vivid in my hands and mind vaporise from the world, never ever to be heard from or seen again for time eternal? i don't get it.

i'm deliberating on how to start this post, i have been for days, but i've come no closer to an answer. it relates to a phone. my hand phone specifically. it's as rare as a dinosaur bone nowadays. not that it's ancient or belongs to the flintstones era, but it's highly unlikely that you'll see it on anybody's hand, bag or within a 500km radius of any sane people. it probably belongs in the museum, right next to the display of rattling bones.

what's so unusual about it, you may ask? well, even if you didn't, i'm still telling you. it's state-of-the-art, top rate technology cheap simple. yes, the most basic model that the brand carries. couple of hundred dollars at most. it even looks cheap simple. chauffeurs and maids won't even be caught dead with such a phone. which is such an irony to me. at this stage in my life, where i can get any phone in the market without feeling the pinch, and i am resigned to using one that i bought for my little boy a few years ago. heck, even he is using a cool looking red ferrari-shaped one now which goes vroom, vroom when it rings.

so, why haven't i switch over to the latest smartphone with all the gadgety stuffs and really hi-tech applications? this is the precise reason why i am writing this post. not for laying down the reasons, but for the looks and smirks that i have been getting by far. and the number of times that i have to re-tell my stories in order to justify why i am still using something that most people condone as inferior. it's pretty tiring, trying to beat down that little part of me that still cares about public opinions. once in a while, when the resistance is low, i actually get bothered about what people think and i don't want them to have the impression that i am el-cheapo who can't afford to buy a proper phone or her distant cousin, el-dumbo who is a technology-idiot. i actually delve into the long, and more than slightly boring story of how my handphone came about. gasp!! traitor!

most of the time though, i intentionally fish out my phone and place it in a highly visible spot for all to see, and to have them recoil in shock and disgust. and i use it in glee when others are fishing out their gold coloured blackberry-lookalikes and swiping their fingers on smartphones until they develop iphonfingernitis. i admit, one of the many reasons that i am still using my phone and and love it, is to indulge the defiant and rebellious side in me. i love it when all the usual thoughts and impressions leap into other people's mind, but they don't dare to voice it out for fear of sounding rude. they so badly want to know what the heck is wrong with me, but they are not able to satisfy their curiosity. the higher level they are in the hierarchy, the more warped their thinking. i can see it in their eyes, directors, bankers, managers, ceos. i feel a little like a devil. only if discrimination is in their hearts.

every once in a while, mobile phone operators will tempt me with their big colourful ads of smart phones and 'unlimited usage' in the newspaper. every once in a while, i look and wonder. however, when the minute is up, i still prefer my phone, and all it's antiquity. me and my phone. :-)

so, why do i prefer this phone anyway? i don't think that is the point of the story. besides, i don't fancy going through my whole long list of reasons just to satisfy anybody's curiosity yet another time.

an amazing revelation just came to me. none of those heavy holy apocalypse or deity manifestation stuffs. i just realised that mistresses are more often than not ugly. yes, u..g..l..y. say the word mistress and the first thought that will come to your mind is some sex bomb with big boobs, low tops, bodies to die for and drop-dead beauty, forever in their sexy see-through pink negligee and furry pink slippers to match. at least, that is the image that pops immediately into my mind. i don't think yours will be too far away.

however, given recent statistics, mistresses seem to be the other opposite of the spectrum. more often than not, i am shocked, they are even less attractive than the spouse they are competiting against. not convinced? remember camilla against princess diana? really, who would have chosen her against the shy natural charm of our queen of hearts? besides prince charles, obviously of course. i suspect that he has serious short sighted issues, and when he finally saw clearly how she looked like up close in his arms, it was too late to turn back :-p. lol. beauty in the eyes of the beholder.

recently, arnold schwarzenegger announced that he had fathered a child with an ex-employee. did you manage to catch a glimpse of the lady? seriously? against maria shriver? what's wrong with men's vision? i do understand that men think with their appendages and not their brain some of the time but apparently, it affects their vision too. why would you want to cheat on someone you love or once loved with someone uglier? that makes no sense whatsoever. what makes it so irresistable to begin with in the first place? if it is not their beauty or drop dead body, then men must have more depth than we actually gave them credit for in the first place :-p hey, guys, this is actually in your defence. :-p :-p

this actually happens in real life too. i know more than a couple of people whose mistresses look pretty unattractive, and it's not from a woman's point of view. the first thought that comes to mind to anybody who knows is.....what the heck does he even see in her?!?!? thus, a note to ladies. it's not the pretty ones that you have to be careful of. it's more often than not the ordinary drab ones that both you and your spouse let your guard down on. it's also those that men find convenient.

come to think of it, i guess convenience is really an issue here. remember bill clinton? and arnold scwarzenegger. it's someone that's conveniently always hanging around, making opportunities difficult to resist. doesn't matter if it's good or bad, as long as it's convenient, heck chinese even have a saying for it!! i believe men are also an insecure lot. they are not going to aim for those ms universe lookalikes in case they fall flat on their faces and suck lemon in rejection, so that's why it's always the not-very-attractive ones that end up being mistresses.

still, it's pretty hurtful for the ego of spouses spurned. they secretly go in search of the competition and end up horrified. traumatised. this piece of thing??? he is choosing ....*splutters* this face over me?!?!? and then she goes into deep depression wondering what is seriously wrong with her because he rather choose someone so ugly over her, ending up with hours and hours of therapy just to accept that men are blind. this is drama penned by the liberty of the author's pen of course but i've actually heard similar response from a jilted spouse so it's not that far from the truth.

so men, if you want to cheat, at least cheat with a candidate for ms universe, or at the very least, ms world, to save the poor spouse from more heartbreak. not that this is an encouragement or ratification for extra-marital affairs! in the first place, i really don't know how they can bear to break up years and years of love and memories, just for one second of pleasure. all the hours and seconds that you have put into building up that household smashed and broken, your whole world turned topsy-turvy, your reputation, your image flushed down the drain, your wealth and fortune reduced by half. for a piece of someone else's CENSORED. really?

and remember ladies, look out for the ugly ones, not the pretty ones.

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.

tired of people dissing on others. weary of name callings, back-stabbing and everything so negative. i just came away from a 2-day bread making course and i feel so tired. aside from having loads of completely newborn fresh information crammed into my brain within the span of 18 hours, sometimes with the aid of a foot jammed into my cranial area to further stomp it in, i am weary of interactions with superficial people. our head chef hates every single living thing in the world, by category. perhaps it's the french passion in him and that's how french people are. i read that somewhere.

still, being all optimistic and eternally 'high' seems superbly pretentious and 'dumb-blonde' to me. caught between a rock and a hard place i guess, that's neither here nor there. i don't need to be reminded of how dark the world is, how naturally selfish and bad mankind can be. what i need, is to be reminded once in a while that there is still beauty in the world, that life is still good, that under all the layers of grime and crap, that the underlying core of man is pure.