Spiralling Chaos

Posted by a friend on Instagram, thought it's worth sharing here. #repost (Thanks friend!)
Credit goes to the author, whose name I can't see clearly, but is the lady in the picture. 

To save you from squinting your eyes, I'm retyping the passage here:

When I was about 15 I got pretty overexcited when, through my combination of school subject choices, I came across the concept of duende. 

It's a Spanish word with no English translation that could be loosely explained as as expression of the feeling we all have that life is both incredibly heavy and feather-light at the same time. 

While my intense teenage attachment to duende as a concept has faded, there is something about discovering the word that sticks with me. 

Whenever I think of it, I'm reminded that language governs thought. The lack of the word duende in English doesn't just connote a cultural reluctance to discuss the feeling it represents. Instead, the fact it's missing from our vocabulary actually prevents us from conceptualising the idea fully - without the word, we can only communicate a pale imitation of what it describes. 

And now, as I try to find something useful to do about the parlous state of the world's most powerful - the unstable and dangerous Trump, and our Government's pandering to him - I run into a sort of similar problem with language. 

The verbs that describe the actions within our reach - organise, protest, resist - they're tainted. I'm not sure how it happened, but in my mind those words have come to be associated with privileged people complaining en masse because they don't understand others' realities, rather than with legitimate community movements. 

The fact that these words have been twisted like this seems to impede my ability to work out how we can best express our collective disgust at the actions of the people who now purport to lead us. 

But whether we reclaim these particular words or assign others to do their job, we need to find a way to stand together and say this is not ok; to say that collectively we will step in to prevent people being hurt by small men with big power. 

Language certainly governs thinking, but in this case we need to make sure its limitations don't prevent necessary actions. 

These days we keep waking up to ridiculousness, every day more so than the previous day. It's like watching some really bad reality-TV show, except it's not -- this is our f-ing reality.  The more I read, the less I want to write, the more I want to retreat. But running away, shutting the world out, isn't going to change anything. Although only tangentially related to what the passage is about, reading it reminds me that we all have a duty, a responsibility to speak up and participate in the current affairs, no matter where we are or what we do. Because the alternative - to just stand back as a by-stander, watching things unfold, or perhaps trusting that other people will step up and fight for what is right - is unacceptable. Now more so than ever. 

Whatever it is that you care about, go do something about it. Un-spiral the spiralling chaos. Or make it harder for it to keep spiralling. Make your voice heard. 

Peace.

News vs. Facts

If a tree fell with a thud, but no one heard it, 

has it really fallen? 

If words of truth were written but no one read it,

are they still legit? 

If one was loved by another but he/she alone was utterly blind to it,

has it really happened? Does it still count?

Humans. Most of the time we seek evidence, trust only our senses and what we can concretely grasp, especially when it's in our favour or when it's convenient to us. When it's not, or when it's too complicated/overwhelming, we either a) choose to believe whatever we were taught when we were little (fall back to the primitive model instilled in us in our early years), b) jump to the next most convenient explanation (even if it's absurd), or c) simply walk away and ignore the problem.

Sure, these choices are tempting- they're easy solutions. They don't require much thinking.  Believing what we were told when we were kids is probably the easiest, most convenient, and natural thing to do- because it felt 'right'- when 'right' and 'wrong' were as clear as 'black' and 'white' as a child. It gives us and easy way out.  But that's why we educate ourselves. We go to school not just to get a piece of paper that helps us secure a job, but to learn to think for ourselves. To think through the information we're fed, to parse out the right and wrong (subject to individual moral codes, but that's a different matter altogether), the truth from lies.

These days though, it's increasingly hard to do so. A large part of it is because of the technology that is a double-edged sword- it provides us an abundance of information all just a few clicks away,  but it doesn't separate truths from un-truths/lies/propaganda. There's hardly any information police or regulatory body that fact-check everything, because it's just an impossible task. The onus then is on us to do the hard work ourselves, to check the sources, to analyze what we've read and make up our mind about it. Yet too often we fall into complacency and just reinforce what we already believed in by reading the opinions of those whose ideas align with ours, which makes it easy to skip the thinking part and just drink in what we've been fed. The danger of overly accessible information is like the sexy, seductive mistress who keeps flirting with you, completely intoxicating, irresistible, and- costly.

Too much has been said and written on the election results, and I don't think my two-cents on the postmortem of the event is worth mentioning. Everybody has an opinion, everyone has something to say. Most of them are unhelpful, and are noise. I'm more interested in how things move forward from now on, especially on the healthcare front and the environmental issues / climate change. One example- Standing Rock's fight on the Dakota Access Pipeline is something worth keeping close tabs on, and take action if feasible. Whatever it is, I think it's high time we all start caring about something and work to protect what's important to us and to those we care. Because if we don't, we might find ourselves losing it sooner than we realize. If there's a lesson to learn from recent events, it's to take nothing for granted. Nothing.

Peace,
J

Must Watch: Wisdom for Young People

A friend shared this on social media the other day, and I think it's worth sharing it here as well. Some words about how to approach life in general, about how to see the world we live in today, a world so full of chaos, fragmented by race, religion, skin color etc.  It's inspiring and heartwarming to know there are people out there who still believe in meliorism and are actually acting upon their beliefs. I do hope that more people are exposed to people, experiences and words like these which would inspire them to do the same. Especially in Malaysia. If there's anytime in the history of Malaysia needs people like these the most, it is now. So dear friends, do have spend some 12 minutes to watch this short video, (I promise you it's worth your time) and then ponder some on it and see how you can use it in your daily lives. 

Alumni Distinguished Service Award: Khalid Latif, CAS ‘04 from NYU CAS on Vimeo.

Climate Change

Good morning. Saw this the other day and really wanted to share. It's important to know how bad our climate has changed, and realize that we are the major contributors to that. There are things we can do to slow down this process, no matter how tiny or insignificant they may seem. But more on that later, I'm running late! Here's the vid to share. Do watch it!

It's about time we start caring, no? Happy Thursday peeps. 

Capture First, Help Can Wait

The other day there was a fire in the hospital, and everyone was asked to evacuate. Medical students were asked to leave as well, as no one wants to be held liable for our lives, so we couldn’t stay back to help evacuate. Fair enough. Despite wanting to do something, we made our way out grudgingly, only to see a large number of people capturing photos of the fire in front of the building. -___- ||| Really? I’m speechless. I know there isn’t much to do to help, but still. There’s a time and place for photographs, and this is not it.

Is it just me, or is this what we’re expected of (and hence perfectly acceptable) these days? Is this what our society has become?

Some Things Never Change

Vote for me, he says
If you don't, the country will go to the wrong people
There'll be hudud law
You won't have the freedom you enjoy now
Economy will decline
Everything will go wrong
If you don't vote for me
Vote wisely
Vote for Malaysia

And I sit here, wondering
When is he going to tell me
What will happen if I vote for him

Afternoon Rain and Thunder

Have you heard?

The horrifying roar

The patronizing drumrolls

The prelude to the symphony

Warning us of its arrival

Telling us to run

Telling us to hide

Run

Run away from the consequences

Of our actions we 

Commit daily
Unknowingly, or knowingly
Consuming, thrashing, forgetting
Repeat routine the next day

Yes, tell ourselves
It's not us, it's certainly not 'me'
Prolonged winter in New York
Floods in Midwest US and in Malaysia
Earthquakes, hurricanes, and what-have-you's
Surely you must be mistaken
To think it's related to civilization

But could it be
That it's really us
Should we give up some of our luxuries
Maybe we should
Carpool, take a train, recycle, buy less
But dear God it's so hard
Can I just do it tomorrow?

And so the morrow turns into
Weeks, months, years
Plastic consumption is still sky high
Oil and gas still fueling our economy
Yes, nothing seems to have changed
But outside the sky is in a fury
It's coming for us, you and I we both know it

Untitled #1

Taking a moment to jot some thoughts.

What has the world come to these days? Bombing one day, shoot-out another, people dropped dead like flies, bad guys doing bad deeds then running away, but the good guys won't stop chasing, and they will keep at it until someone is down down down. Could be the real bad guys, could be scapegoats. Who knows, who cares. People needed to know that the monsters who did the heinous deed get what they deserved; whether the authority got the right targets is less important. At least that's what it seemed on the outset…

Meanwhile, no one has the slightest idea about their motives behind such acts. Why? What was the reason they did that? Surely there must be more than just me who wanted to know the reason. Does it matter? I'd like to think it does, because everything is connected.

Over here in this side of the world, People are coming together to fight for a chance for democracy- not masked in subtle threats or treats/money giveaways, but democracy as it should be. Too long has gone by for the People to just sit and accept the status quo in the name of peace. Enough is enough. No one is saying The Other Side is perfect, or so very much better, but at some point one has to realize that the saying of 'better to go for the known devil than to go for the unknown evil' does not make much sense in this context anymore. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, Einstein said. Had I tweak it a little and say 'insanity is voting for the same party over and over again and hoping they would do things differently', it would be just as apt.

Sometimes it escapes me why a certain party can't get it that what People want is not so much to overthrow the government, but to have a better and more efficient one. If they could just do the right thing instead of disappointing us time after time, all this wouldn't be happening. Then again, the world is a more cynical and brutal world than I'd like to believe.

To Swab or Not to Swab: Ethics of DNA Sampling

Read this news article a couple of weeks ago about whether it's constitutional to sample for DNA on those who are arrested without a warrant. Sounds to me like one of those ethical controversy on the usage of technology vs. the notion of privacy.

The summary of the story is this: This guy was arrested for assault charges and his DNA was taken as per state law. The DNA sample was then submitted to federal DNA database to see if there were any matches. Turns out his DNA matched that of a rapist who committed the rape 6 years ago. He was then tried for the rape and sentenced to life in prison.

So. Here's the question- do you think people should have their DNA sampled during a warrantless arrest just to see if it matches anything in the crime database, or do you think that is violating their privacy? Put it another way, do you think that when someone is arrested for crime A, he/she should only be investigated for that crime only and nothing else, or do you think it's fair that he/she also be checked against national crime database to see if he/she committed other crimes?

I think it depends where you stand at any given time. Those who are arrested (or who have a high tendency to be arrested) will obviously want the opposite of those who want to be protected by the law and order. That's obvious enough. But here's the tricky part: who is to say that you or I will not be arrested one fine day? When that happens, will we still be so willing to provide our DNA in the name of security? You and I know that our DNA is like the ultimate pool of information about us; it can be dangerous if it's being misused. So then the question becomes privacy vs. security- where is the balance?

There's a mini-series produced by PBS, a 5-episode series called The Last Enemy (it's all on YouTube), that revolves precisely on this issue. Very relevant to the era we live in today, maybe even plausible in the near future. Watch it if you have the time. And tell me what you think! :)

Snuffed- Part 2

Image source: Google search on suicide. 

Looking back at the blogpost I wrote on suicide last year, maybe I was being too harsh on them. I sounded pissed off at those who committed suicide, and indeed I was. I still am, a little bit, when I think about it. But since then, I've learnt to see things from a different light. I tried to reason that maybe there were causes obscure to the judging eyes of the public (yes, I too am guilty of it), maybe they were mentally sick but undiagnosed and they didn't know how to get help, or that they need to get help. It could be a million other reasons for what happened to them, and it is only fair that I don't jump to conclusion about them so quickly, so unsparingly.  

And so I put the issue to rest and haven't really thought about it, until last month. Few weeks ago, there was a suicide case- a 17 or 18 year-old boy from my ex-high school jumped from his apartment building due to "depression and pressure from school", or so the media alleged. *deep sigh*  It just breaks my heart to see a budding young man who had so much to offer and yet chose to end his life just like that. I don't know why he did what he did, I don't think anyone will ever know, but I'd contend that ending one's life is not a way to solve any problem at all. Sigh. If I were to be philosophical about it, I'd question what the heck happened to the society we live in these days, that caused the seemingly increasing number of people who'd rather choose to end life than to face life's adversity. In this world of abundance, is there not a single ray of hope for them at all?! 

Alas, being philosophical and asking questions like these will not change a thing. Nor will my initial emotion of anger and contempt. Suicidal intent is a mental problem that should be taken more seriously and should be of concern to you, me and people around us. Perhaps if we all know a little more about it, maybe we could detect symptoms of those feeling depressed and are crying for help. And if we could get them help early enough, we might've spared a life, and many more heartaches of those around them. 

Though I realize it's stupid to presume a depressed person would stumble upon this blog, I still want to say this: to those who are feeling depressed or have thought about suicide, please pause for a moment to think about your family, and the people who love and care about you. Know that if and when you die, you're just dead and that's the end of it, but it is they who have to live with the pain and the loss of someone they once loved, for the rest of their lives. Nothing can be worse than that, particularly for your parents. 

That's all I have to rant about today lol. Peace. 

Peer Pressure

A: "Smokes, dude?"
B: "…."

Snuffed-

These days you read about people committing suicide here and there. There's the 24 y/o young medical student who thinks he's Shakespeare or Casablanca or whatever who committed suicide because he wanted to bless his girlfriend's love for another guy; then there's the 12-year old boy who committed suicide with a shoelace because he couldn't go back to the hometown to spend time with grandmother. Seriously????!!!! WTF is wrong with these people?? What is it with these people that made them do what they did? Or rather, what is it about the society at large that cultivated such people or such "trend", if you will?

I'm asking questions I have no answer to. I doubt anyone does. Quite frankly, in regard to this matter, I am annoyed. And disturbed by the growing rates of suicides - not just in this country but in general. It's not that I'm heartless or have no empathy at all; it's just that my concern on the "trend of things" greatly outweighs my condolences for the families who have to go through this pain of loss. In fact, it's precisely this strong sense of unfairness toward the surviving families that induced this feeling of indignation. Know what I mean? How they belittled the life given to them by their parents! Their moms especially! Who had to go through 10 months of carrying them around, nurturing them, risking their own life for them, etc. … and the sacrifices from both parents go on for way more than just 10 months. All this was dismissed by those who decided, whether on a whim or after contemplating for some time, to end their life right there- for whatever reason they deemed justifiable, just seemed so incredibly irresponsible to me. Maybe I'm being judgmental for saying what I said. Maybe they really did feel such excruciating pain that is on par with that of an end-stage [fill in the blank] metastatic cancer that they just couldn't bear to live any longer. Maybe so. I don't know. But to take their lives so lightly without even reconsidering it and thinking about the repercussions of their actions (and I'm assuming all this- but for good reason, because if they did they wouldn't have jumped the gun), or so much as discussing it with someone? I think that just shows how much how little they value their lives.

Okay. Phew. Enough ranting. All I wanna say is, life is so much more than just that one incident that might have crushed you at that time. Gotta learn how to deal with things when things don't turn out the way you want it to; gotta learn how not to take life too seriously. But at the same time, it shouldn't be taken too lightly as to snuff it out in reaction to any unpleasant situation. After all, everyone will get there, eventually. Why rush into it?

Last but not least, to those "strawberry generation" who needed some sound advice, here it is: suck it up, and deal with it!  Yes, it's free. You're welcome.

FD Day 7: Denialism

Here's a video to share, or click here to watch it from TED's website. (Chean I think you'd find it interesting, given that you'd like to invent a superfood pill! ;) Let me know what you think!)

So which group do you fall into--the group that opposes genetically engineered food aka 'Frankenfood', or the enthusiastic bunch who are excited about the potential it holds to solve world hunger? Are you one of those who'd go for the alternative medicine, dietary pills, and nutritional supplements and frown upon scientifically proven cure?

Me, I don't mind genetically engineered food really, as long as it's not too crazy. If it's possible to "add value" to the food that we're already eating anyway, then why not? Say, for instance, tomatoes, carrots or potatoes - if they can incorporate multivitamins in it, and it's essentially the same thing, looks the same and tastes the same, then what's so wrong with that? Some people don't have the geographical advantage to grow everything, and they have been surviving on only a certain type of food, thus causing them to be malnourished. World hunger is a real problem that many are not aware of or don't care about - who cares when it doesn't affect them right?! Well not... yet! In the future when food shortage become a more severe problem, people will start to worry.

Michael Specter, as you can tell from his speech, is really enthusiastic and hopeful that science and help solve a lot of world problems, and in this video he cited a lot on food issues, and touched on world health issues and vaccinations as well. Clearly he frowns upon those who fear scientific advancement and resist it, and he used some extreme examples to prove his points. While I don't disagree that some people are illogical and unreasonable to resist science, I do believe there are limitations to what science can contribute to mankind, and that if it's not used for good intentions, science has the ability to unleash the monstrosity within us.

In any case, I think, beyond what he was trying to say, the problem lies in that it's not so much the "denialism of science" as it is "denialism" itself. People do that all that time, they deny things that they don't want to know or believe. It's easier to push new ideas away than it is to evaluate them and decide if they are acceptable. Everyone prefers to stick to old ways than to embrace novelties or changes. To quote him, "Denialism is a virus, and viruses are contagious." How true. And it's true in all instances, not just in science. And it's most insidious when influential people (think: politicians) exercise denialism.

But why did I go off tangent again? I meant to just comment on the Frankenfood idea. It's be cool to just have mashed potatoes and get all the nutrients from it, no? I'm not too sure about having a pill that works as a meal though - even if it has all the nutrition I need. That'd defeat the purpose of cooking and eating, and all the fun that comes with! No thank you, give me my cookies and cheesecakes anytime! :P

Food list of the previous day:

- fried bee hoon, coffee

- 1.5 spoonfuls of peanut butter 

- fruit crisps, French vanilla coffee
- pizza, croutons

Updates and Noteworthy Links

obviously, this whole discipline to stay away from blogging before i get my work done is not working.

but the truth is, my assigned reading and class assignments are never going to end. even if they do, i'll still find something else to do...! (yes, i do have the tendency to self-inflict 'pain'. ;P)

very briefly, i have some sentiments regarding some current events. first of all, my condolences to the surviving family of all the victims perished in the earthquake in Western China Qinghai Province that happened a week ago. i hope they are getting all the help they can get, and that they will get through this tough time with support from the government and all parties involved.words are cheap, i know, but believe me- if i could be there and help out or contribute in some significant ways, i wouldn't hesitate for a second to do so. for now though, since i do not have the financial means nor appropriate skills to do so, i shall send my moral support virtually, through this blog.

secondly, regarding the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud- i'm glad it's clearing up and some flights are back on air after almost a week of paralysis. there were, however, talks about certain airlines being unhappy that airports were closed for the past few days, creating billions of losses. they thought it was unnecessary and that the ash cloud wouldn't have posed any risks. unnecessary?! are they serious? whatever happened to safety and human lives first? what, are they suggesting that they should continue flying and if something terrible happens such as flight crashes or flight combustion in the air causing more deaths (as if the recent Haiti, Chilean and Chinese quakes weren't enough) - then so be it?! sometimes some people's logic (or the lack of it) baffles me, to the point that it's highly amusing. but then again, who am i to judge? common sense, or logic, quoting Einstein, is "nothing more than a set of prejudices deposited in our minds before the age of 18." so maybe what they seemed to propose - to allow airports to continue operating as usual - was the right thing to do. maybe more air crashes is the answer to the overwhelming world population that is posing new plaguing problems such as food shortage, growing senile population, climate issues (which would itself perpetuate a whole cascade of complications), imminent danger of discontinuity of human civilization etc.

ok maybe i'm exaggerating. but the point is- okay there is no point. -____-||  the point, i guess, is that we live in a world full of problems and that is just the way it is. but that doesn't justify any action by anyone to take away human lives or wipe away a huge mass of population in the name of solving "bigger" world issues. or for any reason whatsoever. because if such is true, then there rises another question: how do we decide whose lives to terminate first for the purpose of continuing human civilization? (and take it a step further: IF, a big 'if' that is, we had the right to terminate human lives, does that mean the opposite is true? more explicitly, does that mean we could create lives as we please? i mean, if we want, we could. our technology has already provided us the means to do so! does that mean we can play 'God' now?)

okay, i'm drifting further away - tooo far indeed - to some philosophical discussion, which wasn't my intention at all. (but hey, if you have some opinions regarding any of those gibberish i wrote, please feel free to share. :P) back to reality. hello. :)

as usual, below are some goodies to share:

1. A video on the origin of the human mind, brain imaging and evolution (via Miguel's website).
2. An article featured in The Economist on climate: The Science of Climate Change.
3. Also from Miguel's site - George Orwell's take on the English language and writing well. me likes Georgey Orwell. :)) Oh and while we're at it, William Zinsser's On Writing Well is a good reference book for anyone who wants to improve their written English.

That is all for now. I have a lot more to say, but I should go back to my homework and assignments. Later! :) yikes. did i say "very briefly"? oops didn't turn out that way, did it?! sorry. :P

Privacy?! What Privacy?

i'm reading all the rules and regulations about HIPAA, on how health care providers are obligated to protect patients' privacy by making sure they secure all personal health information and that they may very well be sued if a slip of mouth is overheard by someone who's not supposed to know, or that patient's information is being misused etc. it goes way deeper than that, of course, and it gives me a migraine every time i try to retain all that information i just read in my little head. but it also got me thinking about the importance our society placed on "privacy" and the changes we're seeing with the rising popularity of social media. so here i am - a perfect excuse to take a break and get rid of my headache. hee. :P

it's ironic how things have changed in the course of a mere decade (or so). i mean, think about it. internet used to be a means for us to escape from the "real" world - it provided us a space where we could think our thoughts aloud, in words. nobody really cared if their blogs were being read, because chances are, they weren't, and they were only shared amongst close friends. but that was a long time ago, when internet was just gaining acceptance by the vast public. today, internet is not only widely accepted as the norm, it is virtually impossible for a lot of people to live through a day without it. not one day! :/ yep, that's how connected we are. but at the same time, as people share more pictures, videos, thoughts, tweets, and what-have-you's on the net, they give away more of their "private" lives, so to speak, perhaps without really realizing the consequences of it, or even the danger of over-sharing their personal information.

as i sit here with my (abandoned) textbook and coffee, it's amusing to think how funny things are turning out. everything seems to be in reverse. gone were the days when we escaped from our "real" world by turning to the web for some comfort, solace, and privacy. back then we took refuge in the virtual world that gave us a sense of privacy to voice our thoughts anonymously, and we had room to say as we liked. nowadays, the sense of privacy on the web has completely evaporated; we have to be even more careful in the virtual world than we do in the actual world we live in - because we never know who's out there, lurking around, stalking and watching us. "you should be wary. and watch your words, young lady," my dad always warns me.

and i agree. i thank him for alerting and reminding me i shouldn't overexpose myself. but that's one way of seeing it. meanwhile, people still go on with their lives, sharing their thoughts, ideas, what they're eating or doing, and pretty much everything else you can think of, and it definitely hasn't been diminishing due to the concerns of "privacy". so i think it's worth asking, "well then, given the current trends, how important is privacy to the new generation?"

i may be wrong, but my guess is: not very much. people from my generation and older know privacy is worth cherishing, to us there are just certain things that we don't share with everyone. but kids born in the late 1990s and after the millennium probably don't get this whole "privacy" issue. to them, they are so used to the connectivity, the conveniences of the web and social media, that they don't see why they should be prudent about displaying certain personal info. that's just the way it is for them, to say as you go, sans any kind of filter system. and so, we older generation (relatively speaking; i'm not that old.. *ahem*) can sit around lamenting and/or chiding the ebbing of privacy, but it won't do anyone any good and we'd be better off doing our own thing and let the kids worry bout theirs. :P

in class, the professor told us about how he had to go an extra mile to make sure all the clients' information are secured properly after some new law was passed just recently; and if they need to be discarded, he had to cross-shred all the paperwork etc. he also added he has his son's ( the son's a college student) facebook password and can go check it out anytime, and he doubts privacy is gonna be an issue in the future. said the professor, "kids these days! they're sharing everything! you'd be surprised by what they share over the net! oh well. i wouldn't be surprised if HIPAA and all privacy laws are nullified by the future generation..." hah. well we'll see.

Fat Talk

i was about to go off on a rant on how people here are eating way too much junk food, fast food etc. for their own good, but i realized i have stacks of reading materials and coursework to do, so i'll just keep it short and post up a video that inspired me to go on a rant in the first place. since i'm not ranting anymore, i'll just share with you Jamie Oliver's talk on fighting obesity during the TED Conference 2010.

really. i think we all eat too much sometimes. me included. -___-  should really start practicing abstinence... before i turn into one fat glob who can't do anything else but, uhm, eat more (i guess?!).

Moving Backwards

While catching up with my backdated Newsweek magazines that I subscribe to, I came across this article by Christopher Hitchens on theocracy and why it won't work to govern a country. I think it did a great job in explaining the effects of theocracy in the Middle East. Here are excerpts of the article that I particularly resonated to:

[...] The immediate result of theocratic policy when measured by the standard of repression is pretty clear and getting ever clearer: any government that imagines it has a divine warrant will perforce deal with its critics as if they were profane and thus illegitimate by definition. [...] and watch what happens to a state or society that forbids itself the secular catharsis of self-criticism.

A country that attempts to govern itself from a holy book will immediately find itself in decline: the talents of its females repressed and squandered, its children stultified by rote learning in madrassas, and its qualified and educated people in exile or in prison. There are no exceptions to this rule... [...]

But when the crops fail and the cities rot and the children's teeth decay and nothing works except the ever-enthusiastic and illiterate young lads of the morality police, who will the clerics blame? They are not allowed to blame themselves, except for being insufficiently zealous. Obviously it must be because the Jews, the Crusaders, the Freemasons have been at their customary insidious work.

A failed state that cannot allow any grown-up internal debate, or any appeal against the divine edict, will swiftly become an even more failed state and then a rogue one because its limitless paranoia and self-pity must be projected outward.

Though the article is talking about the importance and direct interest to prevent Iranian regime from threatening the global security with nuclear weapons, I can't help but see the tremendous resemblance in the spiralling events in Malaysian politics in the past couple of years. For one, the detention of certain news reporters or bloggers by ISA in attempt to prevent them from criticizing the government is a sign that the country is embarking upon the path of an autocratic nation. The many privileges for the "bumiputeras" notwithstanding, there has been an increasing lack of tolerance for other religions' freedom of speech, or just non-Muslims in general voicing their dissent in certain governmental policies. All these has put Malaysia under the international spotlight, creating a negative image of Malaysia as a hypocritical nation -- one that prides itself to be a cultural melting pot of multiple religions and uses the slogan "Malaysia, Truly Asia" yet rules the nation by what seemed to resemble much of theocracy. One can't help but wonder, rather than wooing the global community and investors alike with its well-established "achievement" of intercultural harmony, is Malaysia regressing and following the footsteps of the radical Middle Eastern extremists instead? Anyone who is paying attention to the current events in Malaysia might sense that there is an imminent danger looming about the grim political climate, and if the government doesn't put a halt to the political movement carried out by certain parties, it is only a matter of time when things can't be suppressed anymore and will eventually blow up.

Regardless of whether this is governing through a holy book, any state that tries to - and I quote Hitchens on this - "forbid itself the secular catharsis of self-criticism" and "repress its people" will find itself in decline. And sadly, that seems to be where Malaysia is heading. Yet despite my seemingly pessimistic prediction, I still believe there is a chance the country won't go down that path. It really depends on the people, and of course the politicians. Especially the politicians. Is 1Malaysia just going to be a mirage? At this point it's hard to tell. But I do hope things will change for the better.

Overdue Bill

after almost a year of fighting to pass the health reform bill, it seems like the Democrats have lost its momentum. quite frankly i am disappointed with how things turned out up till now, though not completely surprised. okay so scott brown won the special election for Massachusetts' senate seat, which left the 59 senate democrats with 1 vote short to block the filibuster. i can understand it must have caused a lot of distress to everyone who wanted to pass the health reform bill, but for dems to freak out like they did was kinda like seeing a bunch of adults wet their pants when things don't seem to work out well. a bit uncalled for. now experts in the healthcare arena has urged the house dems to pass the senate bill, and then amend portions of it in the budget reconciliation process, but there are also talks about splitting the bill into many smaller pieces which many health policy experts said will not do much good. the president seems to wanna divert the attention to another of his headache -- the skyhigh unemployment rate -- and is talking about passing a jobs bill. his diversion to another issue may seem like a good thing for the congress to keep working on the health bill whilst not have people getting too worked up because the process is just getting too draggy, it definitely seemed like the dems are on the verge of giving up, and that is just not good for their party (and definitely, if i may say, a disaster for the country).
the irony behind this is that it really is a no-brainer to understand that this healthcare reform bill is a good thing for the nation. it might not do a great job in cost control, but it would at least provide health care access to 30 million (give or take, i can't remember the exact number) people who don't have health care right now. not passing the bill would mean that the status quo prevails, which in essence would consume more of the country's GDP (projected to be 20% of GDP by 2020), which would in turn cause health care to be unaffordable to even more people. it is, quite obviously, a downward spiral into a deep dark hole. so dark you couldn't even go consult your doctor without having to fork out a huge copayment and make an appointment weeks ahead. so dark you might wanna consider selling part of your liver for your heart transplant surgery. but oh wait, maybe that's that enough. you might have to sell your house and everything you own to get that heart surgery, only to survive the ordeal and live on the streets. yay for democracy in america.

ok maybe that's too bleak a picture. but it's close, if things don't change. sometimes i wonder what good would democracy like this do for the country and its people?! if it were china we're talking about, their leaders would take matters to hand and get what needs to be done done. that's not to say their autocracy (or whatever you call their ruling ideology) is perfect. but at least it wouldn't allow the one party to smother the country by spreading untrue rumors or filibuster certain important bill like this one, just to see the ruling party fail.

but seriously. it's high time they pass the bill and get some people the care they need, don't you think? (will go into how most people in general think about this whole refrom in another post)

On Moral Codes and Values

when i was in high school sitting for SPM's moral studies paper (for those who don't know, moral studies is a compulsory subject we have to take in high school and SPM is the state exam we have to take in order to graduate), i remember having to write an essay response regarding my course of action if the country was facing some kind of crisis or might be taken over by other colonial powers (something along that line). the choice, if i remember correctly, was whether i would stay back in the country, fight for it to the very end and risk my own life for my country; or if i would choose to leave the country. we were supposed to write what we'd do and justify our choice by applying the moral values we've learned in theory.

i think it's a no-brainer to assume that, for a state exam like this when our papers would be sent to another school to be graded (most likely a public school) and what with the probability of the graders being pro-government and Muslims is higher than if they weren't, we should be politically correct when answering questions as such (especially when we were from a Chinese private school) -- if we want our A's, that is. being a  naive 17 year old, i was like most people around me, attuned to believe that getting straight A's was all that mattered. so it's, again, safe to assume that, in this case the "politically correct" answer would be to stay back and fight for your country. as expected, everyone i knew wrote that -- except for me. i don't know what the heck i was thinking at that time, it was definitely one of those moments when i couldn't really explain why i did what i did, but yes, i wrote that i would flee the country to a place where i would be safe, and only go back when the crisis is over, my explanation being that if everyone were to die for the country then no one would be left to rebuild the country or reclaim the sovereignty of the country. what a smart ass. -.-  but to be fair - technically speaking, it's somewhat logical (if you omit the fact that the country probably wouldn't be wiped out completely), however politically incorrect it was for a state exam. (thank god the government wasn't autocratic, or it would've sent the ISA - Malaysian equivalent of CIA - to come for me). but i guess at that time i was just being obstinate and refused to give in to the "societal expectations" (well i can't really pinpoint what it is that i refused to give in to, but it's just the overall "political correctness" that is expected out of us if we were to protect our welfare). besides, i couldn't get over the fact that i would've been hypocritical about it if i had written something i wouldn't do.

why i'm writing this is not so much about the exam that i took dog years ago as it is about the choice that we would make in real life, as opposed to a hypothetical situation. i can't say for sure, but my inkling is that, almost everyone who chose the former decision (to stay back and fight for the nation's sovereignty) probably wouldn't have done so if a coup really did happen in the country. truth is, it is only human nature that we would all flee and fight for our own survival before we would even think about our country. in other words, we would most likely save our own asses first, above all else. call me a traitor or unpatriotic, but it is the truth that this is how most people would react. at least, that was what i thought at that time. that being said, i can totally understand why some of us would write the former response in a state exam. why, i would've done the same thing if i were less obstinate, less rigid and more practical.

fast forward to 8 years after, i find myself changed a great deal. for one, if asked the same hypothetical question, i can't say for sure if i'd still feel the same way about it. that is to say, i wouldn't be so quick to say i would leave the country until it stabilizes. typically in a society, it's the youths who are all gung ho, idealistic and would go all out to fight for their country their ideologies; the older people get and the more education they receive, they tend to be more cynical, skeptical and maybe even bitter, resulting in them the lack of faith and the disillusionment of ideologies. yet for me, it seems to be the other way round. i find myself going from being skeptical to borderline hopeful, believing that if perhaps more people feel the same way and continue fighting for a more progressive society, then it would snowball into something more significant and eventually bring about some change. it's strange how i seem to "regress" to the state of borderline naiveté -- perhaps that's what years of being in the US did to me. (or in retrospect, it could be more due to the fact that i was away from home and me failing to understand in fullness the horrifying reality, as opposed to me being here in the States.)

back to that moral studies paper, i think it was only by sheer luck that I got an A for it. either way, that tiny incident prompted me to think about this, more realistically so than i would have. in real life, how many of us would choose to be sideliners and watch things fall apart through the television in another country if such a thing really happens in the future? the dispute on the word "Allah" that prompted Muslim radicals to firebomb churches seems like an early "symptoms" that we are heading there, if government doesn't take appropriate actions and/or change their ruling strategy. of course, no one wishes that to happen, and so hopefully the incident serves as a wake-up call to everyone, especially the politicians, such that something is done and the country wouldn't go backwards than it already has. but if and when this time bomb really does go off sometime in the future, i can only hope that i do the "right" thing, whatever "right" means according to my moral codes at that point of time.

Kindle: oui, ou non?

I have tons of work to do which I haven't gotten around to yet. But for now I just wanna just write about this briefly. Been wanting to write on Kindle a couple months ago, but as always, Procrastination stuck its butt in front of me and tripped me up, hence i never got to it. there's always something else more urgent to get done. There still is, actually, as I sit here and type away. But with the rate it's going, I probably wouldn't ever get to write anything if I keep stalling. So here's my take on Kindle.

Last week (or was it the week before last?) Amazon came up with the international version of Kindle 2 that created a hype around the globe. Have to admit, a while back I really, really wanted one for myself. Simply because, well, I love gadgets for one, and also because I wouldn't have to worry about getting my books dog-eared if I put them in my bag and carry them wherever I go. Nevermind the design of it is sleek, it's thin and it's white--I love all things white; and it's environmental friendly. (Well, so they claimed anyway.) You can have multiple books saved in it--reportedly as many as 1500 books--and can read whichever you want whenever you want, instead of having to choose just one and carry it with you when you leave the house. And with Kindle's wireless service called Whispernet, you can Wiki or Google anything, anytime. It's great if you travel a lot; but even if you don't, it still makes reading so much more accessible no matter where you're at. In this digital age we're living in, it only makes sense to take reading to the next level, right?!

Kindle sounds like a great buy, doesn't it? Except... maybe it's not. I emphasize on "maybe", because this is just my opinion. Back then, when I wanted one for myself, I did a little research on it to see how it fared among the Kindle users. Reviews about it were mixed, but here are a few points that seemed consistent amongst users.1) The visual: The e-paper seemed to be grey-greenish, so for some it might be hard to read. For young invincibles like myself (haha! *rolls eyes*), this might not be a problem, but for others who would be staring at the 6" screen for hours straight, I would imagine they want something of a better quality. 2) E-readers are just not... books. Book lovers would know what I'm talking about. It's just a different experience altogether, and some people just want to enjoy the touch and smell of a book, myself included. And so... for that reason, some might be averse to e-books and all that digital stuff. 3) International fees. You might have heard, if you buy Kindle outside of the US, or if you bring your Kindle out of the US, you might have to pay some additional fees to access your magazine subscriptions that you've already paid for, not to mention a higher price for the same e-book. For some e-books, they might not even be available.

Those are just a few reasons. But if you ask me, I do think there is a future of e-books and digital reading. The market is definitely there, and people will embrace it, just like how they're quite adaptive to the integration of web 2.0 in their daily lives. For now though, technology has yet to catch up with our expectations, like having it more user-friendly, more economic i.e. free wifi and do away with additional fees, longer battery life, transferable e-books either to desktop, laptop, or other e-readers etc. It would be great if we can have encyclopedias, textbooks, journal articles saved in a handy e-book like Kindle. And finally, I don't see why we have to limit our choices to just Kindle. Rumors have it that Barnes & Noble will be coming out with their e-reader in the near future. Sony already has its own e-readers, though strangely enough it's not quite as popular as Kindle... probably due to Amazon's more effective marketing strategies.

Anyway, the verdict? I would say, unless you have extra 359 bucks to spare and don't know what to do with it, don't get it until a better version comes out. It is, of course, ultimately your own choice. But I personally would wait to see if better products will surface, or if the price would go down further more. For a device like this, I think 359 bucks is a little overpriced--at least from an economical consumer's perspective. [So, Mandy, I guess your wish of having a Kindle for your birthday will have to be postponed until something better comes along. :P]


Footnote: 
Here are a few articles if you'd like to read up more on Kindle.
1) Nicholson Baker's extensive review on Kindle and Its Future. A very entertaining and informative read, but be warned, it's 7 pages long. 
2) Engadget's Kindle 2 Review Comparison between Kindle 1 and 2, with images too.
3) Crunchgear's 10 reasons of To-Buy and Not-To-Buy