Longest post ever.

This is one of those posts that seemed to have point to it when I first start out, but soon start to lose momentum. I decided to finish and publish it anyway. Be nice when commenting.

A science is any discipline in which the fool of this generation can go beyond the point reached by the genius of the last generation. – Max Gluckman.

I saw this quote in my thermodynamics textbook, and it vaguely reminded me of something that I read about in Jurassic Park about eight years ago. In essence, it was about how dangerous science could be in the wrong hands. To illustrate that point, Ian Malcolm used the analogy of the martial arts. Both are disciplines, but in the martial arts, you don’t become a black belt without first going through the yellow, green, blue and so on. His contention was that masters of those disciplines got through a long learning process that goes beyond understanding the art of combat. When a master has perfected the art of killing with his bare hands, he has the discipline not to.

But scientists didn’t have to do the same. A new researcher now just has to pick off from where the old retired professor left off. And according to Malcolm, those researchers are not very likely to exercise caution when doing their research. To him, it was like putting an AK-47 in a monkey’s hands and then crudely gesturing to it to pull the trigger. At least that is the link that was made.

I was 13 at that time, and I bought it. I was surrounded by news of pollution and the destruction of planet earth by humans, and blaming science for all of that made a whole lot of sense. It is an overly simplistic way of looking at the situation, I know. But it made sense at that time.

I continued to believe that humans were to be blamed for the destruction of the earth, and that we would ultimately wipe ourselves off this planet.

I believed that, if humans had a purpose, it was the same as the meteor’s. To wipe the slate clean so that the next stage of life may take its place on earth. Life had been reset on Earth a number of times, after all.

That was what I thought of science. Unknowing to the consequences, we have developed technology that we cannot use responsibly. But that’s not the reason for this post. I write this because of the increasing specialization that takes place, not only in science, but everywhere else. Specialization is one of the marks of civilized society, but I really do think that it is taking its toll now.

I was reading the Dilbert blog recently and he was talking about global warming. He said that he was reluctant to write about the matter, seeing that he knew jack shit about it. So he started doing research. And the amount of information that he had to sift through was mind-boggling. Both sides had a story to tell, and both sides chose to tell it in a way that would serve them best (which is obvious). That means using half truths and then telling them as if they meant something. Both sides would use every piece of leverage they could find even if it meant bending the truth. In the end, it makes reading about the subject a pain in the ass. Which is a bit of a problem, since it affects every one of us, and is likely to affect us in this lifetime. There is a lot of money at stake here, and nobody wants to lose out.

If everyone in the world was bothered to research the issue, then this wouldn’t be that big a problem. But the problem now is that a lot of people don’t know that they need to. In the end, if the public were to have to make a decision about global warming, it’s the side with the better PR that is going to win the public vote.

Then there is the courts of law and policy making in governments. Both will have to make decisions about issues that are fundamentally rooted in science, but do not have the knowledge to do so. In the end, they end up relying on expert witnesses and their testimonies, but that might not be enough to get the correct message across. Simplifying scientific ideas into layman’s terms has a dangerous effect of being easily misunderstood and taken out of context. It is my opinion that a president or a jury cannot possibly make an informed decision without first studying the subject extensively. Which in the current world is almost impossible to do, seeing that we have so many disputes to settle, so many decisions to make and so few people who can make them. Expert testimony is all too easily bought or obtained through some shady means. Its just a question of whether or not the stakes are high enough for the respective players to play hard ball.

This ultimately leads to the concept that our legal and administrative systems have their inherent weaknesses. I know that this makes me sound incredibly gullible and naïve, but I had, and probably still have a lot of faith in the laws of the land. I actually believed that the police force would protect me as long as I didn’t break the law. I actually thought that our laws were water tight and would take an effort of monumental proportions to abuse. Apparently, it really isn’t that difficult, no matter which legal system you look at.

This post looks terribly disjointed, but in my head, its all linked. The thought of people misinterpreting science for their own agenda sickens me, but the writing is on the wall. It is really easy to do, given the will and enough resources. And there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. Except bend their own will and resource to combat it when they don’t agree. It ends up becoming a war of attrition in a battle to gain influence. I don’t like the idea that justice sides the one with a lot of money, but apparently, that’s how it works. So excuse me while I get used to this new cynical view of law.

Sued for firing the unproductive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6682827.stm

Yep, the Americans did it again. Bringing others to court because of your problems seems to be something that is incredibly easy to do in the states isn't it?

I really don't get it. He surfed for porn when he should have been working. Thats a loss of productivity for the company right there. They should have every right to terminate him, especially since he had already been warned not to continue.

Thats before we even consider the fact that he is a Vietnam war veteran that gets over his war trauma by surfing for porn. Apparently, we are supposed to treat his sex addiction just like drug addiction. His argument is that we sympathize with drug addicts but not sex addicts. IBM is supposedly discriminating against sex addicts.

At the end of the article, BBC asked if companies need to be more sympathetic of addicts. Well, thats a very subjective thing isn't it? If there is a genuine desire to quit, then I suppose the company does have a moral obligation to help out. The stigma with addiction is similar to the one attached to AIDS. Addicts are normally blamed for getting addicted in the first place, the same way people think the AIDS victims are getting what they deserve.

But in this case, we don't know if this man advised IBM of his supposed disorder when they first gave him a warning. If he did, then he might have a case. If he didn't then he's just after a quick $5 million and he can go fuck himself.

I feel strange.

I do. I'm never the kind of person who does stuff. By default, I'd do nothing. I'm a sucker for routine and I hate change more than most people do. In short, I'm not a particularly happening kind of person. Which would give some explanation to the reason I'm in the faculty I'm in.

Because of who I am, my schedules are really easy to keep track of. I never need an organizer, because I'd have nothing to write in it. And that would make the organizer that I have a big waste of paper. Or plastic and metal. Or whatever it is that the organizer is made of. But now, I seem to be losing track more often than not. I make plans that clash with other plans, when in the past, I'd say yes to something I wanted to do without hesitation because it was so damned unlikely that it would interfere with anything.

I wouldn't be writing about this if it felt right. And the fact that it doesn't bothers me. Every way I look at it, it looks like something positive. But it doesn't feel right. Maybe its me warning myself that I might be forcing myself to be something I am not. Or it could just be that stubborn streak that refuses to admit that it is wrong.

Is it really a bad thing? I don't know. I'd like to think that it isn't. And by the looks of all the other practitioners, it is quite the opposite of bad.

Oh well. I still have a lot of that lameness bug in me when it comes to any actual work. Now that is one thing I'd be glad to be rid of.

I suck. Yay exams are ovah!

LOL PWNT. (Wilz wuz here)

The follow-up

Apology eh? Not good enough. I just had to write a follow up letter to the editor. Hopefully he doesn't ignore it.

The apology has been made and for those who were outraged by the sexist remarks made by the two MPs in parliament, it might seem like a victory. But is it really? Have things really been set right?

Sadly, no. There are so many things wrong with the apology. First, it took them seven days to make the apology, only to retract it. When the official apology finally came after day nine, half the apology was about alleged opposition provocation. One can't help but to wonder if the MPs really are sorry for saying what they did. If it really was a slip of tongue caused by opposition provocation, then the apology would have come on the very next day. It doesn't a person nine days to figure out that he or she has been blinded by rage and done something wrong. Unless that person actually believes that no wrong has been committed. Watching the whole saga, one cannot help but to get the impression that the apology was somewhat forced and done grudgingly.

The problems don't stop there. The MP from Kinabatangan has a history of making such remarks. This isn't the first time that he has stirred controversy. It is becoming apparent that there is no changing this mindset that such people have. It is bad enough to have sexist MPs in our parliament, but to have MPs who flaunt their sexist views openly and then expect to get away with it is unacceptable in any democracy.

Datuk Sharizat might think that the two MPs have been punished enough due to the media attention that this issue has generated. To me it looks like they got away with it. It is an unequivocal defeat for those who believe in and fight for women's rights.

A call to arms.

This is the mail I sent to the Star, published on Sunday. It was heavily edited, but still published. If you are half as pissed off as I am about this, and can put a coherent sentence together, then write in as well. Even if it doesn't change anything, it helps good Malaysians out there know that they are not alone in their outrage.


To say that I was disappointed with the light slap on the wrist that the backbenchers in parliament got for the sexist remark would be an understatement of monumental proportions. Reading that article disgusted me and made me ashamed of being Malaysian. Many unbelievable things have been said in Parliament, but this one takes the cake for sheer lack of class and dignity. The thought that such people should represent my interests sends shivers down my spine. The fact that the statement was made at all should be bad enough, but to have the complaint dismissed based on technicality makes the whole situation seem like an attempt to sweep the problem under the rug.

The remarks by Datuk Seri Nazri then made it clear that some of our Parliamentarians are clueless about proper conduct. Play of words? An insult is an insult. If the 'play of words' was racist instead of sexist, it would have caused a huge uproar. Why does an insult that is sexist more acceptable than a racist one?

Letting this transgression go is going to set a very dangerous precedence for ignoring gender equality issues in this country. If a wakil rakyat can get away with insulting women that way, then everyone can.

Here we go again.

I don't know how prevalent this view is, but some parents actually want the NS programme to be compulsory only for boys. Right....

I really don't understand this presistent view that girls cannot deal with physical strain. Sure, they can't lift as much, and can't run as fast or far, but that doesn't mean that they cannot attend national service. Malaysian national service has never been about the army. Graduates from the camps are neither capable or expected to serve in the armed forces. Which means that the precious daughters of these parents will never be thrown into a jungle Steyr AUGs strapped onto them facing enemy fire.

Some might argue that a lot of them were brought up in protected environments and are ill-prepared for the rigours of NS. Well, lots of boys are pampered at birth too.

If this idea makes it to implementation, I would see it as an insult to women. It is an insult that a lot of women are willing to take to make their lives just a little easier. (fine, in this case, a lot easier). But I have said before, taking this insult would mean that you cannot demand equality anymore. Doing so would make you a hypocrite. If women can be allowed the right to demand their rights, then so too do men. If she has a right to ask for equal pay in the workplace, then pincipally, he has a right to demand that she goes through the same kind of shit that society expects him to go through. Unless it can be proven that women are really incapable of doing the kinds of things that they so conveniently avoid doing, they should be expected to contribute as well.