I looked at the motions for both tournaments. The Asians motions were mostly brilliant. Nicely balanced, and potentially explosive motions. AUDC motions were dry, political, and symptomatic of the mindset that brought to the birth of the AUDC in the first place. They had 3 motions related to conditional aid. 3! Sure, they were to be debated under different contexts, but at least show some form of imagination. There is so much more to the art of argument than just world issues.
Here are a few of the Asians motions that actually got me wide eyed and wanting to debate.
THBT humanity will not reach the 22nd Century. Duh. Of course I'd love to debate this. I've been building the case file since I began forming logical thoughts.
THW not eat whales and sharks. How is that for a motion. I'd love to do this value judgment.
THBT standardized testing is the enemy of learning. Anti-establishment motion! And totally related to students at that!
TH prefers need based higher education scholarships to affirmative action in admissions. Malaysian university quota systems!
THW require all elementary and secondary schools to include debating in the curriculum. Need I say more?
The semifinal theme was Buddhism! Dude!
THBT the Dalai Lama uses his position for personal gain.
THBT all Buddhist orders should ordain woman as monks.
THBT non-violent Buddhist social movements do not lead to social change.
How cool is that? How many people know enough about Buddhism to debate? No one really cares about what Buddhism stands for, and it has never been a debate before. The second and third motion would require at least some basic understanding of the workings of Buddhism. Which is totally cool considering how everyone seems to need to have a basic understanding of Christianity and Islam in debates before this, but never about any other religion.
The south Asians seem to be having all the damn fun. =S
Sigh.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
The male crisis.
I have spent the greater part of my 'stare into space' time wondering if the male crisis actually exists or not, and I always find something better to do soon after. The question simmers until I come across something that will remind me of this nagging concern. Every so often, a social commentary piece will appear before me and ask me to wonder again.
Men like damsels in distress. They like to have a clearly defined role and to stick to it. I suppose when they swoop in to rescue a poor helpless waif from a burnt lightbulb, they feel needed and are imbued with some sense of purpose. Which explains why many women respond accordingly. But then again, the wave of feminism seems to have changed some of that, and strong independent women have come along and lived quite happily. To that, some men have responded, changing some old ways to fit with the new woman. But only some.
The problem with this situation is that the two scenarios are complete opposites of one another. And I have witnessed some clashes between the two and it can get quite ugly. And it has made it just that much harder for people to hook up. I suppose with the dissolving of social class barriers to marriage in most places around the world, something else will have to take its place.
Remember that typical single, but approaching 40 woman griping about how all the good men are either gay or married? Well, thats because their selection pool is the minority. I suspect there are more women happy to embrace the new empowered female identity than there are men willing to put up with it. There is now an inherent imbalance between the two. And old fashioned, archaic men who insist on having a subservient woman are making up for the deficit in the number of women in their pool by buying their brides from overseas. How better to control something than to be able to say that you own it? (by the merit of you having bought it).
Those are the extremes. Then there are those that straddle the fences. Some that have decided that they want the best of both worlds. And they change their mind all they time. Finding a level of independence that you are comfortable with and sticking to it is a perfectly reasonable way of straddling the line. But flip flopping from one end of the scale to the other is going to get you nowhere. You cannot be helpless and dependent one minute, and dominant and in total control the next. Thats like having a mild case of multiple personalities.
I touched something similar in my feminist's worst nightmare post. You simply cannot call yourself a feminist if you enjoy subjecting yourself to sexist ideas.
Admittedly, most people never actually 'think so much' about something as petty as this. But I think the problem is real. Realizing who you are, what you stand for, and what you want in life is more important than people are willing to admit.
Men like damsels in distress. They like to have a clearly defined role and to stick to it. I suppose when they swoop in to rescue a poor helpless waif from a burnt lightbulb, they feel needed and are imbued with some sense of purpose. Which explains why many women respond accordingly. But then again, the wave of feminism seems to have changed some of that, and strong independent women have come along and lived quite happily. To that, some men have responded, changing some old ways to fit with the new woman. But only some.
The problem with this situation is that the two scenarios are complete opposites of one another. And I have witnessed some clashes between the two and it can get quite ugly. And it has made it just that much harder for people to hook up. I suppose with the dissolving of social class barriers to marriage in most places around the world, something else will have to take its place.
Remember that typical single, but approaching 40 woman griping about how all the good men are either gay or married? Well, thats because their selection pool is the minority. I suspect there are more women happy to embrace the new empowered female identity than there are men willing to put up with it. There is now an inherent imbalance between the two. And old fashioned, archaic men who insist on having a subservient woman are making up for the deficit in the number of women in their pool by buying their brides from overseas. How better to control something than to be able to say that you own it? (by the merit of you having bought it).
Those are the extremes. Then there are those that straddle the fences. Some that have decided that they want the best of both worlds. And they change their mind all they time. Finding a level of independence that you are comfortable with and sticking to it is a perfectly reasonable way of straddling the line. But flip flopping from one end of the scale to the other is going to get you nowhere. You cannot be helpless and dependent one minute, and dominant and in total control the next. Thats like having a mild case of multiple personalities.
I touched something similar in my feminist's worst nightmare post. You simply cannot call yourself a feminist if you enjoy subjecting yourself to sexist ideas.
Admittedly, most people never actually 'think so much' about something as petty as this. But I think the problem is real. Realizing who you are, what you stand for, and what you want in life is more important than people are willing to admit.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Random rant.
Okay, lets just get through the usual motions. I need to put up my usual disclaimers here. I'm not talking about anyone in particular, or any one experience in particular. This is a random rant brought on by what I suspect is a hormonal imbalance fueled by some insecurities and some disturbing revelations. So if you think I'm talking about you, I'm not. Don't perasaan.
For some reasons, there are activities that are considered universally enjoyable by humans, and young humans in their twenties in particular. So the general perception is that people who do not enjoy the same things that everyone else enjoys is a repressed loser. It is inconceivable for the majority that their favourite pastimes are not enjoyed by others.
I suppose its because the enjoyment of these activities is almost primeval. (no, I know what you are thinking. I'm not talking about sex) Since our primeval instincts are the ones that we can most readily identify with, it becomes almost blasphemous to live on the idea that there are some people out there whose neurons are networked in such a way that makes such experiences unpleasant instead of orgasmic. (Again, I'm not talking about sex. Its a figure of speech)
At this point, most of you are probably wishing that I get to the bloody point and say what I have to say. The funny thing is, I feel like I'm being bound by some literary chains that are telling me that my writing is probably going to alienate people from me. But then again, what I'm railing about all this while is so ingrained into the observable society that I'll probably be written off as a bitter loser who just doesn't get it. And as much as I would like to say that I do get it, no one will believe me, because the assumption is that, if I did understand, I wouldn't be writing this post in the first place. Confusing isn't it? Circular logic normally is.
Let me first introduce you to pet peeve number one. Alcohol. Actually, its more like getting high in general. I think this is where the problem is the worst. Sure, drinkers respect people who don't drink, but the respect comes from the assumption that there are external factors that are stopping the person from drinking. 'Religion says cannot' is a favourite, followed closely by 'parents won't approve'. Drinkers tend to assume that barring all repressive cultural influence, non-drinkers will be downing shots like there is no tomorrow. In a sense, non-drinkers are prudes. Its like how I tend to assume that given free will, Asian children will not allow their parents to dictate every aspect of their lives. I know its an unfair assumption to make, and in the same way, assuming that a non-drinker is lying when he or she says 'I don't like the feeling of getting high' is unfair. It won't stop them from thinking that though.
The same reasoning applies to clubbing. I have found people who genuinely dislike loud thumping music and flashing lights. And one common complaint that I have heard from them is that everyone else seems to think that they are losers with no life. Clubbers cannot even begin to understand why anyone would not want to sway rhythmically to catchy beats. (Yes, I'm trying very hard to be nice, as is evident in my choice of words). Again, in this case, people who don't subscribe to that school of thought are written off as pussies who don't dare give it a go. At risk of contextualizing this a little too much, I have tried it out. And I can conclude that it blows. Probably not as much as, say being held captive by a World War 2 Japanese general. But as something that I would willingly put myself through, it ranks pretty low.
Yes, I'm being judgmental, and a lot of you will be up in arms and pointing your fingers at someone else, trying very hard to convince yourself that you would never do such a thing. Here is the kicker : You Do. And it not a particularly bad thing, I do it too. I admitted one scenario in which I make liberal assumptions about the history and reasoning of an entire demographic group and come up with conclusions that are likely to be as untrue as they are unfair. If you think that you don't, thats because you have convinced yourself that you believe in the politically correct opinion. Thats lying to yourself.
And yes, I have just made many assumptions about you, dear readers. I am in actual fact, ranting about myself, which isn't really a smart thing to do and an even less smart thing to admit to doing. But I am having such a blast writing this very convoluted post.
And now I'm all out of ideas. So I bid you adieu.
For some reasons, there are activities that are considered universally enjoyable by humans, and young humans in their twenties in particular. So the general perception is that people who do not enjoy the same things that everyone else enjoys is a repressed loser. It is inconceivable for the majority that their favourite pastimes are not enjoyed by others.
I suppose its because the enjoyment of these activities is almost primeval. (no, I know what you are thinking. I'm not talking about sex) Since our primeval instincts are the ones that we can most readily identify with, it becomes almost blasphemous to live on the idea that there are some people out there whose neurons are networked in such a way that makes such experiences unpleasant instead of orgasmic. (Again, I'm not talking about sex. Its a figure of speech)
At this point, most of you are probably wishing that I get to the bloody point and say what I have to say. The funny thing is, I feel like I'm being bound by some literary chains that are telling me that my writing is probably going to alienate people from me. But then again, what I'm railing about all this while is so ingrained into the observable society that I'll probably be written off as a bitter loser who just doesn't get it. And as much as I would like to say that I do get it, no one will believe me, because the assumption is that, if I did understand, I wouldn't be writing this post in the first place. Confusing isn't it? Circular logic normally is.
Let me first introduce you to pet peeve number one. Alcohol. Actually, its more like getting high in general. I think this is where the problem is the worst. Sure, drinkers respect people who don't drink, but the respect comes from the assumption that there are external factors that are stopping the person from drinking. 'Religion says cannot' is a favourite, followed closely by 'parents won't approve'. Drinkers tend to assume that barring all repressive cultural influence, non-drinkers will be downing shots like there is no tomorrow. In a sense, non-drinkers are prudes. Its like how I tend to assume that given free will, Asian children will not allow their parents to dictate every aspect of their lives. I know its an unfair assumption to make, and in the same way, assuming that a non-drinker is lying when he or she says 'I don't like the feeling of getting high' is unfair. It won't stop them from thinking that though.
The same reasoning applies to clubbing. I have found people who genuinely dislike loud thumping music and flashing lights. And one common complaint that I have heard from them is that everyone else seems to think that they are losers with no life. Clubbers cannot even begin to understand why anyone would not want to sway rhythmically to catchy beats. (Yes, I'm trying very hard to be nice, as is evident in my choice of words). Again, in this case, people who don't subscribe to that school of thought are written off as pussies who don't dare give it a go. At risk of contextualizing this a little too much, I have tried it out. And I can conclude that it blows. Probably not as much as, say being held captive by a World War 2 Japanese general. But as something that I would willingly put myself through, it ranks pretty low.
Yes, I'm being judgmental, and a lot of you will be up in arms and pointing your fingers at someone else, trying very hard to convince yourself that you would never do such a thing. Here is the kicker : You Do. And it not a particularly bad thing, I do it too. I admitted one scenario in which I make liberal assumptions about the history and reasoning of an entire demographic group and come up with conclusions that are likely to be as untrue as they are unfair. If you think that you don't, thats because you have convinced yourself that you believe in the politically correct opinion. Thats lying to yourself.
And yes, I have just made many assumptions about you, dear readers. I am in actual fact, ranting about myself, which isn't really a smart thing to do and an even less smart thing to admit to doing. But I am having such a blast writing this very convoluted post.
And now I'm all out of ideas. So I bid you adieu.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Depressing truth - food being wasted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7389351.stm
5500 chickens thrown away a day?
1.3 million pots of yogurt disposed of in a day?
That is just one country.
=(
5500 chickens thrown away a day?
1.3 million pots of yogurt disposed of in a day?
That is just one country.
=(
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Empowerment?
Call me old fashioned, but I find the ideas of female empowerment to be a little strange. There are aspects of some feminist movements that don't really make any sense to me.
I forgot where I read it, but one article once claimed that women will only be truly empowered if they are truly equal to men. Meaning they get to do whatever men do, and not be judged for it. The more provocative of the ideas behind that theory is that women should be able sleep around, wear whatever they want, and feel good about doing it. In a very convoluted kind of way, it does make some sense. Not making assumptions about a person's morality and way of life based on their lifestyle choices is giving that person the benefit of the doubt. That entails a certain level of respect for that person's autonomy, and ultimately, a recognition of individuality.
So, some women have gone out of their way to prove that point. I'm not sure that I fully understand the point that they are trying to make, but it is something that I can let slide. The funny thing is, some people are using the same argument to justify TV shows in the US that are clearly demeaning to women.
I was reading this book recently (I forgot the title, I forgot the author) about the direction that the female consciousness was taking as a whole. The first chapter talked about this show called 'Girls gone Wild' that featured very happening girls flashing for the cameras, all in the name of getting the special GGW T-shirt and hat. The author visited the set and found the girls clamouring for a chance to show themselves off the the rest of the country. That show has achieved brand recognition, and everywhere the crew goes, the girls turn up in droves. One particularly attractive one masturbated for the camera.
When asked why they were doing this, the standard reply was, "Its just a little bit of fun". More articulate girls then justified the show by using the above argument of empowerment. They say that they are just doing as forward thinking feminism encourages them to.
There are important differences. Actually, there is one overwhelming obvious difference; the end goal. The feminists were doing this for themselves. They had sex because they wanted to have sex. They showed cleavage because it made them feel good. The intentions were selfish. It was me, me and me. Their ego was all that mattered.
The GGW girls are not doing it for their own pride now are they? They are doing it to please the guys, the kind of work that a stripper does. I don't have anything against stripping to make a living, but you can't exactly say that it is empowering now can you? How exactly is doing something that panders to the whims of others empowering? Unless you mean those manipulative housewives who manage to stroke their husbands ego, but have him by his balls at the same time. But thats a different scenario altogether.
Putting yourself in Hustler and Loaded, knowing full well what men are thinking when they see those pictures is not empowerment. Its neo-slavery.
I forgot where I read it, but one article once claimed that women will only be truly empowered if they are truly equal to men. Meaning they get to do whatever men do, and not be judged for it. The more provocative of the ideas behind that theory is that women should be able sleep around, wear whatever they want, and feel good about doing it. In a very convoluted kind of way, it does make some sense. Not making assumptions about a person's morality and way of life based on their lifestyle choices is giving that person the benefit of the doubt. That entails a certain level of respect for that person's autonomy, and ultimately, a recognition of individuality.
So, some women have gone out of their way to prove that point. I'm not sure that I fully understand the point that they are trying to make, but it is something that I can let slide. The funny thing is, some people are using the same argument to justify TV shows in the US that are clearly demeaning to women.
I was reading this book recently (I forgot the title, I forgot the author) about the direction that the female consciousness was taking as a whole. The first chapter talked about this show called 'Girls gone Wild' that featured very happening girls flashing for the cameras, all in the name of getting the special GGW T-shirt and hat. The author visited the set and found the girls clamouring for a chance to show themselves off the the rest of the country. That show has achieved brand recognition, and everywhere the crew goes, the girls turn up in droves. One particularly attractive one masturbated for the camera.
When asked why they were doing this, the standard reply was, "Its just a little bit of fun". More articulate girls then justified the show by using the above argument of empowerment. They say that they are just doing as forward thinking feminism encourages them to.
There are important differences. Actually, there is one overwhelming obvious difference; the end goal. The feminists were doing this for themselves. They had sex because they wanted to have sex. They showed cleavage because it made them feel good. The intentions were selfish. It was me, me and me. Their ego was all that mattered.
The GGW girls are not doing it for their own pride now are they? They are doing it to please the guys, the kind of work that a stripper does. I don't have anything against stripping to make a living, but you can't exactly say that it is empowering now can you? How exactly is doing something that panders to the whims of others empowering? Unless you mean those manipulative housewives who manage to stroke their husbands ego, but have him by his balls at the same time. But thats a different scenario altogether.
Putting yourself in Hustler and Loaded, knowing full well what men are thinking when they see those pictures is not empowerment. Its neo-slavery.
Friday, May 02, 2008
This guy makes me feel lame.
In a good way, of course. Strange how stimuli for me to do something with my life only seems to be coming to me as I approach my final year. Makes me a rue all the lost time.
Oh well, there is always the rest of my life. =)
Thursday, May 01, 2008
I thought I hated Chelsea.
I did. I thought it was the club that I hated. But now I know that I hate only one person. Didier Drogba.
He is the very embodiment of all that is wrong with humanity. He is petty, vindicative and such a bitch that a teen queenbee will be hard pressed to out-bitch him. If it wasn't for his incredible skill with the football, I don't think anyone would even put up with him.
Micheal Ballack probably hates him. Referees probably hate him too. I mean when you get some really ostentatious, muscle bound giant in your face everytime you make a slightly debatable decision, I think you would get annoyed too.
Most of all, he is arrogant. He must have his way, or he will kick up a big fuss. It is the same kind of behaviour that we see on Super Sweet 16. If someone kills his football career, I'm sure he will be able to find work at some Ivorian soap opera. He is plenty talented in that area. Some argue that he has a right to be arrogant. That doesn't change the fact that he doesn't have to be. We generally don't see Ronaldo or Fabregas make a complete pain of themselves. I remember them because of their football. I remember Drogba because he makes himself such a pain in the neck.
He is one of those people that think his abilities should compensate for everything. Maybe to Chelsea, it does. As long as he keeps scoring, they will put up with his crap. But every neutral I know seems to think that Drogba can shove the football up his arse.
Benitez was an idiot for starting a war of words with him. Drogba isn't worth anyone's time, especially not a manager's. But I think that outburst only underlines the contempt that Rafa has for Drogba. I'm sure he wished he can say everything that I am writing here in a press conference and smile as every journalist in the room nods in recognition of the truth that no one says out in the open. But because he can't character assassinate Drogba the way that I am doing now, he does the next best thing. He attacks the footballer's character on pitch and calls him a cheat.
Chelsea isn't evil. There are plenty of good people there. On the surface, at least. But one Drogba is enough to turn the club into Satan's vessel.
Disebabkan setitik nira, rosak susu sebelanga. Perfect way to describe this.
He is the very embodiment of all that is wrong with humanity. He is petty, vindicative and such a bitch that a teen queenbee will be hard pressed to out-bitch him. If it wasn't for his incredible skill with the football, I don't think anyone would even put up with him.
Micheal Ballack probably hates him. Referees probably hate him too. I mean when you get some really ostentatious, muscle bound giant in your face everytime you make a slightly debatable decision, I think you would get annoyed too.
Most of all, he is arrogant. He must have his way, or he will kick up a big fuss. It is the same kind of behaviour that we see on Super Sweet 16. If someone kills his football career, I'm sure he will be able to find work at some Ivorian soap opera. He is plenty talented in that area. Some argue that he has a right to be arrogant. That doesn't change the fact that he doesn't have to be. We generally don't see Ronaldo or Fabregas make a complete pain of themselves. I remember them because of their football. I remember Drogba because he makes himself such a pain in the neck.
He is one of those people that think his abilities should compensate for everything. Maybe to Chelsea, it does. As long as he keeps scoring, they will put up with his crap. But every neutral I know seems to think that Drogba can shove the football up his arse.
Benitez was an idiot for starting a war of words with him. Drogba isn't worth anyone's time, especially not a manager's. But I think that outburst only underlines the contempt that Rafa has for Drogba. I'm sure he wished he can say everything that I am writing here in a press conference and smile as every journalist in the room nods in recognition of the truth that no one says out in the open. But because he can't character assassinate Drogba the way that I am doing now, he does the next best thing. He attacks the footballer's character on pitch and calls him a cheat.
Chelsea isn't evil. There are plenty of good people there. On the surface, at least. But one Drogba is enough to turn the club into Satan's vessel.
Disebabkan setitik nira, rosak susu sebelanga. Perfect way to describe this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)