I hate the people who just bought Manchester City. By extension, that means that I hate Man City now. Seriously, if you think Chelsea spending was bad, these Sheikhs will blow your mind.
I imagine that they will be spending in one season the same amount that Chelsea have spent over the entire Chelski era.
Its retarded, really. Rich man comes in and tells every club in the world - I want your best player. Here is his rated value, and an extra 20 million pounds just to help your decide. It is totally going to spoil everything that is fun about football. I swear, the season that Manchester City wins the premier league is the season I stop watching it. Bring on the La Liga.
Now will be the perfect time to introduce the foreign player cap. Do it next season as a big fuck you to all these rich bastards who think that a football league is their playground to have a bit of fun.
And the Brits are sitting there and taking it like a bunch of pussies. Man City fans parading in the streets in their Arab headwear. Well, fuck you, you bunch of sell-outs. Fuck you and your new Arab masters. Have fun being hypocrites, worshipping them on one hand and condemning their most fundamental idealogies on the other.
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Prostitution is legal in Malaysia.
For all practical purposes at least. I suppose this discovery is one that came with a mixed bag of emotions. Mostly cynical vindication at the kind of hypocrisy that this stands for mixed with a tinge of surprise, mirth and a little bit of sadness.
Remember all those Hollywood cop movies where the hardest part about taking out organized crime is finding the locations? I used the believe that was partially the case in this country, but then I discovered the locations of all these 'hot-beds of crime' on the internet. Took me all but 5 minutes. Talk about being untouchable enough to flaunt your presence. Pft.
Makes me wonder about those vice-raid pictures I have been seeing all this while. I suppose those pimps forgot to pay their monthly dues. Heh.
Saya anti-rasuah my ass.
Remember all those Hollywood cop movies where the hardest part about taking out organized crime is finding the locations? I used the believe that was partially the case in this country, but then I discovered the locations of all these 'hot-beds of crime' on the internet. Took me all but 5 minutes. Talk about being untouchable enough to flaunt your presence. Pft.
Makes me wonder about those vice-raid pictures I have been seeing all this while. I suppose those pimps forgot to pay their monthly dues. Heh.
Saya anti-rasuah my ass.
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.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Does America need a democracy?
I find the principles of democracy strangely amusing now. I like the ideas, but there are bits about the world that point to democracy being sub-optimal as a form of governance.
I was forwarded this article in the Time magazine recently that discussed the Democratic party in-fighting that some analysts say are going to cost them the presidency. That may be true, but the bit about the article that really got me thinking was the part when they started looking into the tactics that both candidates employ.
Obama projects the calm, collected, and controlled persona. He avoids using negative campaigning and has an almost detached feel from the rest of the country. And apparently, its costing him dear. "In his 1991 book, The Reasoning Voter, political scientist Samuel Popkin argued that most people make their choice on the basis of "low-information signaling" — that is, stupid things like whether you know how to roll a bowling ball or wear an American-flag pin." Obama tried a different tactic. He tried to see the bigger picture and deal with the biggest problems that Americans are facing. But the Philadelphian people were not interested. Apparently, the debate that he was involved in recently "will go down in history for the relentless vulgarity of its questions". In short, the American public prefer having one of their own SUV-driving, big mac munching dude next door as their president.
But are they really making the right choice? I honestly don't think the average American understands the state of their country at the moment. And I also think that if they did understand, they would care a lot more about their national healthcare policy than flag pinning or bowling balls. But democracy works by giving the power to the people. My question is, what if the people don't know what they are doing?
I know that I am taking a very dangerous line here. I know that I have no right to tell a polygamist red neck how to live his life, or what to believe in, or who to vote for. Who is to say that my line of thinking is superior to their's? But I also know that there is an information imbalance in this case. Unless of course, the American people intentionally choose to not take the war in Iraq and their battered economy seriously, which is too weird to even contemplate.
In the end, this is how I see it. In America, the questions they should be asking are 'Can he help our economy?' or 'What does he want to do to our health system?' But the questions that they are instead asking are 'Does he like barbecued pork ribs?' and 'Does he own a pick up truck?'. It is pretty damn obvious to me that the first two questions are far more important, but for some reason, are brushed aside in favour of the third and forth ones. It is in their best interests for the people to vote based on the big issues, but they are choosing not to.
Can we still say that democracy represents the best interest of the people?
I was forwarded this article in the Time magazine recently that discussed the Democratic party in-fighting that some analysts say are going to cost them the presidency. That may be true, but the bit about the article that really got me thinking was the part when they started looking into the tactics that both candidates employ.
Obama projects the calm, collected, and controlled persona. He avoids using negative campaigning and has an almost detached feel from the rest of the country. And apparently, its costing him dear. "In his 1991 book, The Reasoning Voter, political scientist Samuel Popkin argued that most people make their choice on the basis of "low-information signaling" — that is, stupid things like whether you know how to roll a bowling ball or wear an American-flag pin." Obama tried a different tactic. He tried to see the bigger picture and deal with the biggest problems that Americans are facing. But the Philadelphian people were not interested. Apparently, the debate that he was involved in recently "will go down in history for the relentless vulgarity of its questions". In short, the American public prefer having one of their own SUV-driving, big mac munching dude next door as their president.
But are they really making the right choice? I honestly don't think the average American understands the state of their country at the moment. And I also think that if they did understand, they would care a lot more about their national healthcare policy than flag pinning or bowling balls. But democracy works by giving the power to the people. My question is, what if the people don't know what they are doing?
I know that I am taking a very dangerous line here. I know that I have no right to tell a polygamist red neck how to live his life, or what to believe in, or who to vote for. Who is to say that my line of thinking is superior to their's? But I also know that there is an information imbalance in this case. Unless of course, the American people intentionally choose to not take the war in Iraq and their battered economy seriously, which is too weird to even contemplate.
In the end, this is how I see it. In America, the questions they should be asking are 'Can he help our economy?' or 'What does he want to do to our health system?' But the questions that they are instead asking are 'Does he like barbecued pork ribs?' and 'Does he own a pick up truck?'. It is pretty damn obvious to me that the first two questions are far more important, but for some reason, are brushed aside in favour of the third and forth ones. It is in their best interests for the people to vote based on the big issues, but they are choosing not to.
Can we still say that democracy represents the best interest of the people?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The 9 types of intelligence.
While I don't consider Howard Gardner's theory to be totally accurate, it does make a certain amount of sense to me.
A quick Wiki of multiple intelligence theory tells us that Gardner believes that no one kind of intelligence is more important than the other. I find that belief a bit naive to be honest.
It might be an unnecessarily utilitarian way of looking at life, but having what it takes to carve out a living sure beats everything else. I would personally rank logical intelligence near the top simply because so many jobs in the world right now need exactly that.
But looking at the types of intelligence, I can't help but to think that one single type stands out well above the rest in terms of importance as a life survival tool - interpersonal intelligence. Remember how people always say that its not what you know anymore, its who you know? I think that nicely sums up why its so bloody important to have interpersonal intelligence. 'Young adults with this kind of intelligence are leaders among their peers, are good at communicating, and seem to understand others’ feelings and motives.' I got that from some random site. Screw the last two. Look at the first one. Want to enter the corporate world? Intend on getting far? If you don't have this form of intelligence, then don't count on it. Actually, I would go as far as to say that it extends to all professions. A char kuey tiow seller with good interpersonal skills build up customer rapport. The only time when this doesn't affect your career is if you really and truly work alone. Like as a lighthouse watchman or something. Even then, you are going to need that intelligence when you approach your boss for a raise. If you ever approach your boss for a raise...
And what would be the worst one to have career wise? I have to say intrapersonal intelligence. 'These young adults may be shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.' Who needs self motivation when you can make people believe that you are already self motivated? Personally, I think that shyness is a death sentence in the world. People tend to view shy people and wonder what is going on in their minds, and constantly trying to guess if that person means harm. Shy people constantly avert people's gaze. Do people assume that the reluctance to make eye contact is due to shyness? I think most take it as a sign that the person is an egoistical prick. Isolation from the rest of humanity is something that no amount of gardening (naturalist intelligence), tennis aces (bodily kinesthetic intelligence), or best selling novels (linguistic intelligence) will be able to compensate for.
At this point, I would like to borrow a phrase used by my friend once. 'Socially retarded at every level'. Its a brutally honest quip that explains everything. It is a form of retardation, bad enough, in my opinion to warrant a certain amount of medical attention. I find it amusing how much we fight for equality at the workplace when this fairly obvious shortcoming is not accounted for. Maybe its hard to classify and hard to determine, but since when has something being hard to do ever been an excuse for not doing it? As of now, we only treat severe shyness. Unless its really bad, its not even recognized as a problem. Thats like saying that we will help people who have lost their leg, but those that have lost their foot don't need our help; they can deal with the problem on their own.
I know I'm not making any sense. I know that what I'm proposing is insane and even if it were possible, we are 20 years away from it. And even if we do come close, there would be protests from Scientologists and other mental purists. But I think its a problem, and its one worth solving.
A quick Wiki of multiple intelligence theory tells us that Gardner believes that no one kind of intelligence is more important than the other. I find that belief a bit naive to be honest.
It might be an unnecessarily utilitarian way of looking at life, but having what it takes to carve out a living sure beats everything else. I would personally rank logical intelligence near the top simply because so many jobs in the world right now need exactly that.
But looking at the types of intelligence, I can't help but to think that one single type stands out well above the rest in terms of importance as a life survival tool - interpersonal intelligence. Remember how people always say that its not what you know anymore, its who you know? I think that nicely sums up why its so bloody important to have interpersonal intelligence. 'Young adults with this kind of intelligence are leaders among their peers, are good at communicating, and seem to understand others’ feelings and motives.' I got that from some random site. Screw the last two. Look at the first one. Want to enter the corporate world? Intend on getting far? If you don't have this form of intelligence, then don't count on it. Actually, I would go as far as to say that it extends to all professions. A char kuey tiow seller with good interpersonal skills build up customer rapport. The only time when this doesn't affect your career is if you really and truly work alone. Like as a lighthouse watchman or something. Even then, you are going to need that intelligence when you approach your boss for a raise. If you ever approach your boss for a raise...
And what would be the worst one to have career wise? I have to say intrapersonal intelligence. 'These young adults may be shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.' Who needs self motivation when you can make people believe that you are already self motivated? Personally, I think that shyness is a death sentence in the world. People tend to view shy people and wonder what is going on in their minds, and constantly trying to guess if that person means harm. Shy people constantly avert people's gaze. Do people assume that the reluctance to make eye contact is due to shyness? I think most take it as a sign that the person is an egoistical prick. Isolation from the rest of humanity is something that no amount of gardening (naturalist intelligence), tennis aces (bodily kinesthetic intelligence), or best selling novels (linguistic intelligence) will be able to compensate for.
At this point, I would like to borrow a phrase used by my friend once. 'Socially retarded at every level'. Its a brutally honest quip that explains everything. It is a form of retardation, bad enough, in my opinion to warrant a certain amount of medical attention. I find it amusing how much we fight for equality at the workplace when this fairly obvious shortcoming is not accounted for. Maybe its hard to classify and hard to determine, but since when has something being hard to do ever been an excuse for not doing it? As of now, we only treat severe shyness. Unless its really bad, its not even recognized as a problem. Thats like saying that we will help people who have lost their leg, but those that have lost their foot don't need our help; they can deal with the problem on their own.
I know I'm not making any sense. I know that what I'm proposing is insane and even if it were possible, we are 20 years away from it. And even if we do come close, there would be protests from Scientologists and other mental purists. But I think its a problem, and its one worth solving.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Feminists, may I introduce you to your worst nightmare.
I wrote this post a long time ago, actually as a very immature response to emoness. But I guess the ghosts of the past have been mostly banished, I'll publish.
A bit strong, but then its just my opinion. And last I checked, a very unpopular one.
I seem to have built up quite a reputation of being a hater of all things related to Japanese culture. I've ranted about anime, the influx of Japanese music, and I've written an article about how the Japanese are just as guilty as the Americans when it comes to cultural imperialism. To be honest, most of my criticism of Japan in the past really did spawn from fear of the unknown. You know, the old saying 'What you don't understand, you fear'. I never did understand Japanese culture, probably because I hold much of oriental culture at contempt. But now, I'd rather just ignore that part of the world and let them do as they please. After all, they aren't doing any harm.
So, which part of Japanese culture is a danger to the feminist movement? One word. Kawaii. The most overused and popular of Japanese vocabulary exports. Anything positive is kawaii, much like how anything negative can be represented by fuck in the English language. The underlying causes behind the kawaii phenomenon is scary. Granted, the people who came up with these causes were just postulating. They are theories, which means they are not proven causes and are still very much open to debate. If I had a better understanding of the human mind, I would be able to come up with credible opinions of my own, but for now, I borrow from the pros.
There are links between kawaii and social acceptance. And the lolita culture. And submissiveness. And general helplessness. Its almost like anyone who wants to be kawaii wants to be the damsel in distress. The helpless little girl who needs a man to take care of everything. It just so happens that there are lots of men who like girls who turn to them for everything. Gives them a sense of control, massages their ego.
So any girl that sticks two fingers into the air and squeals 'kawaii', and then later in the day bunches the same hand into a fist and screams 'girl power' is essentially being hypocritical. To me, you can't be both. Pick one, and stick with it. I'm not saying that one side is better than the other. Each has its merits, and depending on what gives you fulfillment in life, choose.
Feminine feminists can exist. Kawaii feminists are just confused people.
I may have mentioned anime in the start, but this post has nothing to do with that. For the love of God, don't misinterpret this post.
A bit strong, but then its just my opinion. And last I checked, a very unpopular one.
I seem to have built up quite a reputation of being a hater of all things related to Japanese culture. I've ranted about anime, the influx of Japanese music, and I've written an article about how the Japanese are just as guilty as the Americans when it comes to cultural imperialism. To be honest, most of my criticism of Japan in the past really did spawn from fear of the unknown. You know, the old saying 'What you don't understand, you fear'. I never did understand Japanese culture, probably because I hold much of oriental culture at contempt. But now, I'd rather just ignore that part of the world and let them do as they please. After all, they aren't doing any harm.
So, which part of Japanese culture is a danger to the feminist movement? One word. Kawaii. The most overused and popular of Japanese vocabulary exports. Anything positive is kawaii, much like how anything negative can be represented by fuck in the English language. The underlying causes behind the kawaii phenomenon is scary. Granted, the people who came up with these causes were just postulating. They are theories, which means they are not proven causes and are still very much open to debate. If I had a better understanding of the human mind, I would be able to come up with credible opinions of my own, but for now, I borrow from the pros.
There are links between kawaii and social acceptance. And the lolita culture. And submissiveness. And general helplessness. Its almost like anyone who wants to be kawaii wants to be the damsel in distress. The helpless little girl who needs a man to take care of everything. It just so happens that there are lots of men who like girls who turn to them for everything. Gives them a sense of control, massages their ego.
So any girl that sticks two fingers into the air and squeals 'kawaii', and then later in the day bunches the same hand into a fist and screams 'girl power' is essentially being hypocritical. To me, you can't be both. Pick one, and stick with it. I'm not saying that one side is better than the other. Each has its merits, and depending on what gives you fulfillment in life, choose.
Feminine feminists can exist. Kawaii feminists are just confused people.
I may have mentioned anime in the start, but this post has nothing to do with that. For the love of God, don't misinterpret this post.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Near walk out.
I actually felt this urge to walk out of class in the middle of a lecture today.
The lecturer was an old friend; if students and lecturers can be considered friends in MMU. Being a pal, he noticed someone he didn't recognize and asked the offending girl if she was part of the class. She replied no.
That was fine.
He said that he liked having non-registered students in his class. Especially if they were girls. Mechanical engineering joke. Little chuckles all over class.
Still fine.
Then he asked the guy sitting next to her, "Is she yours?"
I perked up.
Then he added, "Who does she belong to?"
Frown. I like that lecturer, I think he is one of the best the whole faculty has to offer. And I really didn't want to make a scene. But I couldn't deny that nagging sense of unease that I felt when he said that.
Sure, you might say that he was just joking about. Well, to me its not funny. I find it deeply insulting actually. Am I over-reacting? To most people around me, probably yes. But I live along very strange ideals that few bother to understand. In the name of tact, I play along. But as happy I am with where I am now, when things like this happen, I can't help but to feel that I was born on the wrong side of the world.
The lecturer was an old friend; if students and lecturers can be considered friends in MMU. Being a pal, he noticed someone he didn't recognize and asked the offending girl if she was part of the class. She replied no.
That was fine.
He said that he liked having non-registered students in his class. Especially if they were girls. Mechanical engineering joke. Little chuckles all over class.
Still fine.
Then he asked the guy sitting next to her, "Is she yours?"
I perked up.
Then he added, "Who does she belong to?"
Frown. I like that lecturer, I think he is one of the best the whole faculty has to offer. And I really didn't want to make a scene. But I couldn't deny that nagging sense of unease that I felt when he said that.
Sure, you might say that he was just joking about. Well, to me its not funny. I find it deeply insulting actually. Am I over-reacting? To most people around me, probably yes. But I live along very strange ideals that few bother to understand. In the name of tact, I play along. But as happy I am with where I am now, when things like this happen, I can't help but to feel that I was born on the wrong side of the world.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Whats with Lim Kit Siang?
I don't know the full details of what he actually says, but that man sound to me like a bloody loose cannon. He seems to oppose for the sake of opposing, even if there really are little grounds to pick a fight. Provoking the BN MPs seems to be some past time that he enjoys very much.
Apparently, he called somebody a goblok in Parliament the other day. His defense was that he meant 'go blog', meaning that he was telling that person to start blogging. I'm sure there are contexts in which that phrase can make sense, but I am very skeptical that Kit Siang wasn't out to cause trouble.
I've seen his antics in parliament as well, and they aren't what I would call civilized. I mean, the BN backbenchers are a bunch of uncouth monkeys, but that doesn't mean that the opposition lender needs to stoop to their level to engage with them. I actually pity the speaker of the parliament. He always seems helpless in those situations, his repeated pleas for everyone to sit down and calm down are always ignored. Its like he's scared of the MPs or something. How is a mediator supposed to do his job when he has no power?
Watching the way Kit Siang handle situations has substantially eroded the credibility that he has with me. It makes me question the questions that he raises and every allegation that he makes is greeted with a healthy dose mistrust. I actually wonder why he is still opposition leader because I seriously doubt DAP is that devoid of talent. Maybe its one of those 'old farts that refuse to let go' problems that seem to plague other political parties.
Apparently, he called somebody a goblok in Parliament the other day. His defense was that he meant 'go blog', meaning that he was telling that person to start blogging. I'm sure there are contexts in which that phrase can make sense, but I am very skeptical that Kit Siang wasn't out to cause trouble.
I've seen his antics in parliament as well, and they aren't what I would call civilized. I mean, the BN backbenchers are a bunch of uncouth monkeys, but that doesn't mean that the opposition lender needs to stoop to their level to engage with them. I actually pity the speaker of the parliament. He always seems helpless in those situations, his repeated pleas for everyone to sit down and calm down are always ignored. Its like he's scared of the MPs or something. How is a mediator supposed to do his job when he has no power?
Watching the way Kit Siang handle situations has substantially eroded the credibility that he has with me. It makes me question the questions that he raises and every allegation that he makes is greeted with a healthy dose mistrust. I actually wonder why he is still opposition leader because I seriously doubt DAP is that devoid of talent. Maybe its one of those 'old farts that refuse to let go' problems that seem to plague other political parties.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Movies...
I'm not a movie buff, and I only ever go watch them if it seems to be a convenient thing for me to do. I never actually go out of my way to go to the cinema, which means that I'm normally quite behind when it comes to whats hot in movieland at the moment.
But in the past three weeks, I have watched Lions for Lambs, Hitman, and the Kingdom, in that order. That is courtesy of MBO cinemas having those movies at very convenient times for me and my classmates (a little free time vacuum for most of us, an exceedingly rare phenomenon.) I still haven't watched Beowulf, but I got a very stern warning from my brother that its the single worst movie he has ever watched in his life. Apparently, the story is dumb, the physics illogical to the point of unbearablility and the entire movie is filled with little scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot. The movie's only saving grace, which is apparently the gore, couldn't quite compensate for the incredible stupidness of everything else. Thats what my brother said. I haven't watched it, so I don't know. But if I'm honest, I have to admit that I'm pretty apprehensive about Beowulf now. (Even if I get to see Angelina Jolie and a naked succubus.)
But back to the main issue, the movies that I have watched. I'll give you the bad news first. Hitman sucked. I never played the game, but I always found the concept to be exceedingly cool. A mute, merciless killer who strikes and no ones is none the wiser until he's safely immersing himself in a jacuzzi after extraction. But the movie completely betrayed agent 47 (I think that was his number) He becomes a gung ho, trigger happy, not particularly witty and bald version of Jason Bourne. Its hard not to make comparisons of the two movies, especially when the scene where the Hitman proves his observational powers to his pantyless pretend girlfriend is a blatant rip off from the first Bourne movie. The Hitman is supposed to sneak, poison, trick and strangle his way to mission objectives. He does not walk into a room full of gangsters and let rip with two sub-machine guns. The real Hitman would have found that approach vulgar. Even for an action movie, its weak. But then again, I have been spoilt not too long ago by the Bourne Ultimatum (which I think is one of the best movies this year, hence the constant comparison). So here is a warning. If you loved Hitman as a game, and would like to be spared the agony of watching him turn into a pussified, gunslinging man who is betrayed by his own agency for no reason other than to satisfy some Russian president, then stay away from the movie. Go rewatch Nacho Libre or something.
Now I have two more movies to talk about, both of which I have to admit I liked very much. The latest one I saw was the Kingdom, which is about terrorists in Saudi Arabia blowing Americans up. The FBI rightly gets pissed off, but because the American government is so buddy buddy with the Saudis, they can't get a team onto Ground Zero to do investigations. What follows is the usual story about a particularly ballsy FBI agent who blackmails his way into Saudi Arabia, solves the case, and puts him and his entire team in the line of fire. What particularly unnerved me about this movie is the fact that I actually felt pissed off when I saw the Muslim extremist give his inflammatory speech. Suddenly, my dim view of religion got even dimmer. Its all nice and good for the moderate Muslims to denounce the terrorists and loudly proclaim that the terrorists have no right to call themselves Muslims. It doesn't change the fact that they do call themselves Muslims and their murder is derived from the very same book that the moderates get their values from. I'm sure that there is nothing wrong with the teachings in the book, as everyone of the faith will proclaim. But over the many years that civilization has existed religion has time and again proven that its not something that the human race is ready for. I don't think that the fact that some people can take the text in a non-murderous and non-bigoted way can be used an excuse for the continued preaching of it.
I was throughly depressed at the end of the movie, even if I didn't really show it. The stark truthfulness of the entire movie reminded me of how fucked up this world really is. The ending definitely left an impression. The same promise made by the FBI agent and the dying terrorist cell leader, "we will kill them all". The message couldn't be clearer. The senseless killing will not stop until either side is wiped out. And some people actually argue that cultural relativism is actually a good thing. /wrist
Right, on to Lions for Lambs. (If you have read this far and still remain vaguely interested in what I have to say then, thank you.) =P. This movie has three stories running parallel. There is one part with a reporter being given a scoop on a new American initiative in Afghanistan by the Senator who is running the whole operation. The other is about a disillusioned political science student who called in to see his professor. And the third is about two American soldiers that are stuck in the Afghan mountains, awaiting rescue. I found the first two deeply entertaining, the third to be some kind of compulsory action sequence that movie makers seem obliged to do.
The first scenario was sparring by a liberal (the reporter) versus a war hawk (the senator) on the issues on global terror and the war in the Middle East. I actually found both sides well represented, although I generally tilt towards the anti-war hippie camp. I found the
Senator's arguments compelling, and I think that movie did a lot to help me understand his side of the story, and the reasons behind all the war mongering.
But it was the second scene that struck a chord. A professor sees a bright student lose interest, and decides to intervene. The student is adamant that the world is fucked up, and not worth saving, so he might as well go and live his own comfy life in the corporate world instead of making the change that he feels needs to be made. The situation really is deja vu. It wasn't so long ago that a very cynical me sat before a particularly well read and optimistic old fart and trashed out the issue with him. That ended with him declaring that I'm there is little hope left for me and that he is saddened that a person that has reached my level of reasoning should choose a path of doom and gloom. (At least thats how I saw it). Well times have changed, and I've grown up a bit, so I'm actually not naive enough to authoritatively predict doomsday within the next generation. So if a right cause comes along, I might actually do something. (maybe the fight against domestic violence, but AWAM seems to ignore my attempts to contact them.)
Still, that movie gives me the sense that I'm not alone in my disillusionment. It says loud and clear to me that just because no one else seems to care or even seems bothered to know, it doesn't mean that you should be like that too.
So, yes. If you have time and cash to spare, do watch the two movies. But don't blame me if you don't like them. I do have really weird tastes.
But in the past three weeks, I have watched Lions for Lambs, Hitman, and the Kingdom, in that order. That is courtesy of MBO cinemas having those movies at very convenient times for me and my classmates (a little free time vacuum for most of us, an exceedingly rare phenomenon.) I still haven't watched Beowulf, but I got a very stern warning from my brother that its the single worst movie he has ever watched in his life. Apparently, the story is dumb, the physics illogical to the point of unbearablility and the entire movie is filled with little scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot. The movie's only saving grace, which is apparently the gore, couldn't quite compensate for the incredible stupidness of everything else. Thats what my brother said. I haven't watched it, so I don't know. But if I'm honest, I have to admit that I'm pretty apprehensive about Beowulf now. (Even if I get to see Angelina Jolie and a naked succubus.)
But back to the main issue, the movies that I have watched. I'll give you the bad news first. Hitman sucked. I never played the game, but I always found the concept to be exceedingly cool. A mute, merciless killer who strikes and no ones is none the wiser until he's safely immersing himself in a jacuzzi after extraction. But the movie completely betrayed agent 47 (I think that was his number) He becomes a gung ho, trigger happy, not particularly witty and bald version of Jason Bourne. Its hard not to make comparisons of the two movies, especially when the scene where the Hitman proves his observational powers to his pantyless pretend girlfriend is a blatant rip off from the first Bourne movie. The Hitman is supposed to sneak, poison, trick and strangle his way to mission objectives. He does not walk into a room full of gangsters and let rip with two sub-machine guns. The real Hitman would have found that approach vulgar. Even for an action movie, its weak. But then again, I have been spoilt not too long ago by the Bourne Ultimatum (which I think is one of the best movies this year, hence the constant comparison). So here is a warning. If you loved Hitman as a game, and would like to be spared the agony of watching him turn into a pussified, gunslinging man who is betrayed by his own agency for no reason other than to satisfy some Russian president, then stay away from the movie. Go rewatch Nacho Libre or something.
Now I have two more movies to talk about, both of which I have to admit I liked very much. The latest one I saw was the Kingdom, which is about terrorists in Saudi Arabia blowing Americans up. The FBI rightly gets pissed off, but because the American government is so buddy buddy with the Saudis, they can't get a team onto Ground Zero to do investigations. What follows is the usual story about a particularly ballsy FBI agent who blackmails his way into Saudi Arabia, solves the case, and puts him and his entire team in the line of fire. What particularly unnerved me about this movie is the fact that I actually felt pissed off when I saw the Muslim extremist give his inflammatory speech. Suddenly, my dim view of religion got even dimmer. Its all nice and good for the moderate Muslims to denounce the terrorists and loudly proclaim that the terrorists have no right to call themselves Muslims. It doesn't change the fact that they do call themselves Muslims and their murder is derived from the very same book that the moderates get their values from. I'm sure that there is nothing wrong with the teachings in the book, as everyone of the faith will proclaim. But over the many years that civilization has existed religion has time and again proven that its not something that the human race is ready for. I don't think that the fact that some people can take the text in a non-murderous and non-bigoted way can be used an excuse for the continued preaching of it.
I was throughly depressed at the end of the movie, even if I didn't really show it. The stark truthfulness of the entire movie reminded me of how fucked up this world really is. The ending definitely left an impression. The same promise made by the FBI agent and the dying terrorist cell leader, "we will kill them all". The message couldn't be clearer. The senseless killing will not stop until either side is wiped out. And some people actually argue that cultural relativism is actually a good thing. /wrist
Right, on to Lions for Lambs. (If you have read this far and still remain vaguely interested in what I have to say then, thank you.) =P. This movie has three stories running parallel. There is one part with a reporter being given a scoop on a new American initiative in Afghanistan by the Senator who is running the whole operation. The other is about a disillusioned political science student who called in to see his professor. And the third is about two American soldiers that are stuck in the Afghan mountains, awaiting rescue. I found the first two deeply entertaining, the third to be some kind of compulsory action sequence that movie makers seem obliged to do.
The first scenario was sparring by a liberal (the reporter) versus a war hawk (the senator) on the issues on global terror and the war in the Middle East. I actually found both sides well represented, although I generally tilt towards the anti-war hippie camp. I found the
Senator's arguments compelling, and I think that movie did a lot to help me understand his side of the story, and the reasons behind all the war mongering.
But it was the second scene that struck a chord. A professor sees a bright student lose interest, and decides to intervene. The student is adamant that the world is fucked up, and not worth saving, so he might as well go and live his own comfy life in the corporate world instead of making the change that he feels needs to be made. The situation really is deja vu. It wasn't so long ago that a very cynical me sat before a particularly well read and optimistic old fart and trashed out the issue with him. That ended with him declaring that I'm there is little hope left for me and that he is saddened that a person that has reached my level of reasoning should choose a path of doom and gloom. (At least thats how I saw it). Well times have changed, and I've grown up a bit, so I'm actually not naive enough to authoritatively predict doomsday within the next generation. So if a right cause comes along, I might actually do something. (maybe the fight against domestic violence, but AWAM seems to ignore my attempts to contact them.)
Still, that movie gives me the sense that I'm not alone in my disillusionment. It says loud and clear to me that just because no one else seems to care or even seems bothered to know, it doesn't mean that you should be like that too.
So, yes. If you have time and cash to spare, do watch the two movies. But don't blame me if you don't like them. I do have really weird tastes.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
I wonder...
A couple of years back, the Black Eyed Peas hit the scene. Everyone was introduced to 'Where is the love' and for a while, I actually listened along happily. Then they started showing what they were really about. Completely meaningless lyrics sung to catchy tunes. Reminds me of the joke that Chris Rock told about rap music. Women who love rap music don't care about the lyrics. For them, if the beat is right, they will dance all night.
Black eyed peas lyrics makes me want to put an ice pick through my skull. The problem is, I also notice that there are other artistes that sing stuff just as dumb as they do, but I don't feel any murderous impulse when I hear them. Snoop dog, 50 cent, and to a lesser extent, Sean Paul, they all rely on the beat and the cool factor to sell. But I don't hate them. In fact, I actually like some of their music. Okay, maybe not Snoop Dog, but the rest are passable.
Here is a line from Timbaland and Keri Hilson - They way I are
I'm about to strip and I'm well equipped
Can you handle me the way you are?
Blatant references to things impolite. Things that will make most people cringe in everyday conversation. Yet, I love this song.
And for some comparison here is the song by one of the BEP members gone solo.
If the girl real pretty,
Nine times out of ten,
She pretty like her mama.
And if her mama real ugly,
I guarantee ya she gon’ be ugly like her mama.
Everytime I hear this, I change the station.
I wonder what the difference really is. It can't be the complete disregard for general politeness and gender political correctness. Snoop dog is as misogynistic as rappers get, and yet I don't hate his music enough to avoid it.
It can't be the stupidity of the lyrics either, because I've heard lyrics just as stupid, and had no problems with it. Hey Ya by Outkast is a perfect example of this. Lend me some sugar, I am your neighbour? Shake it like a polariod picture? It doesn't get any more senseless than that, yet I have no problems with that song.
Then I thought maybe it was because I had a problem with Fergie being a sellout to the whole female gender, making me have a problem with her, and by extension, the people associated with her. I mean, she did introduce us all to her humps, her lovely lady lumps. But the pussycat dolls ask you to 'loosen up their buttons', females acting totally trampily. Yet I don't really have a bone to pick with the dolls.
As of now, I'm content to leave it as 'I just have a problem with you, never mind why'. But I'm still pretty damned curious as to why. Any ideas?
Black eyed peas lyrics makes me want to put an ice pick through my skull. The problem is, I also notice that there are other artistes that sing stuff just as dumb as they do, but I don't feel any murderous impulse when I hear them. Snoop dog, 50 cent, and to a lesser extent, Sean Paul, they all rely on the beat and the cool factor to sell. But I don't hate them. In fact, I actually like some of their music. Okay, maybe not Snoop Dog, but the rest are passable.
Here is a line from Timbaland and Keri Hilson - They way I are
I'm about to strip and I'm well equipped
Can you handle me the way you are?
Blatant references to things impolite. Things that will make most people cringe in everyday conversation. Yet, I love this song.
And for some comparison here is the song by one of the BEP members gone solo.
If the girl real pretty,
Nine times out of ten,
She pretty like her mama.
And if her mama real ugly,
I guarantee ya she gon’ be ugly like her mama.
Everytime I hear this, I change the station.
I wonder what the difference really is. It can't be the complete disregard for general politeness and gender political correctness. Snoop dog is as misogynistic as rappers get, and yet I don't hate his music enough to avoid it.
It can't be the stupidity of the lyrics either, because I've heard lyrics just as stupid, and had no problems with it. Hey Ya by Outkast is a perfect example of this. Lend me some sugar, I am your neighbour? Shake it like a polariod picture? It doesn't get any more senseless than that, yet I have no problems with that song.
Then I thought maybe it was because I had a problem with Fergie being a sellout to the whole female gender, making me have a problem with her, and by extension, the people associated with her. I mean, she did introduce us all to her humps, her lovely lady lumps. But the pussycat dolls ask you to 'loosen up their buttons', females acting totally trampily. Yet I don't really have a bone to pick with the dolls.
As of now, I'm content to leave it as 'I just have a problem with you, never mind why'. But I'm still pretty damned curious as to why. Any ideas?
Friday, November 02, 2007
Contradictions.
I've asked these two questions a number of times and I have never gotten an answer that is satisfactory. Both have things to do with Islamic principles and government policy.
Gripe one. Muslims can't gamble. There are active steps taken to keep them out of Genting. There are signs outside 4D gambling shops warning them to stay away. Yea, sure, lots of Muslims still end up buying the stuff, but what I'm interested in is the official Government stand on this, and not the efficiency of its enforcement. So far, as far as I know, the Government discourages Muslims from buying 4D. So, in essence, the government is against all forms of gambling done by Muslims and will try to regulate and put a stop to instances of it happening.
Yet, their kids gamble all the bloody time, oblivious to the fact that they are gambling. Remember those plastic egg vending machines that seem to be in every comic book and sundry shop? Those that seem to have different content inside? Or the card vending ones for that matter. Dragonball, Power Rangers, that kind of stuff. Thats gambling right there. If it is advertised on the outside that you stand to gain a figurine of hero X when you put a dollar into a machine and twist a dial, you are promising a chance of winning. Its now a game of chance, putting it neatly into the category of judi. If that isn't a clear enough example, here is another one. I remember this from back when I was 12. There is a keropok vendor near my school, selling all manner of crackers. One of his products is a tiny little packet of nearly inedible prawn crackers with a little gift on the inside. The packet itself cost 20 cents, and most of the time, you will get a little plastic lobster that cannot possibly cost more than half a cent. But, you stand to win one of those Tamiya car rip offs that go for about 5 bucks at the pasar malam. There are other prizes too. So, a little token fee for a shot at winning something that is worth 25 times as much as the original investment. Sound familiar?
Its all gambling, and yet these people get away with selling it to Muslims, and Muslim children at that. I'm not a Muslim and if someone pulled this kind of shit of on my 12 year old, I'd get pretty pissed off. And I don't have a God promising me eternal suffering if I went near any of that. Thats just fucked up.
Now, on to the second problem. Alcohol. Muslims can't touch that stuff. (debaters not withstanding) Not even food that has alcohol in it is allowed. Chinese food that contains a bit of rice wine is not halal anymore. Even if eating 2000 portions of it isn't enough to make you drunk. (Which I was told is the main justification for banning alcohol for all Muslims. Drunk people do stupid and very un-Islamic things) So imbibing alcohol molecules in any form is dosa, correct? So whats the deal with tapai? Its served all over the place and is as part of Malay culture as lemang and ulam. But its fermented glutinous rice, and fermented normally indicates a presence of alcohol. I know, because when I smelled a batch when I was a kid, it felt to me like smelling the fumes from a bottle of VHS tape cleaner. The smell of alcohol was THAT strong. Rum and raisin has a distinctive taste of alcohol, but hardly smells that strong. Yet, rum and raisin ice cream is in a fridge that carries the warning to Muslims that rum and raisin is not halal. If this isn't hypocrisy and selective application of rules, then I don't know what is. It is entirely possible that the Jabatan Agama Islam realizes this and decided they cannot do anything about it because the eating of tapai is so ingrained into our society already. I guess they realize what a sudden decision to make tapai non-halal would bring a lot of complications and get people asking questions that they are not quite prepared to answer.
But ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away. I guess with the immense control that the government has on any form of intelligent questioning, these inconsistencies can be stopped from ever surfacing as actual issues. To be honest, I think that they are non-issues too. Its just that if Malaysian Muslims are anal enough to care about the direction of the kiblat from space, and about the halalness of vaccines, I suppose something like this should be considered pretty big problems.
Gripe one. Muslims can't gamble. There are active steps taken to keep them out of Genting. There are signs outside 4D gambling shops warning them to stay away. Yea, sure, lots of Muslims still end up buying the stuff, but what I'm interested in is the official Government stand on this, and not the efficiency of its enforcement. So far, as far as I know, the Government discourages Muslims from buying 4D. So, in essence, the government is against all forms of gambling done by Muslims and will try to regulate and put a stop to instances of it happening.
Yet, their kids gamble all the bloody time, oblivious to the fact that they are gambling. Remember those plastic egg vending machines that seem to be in every comic book and sundry shop? Those that seem to have different content inside? Or the card vending ones for that matter. Dragonball, Power Rangers, that kind of stuff. Thats gambling right there. If it is advertised on the outside that you stand to gain a figurine of hero X when you put a dollar into a machine and twist a dial, you are promising a chance of winning. Its now a game of chance, putting it neatly into the category of judi. If that isn't a clear enough example, here is another one. I remember this from back when I was 12. There is a keropok vendor near my school, selling all manner of crackers. One of his products is a tiny little packet of nearly inedible prawn crackers with a little gift on the inside. The packet itself cost 20 cents, and most of the time, you will get a little plastic lobster that cannot possibly cost more than half a cent. But, you stand to win one of those Tamiya car rip offs that go for about 5 bucks at the pasar malam. There are other prizes too. So, a little token fee for a shot at winning something that is worth 25 times as much as the original investment. Sound familiar?
Its all gambling, and yet these people get away with selling it to Muslims, and Muslim children at that. I'm not a Muslim and if someone pulled this kind of shit of on my 12 year old, I'd get pretty pissed off. And I don't have a God promising me eternal suffering if I went near any of that. Thats just fucked up.
Now, on to the second problem. Alcohol. Muslims can't touch that stuff. (debaters not withstanding) Not even food that has alcohol in it is allowed. Chinese food that contains a bit of rice wine is not halal anymore. Even if eating 2000 portions of it isn't enough to make you drunk. (Which I was told is the main justification for banning alcohol for all Muslims. Drunk people do stupid and very un-Islamic things) So imbibing alcohol molecules in any form is dosa, correct? So whats the deal with tapai? Its served all over the place and is as part of Malay culture as lemang and ulam. But its fermented glutinous rice, and fermented normally indicates a presence of alcohol. I know, because when I smelled a batch when I was a kid, it felt to me like smelling the fumes from a bottle of VHS tape cleaner. The smell of alcohol was THAT strong. Rum and raisin has a distinctive taste of alcohol, but hardly smells that strong. Yet, rum and raisin ice cream is in a fridge that carries the warning to Muslims that rum and raisin is not halal. If this isn't hypocrisy and selective application of rules, then I don't know what is. It is entirely possible that the Jabatan Agama Islam realizes this and decided they cannot do anything about it because the eating of tapai is so ingrained into our society already. I guess they realize what a sudden decision to make tapai non-halal would bring a lot of complications and get people asking questions that they are not quite prepared to answer.
But ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away. I guess with the immense control that the government has on any form of intelligent questioning, these inconsistencies can be stopped from ever surfacing as actual issues. To be honest, I think that they are non-issues too. Its just that if Malaysian Muslims are anal enough to care about the direction of the kiblat from space, and about the halalness of vaccines, I suppose something like this should be considered pretty big problems.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Stupid..
A grieving father has been awarded $11 million in damages against a fundamentalist church that pickets military funerals because they believe that the war in Iraq is punishment for American tolerance for gays. Good for him. But it really does beg the question, where do these people come from anyway?
These are two of the signs that they use when picketing. 'Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags". Thank God for dead soldiers? No bloody wonder the father got pissed off. And one of the church leaders has claimed that they will continue to picket. Apparently, a $11 million fine is 'an act of futility'. Wow. If that was the case, the judge should have hit them with $111 million.
I wonder who told them that the casualties in Iraq was punishment for accepting gays. Did one of them get a visitation from God one night? Or some messenger of God for that matter. Or did they pull it out of their interpretation of the Bible? To be honest, I'm getting pretty sick of reading about people like this intruding on other people's lives because they think its their holy duty to do so. That father sued because he felt that they had ruined his son's funeral and intruded upon a solemn ceremony. If I were in his position, I'd kick their asses too, even if I were anti-gay. There are places and times where you don't preach and spew your religious convictions.
I wish they would stop caring so much and leave all of us heretic sinners to burn in hell after we tell them to eff off for the fifth time.
I mean, thats what I would do when giving advice to someone. If they don't want the advice, it really is their problem now isn't it? Admittedly, repeating it over and over might get them to accept your message as true, but nine times out of ten, you're just being annoying. And when you go past their breaking point, things get ugly. Wouldn't we all be so much better off if you just roll your eyes and tell yourself that you will get the last laugh when you watch us all burn in hell while you sit on your pretty little cloud strumming your harp? Or if you really can't bear seeing someone walk the wrong path, keep telling yourself that you have tried and move on. No one is going to blame you for failing in your task to bring salvation. I think even God will forgive you.
These are two of the signs that they use when picketing. 'Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags". Thank God for dead soldiers? No bloody wonder the father got pissed off. And one of the church leaders has claimed that they will continue to picket. Apparently, a $11 million fine is 'an act of futility'. Wow. If that was the case, the judge should have hit them with $111 million.
I wonder who told them that the casualties in Iraq was punishment for accepting gays. Did one of them get a visitation from God one night? Or some messenger of God for that matter. Or did they pull it out of their interpretation of the Bible? To be honest, I'm getting pretty sick of reading about people like this intruding on other people's lives because they think its their holy duty to do so. That father sued because he felt that they had ruined his son's funeral and intruded upon a solemn ceremony. If I were in his position, I'd kick their asses too, even if I were anti-gay. There are places and times where you don't preach and spew your religious convictions.
I wish they would stop caring so much and leave all of us heretic sinners to burn in hell after we tell them to eff off for the fifth time.
I mean, thats what I would do when giving advice to someone. If they don't want the advice, it really is their problem now isn't it? Admittedly, repeating it over and over might get them to accept your message as true, but nine times out of ten, you're just being annoying. And when you go past their breaking point, things get ugly. Wouldn't we all be so much better off if you just roll your eyes and tell yourself that you will get the last laugh when you watch us all burn in hell while you sit on your pretty little cloud strumming your harp? Or if you really can't bear seeing someone walk the wrong path, keep telling yourself that you have tried and move on. No one is going to blame you for failing in your task to bring salvation. I think even God will forgive you.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Women and musicians..
Its conventional wisdom that knowing how to play music makes a guy popular with the ladies. In fact, when a guy who has never really shown any inclination to play music starts to learn, the first assumption will be that he is trying to raise his networth somewhat. Might not be a fair assessment, but that just goes to show how much this image has been ingrained into culture.
But why? There has to be a reason that girls find guitarists or pianists or violinists attractive. I think it has something to do with natural selection.
An article in the Economist once observed that humans find mates that are liberal with their resources attractive. In the modern context, its material wealth for men, and the willingness to care for others for women. Apparently, generous men and unusually compassionate women are found to be more attractive by the opposite sex. Women want a man who is willing and capable of taking care of them in the traditional role of breadwinner (thus the eye for material wealth) . Men want a woman who will take care of the family in the role of housekeeper (thus the need for a woman who is charitable with her energy). The bottom line is, the more likely a person is able to spare resources, the more attractive they become.
I think that the ability to play music is a show of an abundance of resource. Music isn't an easy skill to master, and requires a lot of practice and dedication. Looking at it from a survival perspective, music is useless. Music is a luxury, not a necessity. Only a person who has his necessities more than covered for extended periods of time will be able to come up with a decent tune. So that automatically means that they have their bases covered. Which would mean that if you manage to nail him you got all your bases covered too.
This theory has its problems. If it were true, then all forms of art would share the same status as music, but they don't. A painter doesn't get panties thrown at him, a musician does. I concede that they are other factors that have to be taken into consideration. The scale of appeal of the different forms of art, the audiences that they cater to. Painters may not be able to make girls squeal, but they can make ladies swoon (see Titanic). The underlying principles are the same.
All this talk of love might seem like I'm generalizing women into neat little categories. Some might get a bit pissed, because they say I'm stereotyping. Others might wonder why there is a focus on women. Well, to answer all that, first off, I'm a guy. Of course I'm more interested in women. Second, male reactions are boring. The simple equation boobie = erection pretty much sums it up. Women are much more complex, much more fun to form ideas about.
And no, I don't see the entire female population as a bunch of experimental lab rats to be put into a glass case and observed. It is possible to study human attraction, speak very clinically about it and still be put under its influence. Helen Fisher confessed to have had her fair share, and knowing about it and having an academic curiosity never dampened the magic for her. So there..
But why? There has to be a reason that girls find guitarists or pianists or violinists attractive. I think it has something to do with natural selection.
An article in the Economist once observed that humans find mates that are liberal with their resources attractive. In the modern context, its material wealth for men, and the willingness to care for others for women. Apparently, generous men and unusually compassionate women are found to be more attractive by the opposite sex. Women want a man who is willing and capable of taking care of them in the traditional role of breadwinner (thus the eye for material wealth) . Men want a woman who will take care of the family in the role of housekeeper (thus the need for a woman who is charitable with her energy). The bottom line is, the more likely a person is able to spare resources, the more attractive they become.
I think that the ability to play music is a show of an abundance of resource. Music isn't an easy skill to master, and requires a lot of practice and dedication. Looking at it from a survival perspective, music is useless. Music is a luxury, not a necessity. Only a person who has his necessities more than covered for extended periods of time will be able to come up with a decent tune. So that automatically means that they have their bases covered. Which would mean that if you manage to nail him you got all your bases covered too.
This theory has its problems. If it were true, then all forms of art would share the same status as music, but they don't. A painter doesn't get panties thrown at him, a musician does. I concede that they are other factors that have to be taken into consideration. The scale of appeal of the different forms of art, the audiences that they cater to. Painters may not be able to make girls squeal, but they can make ladies swoon (see Titanic). The underlying principles are the same.
All this talk of love might seem like I'm generalizing women into neat little categories. Some might get a bit pissed, because they say I'm stereotyping. Others might wonder why there is a focus on women. Well, to answer all that, first off, I'm a guy. Of course I'm more interested in women. Second, male reactions are boring. The simple equation boobie = erection pretty much sums it up. Women are much more complex, much more fun to form ideas about.
And no, I don't see the entire female population as a bunch of experimental lab rats to be put into a glass case and observed. It is possible to study human attraction, speak very clinically about it and still be put under its influence. Helen Fisher confessed to have had her fair share, and knowing about it and having an academic curiosity never dampened the magic for her. So there..
Friday, October 26, 2007
Banning Love.
The last time I talked about this, I was in the passenger seat being driven back to campus by my brother. I brought the topic up and we got into a fairly heated argument. He ended up saying, "This is why I don't debate. You guys always talk about thing that don't matter at all." I didn't bother pointing out that I wasn't debating, but putting forward an idea for discussion. I didn't really believe in what I was talking about, I just wanted other people to consider it and see what they can come up with. But after that response from him, I dropped it and moved on.
Reading Helen Fisher made me revisit. It was her idea (seen on her TED video) that sparked this particularly controversial idea and I wasn't surprised to see it in her book. I have to point out that she never said anything about banning love. She just came up with the research that I'm piggy backing. So, why ban love?
It stems from the finding that romantic love really is an addiction. FMRI scans of the brain indicate that the parts of the brain that light up when a love struck person looks at a picture of the sweetheart are the same as the ones that light up when cocaine addicts get their fix. Cocaine. That the stuff that not even Holland has legalized. The cocktail of chemicals that runs in your blood when you fall in love are just as dangerous as blow. We already have proof of this in the news. Crimes of passion happen all the time. And as Dr. Fisher observed, the withdrawal symptoms showed by cocaine addicts are hauntingly similar to the signs of heartbreak. Loss of appetite, inability to focus, the constant craving. They are all there.
We ban cocaine not because it gets us high. We ban it because its addictive. We ban it because it does everything that love does to us, admittedly with less destructive consequences. But on principle, love deserves banning just as much as cocaine. So on that basis, now that we understand it better and exposed some of its inner workings, it should stand trail the same way every other drug did. On principle, we need to look at it and decide if it really is doing enough harm to warrant it being removed. To ignore the effects of love just because we have never known life without it is being a tad hypocritical.
Some might argue that love is essential to reproduction and it evolved in us for a reason. I have said before that our physical evolution is taking place at a much slower rate than our changes in cultural ideas. I think that the same idea works her as well. When we were driven by primordial urges, and listened solely to instinct, love was essential to the continuation of the human race. But it isn't now, and the legacy of our past could very well be a burden.
Then of course comes the question of whether it can be done or not. Can we stop people from falling in love? For now, no. But our understanding of human brain and how it connects to all the aspects of life that makes us human is expanding rapidly. At some point, someone will find a way to put a roadblock on one of the processes that are involved in falling in love. As it is, we can turn promiscuous rats into doting fathers with one injection. And we can turn the most faithful species into uber playboys with the opposing drug. I think its no longer a question of if, but a question of when.
Okay, premise set. There is a problem, and there might be a solution. Should we do it? In my opinion, no. Most people will agree with me at this point I suspect, but for different reasons. I cannot accept 'We cannot ban love because we just can't do something like that. I mean do you have any idea what you are doing? We're talking about love here!' as a valid argument against the banning of love, although I'm sorely tempted to. I'm sure that kind of an emotional appeal would work nowadays, because the idea really is quite unthinkable. But humans change their minds really fast. Things that were unthinkable 50 years ago are quite commonplace now. Banning slavery was an insanity not too long ago. Now people who enslave are prosecuted and thrown into jail. A society in the future that sits down and has a serious discussion about the relevance of love to humanity is not really that far fetched an idea if you ask me.
But I am not too fond of the idea of messing with something like human reproduction. Of course the option of voluntarily blocking off love for yourself will always be open, but to treat it like cocaine could be dangerous. Science has screwed up before, and while that may not be a good excuse to stop applying the findings of science, this is too big a risk to take. Only absolute certainty is acceptable, and there can be no absolute certainty.
Reading Helen Fisher made me revisit. It was her idea (seen on her TED video) that sparked this particularly controversial idea and I wasn't surprised to see it in her book. I have to point out that she never said anything about banning love. She just came up with the research that I'm piggy backing. So, why ban love?
It stems from the finding that romantic love really is an addiction. FMRI scans of the brain indicate that the parts of the brain that light up when a love struck person looks at a picture of the sweetheart are the same as the ones that light up when cocaine addicts get their fix. Cocaine. That the stuff that not even Holland has legalized. The cocktail of chemicals that runs in your blood when you fall in love are just as dangerous as blow. We already have proof of this in the news. Crimes of passion happen all the time. And as Dr. Fisher observed, the withdrawal symptoms showed by cocaine addicts are hauntingly similar to the signs of heartbreak. Loss of appetite, inability to focus, the constant craving. They are all there.
We ban cocaine not because it gets us high. We ban it because its addictive. We ban it because it does everything that love does to us, admittedly with less destructive consequences. But on principle, love deserves banning just as much as cocaine. So on that basis, now that we understand it better and exposed some of its inner workings, it should stand trail the same way every other drug did. On principle, we need to look at it and decide if it really is doing enough harm to warrant it being removed. To ignore the effects of love just because we have never known life without it is being a tad hypocritical.
Some might argue that love is essential to reproduction and it evolved in us for a reason. I have said before that our physical evolution is taking place at a much slower rate than our changes in cultural ideas. I think that the same idea works her as well. When we were driven by primordial urges, and listened solely to instinct, love was essential to the continuation of the human race. But it isn't now, and the legacy of our past could very well be a burden.
Then of course comes the question of whether it can be done or not. Can we stop people from falling in love? For now, no. But our understanding of human brain and how it connects to all the aspects of life that makes us human is expanding rapidly. At some point, someone will find a way to put a roadblock on one of the processes that are involved in falling in love. As it is, we can turn promiscuous rats into doting fathers with one injection. And we can turn the most faithful species into uber playboys with the opposing drug. I think its no longer a question of if, but a question of when.
Okay, premise set. There is a problem, and there might be a solution. Should we do it? In my opinion, no. Most people will agree with me at this point I suspect, but for different reasons. I cannot accept 'We cannot ban love because we just can't do something like that. I mean do you have any idea what you are doing? We're talking about love here!' as a valid argument against the banning of love, although I'm sorely tempted to. I'm sure that kind of an emotional appeal would work nowadays, because the idea really is quite unthinkable. But humans change their minds really fast. Things that were unthinkable 50 years ago are quite commonplace now. Banning slavery was an insanity not too long ago. Now people who enslave are prosecuted and thrown into jail. A society in the future that sits down and has a serious discussion about the relevance of love to humanity is not really that far fetched an idea if you ask me.
But I am not too fond of the idea of messing with something like human reproduction. Of course the option of voluntarily blocking off love for yourself will always be open, but to treat it like cocaine could be dangerous. Science has screwed up before, and while that may not be a good excuse to stop applying the findings of science, this is too big a risk to take. Only absolute certainty is acceptable, and there can be no absolute certainty.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
TEEN Choice award
Thats right. Hugh Laurie is Fox TV's teen choice for best actor. Quite and achievement, really considering he had the likes of Jared Padalecki (the dude from Supernatural), Milo Ventimiglia (the pussy power stealing dude in Heroes) and Wentworth Miller (bald, genius civil engineer from Prison break). Its weird just seeing his name up there.
The article that informed me of this postulated that House's rebellious nature has something to do with the win. Teens relate to him. I guess I do too.
I always wondered why I liked the show so much. Was it because of all the clever lines? Was it House's atheistism and cutting remarks towards the religious? Or is it really because he is such a rebel?
I think its a combination. I am a bit of a rebel, my disregard for authority having caused other people grief at some point or another. But I have always differentiated my rebellion form the typical teen's rebellion, partly because my personal growth seems to have happened in reverse. I'm mostly now trying to grow down (if that terms actually exists), but that idea has been visited many times before.
We can't dismiss the role of the script either when it comes to deciding what makes me watch the show. I love watching Top Gear, but Fifth Gear bores me to sleep. Both shows are about cars, so we can quite safely say that it isn't a passion for motoring that keeps me watching the show. I love it when Jeremy, Richard or James takes on an American car, because then I can expect the usual witty but incredibly scathing reviews. For some reason, singing the praises for a car isn't quite as funny as insulting the crap out of it. And their lines stay with me. Apparently, the most memorable part of my Oh My God rant was the burning my nipples off bit. Well that line came straight out of Jeremy's mouth.
Whatever it is, David Shore has done me a great service. And for his portrayal of House, Hugh deserves every award he gets.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Women effective communicators?
Are they? Its a widely accepted fact that men and women communicate differently. Any dumbass with half a brain will be able to notice that. I acknowledge that fact, but its the opinion that women are better at communicating that I cannot agree with. I recently came across a theory about the difference in methods, and how it came about.
Women don't like putting anything across bluntly as a general rule, and apparently, that has roots in the whole hunter gatherer ancestry that we all are supposed to have. Women are traditionally the one that organizes the household, and her role is to minimize conflict. As such, she communicates indirectly, in an attempt to avoid such conflict. Its a trait that we call 'tact' in modern society. They say one thing, but mean another. Never state something for what it is. This difference in styles is the legacy of our ancestors, much like the example of why gullibility is good for the human race. (see earlier post)
Because women are the ones that developed this kind of communication, they are also the ones that are better at deciphering it. And so, since women can pick up more subtle cues in a conversation, it means that they are better communicators. Or at least that is how the argument that I have heard goes.
But like so many other traits that humans have, some are becoming increasingly outdated. I admit that tact is still very important, but there are situations in which double speak is more of a nuisance. Like in a boardroom meeting. Or in the army. Or a couple making a decision that could change their lives forever. The problem is not that double speak exists, its that it cannot be turned off. Double speak is a trade off. You sacrifice some accuracy to reduce the threat that you generate while speaking. When a bunch of directors sit down and try to decide on something, there is no room for error. Misinterpretation is deadly. If double speaking is instinctive and done without realization, then screw ups are inevitable.
Admittedly, good female communicators know when they can use double speak and when they can't. Along the same lines, good male communicators know how to pick up unsaid cues.
Its a very simplistic way of seeing the whole situation, but when such a situation arises, I tend to look at the bigger picture. For the greater good of everyone, would we rather have more direct information exchanges, or diplomatically safe exchanges? For me, its an easy conclusion. Whenever possible, state your idea for what it is. Don't beat around the bush. And stop looking at blunt comments as a direct attack at you. The world is changing. And your genetic code isn't changing fast enough to keep pace. Realizing this is the first step.
Women don't like putting anything across bluntly as a general rule, and apparently, that has roots in the whole hunter gatherer ancestry that we all are supposed to have. Women are traditionally the one that organizes the household, and her role is to minimize conflict. As such, she communicates indirectly, in an attempt to avoid such conflict. Its a trait that we call 'tact' in modern society. They say one thing, but mean another. Never state something for what it is. This difference in styles is the legacy of our ancestors, much like the example of why gullibility is good for the human race. (see earlier post)
Because women are the ones that developed this kind of communication, they are also the ones that are better at deciphering it. And so, since women can pick up more subtle cues in a conversation, it means that they are better communicators. Or at least that is how the argument that I have heard goes.
But like so many other traits that humans have, some are becoming increasingly outdated. I admit that tact is still very important, but there are situations in which double speak is more of a nuisance. Like in a boardroom meeting. Or in the army. Or a couple making a decision that could change their lives forever. The problem is not that double speak exists, its that it cannot be turned off. Double speak is a trade off. You sacrifice some accuracy to reduce the threat that you generate while speaking. When a bunch of directors sit down and try to decide on something, there is no room for error. Misinterpretation is deadly. If double speaking is instinctive and done without realization, then screw ups are inevitable.
Admittedly, good female communicators know when they can use double speak and when they can't. Along the same lines, good male communicators know how to pick up unsaid cues.
Its a very simplistic way of seeing the whole situation, but when such a situation arises, I tend to look at the bigger picture. For the greater good of everyone, would we rather have more direct information exchanges, or diplomatically safe exchanges? For me, its an easy conclusion. Whenever possible, state your idea for what it is. Don't beat around the bush. And stop looking at blunt comments as a direct attack at you. The world is changing. And your genetic code isn't changing fast enough to keep pace. Realizing this is the first step.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
An article on media censorship and racial relations
This article was sent to me by a friend. I realize that posting it here really is preaching to the choir, but its still a pretty good read.
http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/reports.php?itemid=5390
http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/reports.php?itemid=5390
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Call me a bitch.
Interestingly enough, this article appeared not long after I saw the book "Are men really necessary". Written by Kate Figes, the article takes a look at how strong, independent women who are not afraid of giving their opinions are considered bitches.
I liked the article, and I think that she is mostly right. As much progress as we have made, women are still expected to be the docile types. I honestly do not think that its the brashness or the opinions that make men (and women alike) label these loud women bitches. Its only when they feel threatened that it happens. Women can say anything and have nothing negative happen to them, as long as they are wrong. But the moment they are right, they start to threaten people who are already very comfortable in their positions, and that will quite easily spark name calling. Its not being sexist. Its survival instinct.
Its not to say that calling talented women bitches can be justified in anyway. I would echo the author's call to continue being outspoken in a heartbeat. Too often, are people who speak their mind considered 'nasty' or 'not nice'. I should know. What I do find interesting is that the author makes a distinction between a good bitch and a bad one. The bad bitch is the manipulative, self serving individuals that tear others down so that they can feel good. The good one speaks her mind and stands up for herself. I don't, however see any link between the two kinds of bitches. Both are described with the same word, but are mutually exclusive. The author says that women have no guidance to change from a weak and bad bitch into a strong and good one. I disagree. There is no transition. A woman can be both, and can be neither. Both those types of characters inspired some kind of anger. It really is no surprise that both are called the same thing. The word bitch is used out of hate, much like the word fuck. And the word fuck is now used to describe so many things, its confusing. But most people who use the word are not referring to sex, although technically, thats what fuck points at.
And then there is the bit that says 'real women are loud, brave and outspoken'. Bullshit. Real women are no more loud, brave and outspoken than real men are muscular, chivalrous and well hung. Being loud is something that some people are. Some people are just less eager to express opinions. That doesn't make them any less masculine or feminine than other people.
I liked the article, and I think that she is mostly right. As much progress as we have made, women are still expected to be the docile types. I honestly do not think that its the brashness or the opinions that make men (and women alike) label these loud women bitches. Its only when they feel threatened that it happens. Women can say anything and have nothing negative happen to them, as long as they are wrong. But the moment they are right, they start to threaten people who are already very comfortable in their positions, and that will quite easily spark name calling. Its not being sexist. Its survival instinct.
Its not to say that calling talented women bitches can be justified in anyway. I would echo the author's call to continue being outspoken in a heartbeat. Too often, are people who speak their mind considered 'nasty' or 'not nice'. I should know. What I do find interesting is that the author makes a distinction between a good bitch and a bad one. The bad bitch is the manipulative, self serving individuals that tear others down so that they can feel good. The good one speaks her mind and stands up for herself. I don't, however see any link between the two kinds of bitches. Both are described with the same word, but are mutually exclusive. The author says that women have no guidance to change from a weak and bad bitch into a strong and good one. I disagree. There is no transition. A woman can be both, and can be neither. Both those types of characters inspired some kind of anger. It really is no surprise that both are called the same thing. The word bitch is used out of hate, much like the word fuck. And the word fuck is now used to describe so many things, its confusing. But most people who use the word are not referring to sex, although technically, thats what fuck points at.
And then there is the bit that says 'real women are loud, brave and outspoken'. Bullshit. Real women are no more loud, brave and outspoken than real men are muscular, chivalrous and well hung. Being loud is something that some people are. Some people are just less eager to express opinions. That doesn't make them any less masculine or feminine than other people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)