Appeasing The Living

If one is willing to think about it, the reality of performing the rites for the dead are often to appease the living, not the dead. Considering the relatively low rates of unrested spirits arising from having the improper (or no) last rites, it does seem that the dead are relatively unaffected by rites for the dead.

The living, however, do seem to be far more restive when it comes to these rites. The remarkable number of unrested spirits amongst the living for having the wrong (according to their views) rites performed will be quite indicative of the terrible effect these things can have on the living.

Of course, it is known that, psychologically, these rites are really ways for the living to cope with the passing of loved ones. Presumably loved ones, since I don't think most people really care exactly how the stranger living two blocks down is about to be greased for the afterlife.

Democrats? Republicans?

I was reading an article on a psychology magazine about the shift people have towards conservatism in the face of threat. Of course, countries are seldom constantly under threat. Wherein lies the bent towards conservatism?

Naturally, there will always be a mix of conservatives and liberals. It's just the way human diversity works. Some prefer to allow more fluidity in their decision making, others prefer comfortable rules. Nothing wrong with either. The bite comes when a country is in turmoil for some reason, and the people are looking out for a strong leader. If thousands of citizens are dead, the last thing they want to hear is someone saying...well...we should take a balanced view of this, and not be hasty. Not be hasty? Blasphemy! What we need right now is a retaliatory strike against the perpetrators! The first would likely be viewed as a poor leader, or at least a coward. The second would be seen as a strong leader, however ill-advised the move may be. Indeed, it does seem that times of crisis will cause a conservative bent.

However, troubles come when artificial crisis conditions are maintained to maintain support for conservatives. I think that is highly unethical. Who would admit to doing this, anyway? More importantly, need politicians be aware that they are attempting to do this to artificially garner support, or are all things fair in love, war and politics?

Censorship

When one thinks of movie censorship, one is wont to consider stodgy old men enforcing their horribly outdated beliefs upon the unsuspecting populace. By some quirk, they found themselves in a position to impose their ideologies, often to the chagrin to movie-goers like myself. In fact, I find it quite unethical to make me pay good money for a film, only to have a part of it cut out by the censorship board. Shouldn't I be reimbursed for the parts they didn't want me to see? Yeah...when I watch a movie without paying for it, it's theft. When they cut my movie while asking me to pay full price for it...hey that's the law.

Then again, most censors can only clip off some minutes from what would have been a say 1 1/2hr show. Arguably, those could be key parts and may even be highly amusing situations. All this pales in comparison to what directors do to get the film out to the silver screen. I'll bet they had to distill many many hours of footage to get to roughly the parts that they want the audience to see. (I'd be bored if I had to go through all that, so I'm actually grateful for it) And then they clip the few remaining hours yet further to satisfy the relative short attention spans of modern viewers. What we have as a result is a really trimmed piece of work.

Yes, the directors do indeed hack off far more than a film censor ever could. Of course, the censor could simply ban a particularly disturbing film. Me...I say keep a film intact (up the rating if necessary), or ban it. Clipping is just...blah.

Deindividuation?

It's amusing how the internet can serve as an equalizing force, diluting the perceived authority of people. What I found so far is that the moves people make online are more daring than they would when in person. Like, say, interaction with an important person. People are never intrinsically important. Their importance is a construct, granted by the will of the people around them for various reasons. I think it good that there is something out there that will help reduce that perceived authority, allowing them to be viewed by their own merit rather than some aura that may not exist out of the context of their station.

I especially like it that online communications make people more self-reflective. In trying to clarify their statements online, they are less likely to blurt out things that they otherwise would in person. More importantly, a written record exists of their statements, so they are unable to wheedle their way out of what they said on site.

Of course, all this is contingent on the captive audience. Should they be unwilling or unable to pay full attention to the exchanges, it is very easy for participants to get lost in conversation. Worse yet, deindividuation may lead to less than acceptable communication patterns...

Slaves To Laws

People who can only be disciplined by enforcement are little more than slaves. Obey my laws, or be whipped! It is an aspect of a free people, that they can learn to live with one another without the whip hanging over their heads. Of course, there are always penalties for flouting those laws. However, people who are free in the sense that they are not constrained by the laws but follow them freely are acting not because they fear penalties, but truly feel that the laws are right.

Yet it is unfortunate that people seem to bind themselves with the shackles of slavery in other forms. In the process of keeping their minds from law-breaking activities, they chain themselves with other things.

National Wholeness

Countries are generally pretty big nowadays. The national borders literally extend from the sight of one horizon and beyond. What does this achieve, however? Why do nations stay together? It is certainly not for the sake of efficiency. Understandably, smaller countries are easier to manage and can have greater efficiency of land use. They have fewer problems handling the diverse minorities that may become dissatisfied. Overall, it is often in the favor of a country to stay small.

Yet it seems that the expression of dominance over others is a very important theme in defining a nation. There are many examples of minorities wanting to break free, yet are violently prevented from doing so. Clearly, the nations fear that if they allowed one minority independence, the country would break up into its constituent dissatisfied minorities. Nice to stay together, except this seems to indicate that many countries are held together artificially, often with the threat of swift violence.

Perhaps it is exploitation, that nobody wants to surrender scarce resources. The gold mine is in the southern part of my land, and no way will I let minorities cede the area. Obviously, they are going to keep the gold for themselves, then they will come and dominate me. In the constant war of dominance and greed, there can be no efficiency. Ultimately, should the entire world come under a single leadership, they would still be little different from small independent states dealing with one another. Alternatively, a global hegemon may well have access to the sole military means to punish any detractors. Perhaps that is the miniature version we see in this day, the national hegemon that refuses to give any quarter...

Identity

Egoism is a trait often frowned upon by polite society. Humans are social creatures to the extent that even their identities are often created in relation to their chosen heroes. These heroes may be musicians, national leaders, religious figures. You name it. They'd follow it. Even in the formative teenage years, there is often a drive to become a part of something. Pacts are made between individuals. The emphasis here is on the group.

I wonder, though, since this all seems rather bizarre to me. Targets are set, like say this kid wants to grow up to be as great as Spiderman. Unrealistic, perhaps, but an ambition nonetheless. I guess I am rather more egoistic. Identity for me is something I'd draw from myself, not other people. Should my ambition be to strive for greatness, it will not be to be as great as Spiderman, but greater than myself. It will be an endless quest for refinement whereby the pinnacle of achievement shall only be acknowledged when I am satisfied by it.

This may sound strange or even unacceptable by those more socially-inclined. Still, I figure it better to refine oneself as an individual before one can contribute to a group. It sure beats diddling as a faceless member of the masses, feeling the false sense of wholeness through following everything else. Worse yet, that individual may become a leech, reliant on the shine of the masses and unwilling to improve oneself to contribute to that chosen group. If that isn't egoistic selfishness, I don't know what is.

Get Smart

Get Smart is a seriously funny show. It really is. I fear I am greatly in favor of shows that display non-crude slapstick humor. Anyway, yes, I do think Get Smart was good. heh.

One would never have thought that a spy agency thwarting a nucular strike would be this much fun. Here, we have a bumbling agent being let into the position he's been yearning for...for like pretty much all his professional existence. Pairs up with this seriously hot veteran agent, and wind up being a grand dynamic duo to prevent a nucular disaster by a nasty terrorist organization.

It's nice, how they reflected the jock/geek rivalry even in the agency. It's even better how they contrasted the academic prowess of dear Smart with the practical experience of Agent 99. Naturally, I'd be rooting for the academic =p And 99's hawwtness. Unfortunately, I am hardly well positioned to evaluate this show in relation to the 1965 series.

Overall I'd say this was a barrel of laughs, and I appreciate that even the jokes laced with innuendo were far from standard potty humor. That really made my day, alongside the spoofs of James Bond'esque gadgetry. I'd say...7.5/10?

Laws And People

There are times when I wonder at the laws. In a democracy, people elect their representatives. In any society, the laws are designed by the peoples' representatives to protect the peoples' interests. Therein lies a conflict of interest. The representatives may not necessarily know what the people truly want. As for the people, what they want may not necessarily be in their best interests.

Who watches the watchman, then? What is there to keep the representatives from deliberately creating laws in their own interests rather than that of the people? Yet it is clear that, however well-written a law can be, it's enforcement is really up to the will of the people. Even in the places where there are laws against discrimination, minority races still face difficulties finding jobs.
If there is a bias against the minorities, there is precious little that legislators can do.

Sex And The City

Some say it's the classic chick flick. This is a show devoid of your average Hollywood guns and violence. Me? I would agree. Unfortunately, I did not watch the Sex and the City series just yet, so I regret that many of the references will be lost on me. What fascinated me about the show, however, was the reverse product placements. Usually, product placements are done in a favourable light. In this case, an iPhone and a particular book were discarded offhand. I especially liked that.

Apart from the amusing small things, I was somewhat disappointed to find that the story was overly dramatized. I mean, sure, Carrie and Big may have some issues. However, the way they were put on an emotional roller-coaster just seemed to stretch the limits of the suspension of disbelief. To avoid providing spoilers, all I can say is that it was nearly as unbelievable as the overblown situations in Desperate Housewives.

Also, the happy ending was really quite cliched. In fact, I wouldn't say that the story as a whole was particularly original at all. I guess the real issue is that I did not feel like I learned any life lessons from the show. In a good chick flick, I've come to expect some deeper meaning than a dramatization over the theme of love. For that...I guess the show gets 7/10.

Odin

I saw a cat today. This cat I will remember for a long time. The cat had a single eye. His right eye was missing. In its place was an empty socket that was still weeping. Clearly, the cat had been attacked or abused. On closer inspection, the lack of injuries on the rest of the cat led me to believe it was abuse...by a human. The cat gave me a forlorn look, as if asking me what I was looking at. Well, for that I named him Odin. Odin, too, had a missing right eye, which he sacrificed for the sake of knowledge. Like Odin, he did strike me as a sort of trickster, and yeah, it was that look. I'll never forget that look.

The Fallen Hood

There was the most horrendous noise last night. It started off sounding like something snapping, twice, followed by an almighty crash. Naturally, the din woke the entire household. Mom was worrying that dad fell (a tad loud, even for him), I was grumpy at being awoken and dad just had to check it out. It turns out that our cooker hood had fallen.

Now, apart from the fact that it was pretty darned fortunate that nobody was hurt in the incident apart from the safety glass wok cover, I was musing at the cause of the mishap. Dad pointed out that the whole heavy rig was supported by two nails. Now that's some significant weight being put on two thin pieces of steel. By the looks of them, I wager they rusted through, causing the material to give way. Shoddy workmanship, undoubtedly. Nearly as bad as having a security keypad secured to the wall with double sided tape.

I did pity the wok cover, though. It was an innocent caught in the incident, and was sacrificed as a result. What I really liked was the sound of the safety glass still cracking and falling bit by bit, since the trauma was so recent. Thankfully, there were no dangerous glass shards left lying around. That would be quite unacceptable in a kitchen. Anyway, shoddy workmanship? Just say no, bub.

Conservatives

Conservatives can have the darnedest policies. I was reading about an anti-HIV campaign. Don't get me wrong, 'coz I think these are worthy efforts that will save lots of lives and prevent unnecessary suffering. However, despite their knowledge of the reality of HIV infections within the drug-user and gay communities, the authorities decided to leave the gays out of it.

Now, I understand that their national policies are probably against gays and all that, but why would a government deny their own people education in such a critical area? And that's especially since it's a high risk community that may spread disease beyond itself if the problem was allowed to go unchecked? In a situation like that, I think the people would be quite pissed that they are exposed to the risk of contracting a known fatal infection due to the inaction of their conservative leaders.

Egalitarian Ideologies

Until recently, it was probably impractical for egalitarian ideologies to be effected in most societies. Take for example the issue of equality of women. In the days of feudalism, a society where a woman was treated equal to a man (and thereby being made to do things like engage in warfare) would probably result in the society being whittled down and destroyed in an environment of total war. After all, keeping the population up is the name of the game in ancient feudal warfare, and that is something egalitarian societies may not be proficient at.

Later on, the advent of more advanced societies may have had the potential for increasing egalitarianism. This was not to be, unfortunately, given the relative efficiency of division of labour. Men specializing in "men's work" (whatever that is) and vice versa would probably have resulted in a society where people knew what they were meant to do, and could do it regularly, predictably and with minimal fuss. All this came before mass media, however, and doctrine was still a good way to ensure that things worked.

Today, we have the mass media. We have women being perfectly capable of performing men's work and vice versa. Why? The advent of machines should have taken the burden of physical labour from people in industrialized societies. With machines doing the work of dozens of men, there is no excuse for physical strength determining efficacy. With most work (and warfare) being done at the touch of a button(s), there is actually an advantage women have over men: superior fine manual dexterity and greater stamina. With the advent of formula milk, men can even take over some (if not all) nursing duties. So...with all of this, is it not intellectual laziness that women not learn to be competitive, and men not learn to be nurturing?

Crying Boredom

Everyone gets bored. That's perfectly normal. Even I get bored when being made to do repetitive things that don't seem to get anywhere. However, there is a chance that some are using boredom as an expression of control over their feelings of helplessness. After all, it is so simple to say that (insert issue) bores me. Nobody would really question it.

When one looks deeper, though, it may be found that those who claim boredom are really feeling completely helpless about an issue. Some may find that no amount of mulling over an issue will change anything, therefore the issue bores them (even if it affects them directly). It is perhaps this attitude that prevents the emergence of activism where it counts the most. While it is true that, as individuals, we are unlikely to be able to single-handedly reverse an issue, there is also a chance that large numbers of individuals will effect change.

This is not to say that a citizen group would magically cause global warming to go away, for instance. They probably cannot. But if they start influencing others and raising awareness, there is still a chance that their views will have more of an impact. After all, governments are merely human groups who have somehow managed to secure the support of the populace. People should stop feeling so disempowered, especially considering they are people no different from their respective governing authorities.

Kungfu Panda

It is a rare occasion when I watch a movie from beginning to end, through the end credits and to the snippet at the end, and still feel that it was totally worth my time. This is a show chock full of meaning, if one has the patience and inclination to go understand it. I am fairly amazed that Dreamworks managed to squeeze a zero body count (apart from the dream sequence) into a humorous story that can really get one thinking.

There’s something so unique about the show that I must comment about it: The screen never blacked out during the credits. The entire credits sequence had proper artwork for background. Now that’s pretty unique, considering even other animations often simply present the audience with a blank screen covered in credits.

That aside, I’d call this a coming of age story, whereby our intrepid panda decides to better himself and truly find out what his life is about. It was a nice touch that he defeated the ultra-violent snow leopard with largely nonviolent maneuvers. There are other themes like ascension, self-reflexivity, destiny and the ability to see beyond the surface.

I also loved the epic fight sequences, along with the equally epic but hilarious food duel. The production team sure knew how to get their drama down pat, well-laced with humor. The character development was well paced, and epiphanies strategically located.

Overall, I would give this animation a rare 9/10. I could’ve pushed for a 9.5, but unfortunately, even the well-implemented life lessons were quite typical. It can turn out to be a rather trite fable, if one is really used to this kinda stuff.

Tai Lung: A Reflection

Of the characters in the show, I certainly did not relate to the protagonist. I guess I come from the opposite side of the spectrum. Indeed, I am probably more like Tai Lung. That is, my constant quest for personal power. And what I am apt to do when things don’t go my way.

The truth being that I am quite a destroyer. In fact, it’s often that I’m proud of it. I suppose that would be a cause for worry, what I do when I reach the peak of my power. Currently, if someone offered me an opportunity to wipe everything from the face of the earth, I would. I guess it’s something like building up this huge store of knowledge, then dying with it. It benefits no one.

Sometimes I do want to be more caring, but it is a difficult thing for me. While I know at an intellectual level that hatred and destructiveness is a sign of weakness, at a certain visceral level I cannot help but feel that they are marks of strength. Independence. Power. It takes great strength to be forgiving and constructive, and by that logic I am brimming over with weakness. I can easily say that I am aware of this and shall think it over, but that would be skirting the issue. What I really need is a constant reminder on a moment by moment basis…

Cloverfield

Cloverfield is an American version of Godzilla. I mean, it's the same formula. Big, badassed monster storms into the city, thrashes the place and all that. Of course, they just had to toss in the obligatory offspring of the monster, along with the suggestion that the offspring somehow infest humans.

The show's pacing seems to have left something to be desired. I felt the show was leaving too many loose ends while dragging out the intro longer than it should have been. It would be better to simply cut the intro some and tie up some of the loose ends, like why the creature was spawning, why it was indestructible and what its offspring was doing.

Overall, this show turned out to be something of a drawn out survival horror flick. Being threatened by a huge monster and its offspring is something, but having that drawn out horror seemingly without any progress tends to get old pretty quickly. I suppose it could get 6.5/10 from me. Primarily because of what happens in the end.

Pass It On

Knowledge is a very useful thing. Learn enough, and one will be able to tackle a myriad problems and be savvy about many other things. There can probably never be enough learning, just as the fount of knowledge runs eternal.

However, it must also be noted that knowledge is worthless if it is not passed on. Information is meant to be free, and knowledge should be spread around for the betterment of others. Otherwise, what is known will die with the bearer. That feels selfish somehow. All that knowledge gone to waste. Therefore, it is far better to pass that knowledge on that it may grow and improve the lives of everyone else. Or it could destroy all of humanity. Don't really care which it is =p

Shallow Relationships

As people age, it seems that the friendships they establish become increasingly shallow. And this comes at a time when they self-profess to feel that friendships are important. When I was in high school, friendships had a way of lingering. Friends from that time period seldom forgot me, and would keep in touch. As I progressed through life, I found the kids at college could possibly click when working together on school stuff. It almost seemed like we had a good thing going. And then, shortly after the project was completed, they would communicate only as a courtesy and go no further. It is a strange thing. Extrapolate that to the reports I'm getting from friends fully in the work force, and it seems quite apparent that the quality of friendships are steadily going downhill.

It seems like hypocrisy, especially since there's always talk about how friendships are more important later in life, and that colleagues should be made friends and all that. From empirical evidence, I think it looks far more like it's important to stick to the friends you already have, and try your best to build the best possible friendships with the few who are still open to the idea. It gets trickier from here, since those acting really friendly may still be inclined to desert at the slightest sign of trouble. My friend is plagued by such problematic characters. Truly, with friends like these, who needs enemies? Oh wait...they do double duty.

While this may sound all bleak and defeatist, it does seem to be quite the case. Maybe with time I'll learn otherwise and I'll be glad that things are better than they seemed. What I do know for sure is that the people are getting increasingly guarded. I do not understand why it is so hard for people to open their hearts and be truly honest as far as they can. It's a good bit of catharsis, and I do not think being willing to open up is a sign of weakness. Of course, thank goodness I still have someone out there (along with a solid circle of some ones), and perhaps that will be enough to hold the fort.

Indie Jones

Another late night show. Walked home from the cinema with my friend...again. Man this is becoming a sweet sweet habit.

It's been such a long time since I watched an Indiana Jones flick that I've largely forgotten the characters apart from Indie and his dad. Sad, huh. Anyway, watching this show really requires you to check your sense of realism at the door. There's something known as willing suspension of disbelief, but I think this Indie took things a wee bit far.

I mean...surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge? Weird magnetism? I don't know about others, but I find it's a stretch even for my rather liberal interpretation of this current reality.

Anyway, I can't say that I didn't enjoy the film. Undoubtedly, the film retains some of the old Indiana Jones flavour, with the chase sequences and close shaves. It also follows the formula, involving some weird ancient artifact (spoiler: That, unfortunately, turned out to be not quite so rare). I still think that big UFO was a library ship.

Special effects and humorous quips aside, I think Indiana Jones is following a tired formula. The ending is utterly predictable given the roles of the different characters. The villain always gets
killed. The hero is always at the brink of disaster. For some inexplicable reason the baddies always get to the location before the hero can, or they manage to secure the area so the hero can't escape. So overall I'd give this show 6.5/10. I think that's a bit high, but then again I'm highly tolerant of breaches of reality. Reality is relative, after all.