Knowing People

I am constantly disturbed at how readily my parents would rely on first impressions to get their measure of people. That is, they're quite happy to have one look at the person and his/her conduct, then decide whether they want to get to know the person better or whether to be friends and such.

The problem here is that they're essentially allowing confirmation bias to rule their heuristic. Say you decide that someone's bad, so you look out for bad things and refuse to get to know the person better. In all probability, even rather excellent specimens of humanity would be prone to making highly visible mistakes from time to time. Should one be looking out for those same defects, one would feel justified in concluding that the said people were just...bad.

Then again, my method is probably not quite suited to what most are used to. It may even be deemed to be socially naive. However, I stand by my belief that people should be given a chance, and that it takes months to truly have an estimate of someone's measure. So even if someone gives me a seriously bad gut reaction, I'd be wary but not dismiss the person offhand. There can be treasure in junk, after all. Of course, if it is proven that the person means me harm, or has no intention whatsoever of being friendly, I think there's no shame in admitting that someone's just not friend material. At the very least, though, try to avoid dismissing anyone offhand.

I Hate Authority

I hate human authority. I do so with pride and a vengeance. The way things stand, authority, especially in the modern densely populated countries, is synonymous with bureaucracy. Perhaps it is bureaucratic authority that I abhor, but then again I am skeptical of authority in general. Authority is synonymous with power, and power corrupts. Concentrate power within a small circle of people (relative to the general population) and what you have is a disaster.

Why? People don't care. They really don't. In fact, it seems to be in the nature of humans not to care, regardless whether they are gen pop or in seats of power. That is why it is dangerous to invest any human with too much power over others. Thus, guidelines are needed to let people know what they should, shouldn't, can or can't do. So, what happens when someone needs something done? Refer to the guidelines.

Guidelines are rigid, and often poorly written. They mostly have no provisions for gray areas, despite how often those things may arise. Besides, it's a great excuse for the lower ranking bureaucrats to thump their rulebooks and say that things cannot be done. It almost sounds like a bad church, where the priest/pastor thumps the divine rulebook to a completely accepting population. What happens, then? Why would I hate authority? Because despite all its inefficiency, it is probably still a necessary evil, and I still don't like what it does to people even out of necessity.

WWIII?

Given the global situation, I sometimes wonder whether we are looking at a looming WWIII. And I'm not referring to just the current recession, which is undoubtedly a contributor to population pressures. However, while there may be a buildup to another global war, it still takes a trigger to set everything off so it may yet be averted no matter how gloomy the situation gets.

Besides the population pressures from a global recession, there are the international tensions that seem to be building up here and there. Tensions in the Middle East (Iran, Israel, Iraq, Palestine), Russia's aggressiveness against Georgia, the shift in power between China and the USA, political unrest in some parts of Southeast Asia, India and Pakistan's constant rivalry can all become contributing factors to a global war when allies are drawn into a conflict.

While there is a low probability of a war right in the middle of this particular recession (assuming it doesn't develop into a Depression), there is also the matter of Obama apparently trying to appease all sides at once. From a humanitarian standpoint, that is a highly desirable thing, and sure beats unpleasant favoritism whereby people are made to suffer at the whims of someone who doesn't agree with them. Historically, however, it is often these peacekeepers who ironically wind up supporting certain undesirable elements by not clamping down hard on them. Hopefully, the peaceable stance they're taking at the moment will rub off on the others, otherwise this could just be the beginning of a buildup towards WWIII.

Time Travel

Time travel in science fiction books has always seemed to be impossible, or incredibly delicate by virtue that the Butterfly Effect of causing a small change in the past could totally overhaul the future. This stems from the assumption that the timestream is a collective feature, and therefore everyone is affected by time all at once. Moreover, it is linear, so it becomes impossible for one to go into the past to kill one's father.

Theoretically, if timestreams were individual rather than collective, it is possible for the current reality to remain unaltered if one went back and did things that could incorporate themselves into one's past. For example, the inventor of time travel could go back in time to tell herself about how time travel works, and it was the basis of this self-informing that led to the creation of time travel itself. It may sound convoluted and contradictory, but it really just involves creating an individual time loop, where everything fits neatly into the past.

Also, this opens the possibility of a hero learning how to time travel, die in the past, get resurrected in the future and still not affect the hero's original reality. That's because the hero already lived through the entire timeframe, learned to time travel, went back to the past, died (probably without affecting other timestreams) and was somehow resurrected, then traveled to the future.

The Lot In Life

It seems that many believe in the concept of having a "lot" in life. By lot meaning they're somewhat bound to have a sort of social status, for example, and will never transcend that level no matter how hard they try. Well I say hogwash. Of course they never would, if they never tried, since they already figured it was hopeless to begin with! Quite the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sometimes I think the regulation of self-esteem, and concept of a lot in life are methods of social control designed specifically to convince people that they should not aspire to advance far beyond their assigned station in life. If true, it is a well-established method to maintain social order by artificially encouraging the stagnation of the lower social classes.

Either way, the belief is unacceptable, since it not only prevents people from becoming the best that they can be, but also stunts the growths of societies that hold this mistaken belief. There is no limit to what people can achieve when they set their minds to it, and failure is an acceptable outcome when even one's best efforts prove insufficient. Still, one will never know the possibilities open to oneself without first trying, and if one first fails, one will not know future success if one does not get up and try yet again.

Friends

Friends. It is a frightening word. The very concept is disturbing because being a friend is a commitment that is not to be taken lightly. Yet just about everyone bandies the term at the drop of a hat, with no concern for what friendship truly means. This is creating a great mass of meaningless links, and the very dangerous illusion of social happiness.

There are different grades of friend, ranging from an acquaintance to a chatty buddy to someone who would go through hell itself with the one they befriended. The last one is of the highest quality, and exceedingly rare. Realistically, most friends will never be like that. However, the minimum standard I would hold a friend to is the willingness to hang on even when one is faced with difficulties.

It is easier conceptualized than realized, seeing as most are still dominated by their sense of self-preservation, and that is further bolstered by the self-interest that is common in modern society. Chances are, many "friends" will fade into the woodwork at the whiff of trouble, and are less than hesitant to truly risk some of their happiness to preserve their ally. With friends like those, who needs enemies? It's no wonder that it's advocated that people make friends with everyone: They're going to get stabbed in the back anyway, so they might as well be socially appealing before their downfall.

The Couple

The belief that a couple is the sum of two halves is rather misleading, whatever the intentions of whoever it was that created the concept. In fact, it is dangerous, when two incomplete individuals enter a relationship, expecting the other to make up for the shortcomings of the other. Perhaps that is why so many break up, if they were indeed built on such faulty foundations.

I think maturity is important for both people, and by my measure that means both will have to be fully realized individuals, or at least mostly fully realized. By being thus, both should have relative security in who they are, and at least the awareness and willpower to manage the insecurities that arise. Thus, the couple is not a sum of two halves, but the union of two wholes that turns out to be greater than the sum.

High standards, perhaps. However, people charging in with an eagerness to experience a sort of completion through forming a relationship are mostly doomed to failure. Perhaps it is possible by luck, but luck can only go so far. It is not the relationship that completes, but the ability of both parties to shore up one another during the down periods, and the maturity to manage disagreements without harboring insecurities they are unaware of. To me, that is the essence of an enduring couple, and the way they can get on in life strengthening one another without either becoming a drag in the long term.

With A Wide

The wide angle lens is perhaps my most neglected glass so far. Frankly, I've never really found a good reason to use it to get everything into a shot. In fact, that turned out to be one of the worst ever ideas I've had since everything basically got clumped into an amorphous blob that made little sense and had virtually no holding power.

And then I rediscovered the principle of getting closer. Most of the time, that's something I would only do with a macro lens. However, experimenting with that on a wide produced rather good results. In fact, the principle applied pretty well since getting close to a large building was very much similar to doing so with a smaller object with a macro lens.

After which, I also rediscovered the use of a polarizer, which significantly added to the vibrancy of the colors in the shots. The polarizer is probably one of the filters that has an effect which is quite impossible to replicate reliably in post processing. Anyhoo...this is a reminder to think globally, and experiment moar. MOAR!

Rational Correctness

Rationality seems to be popularly confused with correctness. While, undoubtedly, rational thoughts can be correct, not all rational choices are necessarily correct. In fact, one can be perfectly rational and completely wrong at the same time.

The problem seems to come from the assumption that people cannot be perfectly rational without access to perfect information. This seems rather unusual, seeing as the level of information should have little bearing on the procedure of a thought process, though it will undoubtedly affect the content and outcome.

This leads to the matter of choice, where choices are often seen as "bad" on hindsight, quite invariably due to the unavailability of information at the time of that decision. Still, chances are that the choice made at the time was due to a cost-benefit analysis at the point of time, and was really quite rational in nature. Unfortunately, it proved non-beneficial when the alternative turned out to be far better...

On Superstition

It seems that superstition is not merely a factor of human irrationality, though a large proportion of it is. Superstition appears to be primarily a result of the human inability to intuitively comprehend probabilities, problems separating causality from correlation and the human ability to learn from experience.

The curious result of this is the learning that particular actions cause low probability events to happen. Say for example the waving of a tree branch was quickly followed by rainfall during a drought. Waving it again at a time in the future caused similar rainfall in a drought. Sold! Clearly, the probability of rainfall during a drought...twice over...is quite small. Learning occurs, creating an association between branch waving and rainfall.

Unfortunately, there was no way to verify that the correlation was actually causality. To do so would require lots of branch waving at random times during a drought and actually checking whether it would reliably cause rainfall. In fact, even then the causality would be tenuous unless the exact mechanism of rainfall causation could be established. Superstition thus serves as a handy shortcut in "comprehending" such matters, then getting on with life. This is not to say that superstition is necessarily good, or even useful, but it is just a human tendency given the somewhat inadequate nature of the human mind.

The Survival Instinct

There has been something that's nagging me lately, and that's whether there really is such a thing as a survival instinct. With that being the urge to stay alive even when one consciously wishes for death. Sure, there's a whole school of thought revolving around the concept, and many people swear that it exists. However, I'm still skeptical whether it's an "instinct" or something people were conditioned to fear. After all, everyone's taught to fear death and most already fear the unknown.

Unfortunately, it really is frightfully hard to put this to the test. I would very much like to personally disprove it, but the only way for me to prove a lack of fear of death is to actually off myself and note what things are like just beyond the point of no return. By definition, that also means I would hardly be in a position to record my findings.

To perform the test, one would have to be dying by inches over a reasonably long period of time such that one can feel oneself dying and be fully able to panic about it. Of course, the absence of such a panic in the face of willful self-destruction would be quite a compelling proof that the survival instinct really isn't.

I guess some things are just really difficult to test, and it would probably be unethical to put others up to it as well. Still, it irks me to no end that people unquestioningly believe in the survival instinct regardless whether it is actually proven. Sure, some may claim that the fact that most people have not killed themselves is definitive proof that there is a survival instinct, but then again it sounds uncomfortably close to imbecilic bravado to have to off oneself just to prove a point. It's very much like a dare, only that the person who has the last laugh is the one who was not silly enough to allow oneself to be drawn into it. I mean hey...bowing to this one dare pretty much precludes one from trying out every other life-threatening dare one may encounter in future. What a waste.

God's Omnipotence

The philosophical question about whether God can create a stone so heavy that She can't lift it seems rather simple at first. It's an omnipotence paradox. Being unable to create that stone, or being unable to lift said stone will be taken as a sign that God isn't really omnipotent.

That does not seem terribly satisfactory to arrive at a stalemate this way. A logical approach would be to consider the assumptions behind the nature of omnipotence and creation. Omnipotence is assumed to be the pinnacle of can-do, meaning that God should hypothetically be able to do anything. Including creating a stone that cannot be lifted. Well, that seems fair enough. Omnipotence in creation implies that.

However, the assumption also means that it is possible for God to create another God that is equally omnipotent. Since it is by definition impossible for omnipotence to be superseded by something greater, I think it is pointless to ask whether God can create a greater God. Hence the question on the limitations of creation.

If creation were limitless, there would be no question about whether the stone could be created. It probably could be. Yet, creating a stone with an attribute (weight) that exceeds another (God's strength) is akin to the case of creating an even more omnipotent God (i.e. one that is greater than God Herself). The assumption that the upper limit of creation is omnipotence itself is also an assumption of creation's limit.

I figure that the absence of an equivalent omnipotent God (that's a monotheist assumption, after all) means that either creation is limited to creating lesser beings (while not implying God's inability, as creation does not define God) or that God simply did not bother with that exercise. Certainty in such matters does seem like hubris, since there can only be uncertainty with regards to the motivations of divine beings.

If we were to consider creation capable of creating a stone that is incredibly heavy, that weight would have to be precisely balanced with God's ability to lift it. In which case the stone will be precisely halfway between being lifted, and sitting on the ground.

Ponyo On A Cliff By The Sea

One word to describe Ponyo: Trippy. Ponyo is one trippy animation, and don't you forget that. It's almost as if Miyazaki ordered his creative team to let their imaginations run wild. Ponyo is somewhat random, strange and somewhat disjointed enough to give the logically-minded a brain fart, yet is able to be cheerful and pleasing at the same time.

Ponyo seems somewhat different from Miyazaki's usual environmentalist themes, since Ponyo is a celebration of the might of the ocean, and a little introduction to what's been lost in the oceans even before the advent of humans. As the human world is slowly overcome by the ocean due to Ponyo's unleashing of strange and powerful forces in the pursuit of humanity and true love, the creatures previously known only as fossils reappeared. They were even given a little introduction by the characters.

I think Ponyo is an interesting mix between the Little Mermaid, with a spot of Howl's Moving Castle, Totoro, Grave of the Fireflies, along with a touch of Ghibli'esque art. In fact, the art is slightly unusual in the extensive use of color pencils in the backdrops. As is typical in the fantasy-themed Ghibli films, the changes in the peoples' environments and the random strangeness of unusual events seems to be taken pretty well by the others. The lack of tragedy and true villians also leaves the film up to interpretation as to its meaning and intention.

Overall, I'd say this film was an audiovisual feast, with Joe Hisaishi behind the music and Miyazaki at the helm again. The film does not fail to disappoint, and has a nice healthy 9/10.

As a side note, Fujimoto called Ponyo "Brunhilde", which also happens to be the name of the valkyrie that was trapped in an eternal sleep within a ring of fire till a suitable human was brave enough to enter the said ring and thus rescue her...

Red Cliff 2

I usually have a policy against watching Chinese films. Unlike Japanese stuff, I really don't get Chinese films most of the time. But then again, I heard that Red Cliff 2 speaks the international language of violence pretty well, so I figured I might as well watch it.

As expected, Red Cliff 2 was perfectly epic. The Chinese sure do have enough people lying around to fill the role of extras. I always did hope to see some truly epic battles on screen, with loads of extras and explosions and such. Guess it delivered. The sheer brutality of siege warfare was successfully brought to the big screen, imo.

That aside, I was more than mildly disappointed at the historical inaccuracy of the depiction of said combat. I mean...the testudo hardly seemed like a Chinese battle tactic. Moreover, there were some major inaccuracies in the way Zhugeliang was portrayed (he looked uncomfortably similar to Orlando Bloom for some odd reason. Poor Takeshi Kaneshiro!) given his lack of flair. Of course, I did not seriously expect historical inaccuracy. 300 was inaccurate, too, to be fair.

Overall, I figure the film would get 8/10. Probably strongly influenced by the sufficiently brutal battle scenes.

Ze Moon

I finally got down to using my 500mm Pentacon lens to have a shot at the moon. Now there's an improvement over the Olympus 70-300mm, if only because the lens is much longer and capable of getting more details off the lunar surface by virtue of that alone. Currently, I need a new method of post processing to reduce the noise output while maintaining the ability to enhance details on the image. Oh, and perhaps to shoot on a clearer day so there isn't any haze out there to cut some details out. Yup.

Jerky's Gone

I checked downstairs this morning, and someone took Jerky away. Even the water dishes and my makeshift bed's been cleared. Now, I have no idea if it was the SPCA, some kind neighbor or someone else, but I'm sure Jerky will be in a better position than he was sleeping amongst the remains of the food we've been trying to get him to eat. Maybe he'll be put down, made into jerky or perhaps a vet will make him well again.

It's been nice knowing you, Jerky, even though it was for a few days. Perhaps this is something like what one feels when losing a pet. I lost one before, and under different circumstances, but I'm sure she's right fine wherever she is here and now.

Feeding Jerky

I went down to get some premium wet cat food for Jerky today. I warmed the tin before dishing it out. It's really telling when doing that around a domestic cat, seeing as how he responded immediately to the familiar sound of a tab being pulled on a tin of wet food. Unfortunately he was too feeble to do more than lick at the lump of tuna and whitefish. I wound up breaking the food into lumps with a scoop and he was really quite enthusiastic about consuming it. He polished off half of the food with ease, then went back to moping. Or maybe he was just tired.

Anyway, Jerky seems rather more responsive today. He was able to raise his head and full open his eyes. He even tried to sit up with difficulty, though he only succeeded in shifting his position. Quite an improvement from his original morose fetal position when I found him. Hopefully he'll be yet better the next day, though something would need to be done about his surroundings. I donated a disposable lab coat for his use as a makeshift cushion, but the food around him is bound to rot and will have to be cleared if he's unable to finish it. He'd need to be cleaned, too.

Jerky The Cat

There's this cat which is seriously sick. And he's decided to curl up to die downstairs. At first I thought it was most certainly the end of the road for him. And then he decided to mew at me. While it sounded more like Ouch than Hello, I figured that if he was spirited enough to mew at me despite being reduced to fur (his fur's still intact, after all), skin and bones, I got him some water. This was when I decided to call him Jerky, because he was so weak he could only struggle jerkily to control his head enough to lap at the water I provided.

This was when I figured that Jerky could probably do with some food. He turned out to be game enough to gnaw on a barbecued chicken wing (not proper food, I know, but it was all I had at the time) and would have finished all of it if I deboned the thing properly. Not bad, for a dying cat. Perhaps he has some fighting spirit in him yet. As long as he's willing to eat and drink, I'll provide stuff for him. Maybe he'll die, maybe he won't. But at least he's not going to starve or thirst to death on my watch.

The New Year

It's a new year! Or is it? All I figure is that it seems most curious that the rollover of a second can neatly demarcate a "new" year from an "old" one. If anything, it's a new day (or is there even such a thing?) and life goes on. When the fanfare and (admittedly) pretty fireworks die down, I find that nothing has really changed.

This begs the question of why anyone would bother with a rollover. Of course, it could just be a mass joyous self-deception to have the self-deception of believing that an era has passed and a new one beckons. A lie (that, if told often enough, may become truth) that something has changed, and that there's a clean slate. Besides, there's a chance that the complacency that something has magically changed over will turn to bitter disappointment when the reality hits and proves that nothing has really shifted without effort to that effect.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I really do like New Years...primarily for the holiday. Otherwise, it's a practical matter to switch over my calendar and to ponder about how I should go about my life, one day at a time. Preferably without the illusory comfort of a line drawn in time.

A Root Of Rationality

A Root Of Rationality

It is strange to think that some rational arguments have their roots in irrational opinions. Before one can make a stand couched in rationality, one can have a subjective opinion on the matter. Given this possibility, it is not unexpected that irrational motions can be defended by rational arguments. For example, an objective fact like “Rabbits reproduce quickly” can be verified by objective comparisons between the rate of reproduction of rabbits relative to every other living creature. It becomes harder to do so when saying “Rabbits have too much sex”, in which case it is a subjective motion that requires, in addition to the rate at which they have sex, the definition of just how much is too much sex.

Who defines such things, and how are they defined? In a subject as distant and perhaps irrelevant as figuring out how much rabbits reproduce or if they’re too sexed up, it’s easy to tell the difference between arguments based on objective observations (regardless of their correctness; that is due to the researcher’s methods) and subjective ones. Better yet, in matters that are of fundamental concern to people, like say group activities in a collectivist society or religion in a theocracy, one may be tempted to couch irrational opinions in rational arguments.

The examples are all over history. Consider Gallileo, who had his ideas turned down by the Church for contradicting what was then a well established dogmatic “fact”. Undoubtedly, even the Church at the time had perfectly good rational arguments to defend their opinions which were not testable in reality. It was simply a matter of faith.

This leads to a crisis of faith, especially in matters where uncritical thought is celebrated. As some may quote Einstein, common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18. Being a collection of prejudices, the only real defense is to have some people thinking critically about what is widely accepted as the established reality.

Granted, it is impractical to have all of society mulling over every single matter, fearing for its factual accuracy or practicality. That would probably be as bad as or even worse than blind faith (or better, seeing as a surprising number of misconceptions could be hidden in common sense matters and someone may question the practicality of capitalism itself). Still, it helps that the rational arguments be tested for epistemological errors, and not just in the social sciences or “hard” sciences, but indeed in all areas that may harbor them. This would probably help prevent rationality from experiencing a serious case of root rot. As my subjective opinion on the matter, it should also be tested to verify its status as a viable option in an uncritical world.

Christmas Overseas

It is a most curious experience, spending Christmas in another country where Christmas isn't that big a thing. You can walk along the streets and not hear Christmas songs. That may be a good thing, seeing as the place is comparatively untainted by Christmas consumerism. However, it does also rob the feeling of Christmas.

Sometimes I ponder on the Grinch, and what Christmas is really about. It's not just about presents. Not that I exchange Christmas presents anyway. It's really about the intangibles, like being with your family and happy together. Or simply the celebratory mood that accompanies the season.

What is Christmas like in a country where it isn't really celebrated? Truly, it feels like any other day, with the exception that you're well aware of what the day means to yourself, and that feeling is a very, very private and personal thing.

Yes Man

Here is yet another movie that made me think. Which, of course, is a good thing considering that I expected Yes Man to be a rather light-hearted comedy. It turns out that the movie is quite the meaningful tale of how one can learn to live, but not to do so artificially. One cannot mechanically get a life, though one can find a way to loosen up and find enchantment in everyday living.

The drawback, perhaps, is the sort of stereotyped "life" that is presented as worth living. A life that seems to me to be suspiciously like that of a social addict. While it may be healthy to have a social life, being overly social and having little time for oneself sounds like a recipe for disaster. Besides, who's to say that one cannot have a "life" without voluntarily getting involved with lots of people?

Still, I feel that this is a rather good couple movie and meaningful. It made me think about what I've been saying "No" to, when I could (and wanted to) say "Yes". Sometimes, it's good to open up a bit more, methinks. And as for the show, I'd say it gets 8.5/10.

The Long Tom

Some days, you get lucky. Today, I kinda did. Someone donated a nice Pentacon 500mm f5.6 and it's pretty much exactly what I've been looking for for a long time. That is, a sturdy long lens which is capable of taking the shots I've been longing to make.

While I haven't actually managed to shoot using it just yet, I'm quite pleased that my current tripod is comfortably capable of supporting it. This means I'd be able to peg the longer exposures with confidence. That comes at a price, of course, since the lens itself already weights a healthy 3.5kg.

That aside, I guess I'm gona name this long tom...Hubble? Or should it simply be Long Tom. Ah, decisions, decisions...

The OM Bellows

After a long and expensive search for a good bellows unit, I finally settled on the Olympus bellows. Come to think of it, I should have kept searching for a bargain on the piece rather than walking in circles around its price. Anyway, it turns out that the bellows is really the only one worth bothering about.

For one, the bellows comes with a focusing rail under it. Moreover, the front and rear segments are fully reversible and mobile. That's quite an improvement even over the swiss piece I currently have, which has a fixed rear segment. Now that's something worth spending money on.

Of course, now my main issue will be to figure out how to modify the old bellows and/or get it offloaded...

Transcending The Human

The more I notice the disparity between logic and instinct, the more I feel that there is a need to transcend the human condition. That is, to transcend the instinctive animal that humans are, and to try to become more aware of one's deepest, darkest motivations.

As heuristic creatures, humans are quite adapted to life in the "wild"...which is quite different from the highly ritualized and regimented society that most urbanites live in nowadays. Yet this adaptation to living in a relatively uncontrolled environment can have many negative consequences in a controlled environment dominated by rational thought. Indeed, rationality itself can become corrupted by untrained instinct when subconscious urges lead to an imperative to drive a rational argument to victory at any cost, even to the detriment of logic itself so long as the argument may be won.

This is not to discount the intuitive side of reasoning, whereby one is in tune with one's feelings. In fact, understanding the roots of one's intuition and feelings is a step towards transcending the animal nature, whereby one knows why one feels as one does. That not only helps avert rash acts that may be later regretted, but also prevents oneself from being manipulated by others without realizing it.

The Day The Earth Stood Still

This will perhaps turn out to be a film that is a sign of our times, what with the constant fear of environmental disaster and the seeking of salvation from utter devastation. Actually, considering its theme, the film actually turned out to be pretty good.

Of course, we'd have to deal with the funnies first. The aliens (actually alien), turned out to be pretty human. Keanu Reeves human. They're quite ignorant and reckless just like humans, but we'd probably deal with that in another post. Primarily, everyone cracked up the moment dear Reeves decided to speak mandarin, and managed to royally mangle it (they really should have stuck with English). Oh, and how America tried to deal with ultra advanced aliens in a Bush'esque manner, then wonder if we managed to scare them off.

Overall, it was an ID-style end of world film, with infinitely advanced (and this time invincible) aliens trying to destroy earth, with the inevitable heroic ending where the earth gets saved. While I loved the theme of salvation where humans begged for another chance to save themselves, I felt it was pandering to the overdone idea that humans need to save their own planet, yet not inspiring any real drastic actions to the effect. Then again, that's probably not the objective of such a film...

I'd say 7.5/10, primarily because of the cool animations and nice concept, but it really could've been a lot better without the mangled mandarin and overly human aliens.

Izzy Hilton

Maybe I'm slow. Maybe I'm crazy. Or maybe I'm just Malkavian. But I dare say that Izzy Hilton is definitively incredibly cute. Alright, so I'm slow at catching on when it comes to these things. Go ahead, blame the Malkavian. I dare you.

That said, it is incredible what a neat little package he is (pun intended). By crushing on him, it's entirely possible to be simultaneously lesbian AND straight...all at once! Alright, perhaps this is quite out of character for me, but then sometimes it's just nice to cut loose. Anyway...this also means I'm back. Finally. After being grilled for incredible amounts of time while doing absurd stuff. Oh, and in the meantime? Get a Nosferatu to turn Izzy, wontcha?

Random Discoveries

Randomness promotes discovery. Actually, it is the random events that help "create" new things, such as the happy accident that spawned penicillin. Without the possibility of such randomness, the more unusual discoveries may never have been made and perhaps life would be a lot more boring.

Yet such discovery would prove more difficult to spot in the absence of controls. Had the petri dish not been known to contain certain organisms and the expected results known, the mold growing may well have been accepted as a regular occurrence and discarded.

It may be a lot more likely to have these discoveries in the presence of controls, but control must be allowed only to an extent. Should controls be so stringent as to forbid the acceptance of discoveries outside the realm of control, many breakthroughs may be discarded before their time, and discovery itself be significantly set back.

Death Is A Certainty

Everyone dies. At least, that's what most people are inclined to believe. That is, they believe that everyone is mortal, so they will die. However, how true is that? Can people truly die? What is death, then? Is it the body? The mind? The memories? Clearly not the spirit (where applicable), since the consensus seems to be that spirits are by definition dead already so they can't die again.

Most associate death with the death of the body. The person everyone once knew suddenly keels over and is dead. Yet what is it about the body that allows it to die only at that very moment? Cells are grown and die in a continual cycle. Even those cells that "died" did not die all at once at the moment of the person's death. Clearly, cellular death is not true death, or a preserving someone's immortal cancer cells will keep that someone from dying. Perhaps death lies in the person's award-winning personality instead.

That is quite flimsy an assumption, unfortunately. One's award-winning personality is unavailable when one sleeps. If one assumes that the personality would return after someone wakes, then it makes little difference if that same person went to a far off land. The assumption holds. And the person becomes effectively immortal till proven that the personality has faded. More importantly, the person is also effectively dead as soon as the person is brain-dead.

Yet personalities change, so the concept becomes yet blurrier. If the said personality were to change significantly that it no longer resembled the original, has the original person died? If that person "died", then the physically immortal may "die" as well. Would death not be a certainty, then?

Divorcing death from the body is probably not the idea that most hold about death, but it is one form of immortalization that many seek. After all, Elvis has not effectively died as long as people still remember that award-winning personality and everything related to it. As long as the memory persists, Elvis never died.

Unfortunately, the literal avoidance of death may be far more undesirable than anything. Like a new car, the novelties of life may rapidly fall away. What happens when one becomes ultimately sick of living? Will death, then, become a certainty?

To Forget

This morning, I recalled a mistake I made a year or so back. A mistake of forgetfulness. Granted, I could not be sure whether the initial act would have come to anything, but I will never know now. What's done is done, I guess, and perhaps it is for the better. I justified it back then, but I can never be sure whether it was "correct" in a right/wrong sense. After all, justifications are but one of the delusions that one gladly subjects oneself to.

Was it the inconvenience, the awkwardness? Was it the fear that something would have gone wrong? I do not know, but what I do know was that the whole thing happened because I forgot. It started as an elaborate plan, but is no more now.

Why sleep?

There are times when I sit around being annoyed at myself. Annoyed because I gota eat, sleep and deal with other bodily functions/requirements. What a drudge. I'd sooner sit around reading, shooting stuff, playing games...anything but the mundane day to day functions. Then it hit me. That was a perfect example of consumerism.

To be precise, the disdain for sleeping and eating is symptomatic of absorption into a capitalist, consumerist society. Granted, some of my activities are productive (which is also desirable for a capitalist), the others are acts of consumption. Indeed, few activities are actually for their own sake, besides the desire to either perform production or consumption.

While it may not be so bad to actually live some aspects of the capitalist life, it is disturbing how pervasive such views can be in modern society, and how insidious they may be that people go through the motions without realizing what they're doing.

The Alpha

There are many people who are purported to be "Alphas". They're stereotyped as aggressive, domineering, competitive and so on. Of course, they are also often male, since an equivalent female would probably earn the less favorable term "bitchy". Now, what is curious about the idea of the alpha is that there seems to be a contradiction between the theory and execution of the role.

An alpha is supposed to be a leader type, and really quite self-assured. That means the alpha isn't likely to get all huffy about potential competition. They'd be relatively certain of their position. The desperate jockeying for power by the alpha-wanabes is quite telling. Some might say that, well, there may be more than one alpha in the area, so there's competition. Fair enough, except that, besides the rarity of alphas, it is entirely possible that the two alphas form their own packs and remain in competition longer.

In fact, it takes a real alpha-type to get out there and say "Fuck this. I'm outta here." The uninitiated may regard this as an admission of defeat, but only a real alpha would be sufficiently self-assured to shrug off the perceptions of the lesser creatures, and live their lives as lone wolves. There just aren't enough packs out there for every alpha to have her/his own.

Max Payne

I played the game. Come to think of it, I played both of them. Max Payne as a game is quite the noir story. Fortunately, the movie itself did not disappoint. Granted, it certainly lacks the fun bits that were in the games (at least the first one), but it does have a charm of its own. Not to mention it included most of the key game characters.

That said, I was very disappointed with the presentation of Jack Lupino, seeing as how they decided to throw in the War on Terror theme in the context of the Valkyr problem. Moreover, he turned out to be quite the pushover when he was such a stunning and memorable character in the game. Same with Mona Sax. By the way, what happened to the Finitos and dear whiny Vinny? Ah, well.

Overall, I'd say it was a way better delivery than Hitman. That doesn't say much considering how much they managed to screw up the character of dear Tobias. Still, I'd say Max Payne deserves an 8/10

Meet The Medic

Medic bag. Fashion statement. Tasty. Personally, I was never really fond of sling bags and other similar single-shoulder bags. In fact, I'm reminded why I developed that dislike when I started loading up my medic styled messenger bag.

Then again, I was really in it for the coolness and didn't intend to replace any of my regular kit with this bag. Not something people would carry that often, but hey...I'm the medic. From Stuttgart. With the healing gun.

Rights And Responsibilities

Rights are invariably paired with responsibilities. If one has the right to do something, one would have a commensurate responsibility. There are problems when one does not recognize those responsibilities, especially when the exercising of those rights irresponsibly is likely to cause harm to the self and/or others.

Take for example the right to "rule the world", as many people are inclined to believe they are entitled to. That is, the right to use the world as they deem fit. Yet such a right would also involve responsibilities, like the ethical treatment of other things living on the earth. Things such as humans that can be harmed by pollution.

On Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is a measure that inspires dread. Most sane people would be quite unwilling to die at the gallows. Defending their homes against an enemy...maybe. Getting run over by a car...nasty, but still better than being executed. Capital punishment damages not only the body, but the reputations of the condemned and by extension the reputations of their family (foolish though it may be to attribute one's bad conduct to one's family).

The question, though, is what capital punishment truly solves. The penalties are harsh. Harsh penalties are to be avoided. Perhaps those with something to lose would shy away from criminal activities that involve capital punishment. Those that are caught will be made examples of. What of those who have nothing to lose? They will do it all the same, but with a greater emphasis on not getting caught. In fact, in the desperation brought by the knowledge that they are going to be condemned, they may well fight all the harder when in captivity.

Capital punishment implies the belief that some people are beyond redemption. Beyond reform. Reform is the prime goal of a system of incarceration, yet these systems are often what goes most horribly wrong in a country. What can a country do in the pursuit of justice? Will executions help solve the problem of crime?

Conscription: The Rite Of Citizenship

A country that cannot find citizens willing to defend it does not deserve to exist. That much is frighteningly true. It takes a really bad country to be nasty enough that the citizens are unwilling to defend it. Yet conscription is terrible when forced on the people. I would really rather have 10'000 solid troops at my back, than 100'000 who may or may not run away when the shit hits the fan. Others will beg to differ, of course.

Heinlein's suggestion of the idea of conscription as a way to citizenship is interesting, though rather simplistic. Should people wish to wield supreme power (in the form of voting), they need to serve their term in service. Yet the service of some will invariably be less grueling that that of others. Some will be in the line of duty during times of war, and others will be cooling their heels in the boot camps when bullets refrain from flying.

People who have served their nation are in no way "better" than those who did not. Perhaps they were cowardly, scheming or brave enough to serve, but that does not ensure that they know how to pick good national leaders. Basically, one would be putting supreme power in the hands of sheep.

That was an interesting suggestion in the story, that the nation's fiercest are being funneled into federal service, and turned into sheep. Sheep at the beck and call of their superiors, and ultimately the national leaders. Is this a good rite of citizenship? Do we really want to have a bunch of broken, obedient voters, and a cadre of independent thinkers who are unable to vote?

Starship Troopers

Here I am, reading yet another classic that was written quite some time back. I guess I was too taken up by the movie to consider the possibility that it could have been based on a book, and that the book can be so very different from the movie (and animated series). Well, again, I am not disappointed by the book.

Critics may say that Heinlein was essentially using the story as a long political essay, and the lack of depth of the characters does seem to substantiate that claim. In fact, the characters are pretty much like what one would expect out of a recruiting brochure, whereby the cookie cutter rookie grows from recruit to grunt to officer. Well...I'm really here to read a good piece of military literature that seems plausible enough, and I got it, along with a good dose of some biased political discourse on the military.

There are times when I wonder if I'm pro or anti military. The reality of militarization is that once one encounters a militarized society, it is quite foolhardy to calmly stay demilitarized and assume on good faith that the other will not attack. Moreover, I am totally in favor of the view that a country that has no citizens willing (note: *willing*, not pressed-into-service) to defend it, does not deserve to live. On the other hand, it is quite disturbing to know that we're handing the authorities a loaded gun, and any madman (it's almost invariably the men) will come along and cheerfully pull the trigger at the most inopportune time.

Still, I like the book for what it is, warts and all. I care not that Heinlein never went for combat drops. It was an entertaining read, and provided some thought-provoking ideas of what a military should be like. While I may not agree with all the ideas, I dare say that it was worth it just to know that they exist.

A Time Crisis

Never before have I experienced such a crisis of time management. I recall having lots of free time a couple years back, with the opportunity to play games at my leisure, and even the choice to go out for fun whenever I felt like it. Something changed in those years, causing time to be eaten up.

I realize the issue is probably due to online communications of various sorts. Being a rather solitary sort, there's always time to do stuff once schoolwork's done and all the usual chores. However, chatting is but one insidious way to fritter time away. It's not difficult to spend say 2 hours online just chatting with friends. Seems nice, and an alternative to going out. However, that adds up to 14 hours a week. That's approximately 2 fun outings.

Then there's the time consuming issue of actual outings, whereby friends would ask you out to movie sessions or parents would like company to the mart. Sure, it is quite acceptable to accompany one's parents from time to time, but that adds up, too. Not to mention connective spent on the transport and whatnot. Overall, is it any surprise that I no longer have the time to pull off the all day gaming sessions that I used to? Perhaps being a hermit once in a while is not quite so unacceptable after all.

On Individualism And Activism

It seems that activism may be more "feasible" in cultures that are more individualistic. That is, the activists feel freer to do their thing. After all, activism can be a rather lonely activity, especially if it is done in favor of fringe groups.

Often, activism is for something that is not supported by the people in power, otherwise there would be no need for activism. This implies a certain form of resistance that may not be socially acceptable. This is a clear problem in a group-oriented culture. For example, if a culture is highly group-oriented, the actions of an activist may reflect poorly on the family. More practically, an activist in such a culture may be expected to help support her parents, and this would be problematic if she is unable to find regular employment due to the social stigma of activism.

Effectively, one's dependents (e.g. parents, children, etc) are being indirectly threatened in such an environment, and the activist becomes easier to manipulate. After all, activists are often willing to sacrifice themselves to a greater or lesser extent for the furtherance of their causes, but will likely balk at the prospect of having loved ones/dependents suffer as a result of their actions.

On the other hand, one living in an individualistic culture does not always have to contend with such issues. She can easily choose to eke out a subsistence income level while supporting her cause. That is, without incurring social censure for neglecting the group in favor of personal pursuits.

Brave, Or Stupid

Many will acknowledge that there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity. On casual examination, the two are remarkably similar. They typically involve the actions of one, at great personal risk, in order to achieve something that is exceedingly difficult. Where does one draw the line?

Strangely, there is no hard and fast rule to determine what is stupid, and what is brave. It is often a subjective evaluation made at the point of action, or (for others) after the act itself. The evaluation itself is culturally situated, and what is brave in one culture will often be outright stupid in another.

So which is it? Sacrificing oneself for others, or having an every person for herself attitude? Do we charge forward when the enemy is encroaching, or do we hold the trench? How can one hold the line, when one does not know where the line is...

The Relationship Contract

At risk of sounding authoritarian, I believe that relationships are contracts. They are agreements between two or more willing parties to stay within the certain terms of those contracts, to the satisfaction of all concerned. If the terms of the contract are violated, the contract itself is in danger of being voided. Hence, it is useful to lay down the terms as precisely as possible, early on in the game.

This also means that the contracts may vary depending on the parties concerned. For some, the contracts are exclusive, and cannot include others within their terms. For others, the contracts cannot be exclusive, but must include others. The flavors in between are numerous, and may incorporate a number of clauses that either party finds essential.

Overall, the true danger (and wonder) is that the contract is not set in stone. Not everyone will be sure when they have violated a clause, and even when notified, which clause it was. Yet there is wiggle room in that some are more forgiving than others of violated clauses...

Price Vs Value

When consuming goods, it is all too easy to be blinded by their price, to the detriment of the evaluation of their utility value. When shopping, a glimpse into the bargain bin will remind people of how they made countless impulse purchases on "cheap" goods, only to find the same goods piling up in their storerooms. Strange, how low priced goods can represent such poor value.

I think the trick to spending wisely is not just to spend as little as possible, but to spend as little as possible on goods you actually need. That is, to learn to evaluate the "value" goods have when they're in your possession.

Ironically, getting better value may occasionally involve buying items that are more expensive than their alternatives. The thought seldom occurs to the budget-minded because it's just so counter-intuitive. Still, it must be remembered that the economy is not perfect, and some goods are simply "better" than others, with "better" being a subjective value known only to the consumers...

On Composing

Composing pictures seems like such an easy thing. Take your camera, raise it to your eye, frame a shot and then snap a picture. Yet it is possible for two photographers to take similar vantage points of a single scene, and still generate two completely different compositions. In fact, it is often that one photographer captures an exposure that's popularly deemed as significantly better than the other's!

Composing a shot is something that comes with the experience of knowing what works and what doesn't. For some, that means shooting with a long lens and pulling nice shots out every single time. For others, it is with a wide. Perhaps the higher goal is to be able to pick up any lens, and make every hit count.

Rolling A Bear Market

It is curious how people can see fit to sell their profits and hold their losses. In a game theory based logic, it is one of the worst possible ways to make money. It puzzled me for the longest time, because assuming that a stock was bought at a dollar, and it started falling constantly, the logical thing to do would be to sell it at a loss (relative to the original price paid), then buy it up after it falls.

The net effect is such: You started off with say...$1000. You bought a unit of stock at $1. The stock fell to $500 and is still falling. Common sense would dictate that the stock be held, since selling would realize a loss of $500. That's 50% off your initial capital. A really big deal. Yet many fail to realize that it matters little what the stock is worth. It is still a single stock unit. You effectively have no liquidity while holding that one unit. Assume that you sold at $500, and bought it back again when it fell to $400. Now you have one unit of stock, and $100 liquid.

Psychologically, it may have felt like you're now holding $400 stocks instead of $1000 stocks, but realistically you're still holding the same thing. What if the stock never appreciates back to near the level you bought it for? You'd be stuck holding an illiquid asset. Wouldn't it be better to maintain some liquidity to dive into the bear market when it starts to hit the bottom?

Gambling Stocks

For many people, dealing in stocks is very much like gambling: They are in it more for the experience than actually making money. I realized the motivation behind holding stocks for extended periods of time: It is very much like playing a jackpot.

A jackpot machine typically has two modes: One where you constantly haemorrage cash, and another where you hit the jackpot(s). These would correspond somewhat to the bull and bear cycles within a market.

During a bear cycle, stock prices are going down. You lose 10 cents, gain 6, lose 12, gain 8, lose 4, gain 3. The overall trend is downwards. Yet it is the small upward movements that keep people in the game. It is like when the jackpot machine gives out all these little winnings to keep people playing. The small winnings never exceed what you threw in, but they are powerful motivators.

During a bull run, prices are going up. That is like when the jackpot machine gives a smallish jackpot (but not the big one). Many players are satisfied enough to cash out at this point, effectively selling their profits. Everyone else would pat themselves on the back, and then try their hand at the machine again.

The cycle repeats itself until people go bankrupt, or they hit the jackpot. It is much akin to the jackpot, considering how few people actually turn a profit at this game. Yet a game it is, with (albeit constantly changing) rules. One who masters the rules has some hope of winning the game. How many, though, are willing to learn those rules?

On Acceptance

Acceptance is a curious thing. Even the greatly self-centered (like myself) are wont to feel some measure of satisfaction when others accept them for who they are. Perhaps it is an affirming thing. A confirmation of who one is. I believe that one should always be sure of who one is, though others approving of the same will always be more pleasant.

It is a strange feeling, being irrationally pleased when one's friend finally accepts some quirks in one's being. It has little bearing on the friendship itself, and certainly has little practical use. Yet many are strongly affected by such sentiments, and even grow to crave it.

I am not one such. At least not craving positive affirmations from others. I guess the satisfaction still stems from some primitive biological imperative that ensures that people are quite likely to stay together and thus improve their chances of survival. I'd question, however, how useful that is in modern societies where it is actually possible to live life as a lone wolf.

What Is Reality?

Reality is such a personally constructed thing that sometimes it is uncertain which is reality, and which is fantasy. Take for example the case of someone who hallucinates. Their reality is questionable, and requires much corroboration before the facts can be ascertained. It is arduous and so much so that some opt to ignore them instead. Those who hallucinate are simply not credible.

Yet there are other times when truth is indeed stranger than reality. In a legal court, common sense prevails. What happens when common sense fails? What if the truth is stranger than fiction, such that innocents are incarcerated on the fact that their cases are simply implausible (but true)? Again we face the crisis of reality.

What is real? The question is asked so often that it is really quite trite by now. However, it seems that there is no definitive reality, only the one that people choose to believe in. Does this make their reality more real than that of the hallucinators?

Racing Everything

I note that people seem to have an unusual propensity towards attributing certain behaviors to groups. Perhaps it is part of their understanding of what a sense of belonging is like. For example, if a person is lazy, the person is not only evaluated as being lazy, but also a sort of representative of her group. There are many possible groups, like religion, social class, etc, but the most common of which is race.

In fact, everything is often raced. If someone gets scolded for no apparent reason, it's likely a matter of race rather than personal hatred. Why? Because of social hierarchies around race within a specific context. If a person is being lazy, it's "obvious" that she's so because of her race.

Being highly individualistic, I find it bizarre that people seem to like to think in terms of groups. It would be more sensible to individually categorize people in accordance to their observed behaviors, rather than to attribute such behaviors to their respective groups. It is not only not scientifically sound, but also quite detrimental to one's well-being when the assumptions prove false.

Wall-E

Wall-E has nowhere near the depth of KungFu Panda. In fact, it seems to be a rather simple lover's show, with an intention to foster feelings of closeness and affection with its themes. Yet I admire the developers for it, because they chose to create a narrative that began with no typical dialogue. It takes quite some doing to make robots conduct a narrative entirely on emotive sounds and body language. Body language...on a robot? Wow!

The show has themes like sticking with your loved one through thick and thin, self-sacrifice and overall altruism. It also involves sticking to one's duties and the concept of rebirth. Unfortunately, such themes are really quite overdone. There is little to explicate on these, as just about everyone has been over these before.

What was impressive was the balletic symphonies of movement and sound throughout the show, creating the depth of visceral experience that is difficult to match in an animation. This is probably where it outshines KungFu Panda: The sheer elegance of the animation. Granted, these are two very differently themed shows and the differences show.

Overall, I found the narrative somewhat flat. Yet as a show it managed to hold together, and I especially liked the Nausicaa'esque end credits. I dare say the show deserves a 7/10, though I'm sure as a lover's show it deserves a clean 8.

4Bia

4Bia (pronounced phobia) is a thai horror film that comprises a bunch of short stories. Naturally, it's to be expected that the films are uniformly freaky and really quite scary. If anything, the images of the ghouls will stay with the viewer for quite some time to come. I know they stay with me. Still trying to banish these. I'll succeed...eventually.

I noted with some amusement at their skillful manipulation of the storylines such that they needed a minimal cast to pull it off. Unfortunately, it's not quite a narrative masterpiece, or even particularly innovative. The short stories make extensive use of really ghoulish makeup for the spooks, traditional in-your-face-with-loud-sound scare tactics and Stephen King'esque twisting of the real and the hallucination. That, and the bad CGI in a particular story. In fact, the narratives seemed quite disjointed due to the short story presentation, though there were efforts to tie things in by subtle details like newspaper headlines and references to the other stories. The use of deus ex for some scenes was disturbing, too. I can get it that supernatural events lead to really unusual goings on, but in a cinema narrative it really just seems that they cooked up a supernatural reason for some things to happen, without introducing the props first. That just makes things look unplanned. Sometimes, it also helps not to explicate overly much of the gory details, since at times the imagination can cook up far greater and more realistic horrors than any low budget CGI work possibly could.

To be fair to the film, I guess the rating would have to be spread over two areas. As a film, I don't think it deserves to have more than 6/10. However, I would highly rate the horror value of it, including the very progressive and inexorable build up towards the horror climax. For that, and its gruesome ghosts...I'd give it a very nice 9/10

Mini Movie Marathon

I had a most interesting impromptu mini movie marathon today. My friends asked me out to watch the thai horror flick 4Bia. Scary stuff. Then another of my friends asked me to watch a movie with him...immediately after 4Bia. So yeah, we went to watch Wall-E. Lovely contrast.

I guess it was somewhat interesting considering that I got the movie date right after the show...and at the same cineplex as the one before it. This probably also means that I'm going to be writing two reviews on the movies.

After the movies, I caught up with another friend, who brought her gal friend along. Talk about chained outings. I've never felt more productive (seriously!) since I basically managed to socialize with 3 groups of people in a single outing. Now that's a great way to compress outings so that time is not wasted in transit.

Eco Tourism

Eco Tourism is very nice when taken at face value: It showcases the delicate and beautiful face of nature, encouraging others to cherish and hopefully work towards protecting these natural places. In fact, it'd be far better were the people inclined to actually protect other places that may have endangered species that are not exactly pleasing to the eye.

While the lofty goals are admirable, I would question the benefits of eco tourism in the real world. For one, the eco tourist sites are often operated with profit in mind, with lip service and limited real protecting done at the site apart from preserving the lucrative attraction. Moreover, the high human traffic invariably brings with it pollution in the form of litter and vehicle fumes. That apart from the noise pollution and disruptive camera flashes from overzealous tourists.

More harm than good? Quite likely. Besides that, there is always the chance that tourists fail to understand what nature is truly like, being exposed exclusively to the beautiful sight of things. Fireflies twinkle, but they are still bugs...presumably the sort that little girls still fear after seeing the fairylike creatures flashing in the dark. Jungles are still rather dangerous, as are the beautiful rolling dunes of the desert. Perhaps it is also necessary to promote conservation as much for its own sake, as it is for the majesty of nature's power.

Geronimo And The Native Americans

I was reading a book on Geronimo, and could not help but be reminded of how the madness of people can easily spread to consume even the innocent. Fueled by the driving forces of expansionism and the gold rush, the Native Americans found themselves being pushed towards the brink. In effect, one had been usurped from one's rightful home, and assigned to a halfway house. All that, simply because someone powerful figured that hey...you just weren't "civilized".

I am saddened by what is by no means an isolated incident. Ever since humans invented the idea of warfare and conquest, peoples have been pushed from their own homes, only to have the invaders enjoy what was originally someone else's. Unfair? Yes. But such is the way of Darwinian civilizing. The stronger (militarily, usually) civilization often manages to drive the other out.

Perhaps there is no end to this madness, seeing as how the same greed and power madness pervades "civilization" to this day. Time and time again people have opted to claim for their own, things that never should have been theirs in a fair negotiation. At a state level, land theft is seldom resisted as firmly as that of the same at an individual level. There will always be noble spirits that will resist the tides of madness, but can they hold the tides back? Was Geronimo truly happy to have become something like a white man, if only for the good of his people?

Morality For The Masses

The great unwashed masses are fickle. That much is known of them. It is almost the one constant that binds them together. Without the aid of a constant, the masses constantly shift their focus and their values. It is the introduction of a fixed morality system that keeps them in line, since they have decided to subject themselves only to the morality that is prescribed to them.

What makes them free, then? By seeking the moral, they choose to bind themselves in an artificial prescribed morality that may not conform to any universal (if universal even exists!) morality that is extant. But if morality is not fixed, what is it that drives the masses that they can believe in something that may not even be true? This could explain the readiness to believe in deceptions: In their unwillingness to think, they prefer to live their private lies.

The Limits Of Power

Truly, with great power comes great responsibility. Apparently, that is even if one is unwilling to take that responsibility. The more powerful a person is, the greater her options in life. Things that were not options for less powerful folk now have to be considered. Will one be willing to flatten yonder mountain, or to preserve it? The very act of not flattening the mountain has effectively allowed its continued existence: Still a rather significant act!

In a way, a responsible person of power enjoys far less freedom than a comparable one with significantly less power. Every act has to be carefully considered for its repercussions in larger society, or at least the environment. It is the powerless who can choose to be less responsible: The powerful cannot help but be responsible for *something*.

It is therefore a strange thing when a powerless person yearns for a slice of great power, without being willing to accept responsibility for the exercising of the same. In trying to gain more freedom through ability, one simply loses freedom through responsibility. What a balance.

Away From Home

It is a strange feeling, that one just does not belong where one is. Some people call their places of origin home, simply on account that they came from there. Perhaps they are right, and they truly belong where they were placed. I cannot shake the feeling that I am not home, and that it is someplace else.

Sometimes I encounter various stimuli...sights, sounds, smells...something at random. It will remind me of the wilderness. Somewhere that never had humans, and where the rhythms of live were different. Yet I realize that the wilderness as it is now will not welcome me. It is different from the one I know. Alien. It bears a passing resemblance, yet is not the same.

I guess I will sit by the trees and the animals, thinking about the place that is no more. It almost seems like they understand, but perhaps that is an illusion as well. What else does it feel like, to be away from home?

The Politics Of Performance

Sometimes, I wonder at the political power behind China's Olympic ceremonies. Granted, it was utter greatness in the realm of performance, but one might wonder at the political might that was necessary to pull the whole thing off.

For one, there was great financial expense...which may or may not have been approved had it been held in a country where people were more inclined to be more individualistic. The performance spread from the representational to the real when the city dedicated to the event greatly restricted traffic within it, and even had cloud banishers to ensure that nature did not rain on the party. Finally, they completed the experience with the smiling ambassadors deployed throughout the city.

Was this likely, or even possible in a less authoritarian country? Though capable of feats of synchronicity and discipline, one must wonder at the controls necessary to keep the people under control to this extent...

Oiling The Cogs

Investment in healthcare is investing in an intangible: It maintains the units of capitalist production. Strangely, though, the authorities often opt to spend as little as possible on intangibles in favor of the tangibles such as industrial production.

This does not compute, especially in an economic sense. An economy that spends appropriately (as far as needs are met) on these intangibles would have a steadier stream of healthy workers and thus enjoy greater per capita productivity. By oiling the cogs of the machine, the cogs will simply perform better.

Some may argue that the presence of such incentives may encourage freeloading, to the extent that efficiency actually falls. While I concur, there are measures that can be taken to reduce if not eliminate freeloading. Enforcement is one way, and raising workplace morale is another. With increased morale, the motivation to skive is reduced or removed considering the fact that one can improve one's reputation at work by not doing so.

Conspiracy Of the Powerless

When one thinks of conspiracy theories, one tends to visualize the shadowy "Organization" which is all-powerful and highly secretive, quite able to pull the strings of governments from behind the scenes. These Organizations typically have tentacles everywhere, and influence everything. Even recycling isn't safe anymore: They have their grubby paws all over it.

Nobody ever seems to consider the possibility of a conspiracy by the powerless. The disenfranchised who appear so downtrodden that nobody spares them a second thought. Would these not be the perfect candidates for would-be conspirators? After all, they are hiding in plain sight, and are clearly far more numerous than those mysterious Organization guys.

In fact, the signs are all around us. The powerless permeate society, lobbying for change that favors them. In fact, they, too, could be sneakily slipping chemicals into the water supply or collecting your refuse for DNA samples. There's nothing that they cannot do...and nobody suspects them...

Feminism

One of the key feminist arguments is that much of what is pushed by the patriarchal hegemony tends to be androcentric, and has values significantly different from those that women hold dear. Values such as compassion, understanding, gentleness, cooperation, amongst other things that characterize feminine conduct and are often pushed aside in the mad rush that's become associated with capitalism.

Those values seem to be very much in line with the hegemonic concept of femininity, that is, how women ought to behave and how their personal attributes should be. However, given that patriarchy permeates the hegemonies of most extant societies, it is not unreasonable to surmise that these same values are in fact put in place by patriarchy.

In a way, the struggle against patriarchal domination merely serves to strengthen patriarchy by validating the definition of femininity. Yet it is possible to be discredited as a feminist by choosing not to subscribe to those values, since one would appear to be quite unfeminine to the observers! Of course, it is never easy to unseat a hegemony, especially one that is so pervasive in practically every society!

Who Are You?

This question is often asked of people who are perceived to have overstepped their boundaries of authority. It is interesting how there must always be a justification for who someone is before they will be listened to, regardless how well-meaning a comment may be.

When one tries to get a word in edgewise, often in the context of a meeting with strangers, it is not uncommon to be challenged with the question "Who are you to say this". Or that. It is in fact rhetoric, and requires no answer. It really is a sort of dismissal of one's value as an advisor, and often a get-the-hell-out-of-my-face signal.

Yet once someone introduces themselves as an old friend, or some similarly obscure known figure, the tone rapidly changes. The attitude abruptly shifts from one of disdain to a markedly improved condition of trust. What happened? They realized exactly who it was.

Fluff Sells

Most people do not like fluff. In fact, they absolutely can't stand it. Nobody likes things that sound good on paper, but have no real substance. That's the theory, at least. In reality, fluff is subjected to the exact same self-deluding tendencies that govern the desire to be deceived.

Strangely, when exposed to certain subject matter that's known to be fluffy, such as marketing, people readily recognize that it is not quite "respectable" (as they understand it). Put it in a more scientific context, with apparent numbers to support the statements, and the people will happily lapse into their blissful coma of acceptance.

Where lies the difference? Perhaps an excuse to be credulous, considering that "hard figures" were included in the explanation. After all, it is easy to lie with statistics, but easier to lie without...

On Tidying

This is probably not the first time I'm saying this, but I'll say it again anyway: Tidying is probably one of the most boring and tiring activities available. In fact, I'd rank it higher on the undesirable housework list than doing the laundry and washing the dishes.

For one, tidying involves physical labor. Lots of heavy lifting and then delicately placing each item so it looks neat. Then comes the mental strain of deciding whether to discard an item, and if not, then where to place it so it still looks neat but is readily accessible. The two may be mutually exclusive, which causes a yet more stress. After everything's done, you move more easily around the house, but nothing much has really changed.

Laundry is comparatively easier. Now, it may involve some heavy lifting to move wet laundry around, then hang it all out to dry...but it's quite a no-brainer to decide where to put them and how to fold them. After retrieval, at least you have clean, non-stinky clothing to wear. And that's always a bonus!

Interestingly enough, mom never gets tired...or bored when it comes to tidying. It's like her recreational activity or something. Apparently, the sheer satisfaction of having a tidy place is enough for her. Ah, well. *grabs toothbrush and merrily scrubs the toilet floor tiles instead*

Human Nature

If there is ever an excuse that I'm tired of hearing, it's the allegation that "it's human nature". Ok, so state a fact to cover up bad conduct. Someone fights? It's human nature. Someone gets angry for no good reason, then doesn't apologize? It's human nature. People go to war and kill lots of innocents? It's human nature.

That trite excuse is about as valid as the outdated she-can't-vote-because-she-is-a-woman argument. Why? 'coz she's a woman! No, really. Yes...she's a woman. That much is obvious, huh. To me, claiming that something is human nature indicates a patent laziness and utter unwillingness to change for the better. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that the atrocities committed because of "human nature" go above and beyond the normal range of animal behaviours. Truly, these humans are worse than animals because they are well aware of their actions and are deliberate, yet possess the cunning and capabilities to execute them with extreme prejudice.

I am not perfect. I can get angry for no good reason and totally blow up. But after that, I don't stay angry and I try to mend things back up. More importantly, I learn from the experience and try not to blow up in future situations. I cannot say that it is easy, or that it is always successful, but one should always try.

Submitting to this wonderful shield of "human nature" allows a socially acceptable excuse for inexcusable actions, and is a "reason" not to improve oneself. It is very much like choosing to follow one's barbaric nature without any willingness to change. Sure, it is natural to be that way because one's born like that, but that is no excuse for not trying to improve one's lot in life!

Animal Willpower

Many theorize that only humans are conscious (and that animals are not) and thus are able to rise beyond their primal urges. I argue that it is not only humans that are conscious, but that animals are in fact capable of overcoming their primal urges.

The examples abound. We have dogs starving by their owners' bodies without eating them, dogs have saved lives at risk to their own, many mammals are known to show grief at the death of a fellow and conduct themselves in ways that are contrary to what one would expect of pure primal survival instinct.

What conclusions, therefore, can be made about willpower? Clearly, it is not exclusive to humans. Perhaps the time has come to learn to respect animals, instead of readily abusing them simply because they do not seem to fit the common human-centric assumptions regarding sentience.

A Tribe Of Pornographers

It is interesting to view our contemporary society through the lens of a future anthropologist. The assumption here would be that the anthropologist does not have all the facts, and, consequently, the resultant analyses may be done out of context. In fact, the conclusions could be completely incorrect.

Consider the anthropologist analyzing the archaeological sample of a porn CD, and finally devising a special reader to view its contents. From common knowledge, there is a tribe known as the "Pornographers" who are exiled from polite society. Their practices are seen as abhorrent by a significant proportion of the world. However, the reader could not view the contents of the CD, as all that came out was a strange textured surface. Clearly, this would lead to speculations as to the ritual actions of these Pornographers...

Studying things with imperfect information may result in conclusions that are actually out of context. Of course, with the case of an extinct civilization, the context may never be known as much of the data on their activities will be corrupted.

For Love Of Deception

I would go so far as to say that the public loves to be deceived. In fact, I dare say that the majority would love to be deceived, and to live in their own little fantasy worlds. As much as this sounds fanciful or even absurd, that is because one hates to know that one is being deceived. Once the deception is revealed, the suspension of disbelief is shattered, causing a really bad case of cognitive dissonance.

Take for example the Olympics opening ceremony. The backlash from revealing the misrepresentations within the event was very great, as much as the rest of the event was found to be perfectly acceptable or even wonderfully executed. While some may cite political motivations behind the revelations, it does not discount the fact that the backlash was significant, and more so than what could be likely to be organized using political funds. Clearly, the people concerned had their illusion shattered, rendering the performance false (as it was, since by definition a performance isn't "real" the way spontaneous reality is understood).

By the same vein, a gambler would gladly throw incredible amounts of money at what's known to be a losing game, ignoring the kind advice from others that the probability of losing was far greater than that of winning. Instead, they cheerfully fixate on the *chance* of winning. This is an unlikely situation should the audience actually abhor being deceived and actively seek out possible deceptions...

Bigger Leaves

For the longest time, I observed that the money plants had bigger leaves on top. The higher they went, the larger the leaves got. I accepted it as fact, but never really sought out the answer to this phenomenon. My initial assumption was that they went higher to get more sunlight so they made larger leaves. The assumption held water until I realized that not all higher spots were better exposed to the sun. There goes one hypothesis.

While I was walking along the school corridors, I looked at the huge leaves of the money plant, and asked it why its leaves were so big. Then I got a flash of insight. The answer was transpiration. Now, money plants have fleshy stems that transpiration pull due to their suppleness. The higher they got, the more power they lost. They simply needed larger leaves so the transpiration pull would be great enough to overcome gravity and the lost power. Trees didn't need such a mechanism because of their woody trunks. Hence their leaves were almost always around the same size according to the species.

Sometimes it's amazing how insight works. You just idly look at something and meditate on its purpose, then everything simply clicks in place.

The Kefitzat He-Derekh

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Assuming that both are true, then by logic both should be destroyed. There is no possible resolution. However, this is improbable considering that, scientifically speaking, no force is truly unstoppable, and no object is completely immovable. It merely takes a sufficiently large force or massive object to shatter the assumptions of either.

Every system has a weakness, and all security has loopholes. The trick will therefore to be to identify those loopholes and thus derive the ideal solution. By finding the golden solution, one will have found the kefitzat he-derekh. The solution may not be perfect in that one side is satisfied and the other is dissatisfied, as that assumes a zero sum game, which is inherently flawed. There is always a loser.

By finding the kefitzat he-derekh, a compromise is reached by which all are satisfied to the sufficient extent that none are truly dissatisfied with their lot. Sometimes, the seeking of such a path will involve a leap of faith. Sifting through all possibilities and paths is impossible even for a prescient mortal, and finding the golden path can be done at times by taking a dive into the unknown, because the future is unknowable.

Girding the nature of the future will call for preparation of the Way, such that the golden path becomes a possibility. The weaknesses of the immovable rock can be exploited, the unstoppable force can be weakened, or either can be deflected such that they do not collide. The question, therefore, would be how this may be achieved...

The Disfigured Man

Sometimes we do things that we regret. Other times, we unconsciously react in ways that make us question our own self-worth. I had one such experience, when I saw this particularly disfigured man on my way home. This was no stranger to me, for I had seen him before. What made me question my integrity was my very visceral and automatic aversion to his appearance.

Now, this was no ordinary disfigurement. Something was wrong with his face, making the flesh appear to be sagging and thus dripping from his face. Imagine that the face was made of gelatinous putty, and someone dragged the whole mass downwards. That was how it looked.

Ordinarily, I would pride myself in not being affected by or discriminate against people on the grounds of their appearances. The strong, nearly physical reaction of shock I get whenever I see his face is something that bothers me greatly. Perhaps my conviction to be non-discriminatory was not that strong after all?

Logically, this would not automatically make me a bad person. After all, it really is something that is greatly out of the norms and thus really quite shocking. Moreover, I was able to get a grip and not flee in a panic after the initial shock. Still, it reminded me of just how I've come to accept what fits within the norms of appearance, and how such a deviation from the norm can be deeply disturbing.

A Question Of Ethics

Word is out that China has been using deceptive tactics in its opening to the Olympics. First was the CGI sequence in lieu of real footage of the giant footsteps, and the other was having a pretty girl stand in for the less attractive siren, while having the better singer voice the lyrics.

What is irksome is the suggestion that the West is somehow unreasonably picking on China. As the Chinese would have said themselves, there is no smoke without fire. This "West" bogeyman can hardly pick on something that does not exist. But the issue is less on these strange East/West politics than the question of ethics.

Make no mistake, the Olympics opening ceremony has always been a political event. It is meant to showcase the country as much as it is to herald the metaphorical giants of sports. The question, therefore, is whether it is ethical to gloss over some minor inadequacies by using illusory substitutes. This is akin to a film, where nobody is offended by special effects until they realize that they are there. Should the suspension of disbelief be shattered, the audience feels cheated. By revealing the Olympic smoke and mirrors, some feel understandably offended.

Still, this is a question of what is real, and thereby what is ethical. If a the singer was the less attractive one, she would have been a slight blemish on the show. In the interests of perfectionism, that would have been unacceptable. Yet in the interests of due credit and humanism, a less than perfect human specimen could still be showcased in the performance and none would begrudge that. People know that they are witnessing a performance space, yet are still seeing it as a human space due to the human presence presumably showcasing human prowess. The confusion of the two leads to the flawed assumption of wanting "real" within an illusory performance space. Was the singing real? They could have easily made a recording in a studio setting, then have her lip synch at the performance proper. Were the fireworks real? They actually happened, even though the footage was fabricated due to safety concerns. What is real? On one paw I think the question of ethics is moot because this is a performance and not a real talent contest. On the other paw, I can understand the human concerns that due credit is not given, and that they are witnessing a wizard of Oz illusion in what they assume to be real.

The Fallacy Of Sentimentality

Sentimentality is in itself a strange phenomenon. People can easily remain strongly attached to certain items, experiences or people despite the fact that the said matter has passed on and is possibly rotting in some dark morass in Mordor.

Taken positively, sentimentality can provide an anchor for morale while it is rationally impossible to feel good about a particular event. On the flip side, there’s a strong tendency to focus on the negative for some people. Ironically, giving them a limited good experience is even worse than providing none at all, for they have a tendency to cry because it’s over.

An event is an event because it is. By virtue of that absurd truism, there should be no reason to dwell on the past. If a good event happened, be happy about it. If it was nasty, learn from it to devise steps to prevent it from recurring.

Do We Need It?

The human mind is a veritable rationalization engine: It is perfectly capable of generating rationalizations out of just about any situation. Therein lies the exploit that is prevalent in materialistic societies: Fooling the mind into providing the profitable answer to Do We Need It?

It is always easier to justify the tangible. This new lens is faster, and I can use it to shoot moving stuff better. This blouse is the right side so I can wear it. Things that have a function can easily be rationally justified. There's a need for the function, so a tool is obtained to fulfill that function.

Then comes the intangibles. This blouse is "better" than the one I have. That lens is faster, and *may* increase my capabilities. The car is prettier. In a situation where the budget is tight, there is no room for what-if's. There's no case of I may use it, or that's intangibly "better" than the other item. In fact, this would be a very good tool to save one's expenses for far more valuable things in the long run. Given the incredible ability to rationalize anything, it is a losing battle when one tries to justify the intangibles: There's always an affirmative lurking somewhere. A better question would be Would I Use It A Lot? Marginal utility. That's the ticket.

Communalism

When people think of communalism, the spectre of communism and stifled individuality come to mind. Understandably, it is a very disturbing prospect, being forced to march in step with everyone else whether you like it or not.

However, communalism as understood by most will involve social communalism, whereby people are expected to adhere to a strict set of social rules and are afforded limited freedom of self-expression. I am considering more along the lines of communalism as diverse independent groups being discrete yet able to commune with one another.

Learning is the cornerstone of human survival, and communalism in learning is what sets humans aside from the animals that do not and thus do not learn from their predecessors. Independent isolated communities may have greater individuality, but do not share their knowledge. This encourages redundancy and inefficiency, as ideas generated by one community will not be shared with or learned by any other.

Strangely, society seems less concerned about such issues. Inefficiency is encouraged by guarding ideas and restricting their free flow. Worse yet, the myriad ideas forced to be generated through such regulations are also kept to their creators. Ideas are cheap, and it's really putting them to action that is priceless. How unusual, then, that people are made to march in line yet keep their ideas to themselves: the opposite of what would create a spontaneous, creative people.

Fascist Aesthetics

Fascist aesthetics are very much alive in the proceedings of large choreographed events, such as the Olympic opening ceremony and many nationalistic parades. This is not to say that countries sporting such features are naturally fascist or actually are, but that they subscribe to a certain ideal of presentation that is similar or identical to the fascist aesthetics.

What is often seen as features of fascist aesthetics include strict discipline and restraint, synchrony, tight choreography and a show of strength. Events like military marches, the unified sequences during the opening of the Olympics like the perfectly timed drumming and the typesetting sequence and of course the tightly choreographed nation day parades, and very likely with people sitting (or standing) in a relatively orderly manner to watch the whole event. This is of course in direct contrast to spontaneity encouraged in other countries, where parades are really more like carnivals where people dance on the streets and even mingle with the performers. Happy order against happy chaos.

The fascist aesthetic is undoubtedly strongly appealing. Few things can match the spectacle of such parades, with the stunningly unified show of strength as veritable platoons of civilians do everything in flawless synchronization. In comparison, a spontaneous parade would likely look much more like a rabble having a good time. There is certainly an appeal to the fascist aesthetic, which reminds all of the worrying tendency to appreciate the ideologies that come with a preference for such an aesthetic...

The Beijing Olympics

The Olympics opened with a bang today, with possibly the greatest choreographed performance in the history of the Olympics. I especially loved the sequence of the giant footsteps, whereby fireworks were fired into the air in the likeness of a giant's footprint. This is highly symbolic of the metaphorical titans who walk amongst us in the form of the Olympians.

Perhaps the footage was a little too smooth, and the commentator remarked that the sequence was in lieu of actual filming by a low-flying aircraft in the interests of public safety. While it can be assumed that China would want to save "face" to avoid having their camera plane crash on the day of the Olympics due to the dangerous flying required, I think it is also a relatively uncharacteristic concern for the welfare of its citizens by not risking their lives with the possibility of a plane crashing into someone's house and/or the crowds on the streets.

Other highlights include the perfect unison of drumming in one sequence, and I especially liked the running through the air before lighting the Olympic torch. That was very much something adapted from Chinese swordfighting movies.

On Campaigns

Commanding a campaign in a theater of war is very much a matter of resource management. Committing too many resources too early and thus squandering them may cripple the campaign later on. Yet it does not help to squander those same resources slightly later on in the campaign, and thus achieve the same result.

Through careful management of the resources, it may become possible to gather a climatic push towards the end, if one survives that long. Therefore, it is a careful balance to ensure that just enough resources are used at critical junctures, yet maintaining a sufficient reserve to hold off any future encounters.

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, so one will invariably regret certain moves in retrospect. What is important is to learn from those moves, and to move swiftly. If one must retreat, one should do so in order to conserve resources. When one is facing a winning situation, one should push for victory as strongly as reasonably allowable.

Production Against Consumption

Producers of a product can have such astonishingly different views from consumers of the same. When I was working on a title, I was indeed focused on very different things from what the testers observed. This was surprising, since I am a consumer myself and I would likely know what I would look out for.

When I watched the making of Hannibal Rising, I was listening to what the director had to say about the various scenes. While I was paying attention to the details of the story, he was talking about all the tiny details of the scenes that I never noticed. Little textures like the bicycle strapped to a beaten up tank, for example. Of course, maybe I'm not a WWII buff, so I wouldn't know what to look out for. I'm sure that would be a welcome detail for the savvy audience.

Still, considering the level of detail the producers went into when making films, it makes me wonder exactly how many films had such detail pumped into production, only to be nixed by the overall bad writing and/or acting. The expense sunk into detailed scenes that wind up being cut in post-production is incredible, too. Perhaps that is why films have such incredible budgets, yet seem to display only a fraction of that budget on the big screen. That's because all the extra stuff has been cut out!

Intuition

Some people believe that intuition is a sort of mystical instinct that tells people things they otherwise wouldn't be able to find out. My take is similar to that of the psychologists: That intuition is a product of a split-second consolidation of one's previous experiences. For the purposes of this commentary, I will assume that the intuition in question is of the mundane variety and doesn't involve things like clairvoyance or other reputedly supernatural abilities.

Now, if intuition were truly a product of one's life experiences, it seems logical that a very experienced person would therefore have superior intuition. That is, what they intuit would become increasingly accurate. Unfortunately, attributing a supernatural root to intuition implies that it is an inborn ability that isn't usually honed. Therefore, someone with natural intuitiveness may be convinced of this, and not bother with going around to gain as much experience as possible. It is a danger that such an approach would reduce intuition to guesswork, or basically stunt the growth of the same due to lack of input for processing.