Some Mock Awards for Lit Parody

I took very long to get this up, for either or both of 2 possibilities. One being that I still have yet to recover from the head trauma following a most delibitating blow from a certain someone; the other being that my mental jury was out for the last few weeks.

Loki Scylla - Mod, September - October 2007

Anyway, the judges have decided, and...

....

Drumroll, please.

(BRRRDRDRDRDRDR-CHANG!)

Thank you very much.

Now, since the jury has LEE-turned, let us begin with the first prize

MOST CONTROVERSIAL PLAY: Goes to "King Lee" Lit(RA), for its reference-rich text and colloquial humor, unflinching barbs at society, as well as its high risk of being sued for sedition should the intel go outside, and being sued for use of intellectual property by organizations such as TalkingCock.com or Uncyclopedia.

And next up, we have (points mike at audience)

(no response)

Well, never mind that.

MOST CONSUMMATE MAIN LEAD: Goes to "Deader than Fiction" Lit(RA), for its representation of the most honorable Mr. Seacrest, in the medium of the most theatrical Mr. Thia. Flashy, Stylish, and always willing to get lines from other people. Why, he's the former's mirror image.

Ahsnd nexsht hwhee hahvsh the nesxht awahrd.

MOST VARIATION IN CHARACTERS: Goes to "King Lear" for having 2 Lears, 2 Gloucesters, and a really spastic, but really God-like Edgar.

And that's that. With neck-breaking speed now, let us proceed to...(snap)

MOST NUMBER OF CHARACTERS INJURED IN PROCESS OF PLAY: Goes to "The Gods Must Be Really Crazy" For having injured more than half of its cast (in differing degrees) during rehearsal and having dealt a real knockout punch to its Tybalt cast member.

And now, um, we...well, should like, well, go on to the...yeah, the next award.

MOST MENTALLY CHALLENGING PLAY: Goes to the play with the most number of transvestite characters, for its perplexing vernacular, sinuous action, flummoxing twists, and deviant, subversive plot.

AND NOWWWWWW....



(scroll down)



THE END!!!!!!....

well, not really.

MOST DRAMATIC REVERSAL SCENE: Goes to the high-gravel-blind Juliet, following the "tragic" reversal, complete with a line well taken from the original, coupled with the love of bread and jam.

And that's all folks.

Next year, we shall have smarter humor, fine colloquialisms, and hopefully, more understandable languages and wiser Literature students.

For next year, we shall have Comedy, and no less.

In Retrospect II – Go East, Young Man?

A QUICK DISCLAIMER BEFORE WE BEGIN:

The author, Xenahort Charybdis, is awaiting professional editing upon this article, and thus its neutrality, at least for now, may be in question. However, it may be subject to change when said professional reads and edits it. But in order to comply with his tasks deadlines, this article by Xena has to be posted. So it is purely out of unfortunate necessity. Apologies to all who have been caused inconvenience by the author.

New Mod, Loki Scylla

(and now on to the main essay)

Article Taken From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/06/12/do1203.xml

I am somewhat impressed, while a little disturbed by this author’s viewpoints. Impressed by the fact that he was willing to break the mold when the global pendulum swung eastward, and Mao’s famous statement “The Chinese people have arisen” seemed to look fulfilled, albeit half a century late, but disturbed by the fact that he put it in such a critical fashion.

Although, I perceive, that is what editorials and columns are made of in places where the media isn’t censored.

In light of what the article has stated, I am somewhat reminded of 2 rather interesting issues concerning said country.

Given the recent events of product faults in China-made products, it would appear that either the government, for all its ostensible strictness and “conservativism”, has limited power over these events, or worse.

These same conservative policies have also led to high censorship of blogs, when interestingly enough, there is a serious lack of censorship of pornography, which is not only morally damaging, but reflects just as badly on society as blogs do. Recently, though, for better or worse, the Chinese government has just decided to attempt to stamp porn too, in addition to blogs. I surmise we will have to sit on the sidelines and watch this round.

Also, I have noted with some degree of concern that China’s great amount of growth, does not, in general, affect the vast majority of people in China. Instead, what we have resembles a centralized city system, expanded to fit a country with, just nicely, 1 billion odd people.

Maybe that’s why the thrice-renowned Manchu emperor Kangxi was said to have made incognito travels: because proliferators of such stories recognized that when one ask for reports, you hear “the good stuff”. Well, to be more understanding, in their position, I’d rather show them my Big Apple, rather than show off my Calcutta.

Yet, the trouble remains, and it is the prevailing mentality of powerful oriental landlords of dynasties past: if it’s nice, show it, if it’s bad, hide it; if it supports you, laud it; if it opposes you, silence it.

Yes, it’s damaging to one’s image, yes, it’s bad in UN meetings when it gets brought up. Yes, it’s bad that morals go down and yes, we all know that it’s not very nice to have people speaking up too much in their blogs or other media. No one likes that.

But the new age’s the age of ideas. Have them, or bust.

The new age’s the age of consumerism. “They want it all, they want it now”, and now they want it good, a la post-Sol Badguy age.

Morals can’t be tackled in a legalistic fashion. The less it’s had, the more it’s wanted. If one begs to differ, look at religion’s history in the former Soviet HQ.

Mindsets must change for progress to take place. If one thinks one can raise a revolution without changing mindsets, just stare the French Revolution down the face, and try saying that again.

500 words

In Retrospect – Voices of the Gulf (TERM 3 BLOG 1)

FOREWORD:

Sorry, Ms. Chew that I keep on getting stuck on this, just presenting a new perspective…some Pakistan dude wrote this BEFORE the war started so I find it rather…interesting. But I promise the next one will be different... (And now to the show)

In Retrospect – Voices of the Gulf

It is actually a joke, if one considers how simple it would have been for people to see why it would be stupid to get into a place like the Middle East and get oneself put up against the deeply entrenched fanaticism that results inside.

Even if overthrowing Saddam was the goal, it should have been considered that the insurgency that would follow the invasion was the real threat, and not the paper-thin army that Saddam possessed. That was over in 2 weeks. The insurgency took 4 years, and still it is not over.

The Americans already have had countless examples of insurgency in cases ideological or religious fanaticism. One would have thought that after having seen Vietnam, Afghanistan, and seen Israel’s decades-long enmity with its neighbors, notably Palestine, they would have paused to think about the consequences first before going anywhere.

So, what’s the difference between the US policy makers, who couldn’t have, from an outsider’s vantage point, gotten it more wrong, and this particular editor, who couldn’t have gotten it more right?

It is a matter of perspective.

Having an outsider’s vantage point involves standing back and looking objectively at the evidence and likelihoods. It allows one to analyze situations and predict results accurately, and there is no shortage of logical, informed politicians who would know such things. But throw in a political agenda and it all changes. Political agendas can cloud this analysis with the shroud of “policy” and the “greater good”, and in a world of politics, the more powerful political standpoint will always win out, so long as it has enough clout to overrule the opposition.

So, what is the solution to this problem of perspective in policy making and the making of major decisions in the world arena? Get comprehensive insider information, because then we will have a well informed decision. Get us an outsider’s outlook, so we will have an impartial decision. Lastly, in light of the evidence and analysis gathered from the other two, kick as many political agenda as need be out as ends. With all this done, then we can finally make a right decision.

Well, if only it was that easy. Interestingly enough, this prediction coming from an Israeli, an ally of America, Yossi Alpher, holds very true.

“…a wave of anti-American radicalism and terrorism sweeping the Middle East, Iraq engulfed in ethnic unrest, and millions of refugees destabilizing neighboring countries…”

Given the situation, they can’t really back out now. There’s a limit to a nation’s political clout, no matter what the nation, or at least, it seems so for the time being. They, too, have a lot to answer for, and that, too, is not in doubt.

And you know what? We can’t really do anything, save for two things.

One, always listen to the insider. The insider view, unless with intention to deceive, or being deceived in itself, oft proves right.

And second, let’s all have some silence for Iraq, now shall we?

496 words.

EL Blog Post 2

Source Text: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Post 2: The Mess is on.

One must actually wonder why the statistics look so unfavorable right now. 6 years on from the events of 9/11/01, which began the entire Middle Eastern Saga, here is the scoreboard. No WMDs found, Osama not yet caught, Saddam executed, unstable situation in the Middle East, 3,400 American lives lost, many more Arab lives lost, no sustainable resolution in sight, and a approximate cost of $300 billion, no small sum for any country.

A fiasco, if one might be cynical about it.

Clearly, the Bush administration's rather gung-ho US "preemptive strike" policy seems to be costing them quite dearly, what with walking into the Middle East and overturning 2 whole governments, and never really finding what you were looking for, such as a man named Osama and the WMDs he and Saddam supposedly has on hand. It seems to be lowering many people's views of the Bush administration, so much so that even Americans themselves have lost faith, allowing the Congress to be taken over by the mainly anti-war Democrats.

This had led to much conflict between the presidential agenda and congressional agenda, which has, in its own time, led to the events that is the focus of this newspaper report. Once again, Congress has to decide on whether it should withhold funds from the troops in the Middle East or not, and this time it won't be so easy for them to decide. After all, the majority of the Democrats are not highly enamoured of Bush's plans, and that is plain.

However, it is of interest to note that it is also in their interest to support the funding of the troops, as it will make it seem as though they are in support of the troops, but just not in support of Bush's plan to resolve the war, as some of them may feel, or espouse.

Personally, I feel that this war, while originally justifiable in its nature (against terrorist aggression), has become something a lot less honorable in its latter years, and made to seem more like an attempt to find things that they have no evidence for (WMDs), and close up some loose ends (Saddam was formerly an ALLY of the US against the Soviets).

I also feel that the situation in the Middle East is not so easy to fix, as what they are up against is terrorism plus a religious philosophy which has been deeply ingrained in the psyche of those they are up against, so that they would actually be willing to die for what has been in their heads for so long, without questioning the worthwhileness of their deaths - if they die for their religion, then that alone makes them honorable.

Terrorists are like a pack of wolves, and that does not change. Just driving in with a big lumbering army is really not the smart way of doing things, it just leaves one open to the minor, but chaos-causing, slashing attacks that weaken armies, and then packs of wolves just love using. They should have never walked in like that in the first place. If they had proof, then they could walk in, without fear of such setbacks, because they would be vindicated by the proof.

But they didn't, and still don't have any, so too bad, seriously.

EL Blog Post 1

Source Text: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/11/15/singapore.sex.reut/index.html

Singapore's Sex Life: Now and for the Future.

It has been 4 years since this article was written. Since then, Singapore has been hit by the winds of change, and whether these winds are merely breezes that will whistle past the ears of Singaporeans, or gale-force hurricanes that will sweep the establishment off its feet, still remains to be seen.

Under this backdrop of developments, many major, if rather archaic Singapore laws on sex are also experiencing the tides of change.

Latest in these developments is the revision of the Penal Code of Singapore, which repeals Section 377 (on penetrative , non-reproductive sexual acts), and also the discussion over the feasibility of repealing its companion Section, 377A (the same, save for it affecting homosexuals instead), which remained untouched in the earlier revision.

It appears to be that the main issue is that it appears discriminatory to allow the same act for one group of people, but disallow it in another. Also, given Singapore's long running image of being conservative, and a semi-autocratic government, this discrimination does not particularly reflect well in our current society, as it makes Singapore, even to its own people (among the liberals at least), an archaic society.

But, to look deeper behind this supposed step towards a freer society, we must ask ourselves: even if we did become more liberal in our laws and regulations, would it be a good thing? Is this progress, or simply some form of regress under a thin, positive veneer of what we label "progress"?

Once we have some freedom, we will want more, and that is the painful, but inevitable truth. The government has effectively been withdrawn from the heterosexual bedroom, and now they wish to withdraw it from the homosexual bedroom.

While this can still be justified by raising the concept of "discrimination", I believe that if we keep on taking on this route, we will soon reach a point when there is no behavior, now regarded as vile and impermissible, that we cannot eventually find some concept, or some group of law practitioners, or some rights group to explain away or lobby for.

Granted, the homosexual minority in Singapore actually does have a lot of valid reasons to complain that they are being discriminated against, and if I wanted to be sympathetic, I would even say that it is somewhat justified for them to desire their own rights. The laws were, and some still are, against them, so it is natural for them to have ants in their pants over it.

However, the danger of losing our old moral standards, and the possibility of losing sight of the idea that "something is surely a wrong thing, no matter how good it may look" is still very real.

So, I shall refrain from joining the ranks of those who would celebrate and embrace this concept of freedom, and instead warn that we are facing a serious problem. Even if we could now claim that “there are some things we will never accept”, it’s really not a big deal, or even in the slightest a guarantee that there are some moral barriers we will not cross. Words about these were cheap 100 years ago, and words like these are still cheap now.

But, actions are not cheap, they have consequences. Instead of being besotted with what we think is a “beneficial revising of the law”, we should sit down and think about what these things could do to us, or the generations to come.

5 Quick Tips before an Argument

1. Please make sure you don't end up proving what you meant to disprove.
2. Please make sure you know whether 2 things are mutually exclusive, or not.
3. Please make sure you have enough background knowledge about a topic before you talk.
4. Please make sure you never, EVER back yourself into a corner
5. Please make sure you think before talking, or if not, convince people that you did.

And by the way, there is something wrong with what I wrote up there. If you know what is wrong, Cbox me.

Random Comparisons - Orwell and Huxley

Now, who was right? Aldous or George? 1984 or Brave new World?
In my opinion, Huxley has been easily proven right.

Orwell envisioned a world where we were suppressed,
Huxley envisioned one where we had no real restrictions.

Orwell envisioned a world where we didn't know enough,
Huxley envisioned one where we would be too distracted to do anything.

Orwell envisioned a totalitarian government of rules,
Huxley envisioned a totalitarian government of distractions

Orwell envisioned a world where what we feared would rule us,
Huxley envisioned one where what we loved would rule us.

Orwell's fear was the iron fist of communism and the threat of pain,
Huxley's fear was the phallus of hedonism and the threat of pleasure.


Now which one does it look like today? I shan't insult your intelligence by telling you.

Well, all their smartness and foresight aside...Neither of them really did anything to fix it, or their own lives for that matter. Huxley was an unabashed hedonist himself, and Orwell was a hardcore socialist. Ah well, too bad. At least they gave me something to dilate about.

The Strange Book I: Contradictions and Discrepancies

There is a certain book, with a rather peculiar history.

It has been around for quite a while, long enough for many people to take spikes at it once in a while. But like any good piece of literature, it rose to outlive generations of men, pallbearers, critics and expositors all alike.

But like many books of literature, its alleged "weaknesses" have appeared in criticisms again and again and again, one of which is the idea that it may contain a good many contradictions woven into its plot.

This, however, is a rather strange idea, because through my studies of it, I found none.

Now, a certain event in this book had 2 men recording it. In one man's account, a man named J spoke to 2 men about something while walking down a road, but the other account has no record of this. And for another event, one account had this same J spoke to 2 men about something, but in the second account, it was recorded that one man was spoken to.

People pounce on this and say, "AHA!" Very enlightening, but I think not so. Why? I would say that this is because there is a difference between "Contradiction" and "Discrepancy".

A contradiction would be that "J said this to A and B" and in the other account "J spoke to only A". This could be considered a contradiction, because the two accounts are in direct conflict. However, this might be attributed to mistaken information in one of the men, or something of the order. (And if you know the context of the book this is a very minor event, and does not really affect the credibility of the book)

A discrepancy on the other hand is that "J said to A and B" and in the other account "J said to A". The difference is that while no mention was made of B, the second account did not assert that B was not spoken to, while the contradiction did. B could have been spoken to in the same words, but on a separate occasion, or some other possibility.

Unfortunately, what was detailed in the book was definitely a case of the latter.



(Omission and Denial are not the same thing. If any would-be critic already guessed the book, I invite him/her to have a little chat with me on the comments page.)

Foolishness of the Week IV (Yes, it's back again!)

In a certain (unnamed) magazine, a certain (unnamed) journalist used David Hume's quote concerning the rules for science and sophistry as a punchline against the credibility of religion in general.

Now old Dave Hume was a notable skeptic, and he never really liked the metaphysics of religion a lot, so one of his tirades against it, he wrote:

"If a theory cannot be observed by any of the 5 senses, or be verified by the laws of mathematics, then it is pure sophistry and should be consigned to the flames."

Promptly, however, on further thought, he went on to write something else. Upon reading the note, I called him honest and an intelligent man indeed.

In Your Head, Or On Your Head? - Reflections II

I spent a lot of time drawing in choir lately...when other sections were being grilled, and when it came to my section, I did my best to play a role in causing us to be dismissed from the grilling faster.

But I reflected that in some ways, the fine arts are very similar: The detail works must be intelligently drilled, not drilled in mindlessly. They had to be in the head, not on the head.

By in the head I refer to the fact that concepts at all costs must be memorized and understood fully, and then drilled out. You can't drill and hope people will understand. That is like dumping books on their head, and saying: "do them", and ignoring the question "why?"

Instead, it should be done by letting them understand fully what it is about, and what for it is there, and have them memorize it and record it just in case. Then and only then do you begin to drill them. Then they will have the ideas in their heads, and can get it right.

If they don't understand the concepts, drilling them will just let them know that you want them to do something, they will forget once in a while. Worse, they won't be able to extrapolate it, because they don't understand how it works.

But if they do know how it works, then not only will they be able to be drilled more easily, you will also find it easier to extrapolate the idea.

You can study very hard for a test, but still fail it because you don't understand the concepts and fail to extrapolate the ideas. But if you understand the concepts, it makes your life so much easier!

The Best is Yet to Be - Reflections I

SYF time rolls along again, and as per normal, the onus is on RV to bring the gold, as much as it is laid on every other CCA participating.

But are we just gonna go out there and get some GwH? Or is there something else?

A Gold is nothing really. It's just a reflection of your standard as far as everyone else is concerned. It may, or may not, reflect your standard as far as you are concerned.

The similarity? That it is not easy to get either one done well. The difference? That the first one is secondary, and the second one is primary. It's not only the gold we should be looking for, it is to attempt to realize our fullest potential at the stage we are at.

Some do their best, but only get a Silver. That "best" is their reward, more than the silver ever will be. Some slack off, but still get a Gold. But do they have that intrinsic reward, or the maturity to realize whether they even have it? Perhaps not.

Let us then, be CCAs in RI who can walk off proudly from the stage, satisfied, and still get our GwH for the bragging rights back at school. Now that's the perfect combo.

The Strange case of Me and Myself - EL Blog Post

Taken From: The Straits Times, 24/2/07
Title: New Media: A Case of Jekyll and Hyde

With the rise of the new age of technology, so too, follows the new age of crime.

Before, the crime was done in person, and belonged solely to those bold enough to do so in person, but today, improvements in cyber technology has given rise to a new breed of lawbreakers: Those emboldened and uninhibited by the supposed anonymity on the internet, and driven by peer pressure and/or the misguided belief that things on the internet are "free".

They think they aren't seen. They think they won't be caught. They think it's alright. Better, they actually don't mind going on like this. Best of all, they can be anyone.

There have already been many examples of such people, even here in Singapore, who have been caught on the wrong side of prosecutions for law infringements on the net. But yet, there are many who persist in such practices, and there are even those who have a “till the last thing is mine” attitude.

While the rise of technology has provided us many new benefits, as always, there are ways to misuse these benefits, and there are those who would exploit such opportunities.

For example, the email can be used to send emails, to share vital information, and even just to talk. Cameras are now installed in hand-phones, and there are now even tiny cameras available, for security and for convenience. But yet, the good aspects of these things, could, too be used for evil purposes, such as online scams, and to promote the notorious art of voyeurism, both now made so easy by technology.

Why then, is this happening? Why is there this rise of a morality of “It’s alright, it’s all free anyway, and it’s not that serious, I won’t get into trouble, so long as I’m not hurting anyone”? Why are people who are the average person normally, the criminal on the internet?

It has a lot to do with two things: Dishonesty, and Greed. It’s whether we have enough integrity as we think we do when no one is around to stop you. It’s whether we will settle for the things we already have, or if we want to succumb to the temptation of getting something we want but don’t have, and get it free.

In the eyes of these people, they think that when no one is watching, they can do whatever they want, and get whatever they want.

But “Code Blue is Watching Them”. In order to counter the rise of these “cybercrimes”, many IT consultancies are now working double time as cyber sleuths, seeking out and reporting these “cyber criminals” to the police. In addition, private music industries and even the MOE have been roped in to stem the Red Tide of cybercrime, through talks educating students, the most high-risk age group for cybercrime, about the dangers of illegal acts on the internet.

And as I said before, many here in Singapore (I shall not name them here) have already been arrested and sentenced to various punishments, for various crimes, such as stealing wireless signals, illegal downloading, cyber-voyeurism and the like, thus displaying, albeit in a very limited way, the effectiveness of the enforcement of the legislation

Alas, forbidden fruit tastes all the sweeter because it is forbidden.

Will these “preventive measures be successful, or will they all just go down the drain as wasted resources, or as the Chinese say it, be “taken as wind around the ears”?

In my opinion, it’s the people who are on the receiving end of these legislations, and their mindsets that matters. It really boils down to whether people will be willing to listen to these warnings, and refrain thereafter from these illegal acts.

Even if the legislature were to ban illegal downloading altogether, if the people’s hearts are not turned to the law, then it will either be rule by force, or just an empty shell of a law, with the occasional “example of what happens” cyber-martyr that makes ripples everywhere but where it would really bang a nail into the coffin of cybercrime: The minds of the people.

Only if there is a change of mindset, can there be a real change in the situation.

The Illusionary Idea of the Illusionary World

The idea that the world is illusionary is rather strange, at least the way I see it.

Given Set Theory, if the world is an illusion, then if you are within the parameters of the world, you are an illusion yourself, and therefore do not exist.

What on earth does anything matter to something that doesn't exist, and what on earth does something that doesn't exist matter to anything else?

Taking an example of escaping a situation of being under threat, you would require a self, a threat, and a freewill to escape. If any one or more of the three were an illusion, or if all were an illusion, it wouldn't make any sense anymore.

For example, if the threat were illusionary, there would be no logical need to escape it, and if you and the freewill were illusionary, it wouldn't matter if the real threat hit you anyway.

Best of all: How about the existent illusionary self, using an existent illusionary freewill to escape the existent illusionary threat.

You need existence to breed an existing freewill, and then again you need something existent to run from. There's no point in running if your freewill is illusionary, there's no point in running if you were, and there's no point running if the threat was an illusion too. And the argument would break down in itself if all of them were illusions. Ha, ha.

And another thing funny, is that people bother to think about such things, all the while assuming that they have existent, non-illusionary knowledge to illuminate the existent illusionary people of the world in an existent illusionary world.

Or, they make some cheapskate, non-provable, non-disprovable, intellectually dishonest idea concerning the absolute truth of their premise, which usually has no rational grounds whatsoever.

Checkmate.

The Foolishness of the Week III

A rather angry woman was sitting in on a sermon on the Meaning of Life. Rather angry with the pastor's statements about coherence and incoherency, she stood up and railed at him, "WHO TOLD YOU THINGS IN LIFE HAD TO BE COHERENT?"

The pastor looked at her in an amused fashion, but said rather seriously, "Ma'am, I have an answer for you, but would you like it coherent or incoherent?"

Oopsie Daisies.

Checkmate: Nirvana Lost

"Can one not need, and be free of all desire?"

At times, we may think life is so burdensome, that we want to quit, and we wish we needed nothing, and desired nothing.

It happened to me before, and I thought I could do it. Pity it was an illusion, a chasing after the wind.

Why? Why the end to such a desire?

Because it was a desire. I realised it was impossible for me to not need, or be free of desire, because I needed the desire to desire nothing as a premise, and then have the need to believe I need nothing as another premise, and also as the conclusion.

I couldn't do that without making a walking fallacy out of my life, so I gave up.

The Foolishness of the Week II

"There is no such thing as an exclusivistic truth, in terms of religion. Anything else would be epistomological arrogance."

Very funny.

One, truth by definition is exclusive. I can't say "I am me" and the next "No, absolutely not, I am my grandfather" and think that it is logical, that is ridiculous.

Two, they are assuming that "pluralism is the way to go in terms of religion" is the exclusivistic truth in terms of religion. Interesting, but a self-contained fallacy.

------NEXT FOOLISHNESS-----

Student: "Sir, How do I know I exist?"

Teacher: "And whom, shall I say, is asking?"

Even funnier.

For one thing, the student, if he didn't exist, couldn't have asked the question, and the teacher wouldn't have answered it, because he would never even have heard it.

For two, the teacher was purposely assuming he could hear the question from a non-existent person, but gave such an answer to inform the student of the fallacious nature of his question.

Strange Quotes People Made:

Napoleon : "What is History but a fable agreed upon?" (A strange quote, taking into account that Napoleon made history himself.)

Voltaire: "All sects are different, because they come from men, but morality everywhere is the same, because it comes from God." (That really depends if you woud accept God or reject him.)

Isaac Asimov: "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." (Uh...hold on, unless he's talking about a warped sense of morals, this statement is a bit...weird.)

Aldous Huxley: "An intellectual is one who has discovered something more interesting than sex." (It really doesn't take an Einstein to find out something more interesting than sex, just that Aldous was a hedonist, and his only doubts about it were expressed in Brave New World, and nowhere else.)

A flash in the pan

Many people remember the rival of Rome, Carthage, and the general Hannibal, but how many remember the one who defeated Carthage? His name was Scipio Africanus, student of Polybius and general of the Roman Empire.

This man, who defeated the worst enemy of his nation's empire, was thinking of very transient things in his moment of glory. On the burning of Carthage, he said talked about the mortality of nations, even Rome. And on his mounmental victory which crowned him in glory, he had this to say: "It too will pass."

A Nation's Regress

In a recent poll, it appears that this generation of Americans have a new view about religion, Christianity in particular. They now believe that it is good for them, that America is a Christian nation, but that it should play only a small role in the running of the nation.

America is the only nation in the world to have been formed by Christian men, with Christian foundations for a Christian nation. That it has fallen to only giving their nation's premise a sense of lip service is nothing short of a joke, if not the laughingstock of the world, that a nation could so flatly push off the forces that created it, let it survive, and give it power. For it was this unity that allowed it to pull through many tribulations, from a revolution to civil war.

A look at the annals by Polybius, The Histories, brings us a valuable insight into why Rome, and many other republics, fell: The eponymous "corruption of customs". Rome fell because of the corruption of its constitution.

The problem was similar for America. Its founders knew that a brilliant constitution would not save them from corruption. Rome was one of the greatest constitutions ever known, but it fell. So how could they keep America from falling similarly?

Was it the concept of democracy? Definitely not. Even the great American founder John Adams said that "there was never a democracy that did not commit suicide". Definitely not a nice way of putting democracy's chances of saving a nation.

Was it humanism and the efforts of man and the constitution? Most certainly not, as it was already proven then, and even more so now, that man left to his own devices would subvert his own system.

Those who created America, however, had a solution to it: They would combine 3 aspects that they believed would save them: Liberty, Virtue and Religion/Faith, three interdependent, interlocking values.

For liberty had to be paired with virtue, so it would not be subverted by the lack thereof, virtue needed faith, for they believed that God was the giver of the absolute moral law, as recorded in the Bible. Also, faith needed liberty. After all, you must be at liberty to do anything, to do anything.

Also, they believed in an unimposed Christianity that would flourish by their faith, and go form strength to strength. They knew all too well that once a religion like theirs became established and imposed, it could all too easily repeat the tragedy of the Crusades, through which, counter-posed to the actual nature of Christianity, was used for conquest, furthering of ambition, and the spilling of enough blood to fill the sea.

Another irony is that this point is sorely missed by skeptics who would question the Christian on such a basis. Possibly because if they argued from a standpoint of historicity it would be tantamount to climbing a steep slope under heavy fire.

It has been said that it is after war that people become disillusioned, that it is during peace time that people become complacent, and that it is when conflicts begin brewing again when these same people will no longer have any more answers, let alone know what to do.

And lo and behold, America has indeed changed. Far from being a nation in which God was fundamental, and the state government is marginal, now the government and the people are fundamental, and God is made second fiddle, or else not included.

And now, the God that the founding fathers believed in is being made to play second fiddle once again, to something a lot more like that of the French during their anarchic revolution: God aside, Power to the People!

And what was the result of the French Revolution? A godless bloodbath, nothing less.

The idea that "we must save ourselves", and the suggestion that there is a better idea, is nothing but a valiant attempt to block out the facts, if modern society reflects anything about our current state.

The world without any moral law (save what we give ourselves), if not fallen enough already, is on a downward spiral towards insanity.

All kinds of sexual inclinations, so long blocked out in America by its Christ-based constitution, are now rampant, accepted, and worst of all, promoted.

The media and pop culture have also been infused with so much secularised thought that it is almost inevitable that even pop groups go on a downspiral (look at the Black Eyed Peas, and see how much "Don't Phunk with My Heart" is such a far cry from "Where is the Love?"

As to the democracy, it was also written by Polybius that,

"When a commonwealth, after warding off many great dangers, has arrived at a high pitch of prosperity and undisputed power ... the manner of life of its citizens will become more extravagant; and that the rivalry for office, and in other spheres of activity, will become fiercer than it ought to be. And as this state of things goes on more and more ... this will prove the beginning of a deterioration."

Sounds like America? It sounds like the world anyway. Worse, Polybius didn't say it all.

The average person does not have to look hard for depravity. Just a quick look on the internet, or a look around his or her school campus would speak volumes already.

Ironically enough, people such as the founding fathers of America such as John Adams, American presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Even more amusing to note is that we don't see so much of this talk anymore.

People like CS Lewis (Men Without Chests) and Muggeridge, and from Russia, more recently, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, also warned us of the dangers of godlessness and the lack of moral fibre.

And now can America, weakened as it is by the influences of secularisation, pluralisation, among other things, say with confidence: In God We Trust?

Even now, they put their faith instead on the people, a highly volatile authority, and easily swayed by current events, national illusion or disillusionment and by the charisma of men and women who have the proverbial "three inches of immortal tongue", and on secular authority.

The issue of religion however, is left at this : "Yes, religion and God is rather good to change people's moral values, and we think it has been pushed away too much, but we don't want it imposed on us either. And yes, America is a Christian nation...but oh no, no thanks, we don't want God in our politics and our laws, thanks."

It really leaves one to think "What God?"

And why America? Why did I pick them to hit all of a sudden? Because it is the greater tragedy when something at the height of its power falls.

I'm not carthartic though.

Source: http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=153

Fool's Mate

The Fool's Mates in Life:
Thinking that the world is getting better and better.

Thinking that you have to look hard to find depraved people. Just go on the NET.

Missing out on the good things in life just because you think it's meaningless.

Missing out on manga on the basis that it doesn't teach you anything. That's silly.

Playing pallbearer to someone who is somehow or rather, irreplacable.

Playing 2 pawns leaving your king open to a bishop move.

Having no purpose in life.

Having no person of the opposite gender to court in your life.

The Foolishness of the Week I

"We have yet to grow out of the infantile disorder of God and belief in some almighty deity. Yet in our own wisdom, all we can find to replace such a being, would either be just as or more ludicrous, or would have more negative implications than the crutch we call God. Would it then be wiser to believe nothing, and instead, question everything? Seemingly so, but it is, admittedly, difficult to go through life with no leg to stand on."

How amusing indeed. I made this line up on the fly. It's interesting to play with.

Surviving in Singapore: Riding the Lightning

We went to watch "Survivor Singapore" on Thursday.

They took a lot of cheap shots. It was very funny. They fired off a lot of pop-culture references and sexual innuendo. There was a lot of Singlish and the usual mish-mash "rojak" result of cross-cultural assimilation.

Was there anything deeper? Oh, plenty.

It was all about 1 thing: Dysfunctions

The dysfunctional teenager: devoid of all survival abilities, self-centred, self-indulging, self doubting and pampered or (alternatively) suppressed beyond belief. Many ideas they make are innovative but superficially ridiculous, and are thereafter subjected to the suppression fire of the school and the society, but only after the plan goes wrong. Have a desire to speak out but have no voice.

The dysfunctional parents: Outwardly believing that they want the best for their children, instead they either pamper or oppress their children, giving them only what they need materially, and neglecting the emotional needs and the psyche of their chidren. And when the children go wrong, they push the blame on the children for not having accepted their well meaning actions, and call their children "rebellious", hypocritically sidelining their own hand in the alienation they now receive from their childern.

The dysfunctional school: Expouses innovative thinking and the classic "thinking out of the box", but yet they do not do anything to guide this innovative thinking, regarding the ideas given as "ludicrous" and "dangerous", and then, instead of helping them to formulate their ideas into workable ones, they dismiss them, ignore, and then, once trouble brews, they condemn them and like authority does when misused, dismiss their own part in their own problem.

The dysfunctional media: While the media should stand impartially on the sidelines and report the news as it really is, it has now been corrupted and thoroughly intermingled with the corporate world, and posts the news that will bring the most people to the screen or to the sheets of newspaper before them. This has given rise to sensationalism, the race for sponsors, viewership, subscription and ultimately to the popularity of the tabloid.

The dysfunctional society: Best of all, the society works like that too, and condones such things to happen. We take our racial equality for granted. We think that money is everything, and even if we don't, we sometimes act as though we do. The worst thing: NO ONE OWES US A LIVING.

(If you don't know that yet, or don't want to know, I'd sooner take a Blutsauger and shove it between your shoulderblades than acknowledge your existence.)

This, I already knew. At least, people would express it in their plays, but ah, that is probably just part of the reflective nature of the society looking back on its fallen nature. The anegnorisis sets in, and regret follows inadvertently. Will there be a carthartic purging? Ah, I say, not while this world lasts. Not while this world lasts.

"We will soon forget the innocence of the now, and be immersed in the deluge, drowned in the tumult of the real world and its stark realities. Only too soon will we know that we are all sufferers in a suffering world, mourners in a mourning world, and the dying in a dying one. Whence will we turn? How shall we question? And who will answer? Who will answer? Who will answer?"

(Perhaps I love making up my own lines too much. This one I took from a popular song of some decades back, and took an idea from one of Voltaire's writings. It has always amused me to think about the pallbearers of God, and how miserably they have failed, and how deeply they despaired in their pride and in their wisdom. O confounded men!)


"For the weakness of God is stronger than man, and the foolishness of God is wiser than man...May the light prevail."

(A lonely amen)

Blogging about Blogs

Some time at the end of last year, I went to a website called Global Voices online, and there I saw firsthand how under the mask of polite speech and the smother of netiquette can lurk the most venomous hatred and prejudice, as well as pride.

It was over the matter of Japan/China/Korea (AGAIN), and it was, once again about the War (AGAIN). This time, the flashpoint was a certain blog about a manga of which the main topic was the kenkanryu (hate korea wave) comic that got slammed like crazy. My first though was "They've been at it for more than 61 years now. MAN, bunch of arrogant jokers."

For some inexplicable reason, the topic hoisted up a lot of emotions about the whole affair, even reaching back towards the 1930s and 1940s. Then I wondered "Why on earth are they digressing all the way back down those 60 odd years? It's totally off topic."

I was to be surprised at how deep and confounding the "digression" was. Looking back, perhaps the digression was the main point after all. It could only have been the bad blood between 3 countries that could have caused such an online furore.

But what drew me in was the anger against Japan, and sometimes, back. I felt it was extremely repulsive that while the nettiquette of most of the people was legal, but the emotions brought out were seriously, terrible. they used a lot of vivid analogy: One rather angry blogger even asked me if I would forgive the man who raped my wife. I told him yes, and I'm sure he thought I was crazy.

(He is currently avoiding me on GBO, and I don't want to go after him anyway)

So I joined the line, on Japan's end of it. It was, ironic, I must say, that those defending Japan should come from places like Singapore and China, and the United States. We had to fight a lot of outright challengers, one of which I shall call J.

J was also the one who asked me if I would forgive the man who raped my wife. He was the most emotional of my opponents, and he loved to give, if not outright spam, historicity about Japan's atrocities, and asking how we could possibly forgive them for it. It was rather ugly. Most of the comments was "your information is biased" this, and "the information there has broken links and its outdated" that, and that was perplexing. I read some of the documents, and to the best of my knowledge, they were accurate enough. It got to a point when I was almost tempted to flame all my opponents, asking "How many of you have a Sony product in your house? how many of you read manga? How many of you use Japanese stuff? If you would take that from them, and not this history, SCREW YOU! It's not as if China never invaded anyone, it's not as if Korea never invaded anyone!" Of course, I wouldn't say that, and I didn't (It would have gotten me a slap on the wrist, or somewhere worse.). It would have been too emotional, anyway.

Essentially we crossed swords, I with the foil, he with a claymore. Add in a lot of other people wielding their own online debating material, and we have a rather major melee.

The foil, while weak in terms of the hurt it deals to the opponent, finds many holes in his defences, while on the other hand, the claymore, while heavy and deadly both as an impact and as a slicing weapon, is hard to handle, and easier to dodge and counter.

But it wasn't as easy as I made it sound with that analogy. It was still difficult to deal with someone who had been clouded by prejudice so much. I can't really blame him, from his point of view, the Japanese really must look bad, unlike us in Singapore, many of us no longer even think about such things. Perhaps that has a lot to do with our countries' philosophies and our pride, and our way of treating and perceiving history

The ending was inconclusive, as the forum thread got closed. Anyone with a brain would have seen that coming, and all the same, emotions shouldn't have been let to run amok as they did on that thread.

Retrospectus Ipsum: Januarius

Looking back on the last month, it must be admitted that where it was good, it was good, and where it was bad, there was no match to its sorry doldrum.

OBS was good, the finale was however, an anticlimax if not the nightmare day. Compared to the half-day suffering in the row boat, the sufferings my ears faced at the finale forced it to pale into the twilight. At least, the former was fun. We had our teammates to help us and we all went through it together.

Only good thing was, we sang the batch song, and the theme fit the song.

The school term went well, in general, except for minor hiccups. It was uneventful, though, disappointingly. The burden of a senior in my CCA has begun to set in, somewhat. Teaching juniors for 40 minutes is edifying to them, but is mentally tiring.

On the side note of the proverbial silver lining, we now know how to empathise with teachers. Man, they suffer a lot.

Thoughts of the Month:

RI boybands should really get a vocalist from RV next time, and no overly noisy music. The assumption/myth that all people like rock is totally fallacious.

And we should spend more time working on our speed at doing tests, not just at doing them. Teachers seem to be learning well as to how to own us by the length of the test alone.

Endless Waltz

This is just the beginning.
The beginning of an Endless Waltz.