Dennis Yip @ blogspot.com

David Suzuki discovers the diversity of Japan

2011-12-23T10:02:00.000-05:00

Saw a great interview between Allen Gregg and David Suzuki on the Diversity of Japan.

YouTube link: http://youtu.be/Skdyc-11bow

Some interesting points:

Japan is not one single, monolithic culture. There is tremendous diversity.
There are many Indegenious people within the country of Japan still fighting for their cultural identity
Okinawa has a unique culture, different from the rest of Japan, and stresses this.
The Burakumin, and their role in society as the "untouchables". I didn't know this existed elsewhere than India.
The amalgamation of the Shinto religion, Nationalism and Militarism in the past, and its repercussions when Japan underwent an unconditional surrender to the Allied Forces.
Urban disenchantment: the modern cities of Tokyo, Osaka and Kyoto are entrained within concrete, engineered habitats and removed from nature.
As a result of the Japanese undergoing unconditional surrender during World War II, the citizens were shocked to realize the God they had been revering in the Emperor was a mere mortal. As a result, America began to be revered.
Japanese economics as the new "military force". E.g. CEOs as the new generals of the time, modern "military casualties" as strong, healthy business people (salarymen) suddenly dropping dead - probably from workplace exhaustion.
Aum Shinrikyo and its means as a home for dissatisfied Japanese, although rebutting in an extremist fashion.

Discourse on the current state of global economic affairs

2011-08-19T11:28:00.000-04:00

I had an interesting conversation with a friend regarding International Economies today. What do you think? Am I in line or out to lunch? His name's been anonymized to protect identity.

Friend: so what do you think about the current state of the american economy, what predictions do you have?

me: i think it's getting rocked

i think it'll stay this way

possible go into recession too

but i think there will be a shift in the global economies

smart countries will begin to invest in the BRIC nations

capitalizing on their growing markets

and that will be the saviour of the western economies

i think silver looks promising

because of the ever-increasing use of Ag in electronic devices

with google recently acquiring motorola, it shows a change in the electronics industry

to a vertical supply chain structure

so motorola will be able to do things it could never imagine

with google's capital backing it

likewise with microsoft-nokia/RIM and apple

there's also a shift to cloud computing

which will only increase as governments increase their security protocols

that will also drive the electronics industry

Sent at 11:13 AM on Friday

Friend: so you see the possiblity of further growth more likely than a recession?

me: i think there will be a slow period / recession for about a year or two

because the western nations are only realising the potential of the BRIC nations now

for example, mcguinty going to visit brazil recently

america has to do the same

soon

but they have a huge invest locally attitude at the moment

with the possbility of stimulus again

that will affect them in the short term

then the capital markets and companies will realise to invest foreign instead

especially China

Friend: but it seems that america is more strapped for cash than ever now

do they have the funds needed to invest without affecting social security?

me: the american government is strapped for cash

but the private companies aren't

for example, i think apple had something like $900 billion cash

the big banks like JP Morgan are still strong

they will begin to invest more and more in the BRIC nations

including micro-loans which are gaining a lot of popularity

CRTC & Internet Usage Based Billing

2011-01-31T19:24:00.003-05:00

from	Dennis Yip
to		John McCallum McCallum.J@parl.gc.ca, John McCallum john@johnmccallum.ca, Hon Michael Chan mchan.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, Dalton McGuinty dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, Industry Canada minister.industry@ic.gc.ca, Tony Clement at Ottawa Clement.T@parl.gc.ca, Tony Clement at Huntsville and Sundridge Clemet1@parl.gc.ca, Tony Clement at Parry Sound Clemet2@parl.gc.ca, Tony Clement at Bracebridge and Gravenhurst clemet1a@parl.gc.ca, Michael Ignatieff Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca, Jack Layton laytoj@parl.gc.ca, Jack Layton Constituency info@jacklayton.ca, Pauline Marois pauline.marois@assnat.qc.ca, Toronto Star Editorial and Newsroom city@thestar.ca, Globe and Mail newsroom@globeandmail.com, Toronto Sun torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca, James Wallace Editor-in-Chief at Toronto Sun james.wallace@sunmedia.ca, Economist and Sun admin@econsun.com, Stephen Harper pm@pm.gc.ca, Reuters News editor@reuters.com, BBC News news@bbc.co.uk, CBC News yournews@cbc.ca, CTV Online News Team newsonline@ctv.ca, CTV News news@ctv.ca, CTV News Channel ctvnewschannel@ctv.ca, Consumer Alert segment on CTV News alert@ctv.ca, Frank Scarpitti fscarpitti@markham.ca, Ty Trippet at Bloomberg News ttrippet@bloomberg.net

date		Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:20 PM
subject		CRTC & Internet Usage Based Billing

To whom it may concern:
According to the CEO of the Canadian Internet service provider (ISP) TekSavvy Solutions, Canadian ISPs have “just become a collection agency for the monopolies”. On January 25th, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) gave the go-ahead to allow Bell Canada to charge Usage-Based Billing (UBB) to local Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Any data over your cap will be penalized with extra charges. According to an employee of TekSavvy, bandwidth costs to your ISP are “1 to 3 pennies per gig”. Your local ISP is now obligated to charge you $1-4 per GB, more than a 10000% markup, and pass that money directly to Bell.

This is a disaster for anyone who is currently using the Internet. Internet bills will certainly increase; not just for home users, but for businesses, hospitals and educational institutes alike. It is trivially easy to pass the 25-50 GB caps that will come into effect. Watching a low-end HD movie on the Internet can consume roughly 4-6 GB, a single television show episode can be as much as 1.5 GB, and streaming just 30 minutes of 720p videos on YouTube every day could use over 30 GB. In addition to the above, necessary software and operating system updates for your computer can amount to several GB of data.

So why the sudden push to impose UBB? The reason is Netflix Canada, an online DVD-rental and movie streaming service that has recently become available. Bell is the owner of the CTV television network and offers monthly television subscription services. It is apparent that Bell has decided that the best way to deter online television and movie service is by making online streaming too costly by over-charging for bandwidth. The high costs will ensure that you do not cancel your television service, as watching programs online will be unaffordable. UBB is limiting our access to Bell’s television competitors - this is clearly anti-competitive. It is also a conflict of interest to allow our ISPs (who are also our television broadcasters) to restrict our ability to switch to their competition by making them cost prohibitive.

For the CRTC to ignore such a huge conflict of interest is shocking. It is clear that the CRTC’s members are unfit to regulate the industry they are beholden to. Not only will UBB restrict our access to competition, it will also kill innovation in Canada - it will kill online storage service, it will cloud computing and it will prevent Canadians from utilizing the latest technology that businesses and societies rely on.
Questions that should be asked, and answered are:

•     How did the CRTC justify these decisions?
•     The CRTC's duty is to the public; how was the conclusion made that this is the best decision for the public?
•     Who regulates the CRTC to make sure they are honouring their duty to the public?
•     Is the CRTC accountable to anyone? If so, who?
•     If the CRTC stands by its decision, how can they justify the public outcry that has been created as a result?

There are several possible solutions that can be implemented to stop our Internet access from dropping to third-world levels. Two of them are outlined below:

1. Disband the CRTC and replace it with an organization directly responsible to parliament, fill it with members who won’t rubber-stamp every anti-competitive request made by our monopolies.
2. Adopt a system similar to the one in Japan, where the owner of last mile infrastructure (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone) was broken up into competing companies. They were also forced to lease their lines to smaller competitors at wholesale rates. Thanks to government regulations mandating competition, Japanese citizens now enjoy un-capped 160 Mbps Internet speeds for $60 a month, speeds unheard of here in Canada, at any price.

For all the reasons mentioned above, we respectfully ask that you do everything in your power to spread the word and help protect an affordable and efficient Internet in Canada. We ask that you inform the public and help grow the opposition against Usage-Based Billing by running a story about the effects this will have on our society, economy, and our wallets.

For more information, please visit:
- CBC Coverage on CRTC Ruling - http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/01/27/technology-internet-usage-based-billing-mezei.html
- TekSavvy’s (affected ISP) Message Re: CRTC Ruling - http://www.teksavvynews.com/
- CRTC Ruling - http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-44.htm
- How Internet Infrastructure Affects Businesses – http://www.financialpost.com/Canada+aging+Internet+infrastructure+expensive+slow/2645661/story.html
Your concerned constituent and citizen,

Dennis Yip
Markham, ON

--
Dennis Yip
Email: yip.dennis@gmail.com
Web: https://sites.google.com/site/yipdennis/

Feast and Famine: Shifting to a sustainable food system

2010-06-06T10:01:00.011-04:00

This past Tuesday, I was at Trinity College for a panel discussion on developing a sustainable food system. It was held at Trinity College by the Munk School of Global Affairs. The following are some interested points I noted, as well as my thoughts and opinions on them.

The discussion was started by Rosemary McCarney, President & CEO Plan Canada. - (Plan is a global movement for change, mobilizing millions of people around the world to support social justice for children in developing countries.) --website excerpt

Feinstein international center - The Feinstein International Center develops and promotes operational and policy responses to protect and strengthen the lives and livelihoods of people living in crisis-affected and marginalized communities. (Excerpt from their website).
Natural disasters on food - This was a great point here in that natural disasters seem to be on the rise, and a possible correlation tied to climate change. This will have a significant effect on food supply as agricultural communities may be impacted by such disasters. One of the pitfalls of a centralized, global network of supply food management is that certain locations are specialized, or are relied on to produce specific types of food. If a supply issue were to arise for the worse, then this would increase food prices to above that which people could afford. Contrast this with local farms, where food is produced locally in each community and the community dictates its supply and demand. Since not all locations will be hit by natural disasters, and providing that the local community has arable land, then as a whole, there will be fewer people affected by the disasters.
Climate change - land degradation
Stress on water supply
2020 drought, population doubling in Sub-Saharan Africa - Some problems that would lead to negative feedback in unsustainable growth.
Solutions: Revolt (e.g. Cairo), emigrate, die. - Last one isn't an applicable solution; moreso an inevitability if unsustainable practices were to continue.

Unsustainable practices
Agricultural Markets prevent developing countries from developing agricultural systems - A result of capitalistic markets making agricultural crops a commodity. Cheap prices are good for consumers, of course; but by encouraging those select few that can grow cheap, which equates to profit by large wholesaling, the small start-ups are eliminated from the business. This very idea is oxymoronic as the ideals of capitalism promote increased competition, thereby leading to competitive prices amongst many individuals/companies.
Chronic underinvestment in infrastructure - If foods are continually procured from the same sources, the oligopolies of the food industry, then it logically precludes that these oligopolies have the necessary infrastructure to operate their affairs. New farmers in developing countries without the requisite infrastructure; for example, running water, sanitation, materials and so forth; are effectively cut from the agricultural game before they even begin.
Price increases in goods, oil - Just like the class problem: the rich will continue to become richer, as they are the only ones that can afford to do so; and the poor become poorer, as they have no chance to compete with the higher class.
Energy cost increases
Rising standards of living, especially middle class in India and China, leads to an increase in meat consumption -> need to grow grain for raising of animals for meat. China buying arable land to satisfy its needs. - Meats are a more agriculturally and ecologically intensive source of food than plants are, i.e. fruits and vegetables. Although such populations can afford increased consumption of meats, it should not be a necessity. A healthy, balanced diet is what's required in the end and increased consumption of meats for the reason of satiating a pseudo-appetite is incorrect. A cultural shift must occur across the nations to have people living healthy and undergoing a balanced diet.

Canadian government - Go Canada! We're quite charitable, though percentages of our population are also in poverty and have little or nothing to eat.
World food programme contribution
First country to ever give
4th largest donor
Donates cash instead of grain => much quicker assistance
Untie donations

Building sustainable food systems
Availability of seeds, livestock, knowledge
Effect of water, drought
Which foods to produce and prepare (for most effective intake of nutrients)
Introducing food programme into schools since children require food for success
Learning sustainable practices in food systems (e.g. raising livestock, sustainable income via food systems) - A great point. Having a third-party, developed country or organization developing a sustainable agricultural system in an underdeveloped area is one thing; but to have its local inhabitants learn to maintain, find solutions for and prepare for the future is the only way to make an agricultural system truly sustainable. By raising the level of education of its citizens, a country effectively paves the way for its own future prosperity. Great minds, thinkers and do-ers are what's gotten western civilization to where it is now. Developing nations should follow suit, invest in its people and watch its country bloom.

Legislation
To promote food safety (reduce salt levels, trans fats, etc.) - great moves by the governments. More can be done, the start is always a bit shallow, and begins to accelerate once a critical mass is attained.
Raise wages so people can afford food. - A tough point to consider. Raising wages has the obvious advantage of increasing the standard of living for the workers. At the same time, as wages become too expensive, employers can no longer support its workers, thereby increasing poverty levels. It's tough to say how much such Keynsian Economics can help the situation. By the same token, I doubt that the Austrian School of Economics' thought of allowing markets to freely rule agriculture would work as it would lead to a few, powerful oligopolies that encompass every sector. What we need is a decentralized, local food system; whereby there are agricultural systems and distributors in each major population density center. Again, this would ease the burden of natural disasters, as such disasters could prove dangerous if it hits a major, central food supply location.

Reduce distance between eater and food (e.g. buy within 100 miles). E.g. can reduce pasteurization in milk. - Again, more of a case for locally grown foods.
Lots of resources go into transportation, packaging of food. Need to reduce this. - Recycle, reduce, reuse.
20 farmers markets in Toronto - Was just at the St. Lawrence Market in Toronto yesterday. Great place, great people, and best of all: great food.
Increase in urban agriculture (growing own foods).

Sustainability in food
Food as social gathering.
Fruits in backyard
Increase alternative food offerings (e.g. farmers markets to major purchasers like universities. Have these purchasers buy certain percentage of local foods, these foods are tagged with local name. UofT at 25% local foods now). - Great cultural shift idea for organizations and corporations to align their business plans with sustainable practices.

Food security
Based on scarcity in the past (food, resources).
Now it is abundant: servings, etc.
Use abundance to create sustainability.

Lots of food waste
E.g. 40% of food in Britain will be thrown out in a week.
30% of food in North America produced is destroyed because it is "cosmetically challenged". Food photography manipulation. Because it's not typical great looking. - I had no idea one in three pieces of food in North America are discarded because they look ugly. That's truly a waste. All the nutrients and taste are present; yet it's discarded because it looks apart from the outside. Something needs to be done to ensure a true cradle-to-cradle approach.
Harnessing of wastes.
Manure from animals, which could be turned into fuels; grease collected for food.
Utilize waste heat (e.g. hot water down the drain) and supply heat to greenhouse. - Great to see them touch upon sustainable building practices. Proud to be a green building professional.

Tour of Canadian farms
The farmers (esp canadian) & their challenges
Ontario association of agriculture

Farmers - This was a great part to gain insight into the current Canadian agricultural system. As extrapolated from other farming systems, small farmers are being squished out of the market in favour of global-market-dictating requirements.
Avg age of farmers: 57 years old
Farmers have income crisis, go bankrupt -> one collective voice
Farmers are highly individual, but succesful ones are typically supply managed.
Farmers complain they cant get small loans from Farm Credit Canada (FCC)
Fcc provides business plans and loans, although it seems that is looks at farms just as business ventures, I.e. it aims to make the FCC money, doesnt consider keeping farmers in business and implementing sustainable practices.
Conflict of interest between fcc, legislation and subsidies. E.g. encouraged industrial pork barns -> farms going out of business when they couldn't maintain such barns, increased pollution
Farm credit canada had too high interest rates (18%), forcing farmers into bankruptcy; fcc encouraged farmers to become large industrial farmers.
95% of farming is tied into industrial food system.
Half of all farmland in ontario is industrial foods like corn and soybeans -> products in processed foods.
92% of each dollar goes to machinery, seeds for farmers' revenue. Dominated by corporations beforehand, then sell back to corporations.
Corporate farmers fuel corporate demands.
Need independent farmers: need to be energy-sustainable since more energy intensive. - What takes a small farmer hours of labour and sweat can be done by a corporation with a few kilowatts of power and machinery in a few minutes. How is the local farmer to compete with such a juggernaut? How can David stand eye-to-eye with Goliath?
Policies for small farmers, can operate labour intensive works.
Unsustainable occupation as farmer: growing population, farmers dont want their kids being farmers.
Current economic, agricultural models favour industrial producers.
Corporate farms: growing profits, neglect quality (e.g. fast food), monopolies, price of food.
Monsanto owns 90% of proprietary seeds.
Losing legislation because of free trade -> losing promotion and development of local farms, farmers and food. - The Earth is too large an area to have a centralized market for food and agriculture. Shipping "cheap" foods whose costs are driven down by capitalism leads to increased pollution. Jobs are created in the logistics business whereas they could have been created in the local agricultural business. Free trade in this industry homogenizes the world's food markets and leads to unfair competition.

Two-tiered food system - Deterioration of the food system leading to increasing band-aid solutions.
1980s food banks
1990s anti hunger organizations
2000 cuts to social assistance for food

Supermarket revolution
Global supply chain.
Able to eat global foods all year round. E.g. not just local ones because of climate, via imports - Is this really required? I don't think everyone needs a shark fin that's caught off the coast of Southern Vietnam.
Waste of foods once they go bad as theres an abundance of them in the markets. - Cheap foods lead to a mentality that says it's acceptable to discard food because it's cheap.
Exploitation of soils, shrimps destoying mangroves. - Unsustainable practices as present in ecological devastation when a foreign species is brought into an ecosystem that is not prepared for it.
Crops based on demands e.g. growing "fuel". Food no longer food. Arable land now a source for commodities. - Arable land satisfying the market demands rather than the immediate, local demand.
Developed countries have much more overweight people. - We're clearly eating too much. A cultural shift must occur within the people to live and eat healthy.
Exporting healthy foods, importing processed, nutrient-decreased foods. - As foods are stretch farther and farther from their natural state, e.g. grown from the soil for plants, they lose more nutrients and more synthetics are applied to the food to keep it from rotting. Tastes also become manufactured at such a point and we're led to enjoy an artificial, manufactured taste.
Increased consumption of oils, e.g. soybean oils.
Farmers tailor food to their consumers (especially international) now rather than local requirements and needs.
Innate desire for fats, sugars and salts because evolution did not prepare us for such "overdoses". Not sustainable. No negative feedback; however, current culture and conciousness positively promotes over-consumption.

Links to read
International assessment of agricultural knowledge science and technology for development
World development report 2008

All-in-all, great seminar by the Munk Centre. Look forward to more.

I'll definitely be cutting down on processed foods, eating more fruits and vegetables, going to the farmers' markets for groceries and encouraging local restaurants to buy local.

Reminiscing in Chicago

2009-12-17T20:01:00.006-05:00

Blogged the following while in the amazing city of Chicago.

Cloud Gate is such an amazing piece. It's able to bring across people everywhere with the same fascination and interest. It also serves as a great focal point for Chicago, reconciling the developed commercial areas with the lighter, more peaceful Millennium Park.

I sit here, on the most eastern point of Chicago, Navy Pier. I can't help but feel a tranquil and sombre mood now. The ocean's calm; the flags are still. The only thing changing is a lighthouse far to the southeast. This is the yin to North Michigan's yang.

Aquarium - Carnival of the Animals - Camille Sait-Saens

2009-04-10T23:44:00.005-04:00

Currently adding my favourite classical songs that I heard from Classical 96.3 FM and came across Aquarium from the Carnival of the animals.

This piece is simply surreal. It captures every mystical feeling I felt encountering strange new animals contained in their 'aquariums' as a child.

Bravo to Camille Saint-Saens.

Aquarium - Saint-Saens, Camille

intertwine

2009-03-24T23:48:00.002-04:00

Twigs and branches are intertwined on the concrete lamppost. It's a powerful image in that it shows how nature and technology intertwine with one another, reaching an equilibrium.

intertwine
Originally uploaded by aznrocket

Japan: A Story of Love and Hate

2009-02-22T13:00:00.006-05:00

Praise the CBC for having entire documentaries online for all to watch.

I just watched "Japan: A Story of Love and Hate". It's a telling documentary about the lives of a couple caught amidst poverty, Japan's unique culture, love and hate for each other, tradition, self-pity, lack of social and economic netting, family values and the harsh reality of a capitalistic society.

An example of "Japan's unique culture" is best summarized by the filmmaker, Sean McAllister, in his opinion on the Japanese Post Office environment: "It was like communism pretending to be capitalism." On the surface, the managers and workers spew out inspiration; however, on the inside, they're all horribly stressed out and discontent, evident in their need of karaoke bars, endless drinking at night and drugs to keep stress out.

From the documentary, it seems that Japan is heavily introverted. They don't show others their problems in an attempt to get group support to help solve it. Instead, they try their best to solve it themselves and if this doesn't work, they avoid it entirely by intoxication or death. Naoki says it best at 53:10: "In Japan, it's cool if you keep quiet - [I think] that's bullshit."

It was good to see that Yoshie's "strange family" liked to talk openly though. Also amazing of them to allow a foreign stranger to capture all their trials and tribulation for everyone to see, especially since there were a lot of personal thoughts and emotions let out.

Here's the link: http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2009/japan/

Zeitgeist

2008-10-26T23:17:00.005-04:00

I was originally typing these notes out, but blogspot wouldn't let me level the bullets in a GUI fashion (tab, shift+tab) plus it was easier for me to scan.

So without further ado, my notes from Zeitgeist and the first half of Zeitgeist Addendum.

Zeitgeist: http://yip.dennis.googlepages.com/zeitgeist.pdf
Zeitgeist Addendum: http://yip.dennis.googlepages.com/zeitgeistaddendum.pdf

Society, healthcare and Darwinian Capitalism

2008-09-28T20:03:00.007-04:00

Currently reading The 20th Century: A World History, and a prevalent theme in the early 20th century was that of Darwinian Capitalism.

Whereas Darwin's concept of natural selection as applied to biological organisms explains that the fittest survive, the same applies to a capitalistic society — those fittest to survive will survive. In capitalism, this means those who get through thick and thin economic times, capitalize on the status quo and flourish through the times. I'm reminded of people like Donald Trump and Warren Buffet, who in even through tough economic times, are able to keep progressing.

Life is great for those like Trump and Buffet: they readily have access to all of life's essentials; however, what about those that are left behind? Those who do not have access to healthcare? It's another ongoing paradigm between the political left and right.

When it comes to healthcare, I believe that it should be above such political turmoil. Peoples' well-being and lives are being neglected and forsaken because of the costs associated with it. Back in the age of the dinosaurs, that was understandable — there was no technological progress, only nature. We're now in an age of great thinkers and vast technological innovation — there's no reason why people must continue to suffer.

The following clip is an excerpt from the documentary film "Critical Condition" by Roger Weisberg, courtesy of PBS:

Perhaps the reason why American healthcare is not universal is because a hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. By having equal access to healthcare, those less fortunate will rise up in society and dethrone those currently in power, as well as the corporations connected to those in power. Then again, a perfect universal healthcare system may be too idealistic — Canada's system needs some work too. At least in Canada, we don't have to worry about money when it comes to life and death. What's more important after all: money or your life?

Sociology of society, politics, and other thoughts on the train

2008-06-19T23:59:00.000-04:00

Hal Niedzviecki is the author of Hello I’m Special, a book about the sociological impact that the media has on our culture. He argues that the media centralizes culture for us to experience, versus us experiencing culture firsthand. For example, when the television was not ubiquitous, we would go play soccer with our friends. Now that television sets and Internet streams are so prevalent, we opt instead to watch soccer instead of participating in it. If his theory is correct, it helps to explain why obesity rates are ever so increasing in the western countries: media conglomerates have established their roots in these countries, and work tirelessly to increase the types of ways that ‘culture’ can be experienced through it.

This idea reminds me of a scene from Idiocracy, Mike Judge’s dystopian film on the status quo if intelligence ceases to exist. In this scene, a couch potato watches a very large television, showing a main channel in the top right, with various smaller screens on the left and bottom border, similar to some televisions’ ability to preview eight channels simultaneously. He was watching stupid shows such as “Kick his balls”, so-called “experiencing” it, and laughing maniacally.

Back to the media increasing the types of way that it pervades into our lives, high-definition television channels are now into the hundreds of channels, there are websites that act as media fodder for us to consume even more, and video games also act as another way in which our lives are invaded by someone else’s design, and this is the main point that Niedzviecki gets across. Television shows, celebrities, video games: they are all created by corporations for us to consume. Their intention is our action – we do watch our coveted television shows, we do follow the lives of our most favourite celebrities, and we do play our most favourite video games. Niedzviecki portrays this rapid consumption of media as us being brainwashed by the media – we do as it says and consumes as it says.

For example, the media shows that celebrities are successful, popular, and loved by everyone; thus, people are led to believe that this is the path to success. They too want to be popular and loved by everyone. Ergo, the Hard Rock Academy, American Idol, CityTV’s Speaker’s Corner. Everyone can have a chance of fame, their clichéd five minutes of fame, even though the corporations know that only a select few, if any, will actually have a chance of making it. But is the way that Niedzviecki portrays the media to be the tell-all and end-all of the current state of our culture? Are we indeed being brainwashed and used by the media corporations for their gain and profit? I will open dialogue about Niedzviecki’s idea.

The first comment about Niedzviecki is what I call the “Glenn Beck argument.” Glenn Beck is a hard-line republican television host on the American channel, Headline News, a subsidiary of CNN. There was a segment where he commented on the acts of a Florida county with respect to the employment conditions. This Florida county revised its employment requirements to include that the applicant must not have smoked within the past year, and will not smoke while under employment of the jurisdiction. Beck argued that this was an infringement on human rights. He argued that if people wanted to consume McDonald’s Big Mac, or smoke cigarettes, then even though the health department says that people should not, it is inherently the decision of the people to make their own choices, not the government’s. As a sidetrack, if governments could purvey healthy foods and lifestyle the way media corporations purvey their television shows, everyone would be a lot healthier. But I digress, back to the main point. Regarding Beck’s argument, humans should be able to make the choices in their lives. The corollary of his point is that it implies people can do things that are not good for them. Take for example the case of the B.C. family that believed in Jehovah’s Witness. In their religion, it is forbidden to undergo a blood transfusion; however, because the newborn children of the religious family were in danger, the provincial government stepped in and performed blood transfusions to keep the babies alive. What to do in a situation like this? Do you respect the families’ decision, even when it rises against the best interests of the babies? The babies could have chosen to be non-religious, in which case it is reasonable to assume that they would choose to live, rather than die; however, the religious argue that the reason for death is all within God’s Plan.

Back to the Glenn Beck argument, it could be the case that people choose to consume culture. They choose to and like the fact that manufactured culture is forming the foundations of their culture, and continues to spread its seeds. This means that people are further promoting the acts of the media. They are promoting the centralization of culture, rather than being a discrete, innate property that all of us embody and develop gradually over time. But is the centralization of culture a necessarily bad thing? Are events like American Idol and the Hard Rock Academy necessarily bad?

For those that are truly talented, I see these things as ways for them to be discovered. Ideally, they would be able to further flourish their talents and perfect them. Niedzviecki argues that the downside of this is that the media corporations only take what is marketable to them, and further mold the person or people towards their intentions. I can think of an excellent example, I think the show was called “So you think you can dance?” The show is just like American Idol, except people dance. The premise is that the best dancers continue to the finals and inferior ones are ousted. There was one obese male dancer who I thought danced very well. He was able to jump and do splits in the air, and all his movements were very delicate and intricate. His dance moves looked sufficient to easily get him past the current round; however, he was eliminated on the basis that he did not look like a dancer. After all, as the host stated, who wants to watch a fat dancer? Granted that obesity is not a lifestyle to be endorsed, the fact that he was eliminated solely on this basis exemplifies how we are all conditioned into meeting what the media considers as perfection.

(Popular) culture and its commercialization

2008-04-17T14:55:00.006-04:00

Something's been wracking my brain lately. Simply put, my SOC 103 elective made me realize the commercialization of modern culture and how it's isolated from the people. Culture is traditionally generated by people, not for people. The consequence is brainwashed people who listen and do what mass/pop culture tells them to.

A quotation from Classical 96.3 eased my mind for a bit though, when the Nocturne lady spoke about a music piece from Pinnochio: "Coming up is a piece from Walt Disney, so whether you think of it as a soothing piece, or as the commercialization of a fairy tale, the effect is the same: the feelings generated are still there."

This means that the feelings generated from the consumption of popular culture are genuine. Or are they just manipulating our minds?

More later, when I'm done school in 9 days =)

Wage Slavery, Gary Young

2008-03-15T23:58:00.002-04:00

Just jotting down since I'll probably forget.

Regarding Gary Young's criticism of wage slavery, I offer the rebuttal that the capitalist is not forced to hire the worker because for factory-type settings, where repetitive tasks are performed, automation and robots can eliminate the need for workers. This rebuttal fails for jobs where analysis, or essentially anything that cannot be automated, is required.

Flickr

2008-01-08T22:04:00.001-05:00

This is a test post from , a fancy photo sharing thing.

Words from Andy Lau

2007-11-30T14:43:00.000-05:00

"Every time I watch the sunrise and sunset, I feel that there is a huge change. As one grows older, then the feeling is that time is passing more and more quickly. In the 24 hours of a day, there are many things you have not finished and people and events will skim past. This is quite a big realisation. Heaven is very fair and will give us all just 24 hours in a day. I feel that in this short time, the most important thing is what we do and who we have shared it with.

http://www.batgwa.com/story.php?id=319

Keepin' it real

2007-11-17T23:35:00.000-05:00

There's a common phrase of having people keeping it real, or in other words, being true to yourself. I've often thought of the extreme case of this idea, i.e. what would a person's mindset be like if he or she was away from all the influences in life? David Hume summarizes it neatly in his critique on the design argument:

Were a man to abstract from every thing which he knows or has seen, he would be altogether incapable, merely from his own ideas, to determine what kind of scene the universe must be, or to give the preference to one state or situation of things above another. For as nothing which he clearly conceives could be esteemed impossible or implying a contradiction, every chimera of his fancy would be upon an equal footing; nor could he assign any just reason why he adheres to one idea or system, and rejects the others which are equally possible.

The conditions for this extreme case can be thought to occur purely in the mind, so that regular bio-functions like having to eat and survive are not an issue.

Back on the issue at hand, I believe Hume's right since if everything were in the mind, then no reference can be established to distinguish one case from another. In fact, ideas themselves break down for the same reason. I suppose an inquiring mind would come to Descartes' cogito ergo sum conclusion, but what next? Nothing really.

So one should embrace the open world. Learn more things. Don't limit one's self to the confinements of one's own world. By giving everything a chance, then we're on the other side of the spectrum. Instead of being in one's own head and having nothing to evaluate on, the other extreme case would be knowing everything and having the ultimate freedom of choice in choosing what you want to think and do.

Wolves inside us

2007-10-28T22:20:00.000-04:00

Stolen from facebook:

A Grandfather was talking with his grandson.

"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.

"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves."

"One wolf is evil and ugly: He is anger, envy, war, greed, self-pity, sorrow, regret, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, selfishness and arrogance."

"The other wolf is beautiful and good: He is friendly, joyful, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, justice, fairness, empathy, generosity, true, compassion, gratitude, and deep VISION."

"This same fight is going on inside you, and inside every other human as well."

The grandson paused in deep reflection because of what his grandfather had just said. Then he finally cried out; "Grandfather, which wolf will win?"

Grandfather replied, "The wolf that you feed."

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

2007-10-20T12:41:00.000-04:00

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. [1]

They say you can't smile without cheering yourself up a little — likewise, you can't commit a random kindness without feeling as if your own troubles have been lightened if only because the word has become a slightly better place.

And you can't be a recipient without feeling a shock, a pleasant jolt. If you were one of those rush-hour drivers who fond your bridge fare paid, who knows what you might have been inspired to do for someone else later? Wave someone on in the intersection? Smile at a tired clerk? Or something larger, greater? Like all revolutions, guerrilla goodness begins slowly, with a single act. Let it be yours.
Adair Lara

It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power, may not be in your time, that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result.
Gandhi

[1] Canfield, Jack and Mark Victor Hansen. A 2^nd Helping of Chicken Soup for the Soul. Deerfield Beach: Health Communications Inc., 1995.

[2] More random acts of kindness making the world a better place: http://www.thestar.com/ActsofKindness/article/190134

Joey Yung - My Pride

2007-09-22T19:02:00.001-04:00

Me playing Joey Yung's My Pride on piano ^_^

You can click on the YouTube link for the sheet music.

Fast Food Nation - Eric Schlosser, blog

2007-09-19T15:10:00.000-04:00

Still reading this book, but some thoughts to pull out of my mind and drag into this pensieve.

Corporations having control of the education system, or more generally, the way people think or will think, is dangerous as the goal solely for increasing their profit margin. Great example was oil companies teaching children global warming as a non-issue. Bit of a sidetrack, but reminds me of The Simpsons' Oscar Mayer Periodic of Elements.
If marketing can be done to effectively promote the private industry's interests, why can't it be done to raise awareness and improve the public sector's interests? Typical examples of libraries, community centres, public transportation, and recreations services, like swimming pools.
Marketing and corporations in schools: offering their products, usually food items, in schools. I remember during elementary school, we used to have pizza lunches and McDonalds days. The consensus and feeling at the time was students who had it were cooler or more well off than others, and that was exactly the aim of the marketing for those respective corporations - really makes me feel used.
As a result of corporations striving only to meet one single goal, that of annually increasing profits, the consequence of their actions typically seems malevolent. We'd all like to make the world a better place, but I have to admit, it's pretty tough when you're against all these big corporations who'd like nothing more than for you to consume their products.

Some stuff that I thought about after Philosophy class:

Marx's view of history as a culminating generalization of the world, and generalizing it as a class struggle - in my venture to understand the world, am I too trying to encompass it all into a single conclusion that describes the world? As asserted by logical positivists like Popper via falsification, is this even possible?

Reply, learning more about world is merely gaining more insight to it, embracing it, and understanding. Does not have to do with forming generalizations and rules based on observations.

Notes & thoughts from SiCKo

2007-09-08T23:12:00.000-04:00

health insurance companies denying expensive care via technicalities; bonuses based on those

denying care = denying payments
financial benefit of organization

uneducated, demoralized, frightened people hoping for the best as those being easily controlled
people with loans/debt to be easily controlled by low-paying corporations - corporation knows those people can't afford to quit
pay according to your means, receive according to your needs
France's lavish 35 hour weeks, paid holidays, honeymoons, etc - economic system? -> lots of taxes, but manageable?
France's government as afraid of the people, protests, reactions from people - States as the other way around
tough luck if you can't afford healthcare [in the U.S.] - responsibility thrown away
judge a society by how it treats the worst off
non-government 9/11 rescue volunteers not eligible for care because "not on States' payroll"
"You see somebody in need, you help them" - ironic that US government did not help 'Reggie', 9/11 emergency team member
free universal healthcare at Guantanamo Bay for prisoners
importance of preventive medicine
taking care of each other, regardless of disagreements

Amidst the criticisms against Michael Moore, whether it be hard-right Republicans, or others that like to pinpoint mistakes, the fact remains that he did help people who were in need. He changed their lives for the better. Without him, their lives would have probably remained bleak. If you're cynical enough to believe that all this was staged, his movie, at the very least, inspired me to make a difference in my life.

At the very core of our human nature, rekindling the Civics classes' age-old feud between John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes, I believe that there is an inner good to all of us. Why will be reserved for another post in itself, but as The Corporation stated, the microscopic entities within the corporation can be the nicest people you've ever met; just somehow, when you're dealing with the macroscopic entity that is the corporation itself, where profits and gains rule over all, which unfortunately includes human lives themselves, everything becomes awry.

I really don't understand how these mega-corporations can continue to experience growth. As Nixon and Ehrlichman said, "All the incentives are towards less medical care. The less care they give them, the more money they make." [1] The way I see it, they'll continue to charge higher and higher premiums; more and more people will buy into health insurance; more and more people be ousted from rightful claims due to technicalities and corporations not willing to pay the bill; competition will decrease due to health insurance companies merging into huge conglomerates, which creates a monopolistic healthcare system; and in the end, people will end up paying for the insurance because they have no other choice, but at the same time, can't do anything with it. This is, of course, lies on the extreme side of the spectrum - I'd certainly hope that citizens would be able to get easy treatment for trivial diseases.

On the other side of the border, wait times is an issue to be addressed in Canada, which is a byproduct of many other problems, including the budget, (apparent) shortage of doctors, populations booms, and many other factors.

There certainly seems more to the world than my Bachelors of Engineering suggests. Ah, to just be an engineer, doing my own thing and not to have any more care than that - seems almost like a kid again. Is that the point where we need to grow up? When we understand that the world is more than just us, and the world is ours to change?

[1] http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Moores_new_movie_traces_healthcare_crisis_0619.html

[2]

[3] Further reads, based on tidbits in the movie: http://del.icio.us/aznrocket/sicko

Hard work

2007-08-19T19:24:00.000-04:00

Many a time, we all work hard, putting our blood and sweat into a particular task. No one knows how difficult the task was, except each of us ourselves. Often times, we may not even be fully appreciated for our work. To those, I salute and congratulate. Keep up your hard work.

I too have felt that grind, over and over. I often look over my work, just to understand the breadth of it again, to appreciate it in its entirety, and to serve as inspiration for the next.

I was inspired to write that after watching Mick Foley's behind the scenes:

Notes: youth, violence

2007-08-19T09:19:00.000-04:00

A continuing work on notes regarding youth, violence, and seemingly, gangs.

Youth:

Kids, especially boys, seek moral guidance from their fathers, and a myriad of studies have shown fatherless youths turn to crime. A seminal report, presented nine years ago at an American Sociological Association convention, tracked 6,000 males, ages 14-22, from 1978 to 1993 to reveal that when fathers aren't present in the home, youths are twice as likely to end up in jail.
Regarding youths looking to gangs for [fatherly] support.
Linda Diebel. "Where are the men?" Toronto Star 19 August 2007. http://www.thestar.com/News/article/247737
“You have a group of individuals who are distanced from their parents; don't necessarily feel fully embedded in their current society, so they look to one another to reaffirm their attitudes,” says Mr. Cilluffo. “It really goads the bravado.”
Regarding al-Qaeda recruitment online
Omar El Akkad. "Terror goes digital. With Canadian Help" The Globe and Mail 19 August 2007. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070817.wyarmouth18/BNStory/National/home

Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy’s Couch

2007-08-16T21:51:00.000-04:00

Philosophical piece of the day, week, whatever, courtesy of the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?ex=1344830400&en=2300cf446929c707&ei=5124&partner=permalink

Takes the Matrix idea a bit further, and introduces layers upon layers of simulations.

Interesting proposition.

The Corporation

2007-08-07T21:49:00.001-04:00

Some interesting notes:

corporation = artificial, legal structure
Baker gets up at 2:00am in the morning, not for the better good of society, but to feed his family (via economic production). At the same time, his bakery produces an economic benefit for the community. This self-centered motive produces a wider social benefit.
callous unconcern for the feelings of others

Maximizing profits:
sweatshops - starving to death, but sweatshops => enough money to just not start

kaizen approach to maximizing profits - break actions down into 1/1000 seconds to maximize production per man hour
used up all desperate people in country (not profitable as much) - move onto next desperate country
countries exploit their own people to attract corporations to their country for employment

incapacity to maintain enduring relationships
New chemicals (Reckless disregard for others)

1940 - Monsanto Chemical Company, Petrochemical era
New synthetic chemicals produced at virtually no cost from petroleum (?)
DDT
Hazardous chemicals

Cancer
Birth defects
other side effects

Harm to animals (Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit)

habitat destruction
Factory farming
experimentation
rBGH/rBST/Posilac (artificial hormones)

US Food & drug administration declared safe for humans and cows
increase milk production
organs, reproduction affected
mastitis -> pus from udder infection goes to milk -> lots of bacteria in milk

injected antibiotics to counter -> more antibiotic-resistant bacteria

crisis

unnecessary pain, suffering, disease for cows (rBST)
milk production already too much, yet Posilac used to boost production per production unit (cow)
factory farms for short-term gain

bad for everyone except corporate profits

Monsanto products (incapacity to experience guilt)

Vietnam, Asian orange

birth defects
cancers in troops

US troops sued
Vietnamese couldn't sue
Monsanto didn't admit guilt

Harm to biosphere

clearcuts
CO2 emissions
nuclear waste
corporate paradigm
polluted rivers

paper mill
traders, brokers not concerned for environment

3rd world countries getting screwed by bad environment
until environment well-being becomes a commodity, no one cares
multinational monitor - top 100 corporate criminals of the 1990s

Roche, anti-trust violation, $500m
Exxon, spill, $125million
Sears, financial fraud, $69m
Pfizer, anti-trust violations, $20m
General Electric, defrauding government, $9.5m
IBM, illegal exports, $8.5m
Chevron, environmental violations, $6.5m
Mitsubishi, anti-trust violations, $1.8m
Odwalla, food & drug violations, $1.5m
Kodak, environmental violations, $1m

Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours

Obeying law comes down to whether it's cost-effective
If cost of penalty/getting caught < profits =" business">
high cliff = unlimited resources, sinking craft = society/civilization, since we're not following the governing laws, we're doomed to fail (sinking craft subject to aerodynamics, gravity)

ground still long way away

but it's coming, not that far

every life support system on earth is declining

biosphere is getting destructed
taking from earth, extraction, wasting, dumping
poisoning, diminishment of environment (generational taxonomy)

corporations as psychopath

symptoms
image of of corporation = psychopath => who's responsible?

people within corporation have responsibilities

people must work for the long-term, economic interests to the owners of the business

-> conflicts with your own personal morality/values
layoffs too common - ceos don't wish to make, but have to due to modern capitalism
structure as malevolent (slavery, tyranny), but actual user may be benevolent (nice, caring person) ~ corporations

in institutional role, user is monster
Shell

human rights
oppressive regime
CEO can try to correct, but limited

mindset

terminator seeds

produce crops only in one seed

profits much higher this way

rich white guys != majority of the world

out of touch

environmental vision

The Ecology of Commerce, Paul Hawken
can any product be made sustainably?
some products should not be made at all
perhaps unsustainable products have no reason to be production
plundering

taking what's not yours
to be illegal

corporation most powerful institution, yet also most destructive

companies don't advertise products - they advertise a way of life

propaganda, education, way to think a certain way

propaganda leads us to believe corporations are the way

Fundamental design flaw of corporation: paradox: high profits, other things disregarded

Part 2 - Planet Inc.

Corporations buying everything (most valuable commodities: dna, water)
Corporations branding
September 11 -> gold prices doubled, vs safety of building
1991, US bombing Iraq: $14 oil -> $40 oil

brokers made money

in devastation there is opportunity
boundary issues

14th, 15th 16th century

collective responsility

people belonged to land, not vice-versa
land belonged to God, administered by ministry

Tudor England

enclose land masses, reduced to private properties
created oceanic commons - countries to claim water

this century, air quarters sold for commercial air traffic

Tariffs & Trade

Deregulation, privitiziation, free trade

i.e. private taking of the commons
wealth only created when owned privately (by entity)

wealth usurption, not wealth creation

Public trust

some things should not be tinkered with for the sake of marginal gain in efficiency
privitization = public institution under tyranny

public instutition

runs at loss for side benefit
counter-cyclic property

maintain employability during times of recession
increases demand
gets out of recession - private can't - have to fire

one day everything to be owned

human rights
common control elements (water, air)

trading of pollution

price associated with it

someone to own the interests of certain elements, rather than owning tangible items themselves

basic training

AOL time warner subsidiary owns rights to Happy Birthday song
marketing has changed over the years

more sophisticated, pervasive
products remain
manipulate children to buying products

Western international media et.al. conducted research on nagging (The Nag Factor)

nagging vs. purchasing behaviour compared

20% to 40% of purchase for goods/service due to nagging

manipulate consumers into buying your products - a "game"
marketing playing on children's non-developed minds

marketing exploited via psychologists' work

popular/corporate culture
$12billion spent on marketing
lure children in as kids, then they'll be hooked as adults

corporation to attach social culture to their products
completely mindless consumers of goods that they don't want

create wants, philosophy of futility, insignificant things in life (fashionable consumption)
ideal is to have individuals disassociated from each other

conceptions of themselves/values = how many created wants can i satisfy?

public relations

mold people into desired pattern

corporate sponsors college students (Chris and Luke)

walking billboards to pay for college tuition

Solider of Fortune (500)

competition is everything

get schematics for new inkjet

predators
market share
being aggressive
shareholders don't get on the ceo's personality over their own share value

perception management (pm)

corporations advertise way of life

propaganda - moulds our way of thinking
puts our faith into corporations in that it's our way of life, helps us

pm = systematic process

resources
barriers to success
how to use communication for success
cover up corporation's "bad" deeds
~ public relations
make companies seem like friendly neighbours
pfizer teaming with mta to increase subway station security

[public-private relationship?]

taking taxpayer's money

should be taxpayer's decision
reconfigures to lower corporation's taxes

a private celebration

takeover of public space
branding != advertising

branding = production
successful corporations produce branding, not products

dissemination of the corporation is the success of it
build 3d manifestation of brand (e.g. disney, all-american town)

family magic
film, animated film as extension of branding
Disney = Touchstone, but wants to retain Disney for family matters; Touchstone = serious
branding = building private cocoons

all relations being commercial?

Triumph of the Shill

victim of undercover marketing

doorman's boxes
2 people taking loudly
brands being everywhere

product placement

people paid to "roach motel", i.e. use that brand and consumers see and spread to friends
if they're doing it well, you don't know
signed confidential agreement
if they're making your life better, then say thanks

Advancing the Front

Chakrabarty invents microorganisms that heats up oil spills

patent office doesn't cover living things
GE & Jack appeal - overrode patent office
Warren Burger said small issue
7 years later, US Patent Office decreed: patent anything except whole live being

=> corporations can own species of life

impartial pursuit of truth has become impartial pursuit of profit
human genome mapped - corporations looking to capture genes (e.g. breast cancer gene) and claims genes

patents other animal's genomes

life as commercial affair or intrinsic value

marketplace to decide biology

information provided by major corporations

corporations spurred by advertisements

who to protect public

Unsettling Accounts

FOX Investigations

ask any questions
did promo

Monsanto bovine growth hormone

high levels of coordination (experts, FDA, public)

bypassed FDA
public
experts
Health Canada reported different

Dr. Shiv Chopra

pressured and coarsed w/rt RBST
secrecy conspiracy w/rt this case

FDA on hot seat

didn't want to admit fault and take off shelf
Monsanto lawyers pulled Fox's story

Rupert Murdoch scared

advertising dollars

New GM, "Dave"

lawyers altered script
truth to be closed
forced to change story, despite facts
just paid $3billion for tv stations

news is what we say it is
newscaster would be fired for insubordination
" go to federal communications commission b/c refusing to lie
wants to buy off newscaster

Monsanto story
Fox's response
remain confidential

re-review

cancer -> human health complications
minimized Monsanto bad effects
83 revisions to script

newscasters fired for no cause

stood up to corporation
higher principle than making money
Fox's corporate lawyer, Carolyn Y. Forrest

Jane Akre slandered

falsifying news not against law

Canada and UK continue to ban BGH - still hidden in US milk

Part 3

Mark Kingwell

some things only done by profit

Michael Moore

whole economies should be more democratic

15 of the world's corporations want to control the world
people breaking through corporations, anti-free trade
both sides of globalisation debate
how much business can be trusted?
corporations indifferent to democracy

Reckoning

2/3rds of world still not accessible by 2025

sparked interest over control of water

Bolivia water

San Francisco corp Bechtel owning Cochabamba's water, even rainwater
Corps took unpaid bills via taking people's possessions (homes, etc.)

poverty increase

"Our governments are just puppets for these corporations"
"The water is ours damnit!"
Civil uprising against government
Transnational corporations correlation with tyrannical go

Rise of facism in Europe correlated with corrupt corporations

Hitler helped boost corporations
Similarity between US and Nazi Germany

lots of US companies benefited from Nazi Germany's holocaust

IBM's punch card system and concentration camp routings

Highly organized structure for different types of execution, type of person to be executed
IBM recovered profits after war
IBM hopes clients to use in non-evil ways

But evidence shows IBM dealt directly with Hitler

Adolph Hitler shown with Thomas Watson (July 1939)

Coca Cola and Fanta Orange in Germany

Corporate allegiance to profit

Corporations trading with enemies of the US

e.g. terrorists

Hostile Takeover

Despotism - useful tool for securing foreign markets

Smedley Darlington Butler

Pacify Mexico for American oil companies
Cuba and Haiti for National City Bank
Nicaragu for Brown Brothers Brokerage
Dominican Republic for sugar interests
Honduras for US roof companies
China for standard oil
1930s, Roosevelt

Wanted to get out of depression
Wanted public corporations
No capitalisation by corporations

Didn't want to be gangster for capitalism, and did not want to go against Roosevelt and with corporations
Evidence found corporate heads (J.P. Morgan, Goodyear) in plot
Capitalism is the new high priest

More power than governments, politicians

Critical thinking consortium

Corporations and secret services together
Industry and government working together

Summit of the Americas

groundwork to privatize every resource possible
conflicts with protestors

Democracy Ltd.

Accountability

Public perception

Don't count on governments to make corporations do the right thing

Make incentives in the marketplace for corporations to do the right thing

Corporations just want to seem social responsible
Social responsibility

fake
corporations should be listening to governing bodies (e.g. government to decide emissions, not GM's CEO)

Psycho Therapies

Injustice based on falsehoods and lack of rights

tables eventually turn

Getting rid of corporations not the answer

Some things depend on profit
Too much control
Relationship between humans and institutions
Strong government/people controls over corporations, i.e. input
How to make corporations democratically accountable?
More people watching Superbowl than interest in corporate accountability
Corporations not accountable to democratic process
Democratic authority over corporations
Arcata case

Changing government

Carrying on things in public interest
Unocal case, Burma

Culture as the center of people's lives

Commerce and government as secondary institutions, primary is people's culture
People's lives lead to roles for corporations and governments, not vice-versa

Michael Moore

The Awful Truth

Pancreas case

Bowling for Columbine

Lockheed Martin employees vs Columbine Shooting
Think of larger scope

Individuals must accept responsibility for collective actions of all

Community

Better vision required

Industrial revolution

flawed
Correction

Must do no harm
Renewable energy
Progress?
Mountain of sustainability

3million people in poverty

Capitalism leaves many behind

Make sure that doesn't increase

Capitalism can make changes

Not just CEO, etc., making decisions
Wal Mart, Kathy Lee Gifford case

Helping children, children exported, starvation wages
hypocritical
Gifford made changes, unbeknown before

If label protected under rights, then rights of workers should be too

National Labor Committee

Price on humans - slavery

Wasn't overnight
Took commodity out of marketplace because there is a moral order

Moral order takes precedence over markets

Purpose of enterprise

Should not be just profitability and shareholder satisfaction

Rational self-interest, defining human self/desire

Can't account for "departures from rational self-interest"
More reasons to be than being selfish

e.g. minimizing profit for other values, self-sacrifice

Education

Prognosis

Corporations vs the people
People

3 great hours, though probably close to 6 for me with the pausing and note-taking. A feeling at the end was how humbled I am to be a Canadian, after seeing all those Canadian grants and funds that helped to fund the documentary, how we stood up against the BGH - beautiful.

http://nexus23.org/warfare/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=2
Joel Bakan, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power

Love Bond Subtheme

2007-05-21T16:41:00.000-04:00

Me playing TVB's Love Bond Subtheme. ^^

Download @ http://berniceliu.org/download/piano/piano.htm

Driving 101

2007-05-09T22:19:00.000-04:00

Upon retrospect, some of the items below seem quite trivial; however, during my state around the exam, they helped alot since all I could think about was the exam itself, and not about driving :p
Thus, below is a list of 'lessons' I compiled from my driving instructor, also downloadable from http://stw.ryerson.ca/~m4yip/driving.txt

[PRE-DRIVING]

Rear mirror
Area shows what the rear window is able to see.

Left mirror
HORIZONTAL
Shows 3/4 of the road, 1/4 of the car's side.
VERTICAL
Shows 1/2 car's window, 1/2 car's door.

[URBAN DRIVING]

Signalling
Check blind spot of direction being turned to

Approaching intersection (Check 3 lampposts away)
If Pedestrian Traffic Light flashing "HAND" && speed is 60km/h, then let go of throttle.
If passed pedestrian lines && traffic light turns yellow, then hurry through.
If passed pedestrian lines && traffic light is still green, then proceed as normal
If not passed pedestrian lines && traffic light turns yellow, then STOP.

Left turn [Before] (6)
1. Check for NO LEFT TURN
2. Check for opposing traffic
3. Check for right of way
4. Check for pedestrians crossing
5. Follow the island, or yellow line
6. Check vehicles in front/behind

Left turn [During] (4)
1. When signalling left, check left blind spot.
2. When stopping in left turn lane, check rear mirror.
3. When approaching thick line:
a. If yellow, then stop.
b. If green, then cross and do 4 turn left items.
4. a. If able to go (no oncoming traffic), then proceed at 20 - 25 km/h.
b. If initially not able to go, but later can,
4 turn left items, then turn at 20 - 25 km/h.

Left Turn 4 items
1. Check left
2. Check left blind spot
3. Check right
4. Check left
# 1 to 3 during straight portion of turn

4 things to check for when changing lanes
1. Check your speed
2. Check the lane's car's distance (who you will overtake, if any)
3. Check the lane's car's speed (who you will overtake, if any)
4. Check that direction's blind spot
NOTES
1. For 2 & 3, use rear & left mirror

Places to stop:
1. Thick line => Stop before thick line
2. No lines, sidewalk across => Stop before sidewalk
3. No lines, no sidewalk across => Stop before curb across

Roadside stop (4)
1. Right signal
2. Park
3. Handbrake
4. Hazard lights

Right/Left turn:
20/25kmph
4 items when passed pedestrian lines
Blind spot will be checked 2 times ([1] Signalling [2] 4 items)

If turn right, then
If red or yellow, then stop
If okay to proceed or green, then
1. Check left
2. Check right
3. Check right blind spot
4. Check left
# 1 to 3 once past thick line or pedestrian line

If brake, then check mirror
If crossing intersection and passed white lines, then check left, then right for crappy drivers

Passing large parked vehicles
Check left direction for any people or pets suddenly appearing from them.

Parallel parking
Indicate that you are parking next to the vehicle in advance by turning on the turn signal.
Align midpoint of your car with the rear of the other adjacent car.
Reverse and turn as much as possible.
When the rear mirror covers the entire curb, stop.
Return steering wheel quickly and align with car in front.

Back-in parking
Align your shoulder 2 spaces over to middle of the space you want.
Reverse gear & turn as much as possible.
Return steering wheel when needed.
EXITING
Signal, go straight until midpoint of your car passes the front of others cars, then turn.

Front-in parking
Align yourself 1 space over to middle of the space you want.
Turn as much as possible, and slowly go in.
EXITING
Signal, reverse straight until you pass the front of the other cars, then turn.

[HIGHWAY]

4 things to check for when changing lanes
1. Check your speed
2. Check the lane's car's distance (who you will overtake)
3. Check the lane's car's speed (who you will overtake)
4. Check that direction's blind spot
NOTES
1. For 2 & 3, use rear & left mirror
2. Speeds up to 110 km/h okay for passing on highway

Highway
When approaching merging lane, do not be adjacent to a car
If car too slow, hurry and pass it.
If car fast enough, slow down and let it pass.

Fight Club - Chuck Palahniuk

2007-04-21T21:59:00.000-04:00

I read Fight Club because it was recommended by one of my friends; well, that an because it was quite a short read compared to the later Harry Potter books :p When I saw the commercial, I thought it was some ridiculous movie about guys trying to be macho and beating up each other. It turned out to be a interesting view on being unsatisfied with life, materialism, masculinity, and random facts that I don't know whether are real or not, like adding hair to your garden to help things grow, how to operate a film reel, making soap with fats and lye, or making explosives =/

During my quarter-life crisis, which I still seem to be going through at times, I questioned what I'm doing in life, why I'm doing it, what makes it worthwhile, and really, where I'm going in life? During these time, I feel things become very repetitive, and that there should be more in life. I also wonder why others don't feel such a thing, or if they do, why don't they do anything to change it? Tyler thinks this too while he's struggling with himself at the beginning of the novel, and later, when he explains the soap manufacturing plant to himself:

It's so quiet this high up, the feeling you get is that you're one of those space monkeys. You do the little job you're trained to do. Pull a lever. Push a button. You don't understand any of it, and then you just die. (Palahniuk, 12)

One night, Tyler comes upstairs to find me hiding in my room and says, "Don't bother them. They all know what to do. It's part of Project Mayhem. No one guy understands the whole plan, but each guy is trained to do one simple task perfectly. (Palahniuk 130)

The latter quotation really enforces the way that our world is, which is as one autonomous unit. Each of the different parts does not know what the other is doing, but just knows to give a certain output from a given input. In the end, it just all works. Back along the idea of me experiencing a dichotomy when it comes to my career: On the one hand, I want to do something worthwhile, i.e. will greatly help others. Also in this same hand, I find it very grueling, and am not sure if I can sustain it forever. On the other hand, I want to do what I find enjoyable in life. While it may not help as many people as the other hand, it is more, and is essentially, what I want in life, though what exactly do I want in life? To help others as much as I can? Or to live out what I find enjoyable and have fun with my life? I quickly learn that time and money is required for both, and both will require my full, committed dedication; i.e. I'm at a fork in the road - I can't really do both - it's either one or the either. Alas, such is life. The dichotomy also features another issue: do I want to go into research, have people know what I'm doing, trying to make the world a better place and such; or play low-key in the industry, as it's typically known engineers don't get recognition for their work. The latter is summarized by Tyler's changing of film reels aboard the airplane:

The dark is hot from the bulbs inside the projectors, and the alarm is ringing. Stand there between the two projectors with a lever in each hand, and watch the corner of the screen. The second dot flashes. Count to five. Switch one shutter closed. At the same time, open the other shutter. Changeover. The movie goes on. Nobody in the audience has an idea. (Palahniuk 28)

I suppose it can be said in research too that you don't really get the credit you deserve for your work, but I suppose charting the unknown features a greater degree of difficulty than following set rules and such, and hence, their entitlement to that credit. Currently, I'm finding what people think of me less and less relevant, and am looking at personal gratification as the true cause of why I do what I do. It's sometimes hard though - you put in all the time and effort, and no one is there to see what you've gone through and reward you. I suppose that's an effect of the system we've been put on throughout our formal education. Traditionally, we've been given a grade on how we perform given a task, and usually, the more time you put in, the better the task will turn out; however, putting in time takes a toll on you, and you can't do other things in the meantime. It can also be argued though, that once one passes the formal education level, and proceeds to life, that the hardships should in the end be fulfilling irrespective of whether others are there to appreciate it, as your hardships and triumphs should lead to personal fulfillment, and not for the sake of others.

Going back to the idea of time, I find many not doing what they should until it is too late, whether it be something as simple as submitting an assignment before the due date, to something monumental, like caring for someone just when that person is on their deathbed. The key idea to take from this is that there's no time like the present. We all need to take advantage of the finite time we have here, and there's no time to be wasted, just like Tyler made Raymond K. K. Hessel, the Korner Mart employee, realize.

You could be in school working your ass off, Raymond Hessel, or you could be dead. You choose. So you really wanted to be an animal doctor. Is that what you've always wanted to be, Dr. Raymond Hessel, a veterinarian?
Yeah.
So, I said, go back to school. If you wake up tomorrow morning, you find a way to get back into school. Raymond K. K. Hessel, your dinner is going to taste better than any meal you've ever eaten, and tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of your life. (Palahniuk 154-155)

I suppose that people just scrounge around because all their lives, they've been told what to do; however, when they grow up, no one tells them what to be, or what to do with their lives. They don't even consider what to do with their lives, until forced to do so, like Tyler did to Raymond in that life-or-death situation.

I also sometimes wonder whether my contributions to the world will be of any use? Hence, my previous tendency towards heading towards a career that I thought to be more helping to others, but more personally straining. Even if I were to head into this career, who am I to say that I will certainly make a difference? To stop such ambiguity, this 'helping others career' is one in research/academia, and the other 'more personally gratifying career' is engineering, i.e. working in the industry. As I've found out by experience and other inductions, research is very hard. I sometimes wonder whether my contributions are of any use in the long run, as there is a great sense of unknown, though that is part of the allurement I suppose, i.e. charting the unknown, whereas industry is more putting into practice tried and true standards and rules, i.e. not reinventing the wheel. When Tyler meets with Big Bob at the help group, he feels a similar feeling:

Crying is right at hand in the smothering dark, closed inside someone else, when you see how you can ever accomplish will end up as trash. Anything you're ever proud of will be thrown away. And I'm lost inside. (Palahniuk 17)

Such is why I feel that I should accomplish what I find is personally gratifying, not what others define as a plateau for accomplishments. These accomplishments, as Tyler realizes, are not to be materialistic.

Something which was a bomb, a big bomb, had blasted my clever Njurunda coffee tables in the shape of a lime green yin and orange yang that fit together to make a circle. Well they were splinters, now. My Haparanda sofa group with the orange slip covers, design by Erika Pekkari, it was trash, now. ... Rislampa/Har paper lamps made from wire and environmentally friendly unbleached paper ... Alle cutlery service ... Vild hall clock made of galvanized steel ... Klipsk shelving unit ... Hemlig hat boxes ... Mommala quilt-cover set ... It took my whole life to buy this stuff. You buy furniture. You tell yourself, this is the last sofa I will ever need in my life. Buy the sofa, then for a couple years you're satisfied that no matter what goes wrong, at least you've got your sofa issue handled. Then the right set of dishes. Then the perfect bed. The drapes. The rug. Then you're trapped in your lovely nest, and the things you used to own, now they own you. (Palahniuk 43-44)

A lot of young people try to impress the world and buy too many things. (Palahniuk 45)

There are more important things in life than material goods. LV purse, lovely. Intel Quad Core QX6700, blazing fast. Multi-million dollar touring car, amazingly fast. Do we really need all those? It can be argued that some really need such extravagant items, as they push the boundaries of fashion, semi-conductor technolgy, and the automotive field respectively, and obviously we must make progress in life. This leads to the counterargument that if there were no consumers to buy these extravagant items, then the manufacturers would not bother to invest and create such next-generation items. By not investing in themselves for the future, then they are at a standstill. If businesses are at a standstill, then economies of the world would stand still. By standing still, investors see that they're better off keeping their money to themselves, and take money out of the businesses. Companies lose investors, chaos ensues, what a mess. Thus, is there something wrong with the foundations of our society? Of the economies of the world? Or should I settle on the fact that I can't say in general, to buy just the necessities, all else reconsider? I should mention that I am in no position to tell others what to buy or not to buy. In fact, I admit to occasional splurging too. I may buy things because it helps to advance my hobbies, out of bare necessity, or just for the sake of - for example, my Hot Wheels collection. The point to be gained from this, however, is not to buy items merely as a way of defining yourself. Your possessions should supplement the person that you are, not define who you are, as it did to Tyler when he bought all his fancy couches and whatnot, just because others did too.

A lot of young people don't know what they really want. Young people, they think they want the whole world. If you don't know what you want, you end up with a lot you don't. (Palahniuk 46)

The reason I'm against excessive materialism is that most often, there is no use for it. This holds especially true for those who don't treasure what they have. I can't say what is defined as a valid purchase or not, as I'm sure almost all new things bring towards the user a new learning experience of some sort; however, if the purchases become so frequent that all meaning is lost, then that is where I feel the boundary is crossed.

What Marla loves, she says, is all the things that people love intensely and then dump an hour or a day after. The way a Christmas tree is the center of attention, then, after Christmas, you see those dead Christmas trees with the tinsel still on them, dumped alongside the highway. (Palahniuk 67)

Like our possessions, our friendships should be cherished - too often than not, friendships are subjected to hardships or attacks, and it's usually something minor made up to become something of grave issue. We should put aside minor differences, as the friendship in the long run is more valuable than any minor dispute. I have also seen friendships decay over time, and perhaps each party had a equally valid reason for doing so, but I cherish each of my friendships and hope to build on them, as I really see no reason to have enemies.
This "don't know what you really want" is an important issue too. I don't know about others, but I thought doing well in school and working in a big company would ensure stability, and above all, financial protection. As I'm finding out more and more, you really have to know what you're doing in life. You really can't follow others around for protection - you have to depend on yourself. Others can guide you along, but you have to decide where you're going and what you want to do with your life. As time is of the essence, you can't afford to drift along in life, taking whatever comes to you. You should have a sense of direction.

My father never went to college so it was really important I go to college. After college, I called him long distance and said, now what? My dad didn't know. When I got a job and turned twenty-five, long distance, I said, now what? My dad didn't know, so he said, get married. I'm a thirty-year-old boy, and I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer I need. (Palahniuk 50-51)

Our parents, friends and guardians, all try to do the best for us, but the only person who really knows what's best for you is yourself. Following and copying what someone else did won't work either - we're all different and each of us need to discover for ourselves what we want to do in life.

You have a class of young strong men and women, and they want to give their lives to something. Advertising has these people chasing cars and clothes they don't need. Generations have been working in jobs they hate, just so they can buy what they really don't need.
We don't have a great war in our generation, or a great depression, but we do, we have a great war of the spirit. We have a great revolution against the culture. The great depression is our lives. We have a spiritual depression. (Palahniuk 149)

That summarizes my point regarding the importance of knowing what you want to do with your life.

There is something to be gained emotionally, spiritually, i.e. of the subjective aspect. The objective view of life is becoming less and less interesting, contrary to what I initially thought after taking a plethora of philosophy for my liberal arts electives.

Somewhat of a digression, but I'm finding increasingly interesting religions that seek a personal, non-deistic fulfillment, or enlightenment as it's come to be known, as the mind is supposedly free of all material and non-essential thoughts, and you are really just one with your thoughts. As Tyler says in the support group:

This was freedom. Losing all hope was freedom. If I didn't say anything, people in a group assumed the worst. They cried harder. I cried harder. Look up into the stars and you're gone. (Palahniuk 22)

I'm breaking my attachment to physical power and possessions, because only through destroying myself can I discover the greater power of my spirit. (Palahniuk 110)

Being able to place all your bothers in life to one side, not to have any worries - I haven't felt that for a long time. We all deal with such pressure in life with school, work, living comfortably, and so forth, we really don't have much time for ourselves. What's the point really then? Shouldn't your life be about you? If you're constantly being pounded by what you should do, where you should be, who you should be, one day you'll find out life has passed you by, and you haven't even gotten a chance to do the things you want! The latter quotation seems more general, religiously speaking, as there is a type of salvation involved when one relinquishes all that he or she had, and starts anew. Another way I found Project Mayhem/Fight Club similar to religion was that one of the rules was that "you have to trust Tyler" (Palahniuk 125). Deistic religions always have unquestionable deity, which always state that things are for the better. Such a topic is beyond the scope of this entry, but I just wanted to raise the similarity between Tyler and his Fight Club/Project Mayhem, just as the deity is to the organized religion. I am in no way saying that organized religion is violent, but am more interested in how both groups find a way to unite their members via one common leader. The mechanic also says to Tyler:

As long as you're at fight club, you're not how much money you've got in the bank. You're not your job. You're not your family, and you're not who you tell yourself. You're not your name. You're not your problems. You're not your age. You are not your hopes. (Palahniuk 143)

Such reminds me that religion offers a different perspective on your life, aside from what you personally experience, and many feel solace in the fact that whatever the problems in our lives at any time, we all fit in and can subsequently, share this commonality that is independent of our lives.

One of the things that's on my mind, and has been lurking around since my youth, is the idea that just because you've made a mistake, or differ from others in one way or another, then you should be ridiculed for it. Mistakes we all endure, and the latter because I have alopecia areata monolocularis at the back-left of my head. Tyler gives Marla the solution for such a problem, when he says,

"There will be mistakes, and maybe the point is not to forget the rest of yourself if one little part might go bad." (Palahniuk 105).

There's no better an example than Louise Russo of Toronto Ontario, Canada, a caring mother who was struck in crossfire. Even though she's paralyzed from the waist down, her love for her children has never dwindled, and her will to live is just as great. She still cares and tends to her children, especially her one daughter who requires extra care and attention. I should try to be a bit more like Russo, and remember that life is more than one mistake that I made, or one way that I differ from others. Life is really about what you do.

Going back to the idea that accomplishments in life are not an overnight thing, and cannot be procrastinated, I really believe that it takes a lifetime to find and accomplish what we find rewarding in life. Back on track, each day in life should be cherished and utilized to the maximum, as our time on it is not much. People should be working towards what they want in life, if not there already, and I pity those who try to do everything at the last-minute. Those who feel like they're spiralling out of control should realize that it is in their power to change. Everyone is in charge of their lives, and what you want to do is really what you will do. It's just a matter of discipline and willpower. I suppose the age-old adage is true: where there's a will, there's way. Tyler says the same, when he says, "What we have to do, people, is remind these guys what kind of power they still have." (Palahniuk 120) and regarding Project Mayhem:When

Tyler invented Project Mayhem, Tyler said the goal of Project Mayhem had nothing to do with other people. Tyler didn't care if other people got hurt or not. The goal was to teach each man in the project that he had the power to control history. We, each of us, can take control of the world." (Palahniuk 122)

Along our journey to do what we want, we may disappoint others, as they'd like us to do otherwise; however, what you want to do with your life is really the sole responsibility of yourself, and ultimately, no one can say otherwise, providing it's not malevolent in nature, in which case, misses the entire point of my blog.

The underlying philosophy of Project Mayhem seemed to be one of destruction and creation, which immediately reminded me of the Chinese communist Mao Tse Tung, who also thought the best way was to start anew. As Tyler says, "Project Mayhem will break up civilization so we can make something better out of the world." (Palahniuk 125). Most of the systems in our world are complex, multi-level systems, and while starting anew may seem the best way since all previous pitfalls are eliminated, it will almost most certainly lead to another batch of problems. Such destruction and creation themes can be found in software, especially redesign of, e.g. Windows XP to Windows Vista, automotive world, e.g. Honda's replacement of the B-series engine with the K-series, but for more complicated systems, like our Charter of Rights & Freedoms, world economies, etc., it is not feasible to create a new sytem for it. In most cases, if it ain't broken, don't fix it; however, I can't help but feeling some solutions are band-aid, short-term solutions only.

Another thing that Fight Club invoked in my thoughts was the increasing commercialization of the world around us. It seems like more and more things are being assigned a dollar-value, and translated to a good or service.

When deep-space exploitation ramps up, it will probably be the megatonic corporations that discover all the new planets and map them.
The IBM Stellar Sphere.
The Philip Morris Galaxy.
Planet Denny's.
Every planet will take on the corporate identity of whoever rapes it first.
Budweiser World. (Palahniuk 171)

I read a while back that some company owned the information to our genes [2]. I'll admit, I'm quite a n00b when it comes to bioethics and biology in general, but something common between all of us, like the information on our genes, should be free to distribute and disseminate, like all other information.

References:
[1] Palahniuk, Chuck. Fight Club. New York: Owl Books. 1997.
[2] http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/14/1829236

Bratja (Brothers) - Fullmetal Alchemist

2007-04-15T14:38:00.000-04:00

Me playing Bratja (Brothers) from the Japanese Animé Fullmetal Alchemist.

I love this song!

Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

2007-04-08T19:12:00.000-04:00

Most of the books I've read for leisure were chosen because they contained some profound ideas, there was a great deal to be learned, it was highly recommended/critically acclaimed, and so forth. The Harry Potter series, I thought before I read it, was a juvenile series comparable to Goosebumps and such; however, I have never been more wrong in my life. Although it does not fill itself with great ideas summarized in elegant quotations like those I blog about in my previous entries, I find the Harry Potter series as a fun-to-read novel. I find it analogous to school/work: all of us, hopefully, enjoy what we study or where we work; however, it does get tiring, and at the end of the day, one would like to retreat to a place where one can relax, dwell in an alternative reality, away from all the pressures and hardship during the day. Such is what I felt about the Harry Potter series, that it was very enjoyable to read and really took my mind off other issues, and consequently, lessened the stress in my life and a sidestep on the path that is my life. Alas, that is all great and all, but on to what I thought about the book!

First thing's first, and I have to commend J. K. Rowling on the amazing world that she created in her books. Perhaps it was due to the fact that I also watched the movies, but the characters, settings, and plots felt so alive. There was great imagery seen when Harry and his friends defended themselves against Voldemort's Death Eaters, great emotions felt whenever there was animosity felt between Ron and Hermione, and in general, the books evoked a very vivid experience. I can't wait until July 13^th and 21^st, when the film for the Order of the Phoenix and the final book, The Deathly Hallows, come out! I was also a bit intimidated by book four through six, as they had at least 600 pages, versus the first three which had approximately 200 pages each; however, the reading of it was equally enjoyable, and now I'm wondering how Rowling was able to fit such an amazing story for the first three books in only 200 pages? I really enjoyed how all the characters were so easy to relate to. For example, Harry's poor courting of girls, when Fudge was in the Ministry of Magic; Ron and Hermione's constant teasing of each other, when each evidently admires the other, but will not admit to it; Dumbledore's constant cool nature and seeing the best in everyone, and that attributing to his downfall, or so it seems - perhaps the final book will reveal otherwise; Harry's constant anguish at the hand of Snape; and the deep sorrows felt whenever characters are lost. Those are some of the most pronounced feelings I felt for the characters.

Another way that I was able to relate the characters was the idea of growing up and leading a positive example for others. They started out in The Philosopher's Stone as eager first years, looking up, to a certain extent, to Percy the Prefect, and later, Percy the head boy. Their personality is more or less the same as the books go on, and before you know it, in The Order of the Phoenix, Ron and Hermione become the prefects! In school, looking up to the seniors of that respective institution and other adults in general, I had thought that they underwent some intensive transition to prepare them for that state, i.e. being that age, encompassing the required skills and attitude to go along with that age, etc. I believed this right up until now, i.e. university, and still believe it to a certain extent. When I was but a freshman in university, I looked at the seniors and admired their boldness and confidence. I wondered what type of training they received to get to such a stage? Lo and behold, I'll be heading to my senior year of university, and I still have pretty much the same personality that I had in my freshman year; however, when freshman do ask me advice, I am able to give out answers, whether it be course or non-course related work. Answering about coursework is easy, as their is a formal training program there, but for non-course related matter, such as life, I am still able to provide answers, which is interesting, as my answers are attained from an indirect form of education, i.e. not one where someone teaches you what to do, but one where you go out and discover for yourself different aspects of life. As one grows up, more responsibilities are induced, and whether we like it or not, are forced to accept it. That's another part of life I learned - you have to learn to adjust to different situations, and adapt & learn accordingly. This is another reason why we should endeavour to do the best that we can - we will be inevitably the teachers of tomorrow, and by doing our best, we ensure that the best is yet to come.

Playing further with the idea of relating to the characters, such a relation to the characters, i.e. via their emotions, thoughts, is a universal thing that can be felt be anyone. Emotions of overcoming adversity, first love, pity, self-doubt, raw happiness - anyone can easily relate and since the series was so pronounced on thoughts and emotions, I felt it that much easier to connect to the characters. Establishing that emotions are something that can be understood and felt by anyone, I do not understand why people in this world would do harm to others. I suppose the age-old adage of one man's gain is another man's loss, or vice-versa, helps explain why such happens, or on a more general, though perhaps somewhat more of a popular culture idea, a constant fight between light and dark, good and evil. I understand that it will be difficult for 100% of the world's population to be all happy simultaneously, and that is not what I try to explain, but rather, why people would go out of their way to harm others. For example, the moment Harry meets Draco in The Philosopher's Stone, Draco goes out of his way to insult Harry's new friend, Ron. This insult goes back to his Slytherin roots, and the fact that his family views the Weasleys as traitors to their community, which eventually falls back on the philosophical debate of nature versus nature. Such a discussion is beyond the scope of this entry, and will not be discussed. From what I have seen, however, most struggles start with some initial misunderstanding, and through neglect or someone not owning up to the cause of the conflict, this misunderstanding snowballs further and further, until you don't know why the people hate each other in the first place. I remember my history teacher telling us that on Christmas Day, the British and Germans both stopped fighting each other, and stayed at their camps to celebrate the holy day, the Christmas Truce as it has come to be known. Why can't we all be like that? Let bygones and bygones. Focus on what is at hand now, and forget about things that have happened in the past, as long as the future is bright and those conflicts will not occur again.

In 1984, George Orwell introduced an idea that I felt was monumental towards my life, and that was the idea of having an idea of something, but not knowing the word for it, or more importantly, how to express it. By not being able to express an emotion or idea, it actively suppresses the it, and becomes lost. In the Goblet of Fire, I was introduced to the idea of a pensieve - a small basin in which one could place his or her thoughts. Too often, we have vivid thoughts or experiences during our life, and unless it is documented, whether via writing, digitally, and so forth, it will cease to be recollected, or at most, become a vague and blurred memory. Even as I write this, I am at a loss of words for how I should describe this magical object. In short, I feel that it is an amazing tool not just because the characters could relive their memories, but because they could approach it and interpret it from a different angle. For example, during the interrogation of the Death Eaters in one of Dumbledore's memories, one could have felt only anger and hatred towards them, but upon reflection at a later time, calm and logical analysis be made. I feel that approaching memories and experiences from different angles, especially ones that evoke an onslaught of emotion, is instrumental in our lives and development as a person, as too often, our judgement is swayed by our emotions. If it were not for documenting our mistakes, I feel that it would be very hard to learn from.

Something else that Rowling illustrated, though I also saw it in Star Wars Episode II, was the idea of pictures moving where it would normally be still in our life, e.g. in newspapers, advertisements, etc. Though there wasn't any deep underlying meaning for the moving picture idea, I found it neat that we have similar things in reality now. I saw one at the Sony Store, and also online at Canada Computers: a digital photo frame - quite interesting.

In another praise of Rowling's penmanship, I admired the hostile environment that she cast over the sixth book, The Half Blood Prince, especially in the beginning, when everyone was worried Death Eaters placed others under the Imperius Curse, going so far as to ask each other secret questions and the like. Such a distrusting atmosphere reminded me of China during Mao's Communist era, and from what I understand, during Stalin's rule as well, as everyone could really only trust themselves, and no other. For example, Malfoy reveals that Voldemort will kill his parents if he does not kill Dumbledore. Such blackmail is quite obviously despicable, and once again proves that malevolent leaders use fear to lead their armies.

One last item I wish to dwell on is the metaphysics of the Harry Potter world. It is quite apparent that a sort of duality is the backbone of the series, with the soul and the body as distinct, separate entities. For example, Dementors could devour one's soul, leaving one brain dead; however, the issue I found most interesting what that which Voldemort found interesting too, that of Horcruxes. I found it interesting that not only in their world can the soul can be broken into many fragments, but in order to do so, a terrible feat must be executed, and none is more terrible than that of committing a murder. This reminds me of a Michael Moore interview I saw online, via his website, where he interviewed a U.S. soldier fighting in Afghanistan. When asked about killing insurgents, he said that everytime he killed one, a part of his soul dies. I couldn't agree more, i.e. there is really nothing worse than taking away someone's life with your own hands. He went on to say that eventually, he just lost all emotions after seeing so many deaths. Such must be what Voldemort feels, or actually, doesn't feel, as he heartless; however, it seems that he was already quite so to begin with, but it could be argued that he kills with no regard now.

In summary, the Harry Potter series certainly enriched my life. It was an excellent read, providing comic relief when I was feeling stress, while providing teaching me new things, or as Orwell calls it, adding more words to my dictionary. I am really at a loss of words and it sends shivers down my spine to try and think how an author could create such an imaginative, consistent and vivid world. I almost felt as if I was living in the world of Hogwarts, filled with high-flying Quidditch games, acromantulas, broom flying, potions classes, taking classes in an enormous castle and so much more. Big kudos to J. K. Rowling, and I am certainly looking forward to The Deathly Hallows and the new movies in the future!

Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen

2007-03-04T16:19:00.000-05:00

I was told that this book was the greatest romance novel ever, so naturally, I had to read it. After reading it, I have to agree that it is a great story and all, but was difficult to comprehend because of the different time period and somewhat older English. As such, I had to reread many paragraphs several times, and even then, I was unsure of the places at times. Nonetheless, the relations between Elizabeth and Darcy were evident, and I was able to understand that. But I digress, onto what I thought of the book.

Right off the bat, when Wickham tells Elizabeth about Darcy, and how he suppresses him, I was shocked that Elizabeth believes him right away and forms a prejudice against Darcy from that point on. Although this point is enhanced by other accounts of Darcy being a snob from others, this begs the question of how much we should believe other's words, especially when it comes to what we think of others. Perhaps Elizabeth had a valid viewpoint though, as Darcy himself admits that he was raised to be arrogant and condescending, and it was not until he met Elizabeth that someone actually stood up against him. It's nice that Darcy met a challenge like that - it keeps him humble and makes him question what's right and wrong.

One aspect I enjoyed from this novel was the subtle hints concerning love and relationships that Austen gives, especially when a general ideas and feelings were conveyed in narration. For example, that on the courting process:

There is so much of gratitude or vanity in almost every attachment that it is not safe to leave any to itself. We can all begin freely — a slight preference is natural enough; but there are very few of us who have the heart enough to be really in love without encouragement. In nine cases out of ten, a woman had better show more affection than she feels. Bingley likes your sister undoubtedly; but he may never do more than like her, if she does not help him on. (Austen, 16-17)

I don't know about others, but I agree with this quotation. My mom had an interesting Chinese Proverb, which when translated, goes something like "When men court women, they are separated by a mountain. When women court men, they are separated only by a piece of paper." I suppose the corollary of that is that males are more desperate =P But jokes aside, I suppose there is an evolutionary story behind this, as a female obviously wants the best suitor for her and her children, whereas males are fairly gung-ho in regards to reproduction. Times are changing, however, as it seems men and women date many partners simultaneously, according to a Metro article I read, which seems like an efficient method; however, I can't see myself doing that. I guess I'm stuck in the old-times. That being said, I find it very difficult to know what women are thinking, especially when it comes to whether they appreciate a certain male or not. It seems to always be based upon first glance, i.e. whether they are handsome or whatnot, and other qualities more of a benefit, rather than the deciding factor on approaching someone. Elizabeth states it quite nicely:
A lady's imagination is very rapid; it jumps from admiration to love, from love to to matrimony in a minute. (Austen, 22)
In summary, males could spend time courting a female, only to find that the female suddenly wishes to choose another. All the power is really in the female's hand, unless you're a male celebrity of some sort I suppose, which screws my previous postulate.

For me, the problem in asking females is that I do not know if the feeling is mutual. The last thing I want is for the lady to be doing she does not want. This brings up an interesting point within Pride and Prejudice, where Mr. Collins is blinded by his pride in thinking Elizabeth will accept his proposal. Due to his eventual inheritance of the Bennet estate, being a patron to Lady de Bourgh, and overall cockiness in general, he thinks that Elizabeth is merely playing hard-to-get. I wonder if there's such a thing as hard-to-get, or whether one side just gives in? Or perhaps because both sides merely don't know enough about each other yet. This begs the question if there is even such thing as love as first sight? Life seems to be an iterative process such that a convergent solution is not available on the first try.

Something else that disturbed me was Collins' marriage with Charlotte Lucas. It seemed like desperation on two parts: Collins being rejected but wanting to marry, and Charlotte wanting to wed someone successful.

The strangeness of Mr. Collins's making two offers of marriage within three days was nothing in comparison to his being now accepted. She had always felt that Charlotte's opinion of matrimony was not exactly like her own, but she could not have supposed it possible that when called into action, she would have sacrificed every better feeling to worldly advantage. Charlotte the wife of Mr. Collins was a most humiliating picture! And to the pang of a friend disgracing herself and sunk in her esteem was added the distressing conviction that it was impossible for that friend to be tolerably happy in the lot she had chosen. (Austen, 110)

I can't believe two people would wed solely for the reasons previously mentioned. Like Selma from The Simpsons said, living in a loveless marriage is one thing, but bringing a child into such is even worse. I can't even understand the former, which leads me to wonder whether this is why the divorce rates are so much higher nowadays. One of my friends has countless sources on women marrying men for their money, only to divorce them later in order to gain exactly that. According to him, most women are like that. I beg to differ, as I believe in good in all people, and don't know why people would be like that, i.e. out to harm people. I am perhaps a bit too idealistic in that sense.

This raises another concern I have. It seems that more and more people are having relations without much devotion into it, whether it be mental or physical relations... Whatever happened to the days of 1-to-1 devotion? No fornication? Things like one-night stands, incessant flirting, scanty dressing, etc. disgusts me. I see such things as wrong, as I feel that love should be shared with one person only. Then again, sexual repression was used by Mao on his people during his rule, and this tightened his rule among them. Am I being led into such propaganda in order to suppress m thoughts and desires? Then again, if there were a pro-fornication type of society, it could possibly degrade into the hippy days of the 70s. But I digress - the point is that I am for 1-to-1 devotion simply because I don't think love can be any otherwise. One can't love more than one person, and a choice must be made. Such grotesque acts that I mentioned above lead me to wonder what is going on with society? Where are we headed? Where did we go wrong? Did our parents and/or guardians not teach us all to be careful with ourselves? Why would one simply give themselves to others without knowing of the consequences? When Elizabeth talks to Jane about Bingley breaking up with her, she says exactly what I am thinking about the world and the people within it.

There are few people whom I really love, and still fewer whom I think well. The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of either merit or sense. (Austen, 117)

Further along,

My dear Jane, Mr. Collins is a conceited, pompous, narrow-minded, silly man; you know he is, as well as I do; and you must feel, as well as I do, that the woman who marries him cannot have a proper way of thinking. You shall not, for the sake of one individual, change the meaning of principle and integrity, nor endeavour to persuade yourself or me that selfishness is prudence, and insensibility of danger, security for happiness. (Austen, 117)

But is this too much to expect? Such is what Jane suggests:

We must not be so ready to fancy ourselves intentionally injured. We must not expect a lively young man to be always so guarded and circumspect. It is very often nothing but our own vanity that deceives us. Women fancy admiration means more than it does. (Austen, 117-118)

Regardless of the current state of society and what others do, I will continue to abide by my principles unless shown otherwise why it should not be held, and such seems preposterous. So what exactly is love if it is so vital to my principles? Jane describes it quite well to Elizabeth:

Having never even fancied herself in love before, her regard had all the warmth of first attachment, and from her age and disposition, greater steadiness than first attachments often boast; and so fervently did she value his remembrance, and prefer him to every other man, that all her good sense, and all her attention to the feelings of her friends, were requisite to check the indulgence of those regrets, which must have been injurious to her own health and their tranquility. (Austen, 194)

It was quite obvious that Bingley was feeling the same. Alas, such is a perfect match when two people miss each other to the point that they cannot forget about the other, i.e. the love is mutual. Elizabeth was also clearly in love with Darcy, as she describes her feelings:

The respect created by the conviction of his valuable qualities, though at first unwillingly admitted, had for some time ceased to be repugnant to her feelings; and it was not heightened into somewhat of a friendlier nature by the testimony in so amiable a light, which yesterday had produced. But above all, above respect and esteem, there was a motive within her of goodwill which could not be overlooked. It was gratitude. Gratitude not merely for having once loved her, but for loving her still well enough to forgive the petulance and acrimony of her manner in rejecting him, and all the unjust accusations accompanying her rejection... Such a change in a man of so much pride excited not only astonishment but gratitude - for to love, ardent love, it must be attributed; and as such its impression on her was of a sort to be encouraged, as by no means unpleasing, though it could not be exactly defined. She respected, she esteemed, she was grateful to him, she felt a real interest in his welfare; and she only wanted to know how far she wished that welfare depend upon herself, and how far it would be for the happiness of both that she should employ the power, which her fancy told her she still possessed, of bringing on the renewal of his address. (Austen, 225)

Even though they had conflicts in the past, Elizabeth was able to see what Darcy was really like, through various means, and his ongoing love for her never changed, as such love should be. Darcy eventually responds by saying

It taught me to hope, as I had scarcely ever allowed myself to hope before. I knew enough of your disposition to be certain that, had you been absolutely, irrevocably decided against me, you would have acknowledged it to Lady Catherine, frankly and openly. (Austen, 315)

This reminds me of a quotation from A Walk to Remember, when Landon quotes to Jamie a passage from the bible on exactly love:

Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, it does not boast,
it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking,
it is not easily angered,
it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil
but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts,
always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails.

(1 Corinthians 13:4)

True love should be eternal. It should not change as time goes on. If it does, then it was temporary, lust as it would seem. I don't understand why people don't get to know the other enough so that they both know and understand each other fully before devoting and committing themselves to each other. After all, it is exactly what Mary says in regards to Lydia foolishly running off with Wickingham:

Unhappy as the event must be for Lydia, we may draw from it this useful lesson: that loss of virtue in a female is irretrievable - that one false step involves her in endless ruin - that her reputation is no less brittle than it is beautiful - and that she cannot be too much guarded in her behaviour towards the undeserving of the other sex. (Austen, 246)

One point I absolutely loved about this novel was that it truly exemplified the cliché that love triumphs above all. When the pompous Lady Catherine threatens Elizabeth to leave Darcy, saying such things as:

Because honour, decorum, prudence, nay, interest, forbid it. Yes, Miss Bennet, interest; for do now expect to be noticed by his family and friends, if you wilfully act against the inclinations of all. You will be censured, slighted, and despised, by everyone connected with him. Your alliance will be a disgrace; your name will never be mentioned by any of us. (Austen, 305)

You refuse to obey the claims of duty, honour, and gratitude. You are determined to ruin him in the opinion of all his friends, and make him the contempt of the world. (Austen, 307)

In other words, all those misfortunes are irrelevant to Elizabeth - the only thing that matters to her and Darcy is the bond, i.e. their love for each other. Such reminds me of the relationships between those of Sayuri and The Chairman in Memoirs of a Geisha, Landon and Jamie in A Walk to Remember, Noah and Allie in The Notebook (iirc), and on a similar way, that of Brother Yun in The Heavenly Man, where he was persecuted over and over for his faith.

Another thing that annoys me are those who are boastful and obnoxious. For example, when Lydia weds Wickingham, she believes herself to be the best of the family, simply for that reason. She clearly does not understand the background into why Wickingham even agreed to marry her, nor does she know his real character. When she says, "But you know married women have never much time for writing. My sisters may write to me. They will have nothing else to do." (Austen, 282), her pride clearly blinds her, much to the chagrin of Elizabeth and her family, besides Mrs. Bennet. I believe that we should always be humble in life, for there will always be things to learn. Even when one believes themselves to have mastered a skill, there are still probably ways to improve upon it, such that boasting becomes non-sensical.

I was able to relate to Darcy in that we are both quiet, especially when around strangers. As he says:

I certainly have not the talent which some people possess, of conversing easily with those I have never seen before. I cannot catch their tone of conversation, or appear interested in their concerns, as I often see done. (Austen, 151)

However, through experience and meeting new people, I find that offering your input, however trivial or witty it may be, adds to the conversation. It is not a matter of speaking out just for the sake of doing so, as if such was done, the comment would be complete irrelevant. If one pays attention to the conversation, and has input accordingly, then there really is no problem of having nothing good to say. After all, everyone can participate in most conversations due to their subjective value.

I also admire Darcy in that he was able to ask a question that was on his heart for a long time, that of proposing to Elizabeth, so openly. What I didn't like, however, was how he included condescending comments afterwards.

"In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you."
...
His sense of her inferiority - of its being a degradation - of the family obstacles which judgment had always opposed to inclination were dwelt on with a warmth which seemed due to the consequence was wounding, but was very unlikely to recommend his suit. (Austen, 162-163)

I can understand why Darcy would say such a condescending remark, however, after such a risky one. He was unsure if Elizabeth would accept his proposal, so to account for a possible refute, which would have damaged his ego, he first inflated his ego with those remarks. I have learned, however, that in life, one must learn to let go of one's ego. We may make mistakes, and though it may hurt us, it is most important to learn from these mistakes. Each successive blow to the ego is a vital step in the learning process. Even these two protagonists face such follies as being afraid to put out the initial effort later on. When asked later why Darcy (FD) did not approach Elizabeth (EB) when the misunderstanding was resolved and vice-versa, they say

EB: "Why, especially, when you called did you look as if you did not care about me?"
FD: "Because you were grave and silent, and gave me no encouragement."
EB: "But I was embarrassed."
FD: "And so was I."
EB: "You might have talked to me more when you came to dinner."
FD: "A man who felt less might."
(Austen, 328)

I'm continually learning to lessen my ego, to take mistakes and ridicules as they may come, for they only teach me lessons that help me in the long-run.

Like Darcy, I'd like to meet a strong, independent lady who's not afraid to speak her mind, especially one who would challenge me in all aspects of my life. What Elizabeth said to Darcy, with respect to why he fell for her, reads my mind completely:

You may as well cal it impertinence at once. It was very little less. The fact is that you were sick of civility, of deference, of officious attention. You were disgusted with the women who were always speaking and looking and thinking for your approbation alone. I roused, and interested you, because I was so unlike them. Had you not been really amiable you would have hated me for it; but in spite of the pains you took to disguise yourself, your feelings were always noble and just; and in your heart, you thoroughly despised the persons who so assiduously courted you. There - I saved you there trouble of accounting for it; and really, all things considered, I begin to think it perfectly reasonable. To be sure, you knew no actual good of me - but nobody think of that when they fall in love. (Austen, 327)

In closing, it is interesting that a novel written almost 200 years ago can still induce the same feelings of love and contempt now. It truely shows that feelings are eternal, and whereas the tools by which these feelings are conveyed may change, e.g. the setting, plot, characters, the raw emotions that are felt within these tales will be forever felt. Bravo to Jane Austen!

Reference:
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York: Bantam Dell, 2003.

Retire Young Retire Rich - Robert T. Kiyosaki, Sharon L. Lecter

2007-03-03T17:09:00.000-05:00

This book was another one of the Rich Dad's series that my dad brought home. I read the original, Rich Dad Poor Dad, but wasn't into blogging yet. That book changed my view on my life, where it's going, and so forth, as I used to think job security was all I needed to lead a steady, easy life. I don't know how I came to that conclusion, though it was probably from what I was told all throughout my formal education. Once I read the book, I tried some calculations and saw that what Kiyosaki said about the rat race was true. But I digress - this post is about the captioned book, and not the first in the series, though I encourage all to read it, and in general, read as much as possible!

From my understanding, Retire Young Retire Rich reinforces the principles set out in Rich Dad Poor Dad and introduces important terms such as leverage, the cashflow quadrants, the three different types of income (earned, portfolio, and passive income), wealth ratio (= [passive+portfolio]/expenses > 1 to be good), debt vs equity, hedge funds (hedge in this context is another word for insurance), stop orders, and so forth,
while as mentioned, reinforcing previous principles like thinking positively, doing what you say (your integrity, i.e. the correlation between what you say and what you do), and accepting and learning from failures in one's life.

I've often wondered how much I can do in my life, and realized that I would not be able to achieve what I wanted without the help of others. The reason for this is mainly two-fold: (1) I only have a finite amount of time to accomplish what I want, and 24 hours a day is simply not enough. (2) somewhat relating to #1, and also fitting into my idea of society as a synergy of systems, we all have our respective roles in this world. As such, it can be expected that certain people perform tasks better than others, which is where helping each other becomes beneficial, whether it be paid or voluntary. Such is the idea behind leverage, which, iirc, Kiyosaki defines as 'how much you can do within a given amount of time.' By utilising more efficient tools, we can all accomplish a greater amount in a smaller amount of time, thereby raising our efficiency, and more importantly, getting us to where we want more quickly.

Concerning my early comment about job security, Kiyosaki summarizes it nice and to-the-point:
The more a person seeks security, the more that person control over their life. Today I see two worlds evolving. One is the world I call the Responsible Society. It is the group that believes in being responsible for their lives and the ultimate outcome of their lives. There is another world that I call the Victim Society, which is the group that believes that someone else, a company, or the government is responsible for their lives. In any group, family, or company, there are usually both types of societies. Both see the world from their own context or reality and both think they are right. I have found that one of the dividing factors between both societies is their core view on the ideas of risk vs. control. Victims tend to want to give control over their lives to someone else in order to avoid taking risks. Then they get angry when they feel someone abuses the control they granted the abuser in the first place. In other words, victims are often victims of themselves. (Kiyosaki and Lechter, 126-127)

People get older, but they do not necessarily grow up. Many people run from mom and dad's shelter to the shelter of a company or the government. Many expect someone else to take care of the, or be responsible for their lack of wisdom and common sense. That is why they seek job security or government sanctuaries. Too many people spend their lives looking for guarantees and spend all their lives avoiding risk, avoiding growing up, and always looking for a surrogate parent to take care of them. Today, unfortunately, many people, even highly educated and highly paid people, are still counting on the government to take care of them. We are in the Information Age and it is time that we as a culture begin to grow up and mature financially. Leave the government safety nets and social programs to those that really need them. (Kiyosaki and Lechter, 200)

Working hard for pay raises is very risky. It is risky because people often get deeper into the rat race of life working for pay raises and secondly because other people get ahead financially faster than you. (Kiyosaki and Lechter, 85)

I can really see such happening, as if one's income is based solely on one source, i.e. earned income, it's not as versatile as having three sources of income. This point is especially relevant in today's society, where job security seems to be a think of the past, with jobs being outsourced, fields being merged, and so forth. The first field I am currently looking at is Real Estate, and will soon read Real Estate Riches; however, before I do that I need to learn how to manage debt, as I currently think of debt as a taboo, while people such as Kiyosaki use debt to their advantage. A tip that Kiyosaki gives, which I will write here for sake of forgetting, is an audiotape product entitled Financial Literacy. On the tape are samples of essential financial forms, such as a "Due Diligence Checklist", which is a checklist for examining the physical condition of a building.

It should be noted, however, that Kiyosaki also introduces other forms of income, in addition to the three main ones (Earned - through physical labour, portfolio - investments, passive - real estate), there are:

Residual income: income from a business you own, but someone else runs.
Dividend income: income from stocks.
Interest income: income from savings or bonds.
Royalty income: income from property rights (e.g. songs, books, trademarks, inventions, patents)
Financial instrument income: income from trust deeds from real estate
(Kiyosaki and Lechter, 295)

Kiyosaki introduced a useful term, wealth ratio, which he defined as the sum of passive and portfolio income divided by your total expenses. i.e.

Wealth ratio = (Passive Income + Portfolio Income)/Total Expenses

The goal of calculating your wealth ratio was to have your passive and portfolio income equal or exceed your total expenses. This would mean you could quit your job (earned income source) and still maintain your lifestyle. Once your passive and portfolio income exceed your expenses, the ratio would be 1 or higher and you would be out of the rat race.
(Kiyosaki and Lechter, 142)

My current ratio is zero - I'd better get cracking!

Aside from Kiyosaki's financial tips, I also see this book as a self-help/self-motivation book. The reason for this being that he always encourages one to think positively and to never stop trying.

We all feel frightened, uncertain, and doubtful at times. That is part of being human. When I feel that way, the first thing I do is check my thoughts. If I feel bad or afraid, I know I am saying or thinking something to cause myself to feel that way. I [then] change my thoughts or words to words I want. For example, if I am afraid of losing, I say to myself, 'What am I afraid of, what do I want instead, and what do I need to do to get what I want?' If you notice, they are all questions that first open up my reality to new possibilities and realities. Then I sit quietly until the feeling of fear leaves and the feeling I want comes into my heart, chest, and stomach area. Once I can feel the feeling I want, and I have the thoughts I want, I then take action. I prepare myself first, I get into the right frame of mind, the emotional feeling I want rather than what I don't want, then I take action.
The summary of this process is:
Notice thoughts you don't want... change to thoughts about things you want.
Notice feelings you don't want... change to feelings you want.
Take action, and keep going, correcting if necessary, until you get what you want... rather than what you don't want.
(Kiyosaki and Lechter, 204-205)

Slowly, I realized that too much of the time my fear of not being enough or not having enough prevented me from allowing the abundance that life here on earth offers. I realized that my personal struggle to become rich was primarily my personal struggle against my fear of being poor... Too often we think we are alone and we have to survive on our own. Too often we believe that in order to survive, we need to do our job on our own. We are often taught that it is the survival of the fittest and if we are not fit we do not survive. That is the way a prisoner thinks. Many people are financial prisoners of their fears. That is why they cling to threads of security, become greedy and fight for scraps of money like starving dogs fighting over a meatless bone, rather than seek financial freedom. (Kiyosaki and Lechter, 333)

Rich dad said the word tomorrow is the word that destroys more lives than any other single word. He said, "The problem with the word tomorrow is that I have never seen a tomorrow. Tomorrows do not exist. Tomorrows only exist in the mind of dreamers and losers. People who put off till tomorrow find that the sins and bad habits of their past eventually catch up with them. I have never seen a tomorrow. All I have are todays. Today is the word for winners and tomorrow is the word for losers. (Kiyosaki and Lechter, 148-149)

I especially like the latter quotation, as those who put tasks off until tomorrow are the lazy ones. We've all procrastinated at one time or another, but it really is a bad habit. If you can do what you're expected to today, then why not do it? Of course, we have to prioritize accordingly, but putting off important or beneficial tasks for quick/cheap fun is not the correct way to prioritize, neither is putting something off because you don't want to do it.

Rich dad gave an example of being bullied, but not letting it affect him for the worse, and instead, using the event to inspire him to do better:

Rich Dad: I also met social bullies. They looked down their noses because they were from rich families, or they were pretty, sexy, handsome, popular... and in the in crowd. There were many times when these kids would laugh or smirk at me as I waited on them. I remember asking one of the girls in the in crowd for a date, and her friends laughed at me for even asking. I still remember one of the girls saying, 'Don't you know that rich girls do not go out with poor boys?' That really hurt.
...
Kiyosaki: You used the story of the ugly duckling to keep you
going. Didn't you? You did not use that fairy tale to feel sorry for yourself, did you?
Rich Dad: No. I used the story of the ugly duckling, the story of the three pigs, the story of David and Goliath, the story of the tortoise and the hare to keep me going. Instead of letting those few kids who were athletic, social, or intellectual bullies get me down I used their snobbish actions to inspire me to do better. By taking my time to build a house of bricks, using as much leverage as David did, and taking my time as the tortoise did, I stand here on top of the streets I grew up on. (Kiyosaki and Lechter, 153 - 154)

He raises a point that I've felt recently, that one must be in control of one's life, however slow and arduous the path may be. If I used stones to defend my glass house against other's stones and glass houses, then I would be living out of spite - life is much more than that. We must all do what we want in life, and not just to show someone up.

Another important 'self-help' point Kiyosaki makes is in regards to learning. He is an avid promoter of learning more, or in his words, maximizing one's content while expanding one's context. This point is very important, and I cannot stress it enough to others. By expanding one's context, i.e. being exposed to more topics, one gains a larger scope of things, and in essence, is able to see things more thoroughly. In expanding one's content, one gains insight into what that topic is actually about, how it works, etc. He makes an interesting point that he'd rather attend multi-day seminars than semester-long lectures, as the knowledge gained is approximately the same, but the timeframe is evidently shorter in the former, which allows one to do more things within that semester that would have been used for the latter. Back with the idea of content/context, I wish people would give things a chance rather than refusing them right off-the-bat, whether it be things like reading, movies, etc. I believe that everything in moderation makes for a good combination.

Another interesting point about being rich that Kiyosaki mentions is giving back to the community. He gives back in the form of charity, i.e. receiving nothing in return, but also in the form of things like affordable housing, amongst other things. Essentially, giving back implies making available a product or service that would otherwise, have required more money or have not existed. That, I suppose, is at the core of every business, i.e. offering a better or new product/service than others.

One important point, that I learned, and still have to learn from, is recovering from failure. No one likes to fail, but learning from mistakes is really the best way of learning. A friend once told me why his life had been going wrong, and he summarized it eloquently once he found the answer. He told me that he was afraid to fail. Rich dad states it quite nicely as well:

One of the biggest differences between my rich dad and my poor dad was that my poor dad was unwilling to fail. He thought making mistakes was a sign of failure... after all he was a teacher. M poor dad also that in life there was only one right answer.
My rich dad constantly ventured into areas that he knew nothing about. Rich dad believed in dreaming big, trying new things, and making small mistakes. He said to me at the end of his life, "Your dad spent his life pretending he knew all the right answers and avoiding mistakes. That is why at the end of his life, he began to make big mistakes." Rich dad also said, "One of the great things about being willing to try new things and make mistakes is that making mistakes keeps you humble. People who are humble learn more than people who are arrogant.
Over the years, I watched rich dad go into businesses, ventures, and projects he often knew nothing about. He would sit, listen, and ask questions for hours, days, and months as he gained the knowledge he required. He was always willing to be humble and ask stupid questions. To this he would say, "What is stupid is to pretend you are smart. When you pretend to be smart, you are at the height of your stupidity."
...
"Live a little. Do something daring and a little risky every day. Even if you do not become rich, this habit will keep your life exciting and keep you younger for years longer."
(Kiyosaki and Lechter, 202)

Investing in real estate, or any investment product for that matter, requires more than buying one thing and expecting that one product to make you rich. In real estate, Kim and I have a plan on buying ten properties, which means we need to look at 1,000 properties. Of those ten properties, we expect two to be great investments and two to be dogs, investments that we could lose money on. These are generally sold immediately. That leaves six investments that we either have to improve or sell. Regardless if it is real estate, stocks, mutual funds, or building businesses, the ratios tend to remain the same. A professional investor knows this. (Kiyosaki and Lechter, 234)

I hate to reproduce verbatim such a large amount of text, but the extracts above were very important. If you do not bother to read my blog, please at least read the quotations from the text and reflect upon them. As I mentioned, no one likes to fail - there is a feeling of being insufficient, damage to the ego, etc; however, as long as one learns from the experience, then the pros really outweigh the cons. I continually try to put on my ego on the line everyday, and the result is that I find myself a bit more happy and learning a bit more everyday. The unfortunate events that accompany each mistake are easily forgotten. After all, it's much easier to dwell on fun and happy things rather than unfortunate ones.

Reference:
Kiyosaki, Robert T. and Sharon L. Lechter. Retire Young, Retire Rich. New York: Warner Books, 2002.

Disclaimer:
http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html

Animal Farm - George Orwell

2007-02-17T13:34:00.000-05:00

After reading Orwell's 1984, I was convinced that he was an excellent writer. Upon checking my high school's ISU recommended novels, I saw that Animal Farm was also recommended. I remember my friend reading it for his ISU solely for the fact that it was under a hundred pages. At first, I thought there would be no way someone could convey a message in so few pages, since I thought ~300 pages was a bare minimum. After reading Animal Farm, I can say that I was clearly wrong - Animal Farm is one of the best novels I have read, full of meaning and relation to reality.

I read this book after reading about Mao, and it was a good thing I did it in this order, as the corrupt communist regime enriched my context in the events on the Manor Farm. The characters and events that occurred in Animal Farm reminded me of those in Mao's era, but did not seem like a 1-to-1 correspondence. After reading on the web some more about Animal Farm, it was only then that I saw that it was a satire on Stalin. As a result, I plan to read a bit about Stalin and the Soviet in the future, perhaps after Pride and Prejudice. As mentioned in my previous post, there are similarities between Mao, Stalin and Napoleon, in particular their relations with those around them (Chiang Kai-Shek, Leon Trotsky and Snowball respectively), the means of their power (the armies for Mao and Stalin, and the pack of dogs for Napoleon) and how they use the population to their own advantage. A clear example is on the issue of extracting more agriculture from the population without providing them the means to do so, in order to satisfy the wants of the leaders, even though they claim that it is for the better good of the entire farm/country.

One Sunday morning Squealer announced that the hens, who had just come in to lay again, must surrender their eggs. Napoleon had accepted, through Whymper, a contract for four hundred eggs a week. The price of these would pay for enough grain and meal to keep the farm going till summer came on and conditions were easier. When the hens heard this, they raised a terrible outcry. [They] protested that to take the eggs away now was murder. ... [As a result, Napoleon] ordered the hen's rations to be stopped, and any animal giving so much as a grain of corn to a hen should be punished by death. For five days, the hens held out, then they capitulated and went back to their nesting boxes. Nine hens had died in the meantime.

Just as villages protested against Mao's ridiculous requirements on agriculture, Mao used fear against them via pillages and killings, at which time the villages saw that the only way out was to comply or risk extinction.

The thing I remember most about Animal Farm is Napoleon, and the other pigs, using the other animals to their advantage. As if this was not enough, they even go on to accuse other animals of betrayal, killing them on the spot, and thus, instilling fear into the other animals, which tightens the pigs' authoritarian rule on them. A clear indication of their authoritarian rule was the severe defacement of the original seven commandments. The original seven commandments stated:

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
(Orwell, 21)

This eventually digressed into things such as:

No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.

Before ultimately, a single commandment ruled over all.

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE
EQUAL THAN OTHERS
(Orwell 63)

As if this was not enough, The Beasts of England, the old war-cry song from the rebellion led by Major, was removed and substituted with a new official song. This, in effect, rewrites history from the truth, and is falsified to the pigs' liking. Another example of history being re-written to their advantage was the case with Boxer's death, who was said to experience most lavish treatments but to no avail, whereas the truth was far from it, i.e. sent to a slaughterhouse.

Another indication of authoritarian rule was the fact that the pigs repeatedly switched allies according to their liking, or rather, who they could better do business with. This is reminiscent of Eurasia constantly switching allies between Oceania and Eastasia in 1984. The population is completely confused about the current state of affairs, and completely trusts the government in what it says, even if it causes them to doublethink, i.e. with regards to the relations between Frederick and Pilkington.

Last, but not least, there was an interesting analogue between the 'lower animals' and their respective leaders, i.e. the pigs or the humans.

'If you have your lower animals to contend with,' he said, 'we have our lower classes!' This bon mot set the table in a roar; and Mr Pilkington once again congratulated the pigs on the low rations, the long working hours, and the general absence which he had observed on Animal Farm. (Orwell 65)

This, among other things, made me think about our hierarchical society, and in particular, the proletariat class. This class seems to be unfairly treated, as the fruits of their effort are not accurately represented in their life. More specifically, they seem to be doing grueling tasks for countless hours, but what they gain back is hardly enough to offset their input. At the same time, I understand that the such grueling tasks are usually trivial, so essentially, anyone can do it, which makes the wage so much less. In addition, our current society is such that everyone depends on everyone else, i.e. we all fill a systematic role in society - if everyone were to rise to the bourgeois levels, then our society would collapse because there would be no one performing those tasks. This begs the argument that if such tasks are so trivial, then they could possibly be automated. While this is a possibility, I don't see it as a practical solution anytime soon.

Orwell, George. The Complete Novels. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1983.

Mao: The Unknown Story - Jon Halliday, Jung Chang

2007-02-10T09:06:00.000-05:00

I didn't know much about Chinese history beforehand, and still don't know much compared to all there is to know about it, but after reading Mao: The Unknown Story, I can now say I know a bit about Chinese history. In particular, the rise of communism in China, what the Cultural Revolution was about, and most importantly, who Mao Tse Tung/Zedong was. It should also be noted that this book was criticized for having too harsh of a view on Mao, and I may base my opinions on such supposed flaws in the book, so feel free to correct me as I go on. After all, life and knowledge is an ongoing and iterative process. I don't expect to learn the entire history of Communist China in one single book.

Mao amazed me in that he did not care for others, as long as he himself was gaining something. In addition, his deception of others for his own gain was also something that I found despicable. In particular, the Long March, Hundred Flowers Campaign, Big Destruction (during China's occupation of Tibet), Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution, were all examples of this. I pity those who were deceived by Mao, especially early on when he wasn't even Chairman yet, as their obedience led them to their own demise. These people were usually the ones close to him, politically-wise, as he worried about them overtaking him in power. Even worse were those who were killed, usually, for no reason but just an example to set to others to live in fear.

Mao's view of the "lessons from Eastern Europe" was completely different. "In Hungary," he told his top echelon on 15 November, "it's true the standard of living did not improve much, but it wasn't too bad. And yet... there were great troubles there... . The basic problem with some Eastern European countries," he said, "is that they didn't eliminate all those counter-revolutionaries... Now they are eating their own bitter fruit... Eastern Europe just didn't kill on a grand scale... We must kill," Mao declared. "And we say it's good to kill." (Chang and Halliday 416)

Most of those detained and called upon to tell blatant lies tried their hardest not to comply. Among those who paid dearly for sticking to their guns were two former Party chiefs, Li Lisan and Lo Fu. Their families were thrown into prison, and the two men themselves were both to meet their deaths. (Chang and Halliday 535)

What also disgusted me were the incessant purges that Mao carried out on the entire population. No one was spared, aside from his closer acquaintances, but even they lived in fear. People had to admit to having Imperialist/Nationalist/whatever ties, or risk death to not only themselves, but their family and perhaps village as well. Having to denounce yourself, your family and your friends or risk death was one corner of the ring that no one should have to be in. Such denunciations remind me eerily of 1984's Room 101, where people had to admit to crimes they did not commit, or risk facing their worse fear. This in itself is a great testament to the power that Orwell had in his writing.

This book was not all about death and savagery though. I have often thought about our current societal system, in which we work, in essence, for money and we exchange this item for other items that are of importance to us. I was wondering if we could have a system by which we all work, but no money is involved. For example, grocery clerks keep stacking the shelves of grocery stores, structural engineers keep making sure buildings are safe, doctors keep checking the health of people, and so forth. What you gain back, e.g. in terms of food, shelter, depends on different factors, e.g. number of people in your household, body mass, etc. The latter part of this thought is based on the fact that more often than not, daily necessities are being wasted, and at the same time, there are also many who lack the daily necessities. In essence, we all need just enough to survive, whether it be food or shelter. For example, the former is illustrated with the Reference Daily Intake. An obvious counter-argument quickly arises though: what keeps the people motivated then? What makes them want to keep doing what they do? If everyone is allowed, approximately, the same amount of food and living space, i.e. everyone makes the same regardless of what they do, then why bother doing difficult tasks? For example, Research & Development? It's widely known that the return on investment for research is horribly low; however, if it not for research, then we would not have any advances, and would be no better off than living with only agriculture. My response to this was that people usually have a calling, something they want to do in life. If everyone was able to do what they want in life, i.e. enjoy what they're doing, which usually involves contributing to society anyways, then wouldn't that be enough to keep them going? I then realized that such thoughts were too idealistic, and I should be more realistic. For example, I believe that laziness is an inherent part of every human. Case in point: procrastination - if it weren't for deadlines, then not much would be done. As is often the case, thought experiments, and theory, is all nice in words, but how is it in practice? This shows the true result rather than just mere stipulations. Unbeknownst to me earlier, Mao had also tried this.

As part of his Leap, in 1958, Mao also tried to turn the cities into slave-labour camps by organising urban communes. His plan was to abolish wages and put the whole society on a non-cash barracks system. This did not work out, as the slave system could no fit onto modern cities, where life had more complex dimensions. (Chang and Halliday 436)

So the currency system does have its merits, in that it forces people to do their part in the world. Although it isn't the best system, as the gap between the rich and poor seemingly grows larger and larger, it does give people something to work towards versus the work-for-fun system in my thought experiment.

I often wonder if people are the way they make themselves out to be. Mao was the extreme case, as he betrayed anyone to his liking, especially those still young and naive, making them do his bidding for him. These young people eventually became the Red Guards.

[Mao] picked as his first instrument of terror young people in schools and universities, the natural hotbeds for activists. These students were told to condemn their teachers and those in charge of education for poisoning their heads with "bourgeois ideas"-- and for persecuting them with exams, which henceforth were abolished.

Worse yet is those who don't know what they're doing, only following because they're told to. This reminds me of 1984 again, where the party members regularly participated in denunciations and ridicule against Emmanuel Goldstein.

Then [Chou] announced that a Bomb had been detonated. The crowd was silent at first, not knowing how to react, having been given no prior instructions. Chou then provided a cue: "You can rejoice to your hearts' content, just don't jump through the floor!" Whereupon they started yelling and leaping up and down in an apprent frenzy. (Chang and Halliday 485)

An eighty-six-year-old peasant, who in broad daylight had slit open the chest of a boy whose only crime was to be the son of a former landlord... "Didn't Chairman Mao say: It's either we kill them, or they kill us? You die and I live, this is class struggle!" (Chang and Halliday 545)

The latter quotation refers to the class struggle as a means by which Mao uses to force civilians against each other. In reality, Mao had more than those landlords would have ever had, and kept it all to himself rather than having the state re-distribute it back to the population.

I also saw a pattern between Mao's export of food for arms and alchemists' use of human lives in Fullmetal Alchemist. Whereas the alchemists use the energy from humans who died on the other side of the gate to fuel their abilities, Mao, both literally and non-literally, used human lives to build up his weapons industry. After reading Animal Farm, I looked up some information on Joseph Stalin, and read that he was just like Mao too. This leads me to wonder if Marxism can actually work as Marx intended it too, i.e. communism being the successor of capitalism. It is imaginable though, since the Starfleet Federation in Star Trek uses a similar system; however, it still is fiction.

Upon reading about Stalin and the Russian Revolution, the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky is similar to that between Mao and Chiang Kai-shek. Although Chiang was not a communist, he still had ideals and values that he thought would appeal to the population, rather than coercing the population to believe his values, as Mao did. Stalin and Mao both used force to remove their opposition, another event Orwell eloquently illustrates in his works. Chiang was not the only one to fall to Mao though - Liu Shao Chi, Lin Biao, and countless others fell victim to him as well.

One of the things that impressed me about Mao was his ability to get what he wanted and stop at nothing for it. For example, he knew he wanted to build up his arms industry, so he pushed the Soviet to the edge of their chairs countless times by breathing in the face of America, which worried the Soviets, as they wanted to avoid confrontations with America at all costs. Perhaps it was because he knew that his life was not at stake, but those who were meaningless to him, that he was willing to go to such lengths. Regardless, he put on an excellent poker face, and bluffed himself many rewards. Unfortunately for him, he wanted the impossible: a monstrous return with little investment, even cutting back on the investment itself, by exporting food to other countries in return for arms and respect. It goes without saying that funding across other departments were slashed as well.

Village schools received no funding, and schools in small towns very little. As a result, only tiny numbers of rural youth were able to go on to higher education. Even in the cities, young people's chances of education were drastically slashed in 1957, when 80 per cent of the 5 million urban elementary school [graduates] (i.e., 4 million people) and 800,000 of the 1 million middle-school [graduates] were told that they could not continue their education. (Chang and Halliday 420)

The confidence he had in his actions is something to be admired though.

All in all, this big red book gave quite in interesting look into the man behind the little red book.

Reference:
Chang, Jung and Jon Halliday. Mao: The Unknown Story. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005.

Leather Jacket Care

2007-02-04T11:06:00.001-05:00

Having recently bought a Classic Bomber leather jacket from Danier, below are tips/general knowledge the saleslady gave me:

Apply the waterproofing spray 3 months if under harsh conditions, e.g. constant snow, rain, etc.; else, 6 months is adequate. At each application, apply twice: second application ~20 minutes after first application.
Apply lotion at the end of the season, e.g. after spring, to keep leather in good condition
Cowhide is more rugged/durable than lambskin - the latter can tear, but is more delicate, smoother, etc (more formal). Cowhide is more rough in look too. Pigskin is not as good as either of these materials.
Cowhide does not discolour.

The rules for being human

2007-01-07T22:52:00.000-05:00

Another post about life, and stolen off a Facebook Friend again - this time, Dean's notes:

1. You will receive a body. You may like it or hate it, but it will be yours for the entire period this time around.

2. You will learn lessons. You are enrolled in a fulltime informal school called life. Each day in this school you will have the opportunity to learn lessons. You may like the lessons or think them irrelevant and stupid.

3. There are no mistakes, only lessons. Growth is a process of trial and error, experimentation. The "failed" experiments are as much a part of the process as the experiment that ultimately "works."

4. A lesson is repeated until learned. A lesson will be presented to you in various forms until you have learned it. When you have learned it, you can go on to the next lesson.

5. Learning lessons does not end. There is no part of life that does not contain its lessons. If you are alive there are lessons to be learned.

6. "There" is no better than "here." When your "there" has become a "here" you will simply obtain another "there" that will again look better than "here."

7. Others are merely mirrors of you. You cannot love or hate something about another person unless it reflects to you something you love or hate about yourself.

8. What you make of your life is up to you. You have all the tools and resources you need. What you do with them is up to you. The choice is yours.

9. Your answers lie inside you. The answer to life's questions lie inside you. All you need to do is look, listen, and trust.

10. This will often be forgotten, only to be remembered again.

They call it the "Quarter-life Crisis."

2007-01-03T08:47:00.000-05:00

I stole this off of Mike's Facebook Notes, but I wanted to have it for my record, just in case he deletes it or something.

It is when you stop going along with the crowd and start realizing that there are many things about yourself that you didn't know and may not like. You start feeling insecure and wonder where you will be in a year or two, but then get scared because you barely know where you are now.

You start realizing that people are selfish and that, maybe, those friends that you thought you were so close to aren't exactly the greatest people you have ever met, and the people you have lost touch with are some of the most important ones.

What you don't recognize is that they are realizing that too, and aren't really cold, catty, mean or insincere, but that they are as confused as you.

You look at your job... and it is not even close to what you thought you would be doing, or maybe you are looking for a job and realizing that you are going to have to start at the bottom and that scares you.

Your opinions have gotten stronger. You see what others are doing and find yourself judging more than usual because suddenly you realize that you have certain boundaries in your life and are constantly adding things to your list of what is acceptable and what isn't.

One minute, you are insecure and then the next, secure. You laugh and cry with the greatest force of your life.

You feel alone and scared and confused. Suddenly,change is the enemy and you try and cling on to the past with dear life, but soon realize that the past is drifting further and further away, and there is nothing to do but stay where you are or move forward.

You get your heart broken and wonder how someone you loved could do such damage to you. Or you lie in bed and wonder why you can't meet anyone decent enough that you want to get to know better. Or maybe you love someone but love someone else too and cannot figure out why you are doing this because you know that you aren't a bad person.

One night stands and random hook ups start to look cheap.

Getting wasted and acting like an idiot starts to look pathetic.

You go through the same emotions and questions over and over, and talk with your friends about the same topics because you cannot seem to make a decision.

You worry about loans, money, the future and making a life for yourself... and while winning the race would be great, right now you'd just like to be a contender!

What you may not realize is that everyone reading this relates to it. We are in our best of times and our worst of times, trying as hard as we can to figure this whole thing out. - Author Unknown

Christmas Canon

2006-12-16T14:50:00.001-05:00

Life as an iterative solution

2006-12-10T09:24:00.000-05:00

People often wonder what is the point of life? Depending on the person, the answer can be drastically different; however, this question is usually answered by what is the ultimate goal of that respective person. For example, an environmentalist may say the purpose of his or her goal is to create a sustainable Earth, a theist to preach his or her religion as a way of fulfilling the respective requirements of that religion, or it could even be something as simple as living a decent life filled with happiness with those around you. After all, this thing we call life is so complex that there is not one common goal that dictates should and should not be done. The point of this entry is not to argue what should be the meaning of life, but how to approach it. From what I've induced in my own life, the best approach to it is through trying new things.

Our world is full of things to learn, and with the advent of the Internet, it's becoming easier and easier to learn about things right from the comfort of your own home. Such a step, i.e. learning about the topic before actually attempting it, is commonly called research. Research is an important part in doing things, as it gives one a glimpse of what is to come before committing to it. Granted, sometimes it is best to forgo research and commit straight to the task at hand depending on the situation. Research is not to be used as the final say, however, as there is no substitution for first-hand experience.

If research shows that the task is something that one would like to embark on, then the next step would be to embark upon it. It is only through this step that one can really know if that task is right for him or her. If one finds that what he or she wants is here, then great! Work with it and to the best you can. If not, then head back to research and pursue another topic. An important note that should be mentioned is that even if you think you've found what you want, it may be the case that something better comes along later. For example, if a better employer comes along, the choice would probably be to go for this employer; however, in a different scenario, if one were to come across a better, more suitable, partner in life, then one would probably go to a different partner as well.

I used to believe that life was simple, where if one followed the right steps, i.e. do well in school → find a good job → settle down, then that would be it. However, what I'm finding is that what the most important thing is, is that one is always in control, i.e. what you do is what you choose to do. For example, the academic system is structured in such a way that most students can go further afterwards; however, it is not a perfect approach. The best approaches, in general, are customized ones, geared towards each task at hand; however, to customize the curriculum to each individual student would be a impractical in terms of cost and time, so a trade off is established, leading to the current system. Similarly, what you want in terms of work may not be available - so what? Start your own business, and do what you want to do. Granted, there may be times where you are following/trained by someone, e.g. classes/working, but that is fine as long as this step is a step in the right direction. One has to choose the right direction for him or herself. As such, I encourage all to learn as much as they can, in an effort to find what really interests them, and not what others say they're interested in. Some of the best way, I find, are through reading, participation in new activities, and best of all, talking with people. Talking with people is like a rich second-hand experience, complete with emotion and all, and one can gain a more personal point of view, versus reading something online or in a book, where topics are usually viewed from a general or objective point of view, much like this entry itself.

One thing I cannot stress enough is to make mistakes, as long as one learns from them. By learning from mistakes is the best way to learn how to do things. It may not be as easy as doing the converse, and the solution may not be even achieved on the second, third, or fourth try, but after each successive iteration, one gains insight into the task and learns more about the topic at hand.

To end, what you want to do with your life is up to you to decide, but in terms of how to approach it, Ms. Frizzle has it summarized elegantly: Take chances, make mistakes, get messy!

Into Thin Air Opening Theme

2006-11-26T19:01:00.000-05:00

Here's me playing the opening theme for Bernice Liu (廖碧兒 )/TVB's Into Thin Air (人間蒸發), also main song behind 实情.

^_^

Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden

2006-11-26T12:32:00.000-05:00

Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden

After an unsuccessful read of Crime & Punishment, I started reading Memoirs of a Geisha after my dad brought it home one day.

I'll admit that my initial inspiration to read the novel was because of the hype surrounding the movie, but the more I read, the more I forgot that there even was a movie, and I was immersed into Chiyo's world of elegant kimonos, daily hardships, innocence, and above all, the difficult life of a Geisha.

After reading about how Iwasaki and Golden had a dispute and contradicting differences between the real life of a Geisha and that presented in the book, I'm not in a position to comment about Geisha in general, but that's the purspose of this writing -- I'm writing about the novel and its effect. This being said, if I refer to a Geisha's life and that sort of thing, I'm referring to that with respect to the novel, i.e. under the novel's premises, and not what may actually is or was in reality.

From the beginning, ever since Chiyo began to narrate the story, this fictional character became more and more real to me. I could almost sense that there was indeed a small, bley-coloured eye girl, who had lost and been forced from everything she once held dear. As if finding out that her father had a previous family who all passed away wasn't enough, her mother soon succumbed to the same fate, and her father soon after; however, she wasn't around to witness the latter because Mr. Tanaka, once a childhood idol, ripped her and her sister, Satsu, away from their little Tipsy home into Gion. Even though his actions translated to their status reduced to slaves, it seemed like the only rational move to do, unless Mr. Tanaka adopted them both to live with his family, which I don't know why he didn't as Chiyo eluded to the possibility of it.

Poor Satsu, not as beautiful as her sister, was thrown into a brothel, but later escaped back to their hometown and ran away with Mr. Tanaka's friend's son, never to be heard of again. Chiyo didn't have it any easier -- the torture that Hatsumomo put her through was ridiculous. I don't understand how anyone can be so hurtful to another -- I was almost happy to see that Hatsumomo ended up as a prostitute during WW2, but then I felt sympathetic for her, because no one should be forced to such unwanted conditions. Poor Pumpkin was trapped in the middle, and it was very unfortunate that the best of friends became the worst of enemies due to something out of their control.

I admire Chiyo's adversity, as even though there were times when her future was limited to only a maid, she persevered through it by thinking brightly, e.g. about the Chairman. What I admire even more about Chiyo's character is that she never tries/pretends to be any more of a person than she is. She's very down-to-earth, and doesn't try to offend anyone. I'm reminded of a conversation she had with Hatsumomo, in which this trait was exemplified best:

Quote:

Hatsumomo: Do you know why I don't want you touching my stuff?
Chiyo: Because my fish smell will rub off onto you, and your customers will complain about the smell

or something along those lines. She doesn't care about her ego, because all that's important to her is the people she cares about and their well-being, something that I'm striving for.

The turning point of the book was when she met the Chairman. Like it says in the book, it's amazing how one small act of kindness can change a person's life. Chiyo's life, before meeting The Chairman, was bleak at best. His kindness inspired her to do the impossible, and even though it was revealed that The Chairman was responsible for Mameha's discovery of Chiyo, Chiyo did all the rest to ensure her success. Even though she was behind in her classes, she was able to catch up. Even though she had to run errands when Pumpkin was practicing her arts, she made the most of her time by practicing in her mind. Her dedication is also to be admired.

I found the concept of the mizuage stupid, especially since towards the geisha herself, it hasn't much personal meaning, other than the raise in monetary and possibly social status. During her mizuage, Sayuri was clueless as to what the Dr. Crab's eel was doing. Even worse was beforehand, when The Baron assaulted her. I thought that her cave was broken into, because she had said that a stain remained ... I hate The Baron

Another interesting character is Nobu. Unfortunately, his kindness is beset by his appearance -- his lack of an arm and shriveled skin cover his straightforward character. I find that Sayuri was very selfish in risking herself in order to not become Nobu's danna. At the same time, I find the concept of a danna stupid too, because the geisha becomes a mistress to the person who can afford to do so, i.e. it's only a one-way deal. Because of this, I also found Sayuri's move very courageous, and I admire that too. Thank goodness for current, universal Human Rights, where both women and men are free to choose as they wish.

The saddest thing to happen in the book has to be Chiyo's seperation with her sister. Satsu was the only person remaining from her past, and they never saw each other again, after they discussed their escape plans. I suppose that in itself is a lesson to all, that we can't hold onto our past forever, and that change is an immediate and actual event that must be grasped, or we will be swept away, forced to do other's biddings, and perhaps cease to exist all together.

I know I mentioned this at the beginning, but even though Sakamoto Chiyo/Nitta Sayuri is a fictional character, albeit based on a real person, I can't help but think she's a real person; a person who I want to help because of her misfortuntes, and lack of kindness shown around her. Perhaps this is the classical case of a damsel in distress, and I'm not sure if girls like to be thought of as a problem to be solved nowadays

Another thought that resonated itself throughout the book was innocence. Chiyo was the main person I was thinking of in terms of innocence, as time and time again, her innocence was what made her such an interesting character. For example, her innocence is what made her not care for all the cruel things that Hatsumomo had done to her, because she knew that Hatsumomo, at that time, was the equivalent of being the King of the Jungle, and she had no right to argue. Her innocence is what allowed her to be so friendly to people, as she didn't have her adopted mother's view of looking at people, i.e. two-faced. It was sad to see times when her innocence was taken advantage of, e.g. her trust in Hatsumomo whenever Hatsumomo tricked her, when The Baron tried to use her for his own pleasure, and when Pumpkin betrayed her, though it worked out in the end.

In short, I find Chiyo's character very amazing to say the least, as she is a person who never tries to be more than she is, while at the same time, wants to continually better herself; a person who sees the best in people and wants to be their companion; and some things I cannot put into words at the moment ...

Regardless of the controversy with Iwasaki, It's amazing what Arthur Golden did with the character. As I was reading, the novel, coupled with my imagination, I couldn't help but think that Chiyo was actually real, and I was like a third person following her through her adventures and misadventures, and learning of her inner thoughts as she went through these hardships. I couldn't help but want to help her and console through these hard times ...

The end of the book was interesting, when she said how all the important people in her life flashed before her eyes as she was drinking her soup. It's quite amazing how one person can make such a big impact on another's, and the most memorable people are those who have been kind to you.

My favourite part of the book is when Sayuri think her future is doomed, because she will have to become Nobu's danna and her future with The Chairman is impossible, because The Chairman saw her indecent deed with The Minister. What happens next is a startling: Not only does Sayuri realize that her plan worked in terms of escaping from Nobu, The Chairman reveals to her that he's been watching her all along, making sure that she's safe and such and even going as far as to tell Mameha to make Chiyo her apprentice, as he realized that she was special since the beginning. The reason that he did not pursue her himself was because he felt indebted to Nobu. I felt tingles down my back when I read this, as the story seemed to finally piece itself together, each piece finally coherent with the next. Simply amazing

I saw the movie last night, and I think the movie progressed to quickly -- I think it would've been better if they took it slowly, extending it to an ~3 hour movie, but gone through to explain it more, i.e. why certain things happened the way they did.

For example, I wish that the movie talked about Chiyo's old life in Yoroido and the people in her life at that time, instead of just showing Mr. Tanaka taking Chiyo and her sister away in the night; more of an emphasis on the deteriorating quality of life as the depression and WW2 neared; showed the elegance and beauty of the different types of kimonos that were shown as Sayuri became more and more successful; and more character development in general.

A particular gripe is how General Tottori is never mentioned, except when The Chairman leads Mameha and Sayuri to escape during the evacuation of Gion. In the novel, the General plays somewhat of an important role, as he allows the Nitta Okiya to continue living the lavish lifestyle that they do. He also acts as a point to show how Sayuri made the wrong choice by making the General her danna instead of allowing Nobu to be, where she went through meaningless sessions every two weeks.

Nobu's role in the movie was downplayed as compared to the novel, though Kôji Yakusho did a good job of playing the character, even though Nobu has only one arm in the novel. This being said, he wasn't as gross in the movie as I imagined him to be in the novel.

All in all, the Memoirs of a Geisha story is one of the best, if not the best, stories I've ever read in my life. The life that Chiyo went through, going from a little girl living in a tipsy house, to a maid being punished by the house's main person, to a Geisha having to follow the traditional role of being one, to fulfilling her dream by spending her life with the one she holds most dear, is one that I will never forget. Of course, it's more than this plot that is memorable -- it's also how she behaves through it and progresses to the next step that is amazing.

To be honest, when I just started reading the book, like other books, I would periodically glance at the page number, just to see how many pages I read. After two days, this habit stopped, and I found myself reading more and more, until I realized that there was no more to read.

I think I need to find myself another book, or I might read the book and watch the movie again!

--

It's unfair for Nobu to be misled by Mameha and Sayuri, but at the same time, it's unfair for two people to be together when one of them desires not to be.

Things to learn from the movie:

Forget about my ego
Be kind to everyone

Chiyo is very inspirational.

--

A&E Movie Real Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioREgF6UMAA

A&E Movie Real Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTifAecMRTA

Memoirs of a Geisha 'Special TV Clip': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QIAgZNx65s

The making of Memoirs of a Geisha: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYx3h9I0v_U

--

As in the case with Nobu, where he couldn't be with Sayuri even though he did everything that he could for her, and Sayuri herself, where she did everything she could to be together with The Chairman, I don't like the idea of putting your best effort, i.e. the best that could possibly be done, only to fall short; however, I suppose that is life -- sometimes what's impossible will remain impossible, as no one said that life has to be fair ...

It really contradicts my optimistic philosophy that anything can be done with a strong will and hard work.

When I say anything can be done, I mean logically and physically possible.

--

I finally understand why these aren't Memoirs of an empress, nor of a queen -- these are the Memoirs of a Geisha.

The Glass Menagerie - Tennessee Williams

2006-11-26T12:31:00.000-05:00

The Glass Menagerie - Tennessee Williams

I thought the story was too short, because just as I was getting a feel for the characters, the play ends. However, the play ends quite strongly, and I cannot help but want more.
My favourite quotation of the play is one that Jim says to Laura, about her insecurity:

Quote:

People are not so dreadful when you know them. That's what you have to remember! And everybody has problems, not just you, but practically everybody has got some problems. You think of yourself as having the only problems, as being the only one who is dissapointed. But just look around you and you will see lots of people as dissapointed as you are.

It's too bad that he was leading her on ... I wouldn't have kissed her if I was "going steady" already. Come to think of it, I wouldn't even kiss on a first meeting. It seems too soon. If that wasn't enough, he broke her favourite glass menagerie too!

I can't but help feel sorrow for Laura. Disabled more by what people thought of her defect than her actual defect, she's become a shy, fragile and delicate piece like her glass menageries. When Jim broke her favourite piece, and she said it was okay, it seems that she only said it because she thought she could now be with Jim.

Life doesn't seem fair for Laura, though with her shy attitude, it's difficult to break out of that delicate state. It's not fair how she was always taking negatives, but wasn't really negative herself. Stupid Jim ...
I wish the play could be longer, even if it meant stretching out the scenes. I'd liked to have known more about the characters -- a longer story of Amanda and her former husband, how Laura came to be, and why Tom seems to want adventure and get away from home.
Seems that there's a video of it made in 1987. I want to check that out.
A live stage production would be awesome too

--

A thought occurred to me while I was playing Lego:

I have a Legotown upstairs, next to my room, and in it, there are many paperbuses and Lego people who make up the residents of that town. I usually play with Lego and the buses during study breaks, and I treat them as if they were real, i.e. representative of what happens in reality, like if a bus short-turns that day, I make a bus short turn in Legotown too

Am I just like Laura?
Am I living in my own little world?
If so, what about others who participate in some hobby or some other object of affection?
e.g. playing with model trains, spending time on Friendster, playing GT4, reading a play, etc.

These hobbies seem to be entirely dependent on one person, i.e. the "player" encapsulates themselves in that hobby while they're participating in it, so much as to be so involved in that hobby that what happens outside of it is unbeknownst to them ...

Is the difference that one ultimately snaps back to reality, whereas Laura doesn't?
Though I think she does, as she recognizes reality as objectively real and subjectively real as with her glass menageries.

We all need some time to ourselves at one point or another -- during this moment of escaping reality, we ultimately retreat to it when we're distressed, tired, and so forth, though the key is escaping reality, or temporarily getting away from whatever the task at hand is ...
So are we all encapsulated in our own little worlds? I think so, since no one, besides yourself, knows that you do, what you like to do, when you like to do it, etc. better than you.

Perhaps Laura to her Glass Menageries was simply a paradigm of what we are like, and our place within it.

1984 - George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)

2006-11-26T12:29:00.000-05:00

1984 - George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)

This book was quite possibly the best book I've ever read, tying A Walk to Remember in terms of anticipation to read and suspense.

A number of points were shown in the book, which I will discuss below.

One big point was how The Party was eliminating much of the English vocabularly. Of particular note was that they were eliminating words that could be associated with uprising against The Party. The point of this was so that people, even if they wanted to rebel against The Party, wouldn't know how to, because they wouldnt know how to translate their feelings into words. I even gained one important word from the novel, which I had no word for prior to it. That word is doublethink. Simply put, to doublethink is to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. For example, 2 + 2 == 4 && 2 + 2 ==5. Such is not possible, but The Party makes you think it is possible because it's the orthodox thing to do. When Winston was forced into room 101, he thought he could doublethink his fears with Julia, since he loved Julia at that point, but he'd rather Julia suffer than him. The whole Ministry of Love ordeal was quite interesting. I didn't know torture could break someone down to the point of brainwashing them. Physical torture is understandable, as one would admit to anything if it removed the pain. The interesting part is the test adminstered in room 101 though. When O'Brien asked Winston whether he took everything from him yet (or something like that ), Winston said that he couldn't take away his loyalty and love for Julia. O'Brien admitted that this was true, but when Winston was exposed to room 101, he, at a moment of desperation, betrayed Julia by telling O'Brien to hurt her instead, meaning that The Party was able to make Winston go completely against his past ideals, his true ideals.

Another interesting point is their Oligarchical Hierarchy comprising the society of 1984. The Inner Party, some select individuals, rule over the Outer Party, who does the dirty work of the Inner Party, who are higher, in terms of class, than the Proles, peasant-like people making up the majority of Oceania. A problem I find with our current world is that split of three economic classes, meaning some are more fortunate that others. I've thought about it over and over, thinking of some system so that all have what they need, and there is no absolute power that makes life unfair for certain people, i.e. equality for all. However, Goldsteins book plays with that idea, and says:

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-goldstein.html wrote:

In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If i once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals.

Such a world where everyone has enough for themselves, and cares about others is like that of the past, in agricultural times. These clashes with our needs for advancement of the Sciences and Engineering, as these require the humans to do more than just farm, and those who are left behind technologically, as suggested by the book, are prone to be taken over by others. Why others want to take others belongings is uknown to me, but I don't like it. The issue raised by the book is that if all were equal, then those originally in lower castes would realize the futility of their lives, and uproar against the leaders for being oppressed all this time. Civil disputes aren't progressive either, leading to the famous quotation in Bowling For Columbine: In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. So is a hierarchical society the only stable type? There is more, as the castes depend on the economy.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-goldstein.html wrote:

Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.

What a Wonderful World The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed.

From basic Business classes, it is evident that the demand for something depends on its availability, its supply. As a corollary, as demand increases, the cost for it decreases, and vice-versa. If supply is readily available, then the demand will be low, because one can obtain it anytime. If the supply goods are abundant, say food and water, then the demand will be low, meaning that one has what they need. This fulfillment would eliminate the caste system, as everyone is able to support themselves comfortably. However, Goldstein writes that such a system is unstable, as shown in the first quotation, since the former-low-caste people would rebel. I disagree, but I will talk about my point of view later. Thus, demand has to be high in order to keep the hierarchical society intact. Since demand is inversely proportional to supply, it would make sense to decrease the supply, thus increasing demand. However, such a tactic leads to poor economies, which is bad for all castes. The solution to this problem, and quite an ingenious one I might add, is to increase supply, thus allowing people to earn/spend money and boost the economy, while destroying the same supply so that the overall is that supply decreaes, increasing demand, leading to an increase in poverty.

My disagreement is with the point that Orwell thinks the lower castes would rebel if equality was available, because I think that all humans are rational, and if there is some system whereby everyone had access to freedom and their needs were met, the issues of class would be eliminated, and uproar would not ensue, becuase we would all see that an uproar would lead to an imbalance in powers again, which would lead back to a caste system. However, Orwell had more experience with governments and their effects than I have, so perhaps I am too idealistic. I will continue to think of a way where equality is available to everyone, while keeping order in society and not oppressing them at the same time. Eliminating the caste system may not be a solution, as I believe that your rewards should be proprtional to your effort, amongst other things, as castes are not the only reason for injustice. There exists other things, most prominently, hatred of others and selfishness, responsible for wreaking havoc upon world. By examining why these feelings exist, and how good can created from the causes and resolves of the feelings, is what I think should be done. i.e. understanding the problem, and working with the individual or individuals to reach a solution whereby both agree that it is for the better good of everyone, not a selfish one!

Reading this book makes me want to reread Huxley's Brave New World.

This gives me an idea ...

--

A thought occurred to me while on the way home, about Orwell thinking how a non-technological, non-economic-driven society will eventually be taken over by one that is.

At first, I was thinking what if a nation's people consumed goods and services exactly that of what they earned, i.e. all that they earn is given back towards needs, and perhaps wants as well. This would eliminate economic issues like inflation and the cost of living, since it's always constant. This idea falls apart when I think of the effects of just-enough money. It would mean no changes in your life, i.e. same lifestyle since day one. While material things may be superficial, taking over more invaluable, intangible items such as family and friendship, it nonetheless acts as a motivation factor for people to do more than they can do. Just-enough money would also create problems where money is needed quickly, as in times epidemic, or in the scientific research field, where many times money is required, but funding is not readily available. However, research does advance technology, which is one of the reasons why Orwell said non-technological society I suppose. However, looking in general at how humans want to continually improve themselves and their lives, I don't think a stand-still society would be possible.

Such a nation would also isolate themselves from the rest of the world, where economic trade is a vital part of the nation itself. It would only be possible if it was self-sustainable, having access to all the natural resources that its people need for survival. Such a nation would be in danger if they are the sole holders of an important resource, say a plentiful supply of oil, as other nations, knowing that it is not prepared for war, invade them and take their resourceiraq. That is to say, one nation wouldn't take over another unless it was advantageous to do so.

A Streetcar Named Desire - Tennessee Williams

2006-11-26T12:28:00.001-05:00

A Streetcar Named Desire - Tennessee Williams

Quite an interesting play, much more different from The Simpsons' interpretation of the play.

Blanche is such an odd woman -- always in the need for approval, insecure, hypocritical, yet she's so trusting, loving, and kind at the same time.

She holds onto the thoughts that were with her in Belle Reve, and even though it's now gone, she won't change her ideals. Instead, she flirts around, and acts like there's no problem. She won't accept reality, and is living in her own dream world. It's a bit like Laura in The Glass Menagerie, except Blanche is not afraid to talk.

Unfortunately, the gap between her and reality is such that she has no idea of what's going on, and her many escapades are a tribute to that.

It's hard to imagine why a person could become so disconnected with reality, in such constant need of approval, as that of Blanche. A similar thought has gone through my mind --- how, in the world, do some people become so corrupted, evil, inhumane, selfish, and so forth.

I can understand if the situation is similar to Raskolnikov, in Crime and Punishment (my current read), in that everyone portrays a certain individual as hateful, and that individual has mistreated you as well. Even then, as Raskolnikov shows, guilt arises from any thoughts against that individual, though that guilt wasn't enough to stop him from murdering the Ivavnovna's.

So the argument seems to be,

you are mistreated by an individual
you don't want to be mistreated
eliminate the individual

----------------------------------------------

you will eliminate the mistreatment

Unfortunately, the pain and suffering usually doesn't end there, like Andy Lau's Running on Karma shows.

Often, the case is not with the individual, but with interefering ideals. If these ideas can be resolved, then hopefully, the case is too. Of course, there are glaring objections such as a Totalitarian, Dictatorship, and so forth, where the leader really is against you, and there's that can be done to resolve, since the leader will not admit meaningful communication.

This raises another issue --- why can't people talk things through logically, and rationally? I've seen many times where people shout endlessly, bringing in arguments that have nothing to do with the topic in question. If we talk things through rationally, then both sides will be able to see why the other is going for it. Ultimately, there should be one side who is more right than the other, i.e. for the better good of both, and if this is not possible, then a compromise to reach equilibrium should be made. All the useless name-calling is a waste of time. I sometimes wonder --- are people afraid to be wrong? What's there to be afraid of? In the end, if you are corrected, you're learning something, which makes you better than you were before.

Don't just stick to old ideals, use what works for you, and allow continual change so that you're doing what's right, not what you thought was right, or what others tell you is right, or you'll end up like Blanche ...

A Walk to Remember - Nicholas Sparks

2006-11-26T12:27:00.000-05:00

A Walk to Remember - Nicholas Sparks

A Walk to Remember is such an amazing novel. It was the first novel that I've ever cried while reading. Even though I saw the movie, and I knew what was essentially going to happen, the book intensified the movie so much more. The end was so overwhelming.

Jamie's character is a bit like Laura's, of The Glass Menagerie, except she has no visible defects until the end of the book, when she's very weak from the leukemia. Jamie's character is so strong and optimistic that it's a source of inspiration for me, and I'm sure for others as well.

Jimmie, my friend also in Mech3A, says that girls with her qualities don't exist in this day and age anymore. Prove him wrong!

Words can't express my love for this story. I highly recommend all to watch the movie and read the novel. This novel is quite easily the best I've read in my life, and will probably stay that way.

The main point is so simple --- plain, beautiful love.

Life of Pi - Yann Martel

2006-11-26T12:25:00.000-05:00

Life of Pi - Yann Martel

I found Life of Pi amazing because I was amazed at how Piscine Moliter knew so much about life, both physically and spiritually. He was so open to the religions that he came upon. I was shocked, but not surprised, when the leaders of Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism tried to claim Piscine as their own.

I found Piscine's dominance and optimism in all situations he was enduring to be amazing too. Training a Bengal Tiger to be your friend was awesome. The love he had for his family was awesome. π is so cool.
One part that shocked me, and gave shivers down my spine as I was reading it upon a TTC GMC T6H-5307N, was when he found a human tooth wrapped inside a bundle of leaves. When he found other bone-type materials within other leaves, it made it that much more disgusting. I don't think the island can be considered carnivorous, though I don't know the definition of what "eating meat" is. Unless dissolving flesh in acid is considered carnivorous, I'd just call the island very dangerous. Let's see those people on Survivor take on this island!

The best thing I liked about Life of Pi was the detail and solid imagery that the author, Yann Martel, was able to put into his book. From the first page I read, all the way to the last, I could picture exactly what Piscine was going through, and it made the book very enjoyable to read. My favourite example is Pi and the lifeboat's taurpaulin. I had no idea what a taurpaulin was, and it wasn't even in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, but after reading some pages after it was introduced, it was vividly described as a large, rough, canvas-like material, whose texture I can almost imagine to touch.

My favourite theme of the novel was that of the role and disposition of a super-alpha. It coincides so well with what I've seen in life, whether it be in a small or large group. There's always something about that super-alpha, and it seems to be staying in control, not being intimidated, being confident. Yeah!

The end was also interesting, where Pi asks the two Japanese guys whether his true or fictional story is more believable. Granted, based on what their sense experience, it is the latter, but "believing in your senses" seems to be in parallel with the Religion vs. Science debate that philosophers have argued for centuries, millenia, now.
Does God indeed work in mysterious ways, incomprehensible by us, leaving only us reality to discern, or is reality all we have? Personally, I don't know, but I guess I'll find out one day, or instead, not find out =P

The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown

2006-11-26T12:21:00.000-05:00

The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown

'Twas quite a thriller, and sparked my interest in reading for leisure. It's amazing how much Robert Langdon knows and is readily able to make connections in all that he comes across. I suppose such knowledge and connections are expected to be made by others in Religious Symbology, so they deserve my commendations as well, as does anyone who excels in their respective fields, except those whose field is hate =P
The thing that stood out about The Da Vinci Code was "the secret" and it's implications if released. I know that Dan Brown's work is fictional, so when I say some great secret, I don't mean the holy grail in particular, just the implications thereof.

If you knew a secret that repels what is held as fact now, would you reveal the truth? If you do, then conflicts will arise between what people thought to be real and between what actually is. In other words, how they had been living their life would have been a sham. People will be crushed, perhaps even going as far as thinking they have lost their meaning in life. Chaos could ensue, as people rebel against this "truth", and call that fake, preposterous, gooblety-gock, blasphemous, and so forth.
On the other hand, if the secret remained as is, and what is actually fiction remains their reality, everything will still be "normal", and everyone will still get along, or as much as people get along right now =P In other words, things won't get any worse.
My opinion would be to do as Sophie's grandmother suggested, that is, slowly reveal the truth, releasing it ever so slightly so that scholars will analyze, those believing in the "truth" can slowly come to grips with reality, and the framework in which they believe in can evolve, if needed, to accomodate such new findings so that people will not be in uproar.

Another interesting tidbit about this book was reading about the Priory of Sion. It's interesting to think that there's an elite group of people watching over us, screening us from what's happening, choosing what to show us, when to show us, and in total, knowing that much more than us. Simply amazing ...

A big theme within the novel was the power of women. That was awesome. I'd love to see more women taking charge, being in control, and changing our world for the better.
I'm also very interested in cryptograms, ambigrams and other word problems/puzzles now, especially when words/characters are arranged into matrices (I forget the term for it, but they're so cool!), and can only then be properly read.