a singing umbrella?
tf spkrs
electret or digi mics?
rt dsp: respond to env, speech distort
parabolic focusing: open and shut
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Positive applications only!
Research in informatics engineering severely hampers itself with a long-standing 'positive results bias' for publications, now alarmingly coupled together with a more recent trend: application-focused research. So not only do research results have to improve upon previous work, the research also has to have a tangible and obvious application. Gone are the days of researching ideas and presenting these ideas for shared academic innovation at conferences. Now, if research does not 'solve' a problem, then it is deemed unfocused and useless. But without theory there are no applications, or have we become so arrogant, complacent, and market-driven that even theory has to have a tangible, saleable outcome? Has all research morphed into 'applied theory'?
If one stopped to think for long enough, negative research results are actually positive results: someone has investigated an idea that evidently doesn't work, and by publishing these 'negative' results, this then deters future researchers from going down the same forsaken path. But no, for some reason, (informatics) engineers and computer scientists can't think outside their boxes to come up with novel applications for new theories, or see the merit in 'negative' results for future intellectual benefit.
Cynical? Never. Defeated? Probably. *sigh* Just give me a minute to crawl back into the box sold to me by my profession and educational institution. I've wandered out of it for long enough to draw significant attention to myself. Wouldn't want to be different. Oh no.
If one stopped to think for long enough, negative research results are actually positive results: someone has investigated an idea that evidently doesn't work, and by publishing these 'negative' results, this then deters future researchers from going down the same forsaken path. But no, for some reason, (informatics) engineers and computer scientists can't think outside their boxes to come up with novel applications for new theories, or see the merit in 'negative' results for future intellectual benefit.
Cynical? Never. Defeated? Probably. *sigh* Just give me a minute to crawl back into the box sold to me by my profession and educational institution. I've wandered out of it for long enough to draw significant attention to myself. Wouldn't want to be different. Oh no.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
the modern crusaders
christian social justice 'crusaders': just waiting for my thoughts to congeal before i rant...
No roads to 2020?
Did I miss something or was there little discussion and few real outcomes regarding the future of Australia's (engineering) infrastructure last weekend? I have yet to come across anything concrete addressing water, energy, transport, communications, and other (physical and intellectual) infrastructure; granted, it's not very interesting to hear discussions about such dry things during a public summit, but that's no reason to skirt over the issues. Or is it? Let us not forget about how behind we are, compared to the US, Europe, and now Asia, in terms of technological innovation (read: more and better allocated research funding, investment, and industry support please!).
Rudd has an obvious focus on social justice (for the bush and in town), especially in the area of education reform. It's great that schools will have computers, but without the Internet and other communications infrastructure (especially in regional areas), education will always be ten steps behind. Just in case I really have missed something whilst skimming the piles of reports and summaries generated from the weekend, I'll stop here and do some more reading (for my PhD, of course). More later.
Rudd has an obvious focus on social justice (for the bush and in town), especially in the area of education reform. It's great that schools will have computers, but without the Internet and other communications infrastructure (especially in regional areas), education will always be ten steps behind. Just in case I really have missed something whilst skimming the piles of reports and summaries generated from the weekend, I'll stop here and do some more reading (for my PhD, of course). More later.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Room for me, you, you, you, and you
I am fascinated by how most Hong Kong families manage to live together in such close proximity in cramped spaces without overly driving each other insane or resorting to gross physical violence. Space is a huge issue in Hong Kong, which is bursting at the seams with a population of almost 7 million squished into 1104 km². Put two and two together and you get an overall population density of more than 6300 people per km². Although the Tourist Board makes one believe that Hong Kong is made up of shopping malls, stockbrokers, and investment banks, in actual fact the highly steep mountainous geography lends itself to only 25% of the land being developed (in mind bogglingly high density), and 40% officially designed as country parks and nature reserves. So the above figure of population density is very misleading: it's probably more along the lines of 25200 people per km² if not more, since most of the population is concentrated in Kowloon and Hong Kong Island. The up side is that Hong Kong is the only mega-metropolis that I have visited that boasts so much accessible greenery, with an uncountable number of unspoilt mountains, bays, beaches, lakes, and rivers. If you've ever wondered why a team of Hong Kong men win the Oxfam Sydney Trailwalker, year in year out, it's because they have far superior training grounds; in fact, the Trailwalker event started in Hong Kong as a training exercise for the British military!
Traditionally, Chinese customs and culture has the family living together in one abode (which would have been an estate of multiple buildings in the past). If you combine such traditions with the lack of space in Hong Kong, you end up with the normality of having extended family, sometimes spanning up to three or four generations in the same home. It is relatively rare, but increasingly popular, to have young people in 'share houses' as is common in the West: children often do not move out until they are married, and young families often take in their elderly parents to look after them. In addition to Chinese traditions, the Confucian principle of filial piety and the ridiculous costs of real estate (rent or buy) lead to family being the default choice for housemates.
Cramped housing is by no means unique to Hong Kong, as most under-developed countries are victim to this. But the image that Hong Kong promotes is one of affluence, abundant material comfort, and capitalist-driven sophistication. In reality, the Kowloon Walled City was only demolished in 1993 (which had a population density of 1923077/km² in its high days); odd dwellings still exist in forms such as the famous Chungking Mansions in Tsim Sha Tsui; whilst about 100 'cage' houses are allegedly hidden amongst the alleys between giant highrises. Such dwellings are tiny apartments subdivided into 'cages', with cages stacked in twos and threes, where each cage only has enough room for one bed. The exact number of 'cage people' varies from 900 to 10000, depending on the source; sadly, 70% of the inhabitants are elderly singles with no family. Hong Kong's continuing housing problems stem from its history since the refugee influx from the civil war, Japanese occupation, and communist takeover in China during the 1930s-50s, where immigrant workers flocked to the territory chasing opportunities in Hong Kong's growing economy, industries, and trade.
Living with at least two generations of the same family is troublesome enough before you throw in the complication of limited space. Hong Kong apartments are tiny, and a steady 50% of the population have been residing in public housing estates over the last 20 years, due to the exorbitant costs of private housing. This trend began after the immigrant squatter fires in Shek Kip Mei in 1953, which left 53000 people homeless overnight. This disaster forced the Hong Kong Government to provide emergency housing in the form of multi-storey utilitarian single-room dwellings for families: each unit was 24-28m² in size, housed 5 people (if not more), with washing and toilet facilities communal to each floor. The Shek Kip Mei housing estate thus set the standard for Hong Kong public housing policy; public housing estates have since spawned all over the territory with the average space per person increasing from 6.2m² in 1988 to 12.2m² in 2007.
The obvious conflicts that ensue from cramped family housing are often depicted and parodied in Hong Kong TV series, which is what intrigues me about such sitcoms (apart from the language practice - I love the colourful slang unique to Cantonese!). Yes, Hong Kong's movie industry is famous for its martial arts and cop flicks, but the TV sitcoms quite accurately reflect the daily goings-on for the local lower to middle-class Chinese: the blatant lack of privacy at home, juggling family relationships, and having to share space within the home as well as at work and in public. In conjunction with reading academic texts, watching sitcoms that my Grandma records from TV is about as close as I'm going to get to understanding Hong Kong culture and everyday family life. It looks like personal space, which is something that I treasure, will have to reconciled with if I'm to pursue my desired stints in South-East or East Asia!
Traditionally, Chinese customs and culture has the family living together in one abode (which would have been an estate of multiple buildings in the past). If you combine such traditions with the lack of space in Hong Kong, you end up with the normality of having extended family, sometimes spanning up to three or four generations in the same home. It is relatively rare, but increasingly popular, to have young people in 'share houses' as is common in the West: children often do not move out until they are married, and young families often take in their elderly parents to look after them. In addition to Chinese traditions, the Confucian principle of filial piety and the ridiculous costs of real estate (rent or buy) lead to family being the default choice for housemates.
Cramped housing is by no means unique to Hong Kong, as most under-developed countries are victim to this. But the image that Hong Kong promotes is one of affluence, abundant material comfort, and capitalist-driven sophistication. In reality, the Kowloon Walled City was only demolished in 1993 (which had a population density of 1923077/km² in its high days); odd dwellings still exist in forms such as the famous Chungking Mansions in Tsim Sha Tsui; whilst about 100 'cage' houses are allegedly hidden amongst the alleys between giant highrises. Such dwellings are tiny apartments subdivided into 'cages', with cages stacked in twos and threes, where each cage only has enough room for one bed. The exact number of 'cage people' varies from 900 to 10000, depending on the source; sadly, 70% of the inhabitants are elderly singles with no family. Hong Kong's continuing housing problems stem from its history since the refugee influx from the civil war, Japanese occupation, and communist takeover in China during the 1930s-50s, where immigrant workers flocked to the territory chasing opportunities in Hong Kong's growing economy, industries, and trade.
Living with at least two generations of the same family is troublesome enough before you throw in the complication of limited space. Hong Kong apartments are tiny, and a steady 50% of the population have been residing in public housing estates over the last 20 years, due to the exorbitant costs of private housing. This trend began after the immigrant squatter fires in Shek Kip Mei in 1953, which left 53000 people homeless overnight. This disaster forced the Hong Kong Government to provide emergency housing in the form of multi-storey utilitarian single-room dwellings for families: each unit was 24-28m² in size, housed 5 people (if not more), with washing and toilet facilities communal to each floor. The Shek Kip Mei housing estate thus set the standard for Hong Kong public housing policy; public housing estates have since spawned all over the territory with the average space per person increasing from 6.2m² in 1988 to 12.2m² in 2007.
The obvious conflicts that ensue from cramped family housing are often depicted and parodied in Hong Kong TV series, which is what intrigues me about such sitcoms (apart from the language practice - I love the colourful slang unique to Cantonese!). Yes, Hong Kong's movie industry is famous for its martial arts and cop flicks, but the TV sitcoms quite accurately reflect the daily goings-on for the local lower to middle-class Chinese: the blatant lack of privacy at home, juggling family relationships, and having to share space within the home as well as at work and in public. In conjunction with reading academic texts, watching sitcoms that my Grandma records from TV is about as close as I'm going to get to understanding Hong Kong culture and everyday family life. It looks like personal space, which is something that I treasure, will have to reconciled with if I'm to pursue my desired stints in South-East or East Asia!
o curse'd (financial) engineers!
Macquarie Bank: stop poaching engineers! Engineers: did you really pay $24000 and commit to 20 contact hours a week for 4 years (that's 2080 hours in total!) to end up strutting around wearing crispy suits in Martin Place, stuck in a cubicle writing financial software? Or did the salary package just prove too tempting? It pains me to see such technically able graduates wooed so blatantly by money. Mind you, the actual fashion of suits has its allure when worn well, but that allure is quickly lost amongst the pomp of corporate etiquette: five minutes in Martin Place and I'm ready to run screaming. But I do have to give M'Bank credit for recognising the problem solving skills of engineers, but I'm not such a fan of exploiting them for merchant banking. I'm going to sound arrogantly elitist but 'financial engineering' is just not engineering, dammit!
I'd much rather see these young minds engaged in 'real' engineering professions, be it building infrastructure or adding to intellectual capital, rather than simply making themselves and Allan Moss (soon to morph into Nicholas Moore) richer. But what can I do but attempt to indoctrinate students (preferably impressionable first-years, before it's too late!) with my left-wing ideology and propaganda? It's probably a hard task to achieve, when engineers are notoriously stuck in the boxes they put themselves in and few have enough of a real passion for their work to not be lured by the human construct of material wealth that is money. But now I have another dilemma: which of the lesser evils does one recommend to money-hungry budding engineers, merchant banking or mining?!
I'd much rather see these young minds engaged in 'real' engineering professions, be it building infrastructure or adding to intellectual capital, rather than simply making themselves and Allan Moss (soon to morph into Nicholas Moore) richer. But what can I do but attempt to indoctrinate students (preferably impressionable first-years, before it's too late!) with my left-wing ideology and propaganda? It's probably a hard task to achieve, when engineers are notoriously stuck in the boxes they put themselves in and few have enough of a real passion for their work to not be lured by the human construct of material wealth that is money. But now I have another dilemma: which of the lesser evils does one recommend to money-hungry budding engineers, merchant banking or mining?!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The infinite sides of a circle
Tibet and China: their long history has given birth to many complicated political, military, social, and economic issues that dictate their relationship today. Tibet is the highest (plateau) region on Earth, located in at an average elevation of 4900m. Nestled into the feet of The Himalayas, this mountain range stretches between Tibet and Central and South Asia, making the Tibetan Plateau a key geographical stronghold for China as it overlooks the People's Republic. And, if one were to stage a military attack from that direction, you'll have conquer the Himalayas first. So, in terms of national security, the Chinese are not going to release this strategic spot without a nasty fight. And the biggest losers in this fight will be the Tibetan people, and this will not be a fair fight for the people who have been subject to unrest for most of their existence.
A forage into Tibet's long and varied history helps to lend some insight as to how and why Tibet has been contested over for so long and by whom: many have dipped their fingers (or rather, smashed their fists) into the honey-pot, including Mongolia, India, China, Nepal, and Britain. The current controversy over Tibet presumably stems from the Chinese claim over Tibet by the Communists, led by Mao Zedong in 1950. Yes, atrocities were conducted in the name of social, religious, and land reform: the oppression on the Lamas caused rampant civil unrest and guerrilla warfare; the Dalai Lama, with the help of the CIA, fled to refuge in India, who was politically pressured by the US and Britain to take in the Tibetan refugees. But, amidst the oppression, slavery and serfdom were abolished, and road infrastructure was built to India, Nepal and Pakistan. Then the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards (who included Tibetans) inflicted more horrendous atrocities, particularly on the Buddhist heritage inherent to the Tibetan culture. The exact numbers of monasteries destroyed, and monks and nuns imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed varies depending on whose version of events you want to believe. Economic (but not political) reform has been in place since 1979: limited religious freedom has been returned, but controversy surrounds the whereabouts of the 11th Panchen Lama (allegedly secretly protected in Beijing), and the selection of the next Dalai Lama; these issues are highly contentious and are yet to be resolved.
History aside, the current situation in Tibet can draw many similarities from colonised countries and their relationship with their Indigenous peoples. The difference, however, is that Tibet is not a Chinese 'colony' as such, but the problematic complications of having many ethnic minorities within an ethnic majority parallel those from the colonisation of lands with Indigenous peoples. China's ethnic majority are the Han people (91.9% of the population), and China officially recognises 55 ethnic minorities and the Taiwanese Indigenous people (which is sub-classified in to 13 groups by the ROC Taiwanese Government). Unrecognised groups (over 730 000 people) include foreign nationals who are Chinese citizens, whilst Hong Kong and Macau are not even included in this demographic audit. Ethnic minorities can differ greatly in appearance, religion, beliefs, customs, traditions, lifestyle, dialect or language. Parts of Western China can resemble the Middle East with mosques outnumbering the stereotypical Chinese architecture, and the regions that border the former Soviet Union are home to people with piercing blue eyes and blond hair who speak perfect dialects of Chinese. As always, looks are deceiving and all these regions and people are Chinese and China officially recognises them as so.
So was China picking on Tibet during the Cultural Revolution? Across China during the Revolution, alleged counter-revolutionaries, intellectuals, religious figures, artists, and writers were persecuted, 're-educated', tortured, killed, or all of the above. No religious activities were allowed: temples, churches and mosques were destroyed all over China. Ancient buildings and historical sites, antiques, books, art, and other artifacts of Chinese culture and customs were completely purged. The ethnic minorities of China suffered the most: not only the Tibetans but alleged separatists in Inner Mongolia were witch-hunted, Muslims were persecuted, Quarans destroyed, and the Hui (Muslim) people massacred, Korean language schools smashed, and royal palaces of people from the Yunnan province burnt to the ground. By no account am I excusing China from taking responsibility for past actions of oppression and invasion in Tibet, but the human rights abuses and destruction of heritage during the Cultural Revolution was not specific to Tibet or the Tibetan people.
With such an ethnically diverse population, the Chinese Government has a full plate on its hands to ensure cultural preservation and equal rights for all ethnicities. China's laws now guarantee equal rights to and actively promotes the (often preferential) economic and cultural development of all ethnic minorities in China. Numbers-wise, ethnic minorities are not bound to the one-child policy, and as a result the growth of ethnic minority populations is faster than that of the Han majority. Ethnic minorities also often reside in regional 'autonomous areas', where freedom of religion (subject to Governmental approval), culture, traditions, customs, festivals, and ethnic languages (with Mandarin as the official language) are allowed and transport infrastructure has been built. Many monasteries, mosques and other places of religious worship have been rebuilt, repaired, and reopened to the public. In addition, minorities are represented at all levels of Government, educational institutions have been established for ethnic minorities, and health care for ethnic minorities is being continually improved and addressed. These multi-faceted levels of recognition of ethnic minorities and respect for diverse traditions, cultures, and customs, although far from perfect as the economic development allegedly favours Han people in 'autonomous areas' and human rights abuses and oppression are allegedly still in force, still far surpasses the respect shown by many Western countries to their Indigenous people and ethnic minorities.
So, before one blindly berates the Chinese for the human rights abuses in Tibet, consider looking in your own backyard at how your Indigenous people and ethnic minorities were and are being treated. Now multiply those problems by a factor of about a hundred to cater for all the ethnic minorities in China: sounds hard, right? If Tibet were to be granted independence based upon ethnic considerations, what about the other Chinese ethnic minorities: why aren't their homelands granted independence as well? If that were the case, China has a high probability of dissolving into the civil unrest of warring states, which as history tells, simply does not work for anyone involved. But the dissolution of China would certainly wipe this growing economic giant off the map, and who would this benefit the most? Furthermore, the Tibetan Autonomous Region in China encompasses the provinces of Ü-Tsang and western Kham in traditional Tibet; Amdo and eastern Kham are now in regions of the Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu, and Yunnan provinces. To ask for independence for Tibet would mean breaking up these Chinese provinces, and this is no easy task.
Doesn't anyone else find it hypocritical that countries such as the US are jumping up and down over human rights issues in China when it very poorly treats its native Americans, still practises capital punishment, is largely responsible for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now the global 'war on terror', Guantanamo Bay, and the obvious racism rife in its own country? Dare I mention our sunburnt country and its history and current relationship with the Indigenous peoples, and our refugee policy? Yes, China has a very dirty record of human rights, but so does just about everyone else. And why kick up a stink now and not five, ten, fifty years ago? Oh right.There wasn't an Olympics then and Chinese economy and communist Government didn't hold so much power and influence.
I'm sitting on the fence with this one: I declare myself far too ignorant of the issues and cultures involved to be worthy of forming a valid and useful opinion. I would like to see peace returned to the Tibetan region and its people, but at the moment both sides are steadfastly holding onto their demands such that nothing can be achieved. In the meantime, I do wish that people would stop to think, and consider that perhaps the issues are not as clear-cut as they seem, and that the media (Western and otherwise) don't always tell the whole story as they are playing out their own agenda and/or reporting to higher powers. So, before you hastily download an opinion and run out protesting for one side or the other, get informed and then make your own mind up from the contradictory information from Tibet's ancient history to now. Who's right? Who knows, but more than enough people have suffered and died already that more ignorance is not going to do anyone any favours. That and people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
A forage into Tibet's long and varied history helps to lend some insight as to how and why Tibet has been contested over for so long and by whom: many have dipped their fingers (or rather, smashed their fists) into the honey-pot, including Mongolia, India, China, Nepal, and Britain. The current controversy over Tibet presumably stems from the Chinese claim over Tibet by the Communists, led by Mao Zedong in 1950. Yes, atrocities were conducted in the name of social, religious, and land reform: the oppression on the Lamas caused rampant civil unrest and guerrilla warfare; the Dalai Lama, with the help of the CIA, fled to refuge in India, who was politically pressured by the US and Britain to take in the Tibetan refugees. But, amidst the oppression, slavery and serfdom were abolished, and road infrastructure was built to India, Nepal and Pakistan. Then the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards (who included Tibetans) inflicted more horrendous atrocities, particularly on the Buddhist heritage inherent to the Tibetan culture. The exact numbers of monasteries destroyed, and monks and nuns imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed varies depending on whose version of events you want to believe. Economic (but not political) reform has been in place since 1979: limited religious freedom has been returned, but controversy surrounds the whereabouts of the 11th Panchen Lama (allegedly secretly protected in Beijing), and the selection of the next Dalai Lama; these issues are highly contentious and are yet to be resolved.
History aside, the current situation in Tibet can draw many similarities from colonised countries and their relationship with their Indigenous peoples. The difference, however, is that Tibet is not a Chinese 'colony' as such, but the problematic complications of having many ethnic minorities within an ethnic majority parallel those from the colonisation of lands with Indigenous peoples. China's ethnic majority are the Han people (91.9% of the population), and China officially recognises 55 ethnic minorities and the Taiwanese Indigenous people (which is sub-classified in to 13 groups by the ROC Taiwanese Government). Unrecognised groups (over 730 000 people) include foreign nationals who are Chinese citizens, whilst Hong Kong and Macau are not even included in this demographic audit. Ethnic minorities can differ greatly in appearance, religion, beliefs, customs, traditions, lifestyle, dialect or language. Parts of Western China can resemble the Middle East with mosques outnumbering the stereotypical Chinese architecture, and the regions that border the former Soviet Union are home to people with piercing blue eyes and blond hair who speak perfect dialects of Chinese. As always, looks are deceiving and all these regions and people are Chinese and China officially recognises them as so.
So was China picking on Tibet during the Cultural Revolution? Across China during the Revolution, alleged counter-revolutionaries, intellectuals, religious figures, artists, and writers were persecuted, 're-educated', tortured, killed, or all of the above. No religious activities were allowed: temples, churches and mosques were destroyed all over China. Ancient buildings and historical sites, antiques, books, art, and other artifacts of Chinese culture and customs were completely purged. The ethnic minorities of China suffered the most: not only the Tibetans but alleged separatists in Inner Mongolia were witch-hunted, Muslims were persecuted, Quarans destroyed, and the Hui (Muslim) people massacred, Korean language schools smashed, and royal palaces of people from the Yunnan province burnt to the ground. By no account am I excusing China from taking responsibility for past actions of oppression and invasion in Tibet, but the human rights abuses and destruction of heritage during the Cultural Revolution was not specific to Tibet or the Tibetan people.
With such an ethnically diverse population, the Chinese Government has a full plate on its hands to ensure cultural preservation and equal rights for all ethnicities. China's laws now guarantee equal rights to and actively promotes the (often preferential) economic and cultural development of all ethnic minorities in China. Numbers-wise, ethnic minorities are not bound to the one-child policy, and as a result the growth of ethnic minority populations is faster than that of the Han majority. Ethnic minorities also often reside in regional 'autonomous areas', where freedom of religion (subject to Governmental approval), culture, traditions, customs, festivals, and ethnic languages (with Mandarin as the official language) are allowed and transport infrastructure has been built. Many monasteries, mosques and other places of religious worship have been rebuilt, repaired, and reopened to the public. In addition, minorities are represented at all levels of Government, educational institutions have been established for ethnic minorities, and health care for ethnic minorities is being continually improved and addressed. These multi-faceted levels of recognition of ethnic minorities and respect for diverse traditions, cultures, and customs, although far from perfect as the economic development allegedly favours Han people in 'autonomous areas' and human rights abuses and oppression are allegedly still in force, still far surpasses the respect shown by many Western countries to their Indigenous people and ethnic minorities.
So, before one blindly berates the Chinese for the human rights abuses in Tibet, consider looking in your own backyard at how your Indigenous people and ethnic minorities were and are being treated. Now multiply those problems by a factor of about a hundred to cater for all the ethnic minorities in China: sounds hard, right? If Tibet were to be granted independence based upon ethnic considerations, what about the other Chinese ethnic minorities: why aren't their homelands granted independence as well? If that were the case, China has a high probability of dissolving into the civil unrest of warring states, which as history tells, simply does not work for anyone involved. But the dissolution of China would certainly wipe this growing economic giant off the map, and who would this benefit the most? Furthermore, the Tibetan Autonomous Region in China encompasses the provinces of Ü-Tsang and western Kham in traditional Tibet; Amdo and eastern Kham are now in regions of the Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu, and Yunnan provinces. To ask for independence for Tibet would mean breaking up these Chinese provinces, and this is no easy task.
Doesn't anyone else find it hypocritical that countries such as the US are jumping up and down over human rights issues in China when it very poorly treats its native Americans, still practises capital punishment, is largely responsible for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now the global 'war on terror', Guantanamo Bay, and the obvious racism rife in its own country? Dare I mention our sunburnt country and its history and current relationship with the Indigenous peoples, and our refugee policy? Yes, China has a very dirty record of human rights, but so does just about everyone else. And why kick up a stink now and not five, ten, fifty years ago? Oh right.There wasn't an Olympics then and Chinese economy and communist Government didn't hold so much power and influence.
I'm sitting on the fence with this one: I declare myself far too ignorant of the issues and cultures involved to be worthy of forming a valid and useful opinion. I would like to see peace returned to the Tibetan region and its people, but at the moment both sides are steadfastly holding onto their demands such that nothing can be achieved. In the meantime, I do wish that people would stop to think, and consider that perhaps the issues are not as clear-cut as they seem, and that the media (Western and otherwise) don't always tell the whole story as they are playing out their own agenda and/or reporting to higher powers. So, before you hastily download an opinion and run out protesting for one side or the other, get informed and then make your own mind up from the contradictory information from Tibet's ancient history to now. Who's right? Who knows, but more than enough people have suffered and died already that more ignorance is not going to do anyone any favours. That and people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Monday, April 14, 2008
man overboard
The biggest problem with x's is dealing with the y's: oh what the heck was I thinking? Well, evidently I wasn't thinking much at all: the transient emotions of my youth were protesting with catchy placards and yelling louder than my always-reasoning mind.
You obviously don't know me very well if you feel the need to ring me out of the blue to 'catch up'. What am I, a fool to fall for that? Well, maybe, but I don't do chit-chat. And if you still don't know this by now, I have nothing more to say other than to berate myself for my own blind stupidity.
My intuition, disguised as an ever-present guardian fairy perched upon my shoulder, whispers that you rang just to tell me that you're seeing a new girl; but your biggest mistake was to forget, or not even realise, that I don't care. It's not personal, I just don't trouble myself with the personal relationships of others; I trust and respect people to make the decisions that are best for them. And when they don't, that's not my problem. And I am just not an emotional person; I openly admit it: I'm cold-hearted. So please don't delude yourself into thinking that I will be jealous, regret that I cut loose, or succumb to some such emotion: I really don't care so please don't waste my time. I don't play games with people and I don't have time for people who do: two fools in one house are too many.
You obviously don't know me very well if you feel the need to ring me out of the blue to 'catch up'. What am I, a fool to fall for that? Well, maybe, but I don't do chit-chat. And if you still don't know this by now, I have nothing more to say other than to berate myself for my own blind stupidity.
My intuition, disguised as an ever-present guardian fairy perched upon my shoulder, whispers that you rang just to tell me that you're seeing a new girl; but your biggest mistake was to forget, or not even realise, that I don't care. It's not personal, I just don't trouble myself with the personal relationships of others; I trust and respect people to make the decisions that are best for them. And when they don't, that's not my problem. And I am just not an emotional person; I openly admit it: I'm cold-hearted. So please don't delude yourself into thinking that I will be jealous, regret that I cut loose, or succumb to some such emotion: I really don't care so please don't waste my time. I don't play games with people and I don't have time for people who do: two fools in one house are too many.
A plague o' all your houses! Is religion a viral infection?
Antibiotics don't work; drinking plenty of water with rest doesn't make it go away; and, once the virus takes hold of its host, it feeds to fulfillment before propagating to find new victims. People who are carriers of the virus but do not consciously infect others recognise that spirituality is a personal pursuit, and thus have a respect for others' beliefs. I have mutual respect for those who respect me and accept me for who I am. But, I have serious gripes with over-zealous religious extremists and evangelists: people who believe that they are doing the right thing and 'helping' others (and their own supposed salvation) by 'spreading the word' of their chosen Lord to all and sundry, regardless of peoples' existing cultures, beliefs, and religions. And, what exactly is the difference between religions and cults? Because one labels the other as so is but a weak retort; many religions often start as a 'cult',and morph into classification as a religion as the mainstream population is indoctrinated.
Religion, the oft-proclaimed saviour of human souls, is often the cause of more grief than grace; food for thought can be harvested from the Crusades, Saxon Wars, the various Inquisitions, The Troubles, the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict - the list goes on. Following a doctrine that wages wars and commits genocide, all for the cause of mono-religious ideals, doesn't sound like a doctrine that values and appreciates differences in people, cultures, and philosophies. Such seemingly noble belief systems that led to essentially inhumane actions would appear to be rooted in hypocrisy, if not also in irrationality and justified only by blind spiritual faith.
So why are the most brilliant of scientists also the most evangelical followers? How do they separate the unquestioned faith required for religion with the rational, evidence-based mindset of science? Some insist that religion stems from proven historical events, but history itself often has the bias of whoever authored the text. Spirituality is also a vulnerable human asset: someone who, or something that, can seemingly provide answers and a path to follow can easily target the emotional comfort of wandering souls who are vulnerable, gullible, and unable, unwilling, or choose not to find and forge their own yellow-brick road.
Manipulation and taking advantage of another's mindset or situation (religious aid, anyone?) is not a very nice thing to do; to think that one's beliefs is the only right set of beliefs is myopic, closed-minded, presumptuous, ignorant, arrogant, and just plain rude: no one has the right to tell anyone else what is right for them; especially in such personal choices that affect one's ideologies and life philosophies. Such spiritual imperialism is surely a contradiction of the religiously independent, human 'moral values' of acceptance and tolerance, or are these values malleable and subject to selective and contextual interpretation at will?
So thanks but no thanks: please keep your germs to yourself. I appreciate that you are trying to help me (and help you), but I am quite content to be condemned to all the different Hells, wherever they may be. Or are they all the same Hell, with one suburb for each religion and cult? That's no problem: I like travelling - just blame it all on my morbid, overbearing, and insatiable sense of curiousity. Curiousity killed the cat, right?
Religion, the oft-proclaimed saviour of human souls, is often the cause of more grief than grace; food for thought can be harvested from the Crusades, Saxon Wars, the various Inquisitions, The Troubles, the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict - the list goes on. Following a doctrine that wages wars and commits genocide, all for the cause of mono-religious ideals, doesn't sound like a doctrine that values and appreciates differences in people, cultures, and philosophies. Such seemingly noble belief systems that led to essentially inhumane actions would appear to be rooted in hypocrisy, if not also in irrationality and justified only by blind spiritual faith.
So why are the most brilliant of scientists also the most evangelical followers? How do they separate the unquestioned faith required for religion with the rational, evidence-based mindset of science? Some insist that religion stems from proven historical events, but history itself often has the bias of whoever authored the text. Spirituality is also a vulnerable human asset: someone who, or something that, can seemingly provide answers and a path to follow can easily target the emotional comfort of wandering souls who are vulnerable, gullible, and unable, unwilling, or choose not to find and forge their own yellow-brick road.
Manipulation and taking advantage of another's mindset or situation (religious aid, anyone?) is not a very nice thing to do; to think that one's beliefs is the only right set of beliefs is myopic, closed-minded, presumptuous, ignorant, arrogant, and just plain rude: no one has the right to tell anyone else what is right for them; especially in such personal choices that affect one's ideologies and life philosophies. Such spiritual imperialism is surely a contradiction of the religiously independent, human 'moral values' of acceptance and tolerance, or are these values malleable and subject to selective and contextual interpretation at will?
So thanks but no thanks: please keep your germs to yourself. I appreciate that you are trying to help me (and help you), but I am quite content to be condemned to all the different Hells, wherever they may be. Or are they all the same Hell, with one suburb for each religion and cult? That's no problem: I like travelling - just blame it all on my morbid, overbearing, and insatiable sense of curiousity. Curiousity killed the cat, right?
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Diary of Incapacitation
I'm yellow from a Betadine bath and making involuntary crunching sounds with my fashionable green paper legwarmer. Guards up: it's time to go. Wheels in motion, the ceiling floats by and peering faces block the flying lights that line the sterile corridors. You talk to me, and although I'm jabbering away, my mind is on a philosophical plane far, far away, trying to escape the events that are soon to occur. Although, I do have enough coherent brain space to wonder why there is an oxygen tank in the lift. Drs Drugs joke and poke, and I stare at the huge dishes of theatre light; I'm freaking out, this is the point of no return. Oh, what have I done?! IV in, lights down. Is that you, Dr Knee?
How's the pain, you ask? 8, and I'm shivering. But I can't tell if I feel cold or not. I think it's cold and it looks cold, but I'm just not sure. Morphine and blankets: now its a 6 but I'm still shivering. More morphine and I'm suddenly all nice and warm. It's great: I can't feel a thing, half my brain is asleep and the other half is a fuzzy haze, and my body has stopped trying to find its resonant frequency. Ooh, I'm happy, very relaxed, and I want to eat! You poke your head through the door and your face instantly changes from an expression of investigative curiosity to brotherly concern. I've never seen you look like that before: am I in that bad a state? But now I can't even put a sentence together to assure you that I'm not actually in any pain: I can't seem to stop sleep from taking over. Left eye: open! Right eye: open! Now both together: open! Open, dammit! *retch* Oh, those horrid anaesthetics - o wherefore art thou Dr Drugs?!
How's the pain, you ask? 8, and I'm shivering. But I can't tell if I feel cold or not. I think it's cold and it looks cold, but I'm just not sure. Morphine and blankets: now its a 6 but I'm still shivering. More morphine and I'm suddenly all nice and warm. It's great: I can't feel a thing, half my brain is asleep and the other half is a fuzzy haze, and my body has stopped trying to find its resonant frequency. Ooh, I'm happy, very relaxed, and I want to eat! You poke your head through the door and your face instantly changes from an expression of investigative curiosity to brotherly concern. I've never seen you look like that before: am I in that bad a state? But now I can't even put a sentence together to assure you that I'm not actually in any pain: I can't seem to stop sleep from taking over. Left eye: open! Right eye: open! Now both together: open! Open, dammit! *retch* Oh, those horrid anaesthetics - o wherefore art thou Dr Drugs?!
Friday, April 11, 2008
life philosophies
the chinese coin: square on the inside and round on the outside. be adaptable and roll.
buddhist monks, a river, and a girl: don't hold onto rules, the past, and grudges - let baggage go, don't carry burdens.
time is mortally limited and irreplaceable; money is a human construct of replaceable material wealth.
friends will come and go. let them go.
human nature: greed, pride, ego.
buddhist monks, a river, and a girl: don't hold onto rules, the past, and grudges - let baggage go, don't carry burdens.
time is mortally limited and irreplaceable; money is a human construct of replaceable material wealth.
friends will come and go. let them go.
human nature: greed, pride, ego.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)