Darkness Has Fallen

Went to PD last weekend, after so many years. I can't really swim though. I had a pool in the apartment I stayed opposite my university, but never used it even once, and I went all the way to PD to use the pool there. But it was kind of insulting to the sea, so my family and I went to the beach and dipped our feet at the shore for about 15 minutes, and the water is as dirty as.. thereisnocomparisonsuitable.. We stayed in Selesa Beach Resort. The place was fine. The number of dishes for breakfast in the coffee house was lesser than expected. Plus it wasn't so tasty. But the 'rojak' was interesting. More like it came in an interesting way. Anyway, it's PD, so you can't expect much taste.

For dinner, the highlight, Mother's Day Celebration (though it's on Sunday, but the dinner was on Saturday) we went to Kim's Seafood Palace. The only thing I found tasty was the Butter Prawns. Sorry I didn't take a picture of the dish coz its in my tummy already. Below is how the place looks like. Its at PD Waterfront.

As for the title, it's because, I was born fair. I keep telling people but no one believes me :( Anyway, after burning myself in the sun in school, I've been trying to stay in the shade throughout my university life. However, the years of effort all gone in a day. I am now burnt like a chestnut. Not really that bad, but still. My skin is exfoliating now. Bye!

Hudud - A Way Forward or Backward?

When I started blogging I made two promises to myself. One, never to include names if people I know personally. Two, never write about political issues. This however, trespasses the human psyche. So yes, this is a very juicy topic indeed. I am not really going to make a stand on whether they should or should not implement Hudud. Currently, I'm just interested to know what Hudud actually is. Before this, my mind understood Hudud as an equivalent to chopping something. I was reading about Hudud on Wikipedia, because that is the easiest source when you can't really get any genuine material. But Wikipedia has references at the bottom of the page, so its fine for me. From what I gathered, Hudud is one of four categories of punishment in the Islamic Penal Law. We aren't really interested in the other three categories, so I'm not going to mention it. The crimes that they are focusing on are such as theft, fornication, adultery, intoxication and apostasy (abandoning religion). The meaning of the Arabic word Hudud is 'restriction or limit'. Also, under the Hudud category, 'chopping' isn't the only punishment. There are three types of punishment, namely, Capital Punishment, Amputation, and Lashing. Most people and the media harp on the amputation, and that is why it is imprinted on most minds that by Hudud, if you steal, you will lose your hand. Well, it is, but that's not all of it. Personally speaking, and not having the intention of offending anyone, I dislike this idea. However I do not oppose the people proposing it. Is the phrase, 'it doesn't matter how you do it, what matters are the results', true? Is it different if before the act of stealing, the stealer thinks to himself, 'If I steal and get caught, I will go to jail' as opposed to 'If I steal and get caught, my hand will be amputated'?  If someone is in a desperate situation as to steal, isn't he or she ready to face the consequences? Does the punishment really make a difference? The stoning to death, amputation etc, isn't the worse one could think of. Worse punishment can be found in history, for example, crucifixion of Persian, Carthaginians, Macedonians and Romans origin. On the cross, however if the victim doesn't die fast, death is hastened by fracturing the tibia or fibula, a stab to the heart, strong blows to the chest, or a fire at the bottom of the victim's feet to asphyxiate the victim. Come to think of it, Hudud is child's play compared to the crucifixion. But that is not the point. Then and now, did any of these extreme punishment really did change mankind? The crimes then and now, are they any different? If it is really results we are focusing on, did we achieve any? Is Hudud a way forward of backward. My view to this is that, it is a roundabout. It makes no difference. Though the thought of amputation or stoning to death is horrifying and the image of it is troubling, it is actually an equivalent of any kind of punishment be it big or small. It does not change mankind. Rape existed then, still existing now. Fornication or adultery, gold bars or money, it will all exist continuously, because when the need arises, man will do whatever it takes, even if it means killing another to save your own. I am not criticizing Hudud for what it is. If you think you can step up the game with Hudud, I beg to differ. I bring forward a proposition. Earlier I mentioned that, I dislike Hudud but do not oppose the people proposing it. Think about it, if someone raped your loved one, I think you would do more than just Hudud-defy that guy. If you were in that situation, chopping of his privates as an equivalent of raping your loved one wouldn't be enough. You would want more than that. Death penalty is out of the topic. Death is easy, living is tough (House M.D). If you want to learn to revenge, learn it from the Koreans. Ain't no other race on earth can revenge better then them. If someone really raped your loved one, you might want to break his spirit and make him want to die by locking him up in a room for fifteen years, feeding him only one type of food everyday (Oldboy, 2003). Then you might want to skin him alive (Martyrs, 2008), and then just for fun, soak him on soap water after skinning (a biology lecturer). Even at that point, it wouldn't be enough. You might want to dedicate your life to being a vigilante and killing all rapists out there. Come to think of it, even if you amputate someone, I think these criminals are rich enough to go to Japan and get prosthetics. Then they can come back to their homeland and continue their serial raping. If you revenge the person who wronged you, then you are at the same level as him. Here is what I propose for criminals who have been caught. I suggest bring back the once upon a time great, 'Lobotomy'. I'm talking about Shutter Island, 2010 & Sucker Punch, 2011 lobotomy. It was originated by a Portuguese Neurologist, António Egas Moniz. The most precious thing about a human, everything you have is all about your memories and your identity. The traditional lobotomy was a procedure for psychiatric patients. My suggestion requires a tweak to the procedure. Its more of a leucotomy of the temporal lobe. Destroy the autobiographic memory of the criminal, resulting in an alteration of personality. The amputation idea is still there, but why amputate the arm when it was the brain who told the arm to do so? Once this is done, send him to one year session of cognitive reprogramming. I'm talking about A Clockwork Orange, 1971. Make him fear and hate what he loves most. If by Hudud, it is fear they want to instill, I bet you, just watching a lobotomy procedure will freak the shit out of you, and a session like portrayed in A Clockwork Orange will add a cherry on top. An additional benefit with the procedures I suggested, is that the criminal is given a new chance in life, together with experiencing hell for about six months to one year while having all his limbs intact. These aren't my ideas, all credit given to the writers and directors of movies that have so much to contribute to the society. Do watch 'A Clockwork Orange, 1971' by Stanley Kubrick, if you haven't.

“Is it better for a man to have chosen evil than to have good imposed upon him?”

~Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange

Opinion VS Opinionated

 

Just finished a two week torturing, communication skills short course today. Well, it wasn't that bad because I did learn something from this course. The most interesting lecture was on difficult people. There is the whiner, the bulldozer, the expert, the balloon, the sniper, and the indecisive. However I think that most people can be categorized in more than one of these categories. As in, not all people are only made up of one of those characters. We had a few assignments to do, most of it were speeches, which were really annoying especially impromptu speeches. Yesterday there was a paired speech. So my partner and I spoke about misleading superheroes, referring to Marvel and DC Comics superheroes. Some of the points that we discussed were, vigilantism, perfectionism, revenge, hiding behind a mask, violence, and false hope. We were agreeing with the statement for our speech. But of course, we all know all that was a load of crap. We all love you, dear superheroes out there. Batman especially, keeping my city safe. Trust me, I'm not delusional. Most of the topics given required us to give our opinions and views on things. Most of what people talk about, write about or blog about are opinions on issues. Well some of them just blog their daily life. I'm talking about those blogs that debate or argue about controversial issues or topics that are very juicy for discussion. I am intending to do that as well. However, I sometimes think some people are opinionated. I do not want to find myself doing the same thing I dislike. So lets get this clear with, or basically, I'm clearing my own conscience. What is an opinion? An opinion is defined as 'A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge'. The judgement may as well be based on facts. Being opinionated however, is characterized by 'conceited assertiveness and dogmatism'. I got these definitions from Oxford Dictionary. The definition of opinionated in a simpler fashion by Dr. Mark Goulston M.D., 'a person who speaks as if their opinions are facts rather than mere beliefs'. Basically, everyone can have an opinion as long as they don't try to dogmatize it or shove a certain concept down another person's throat. Today in my communication skills class, we also learn about transparency in an organization. Information is power, but when the time is right for you to speak up, you have to. So its okay to have an opinion. Along with it, wisdom is important as to know when to verbalize it, and the method of delivery. Some people would say, that to whom you say it matters as well. As for me, it does really matter as long as you have the two former factors right. For example, if the prime minister is in front of your face today, and asks your opinion on how to save the country (i am not implying our country needs any saving action), you should say something if you have something brilliant to say. If you take into account that he is the prime minister and missed your opportunity, then no one will remember you in history. Sorry, I love to give extravagant examples, as long as you get the point. Also, opinionated people often turn every bit of a conversation into an argument or a debate. Watch out for these people, sometimes you might just feel like you need to be alone, and you definitely don't want to meet this person in the restaurant you are about to eat lunch in. Among the two factors which I deemed as important in giving an opinion just now; when to verbalize it and the method of delivery. I think that the method of delivery is the most important. We can't really know when is the best time for all situations, but we can definitely do something about our method of delivery. Some people have a default rude tone when they speak, and this is a total turn off. No matter how good their opinion can be, no one would give a penny for it. Sometimes when we give an opinion it could sound like we are trying to overpower the person in charge if you are speaking from a position of lower ranking wherever it may be. It could also sound like you are correcting them if they are people of experience. Being opinionated is extremely dangerous when he or she goes for job interviews, and this will definitely print a negative impression on them.

~Every man has a right to his opinion, 

but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.

-Bernard M. Baruch

So what to do? Provide your opinions when people ask for it, or when it is extremely necessary. Don't be a bore to people talking and arguing unnecessary and unimportant issues of life. Leave it to the person whether or not they want to agree with you on what you have offered. No one is obliged to agree on a certain thing. Have opinions, but don't get trapped as being opinionated. When a situation is going on, don't be the observant sideline, take a stand. Observant side liners can't really be relied on as well. What you perceive shapes your opinions, and your opinions shape your personality and who you are. If you have no opinion, you have no solid personality as well. Sometimes people talk to much as to assert their position or status. This is a fundamental problem of insecurity or low self esteem. If you realize you are one of these people, and if you are not happy with it, then do something about it.

“Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.” -Oscar Wilde

 

 

Trust

How do we know we can trust someone? We don't. We just do. Usually it comes along with the people we love or care about, or people that we have known a very very long time. But should we actually trust a person? If yes, then how much? Lets talk about ourselves first. Can we actually trust ourselves? Well for me, no. I can' t really trust myself. I can fail me, sometimes. I have pretty high standards for myself. If you can't trust yourself, don't trust others. Same way with love. If you cant love yourself, don't love others. First learn how to love yourself, only then you can project it outwards. What is it you trust someone with? A task maybe? or secrets? When someone fails us, we get upset and make a promise to ourselves never to trust that person again. What happens when the person asks for forgiveness? Forgiving complicates things. If you say you forgive that person, does it mean you can entrust that person with heavy loads again? or does it just mean you are not angry anymore, but no telling secrets or sharing of exclusive information? It boils down to two basic things that we trust someone with, a task or personal information. So how do we avoid problems or escape this trust issue. Lets start with the simpler element. Tasks. Its simple. Just do it yourself. Be independent. Dependency brings about expectation and expectation brings about disappointments. Of course, in life, you cant do everything yourself. There are certain things that you need help with. We need an example here. Okay, lets say you and this friend of yours. Totally useless people on earth and such a waste of space. But one day both of you decide to do something worthwhile in life. So you guys come up with this plan of robbing a bank, and yes, as you expect, he double crosses you and runs away with the money. You get caught. First moral of the story? Always plan a triple cross. Don't bring yourself to those dramatic moments, where your hand are cuffed, and from a distance you can see your friend with the money bag, and you shout out, 'I trusted you! I thought we were friends!' Enough with the dramas. Shut up, seriously. Why triple cross? Its because if your 'friend' planned a bank robbery with you, he isn't your friend. A good friend is suppose to knock you back to reality to get a real job and lead a good life. So if he isn't your friend, manipulate him as much as you want. Second moral of the story, if you want to rob a bank, don't use a friend, hire people so that you can dispose them later. Now that you have disposed them and you have the money, you can live happily ever after with your friend. No trust issue complication. Next, is trusting a person with personal information. How does these things come about anyway? The fundamental problem, the way I see it is exclusiveness. Everybody likes to think that they are special. If everybody knows everything about them, then they are just common. When only certain people have a certain advantage over them, they feel special. Another factor is vulnerability. They think exposing too much information about themselves puts them in danger. Seriously? No. Who do you think you are? The prime minister or something? Nobody wants to kill you, nobody cares if you even exist. Of course there is the problem where if you let out your weakness, people will manipulate you either now, or later in your working life. How do you settle that then? Be proud of your weaknesses. It totally disarms the attacker. You are only easily manipulated if manipulation gets to you. So lets say for some reason you have already reached the dramatic moment when someone has failed your trust on a duty or task. What do we do? I'd say forgive that person. Whether to trust again? Nope.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Stephen Szasz

If you want to be special, you already are in God's eyes. For fellow humans, let someone see you for how special you are, don't try to be special. Don't make all your information so exclusive, that when you entrust it to one person, the chance of that person selling you out is extremely high, and you don't have to make the other person feel so special saying 'only you know so much about me'. If you do that, Go kill yourself after.