I went to see "Shutter Island" with a friend who has read the book that the film was based on. She had to read the book four times to completely understand the story and the twists and turns. But for the film version, Martin Scorsese does not have the luxury of having his audiences watch the film four times to understand the story, and so he played out the script in a crystal-clear manner, and the audience was probably satisfied by the end of the film.
The acting was terrific throughout the cast. Leonardo DiCaprio was perfect cast as the lead and he really dove into this role. Without giving anything away, I'll just say this role is somewhat similar to his role in "The Departed", only perhaps even edgier.
I was also impressed by the supporting cast, perhaps even more so than by Leo's performance. Ben Kingsley and Max von Sydow make effective cunning figures, sending chills down our spines with their lines. Mark Ruffalo gives a quietly great performance as Leo's partner in the film.
The one thing I had a slight issue with was the casting of Jackie Earle Haley; the three films he's most famous for, he's played: a pedophile ("Little Children"), a conspiracy-theorist Superhero (Rorschach in "Watchmen"), and now as an insane prisoner in "Shutter Island". Haley seemed perfect for the role, but perhaps the makers could have taken a risk and cast someone we don't already associate with insanity.
What can be said about the film making itself? My first impression was that it was done very well, in a by-the-book kind of way. The editing is well paced so that we can see what is going on (and the acting too), but it's not anything we haven't seen before.
Finally, though, the film, as well as the book, (I assume) is a study into the idea of insanity. At one point late in the movie, there is a brief discussion on the issue of institutionalized insanity. The story of the movie takes place in the mid 1950s. About a decade after that, French post-structuralist philosopher Michel Foucault write a series of literature (the Order of Things, Discipline & Punish, a History of Madness) discussing insanity. What is it? how is it defined? The nature of insanity itself is a controversial category, and many of us take for granted the loose definitions provided by the definers.
"Shutter Island" is a terrific film, but it certainly felt like Scorsese was not going for the best film of his career. That's quite okay; I'll take decent Scorsese over Michael Bay any day.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Phone Review: LG Viewty Smart
I am not a tech guy. I am not particularly tech-savvy and I don't consider myself a geek. But I do know an intuitive device when I come across one, and the LG Viewty Smart is only mediocre when it comes to the overall quality of a $400 phone.
In the interest of not appearing like an ignorant dumbass, I will not go through the tech specs, or all the features of the phone. Instead, I will focus on what I have personally experienced with the device during its four months of usage so far.
Let us start with a good quality: the camera is great. 8 megapixels with a fairly strong zoom meant the pictures come out quite nice even when spread to full screen on a computer. The various 'shot modes' are cool, but for most recreational point-and-shoot cell phone camera users, the Intelligent Shot mode (IS), 'Auto', and Night Mode, are good enough. The video recording quality is excellent, too.
The camera is great. It is what this line of LG phones are geared for - taking good pictures - and to this end, LG does a good job.
But that's about as far as it goes.
The Viewty Smart is a full touchscreen phone, with one homescreen button, an on/off switch on top and volume buttons on the sides. What a full touchscreen phone entails is that the touchscreen needs to be intuitive, fast, and precise. The LG touchscreen is not any of these things. When compared to real smart phones like the HTC Hero or iphone 3GS, the LG touchscreen feels slow, lagging, and amateur.
A personal problem I've had is sometimes I would receive calls, but the screen would not light up to let me press 'receive'! That means I'm left staring at the screen, while the phone rings, and I can't pick up. I suspect it might have something to do with the room being very warm and the screen not responding because of that, but that probably sounds ridiculous.
The horizontal text messaging QWERTY keyboard, while seems like a smaller version of the iphone QWERTY keyboard, is quite difficult to type with; owners will need to develop very agile and delicate typing fingers to be able to text fast.
This is the issue: in this day in age, we don't just want to be able to text, or text accurately, we want to text fast. And the LG Interface doesn't deliver.
The Viewty Smart cannot go 3G (not mine, anyway), which means it is not a smart phone. The web-surfing abilities of this phone is weak, as well. The browser lacks like crazy, and the not-so-big screen just discourages any user to go onto the internet for any extended period.
Finally, it had not occurred to me that purchasing an expensive phone like this one would mean problems like it being incompatible with an Apple computer. This is beyond disappointing. Luckily I have installed Windows Vista via Boot Camp, otherwise I would've had to use another computer to sync my phone with and upload pictures and music and stuff. But this meant that every time I want to do this, I have to flip over to windows, a very annoying and tedious thing to do.
That's about it, the LG Viewty Smart, a phone that is light in weight, looks slick, great for taking pictures and (just about) nothing more. While I do not regret picking this phone over the iPhone, LG would probably not be on my top 3 in choice for my next purchase.
In the interest of not appearing like an ignorant dumbass, I will not go through the tech specs, or all the features of the phone. Instead, I will focus on what I have personally experienced with the device during its four months of usage so far.
Let us start with a good quality: the camera is great. 8 megapixels with a fairly strong zoom meant the pictures come out quite nice even when spread to full screen on a computer. The various 'shot modes' are cool, but for most recreational point-and-shoot cell phone camera users, the Intelligent Shot mode (IS), 'Auto', and Night Mode, are good enough. The video recording quality is excellent, too.
The camera is great. It is what this line of LG phones are geared for - taking good pictures - and to this end, LG does a good job.
But that's about as far as it goes.
The Viewty Smart is a full touchscreen phone, with one homescreen button, an on/off switch on top and volume buttons on the sides. What a full touchscreen phone entails is that the touchscreen needs to be intuitive, fast, and precise. The LG touchscreen is not any of these things. When compared to real smart phones like the HTC Hero or iphone 3GS, the LG touchscreen feels slow, lagging, and amateur.
A personal problem I've had is sometimes I would receive calls, but the screen would not light up to let me press 'receive'! That means I'm left staring at the screen, while the phone rings, and I can't pick up. I suspect it might have something to do with the room being very warm and the screen not responding because of that, but that probably sounds ridiculous.
The horizontal text messaging QWERTY keyboard, while seems like a smaller version of the iphone QWERTY keyboard, is quite difficult to type with; owners will need to develop very agile and delicate typing fingers to be able to text fast.
This is the issue: in this day in age, we don't just want to be able to text, or text accurately, we want to text fast. And the LG Interface doesn't deliver.
The Viewty Smart cannot go 3G (not mine, anyway), which means it is not a smart phone. The web-surfing abilities of this phone is weak, as well. The browser lacks like crazy, and the not-so-big screen just discourages any user to go onto the internet for any extended period.
Finally, it had not occurred to me that purchasing an expensive phone like this one would mean problems like it being incompatible with an Apple computer. This is beyond disappointing. Luckily I have installed Windows Vista via Boot Camp, otherwise I would've had to use another computer to sync my phone with and upload pictures and music and stuff. But this meant that every time I want to do this, I have to flip over to windows, a very annoying and tedious thing to do.
That's about it, the LG Viewty Smart, a phone that is light in weight, looks slick, great for taking pictures and (just about) nothing more. While I do not regret picking this phone over the iPhone, LG would probably not be on my top 3 in choice for my next purchase.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Can a Youtube Campaign fail?
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that the White House established its own Youtube channel and uploads videos of all sorts almost everyday. From message-driven videos such as President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world, to issue-related videos such as UN Conferences or Health Care meetings, to videos that show shed light on what it’s like living in the White House, the channel is full of useful information for anyone who wishes to know more about anything President-related.
Which makes it all the more puzzling to me when I look at the mostly disappointing low view counts for this videos.
Videos on the White House channel rarely break the 10,000 views mark, a number that should be more than reachable considering its source.
Let me reemphasize: Neither Presidents Clinton nor W. even used email, so it is just shocking to me to find that so few people are accessing this White House channel to learn / gather information / come up with constructive criticism.
For example, a few weeks ago, a video was set up for Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to answer questions asked by ordinary Americans. That video currently stands at about 3000 views. The health care debate is the issue of America right now; it is where the White House has chosen to make its first major impact since taking office. You’d think tens of thousands of eager learners would watch this video and others to learn what the White House has to say about their reforms.
Another, even more compelling example, is the videos showing what the White House has done so far with the stimulus money in terms of creating jobs and funding small businesses. One video shows Obama present at a smart grid site in Arcadia, Florida, where a field of solar panels rested behind him as he talked about creating jobs relating to renewable energy. There is also one video of Obama speaking about new small business lending initiatives. Neither of these videos is remotely close to 10,000 views. How do you complain about something if you don’t at least see what they’ve done?
I’d like to think of it this way: there are upwards of say, two dozen, elite universities in America, and over a hundred quality ones. There are also thousands upon thousands of high schools, and only as few as a few thousand of these students watch the White House channel. That number lowers even more if you take out the non-student youtubers. Now, even if university political science students should be skeptical about the factual contents of these videos, or God forbid, be scare that they might somehow be propaganda, they should nonetheless watch them to know what the White House has to say, if anything then, to analyze and criticize it.
I mean, how is it possible that these videos aren’t being watched by a bigger demographic? Are little ol’ me and a few thousand others the only ones interested in what the Obama administration’s up to? Do the students are Harvard, Stanford, or Columbia, not know the channel exists, or do they not think it’s useful?
It just goes to show how uncivilized the political climate is in the United States. The number of people who believe that the President is wrong no matter what is staggering. I bet there are those who there who would link that nutjob who fired a machine gun at American solders at Fort Hood with Obama.
Anyone who wants to form an opinion on something should listen to what both sides has to offer.
Which makes it all the more puzzling to me when I look at the mostly disappointing low view counts for this videos.
Videos on the White House channel rarely break the 10,000 views mark, a number that should be more than reachable considering its source.
Let me reemphasize: Neither Presidents Clinton nor W. even used email, so it is just shocking to me to find that so few people are accessing this White House channel to learn / gather information / come up with constructive criticism.
For example, a few weeks ago, a video was set up for Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to answer questions asked by ordinary Americans. That video currently stands at about 3000 views. The health care debate is the issue of America right now; it is where the White House has chosen to make its first major impact since taking office. You’d think tens of thousands of eager learners would watch this video and others to learn what the White House has to say about their reforms.
Another, even more compelling example, is the videos showing what the White House has done so far with the stimulus money in terms of creating jobs and funding small businesses. One video shows Obama present at a smart grid site in Arcadia, Florida, where a field of solar panels rested behind him as he talked about creating jobs relating to renewable energy. There is also one video of Obama speaking about new small business lending initiatives. Neither of these videos is remotely close to 10,000 views. How do you complain about something if you don’t at least see what they’ve done?
I’d like to think of it this way: there are upwards of say, two dozen, elite universities in America, and over a hundred quality ones. There are also thousands upon thousands of high schools, and only as few as a few thousand of these students watch the White House channel. That number lowers even more if you take out the non-student youtubers. Now, even if university political science students should be skeptical about the factual contents of these videos, or God forbid, be scare that they might somehow be propaganda, they should nonetheless watch them to know what the White House has to say, if anything then, to analyze and criticize it.
I mean, how is it possible that these videos aren’t being watched by a bigger demographic? Are little ol’ me and a few thousand others the only ones interested in what the Obama administration’s up to? Do the students are Harvard, Stanford, or Columbia, not know the channel exists, or do they not think it’s useful?
It just goes to show how uncivilized the political climate is in the United States. The number of people who believe that the President is wrong no matter what is staggering. I bet there are those who there who would link that nutjob who fired a machine gun at American solders at Fort Hood with Obama.
Anyone who wants to form an opinion on something should listen to what both sides has to offer.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sing, Damn It!
No, really. I want you to start singing.
Right off the bat, I am going to call out all the Arts students: There are roughly 45 singers in the SFU choir this semester, the majority of whom are business, science, and math (yes, MATH!) students. Less than a handful of which study in any one of political science, history, criminology, sociology, psychology, communications, etc. I am one of them.
What’s going on? Aren’t Arts students supposed to be the ‘open’ ones? Aren’t we the ones who love to express our opinions and show our emotions? Is my class of Arts students all ‘lit-geeks’ who likes to hide behind their computers and silently yell at people?
Or does it have something to do with the music that we listen to? Are we so dominated by hip-hop, R & B, metal, and emo music that we cease to realize what actual good singing sounds like (for the few Michael Crawford and Pavarotti fans out there, cheers!)?
It has occurred to me that there is a detachment between the good singing we hear on the radio and what ‘ordinary’ people can do. Artists like Beyonce and Michael Buble didn’t become good singers without vigorous training. I happen to believe that anyone can sing, and that there is really no such thing as being ‘tone-deaf’. It is perhaps a ‘nature vs. nurture’ argument, but yes, I think we can all sing.
And plus, you don’t even have to be that good at singing to indulge in it. Bono is not a very good singer at all. But the emotions he puts into every song more than makes up for his sub-par singing skills.
So where is this ‘singing recession’ coming from? Does the bad economy have anything to do with people not opening their mouths and belt a few tunes? Are people in general just so gloomy nowadays that they feel that singing is a waste of time / energy?
Think of it this way: Singing is perhaps the cheapest way to momentarily escape whatever crap of the day you have to deal with. Just pour a glass of water, shut the door to your room (barricade it you want), put in a CD (if you’re old school), or click on whatever sing-able song you have in your downloaded library, and you’re ready to go.
It seems that at some point over the past few decades, singing has become sexualized. Very few people today would associate singing with masculinity. On the other hand, when a guy on TV belts out a beautiful Broadway melody, one might be inclined to think he’s ‘gay’ (yes, I know that Adam Lambert is actually gay, but he’s not the only person I’m referring to). How did we reach a point where people are likening homo/metro sexuality with good singing?
I’d also attribute this singing recession to the fear of embarrassment. It’s become apparent that now more than ever before people are caring more about what others think when they do anything, and the fear of ‘screwing up’ is keeping them from doing the things they want. Many students despise presentations because they are scared of public speaking. But singing is different; when you sing, you can adopt a completely different persona and become an entirely different person.
I guess one can say this is way the alcohol comes in. I’m sure many students have their unique stories of drunk karaoke. You don’t need the alcohol to let go of your shyness! Confidence gaining is a baby-step process, but I believe it is also achievable by everyone.
What happened to the days of Sinatra and Nat King Cole, where these gentlemen-like performers mouth out crooner tunes to serenade the audience? Is that not considered charming, anymore? And has people forgotten about Freddie Mercury, who possessed arguably the greatest rock voice of all time?
With that, I am going to ask everyone (especially you guys, Arts students) to start singing. There are many mediums at school for people to participate. There is the SFU choir, a singing group established in 1992 by a few undergrads and has been going strong since. There is a There is also the Vocal Jazz, which is a student run group. The choir does not require any previous singing experience and provides a relaxing environment to sing and have fun. To the best of my knowledge, the same could be said of the vocal jazz. There are also faculty-specific singing groups, such as Chemistry’s Chemsemble.
Most of these groups meet once a week for an hour or two. Don’t tell me you do not have the time indulge in brief getaway from all the painful things you have to deal with.
What is wrong with singing, anyway? Nothing. It’s fun, distressing. And if you’re good at it, people will adore you.
So, come out from behind your desks, arts students. I look forward to seeing more of you in the Spring!
Right off the bat, I am going to call out all the Arts students: There are roughly 45 singers in the SFU choir this semester, the majority of whom are business, science, and math (yes, MATH!) students. Less than a handful of which study in any one of political science, history, criminology, sociology, psychology, communications, etc. I am one of them.
What’s going on? Aren’t Arts students supposed to be the ‘open’ ones? Aren’t we the ones who love to express our opinions and show our emotions? Is my class of Arts students all ‘lit-geeks’ who likes to hide behind their computers and silently yell at people?
Or does it have something to do with the music that we listen to? Are we so dominated by hip-hop, R & B, metal, and emo music that we cease to realize what actual good singing sounds like (for the few Michael Crawford and Pavarotti fans out there, cheers!)?
It has occurred to me that there is a detachment between the good singing we hear on the radio and what ‘ordinary’ people can do. Artists like Beyonce and Michael Buble didn’t become good singers without vigorous training. I happen to believe that anyone can sing, and that there is really no such thing as being ‘tone-deaf’. It is perhaps a ‘nature vs. nurture’ argument, but yes, I think we can all sing.
And plus, you don’t even have to be that good at singing to indulge in it. Bono is not a very good singer at all. But the emotions he puts into every song more than makes up for his sub-par singing skills.
So where is this ‘singing recession’ coming from? Does the bad economy have anything to do with people not opening their mouths and belt a few tunes? Are people in general just so gloomy nowadays that they feel that singing is a waste of time / energy?
Think of it this way: Singing is perhaps the cheapest way to momentarily escape whatever crap of the day you have to deal with. Just pour a glass of water, shut the door to your room (barricade it you want), put in a CD (if you’re old school), or click on whatever sing-able song you have in your downloaded library, and you’re ready to go.
It seems that at some point over the past few decades, singing has become sexualized. Very few people today would associate singing with masculinity. On the other hand, when a guy on TV belts out a beautiful Broadway melody, one might be inclined to think he’s ‘gay’ (yes, I know that Adam Lambert is actually gay, but he’s not the only person I’m referring to). How did we reach a point where people are likening homo/metro sexuality with good singing?
I’d also attribute this singing recession to the fear of embarrassment. It’s become apparent that now more than ever before people are caring more about what others think when they do anything, and the fear of ‘screwing up’ is keeping them from doing the things they want. Many students despise presentations because they are scared of public speaking. But singing is different; when you sing, you can adopt a completely different persona and become an entirely different person.
I guess one can say this is way the alcohol comes in. I’m sure many students have their unique stories of drunk karaoke. You don’t need the alcohol to let go of your shyness! Confidence gaining is a baby-step process, but I believe it is also achievable by everyone.
What happened to the days of Sinatra and Nat King Cole, where these gentlemen-like performers mouth out crooner tunes to serenade the audience? Is that not considered charming, anymore? And has people forgotten about Freddie Mercury, who possessed arguably the greatest rock voice of all time?
With that, I am going to ask everyone (especially you guys, Arts students) to start singing. There are many mediums at school for people to participate. There is the SFU choir, a singing group established in 1992 by a few undergrads and has been going strong since. There is a There is also the Vocal Jazz, which is a student run group. The choir does not require any previous singing experience and provides a relaxing environment to sing and have fun. To the best of my knowledge, the same could be said of the vocal jazz. There are also faculty-specific singing groups, such as Chemistry’s Chemsemble.
Most of these groups meet once a week for an hour or two. Don’t tell me you do not have the time indulge in brief getaway from all the painful things you have to deal with.
What is wrong with singing, anyway? Nothing. It’s fun, distressing. And if you’re good at it, people will adore you.
So, come out from behind your desks, arts students. I look forward to seeing more of you in the Spring!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
God and Pets
Here is the observation that prompted this essay:
Earlier in the day, I saw a German Sheppard sticking his head out of his owner’s ride, enjoying the always-decent Vancouver breeze. This reinvigorated my sentiment about pets and their qualities of life.
The thought is essentially this: Domesticated pets that are born in Hong Kong, or other regions and cities where the temperatures and humidities are high, the populations dense, and the air polluted, live in much more dismal conditions than those that are born in, say, North America, where (for the most part) there is less pollution, but more importantly, there is usually lots of space for pets.
Note that the scope of this essay is limited only to pets; this means that I will not be discussing issues regarding species extinctions and their causes.
In this regard, I would agree with Richard Dawkins in that it is very important
The religious usually divide into two categories: Creationists and non-Creationists. But it is safe to say that the vast majority of those who believe in the existence of a God also believe that he were the source of all.
Creationists branch off into two sub-categories:
1. The Deists, who believe that the entity we know as ‘God’ is indeed the creator of the universe, but more specifically, the intricacies of physics, chemistry, and biology that allowed the world, as we know it to come about. Deists believe that God has not intervened in the universe since its creation. And;
2. The Interventionists. These are the religious folks who believe that not only did God create the world, but that God has influences on what goes on in our daily lives. Some of them, for example, believe that natural disasters are a work of God to punish human beings for their sins.
My argument here does not concern the Deists; I do not wish to dispute or debunk how the world was created. The interventionists, however, could help me answer a few questions:
If an omnipotent God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent, then that means that God used his power to make it so that some pets are born under rough conditions fully knowing that he was doing so. And, if one were to explain the ‘all-nice’ part, then one could say that God put pets through rough times because he wants to ‘test’ their faith
Anybody see the problem here? As far as we know, human beings are the only species on earth that are capable of complex thoughts such as faith and the concept of God. Therefore, it is no surprise that so many people are led to believe that when they hit a rough patch, it is because God was testing their faiths. On the other hand, it hardly seems to make sense that we can apply the same logic to animals such as dogs or cats, since they are incapable of thinking that their faiths were being tested. Since this logic does not apply, it would seem to conclude that God picked animals at random and decided that some ought of live miserable lives while others get to have it easy, and he does not have a reason for it.
Ultimately, what this means is that one cannot justify God’s actions of putting some pets through tough times while not so for others, because the pets cannot comprehend the reasons. Because of this lack of rationality, God is not being fair, and therefore not omnibenevolent.
Keep in mind that by ‘God’, I am principally referring to the Christian God, and notions such as karma or reincarnation do not apply. This means that the actions of the pets’ ancestors would not have factored in to God’s decision in sentencing some animals to live wretched lives.
This little observation was just one of tens of thousands of attempts to refute the logic of God. But it more specifically tackles the issue of questioning God and his supposed fairness. There is no better way to think about whether if one should believe in God than to ask questions, literally, about everything. ‘Why do innocent civilians in the Third World live in such horrendous conditions?’ ‘Why do naturally-occurring forest fires destroy God’s own creations, in this case, countless acres’ worth of trees?’ Hopefully logic would lead some people to come up with answers other than God.
But then again, has there ever been a time when logic is compatible with religion?
Earlier in the day, I saw a German Sheppard sticking his head out of his owner’s ride, enjoying the always-decent Vancouver breeze. This reinvigorated my sentiment about pets and their qualities of life.
The thought is essentially this: Domesticated pets that are born in Hong Kong, or other regions and cities where the temperatures and humidities are high, the populations dense, and the air polluted, live in much more dismal conditions than those that are born in, say, North America, where (for the most part) there is less pollution, but more importantly, there is usually lots of space for pets.
Note that the scope of this essay is limited only to pets; this means that I will not be discussing issues regarding species extinctions and their causes.
In this regard, I would agree with Richard Dawkins in that it is very important
The religious usually divide into two categories: Creationists and non-Creationists. But it is safe to say that the vast majority of those who believe in the existence of a God also believe that he were the source of all.
Creationists branch off into two sub-categories:
1. The Deists, who believe that the entity we know as ‘God’ is indeed the creator of the universe, but more specifically, the intricacies of physics, chemistry, and biology that allowed the world, as we know it to come about. Deists believe that God has not intervened in the universe since its creation. And;
2. The Interventionists. These are the religious folks who believe that not only did God create the world, but that God has influences on what goes on in our daily lives. Some of them, for example, believe that natural disasters are a work of God to punish human beings for their sins.
My argument here does not concern the Deists; I do not wish to dispute or debunk how the world was created. The interventionists, however, could help me answer a few questions:
If an omnipotent God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent, then that means that God used his power to make it so that some pets are born under rough conditions fully knowing that he was doing so. And, if one were to explain the ‘all-nice’ part, then one could say that God put pets through rough times because he wants to ‘test’ their faith
Anybody see the problem here? As far as we know, human beings are the only species on earth that are capable of complex thoughts such as faith and the concept of God. Therefore, it is no surprise that so many people are led to believe that when they hit a rough patch, it is because God was testing their faiths. On the other hand, it hardly seems to make sense that we can apply the same logic to animals such as dogs or cats, since they are incapable of thinking that their faiths were being tested. Since this logic does not apply, it would seem to conclude that God picked animals at random and decided that some ought of live miserable lives while others get to have it easy, and he does not have a reason for it.
Ultimately, what this means is that one cannot justify God’s actions of putting some pets through tough times while not so for others, because the pets cannot comprehend the reasons. Because of this lack of rationality, God is not being fair, and therefore not omnibenevolent.
Keep in mind that by ‘God’, I am principally referring to the Christian God, and notions such as karma or reincarnation do not apply. This means that the actions of the pets’ ancestors would not have factored in to God’s decision in sentencing some animals to live wretched lives.
This little observation was just one of tens of thousands of attempts to refute the logic of God. But it more specifically tackles the issue of questioning God and his supposed fairness. There is no better way to think about whether if one should believe in God than to ask questions, literally, about everything. ‘Why do innocent civilians in the Third World live in such horrendous conditions?’ ‘Why do naturally-occurring forest fires destroy God’s own creations, in this case, countless acres’ worth of trees?’ Hopefully logic would lead some people to come up with answers other than God.
But then again, has there ever been a time when logic is compatible with religion?
Friday, August 28, 2009
The HK disaster relief: Another Exercise in Hypocrisy
One thing about studying in the Arts and Social Sciences in university, or maybe just any area of post-secondary education in general, is that we develop the ability to spot hypocrisy, everywhere. It is my personal belief that one of the objectives university students should strive for is to overcome the gross cynicism that today’s society emulates, and not necessarily become an optimist, just not a ‘hater’.
Yet, here is another example of which I can’t help but to highlight because arguably, this is the kind of hypocrisy that is most detrimental towards the way we live.
In light of the tragedies brought about as a result of the natural disasters in Taiwan, the Hong Kong government, along with several other Hong Kong fundraisers (many involving celebrities), has donated HKD$50+ million to the Taiwanese in aid.
This was the disaster: Typhoon Morakot, which formed in August 2 and dissipated 9 days later, was the deadliest typhoon to hit Taiwan in recorded history. In a matter of days, several districts received more rainfall than the previous year combined. The death toll thus far stands at 153 with over 400 people still missing. Landslide flooded entire villages, and agricultural destruction amounted to billions of dollars in loses. The storm also left over 25000 homes without electricity, and hundreds of millions of dollars of tourism loss.
And amidst of all this, amidst all the atrocities mother nature has bestowed upon the Taiwanese, the biggest solution the Hong Kong people could think of is… drum roll please…
Money.
Really, that’s the best solution they came up with. In the days and weeks following the typhoon, we witness what could only be said as the typical media hype and attention to any disaster. As usual, there were big televised events, featuring all of the Hong Kong celebrities you could possibly name, and some politicians too (probably there just to take pictures with the celebs). The actors would give lengthy introductions to singers, who would sing songs as a scroll on the bottom of the screen appears showing the names of the donors and the amounts they have donated.
Before we go any further, I need to say something about that scroll. I do not know how it came about or where it was first used, but this essentially is the worst possible mentality in donating humanitarian aid. Sure, the total amount donated might be worthy of note, but why do we need to know the names of the donors, and moreover, the amounts that they have donated? Does it make a difference if Jim donates a thousand dollars more than Jane? What does it tell the audience when they see the scroll, that we ought to give more credit to Jim because he donated more than Jane? The answer to this last question should be obvious enough, but apparently, it’s not, because we live in such a materialistic world that we think more money equals better.
This is basically a snippet of the larger issue I am tackling: The Hong Kong people’s mentality seems to be ‘dump money on the problem and it will fix itself.’ As if this isn’t a bad enough mindset, it only tells half the story, the second being ‘dump money on the problem so we can feel good about ourselves’.
This isn’t just an issue of the inability of the Hong Kong people to think of ways provide aid in forms other than money, it is also speaks towards a larger issue of morality and applied ethics that is virtually non-existent in a capitalist metropolis like Hong Kong.
This discussion isn’t even philosophy 101; it’s basically talking about the most fundamental instincts of what’s right and what’s wrong. Often times, we have to worry about what the nihilists have to say about the non-existence of right and wrong, or even their meanings. But given the context of this discussion, I do not believe that anyone, not even nihilists, can abstain judgment on materialism and hypocrisy and walk out the door.
An ethical discussion on hypocrisy should inevitably lead to a supplementary discussion on the notion of gratification. During a discussion on this topic, Avital Ronell mentions that in today’s society, many of us would give five bucks to a random beggar and feel great about ourselves; we feel gratified in our however small act of helping someone. Ronnell says we shouldn’t think that; our susceptibility to be so easily gratified is one of the reasons why there is such a disgusting gap between the poor and the rich and why those living in the third world are having such limited progress in improving their standards of living.
The flip side of our easily-gratified persona is the difficulty to cause one to feel true guilt from their actions. To this, Ronell brings up the example of then-governor George W. Bush, who proudly claims that he doesn’t lose any sleep when he refuses to grant clemency to death row inmates, and as a President who has sent thousands of Americans to their deaths, for a cause that one could say is not even remotely close to being justified.
Peter Singer’s applied ethics also speaks to this issue. His argument is such that we are not only accountable for the things we do, but also for the things we don’t/omit to do. By this principle, Singer exemplifies his point by saying that if a person sees a boy drowning and requires our immediate help, his instinct would be to help the boy, even if it means ruining the 800 dollar pair of shoes he was wearing. By this logic, if it costs him 800 dollars to save a boy, we could also, instead of spending those 800 bucks on the shoes, donate it to an organization like OXFAM or UNICEF, which can probably save more than one child with this money.
This argument connects with the gratification one. The capitalist society has tuned its people to possess such mentality that we feel gratified in obtaining / achieving the wrong things (like buying a nice designer bag, or donating money to fix a humanitarian problem), rather than the right ones (provide hands-on aid, or donate on a regular basis).
Think about it this way: the poor-rich gap in Hong Kong is as bad as it gets, but most living in the upper-middle and upper class just turn a blind eye towards this fact. They justify this with this line of thinking: “we earned this; we have the right to spend lavishly and live luxurious lives, and those who are poor didn’t work hard enough.” If the Hong Kong media does a big televised event, perhaps once every few months, about poverty in Hong Kong, maybe we can highlight the poverty in Hong Kong itself, and have celebrities and politicians gather in a calling to help the poor. Note that this still does not solve the fundamental problems of easy-gratification, but it’s a start.
So am I saying the Hong Kong people shouldn’t donate money to the disaster victims of Taiwan? Of course not; I want them to understand their actions: I want them to understand that there are many people in many parts of the world who are experiencing as bad hardships as the Taiwanese but are not receiving the media attention their deserve. I want to see rigorous efforts to organize humanitarian aid groups and have volunteers sent to Taiwan to provide hands-on assistance. I want them to know that even though money helps, they shouldn’t feel better because they contributed a few dollars to the cause. I want them to know what’s right and what’s wrong.
The Limp: A Social Experiment and Philosophical Discussion
As I am writing this, I am sitting in a Starbucks, with my cane leaning against the wall for everyone to see. The experience so far has been exquisite. Being a handicapped person, albeit a temporarily handicapped one, translates to essentially being an almost totally different person.
Here is how it all started: On the night of Thursday of last week (August 13), I decided to catch the 10:45 show for “Public Enemies” at the theatre. I left my house at 10:30, and got there at 10:45. Thinking that I was late, I started running as soon as I got out of my car. That was when I slipped just a tiny bit, not enough to cause a fall, but enough to twist my ankle. As a matter of fact, the ankle felt fine that night, but had gotten worse on the next day.
The irony here is that earlier in the day, I had ran my ass off on the treadmill at the gym and was fine, but I twisted my ankle while merely jogging in the parking lot of a movie theatre.
The cane, and ‘the pack’
On Friday, the day after my injury occurred, I went to a shopping mall to look for a fashionable jacket. It’s one of the bigger shopping malls in the city, with long walking distances from one side of the mall to the other. I had my cane in the car but decided against bringing it because I was meeting up with a friend and did not want to appear overly injured (yea, I know…).
Bad decision.
First of all, I had forgotten about the size of the mall when I got there, and only remembered after leaving the parking lot that the stores that I wanted to go to were spread all over the mall.
Second and more importantly, I underestimated the severity of my injury. I was able to walk normally in the duration of the meeting with my friend, but afterwards, as I began walking from one side of the mall to the other, my foot noticeably had gotten worse. It was soon no longer an option for me whether or not to walk with a limp, and towards the end I had to take a few breaks during my walk back to the car.
What I saw during my painful journey through the mall were twofold. Firstly, I had people looking at me because of how I was walking. Now, of course, almost all of those who looked probably were not discriminatory and were probably merely curious or concerned with my injury. But the larger problem was the speed of which I was walking, and the fact that I was walking noticeably slower than ‘the pack’ that were travelling through the vast halls of the shopping center, and people had to avoid walking into me.
This idea of ‘the speed’ and ‘the pack’ goes far beyond the notion of merely a bunch of shoppers strolling through a mall. How fast someone walks when they are in a mall tells a lot about their personalities. For example, a person who walks fast and energetic might seem to be in high spirit or in a hurry, whereas a person who walks slow might be viewed as laid-back or lazy. Yet, they are more or less in ‘the pack’, like a fish swimming with a large pack of its kind in a sea of wondrous goodies.
The idea becomes a bit more complicated when the method of walking factors into the discussion. The idea of the speed of a person’s walk potentially showing his or her personalities fits into a larger societal norm–confirmation process. Everybody fits into a category. These categories evolve overtime, but they nevertheless perpetuate the function of ‘the pack’. The question of how a person walks goes beyond ‘the pack’, because it has nothing to do with the speed of the walk or the facial expressions of the person when he walks. Thus, a person who walks differently stands out from the pack. This is what I felt when I limped slowly from one end of the mall to another; not only was I slow, my limping motion prevented me from fitting in, thus inducing people to be annoyed at my slowness, looking at me and wondering what is wrong, while still others thinking why I am hurt but that I did not use a cane.
The cane also in some ways works hand in hand with ‘the pack’. It is vital to note that even if a person does not walk in the same way as a ‘normal’ person, he can nonetheless compensate by turning to various assistances to at least gain the sufficient speed to join the pack, thereby emerge himself into normalcy. And when a person does not seek this assistance, he is viewed as ‘strange’ or weird.’
This is perhaps the most important part of this section: My decision to not use a cane and limp my way around the mall directly affected the way I was being viewed while I was at the mall. People think I am strange because I was limping without a cane; with the cane itself belonging to a category of normality, my lack of using a cane did not fit, and therefore I was not ‘normal’.
The beholder is also an interesting concept. What people think when seeing a limping person walking without a cane is the result of social indoctrinations in teaching us what to think when we see a person who limps, in that we naturally associate ‘limping’ with ‘cane.’ This line of thinking is by no means original; Foucault has made similar comparisons in his studies of insanity. By labeling some of the sick as ‘the insane’, Foucault argues, we are able to identify those who are not, thus ‘the normal’ (and ‘the pack’ in my example) is put into work.
Stay tuned for additional commentary for this social experiment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
