he is unrestrained rage,
twisted space,
a nexus to the black hole,
that sucks in everything around him,
compressed together,
within this twisting nether,
a blade out of the furnace,
hammered and shaped,
this rage is placed,
the bellows fan the flames,
the blade is lifted,
pointed at the earth and sky,
the death mask is in place,
a suit of armour,
fearsome and loathsome,
his rage calls for blood,
we go to war,
this old hound howls,
with his accursed blade,
he tears asunder,
all that stand in his way,
from head to toe he is covered in bloodshed,
all around him his foes fall,
till there are none left standing tall,
bloodlust leaves him,
he keels over in exhaustion,
he looks for a sign,
he looks at the stars in the great heights,
he closes his eyes,
and takes his life,
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
the post about supporting a cause
I was on facebook today bored as I so often am, scrolling through the news feed when I came across an event, of course I use event very loosely in this context as the event is to simply wear the colour red to show your support for Haiti.
"God are you watching, I'm wearing red. I'm against earthquakes so please don't let the earth's tectonic plates shift any more. It's like totally cramping the style of like people everywhere you know. It's such a drag."
As you would undoubtedly know lest you were hiding under a rock through the first 2 weeks of the new year, that an earthquake has devastated the island country. Claiming the lives of so many and disrupting (a mild term) even more. This tragedy is not unlike the tsunami that hit Sri Lanka only a few years ago.
Now you might wonder what's this all about. I will explain myself.
It is quite simply this, how does wearing a colour do anything for the people of Haiti? The post also tells you to give generously which is noble and good. However my beef is with the idiocy of the notion that wearing a t-shirt of a particular colour will the help Haitian people. I get it when people support the fight against injustice or for freedom and so on and so forth. But how does one wear a t-shirt to show you're support against natural disasters?
I'm sure news reports of people wearing red will filter down to Haiti.
I can see it now...
Haitian #1 Frank
"Hey Bob, listen to this. It say here in this newspaper, that people around the world are wearing red t-shirts to show their support for us."
Haitian #2 Bob
"What?"
Frank
"I suppose we should take comfort in the fact that people are going about their daily lives wearing red in support of us and our suffering."
Bob
"I wish they had sent those t-shirts here. I wouldn't have been fussy either, they could have sent me green ones or blue ones."
Frank
"But red is so your colour."
Bob
"I'm just saying that those t-shirts sure ain't doing us any good."
Frank
"Indeed they aren't."
Bob
"It's indicative of the times we're living in Frank. As we all become more and more entrenched in the comings and goings of our daily lives we the masses find it harder and harder to spare our time to truly help our fellow man and as such we have found simple ways to make ourselves feel like we're doing something without it actually costing us anything. And so the mandate for the masses is simply to wear an article of clothing and go about one's day."
Frank
"How true."
Agree with me or not, it doesn't bother me. My point has been made. If you're going to do something to help other people. Do it, you don't have to wear a sign saying "hey look at me i feel (insert emotion) for the suffering of the people in (insert place) I'm such an awesome person for feeling the way I do, I'll wear this (insert article of clothing) to tell everyone that I feel this way and so that people can be aware."
What use is raising awareness if all anyone is going to be aware of is that not everyone looks good in red?
"God are you watching, I'm wearing red. I'm against earthquakes so please don't let the earth's tectonic plates shift any more. It's like totally cramping the style of like people everywhere you know. It's such a drag."
As you would undoubtedly know lest you were hiding under a rock through the first 2 weeks of the new year, that an earthquake has devastated the island country. Claiming the lives of so many and disrupting (a mild term) even more. This tragedy is not unlike the tsunami that hit Sri Lanka only a few years ago.
Now you might wonder what's this all about. I will explain myself.
It is quite simply this, how does wearing a colour do anything for the people of Haiti? The post also tells you to give generously which is noble and good. However my beef is with the idiocy of the notion that wearing a t-shirt of a particular colour will the help Haitian people. I get it when people support the fight against injustice or for freedom and so on and so forth. But how does one wear a t-shirt to show you're support against natural disasters?
I'm sure news reports of people wearing red will filter down to Haiti.
I can see it now...
Haitian #1 Frank
"Hey Bob, listen to this. It say here in this newspaper, that people around the world are wearing red t-shirts to show their support for us."
Haitian #2 Bob
"What?"
Frank
"I suppose we should take comfort in the fact that people are going about their daily lives wearing red in support of us and our suffering."
Bob
"I wish they had sent those t-shirts here. I wouldn't have been fussy either, they could have sent me green ones or blue ones."
Frank
"But red is so your colour."
Bob
"I'm just saying that those t-shirts sure ain't doing us any good."
Frank
"Indeed they aren't."
Bob
"It's indicative of the times we're living in Frank. As we all become more and more entrenched in the comings and goings of our daily lives we the masses find it harder and harder to spare our time to truly help our fellow man and as such we have found simple ways to make ourselves feel like we're doing something without it actually costing us anything. And so the mandate for the masses is simply to wear an article of clothing and go about one's day."
Frank
"How true."
Agree with me or not, it doesn't bother me. My point has been made. If you're going to do something to help other people. Do it, you don't have to wear a sign saying "hey look at me i feel (insert emotion) for the suffering of the people in (insert place) I'm such an awesome person for feeling the way I do, I'll wear this (insert article of clothing) to tell everyone that I feel this way and so that people can be aware."
What use is raising awareness if all anyone is going to be aware of is that not everyone looks good in red?
Monday, August 31, 2009
independence day: you can shove it
Malaysian independence to me is one big farce. I constantly ask people, independence from what? What are we free of exactly? What oppression did we find relief from when Malaysia was declared an independent, sovereign nation?
The honest truth is we traded one oppressor for another. That is of course if you want to label the Brits as oppressors. Personally, I don't think they were all bad. Racism aside, the Brits brought us into the 20th century. A feat I suspect this backwater nation could not have achieved on its own, not at least at the rate it has done. Which to a certain extent in spite of the technologies, policies and ideologies the Brits brought with them, this nation remains a third world nation with prevailing 5th world mentalities.
Some might argue that the Brits came to pillage and plunder, rape the country of all its resources and then leave like locust. I say that argument is specious. If the Brits were hell bent on keeping all the wealth of this nation, Malaysia would be more like Indonesia, where the Dutch truly did drain the nation of most of its resources in order to line coffers of the Dutch treasury. I think our foreign conqueror was a much kinder taskmaster than that of many other nations.
We speak of independence day like we did something to fight for it. We didn't. What the history books neglect to tell you is this, the general British public opinion after World War II was to do away with the colonies. England had to recover from the beating it took and no longer had the resources to maintain a presence in their colonies. This was especially true after they lost India, who by the way really did fight and suffer for their independence. India was their pride and joy, the jewel of the empire and without it they weren't interested in the rest of us. How did we win our independence? On a silver platter. We sent a delegation to meet the Queen and Prime Minister of England and after talks, the terms of our independence was agreed upon. Which by the way, thanks to the manipulation of the constitution has been grossly breached.
And then there was unrest here in the form of the communist movement. Sir Gerald Templer, in charge of putting to route the communist insurgency told England that if they expedited the process of independence, the insurgents would have no reason to fight. So instead of independence in 1963, we received it in 1957. By the way, the Brits didn't leave immediately, they left armed forces here to protect us and many of the positions in the civil service were still held by British officers until Malaysians had been trained to replace them. They could have packed up and left straight away, which would have been disastrous for a fledgling nation like ours. Especially in light of the threat that the Philippines and Indonesia posed at the time when they had lofty ideas of creating Maphilindo.
Our condemnation of the British has made us a bitter people and has also turned us into ingrates. It is truly disgraceful, the manner in which we regard the British. We forget about the countless lives, of young British men and women who shed their blood on our soil to protect us from the Japanese invasion, soldiers as young as 17, if you look at the gravestones in Batu Gajah and Taiping. Our lack of gratitude makes a mockery of the lives these men lost and the families that were broken apart by those casualties. By the way the Japanese were the most brutal occupational foreign force to have ever set foot on our soil. They were cruel, heartless and downright despicable. This is especially true for the Chinese people, who were slaughtered because of some ancient grudge that the Japanese had against them. Under Japanese rule, if you were outside your home after curfew, it didn't matter what the colour of your skin was or how old you were, if you weren't Japanese you were shot, if you were lucky or beheaded if you weren't.
Today the Brits are painted as the worse thing that could have happened to us. When any sane person, with the ability to logically deduce things will realise that the scum that runs this nation today are truly the worse thing that could have happened to us. At least during the British occupation we were all discriminated against equally but if you preformed well you could go far. Well as far as the bounds of racism would allow you and in British racism, that was pretty far. But today the apartheid like nature of this country robs everyone of true freedom and independence.
What bogs me down is this, the stupidity that is the underlying driving force behind the sentiment of "Malaysian Independence". It makes me sick to my stomach. So many people wish each other happy merdeka, happy independence day, so on and so forth. What they're doing is telling people how ignorant they are of the situation this nation is in and how far we truly are from an Independent Malaysia, where all men are equal.
As cliché as this may seem, I quote Martin Luther King Jr.
"Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent."
The honest truth is we traded one oppressor for another. That is of course if you want to label the Brits as oppressors. Personally, I don't think they were all bad. Racism aside, the Brits brought us into the 20th century. A feat I suspect this backwater nation could not have achieved on its own, not at least at the rate it has done. Which to a certain extent in spite of the technologies, policies and ideologies the Brits brought with them, this nation remains a third world nation with prevailing 5th world mentalities.
Some might argue that the Brits came to pillage and plunder, rape the country of all its resources and then leave like locust. I say that argument is specious. If the Brits were hell bent on keeping all the wealth of this nation, Malaysia would be more like Indonesia, where the Dutch truly did drain the nation of most of its resources in order to line coffers of the Dutch treasury. I think our foreign conqueror was a much kinder taskmaster than that of many other nations.
We speak of independence day like we did something to fight for it. We didn't. What the history books neglect to tell you is this, the general British public opinion after World War II was to do away with the colonies. England had to recover from the beating it took and no longer had the resources to maintain a presence in their colonies. This was especially true after they lost India, who by the way really did fight and suffer for their independence. India was their pride and joy, the jewel of the empire and without it they weren't interested in the rest of us. How did we win our independence? On a silver platter. We sent a delegation to meet the Queen and Prime Minister of England and after talks, the terms of our independence was agreed upon. Which by the way, thanks to the manipulation of the constitution has been grossly breached.
And then there was unrest here in the form of the communist movement. Sir Gerald Templer, in charge of putting to route the communist insurgency told England that if they expedited the process of independence, the insurgents would have no reason to fight. So instead of independence in 1963, we received it in 1957. By the way, the Brits didn't leave immediately, they left armed forces here to protect us and many of the positions in the civil service were still held by British officers until Malaysians had been trained to replace them. They could have packed up and left straight away, which would have been disastrous for a fledgling nation like ours. Especially in light of the threat that the Philippines and Indonesia posed at the time when they had lofty ideas of creating Maphilindo.
Our condemnation of the British has made us a bitter people and has also turned us into ingrates. It is truly disgraceful, the manner in which we regard the British. We forget about the countless lives, of young British men and women who shed their blood on our soil to protect us from the Japanese invasion, soldiers as young as 17, if you look at the gravestones in Batu Gajah and Taiping. Our lack of gratitude makes a mockery of the lives these men lost and the families that were broken apart by those casualties. By the way the Japanese were the most brutal occupational foreign force to have ever set foot on our soil. They were cruel, heartless and downright despicable. This is especially true for the Chinese people, who were slaughtered because of some ancient grudge that the Japanese had against them. Under Japanese rule, if you were outside your home after curfew, it didn't matter what the colour of your skin was or how old you were, if you weren't Japanese you were shot, if you were lucky or beheaded if you weren't.
Today the Brits are painted as the worse thing that could have happened to us. When any sane person, with the ability to logically deduce things will realise that the scum that runs this nation today are truly the worse thing that could have happened to us. At least during the British occupation we were all discriminated against equally but if you preformed well you could go far. Well as far as the bounds of racism would allow you and in British racism, that was pretty far. But today the apartheid like nature of this country robs everyone of true freedom and independence.
What bogs me down is this, the stupidity that is the underlying driving force behind the sentiment of "Malaysian Independence". It makes me sick to my stomach. So many people wish each other happy merdeka, happy independence day, so on and so forth. What they're doing is telling people how ignorant they are of the situation this nation is in and how far we truly are from an Independent Malaysia, where all men are equal.
As cliché as this may seem, I quote Martin Luther King Jr.
"Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent."
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
the post that rants about hollywood films
I watched two films today. One at home and one at the theatre. Crank 2 - High Voltage at home and GI Joe at the place I mentioned in the previous sentence.
Crank 2 was absurd, a little crude, random, ridiculous and very entertaining.
GI Joe on the other hand was a run of the mill, Hollywood re-envisioning of a good old-school television show that was mind you, an integral part of my childhood much like many other similar intellectual properties of the era, that era being the mid 80s to early 90s.
It follows the Transformers route as opposed to the Iron Man route of Hollywood film making formulas. Which is, Hollywood takes a good tv show makes a film about it, then proceeds to defecate all over said intellectual property and in the process ruin countless good childhood memories. I'm not saying it was a bad film. No I'm most certainly not saying that, I might be very vaguely hinting it but I'm not saying it. Not out loud at least. I digress.
For most people who grew up without watching the Joes on tv (I'm looking at you kids of the 90s, yes your pansy-<insert expletive that means buttocks but can also mean mule or donkey and rhymes with bass; the fish not the low end frequency spectrum or instrument> generation), the film would have been mildly entertaining so long as you could overlook the goofy acting, cheesy lines, random Brendan Fraser cameo and reality defying physics. Yes if you could overlook all that it be mildly entertaining. The dialogue was predictable as were a lot of the entrance sequences for the main characters but you can't hate that really. Its stereotypical of the action genre.
Like Transformers 2, it was explosion, explosion, not very clever plot twist, cleavage, more explosions, slow motion explosions, slow motion cleavage and more explosions for good measure. The main difference between it and Transformers was this, one had robots fighting robots and the other had ninja fighting ninja as well a sexy brunette who could act (thank you Sienna Miller, yeah I'm looking at you Megan Fox you talentless excuse for an actress, brunettes everywhere die a little inside when your name is mentioned, also you're not sexy).
Don't get me started on Duke or Cobra Commander.
On the bright side the explosions were nice. So was Sienna Miller. She's hot. Very hot. The redhead was also hot-ish. The best actor through the film was probably the guy playing the French tech guy for the Joes. He had a Spanish accent in the last season of Lost and managed to pull off a really convincing French accent in GI Joe. Sienna Miller wasn't really playing the Baroness (Russian accent was missing amongst other things) but she did act well.
So yeah that was my day. I met up with Dom, she informed me that I was too passive (i.e. laid back, relaxed, nonchalant even) and that brought out the antagonist (READ: Bitchy) in her. Very nice. I love Dom, I shall strive to be more in "your" face next time. I swear. And now I chuckle because I can.
I've been listening to Duality by Slipknot, there is something about that song. And now after watching GI Joe, it seems even more relevant.
I put my fingers into my eyes...
Crank 2 was absurd, a little crude, random, ridiculous and very entertaining.
GI Joe on the other hand was a run of the mill, Hollywood re-envisioning of a good old-school television show that was mind you, an integral part of my childhood much like many other similar intellectual properties of the era, that era being the mid 80s to early 90s.
It follows the Transformers route as opposed to the Iron Man route of Hollywood film making formulas. Which is, Hollywood takes a good tv show makes a film about it, then proceeds to defecate all over said intellectual property and in the process ruin countless good childhood memories. I'm not saying it was a bad film. No I'm most certainly not saying that, I might be very vaguely hinting it but I'm not saying it. Not out loud at least. I digress.
For most people who grew up without watching the Joes on tv (I'm looking at you kids of the 90s, yes your pansy-<insert expletive that means buttocks but can also mean mule or donkey and rhymes with bass; the fish not the low end frequency spectrum or instrument> generation), the film would have been mildly entertaining so long as you could overlook the goofy acting, cheesy lines, random Brendan Fraser cameo and reality defying physics. Yes if you could overlook all that it be mildly entertaining. The dialogue was predictable as were a lot of the entrance sequences for the main characters but you can't hate that really. Its stereotypical of the action genre.
Like Transformers 2, it was explosion, explosion, not very clever plot twist, cleavage, more explosions, slow motion explosions, slow motion cleavage and more explosions for good measure. The main difference between it and Transformers was this, one had robots fighting robots and the other had ninja fighting ninja as well a sexy brunette who could act (thank you Sienna Miller, yeah I'm looking at you Megan Fox you talentless excuse for an actress, brunettes everywhere die a little inside when your name is mentioned, also you're not sexy).
Don't get me started on Duke or Cobra Commander.
On the bright side the explosions were nice. So was Sienna Miller. She's hot. Very hot. The redhead was also hot-ish. The best actor through the film was probably the guy playing the French tech guy for the Joes. He had a Spanish accent in the last season of Lost and managed to pull off a really convincing French accent in GI Joe. Sienna Miller wasn't really playing the Baroness (Russian accent was missing amongst other things) but she did act well.
So yeah that was my day. I met up with Dom, she informed me that I was too passive (i.e. laid back, relaxed, nonchalant even) and that brought out the antagonist (READ: Bitchy) in her. Very nice. I love Dom, I shall strive to be more in "your" face next time. I swear. And now I chuckle because I can.
I've been listening to Duality by Slipknot, there is something about that song. And now after watching GI Joe, it seems even more relevant.
I put my fingers into my eyes...
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
are you made of tuesdays?
Be forewarned this a vent with intent to dissent and it will make no sense.
In the words of Scrooge when wished a merry Christmas, "Bah! Humbug"
That's my statement for this Tuesday. As I listen to Ode to My Family by the Cranberries. Bah! Humbug indeed. Nope Tuesdays aren't full of grace and neither are the children. I was born on a Friday, loving and giving my ass. I suppose it could have been worse, I could have been born on Sunday.
Personally, I'm more like the bastard child of Wednesday and Thursday with Friday being left with the mess while the other two eloped to Vegas where a cheesy Elvis impersonator who got his marriage license off the internet married them into newly wedded bliss followed by a bitter divorce. Yep they had it all, the engagement ring, the wedding ring and the suffering. Thursday was so scarred by the whole thing he changed his name to Lucy and decided to work as a can can girl.
Full of woe and have far to go. Lacking grace, love and charity. Mildly talented musician and comic, has engineering degree. I a miserly old guy will work for food and grass.
That's my CV right there.
Are you made of Tuesdays?
In the words of Scrooge when wished a merry Christmas, "Bah! Humbug"
That's my statement for this Tuesday. As I listen to Ode to My Family by the Cranberries. Bah! Humbug indeed. Nope Tuesdays aren't full of grace and neither are the children. I was born on a Friday, loving and giving my ass. I suppose it could have been worse, I could have been born on Sunday.
Personally, I'm more like the bastard child of Wednesday and Thursday with Friday being left with the mess while the other two eloped to Vegas where a cheesy Elvis impersonator who got his marriage license off the internet married them into newly wedded bliss followed by a bitter divorce. Yep they had it all, the engagement ring, the wedding ring and the suffering. Thursday was so scarred by the whole thing he changed his name to Lucy and decided to work as a can can girl.
Full of woe and have far to go. Lacking grace, love and charity. Mildly talented musician and comic, has engineering degree. I a miserly old guy will work for food and grass.
That's my CV right there.
Are you made of Tuesdays?
Monday, December 8, 2008
the solo and i
So I'm stuck doing a solo at this year's nine lessons and carols service. Not exactly my idea of fun but with my dad being the choirmaster I've no choice but to sing. I generally loathe having to sing solo and this is the second time he's slotted me for a solo. Nerves mainly. I've no problem with the song it's a simple one and it's only a verse, just rather not have to do it.
A little background on the service. It was started in the Christmas of 1942 as a way of keeping the morale up of the prisoners of war in Changi jail, Singapore by Rev. Hayter. He later became the incumbent of our parish and introduced that prayer vigil as its current format. 9 Lessons from the bible which talk of the birth of Christ and his purpose here. Interspersed are carols or hymns tied to the theme of the lesson read. It's a big deal. It's tradition. It's something to look forward to. My solo is after the lesson about the magi or wise men from the east who sought to honour Christ with their gifts and praise. I'm singing the second verse of "We Three Kings of Orient are".
I keep my singing voice to myself. It's how its always been. I'm quite content standing in the back singing the various parts be it soprano, tenor, baritone or bass. My preference being tenor. Sigh. Sucks having your entire family so involved in things, saying no is generally out of the question. Fortunately for me church is the only place where I'm asked to sing and I hope I keep it that way. I even hate it when they ask me to read the lessons worse still that one time they asked me to give a sermon or well message.
I did and it was well received. It was based on a passage in John, chapter 1:1-14.
Yes I have a very even speaking voice that reverberates, yes I have near impeccable pronunciation skills, yes I know how to throw my voice, yes I have a pleasant singing voice but I don't enjoy showcasing it. I like the obscurity of anonymity. If church has taught me one thing, it's not about what I want but what is required of me. I like being behind my bass guitar. I like standing in front of the drum set and drowning myself in the beat. Lost. Hidden. With only my presence felt or heard in this case. Yes obscurity that is what I like.
Oh well duty calls, wish me luck.
A little background on the service. It was started in the Christmas of 1942 as a way of keeping the morale up of the prisoners of war in Changi jail, Singapore by Rev. Hayter. He later became the incumbent of our parish and introduced that prayer vigil as its current format. 9 Lessons from the bible which talk of the birth of Christ and his purpose here. Interspersed are carols or hymns tied to the theme of the lesson read. It's a big deal. It's tradition. It's something to look forward to. My solo is after the lesson about the magi or wise men from the east who sought to honour Christ with their gifts and praise. I'm singing the second verse of "We Three Kings of Orient are".
Born a King on Bethlehem's plainHere is a link to a youtube video of the song. Click here
Gold I bring to crown Him again
King forever, ceasing never
Over us all to reign
I keep my singing voice to myself. It's how its always been. I'm quite content standing in the back singing the various parts be it soprano, tenor, baritone or bass. My preference being tenor. Sigh. Sucks having your entire family so involved in things, saying no is generally out of the question. Fortunately for me church is the only place where I'm asked to sing and I hope I keep it that way. I even hate it when they ask me to read the lessons worse still that one time they asked me to give a sermon or well message.
I did and it was well received. It was based on a passage in John, chapter 1:1-14.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.I talked about where the focus of Christmas had gone (down the tubes in my opinion) and how our focus had taken us away from its true meaning and the passage served to remind us of why we celebrate Christmas. I tied it up to that song by faith hill "Where are you Christmas". I did it all through a short play. I only had to speak for about 7mins at the very end. I allowed the play to be the message. Clever right?
Yes I have a very even speaking voice that reverberates, yes I have near impeccable pronunciation skills, yes I know how to throw my voice, yes I have a pleasant singing voice but I don't enjoy showcasing it. I like the obscurity of anonymity. If church has taught me one thing, it's not about what I want but what is required of me. I like being behind my bass guitar. I like standing in front of the drum set and drowning myself in the beat. Lost. Hidden. With only my presence felt or heard in this case. Yes obscurity that is what I like.
Oh well duty calls, wish me luck.
Friday, September 19, 2008
depression
For the record I would like to state that I am not depressed. At least I believe that I am not.
Why bring this up?
Because I've had no end of grief from the people I'm closest to as they speculate my state of mind. It's depressing to be told that people think you're depressed. Especially when you believe you aren't. And really even if I am depressed, it's not like I'm suicidal.
I am not always a happy person. I realise that. So sue me.
Some mornings I wake up and just want to go back to bed and of late that's what I've been feeling. I get like this at the end of every semester. It's probably because I feel everything is spinning faster and faster and maybe even spiralling out of control. My apathy towards everything makes me feel worse for it. So some mornings when I wake up, I wake up and get hit by a big wave of how crappy things are. Some morning I just don't feel like being happy.
My insomnia robs me of a peaceful night's sleep. My nightmares rob me of a peaceful night's sleep.
Do you realise how miserable it is to be told you're depressed? By people you love?
I'm rambling. I'm rambling. RAMBLING!
Rambling here,
Words tripping on my lips,
Stammering the restless tongue,
I silence it with a blade,
Glossy they are reflecting sadness in my eyes,
They hiding a deeper sorrow inside,
Empty, hollow like starving children,
Reflecting but portraying not of the extent within,
The fire extinguishes for a soul gone cold
As my life plummets out of control,
The only fire left is on the end of a stick,
I light it up to find oblivion of self within my grip,
No reprieve, no repose from the wave I'm caught in,
Drowning, lungs screaming as I mutilate myself from within,
I'm burning, I'm burning, I'm burning,
With my eyes I'm screaming, the silence of it deafening,
Maybe you're listening when you see,
But your words only serve to hurt me,
I am failed can't you see,
I am a product of my own idiocy,
So maybe I'm depressed but telling me I am is not helping.
On a lighter note, I had lunch with Shazeea which was fun more for the conversations we have till the subject of my supposed depression came up but that was Shaneil's fault. Also it was Romi's birthday today and Sader came dressed most smashingly, that brightened up my rather quiet day. Brighten being a literal and metaphorical mode here. We had coffee, the three of us, talked, made much merriment with our banana chocolate chip cupcake at the starbucks in pyramid. The cupcake was Romi's "birthday cake". And we had lollies for candles, I got a cola one. Yay me!
I was quiet at dinner with Yasir and the others but yeah I get like that. It just means I'm elsewhere. Not because being elsewhere is more important or that being here is less important. I just am elsewhere. Sometimes I don't know how to get back.
And thus ends my rather random and seemingly depressing post.
Ice cream anyone?
Why bring this up?
Because I've had no end of grief from the people I'm closest to as they speculate my state of mind. It's depressing to be told that people think you're depressed. Especially when you believe you aren't. And really even if I am depressed, it's not like I'm suicidal.
I am not always a happy person. I realise that. So sue me.
Some mornings I wake up and just want to go back to bed and of late that's what I've been feeling. I get like this at the end of every semester. It's probably because I feel everything is spinning faster and faster and maybe even spiralling out of control. My apathy towards everything makes me feel worse for it. So some mornings when I wake up, I wake up and get hit by a big wave of how crappy things are. Some morning I just don't feel like being happy.
My insomnia robs me of a peaceful night's sleep. My nightmares rob me of a peaceful night's sleep.
Do you realise how miserable it is to be told you're depressed? By people you love?
I'm rambling. I'm rambling. RAMBLING!
Rambling here,
Words tripping on my lips,
Stammering the restless tongue,
I silence it with a blade,
Glossy they are reflecting sadness in my eyes,
They hiding a deeper sorrow inside,
Empty, hollow like starving children,
Reflecting but portraying not of the extent within,
The fire extinguishes for a soul gone cold
As my life plummets out of control,
The only fire left is on the end of a stick,
I light it up to find oblivion of self within my grip,
No reprieve, no repose from the wave I'm caught in,
Drowning, lungs screaming as I mutilate myself from within,
I'm burning, I'm burning, I'm burning,
With my eyes I'm screaming, the silence of it deafening,
Maybe you're listening when you see,
But your words only serve to hurt me,
I am failed can't you see,
I am a product of my own idiocy,
So maybe I'm depressed but telling me I am is not helping.
On a lighter note, I had lunch with Shazeea which was fun more for the conversations we have till the subject of my supposed depression came up but that was Shaneil's fault. Also it was Romi's birthday today and Sader came dressed most smashingly, that brightened up my rather quiet day. Brighten being a literal and metaphorical mode here. We had coffee, the three of us, talked, made much merriment with our banana chocolate chip cupcake at the starbucks in pyramid. The cupcake was Romi's "birthday cake". And we had lollies for candles, I got a cola one. Yay me!
I was quiet at dinner with Yasir and the others but yeah I get like that. It just means I'm elsewhere. Not because being elsewhere is more important or that being here is less important. I just am elsewhere. Sometimes I don't know how to get back.
And thus ends my rather random and seemingly depressing post.
Ice cream anyone?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
echoes, silence, patience, grace - an anarchist's view
I scribbled a version of this on Shazeea's facebook wall. I was proud of it and so at 4am I'm awake adding to it for my blog.
Between the poignant and morose echoes of the past ever fading from our memories and the eerie silence of an ominous tomorrow, we live with our eyes clothed in a translucent film of guile, convincing ourselves of a certainty in today and the seconds that have passed with no inkling of the second to come.
What then can be said of our patience? Save that it is an imposed device for we have no means to alter the time it takes for the second to passes us by. Patience is not resolve, it's how we resign ourselves to our fate. There is no beauty in this mechanism, no charm in this construct. Grace is a farce.
Between the poignant and morose echoes of the past ever fading from our memories and the eerie silence of an ominous tomorrow, we live with our eyes clothed in a translucent film of guile, convincing ourselves of a certainty in today and the seconds that have passed with no inkling of the second to come.
What then can be said of our patience? Save that it is an imposed device for we have no means to alter the time it takes for the second to passes us by. Patience is not resolve, it's how we resign ourselves to our fate. There is no beauty in this mechanism, no charm in this construct. Grace is a farce.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
sophism: "i love you"
Sophism: A plausible but fallacious argument. An example, I love you.
Over the last couple of years, I have come to believe that people have made "I love you" a specious statement. One whose argument has become a fallacy, for more often then not when a person says "I love you" they invariably mean "please love me". And in most cases there is no "please", it just reads "love me!".
Why so jaded you might ask? Why so cynical?
I've heard this particular exchange of words so often and then rescinded at the first sign of trouble, it has made me question how genuine the love was in the first place and I've come to despise those words for the most part believing that we say it selfishly to incite a similar and favourable response from the other person. After all everyone wants to believe that they are loved.
However before I go any further, I would like to say that I do believe there are people who genuinely exchange these words in order to open a conduit to an actual feeling inside, opening up to another human being hoping, without expecting to be loved in return. Loving because of what you can do for the other person, not because of what they can do for you. I've witnessed such exchanges first hand rare as they may be.
Still my cynicism tells me that particular unselfish love hardly exists in the world today. Maybe I write this because I believe I am not capable of selfless love and therefore am projecting my inability on the populace at large. I don't think so. Most who know me, know otherwise.
So what makes me the supreme authority on all things human?
I reckon I'm human and that should give me some credibility. I don't think myself the supreme authority on anything with exception of bitter sweet chocolate of which I believe myself to be a connoisseur. Yes indeed bitter sweet chocolate I love. Back to the topic at hand, it's like someone close to me said, I observe a great many things and observing people is one of my favourite pastimes.
Am I condemning people?
Yes. If each person saying the words believes the other person then there can exist a fostered love. A love nurtured on falsity and like all things based on a lie, it can and most probably will fall through. My condemnation rests on our inability to give of ourselves. We may put it down to being only human, our excuse for all our failings. However I know we are all more than capable of loving unselfishly, we're just afraid and we're afraid because deep down we're all just bit a cynical and we're all just a bit wary & weary of the other person.
Over the last couple of years, I have come to believe that people have made "I love you" a specious statement. One whose argument has become a fallacy, for more often then not when a person says "I love you" they invariably mean "please love me". And in most cases there is no "please", it just reads "love me!".
Why so jaded you might ask? Why so cynical?
I've heard this particular exchange of words so often and then rescinded at the first sign of trouble, it has made me question how genuine the love was in the first place and I've come to despise those words for the most part believing that we say it selfishly to incite a similar and favourable response from the other person. After all everyone wants to believe that they are loved.
However before I go any further, I would like to say that I do believe there are people who genuinely exchange these words in order to open a conduit to an actual feeling inside, opening up to another human being hoping, without expecting to be loved in return. Loving because of what you can do for the other person, not because of what they can do for you. I've witnessed such exchanges first hand rare as they may be.
Still my cynicism tells me that particular unselfish love hardly exists in the world today. Maybe I write this because I believe I am not capable of selfless love and therefore am projecting my inability on the populace at large. I don't think so. Most who know me, know otherwise.
So what makes me the supreme authority on all things human?
I reckon I'm human and that should give me some credibility. I don't think myself the supreme authority on anything with exception of bitter sweet chocolate of which I believe myself to be a connoisseur. Yes indeed bitter sweet chocolate I love. Back to the topic at hand, it's like someone close to me said, I observe a great many things and observing people is one of my favourite pastimes.
Am I condemning people?
Yes. If each person saying the words believes the other person then there can exist a fostered love. A love nurtured on falsity and like all things based on a lie, it can and most probably will fall through. My condemnation rests on our inability to give of ourselves. We may put it down to being only human, our excuse for all our failings. However I know we are all more than capable of loving unselfishly, we're just afraid and we're afraid because deep down we're all just bit a cynical and we're all just a bit wary & weary of the other person.
Friday, June 13, 2008
the world could do without, sadly
The world could do without me, sadly.
Or perhaps I could do without the world, I could do without suffering, I could do without joy, I could do without breathing, I could do without my heart beating, I could do without my broken soul, I could shed my skin, I could escape the corporeal world, I could fly heavenward, I could find peace, maybe I could do without her, ludicrous as it may seem maybe I could do without her love.
I can't.
And so the world will have to do without me, sadly. Slowly I will fade into the night, my voice will go quiet, I will pass from human knowing. I will be forgotten. My name will not echo, my name will not echo, my name will not echo. I will not matter, as I do not matter now, as I have never mattered. For nothing matters and I am nothing.
And so the world will have to do without me, I would like to think, though it won't notice. I will. Me and my thoughts.
Or perhaps I could do without the world, I could do without suffering, I could do without joy, I could do without breathing, I could do without my heart beating, I could do without my broken soul, I could shed my skin, I could escape the corporeal world, I could fly heavenward, I could find peace, maybe I could do without her, ludicrous as it may seem maybe I could do without her love.
I can't.
And so the world will have to do without me, sadly. Slowly I will fade into the night, my voice will go quiet, I will pass from human knowing. I will be forgotten. My name will not echo, my name will not echo, my name will not echo. I will not matter, as I do not matter now, as I have never mattered. For nothing matters and I am nothing.
And so the world will have to do without me, I would like to think, though it won't notice. I will. Me and my thoughts.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
unnecessary
I've been excessively and unnecessarily emotional about a girl who quite frankly seems to have no interest in me whatsoever. I don't say this because I'm spiteful, I say it because it is fact. As far as I can perceive I don't think any of my posts have even blipped on her radar. I don't know what it is about me. Maybe nothing at all. Maybe it is her. I don't know. Who could possibly with the exception of God know these things. Women. A conundrum.
And as I said earlier, it's not her fault, that doesn't mean I don't wish it were but I know I can't blame her, I want to but I can't. I just can't. I can't because it would be wrong to hold her lack of interest in me against her. If I blamed her, I ask myself would I feel better for it? I think the answer is no. It is no for the simple reason, I would always know that I had unfairly judged her.
I can't blame her because we are all of us entitled to personal preference, I can't help the fact that my preference is her. Enough of that though. She remains my preference. I just don't want to talk about it anymore. The talk is unnecessary. It is excessive.
And as I said earlier, it's not her fault, that doesn't mean I don't wish it were but I know I can't blame her, I want to but I can't. I just can't. I can't because it would be wrong to hold her lack of interest in me against her. If I blamed her, I ask myself would I feel better for it? I think the answer is no. It is no for the simple reason, I would always know that I had unfairly judged her.
I can't blame her because we are all of us entitled to personal preference, I can't help the fact that my preference is her. Enough of that though. She remains my preference. I just don't want to talk about it anymore. The talk is unnecessary. It is excessive.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
star struck, her perfect imperfection
I am! I am!
It's always stacked against me. The girl always embodies the things that attract me the most.
Always. Always. Always.
I never seem to embody the things that attract her. I can't be what I'm not. This is me. Flawed me. She's not perfect but that is what makes her in a way perfect.
It frustrates me so much.
And as a friend and I were discussing the other day it isn't her fault. She can't help being who she is just as much as I can't help being who I am.
She can't help it that her beauty is the sort of beauty that attracts me, that her mind and personality are brilliant in the way that excites me, that the places she's been and the experiences she has gathered make her so unique and it is that uniqueness that captures me. It isn't her fault. It's not her fault that her smile locks me up, that the sound of her voice soothes me, that the way she tilts her head back when she laughs or the way she pouts drives me crazy.
It's not her fault. It's not her fault that I'm attracted to her. I can't help how I feel, it's not my fault either. It's God's fault. Fine it isn't. No one can be blamed I think. I want to blame someone. I can't. It frustrates me.
I'm frustrated because I can't change anything. I am frustrated because all I can do is spectate from the sidelines as this awesome girl floats through my life.
I don't want to be star struck. I don't want to be captivated. Because I'm scared that if I get to know her any better seeing her go will be unbearable. But I want to get to know her more and more. It's like being torn in two different directions. Like standing still, rooted and running at full speed all at once. Spinning free and yet caught.
It frustrates me. It all frustrates me.
I find myself on the edge of a precipice. I fear I will fall into her. I'm scared, I'm excited, I'm frustrated.
I'm drawn to her like a moth to a flame. I'm star struck by her awesomeness.
Her perfect imperfection.
It's always stacked against me. The girl always embodies the things that attract me the most.
Always. Always. Always.
I never seem to embody the things that attract her. I can't be what I'm not. This is me. Flawed me. She's not perfect but that is what makes her in a way perfect.
It frustrates me so much.
And as a friend and I were discussing the other day it isn't her fault. She can't help being who she is just as much as I can't help being who I am.
She can't help it that her beauty is the sort of beauty that attracts me, that her mind and personality are brilliant in the way that excites me, that the places she's been and the experiences she has gathered make her so unique and it is that uniqueness that captures me. It isn't her fault. It's not her fault that her smile locks me up, that the sound of her voice soothes me, that the way she tilts her head back when she laughs or the way she pouts drives me crazy.
It's not her fault. It's not her fault that I'm attracted to her. I can't help how I feel, it's not my fault either. It's God's fault. Fine it isn't. No one can be blamed I think. I want to blame someone. I can't. It frustrates me.
I'm frustrated because I can't change anything. I am frustrated because all I can do is spectate from the sidelines as this awesome girl floats through my life.
I don't want to be star struck. I don't want to be captivated. Because I'm scared that if I get to know her any better seeing her go will be unbearable. But I want to get to know her more and more. It's like being torn in two different directions. Like standing still, rooted and running at full speed all at once. Spinning free and yet caught.
It frustrates me. It all frustrates me.
I find myself on the edge of a precipice. I fear I will fall into her. I'm scared, I'm excited, I'm frustrated.
I'm drawn to her like a moth to a flame. I'm star struck by her awesomeness.
Her perfect imperfection.
Monday, March 31, 2008
homosexuality, my thoughts
Homosexuality is wrong. Agree with it or not this, my belief and opinion is.
I am a Christian, my opinion is formed based on my belief in the bible, the bible is the only text that I can base such a belief in or form so strongly an opinion. It is the outline, the template, the guide, the first and only text that a Christian can and should refer to when speaking on any matter.
My belief is based on, Leviticus 20:13 which states, " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” However I know that Christ said in John 8, verse 7 to be exact, when asked what to do about a woman who was caught in adultery, as with all sin, also punishable by death, Christ said “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Further on Paul in Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” Paul goes on to state in Romans 8 that “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.“ These verses and a score more form the basis for my belief that homosexuality is wrong and why I love homosexuals.
You may think I am a fanatic. That is an unfortunate label put on anyone who so much as hints that he reads a religious text, goes to a religious organization, or in some cases if he believes in God.
So I ask myself, am I a fanatic?
The dictionary states that a fanatic is “A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.”
Am I motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, for a cause? No. I am well reasoned within the basis of my beliefs and the references that I use to come a logical conclusion. I have asked myself the following questions to further understand if what I believe is extreme and unreasoned.
Do I hate homosexuals? No.
Do I wish to cause them harm? No.
Do I think they should be allowed to be married by the secular government? Yes.
Do I think that they have every right to live their lives the way they wish? Yes.
Do I think they should be persecuted, badgered, harmed, condemned or in any way have their rights as human beings violated? No.
Do I have friends who are homosexuals? Yes.
Do I love them? With all my heart, yes.
Should they be allowed to be married in church? No.
Should they be allowed to be priests? No.
Should they be allowed to adopt children? No.
Should they be allowed to attend church? Yes, church is for the sinners, not the saints.
I am not without sin, I cast no stones. I condemn no person. I condemn the way of life.
I condemn homosexuality, not homosexuals.
I go back again to what I believe in, that which has been knitted into the fabric of my being, the bible.
Sexual relations between members of the same sex is wrong, just as sexual relations between heterosexuals is wrong before marriage, the difference here is that heterosexuals have the option of a union sanctified by God. Homosexuals do not. Yes God does love homosexuals; he also loves rapists, murders, thieves, liars, prostitutes, child molesters, necrophiliacs and all the other conceivable types of sinner that exists. However that does not mean He condones any of it. Each sin has a price that must be paid. I am fortunate that my sins have been atoned for by Christ when He died for me and you on the cross. That atonement is within reach of every person. Salvation is free for all who believe and accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
So again I state, I condemn homosexuality, not homosexuals. For simplicity sake I shall refer to homosexuals as he rather than having to type he/she.
Homosexuality is the way of life, the act, a mechanism by which a human being can sin.
The homosexual is the person who can’t help how he feels, but still has the choice to not give into his urges.
I battle with urges and vices all the time, so does every other living human being. If you say you have no urges or vices whatsoever you are only kidding yourself.
Simply because we have urges does that mean we should act on them? Are we not better than animals? Are we not sentient beings? Can we not reason right and wrong?
If I see a woman walking down the street, and within me I feel an urge to have sex with her, does that mean I should approach her and rape her?
Or if I see a person drop his wallet on the ground and I feel the urge to keep it for myself, does it then mean that I should do exactly that?
Or if I feel compelled to hit someone because of an urge in me to do so, does it than make it alright?
In all these cases no. And there are literarily thousands upon thousands of scenarios that can further exemplify the point I’m making.
Though some might say what is right and what is wrong? I say I refer to the bible as my moral conscience and guide. That is my yard stick for right and wrong.
Some may argue that because they do not believe in the bible what then is their moral yard stick.
I say look at Darwin’s theory of evolution, evolution can only take place through the continued perpetuation of a species. A species that can only breed asexually will eventually die out because it continues to replicate itself until its genetic material is no longer useable. It is why the best form of procreation is done between gendered species, where does homosexuality fit in here? I am no great mind but I think homosexuality would be counterproductive to evolution. And while this may not be a moral yard stick, it’s definitely an indicator to some extent the uselessness of homosexuality to humanity’s evolution.
I digress.
Now why do I bring up homosexuality? I suppose it’s because I’m angry that the church has not outright condemned it, because the church continues to pussyfoot around the issue of homosexual priests who practice homosexuality, because the church will not stand up for what its faith is based on, the bible. I bring it up because society tells me that I’m a bigot if I don’t accept homosexuality, in response I say that society is bigoted against me because society has become intolerant of my belief in my religions teachings.
I ask you, why should I accept homosexuality when it goes against the fundamental believes of my religion? Does homosexuality and those practicing it accept Christianity, my way of life?
Why should the church be told that is has to accept homosexuality?
Why should the church be forced to ordain people whose lives are in opposition to the very beliefs of the establishment?
Here is my analogy, if you become a member of a club, you must sign a legal document saying that you will adhere to all the rules and regulations, if you don’t you forfeit your membership.
Similarly there are rules to live by in Christianity, if you don’t live by them you sin and go to hell, fortunately God is a forgiving sort and if you ask in earnest, you will be forgiven. If I want to continue being a Christian I need to lives by those rules. I ask you then how can a priest, a leader of the church practice homosexuality? And yet I’m told to accept it. This is my anger.
Have I offended you? Though not the intention of this post its content may have that effect. I apologize for offending you but not for what I have written.
I am biased, but then again there exist very few unbiased opinions in the world, a person practicing homosexuality would also be biased as I a practicing Christian am biased.
I do not impose my opinion on you, nor do I impose my beliefs, I do however stand by them.
So to you, who have read this, please comment back on how this post made you feel. I will be honest and say I don’t respond kindly to profanity, so please keep the comments relevant.
No bashing of homosexuals will be tolerated.
Peace.
I am a Christian, my opinion is formed based on my belief in the bible, the bible is the only text that I can base such a belief in or form so strongly an opinion. It is the outline, the template, the guide, the first and only text that a Christian can and should refer to when speaking on any matter.
My belief is based on, Leviticus 20:13 which states, " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” However I know that Christ said in John 8, verse 7 to be exact, when asked what to do about a woman who was caught in adultery, as with all sin, also punishable by death, Christ said “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Further on Paul in Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” Paul goes on to state in Romans 8 that “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.“ These verses and a score more form the basis for my belief that homosexuality is wrong and why I love homosexuals.
You may think I am a fanatic. That is an unfortunate label put on anyone who so much as hints that he reads a religious text, goes to a religious organization, or in some cases if he believes in God.
So I ask myself, am I a fanatic?
The dictionary states that a fanatic is “A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.”
Am I motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, for a cause? No. I am well reasoned within the basis of my beliefs and the references that I use to come a logical conclusion. I have asked myself the following questions to further understand if what I believe is extreme and unreasoned.
Do I hate homosexuals? No.
Do I wish to cause them harm? No.
Do I think they should be allowed to be married by the secular government? Yes.
Do I think that they have every right to live their lives the way they wish? Yes.
Do I think they should be persecuted, badgered, harmed, condemned or in any way have their rights as human beings violated? No.
Do I have friends who are homosexuals? Yes.
Do I love them? With all my heart, yes.
Should they be allowed to be married in church? No.
Should they be allowed to be priests? No.
Should they be allowed to adopt children? No.
Should they be allowed to attend church? Yes, church is for the sinners, not the saints.
I am not without sin, I cast no stones. I condemn no person. I condemn the way of life.
I condemn homosexuality, not homosexuals.
I go back again to what I believe in, that which has been knitted into the fabric of my being, the bible.
Sexual relations between members of the same sex is wrong, just as sexual relations between heterosexuals is wrong before marriage, the difference here is that heterosexuals have the option of a union sanctified by God. Homosexuals do not. Yes God does love homosexuals; he also loves rapists, murders, thieves, liars, prostitutes, child molesters, necrophiliacs and all the other conceivable types of sinner that exists. However that does not mean He condones any of it. Each sin has a price that must be paid. I am fortunate that my sins have been atoned for by Christ when He died for me and you on the cross. That atonement is within reach of every person. Salvation is free for all who believe and accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
So again I state, I condemn homosexuality, not homosexuals. For simplicity sake I shall refer to homosexuals as he rather than having to type he/she.
Homosexuality is the way of life, the act, a mechanism by which a human being can sin.
The homosexual is the person who can’t help how he feels, but still has the choice to not give into his urges.
I battle with urges and vices all the time, so does every other living human being. If you say you have no urges or vices whatsoever you are only kidding yourself.
Simply because we have urges does that mean we should act on them? Are we not better than animals? Are we not sentient beings? Can we not reason right and wrong?
If I see a woman walking down the street, and within me I feel an urge to have sex with her, does that mean I should approach her and rape her?
Or if I see a person drop his wallet on the ground and I feel the urge to keep it for myself, does it then mean that I should do exactly that?
Or if I feel compelled to hit someone because of an urge in me to do so, does it than make it alright?
In all these cases no. And there are literarily thousands upon thousands of scenarios that can further exemplify the point I’m making.
Though some might say what is right and what is wrong? I say I refer to the bible as my moral conscience and guide. That is my yard stick for right and wrong.
Some may argue that because they do not believe in the bible what then is their moral yard stick.
I say look at Darwin’s theory of evolution, evolution can only take place through the continued perpetuation of a species. A species that can only breed asexually will eventually die out because it continues to replicate itself until its genetic material is no longer useable. It is why the best form of procreation is done between gendered species, where does homosexuality fit in here? I am no great mind but I think homosexuality would be counterproductive to evolution. And while this may not be a moral yard stick, it’s definitely an indicator to some extent the uselessness of homosexuality to humanity’s evolution.
I digress.
Now why do I bring up homosexuality? I suppose it’s because I’m angry that the church has not outright condemned it, because the church continues to pussyfoot around the issue of homosexual priests who practice homosexuality, because the church will not stand up for what its faith is based on, the bible. I bring it up because society tells me that I’m a bigot if I don’t accept homosexuality, in response I say that society is bigoted against me because society has become intolerant of my belief in my religions teachings.
I ask you, why should I accept homosexuality when it goes against the fundamental believes of my religion? Does homosexuality and those practicing it accept Christianity, my way of life?
Why should the church be told that is has to accept homosexuality?
Why should the church be forced to ordain people whose lives are in opposition to the very beliefs of the establishment?
Here is my analogy, if you become a member of a club, you must sign a legal document saying that you will adhere to all the rules and regulations, if you don’t you forfeit your membership.
Similarly there are rules to live by in Christianity, if you don’t live by them you sin and go to hell, fortunately God is a forgiving sort and if you ask in earnest, you will be forgiven. If I want to continue being a Christian I need to lives by those rules. I ask you then how can a priest, a leader of the church practice homosexuality? And yet I’m told to accept it. This is my anger.
Have I offended you? Though not the intention of this post its content may have that effect. I apologize for offending you but not for what I have written.
I am biased, but then again there exist very few unbiased opinions in the world, a person practicing homosexuality would also be biased as I a practicing Christian am biased.
I do not impose my opinion on you, nor do I impose my beliefs, I do however stand by them.
So to you, who have read this, please comment back on how this post made you feel. I will be honest and say I don’t respond kindly to profanity, so please keep the comments relevant.
No bashing of homosexuals will be tolerated.
Peace.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
playing hard to get, gets you no where
Here is what I think.
A guy likes a girl. It is not the end of the world. Can't people like each other?
Girls if you know a guy likes you, do him a favour and don't play hard to get. Cause it gets you no where. If you don't like him and want to be friends you should be able to sit him down and say, "Dude I like you, but friendship is all I have to give" if the prick can't take the hint you're probably better off not being friends with him.
However if you like the guy as well, wtf! Why are you playing hard to get? I mean obviously you shouldn't jump in head first, you need to get to know him. But why would you make the process even harder? Why do you test him?
Society is so skewed these days, that men have been told so much that they're sexist pigs and granted a lot of them are, still men have been made to feel so inadequate next to women, why would you want to make it even harder? Gosh have a heart.
Not all men have it bad, only the nice guys, the jerks and assholes get through life oblivious of the fact that women are playing any sort of game. Women seem to flock to them. It's strange. Nice guys genuinely want to please you, and women go for the guy that treats them like crap. Wish I understood that.
Nice guys finish last. I digress. Sorry.
Bah, playing hard to get, gets you no where. Indeed why would you play a game? A game where you could end up getting burnt. Isn't life hard enough without the added drama?
Or maybe women only play hard to get with me? Cause they want to get no where.
Randomness tonight.
A guy likes a girl. It is not the end of the world. Can't people like each other?
Girls if you know a guy likes you, do him a favour and don't play hard to get. Cause it gets you no where. If you don't like him and want to be friends you should be able to sit him down and say, "Dude I like you, but friendship is all I have to give" if the prick can't take the hint you're probably better off not being friends with him.
However if you like the guy as well, wtf! Why are you playing hard to get? I mean obviously you shouldn't jump in head first, you need to get to know him. But why would you make the process even harder? Why do you test him?
Society is so skewed these days, that men have been told so much that they're sexist pigs and granted a lot of them are, still men have been made to feel so inadequate next to women, why would you want to make it even harder? Gosh have a heart.
Not all men have it bad, only the nice guys, the jerks and assholes get through life oblivious of the fact that women are playing any sort of game. Women seem to flock to them. It's strange. Nice guys genuinely want to please you, and women go for the guy that treats them like crap. Wish I understood that.
Nice guys finish last. I digress. Sorry.
Bah, playing hard to get, gets you no where. Indeed why would you play a game? A game where you could end up getting burnt. Isn't life hard enough without the added drama?
Or maybe women only play hard to get with me? Cause they want to get no where.
Randomness tonight.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
mind the lesser creatures; inferiority
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. Eleanor Roosevelt
As true a statement as they come and yet even with such knowledge we find ourselves feeling inferior to the people around us. Or should I say, I feel inferior to certain people.
I suppose it's because much like the Israelite explorers who said "We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." we sell ourselves short, formulating opinions of ourselves for other people. And you know that reflects more on our state of mind than it does anything else.
I do this to myself sometimes though I try hard not to these days, but I slip up sometimes, lol, good gosh I'm only human after all you judgmental fascist! lol!
Yeah though these days when I start to feel inferior to someone around me I just look for a flaw and God knows there are so many flaws to pick from. It allows me to humanize anyone that I might otherwise attribute a godlike status to. It helps me keep my perceptions of people grounded, I rarely pedestal people these days. It's a good thing.
I've learned that what we think people think of us, is not really what they think of us. Invariably our perception is skewed by our emotional state and how we view ourselves. I think it all boils down to self esteem.
Figure out who you are, and work with it. It works for me.
As true a statement as they come and yet even with such knowledge we find ourselves feeling inferior to the people around us. Or should I say, I feel inferior to certain people.
I suppose it's because much like the Israelite explorers who said "We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." we sell ourselves short, formulating opinions of ourselves for other people. And you know that reflects more on our state of mind than it does anything else.
I do this to myself sometimes though I try hard not to these days, but I slip up sometimes, lol, good gosh I'm only human after all you judgmental fascist! lol!
Yeah though these days when I start to feel inferior to someone around me I just look for a flaw and God knows there are so many flaws to pick from. It allows me to humanize anyone that I might otherwise attribute a godlike status to. It helps me keep my perceptions of people grounded, I rarely pedestal people these days. It's a good thing.
I've learned that what we think people think of us, is not really what they think of us. Invariably our perception is skewed by our emotional state and how we view ourselves. I think it all boils down to self esteem.
Figure out who you are, and work with it. It works for me.
Friday, March 7, 2008
help me, i'm a procrastinator
Procrastinator supreme, I am.
I got some work done today, but it pales in comparison to the amount of time I found myself wasting. What is with that? I looked for so many excuses to just not do any work. Alright I didn't exactly look for excuses, I subconsciously just arranged things so I would do the minimal amount of work.
However tomorrow shall be different. Indeed it shall, my other personalities agree, we shall work our asses off. At least we'll try. We aren't to clever though. But we do try. So, yeah, work, tomorrow. Let the morning come. I'm going to kick Saturday's arse.
Today, though filled with procrastination wasn't entirely bad. Highlight was sitting down with a nice girl, and having a really good conversation. I love conversations, I enjoy listening, I enjoy contributing, I love the exchanging of words, as if we were all in a play. So fascinating how other people are. So much is said that goes unheard in most conversations, sentence structuring, choice of words, intonation, eye contact, body language. These things are a subset of the words being spoken, and sometimes are a far more interesting matter than the content of the spoken word. Though to ignore words completely is to start erasing the highway numbers on your map. You'll lose your way. So you who talked to me today, thank you.
So procrastination has it's upsides too, it allows for some major randomness. Something I enjoy, being, random. Screw what people think you should be, random is always the way to go. It's messy, it can get you into a lot of trouble, but it can bring just as much in pleasure too. One who is too structured can never truly live a complete and whole life. I think each of us need a little chaos in our order. But we should never lose ourselves completely to the fray. I've skimmed that edge, between ordered chaos, and pure calamity. A dark place.
Anyways, I'm positive tomorrow will bring much more work to the table and the mind, I don't hope, I will make it happen, God willing, and I think he'd want me to get some work done. So I'm hoping he gives me the appropriate nudge. I'm looking for a sign, though what that may be, I have no idea, gotta keep an open mind.
I think I've sufficiently blogged for today. Maybe more as my Saturday progresses.
Peace
I got some work done today, but it pales in comparison to the amount of time I found myself wasting. What is with that? I looked for so many excuses to just not do any work. Alright I didn't exactly look for excuses, I subconsciously just arranged things so I would do the minimal amount of work.
However tomorrow shall be different. Indeed it shall, my other personalities agree, we shall work our asses off. At least we'll try. We aren't to clever though. But we do try. So, yeah, work, tomorrow. Let the morning come. I'm going to kick Saturday's arse.
Today, though filled with procrastination wasn't entirely bad. Highlight was sitting down with a nice girl, and having a really good conversation. I love conversations, I enjoy listening, I enjoy contributing, I love the exchanging of words, as if we were all in a play. So fascinating how other people are. So much is said that goes unheard in most conversations, sentence structuring, choice of words, intonation, eye contact, body language. These things are a subset of the words being spoken, and sometimes are a far more interesting matter than the content of the spoken word. Though to ignore words completely is to start erasing the highway numbers on your map. You'll lose your way. So you who talked to me today, thank you.
So procrastination has it's upsides too, it allows for some major randomness. Something I enjoy, being, random. Screw what people think you should be, random is always the way to go. It's messy, it can get you into a lot of trouble, but it can bring just as much in pleasure too. One who is too structured can never truly live a complete and whole life. I think each of us need a little chaos in our order. But we should never lose ourselves completely to the fray. I've skimmed that edge, between ordered chaos, and pure calamity. A dark place.
Anyways, I'm positive tomorrow will bring much more work to the table and the mind, I don't hope, I will make it happen, God willing, and I think he'd want me to get some work done. So I'm hoping he gives me the appropriate nudge. I'm looking for a sign, though what that may be, I have no idea, gotta keep an open mind.
I think I've sufficiently blogged for today. Maybe more as my Saturday progresses.
Peace
Thursday, March 6, 2008
it sucks to be beautiful
You know it took me many years to come to terms with the fact that I wasn't all that good looking. I know I'm not ugly, but I'm definitely not an oil painting, unless I was drawn by Picasso, then maybe I'd fit right in.
So when I say that it sucks to be beautiful, I'm not saying it out of spite, I readily accept the fact that I'm not a good looking fellow, in fact I make the most of what I have, and life runs quite smoothly.
But truly I say to you, it sucks to be good looking, why do you ask? how can I possibly cast aspersions on the perfect?
Firstly, as I was reading somewhere, beautiful people are automatically assessed on a higher level than us regular people. Most people automatically assume that good looking people are smarter, funnier, more successful than your average person. Now on the surface this seems all well and good, but there is an underlying current of expectation, a need to live up to this, and frankly, looks don't govern any internal qualities, lets face it, physical beauty is only skin deep. So will beautiful people always be able to live up to these expectations, in my experience, no, they rarely do.
Secondly, people approach good looking people all the time, shyly or boldly, beautiful people are approached all the time, for friendship, for relationships. So yeah on the surface it would seem that a good looking person could have anyone they wanted. Though one has to wonder how many beautiful people find truly meaningful relationships in all the choice that they have? It must be something to have to second guess every conversation, every motivation, every word, every look, seeking that sincerity, that honesty only to be disappointed time and again. I can't imagine the pain. And the isolation.
Finally, beautiful people usually suffer from what I like to call, poor personality development, basically at 20 they've got the personality of a 10 year old, and not even a deep 10 year old, I'm talking as shallow as the ocean is deep, shallow. So yeah, beautiful on the outside, incorporeal on the inside. I suppose guys don't suffer as much here from the lack of personality, since we're usually about spoon deep. However a girl without a personality is fine while she's beautiful, 40 years down the road, and her looks are well lets say she won't be getting many looks and with her personality about as evolved as the doorknob since it's inception, I don't think it's going to be a pretty picture.
To sum it up cynical as I may seem, life truly screwed over beautiful people. It's terrible to realize that what makes you unique, is your greatest flaw. So beautiful people, I feel sorry for you. At least you've got each other. There is a rainbow in every storm.
Peace.
So when I say that it sucks to be beautiful, I'm not saying it out of spite, I readily accept the fact that I'm not a good looking fellow, in fact I make the most of what I have, and life runs quite smoothly.
But truly I say to you, it sucks to be good looking, why do you ask? how can I possibly cast aspersions on the perfect?
Firstly, as I was reading somewhere, beautiful people are automatically assessed on a higher level than us regular people. Most people automatically assume that good looking people are smarter, funnier, more successful than your average person. Now on the surface this seems all well and good, but there is an underlying current of expectation, a need to live up to this, and frankly, looks don't govern any internal qualities, lets face it, physical beauty is only skin deep. So will beautiful people always be able to live up to these expectations, in my experience, no, they rarely do.
Secondly, people approach good looking people all the time, shyly or boldly, beautiful people are approached all the time, for friendship, for relationships. So yeah on the surface it would seem that a good looking person could have anyone they wanted. Though one has to wonder how many beautiful people find truly meaningful relationships in all the choice that they have? It must be something to have to second guess every conversation, every motivation, every word, every look, seeking that sincerity, that honesty only to be disappointed time and again. I can't imagine the pain. And the isolation.
Finally, beautiful people usually suffer from what I like to call, poor personality development, basically at 20 they've got the personality of a 10 year old, and not even a deep 10 year old, I'm talking as shallow as the ocean is deep, shallow. So yeah, beautiful on the outside, incorporeal on the inside. I suppose guys don't suffer as much here from the lack of personality, since we're usually about spoon deep. However a girl without a personality is fine while she's beautiful, 40 years down the road, and her looks are well lets say she won't be getting many looks and with her personality about as evolved as the doorknob since it's inception, I don't think it's going to be a pretty picture.
To sum it up cynical as I may seem, life truly screwed over beautiful people. It's terrible to realize that what makes you unique, is your greatest flaw. So beautiful people, I feel sorry for you. At least you've got each other. There is a rainbow in every storm.
Peace.
the jakarta deception
It seems to me that the haze we experienced was all a big ploy by the Indonesian government to take over our (cough, cough) our fair and beautiful land… You wonder how… well think about it they burn their forest and the smoke produced is carried by the wind to our fairest Malaysia (gagging). What is produced from the burning of wood?
Chemistry 101, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and a whole host of other cancer inducing substances! It’s like everyone in Malaysia smoking cigarettes all day long, can you think of the ramifications the smoke would have on our lungs? Doh! Lung cancer!!!
They tried the same tactic before… in a different way though; it started with their ‘Illegal’ immigrants, taking up every single factory position because they were willing to work for less than any KFC loving, belacan breathing Malaysian and putting our people (I use the term very loosely) out of business, Malaysians couldn’t find jobs anymore… so they did what any other nation without jobs do.
Malaysian vices increased, smoking and drinking were at an all time high, in came the Indonesian sempurna brand cigarettes and the Indonesian ‘top beer’, cheaper then 90% of the cigarettes and beers in the Malaysian market, making them the best solution for cash strapped Malaysians who had no jobs at the time, however their fiendish plot was stopped. And life continued, Malaysians were oblivious as always save their new tendency to smoke and drink which has been passed on to their children hence the birth of places like Bangsar and Hartamas, and then came the first haze, an accident truly.
But the Indonesians were crafty they realized that the haze would be an even easier and more effective way of causing wide spread lung cancer. Not to mention their government was strapped for cash because they had invested heavily in cigarette and beer commercials with skimpily dressed women in an attempt to aggressively sell their previously mention product. So this time they set fire to their forest, and they synchronized this with the burnings in Putrajaya so no one person could wholly blame them for the haze.
Why lung cancer? It’s terminal… If no one is left in Malaysia, they don’t need to fight… We all saw what happened to their army in East Timor.
No offense people of Indonesia, someone had to be the butt of the joke, sorry it had to be you.
This was a post from my old blog, most who read it thought it was quite entertaining, I wrote in August 2005, hopefully the humor in it can still be appreciated today. So read on and share with me your thoughts
Chemistry 101, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and a whole host of other cancer inducing substances! It’s like everyone in Malaysia smoking cigarettes all day long, can you think of the ramifications the smoke would have on our lungs? Doh! Lung cancer!!!
They tried the same tactic before… in a different way though; it started with their ‘Illegal’ immigrants, taking up every single factory position because they were willing to work for less than any KFC loving, belacan breathing Malaysian and putting our people (I use the term very loosely) out of business, Malaysians couldn’t find jobs anymore… so they did what any other nation without jobs do.
Malaysian vices increased, smoking and drinking were at an all time high, in came the Indonesian sempurna brand cigarettes and the Indonesian ‘top beer’, cheaper then 90% of the cigarettes and beers in the Malaysian market, making them the best solution for cash strapped Malaysians who had no jobs at the time, however their fiendish plot was stopped. And life continued, Malaysians were oblivious as always save their new tendency to smoke and drink which has been passed on to their children hence the birth of places like Bangsar and Hartamas, and then came the first haze, an accident truly.
But the Indonesians were crafty they realized that the haze would be an even easier and more effective way of causing wide spread lung cancer. Not to mention their government was strapped for cash because they had invested heavily in cigarette and beer commercials with skimpily dressed women in an attempt to aggressively sell their previously mention product. So this time they set fire to their forest, and they synchronized this with the burnings in Putrajaya so no one person could wholly blame them for the haze.
Why lung cancer? It’s terminal… If no one is left in Malaysia, they don’t need to fight… We all saw what happened to their army in East Timor.
No offense people of Indonesia, someone had to be the butt of the joke, sorry it had to be you.
This was a post from my old blog, most who read it thought it was quite entertaining, I wrote in August 2005, hopefully the humor in it can still be appreciated today. So read on and share with me your thoughts
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
sexuality in games, not sex in games; an editorial
I recently read (oh about 5 minutes ago) an article and a forum post on sexuality in games. After many deep and profound brain things inside my head (thank you King Julian), the little gears (I mean really, really little ones) in my head started to mesh (and by that I mean turn) and the inner workings of my pragmatic mind got me thinking; and no it's not because I obsess about sex all day, granted I'm male and so it would be difficult for anyone to believe that sex isn't the only thing on my mind.
However we aren't talking about me or are we?
Bah nevermind, where was I, oh yeah sexuality in games. Sexuality in games, is like sexuality in movies, is it necessary for us to see the act? or the insinuation of the act?
Well a lot would argue that it is necessary to see the act, but that's just sex really and not sexuality. I think if you want to watch a porno get one with Jenna Jameson in it, or whoever the current hot starlet is, or better yet get a girlfriend,a friends with benefits buddy or if you're really desperate a wife, I know it's less fun when people aren't condemning you for pre-marital sex, but it gets the job done. Forgive me I digress.
Personally I think the insinuation is far often, more enticing than to see two people go at each other doing the horizontal tango, and getting their freak on, whatever be the accepted vernacular. The unknown is often far more interesting than the known, it's in our nature to wonder, it's I think, the reason we stare at the stars, look into the deep blue sea, climb the highest mountains, our need to know is propelled by mystery, by intrigue. I think it's why I was always interested in the "bad" girl in school, cause she was an unknown quantity. This is sexuality to me, the concept, the idea, the ethereal wonder of our nature.
Getting back on track... Not sex in games, but sexuality in games, I think that for games to immerse you further, for you to feel the character you're playing, for you be able to make a connection with the story, the character needs to be humanized, and for him/her to be in such a state, sexuality needs to be essential, just as much as violence, compassion, love, duty, honour, forgiveness and any other quality that makes us human.
Sex in games in my opinion, is infantile, unnecessary, and serves no purpose, except to get some sort juvenile thrill (which I too sometimes enjoy) However the insinuation, far more effective as it blends our sexuality into the game.
Sexuality in games, well that is necessary, it's part of what makes human, if it's missing from games, it's removes a part of the story, of course, when I talk about sexuality in games, I'm not talking about complete fairytale games like Ratchet and Clank or Daxter, or Sonic, or Viva Pinata or any such game.
I'm talking about Gears of War, Mass Effect, Halo, Killzone, Warcraft, and so on, I'm talking about the games that talk about humanity, the stories that seek to immerse you, to remove any human quality or failing from the game is to take away from it's story, Halo had sexuality, yeah, it did, there was a chemistry between the Master Chief and Cortana, there was an unspoken love, a sense sexuality between the half human, half machine man, and the wholly artificial construct female, it added another layer to the story, it was subtle but you could tell the Master Chief loved Cortana, and she loved him, Mass effect allowed you a plot line to seek love or not, superficial and yet essential. Insinuation is the word.
So to sum it up, sexuality like any other human quality is essential to a story driven game. I think the fact that we tip toe around sexuality and many other human qualities and failings reflects our immaturity as a species.
Thank you for reading.
randomness and a PS3 hit
You know what's getting me down, all this Sony will rise again stuff that we keep reading about.
Humbug I say, and no it's not because I own a xbox or a xbox360. See if I hated Sony I wouldn't own a PSP slim and lite nor would I own a SonyEricsson w580i
Lets face the facts, they tried to compete with themselves and ended up falling over themselves or did they? Yeap they weren't competing against Microsoft, they were competing against the playstation 2, and I think it's evident that Sony put too much technology into a box too soon. Why would they do that? Why intentionally increase the price of your system when you can get away with so much less. After all price tag is important. So I think it was all cleverly engineered plot, yep a plot I tell you. What is this fiendish plot?
Well I think it goes something like this...
(Time frame) Around end of PS2 lifecycle and PS3 pre-development time...
enter fiendish type plot...
Cracking their heads as to how to best their ps2, the PS3 development team had come up against a brick wall, one which no idea could penetrate, they had tried everything, playing Halo, eating McDonald's, play golf on one of the roof tops in japan, prank calling Bill Gates, but nothing helped them, this is probably what they thought.
PS3 Guy A "Ok we're stuffed mates, our bloody ps2 is the bomb, wtf are we going to do, how can we out shine the ps2?"
PS3 Guy B "We should play more halo 2, maybe if I kill a few more noobs, my mind will clear and we'll be able to think clearer"
So after an excessive amount of time on xbox live, the developers came back to the table but still nothing had changed, they were stumped, so decided to eat a bit more McDonalds.
PS3 Guy A "Wtf man I'm stuffed after 3 big macs" and suddenly a lightbulb went off in PS3 Guy A's head "That's it"
PS3 Guy B "What's it?"
PS3 Guy A "Well stuff it!"
PS3 Guy B "Stuff it? Man I think you've tapped one to many times on the bong"
PS3 Guy A "I mean stuff it with all the tech we have, that way people will hate the PS3, and so when we develop the PS4 with the similiar tech people will love the PS4"
PS3 Guy B "Dude, serious no more big macs and weed for you"
PS3 Guy A "Seriously dude, if we f*ck up the PS3, then we can outshine ourselves when we make the PS4!"
PS3 Guy B "I'm starting to question your sanity but you are after all PS3 Guy A, so yeah I guess we can do this"
And thus the PS3 was born, f*cked up on purpose so that they can outshine themselves with the PS4.
And thus ends my ludicrous blogpost, hope you've enjoyed it as much as I have
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)