God and Objective Morality

William Lane Craig
From wikipedia

One philosophical attack thrown by Christians to atheist is the statement:

"Without God, there is no objective morality!"

This attack is so liked by Christians, even their best apologist at this time, William Lane Craig, often use it. He use fancy rhetorics to mask the emptiness of this argument, but in the end it is still an empty argument.I already told you that one of the simplest way to answer this is just laugh and answer back:

"if objective morality means incest, I'll use subjective one!"

That is how to REACT against that attack, defensive. There is a way to make a preemptive attack, offensive, against this argument. Just propose a dilemma:

"Which one is the case? Is it (objectively) moral because God said so, OR God said so because it is (objectively) moral?"

If it is moral because God said so, continue in the line "So, that means incest, genocide, and slavery are all morally correct? Really? Sorry, morally correct is not strong enough. They were obligatory in many cases in the Bible! Is that you want to say?" You can also say "So might is right? That sounds subjective to me ..."

If God said so because it is moral, you can ask back "so God was limited by morality? Then He is not God. Oh, by the way, genocide is still wrong. Looks like your God do a lousy job in obeying morality."

I myself think the 1st answer is the more coherent one. Hey, if God only ordered morally correct things, why the incest, slavery, and genocide? It is more logically coherent, but it is not morally correct. Remember, this God is the one who demanded us to love Him more than our children, threaten us with eternal torture if we refuse, and He ordered all of these nonsense while He can do wrong. And the preachers are still have the nerve to ask me to obey Him?

But the argument is even a bigger and emptier hollow shell than I thought because we NEVER have any IRREFUTABLE evidence that religious moral codes come from God Himself. As far as I know, it is more probable that some dude in ancient times won a war and branded his law as "God's law." Even moreso, the Bible and so many other holy scriptures are not an easy read. They need to be ... interpreted to be used as guidance. So, we can argue back "What objective morality? Where is the evidence that this come from God? Why these laws need INTERPRETATION? As far as I know, you can't escape SUBJECTIVITY in interpretation. Ergo, your argument about objective morality is nonsense, you never offer it to me, you only offer me YOUR subjective morality, but you mask it with God's label to make it looks fancy ... and objective!"

So that is the paradox: If God exists, then atheists, agnostics, deists, freethinkers, and other people who never mention God when they debate ethics actually are the people who respect God most since they never try to claim their words as God's, or torturing and slaying in thousands in the name of God, slandering His name. Yay! Here is a good one-liner to close this writing, for you people who still want to believe in God: 

"Be a Deist to Respect God!"

5 Overrated Hacks

The universe is far from fair. Some people are vastly overrated, while others are under-appreciated. Here are some people who actually are not as brilliant as most people think. Before I start the list, I'll give you an "honorable mention":

Psy
Reason for his fame: Gangnam Style!
We know he is overrated thanks to: Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Queen, Simon & Garfunkel, do I need to continue?
YES, he is overrated! For me, he is just the Korean version of William Hung: a big joke. But he didn't make it into the list, because he is still INFINITELY better than Justin Bieber, Ke$ha, Chris Brown, and so many other who are not only "ugly" but "heaven forbids-erect Satan pubic bush-horrifying UGLY". Seeing Gangnam Style, I just shake my head in disbelieve and thinking "how come so many people love it?" Seeing Bieber et. al ... I smashed my head to the nearest wall while muttering "Why they happened to be the same species with me? Humanity is really doomed, DOOMED!"


So, let's start this list.

5) Thomas Alva Edison

Reasons for his fame: "inventing electricity"

We know he is overrated thanks to: Nikola Tesla

Now, no need for me to explain this since the Oatmeal has done it. Superbly.

4) Jose Mourinho

Reasons for his fame: Won many trophies for Porto, Chelsea, Inter Milan, & Real Madrid

We know he is overrated thanks to:  Robert Sutton's book "The No Asshole Rule" 

I already put quotes from "No Asshole Rule." Mourinho is a certified asshole and proud of it. He may got talents in formulating the tactics, but seriously, he is an asshole. If you doubt it, just consider this fact: after handled by Mourinho, whenever Real Madrid meets Barcelona, everyone think "Hmm, what kind of fights will occur?"

Oh yeah, in one of the match, he even had the nerve to poke Barcelona's assistant coach FROM BEHIND, then he just walk-off and gave his trademarked smug smile. So, he is not only an asshole, but a coward too.

And he has tons of fans. Of course many like him. Many love assholes, as long as it is THEIR assholes. 

If you really still want to argue that Mourinho is a good coach only on the base that he produces trophies, CONGRATULATIONS, that means you are one of the people who believe that "the end ALWAYS justify the means!" By that logic I can also argue that Joseph Stalin was also a good statesman since he made Soviet Union superpower. What? Stalin butchered millions? Naaah, most important he gave superpower status to the USSR! The prestige baby, the PRESTIGE!

3) Steve Jobs

Reasons for his fame: Apple, Pixar, Apple again

In contrast with: Michael Dell, Bill Gates, and other tech-company founders

What's the main different between  Steve Jobs and other tech- founders? 

Answer: Gates, Dell, etc. started a tech-company while Steve Jobs founded a cult. Once you got cult organization and its members instead of a company and its customers, you can expect to get tons of cash from each of them, even when you provide them overpriced-lousy product. No need to work hard, the "reality distortion field" do most of the hard work for you!

If you want to appreciate him for being a brilliant cult founder, I have no problem. If you say that he is a genius, that is only half-truth as best.

Oh yeah, Steve Jobs is also an asshole. That means, many criticisms for Mourinho are also valid for him. And Apple maps still sucks. 

2) Mark Zuckerberg

Reason for his fame: Facebook baby!

We know he is overrated thanks to: Sergey Brin

Okay, this one is very² big. Quick quiz: can you figure it out how Facebook can make money? No? Of course it is hard. Everytime Facebook tries to monetize their customers, the users screams. Some of them even sued. Face it, there is no chance Facebook can create money. The best way is actually to make it into a FOUNDATION, like wikipedia, and used donations as its main source of income.  

John T. Reed said that:
Amazon, Facebook, and Groupon are not businesses, they are buzzinesses.

So, if nobody can figure out what Facebook can sell, why the hell did Zuckerberg become so famous? Simple, because everyone uses facebook. Many assume popularity is equal with success. Not really. You can argue the opposite: popularity invite lawsuit and wackos everywhere, making life & success more difficult ... 

And, the most overrated hack in my opinion is ...

1) Douglas MacArthur

Reasons for his fame: "I shall return" promise, New Guinea campaign, Korean War

We know he is overrated thanks to:  Chester W. Nimitz, Ernest King, Dwight Eisenhower, George Marshall

Seriously, anyone who think that MacArthur is a genius doesn't have any clue about the history of the 2nd world war.  

First, are you aware that shortly after the Pearl Harbor disaster, a similar tragedy happened in the Philippines? At that time, US Army and Air Force in that area were already informed about Pearl Harbor. What happened after that? They screwed-up, badly. Many of the US commanders there hated each other, hindering cooperation and effective (re)actions. They were caught with their pants down by the Japanese planes which strafed and bombed their airfields with impunity. Who is the commander of the US forces in that area? The great Douglas MacArthur who thought that his name alone is ENOUGH to intimidate the Japanese from attacking! Our hero ladies and gentlemen!

Quick comparison: the commanders of Pearl Harbor, Stark & Kimmel, were dismissed, reprimanded, and vilified, while MacArthur was basically promoted, and hailed as hero only shortly after the screwed-up.

Second, in case you don't notice it, let me remind you he promise "I SHALL RETURN!" not "We shall return!" It was not about the Army. It was not about military logic. Heck, it was not even about America, it was about DOUGLAS MACARTHUR! He really thought that he deserved a pedestal!

Third, the Philippines debacle is not MacArthur's only fault. You have to know, there is an adage in military: "one bad supreme commander is FAR BETTER than two excellent supreme commanders." The "unity of command" is essential, since parallel chain of command decreased efficiency, increasing redundancy, etc. MacArthur actually INSISTED to be the supreme commander of Pacific war, DESPITE THE FACT that "Pacific" is the name of an ocean, NOT a continent. He felt that he was ABOVE any admiral in the navy, except admiral Leahy, who can't accept the supreme-commander post due to his health. The navy was appalled by this, they gave their finger to the bombastic MacArthur. President Roosevelt solution was: dividing the Pacific "theatre" into 2 regions. MacArthur lead the thrust from New Guinea to Philippines, while admiral Nimitz lead the navy to concquer Gilbert, Marshall, and Mariana Islands. Until the end of war, MacArthur and Nimitz was in constant quarrel about logistics, strategy, timetable, in essence: EVERYTHING! The US still won the war DESPITE this military travesty NOT because of it.

But MacArthur WAS NOT done yet. During the Korean war, he actually wanted to bomb China with nuclear warheads. President Truman refused to start World War 3, and MacArthur start whining, and whining, and whining, and whining to the public. Fed up with this, Truman sacked the egomaniac general, despite knowing the fact that the public LOVE this celebrity general. Truman's popularity plummeted, and he didn't participate in the next election, therefore depriving USA from one of its finest leader.

Now, just like the previous hacks, MacArthur achieved many things too. His leadership worked in New Guinea, and many times he could give excellent strategic inputs and decisions. But my point is, most people OVERLOOK those screwed-ups. He is far from incompetent, but he is also far from a genius. He is a mediocre strategist, but his b.s. over-hyped him so much that so many people until today thought that he was worthy a pedestal, while the main architect of Japanese defeat, Ernest King and Chester W. Nimitz, were known only to history buff like me. Appalling ...  

You may notice the similarity between those 5 hacks. They are EVERYTHING about "marketing" or should I say ... "Bullshitting the public." Predictable. The masses LOVE b.s., comforting lies is always preferable to harsh truths. So, that is one "success principle" that may work: create a personality cult with YOU as its center! So many suckers will buy it and give you money and power.

Gun Control Won't Work!

Give me more PLEASE! MORE!

After hearing the arguments from the NRA, I think this is basically their idea:

Premise #1: "Gun control won't work because bad people will always get guns." 

Then they continue:

Premise #2: "Hence the only thing that can stop bad people with guns is good people with guns."

Hey, let me use their logic AGAINST THEM:

"Arm guards won't work. The bad people will just kill the guards first before killing everyone else. On top of that, he can used the deceased guard's gun."

See? Therefore arm guards are useless! But no, they won't accept this argument. They will keep proposing the idea to put more guns.

Just listen to the conversation between CBS and the president of the NRA. The president keep spouting on "people who conspire to piss on the 2nd amendment." The safety of the children is their #1 priority ... as long as the solution is MORE GUNS BABY! Tell you what,  their ACTUAL top priority is "making more people buy more guns!"  On the sidelines, the world can crash and burn as far as they concern. No, sorry, that is not entirely true. They actually will SEIZE the "crash and burn" as an evidence that WE NEED MORE GUNS! Sick, sick, sick!

In essence, the NRA argue against gun control with PESSIMISM. 

At the same time, they argue for turning every single place in the US into OK Corral with OPTIMISM.

They refuse to admit in many cases, gun control law makes it harder to obtain firearms, and monsters were forced to use knife or any other less-deadly weapon. In China for example, a piece of trash attack a local school with knife, injuring 22 students. None were killed. Imagine what will happen if the Chinese love their guns like the Americans. But no, they only buried their head while keep repeating the 2 premises that I put in the beginning.  No wonder, John Howard, an Australian conservative prime minister once said something like "We don't want to import American gun disease!" That means "right vs left" or "Conservative vs Liberal" is not the issue here. The issue is between gun fetish vs healthy society.

So ... why the NRA acted like this? Simple. It is hard to say no if your paycheck is based on how many times you say YES! NRA got its money and power from gun-nuts. Of course they won't say no to them. They are not extreme right or extreme left, they are just greedy and exploit Americans with gun-complex. Understandable, but not acceptable, since saying NO to those gun-nuts can actually save lives.

How NRA Commits Suicide

Previously, I sarcastically recommended to arm the principle to solve the problem of gun violence in school. Looks like the NRA totally agree with that. Like usual, their solution in essence is to put more guns into the population. They blame mental illness, movies, television, video games, etc, i.e everything BUT guns.

Wait, are they serious? I am 100 % sure that people got their love of guns partially from those medias! Violent movies, series, and video games make more people love guns! Are they seriously blamed the medias which indirectly support their recruitment? Looks like they are really desperate to pass the buck.  Notice the focus. They already mention access to guns for the mentally ill, but chose to focus on providing more guns to America. Everything has to be done ... as long as it doesn't bother the gun sellers.

Some of the conservative leading figures supported that. Other even blamed Jon Stewart for the tragedy. Seriously, JON STEWART!

Heck, they ignore the fact that monster got his guns from a law-abiding citizen: HIS OWN MOM! This is not the only case where a piece of trash got their guns WITHOUT resorting to the blackmarket, see this MotherJones article. It shows that most monsters got their guns from legal sources. Look, that basically prove that we have to regulate legal guns more tightly, make sure that less psycho able to get guns.

Look, this tragedy IS NOT an excuse to make every single gun illegal. But the NRA is just too nutty to handle the rights of the gun owners. In few years, I bet they will start blaming even their own mother, their own son, or ANYTHING but (easy access to) guns. In few years, the fight will be between everyone against the NRA. Yes, they are starting their own suicide. You don't want to stick with wackos like them, you can be "guilty by association."

I hear that the NRA previously was about safety and training, NOT about make sure everyone can buy guns casually. Time to get back.  Time to return to the organization that is free from those wackos who thought that "More guns" is a good rule of thumb. Either that or just created a new rival organization, and move on.

Love Jesus!

Jefferson Bethke.
From this website.

Remember when I said that I hate the idea that God asks us to suck His ass 24/7?

 "The Great" Jefferson Bethke reminded and PROVED me that I made a mistake. I underestimate the problem. Jesus himself asked to be loved MORE than your mom, your dad, etc. Jesus asked for EVERYTHING! 

Wow ... 

It is NOT ENOUGH to say "Halleluya" in every occasion, you have to put God (READ: your preacher.) above everything else. No, Bethke even plainly said that Jesus (READ: your pastor.) demanded OBEDIENCE from us, ABOVE everything else. Yup, Jesus (Read: your priest.) ordered you to put Him HIGHER than your loved ones.

I am sure, many of you will protest that "READ: your preacher/pastor" statement I put after God. Let me ask you this: does God EVER give any order to you directly? Hmm? If you answer "Yes," I suggest you make an appointment with your psychiatrist, looks like you got a schizophrenia. If you answer "Well, not directly ..." I should pointed out to you: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT VALID!! More on that later, let's first dissect his argument.

Bethke try to b.s. his way by saying that:
1) So many other things actually ask for EVERYTHING too, e.g.: mistress, boyfriend, job, power, etc.
2) Jesus only asked for everything AFTER he sacrificed himself for us.

Okay ... I am not really agree with #1, but let's for the sake of argument we assume that he is correct about that. So ... you said that 2 wrongs makes a right? Isn't that wonderful, the Messiah actually doing the same thing that those "despicable things" done: asking for TOTAL OBEDIENCE? 

The 2nd point is even worse. First ... what sacrifice? Okay, He suffered on a crucifix for one day, died for 3 days, but in the end, he came back to life. Hey, if He is NOT a God, okay, being crucified IS A BIG DEAL, but as far as I know, the Christian God is OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT. So, why such a fuss? Why His follower whined about small problem like that? Oh yeah, even if you try to b.s. that "He was a human too, thus He suffer greatly!" I have to point out that MANY HUMANS suffer like Him too! How many people are crucified by the Romans? How many people died during a famine? Uh, uh, I know, how about the suffering of thousands of women who were accused as WITCH by the church? Or the suffering of the victims of inquisitions? Etc. Stop exaggerating his suffering. Start talking about the victim of His follower.

Oh, by the way, he did that without our concern. So ... he did that only to BLACKMAIL US, only to have an excuse to torture us forever if we don't buy it? It reminds of a statement from a mafia: "Hey, you should be thankful that nothing happens to your nice shop here, you know, we are the reason for that. So YOU HAVE TO PAY US!" That didn't surprise me. God of the Old Testament already approved this mafioso mentality. Just read the story about David, Nabal, and Abigail. Let's return to the previous point: when religion say "God" it actually means "priests/preachers/pastors."

Let me put it like this, we know everything about "Jesus sacrifice" from one single book. Yes ONLY ONE book. One single source. Why only one? The church for centuries BURN EVERY SINGLE CONTRADICTING RECORD! And it was not even written by Jesus OR directly during his time. And that book is very long, and complicated. Hey, this is the  same book that recorded that God is not consistent, He also screws-up repeatedly, and He even forced His creations to do incest to survive. So ... you want me to listen to a dude who regulate slavery, racism, and child abuse? In order to defend that book you has to do a "theodicy" or in a less fancy words: "pulling same excuses from your ass to sugar-coat God!" and who can do better other than the people who has the INTEREST in make sure you view God favorably, like ... your pastor? Q.E.D.

Oh yeah BTW, if you refuse to believe those preachers, God will torture you forever in His private dungeon, called Hell . Nice!

So let me recap, God (Read: the priests) actually ASKED us to praise & obey Him unconditionally & constantly, and whining when "so many other things do it too!" His track record is awful, and He (Read: the church) mentally blackmailed us and in the end, for good measure, He (Read: the preachers) threatened anyone with eternal torture. I don't know about you but for me ... that sounds like an insecure bully.  

And now, this Bethke HAS THE NERVE to ask me to love this bully? Pissed off, and go **** yourself. Oh, by the way, Happy Holiday!

Amazing Quotes 27: The No Asshole Rule

There are few books that can be recommended to EVERYONE, regardless of their age, profession, interests, etc. This is one of them: The No Asshole Rule from Robert I. Sutton. The thesis of the book is simple: asshole(s) are destructive, NO MATTER how stellar their performance is. Here are some quotes from this superb book: 

The effects of assholes are so devastating because they sap people of their energy and esteem mostly through the accumulated effects of small, demeaning acts, not so much through one or two dramatic episodes.

-- page 29

Assholes don't just damage the immediate targets of their abuse. Coworkers, family members, or friends who watch--or just hear about--these ugly incidents suffer ripple effects.

-- page 31

For most of my professional carrer I have been telling anyone who would listen that I can work with jus about every type of person with one glaring exception--assholes. 

-- Roderick C. Hare, CEO of Mission Ridge Capital, page 58

It also turned out that firing this selfish and difficult "superstar" had financial benefits, as the total sales volume in the store increased nearly 30% after he left. No Single salesperson sold as much as the departed "star," but the store as a whole did better.

-- page 67

In the US and other Western countries, we are always pressing to create bigger differences among winners, also-rans, and losers, but if you want to have fewer assholes --and better organizational performances--reducing the differences between the highest- and lowest-status members of your organization is the way to go.

-- page 77

... conflict is constructive when people argue over ideas rather than personality or relationship issues ...

-- page 82

... to keep your inner asshole from getting out, you need to be aware of places and people that will turn you into an asshole.

-- page 118

So what are you waiting for? Buy this book, since it will help your company AND the whole world at the same time!

Further reading:

Sutton's blog

Sutton's response to opinion that "Steve Jobs is an evidence that asshole works!"

Prank Calls: Australian Style?

I don't pay any attention to the so called "Royal family." What's so important about them? Nothing! Nada! Zilch! If Kate Middleton suddenly gave birth to 10 children at once, it won't affect my life or your life at all!

But when suddenly a pair of DJs from 2DayFM from Australia prank-called Kate Middleton's hospital, somehow my blood started to boil. When the nurse who receive the call hanged herself, I was enraged, but I couldn't pointed out WHY.

Then I read this article from Yahoo news and the comments below it. Then I got it. When I got it, I am enraged beyond comprehension. This is not about the royal family anymore. This is about treating other person decently.

First, nobody with BRAINS OR CONSCIENCE will prank-call a hospital! Hey idiots, do you know that hospital-jobs are one of the most stressful type of jobs? The nurses there have to handle diverse situation, many of them are very risky. They also have to do menial but undesirable jobs like ... cleaning the urine and feces of the patients. Oh yeah, they also have to give BAD NEWS to the relatives of their patient, can you imagine that? You can start helping them by NOT GIVING THEM ANY BULLSHIT!

Second, this incident is actually only the tip of the iceberg. Previously, the station already forced a 14-years old teenager to confess that she was raped. They also forced a poor mother with 4 disable kids TO ARGUE on-air! They even had the nerve to threaten to separate a woman from her niece, whom she never met FOR YEARS, even though at that they time was separated only by a door! Conclusion: you can argue that the DJs are just ignorant, but, the station on the other hand ... are run by sociopaths who don't have any conscience. They just LOVE to abuse people mentally on-air and receive all the ratings. They are a bunch of sadists, who humiliate people to get money. They are the lowest of the low.

Fortunately, many were extremely pissed by these douchebags. Fortunately, the free market kick these arse by wiping 46 million Dollar from their stock price. Nice. That means not only the Djs, the station themselves actually received some backlash. Too bad it is still far from proportional. The DJs received death threats after their stunt. C'mon folks, don't sink to their low. Forced them to work as a nurse in a busy hospital for a year, that will teach them EMPATHY. Especially the male DJ. The female DJ, Mel Greig, AT LEAST looks like a mess, and crying. That is a sign of empathy. While the male DJ, Michael Christian, still looks smug and pissed. But I could be mistaken. Maybe he just don't have any clue how to show remorse. Let both of them worked as nurses to repent for their mistake. As for the radio station ... they should pay Saldanha's family several millions. 

Connecticut Shooting

Once again, tragedy struck USA. This time, most of the victims are small kids. My deepest sympathy for their families ...

This event needs to be commented.

First, the medias repeat their modus operandi: published the name of the human trash who did this wherever they can. Heck, not only the name, THE PHOTO of that low-life even slammed into our face. Ehm, you guys know that this kind of action gave trash like him the post-humous fame right? You guys also know that many psycho really look for publicity right? No surprise copycat piece of shits already popping out.  Stop rewarding their publicity stunt. Let those monsters died in obscurity. The media already done that in every case of a nude-attention-seeker crashing any sport event, the camera instantly moves away from them, and the public NEVER know their name.

Second, about gun control. NRA usually says "Gun control takes gun from law-abiding citizen. The criminal always able to get guns anyway, so DO NOT disarm the good people!" But this time, the NRA can't use that argument. This piece of shit got it not from some gun-smugglers, gangsters, Al-Qaeda, or anything like that. He got it from a law-abiding citizen who fulfill her legal obligation in gun ownership: his own mother. Remember, the NRA even refused to support any law that obligates the gun-buyers to do a thorough criminal-psychological background check. Oh yeah, one pro-gun politician gave a solution for this problem: arm the teacher.

BRILLIANT! Why stop at arming the teacher? We should build a fully fortified schools! Hey, forget about normal doors and windows, we need bullet-proof version of that! Oh yeah, every single security guard in every single school should be armed with an assault-rifle. BTW, I heard usually the principle delegate their jobs to the vice principle. They can be trained as snipers, guarding from the high ground! Imagine, the next time a piece of trash try to go postal on a school, BAM, a .338 Lapua-Magnum suddenly ripped his head. 

Why stop at the school officials? We also need to teach EACH TODDLER how to be self-reliant! We should train them from the first day they stepped inside kindergarten! Not only duck-and-cover, I mean train them how to kill a piece of trash using a handgun! Aah ... imagine if a mass-murderer-wannabe manages to avoid the sniper-principle, fools the arm-guard, and finally reaches the class, only to be welcomed with a hail of 9mm bullets! I heard children in Afghanistan and Africa even operates Kalashnikov, so why the FUCK YEAH country don't want to turn their children into an efficient killing machine? Oh yeah, children are also definitely law-abiding citizens too!

The world is harsh. Life is hard. That's why our children need to be armed as soon as possible. Arm them. This way American can also stimulate their gun industry, create more jobs, and end the recession!

Luckily, looks like there is hope. Even one of the most ardent pro-gun senator, Joe Manchin, admits that some regulation need to be done. But, don't hold your breath. This is politics, bloody, dirty, and disgusting.

Stereotypes That I Hold

It is inevitable. I know stereotypes are FAR from accurate. I know many times stereotypes can started prejudice, but I can't help it, I hold some stereotypes. So, here are those stereotypes:

Indonesians:

- Most honest answer: Which Indonesian? The Javanese is starkly different compare to the Ambonese, the Bugis, etc. And vice versa. So seriously, which one do you like to know?

- Most politically correct-sugar coated answer: God-fearing pious nation that reject individualism, respect their families, and embrace social justice.
ADDENDUM (13.05.2013):
- Most cynical answer: Bipolar people. They can be SUPER FRIENDLY and always smiling, than become extremely violent on the next day.

Malaysians:

- The people are smart & reasonable, but their government is a bunch of cultural thieves!

- The people are nice & friendly, but their government is a bunch of proud racists!

Philippinos:

- Always merry and smiling!

- Good and talkative friends!

Singaporeans:

- Workaholic people.

- Their women only want men with "6C and 1 M": Carrier, Car, Cash, Condominium, and Country Club Membership.

- Oily, greasy food. Seriously, I think "Yong Tau Foo" is their only food that isn't covered in grease.

Chinese:

- Garlic lovers 
- Proud people who ALWAYS think that they are the center of the universe.

- Proud people who ALWAYS think that they are the only civilized people, the only one who has 3 - 4 thousands years history. What's that? Other people has 3-4 thousand years history too? That doesn't count, they are barbarians! What's that? That is a circular argument? THIIS IISS CHIIIINAAA! (Kicking the barbarian to the nearest deep well or cliff.)

Japanese:

- English with Japanese accent is just ... doesn't sound like English ...

- Eccentric people with weird fantasies and fetishes. Especially when it involve octopus, maid, female teenager in sailor-like-school uniform.

- Very technology-literate. They don't use SMS anymore, they only use e-mail ... since 10 years ago.

Indians:

- Movie lovers! They are eager to show you their movies, often WITHOUT subtitles!

- Textile traders.

- Sport accessories traders.

- They have tree-fetish. Everytime they see tree, they start to dance, and sing, and usually they also call at least 20 of their friends to sing the chorus and become the backup dancers.

Lebanese:

- Good traders.

- VERY GOOD traders. Seriously, if you doubt it, do you know that Carlos Slim Helu is a Lebanese?

Germans:

- Stiff, stick-to-the book people.

- Beer lovers.

- Ordoliberalism.

French:

- Proud people who hate English.
- Proud people who want everyone to speak French.

- Good, but super expensive food.

- Art lovers.

Italians:

- Same with the Phillippinos.

- Except they are louder since they enhance their presence with their hand activities.

Russians:

- Direct, IN YOUR FACE attitude.

- Badass people since non-badass typically died early.

- Can be very creative, but can use sheer will-power and brute force to solve problems too.
- Vodka lovers

Swedes:

- Love the color of black so much, they have at least 20 different black shirts/jackets, and will insist each of them has different variation of black.

- Social democrats.

Finnish:

- Best driver on earth.

- Even the badass Russians admit that the Finns can withstand cold far better than them.

Americans:

- FUCK YEAH!

- FREEDOM TO OWN AND USE GUNS BABY!! WOO HOO! FREEDOM BABY, FREEDOM!

- You don't know how it works, here let me show you. First, you should dismantle your government, because government IS the problem dude! And DEMOCRACY!! Start an election as soon as possible!

Sila Pertama, Interpretasinya, Terjemahannya

Ada 1 yang mengganggu saya soal "Pancasila" yaitu interpretasi dan terjemahan sila pertamanya: "Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa" yang menurut pengetahuan sekolah saya diinterpretasikan sebagai "Tuhan yang hanya satu," dan diterjemahkan menjadi "Believe in One God" di Bahasa Inggris, tapi coba kita perhatikan lagi ...

Pertama ... "Ketuhanan" itu TIDAK SAMA dengan "Tuhan." 

Imbuhan ke-an itu membentuk kata benda abstrak yang berdasarkan sebuah sifat, misalnya tentram -> ketentraman, aman -> keamanan, gelap -> kegelapan satu -> kesatuan dst. Bisa juga membetuk kata benda abstrak yang merupakan sifat² dari kata benda kongkrit yang menjadi kata dasarnya. Misalnya: manusia -> kemanusiaan, ke-Indonesia-an, dst.

JADI, ketuhanan itu adalah sifat² Tuhan, BUKAN Tuhan itu sendiri.

Kata "maha" sendiri tidak kontroversial, semua sepakat artinya adalah "sangat," tapi kita masih punya masalah kedua.

Kedua ... "Esa" itu BUKAN "Tunggal" BUKAN "satu"

Apa gunanya coba bilang "maha tunggal" atau "maha satu"? Satu yah satu, bukan dua, bukan tiga, bukan empat, dst. Lagipula, kalau memang mau bilang "maha satu" dalam bahasa sansekerta, yang tepat itu adalah "maha eka".

Jadi, apa dong artinya "esa" atau "maha esa"? Hmm ... ternyata ini cukup tricky ... ketika saya mencoba memasukkan kata "esa" dalam kamus atau penerjemah bahasa Sansekerta, tak ada jawabannya. Ketika saya mencoba menerjemahkannya dari bahasa Pali, saya diusulkan untuk mengubahnya menjadi "eso" lalu mendapat terjemahan "This" atau "this one" ... ok, ok, rasanya "esa" adalah salah 1 bentuk deklinasi/perubahan dari "eso," karena Pali memiliki kasus dalam tatabahasanya ...

Huh? Tunggu dulu ... kalau begitu sila pertama Pancasila itu artinya adalah ...

"Sifat² Tuhan yang sangat itu" 

... ok, ok, "This" atau "this one" bisa diartikan sbg "exist" atau "nyata" jadi kita mendapatkan:

"Sifat² Tuhan yang sangat nyata"

Huh? ... OK, saya mengerti sekarang, guru² kita PASTI tak mau PUSING mengajar pernyataan yang sangat filosofis seperti ini, jadinya mereka dengan gampang saja menyederhanakannya. Sama juga dengan para pemimpin² agama dan politikus² kita yang menganggap "ateisme itu menyalahi sila pertama Pancasila." Beliau² ini cuma "tak mau pusing" harap dimaklumi ...

Bullshit Building 15: Peter The Great Statue

Peter the Great is a badass. A naval badass to be precise. He single-handedly turned Russia into a world power by harnessing Russia's energy and directed it to the sea. He even studied how to build a ship in Holland, and worked with his hand! Afterward, He built the first Russian navy, the city of St-Petersburg, etc. Heck, he is so badass that even the communists had to admit that he is a great czar!

Then came this travesty ...

The Beginning

Moscow mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, thinks big. He was revitalizing Moscow at that time, and he thought that a big symbol would be a good idea. Then he met a famous artist Zurab Tsereteli. Same like Luzhkov, Tsereteli thinks big. Very big. EXCESSIVELY BIG! I laughed so hard that I fell from my chair after I read his wikipedia page, especially after I read these paragraphs:

"As a reflection of his controversial reputation, a satiric short story describing Tsereteli as an alien installing a beacon through his various sculptures was published by Boris Akunin in his anthology Fairy Tales for Idiots (Russian: Сказки для идиотов, Skazki dlja idiotov). The alien's name is given as Yagkfi Yeyukuyeudsh (Russian: Ягкфи Еыукуеудш), a seemingly gibberish-like combination which actually spells out "Zurab Tsereteli" when typed on a Latin QWERTY keyboard by hitting the keys where the corresponding Russian characters would be located."

"Tsereteli's works, though often welcomed by the authorities, tend to become objects of strong public criticism. His sculptures are often blamed and mocked for being incongruously pompous and out of proportion."

From The Telegraph

So, what is Tsereteli's ideas for the new-supposed-to-be-great-&-memorable monument of Moscow? A Peter The Great statue, together with reminders that he loved the sea. Oh yeah, the statue also built to celebrate the 300th birthday of Russian navy. Thus we got the 98 meter (315 ft) tall statue ...

It's a big Middle Finger ...

First, every single Russian knows that Peter the Great HATED Moscow. He moved Russian capital to St-Petersburg at first chance. He abhorred every single moment he had to spend in Moscow. Maybe because he was traumatized, since he watched many of his relatives were butchered by a mob in Moscow. Maybe because he identified Moscow with the old aristocracies, who opposed most of his reforms. Maybe because he can't pursue his love for the sea in Moscow. Maybe because all of that factors at the same time. Bottom line: he hates Moscow. So ... why built his statue in Moscow? It is just like a big middle finger to Peter, AND to Moscow.

Second, I need to inform people who don't have any clue about the geographical condition of Moscow in case it is not clear enough. Moscow is located several hundreds miles away from the nearest sea. Yup, the statue that celebrate the Russian navy was built on a land-locked city. So, this statue is also a middle-finger to the Russian navy.

From: Oddstuff Magazine

Third, most people agree that the statue is as ugly as a monkey's ass. Local Muscovites call the statue "Gulliver" since it portrayed Peter as a giant, while riding a lilliputian ship, AND gathering lilliputian of  lilliputian fleet below him. Remember the previous criticism in Wikipedia about pomposity and screwed-up proportion? This statue demonstrates that those criticisms are valid. The Artnews even quoted Tsreteli's nemesis, Marat Guelman who said that Tsereteli has confused the history of art and "Guinnes Book of Record."  So, in essence, this is also a big middle-finger for anyone who has good artistic taste.

DITCH IT!

No surprise when Luzhkov was sacked, many people were screaming to ditch this statue. The Muscovites pointed out that St-Petersburg is a far more appropriate location, since that city bear Peter's name, founded by Peter, and acted as the HQ of Russian Baltic Fleet. The people in St-Petersburg responded by saying HELL NO! Some prominent figures even so disgusted by the statue they propose to melt the statue completely. Fortunately, the city of Arkhangel, the very first Russian port, agree to accept the statue. 

Unfortunately, the cost of dismantling the statue is enormous: 6 - 17 million Dollar. Not cool. So, the city of Moscow until today is forced to live with this statue.

Sources: 

Pravda

The Telegraph

Art News

Reuters

Oddstuff Magazine

Amazing Quotes 26: Huntington's Who Are We?

"Who are we?" is the last, and arguably, most controversial book of Samuel P. Huntington. This book discusses the nature of American identity. Some accused Huntington as racist because he doesn't care about political correctness and pointed out that illegal immigration is illegal, and dangerous for American identity. I disagree with some part of this book, nevertheless, it still contains tons of thoughtful quotes such as:

We have to know who we are before we can know what our interest are.

-- page 10

Historical experience and sociological analysis show that the absence of an external "other" is likely to undermine unity and breed division within a society.

-- page 18

Competition and conflict can only occur between entities that are in the same universe or arena. In some sense, as Volkan put it, "the enemy" has to be "like us."

-- page 26

To describe America as a "nation of immigrants" is to stretch a partial truth into a misleading falsehood, and to ignore the central fact of America's beginning as a society of settlers.

-- page 46

The Protestant emphasis on the individual conscience and the responsibility of individuals to learn God's truth directly from the Bible promoted American commitment to individualism, equality, and the rights to freedom of religion and opinion.

-- page 68

While the American Creed is Protestantism without God, the American civil religion is Christianity without Christ.

-- page 107

Americans created the term and the concept of Americanization in late 18th century when they also created the term and the concept of immigrant.

-- page 133

The Americanization movement began with private organizations at the grass roots.

-- page 135

Review: Sang Pencerah

SPOILER WARNING!!

I already said it before, but I need to repeat it again: many Indonesian movies are embarrassments. Many said "Sang Pencerah" (The Enlightener) is an exception. Hey, religion is also my point of interest, so I watch this movie with quite high hope.

Oh yeah, before I watched this movie, I watched the superbly written Red Letter Media's Titanic Review. Coincidentally, some of their criticisms for Titanic are also valid here. More on that later!

First the synopsis. This is the movie about the founding of Muhammadiyah, the 2nd largest Islamic organization in Indonesia. It is a modernist movement, which was founded by Ahmad Dahlan, in late 19th century Indonesia, which at that time was under Dutch colonialism. Dahlan is the main character of this movie. He was repeatedly opposed by the existing Islamic elites, who control the largest mosque in that area, who prefer the status quo to changes thought by Dahlan. The movie essentially follow this formula:

Enlightenment -> Preaching & application -> Violent response of pro status quo Islamic leaders -> Contemplation, accompanied with violin plays -> Enlightenment again!

Rinse and repeat.

The movie tries really hard to portrait the stubbornness, the refusal of the elites to change. It tries so hard that it forget that change is not good per se. For example, Dahlan tries to modernize Islamic education system by copying Western school, complete with chairs and tables. The elites branded Dahlan as "infidel," since he used "Infidel's chairs and tables" instead of simply sitting and studying on floor, like on mosque. But Dahlan never pointed out the reason WHY they have to switch to chairs and tables. Hey, I am no Muslim, but I can pointed out that studying on floor is far cheaper, spacious, and flexible. But no, the movie only want to say "Dahlan is so progressive and smart while the elites are stupid!"

Oh yeah, speaking about the elites, the movie also without any subtlety said that "Indonesians have to unite to fight against the Dutch who sucked our land!" But on the other hand, it almost totally AVOIDS one of the main historical reason of  the founding of Muhammadiyah: to fight back Christian missionaries. Heck, in one scene, it was shown that the Dutch officials and children thought that Islam was a backward and primitive religion, BUT they quickly CHANGED their mind only after a single demonstration of Dahlan's knowledge, wittiness, and teaching capability! Oh yeah, this was done AFTER Dahlan insulted a Dutch official as "fatso". Somehow that official didn't really take that insult personally and let Dahlan become a teacher at his school! Compare that with the fact that the Islamic elites in this movie ALWAYS oppose Dahlan, and even using VIOLENCE against his followers! Now, whose reign do you prefer? The once-ignorant Dutch who CAN CHANGE their mind after a single demonstration? Or the stubborn and violent local elites? I like this one, for once this movie didn't play it safe, but ... doesn't that means that the movie weakened its own "patriotic" message? And speaking about violence by the locals ...

There is one scene that made me shakes my head in disbelieve. It is the scene after the elites warned Dahlan for the first time to close his mosque. Dahlan KNOW that the elites already send an angry mob to his mosque. When the mob tore down the mosque, he went to, then hugged his father, and playing violin in contemplation. At the same time, his wife & disciples crying, watching the mob in horror, powerless to defend the mosque.

WHAT??

He left his wife and disciples to face the angry mob by themselves?? WHAT THE HELL, HERO? Then, in the next day, NOBODY pointed out this. Nobody.

So, with all those weaknesses, is this a bad movie? Not exactly. Let me refer to Red Letter Media's Titanic review: "It was shot superbly. Small details are not overlooked, every scene is gorgeous. Every music enhanced every scene. Technically, it is an excellent movie. Too bad the plot sucks." Same here. Almost every single scene magnify the beauty of Javanese village and houses. "Sang Pencerah"'s weaknesses are all plot related. 

Another point brought by Red Letter Media about Titanic: Cameron play it safe in terms of plot. It never try to dig deeper into the character, it never try to pose a moral dilemma to them. It always pointed out that the main character is the perfectly-good human while the antagonist(s) are total monsters. "Sang Pencerah" is better here, since in the end the highest elite actually repents. But it also play it safe, it refuse to confront an "ugly truth," for example, a simple fact that Muhammadiyah is also about confrontation against Christian missions. It also preached endlessly that "the Islamic way preached by Dahlan is better than local cultures," and since most Indonesians are Muslims, I don't see anything other than "I want to play it safe!" from this fact. Just like The Lady, it tries so hard to put its protagonist on pedestal, it only slipped during the mob-attack scene. Most of the time, it choose NOT to mention that Dahlan's foot is always on the ground, never hovering.

Final verdict: 55 out of 100. Watch it if you are interested in history of Indonesia, but with a grain of salt. BTW, I also love the fact how this movie put the colonial masters in more positive light than the local elites! But I suspect only few recognize this ...

Amazing Quotes 25: Political Order in Changing Societies 3

In the first part, Huntington discussed the overall thesis of the book, and how monarchy could influence and become the part of political development.

In the second part, Huntington explained the role of revolution and military institution in the political development of a country.

In the last part, Huntington put the explanation about the role of reform and political parties, as follows:

If there is any cleavage which is virtually universal in modernizing countries, it is the cleavage between government and university.

-- Page 371

Throughout history peasant revolts and jacquieries have typically aimed at the elimination of specific evils or abuses.

-- Page 374

The urban middle-class intellectual has aspirations which can never be realized and he hence exists in a state of permanent volatility. There is no mistaking his role. The peasantry, on the other hand, may be the bulwark of the status quo or the shock troops of revolution. Which role the peasant plays is determined by the extent to which the existing system meets his immediate economic and material needs as he sees them.

-- Page 375

Traditional polities do not have political parties; modernizing polities need them but often do not want them.

-- Page 403

The more hostile a government is toward political parties in a modernizing society, however, the greater the probable future instability of that society.

-- Page 407

The institutional strength of a political party is measured, in the first instance, by its ability to survive its founder or the charismatic leader who first brings it to power.

-- Page 409

In terms of political development, however, what counts is not the number of parties but rather the strength and adaptability of the party system.

-- Page 420

The party is a modern organization. But to be successful it must organize a traditional countryside.

-- Page 434

The source of political modernity is the city; the source of political stability is the countryside. The task of the party is to combine the two.

-- Page 434

In the modernizing world he controls the future who organizes its politics.

-- Page 461, the last sentence of the book.

Amazing Quotes 24:Political Order in Changing Societies 2

Let's continue the collection of amazing quotes from "Political Order in Changing Societies." This time, let's cover chapter 4 -5.

Countries which have political armies also have political clergies, political universities, political bureaucracies, political labor unions, and political corporation.

-- Page 194

Corruption in a limited sense refers to the intervention of wealth in the political sphere. Praetorianism in a limited sense refers to the intervention of the military in politics, and clericalism to the participation of religious leaders.

-- Page 194 - 195

Independence frequently left a small, modernized, intellectual elite confronting a large, amorphous, unmobilized, still highly traditional society.

-- Page 200

... while other social forces can pressure the government, the military can replace the government. Monks and priests can demonstrate, students riot, and workers strike, but no one of these groups has, except in most unusual circumstances, demonstrated any capacity to govern.

-- Page 217

... their [the military] historical role is to open the dor to the middle class and to close it on the lower class.

-- Page 222

Even more so than other groups in society, military officers tend to see parties as the agents of disunity rather than as mechanisms for consensus-building. Their goal is community without politics, consensus by command. By criticizing and downgrading the role of politics the military prevent society from achieving the community which it needs and they value.

-- Page 244

The role of the city is constant: it is the permanent source of opposition. The role of the countryside is variable: it is either the source of stability or the source of revolution.

He who controls the countryside controls the country.

-- Page 292

Urban migration is, in some measure, a substitute for rural revolution. Hence, contrary to common belief, the susceptibility of a country to revolution may vary inversely with its rate of urbanization.

-- Page 299

Revolutions produce little liberty, but they are history's most expeditious means of producing fraternity, equality, and identity.

-- Page 311

Marxism is a theory of history. Leninism is a theory of political development.

-- Page 342

Amazing Quotes 23: Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies

From Harvad Uni

Whenever we speak about "development," we think about GDP, economic growth, war against poverty, etc. Nice, but it neglects the fact that political development is also fundamentally important. To address this imbalance, Huntington wrote "Political Order and Changing Societies" in 1968. Until today, it is a classic, and many considered it his best work. Below are the best quotes from chapter 1 - 3 of that book:

Men may, of course, have order without liberty, but they cannot have liberty without order.

-- Page 7 - 8

They (the communists) may not provide liberty, but they do provide authority. They do create governments that can govern.

-- Page 8

More than by anything else, the modern state is distinguished from the traditional state by the broadened extent to which people participate in politics and are affected by politics in large-scale political units.

-- Page 36

It is not the absence of modernity but the efforts to achieve it which produce political disorder.

-- Page 41

The calling into question of old standards moreover, tends to undermine the legitimacy of all standards. The conflict between modern and traditional norms opens opportunities for individuals to act in ways justified by neither.

-- Page 60

In functions and power American presidents are Tudor Kings. In instituional role, as well as in personality and talents, Lyndon Johnson far more closely resembled Elizabeth I than did Elizabeth II. Britain preserved the form of the old monarchy, but America preserved the substance. Today America still has a king, Britain only a crown.

-- Page 115.

The assimilation of new Groups into the political system means, in effect, the expansion of the power of the political system.

-- Page 143.

Nineteenth-century monarchs modernized to thwart imperialism; twentieth-century monarchs modernize to thwart revolution.

-- Page 155

The legitimacy of the reforms depends on the authority of the monarch. But the legitimacy of the political system in the long run depends upon the participation within it of a broader range of social groups.

-- Page 167

The more vigorously a monarch exercises authority, the more difficult it is to transfer that authority to another institution.

-- Page 179

My Question to God

Few years ago, someone asked me & my friends an interesting question:

"What question you want to ask to God?"

My question to God will be:

"God, why you are such a lousy, incompetent, writer?"

Now, let me clarify that question. A writer has the obligation to state his point as clear as possible. Moreso in the case of non-fiction writer. The point maybe broad, but nevertheless, IT HAS TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR! The problem with many writers is, somehow some of their readers misunderstand their point. Sometimes, their readers misinterpret their thesis. So ... why from the same holy scripture many denominations could arise?

Listen, this is not about DETAILS like whether Jesus was put on a cross or just a piece of not-cross wood, this is about many fundamental points like ... how to be saved.

The Christians until now can't agree whether it is work or faith or grace that is most important. The Catholics said it is work, that's why they could sell indulgences. Martin Luther protested and said it is faith. Meanwhile, John Calvin said, everything is irrelevant, only God's grace that could save human.

Huh? Whatta hell? Hey, hey, this is arguably THE MOST important question: HOW TO BE SAVED, why they can't agree on the answer? Each answer has deep consequences, for example, believe in  "saved through action" paves the ways to the selling of indulgence. That's why you can't just b.s. yourselves by trying to argue that this is NOT an important point. Some Christians may try to combine it, for example: "Faith and action are sign of we receiving grace from God." Nice interpretation, but how about other denomination who thought otherwise? Ask a Catholics pastor whether he agree on that. Ask a Baptist preacher. Ask a Presbyterian missionary. Ask a Pentecostal priest. Etc. Heck, asked the Jehovah's Witness couple who just ring your door. Ask a Mormon elder too! 

Same in Islam. Many radical-terrorists claim that Islam order them to be suicide bombers, destroying other religion's temples, etc, while the moderates said that Islam shouldn't be judged based on its worst elements, based on people who misunderstood the religion. Hold on there, so the moderates in essence said that the omniscient and omni-benevolent Allah didn't know that His scripture could be interpreted as an endorsement of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc.? 

Now you see, "lousy" and "incompetent" is a relative thing. In this case, "lousy" is in comparison with the super-duper-ultra-extreme-high standard set by religion: an omniscient, omni-benevolent, omnipotent, and meddling being. A human being who created a faulty book, or a faulty law could defend themselves because THEY ARE NOT PERFECT. God can't do that. Like I said before "With infinite power came infinite responsibility."

Oh, for the Bible, I can listed some horrible things that the Bible endorsed or didn't pay much attention to:

• Incest (Adam & Eve, Noah and the great flood.)
• Child abuse (Abraham & Isaac, see the next link for more detail.)
• Slavery & Genocide (Moses, Joshua, and whenever the Israeli made war.)

And that is NOT a complete list. Why an omniscient and omni-benevolent being could endorse(d) and order(ed) such barbaric acts? So, back to my question: so God, please tell me why you are such a lousy writer?

And what about OTHER religions? How come some of the holy scriptures are so similar, yet so different? Why God can't foreseen that His contradicting writings could cause deaths in BILLIONS thanks to all the religious wars across history?

Seriously God, why You can't write more harmless and peaceful scriptures? Why, why, why?

More about God & Bibles:

Amazing Quotes about the Bible