Hiroshima Nagasaki: How We Learn to Love the Bombs

Many peaceniks from the Left blame the US for everything. Now they even don't get the idea that the US has every right to disarm Iran, North Korea, and many other countries. One of their favorite argument is:

"The US is a hypocrite since they already nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, therefore they don't have the right to prohibit others from acquiring nukes!"

That means they never read history. Or choose to ignore it. Here, let me enlighten you guys: 

The Terror of Imperial Japan

Hey, peaceniks, if you think USA is nasty and hypocritical, just try dealing with the Imperial Japanese of the 1930s & 1940s! They raped and massacred the whole city of Nanking, and created a systematic sexual slavery across their vast territories! Yes, let me stress it again: SYSTEMATIC SEXUAL SLAVERY! Got that? Oh, they also spouted that we have to support their empire, since they were creating "The Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Yeah, they had the nerve to declare sexual slavery as "prosperity"!

None of us buy that b.s. We in Indonesia have a saying "350 years under the Dutch is nothing compared to 3.5 years under the Japanese." Heck, my own grandpa told me the stories how the Japanese stole EVERYTHING from his house, even every single nails and bolts.

And don't let me start about their war mentality. They are baffled by the idea that any surrendered enemy combatants has to be treated with respect. Hey, who can blame them? In their honor-based culture, "surrender" is the apex of disgrace. That's why they keep fighting and fighting, AND RAPING in between. That continued even after the Allied started sending waves and waves of B-29 bombers in mid 1944. The destruction of their fleet, and the end of their oil supply from Southeast Asia in October 1944 didn't convince them to surrender either. Any sane government would throw the towel after that, but nope. To hell with sanity and the well-being of their people, the Imperial Japan keep fightin since their priority is THEIR HONOR!

USA vs Others?

Hey, with that mentality, how can you protest when the US finally nuked their cities? They had it coming. Others wouldn't be that nice. Let's say the Japanese faced nuclear-equipped Russians instead of Americans at that time. The Russians are never as squeamish as the Americans. To ensure the maximum effect of the atomic bombs, they would start nuking Tokyo and Kyoto, the political and cultural capital of Japan. If they have more bombs, they would nuke Osaka, Kobe, and other major cities too.

And now you peaceniks think that Americans is immoral? What other options they have? Here, let me show the other options to you:

A) Stop the war by agreeing "peace" with the Japanese, accepting their terms.

The Japanese were eager to keep China and many other "Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Good luck telling that with a straight face to the Chinese. They would be enraged! They would continue their war against Japan. People in other area like Indonesia would either die in millions because of the harsh treatments, or die in millions because they finally rebel, but the Japanese use superior firepower to massacre them.

B) Asking the Japanese to surrender unconditionally and immediately, renouncing all of their conquest.

Do you live in a fantasy world where "HONOR" were never a part of Japanese culture? Like I said before, they would do EVERYTHING to avoid losing face, even keepin a losin war goes on and on. What's next, asking lions to be vegans?

C) Just keep bombin and blockadin Japan until they surrender

The famine in Japan would be amplified. There would be outbreak of nasty diseases. Japanese would die in millions, slowly, excruciatingly. 

Oh, same thing would happen in their colonies too. That means, another millions would die in China, Indonesia, Indochina, etc.

Oh, the Russian actually planned to invade Manchuria, Korea, and Northern Japan. That means not only Manchuria and North Korea, would fall into communist hand. South Korea and Hokkaido would be grabbed by the communist. Say hello to the "People's Democratic Republic of North Japan." Say hello to total domination of Korea Peninsula by Kim Il Sung's dynasty.

D) Direct invasion to Japanese Homeland

US Navy and Army planned this invasion because they were unaware of the atomic bombs until last minute. They knew the invasion would be ... nightmarish at best. Not only thousands of Allied's and Japanese sailors and soldiers would die, millions of Japanese civilian would perish too. Hey, they already taught their CHILDREN to use a sharp bamboo spear to disembowel Allied soldiers! Those who can't fight would choose suicide instead of surrendering to the Allies. We know that because that was what happened in Saipan and Okinawa. The civilian population plunged to a cliff WITH THEIR BABIES in their hands, instead of surrendering. I can say 5 millions civilians dead already sounds optimistic.

Oh, since the Allies busy with the invasion, nobody would dare to question the Russians when they rolled to South Korea and Hokkaido.

As you can see, the other options are FAR WORSE than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima-Nagasaki. It was THE BEST CHOICE among several nightmarish options. The root of the nightmare is the honor-based Japanese culture. Even the peace party in Japan couldn't convince everyone else. They need Hiroshima-Nagasaki, AND Soviet invasion to silence the war party. Blamed Tojo, Hirohito, and other Japanese militarists, not Truman or the US. 

Don't like that? C'est la vie, life is not consisting of easy black-white option. Grow up and stop whining about  your never-exist childish dream. Hard choices have to be made, and we will be damned if we close our eyes and fool ourselves that all choices are easy.

Reasons Against Gay Marriage

Once again "gay marriage" become an issue in the US. Some people want to ensure the legality of gay marriage. Others try hard to stop it. So, what is the argument against gay marriage? 

It undermines the institution of marriage!

So ... you mean if gay marriage is legal, there would be more divorce? Or you would divorce your spouse if gay people start marrying? Wow, are you really that insecure? 

It paves the way for incest, bestiality, and other barbarity!

Funny isn't it, this argument was also used to stop inter-racial marriage. Funny how exactly the same kind of people, the conservatives, try to stop gay marriage now. History loves to repeat itself!

It is not natural because they can't procreate!

Seriously? By this logic, anyone who is infertile can't marry. Anyone who lost their fertility also has to dissolve their marriage. Including old people. What? That is atrocious? That's because this argument is atrocious!

A child needs a father and a mother! Not two mothers! Not two fathers!

So, what are you waiting, JAIL ALL SINGLE PARENTS! Take their children from them! Give their children for adoption! A mother and a father for every single child! NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND!

It is God's order!

What? The same God who forced us to do incest? The same God who demanded us to be sycophant 24/7? The same God who threatened us with infinite torture but has the nerve to claim that he is just? The God who thought that regulating menstruating women is more important than prohibiting slavery? Seriously? I need to obey this monstrous entity? Tell you what, my conscience, my empathy, my intellect, and my decency actually say that I have ONE MORE reason to legalize gay marriage: to piss that slavery enabling dude! Oh, by the way, am I arguing against "God" or against people who are arrogant enough to know "God's will"? Never mind, whatever the case, gay marriage would piss a jerk.

Marriage is between a man and a woman!
Excuse me, please speak with the people who use "God's order" as their argument. Their holy scripture said that marriage is also between:

Oh you two are the same person? So ... I bet you get your wife after burning and looting her country? Yay?

I AM A CONTROL FREAK! I WANT TO CONTROL YOUR LOVE LIFE! YOUR SEX LIFE!

Well ... nobody said this blatantly, but that is what they imply when they try to stop gay marriage right? They may use God, the Bible, biology, or anything as justification, but in essence, this is the foundation of their argument. They are so full of themselves that they think they have the right to control how others love, how others fuck. 

So, are you a control freak? Really, that is the only relevant question in this debate. The rests are cosmetics.

Terrorism, Religion, Fanatics, Moderates

In today's world, thousands, or even millions religious fanatics used terrorism to reach their goal. Suicide bombing, mob attack, pogrom, etc. are practiced repeatedly. For many, such monstrosity is baffling. How could those religious fanatics do that?

Fanatics vs Moderates
Well, basically, religious fanatics give this kind of arguments to validate their terrorism:

"Quetzacoatl ordered us to kill them!"

"Quetzacoatl told us that those who rejects him are sinners, and deserves to be killed as a warning for everyone!"

"Quetzacoatl has wrote a holy book that explain to us that it is correct to kill them all!"

Etc. I think you got the point.

Basically, religious moderates give these kinds of arguments to counter terrorism:

"Quetzacotal order us to love everyone."

"Quetzacoatl told us that killing is prohibited."

"Quetzacoatl has wrote a holy book that explain to us that we have to be friend with everyone!"

Etc.

What are the problems with those counter-arguments from the moderates? 

1) Who can judge what Quetzacoatl really said and ordered?

2) How to falsify or prove any order or words from Quetzacoatl?

That means, the moderates use theological arguments to counter the fanatics claims. Since as far as I know Quetzacoatl never deny or approve ANYTHING from ANYONE in our current time, that also means, the moderates use flimsy-unprovable arguments to attack the fanatics' flimsy-unprovable arguments. It is like witnessing 2 small children arguing which one will won the fight between Superman vs Ultraman. And there is another hole in this kind of argument too.


Fanatics AND Moderates
One similarity between any kind of fanatics, are their own assumption of the total primacy of their religion. Or ideology.

Every Nazi insist that the "Aryan identity" is the most important, to hell with gender, profession, nationality, religion or any other identity.

So does an Interhamwe militia in Rwanda. For them "ethnic identity" is the most important. Kill all Tutsis, regardless their gender, profession, nationality, etc.

So does any religious fanatics. Only their religion matters for them. Gender, profession, nation, etc are irrelevant  or even ... distracting so has to be suppressed with zeal!

The problem with the religious moderates' theological argument is, that means they ACCEPT this premise and try to fight the fanatics on their ground. This kind of discourse confirm and strengthened the premise of the total-primacy of religion.

Fortunately, that is not the only way to debate a religious fanatics. Secularists, nationalists, and many others attack the moral ground of the fanatics differently.


Fanatics vs Secularists, nationalists, etc.
Basically, the arguments against religious terrorism from them are:

"We have our official criminal laws, and killing is a criminal offense!

"Have you ever heard about the human rights? One of those rights is the right to live. Others are the freedom of religion."

"Do you realize that such terrorism is bad for business? Do you know that the income of millions of people's will be destroyed by terrorism?"

Etc.

That means, the secularist, nationalist, etc used philosophical-pragmatical arguments to counter the fanatics claims. Unlike theological arguments, these arguments are not based on unobservable-supernatural explanations, therefore they are debatable, falsifiable, and provable.

But such arguments could only work if you debate with a normal person. A brainwashed fanatics often couldn't get any philosophical or pragmatical reason. They could easily dismissed any moderates who try to reason this way by branding them "hypocrite cherry-pickers" or even worse "traitors."

So, how if we try to convince the fanatics with theological arguments, while arguing with non-fanatics with philosophical-pragmatical arguments? The problem is, that means we argue incoherently. We have to start with the fundamental first: is there any PRIMARY identity that trumps every other identity in every occasion? Who actually has the authority to interpret God's law? Trying to debate in different ways without answering this fundamental question only undermines your argument. Anyone can pointed out that you are cherry-picking your religion, only using verses that suited your point of view, etc. So what is the best way?


The Best Method?
In my opinion, to be consistent we have to remind EVERYONE that they are not God, and no human can equate themselves with God, because it is a blasphemy. Heck, not only they are mere mortals, their prophets who wrote their books and scriptures are humans too!Their prophet is not God.

What? One of their prophet LITERALLY believed to be the incarnation of God despite all contrary rationals and historical evidences? And they even try to explain his Godhood with absurd argument, and pointed out since it is absurd, that means he is the true God? Wow ... okay ... let's see ... is that an exception or is there anything like that in another religion ...

Oh, here is its "sister religion" who claimed that God is singular, and no human can claimed to be God! Let's see .... anyone who draw the picture of their prophet would be beheaded? Pointing out that prophet had done some wrong also offended every single follower of him? 

... OK, I give up. They prefer to insult their own God, my intelligence, and everyone else while insisting that we have to respect them! 

Dear the rest of humanity, let them speak their minds. Let them reveal how vicious, how ignorant they are. Just make sure they STAY AWAY from any kind of power. 

Oh wait, many of them wields FORMAL POWER in some countries that prepared to go nuke. We are really screwed ...

Pelajaran Sejarah

Apa pelajaran favoritmu di sekolah? 

Saya belum pernah menemukan survey resmi yang menanyai semua siswa di sekolah Indonesia tapi tebakan saya:

1) Olahraga (Rasanya sekitar 70 - 80 % siswa akan menjawab ini.)

2) Sains (Fisika, Kimia, Biologi) (Sekitar 10 -20%. Biasanya para kutubuku yang menjawab begini.)

3) Matematika (Sekitar 5 - 15 %. Sama dengan sains, biasanya para kutubuku juga yang memilih jawaban ini.)

Kalau ditanya "Bagaimana dengan sejarah?" ... rasanya sebagian besar akan menjawab "BOSAAAAN!" atau "Capek ah menghafal tanggal!" atau "GAK PENTING AH!"

Saya bisa mengeri 2 alasan pertama. Pelajaran sejarah di Indonesia intinya CUMA menghafal serentetan data, terutama tanggal. Tidak mengasyikkan sama sekali. Apalagi pelajaran tsb DIULANG di SD-SMP-SMA. Ini bukan kesalahan pelajaran sejarahnya sendiri, tapi kesalahan kurikulum, kesalahan cara penyampaiannya. Kita bisa mengakhiri masalah ini dengan mengoreksi metode pengajaran sejarah.  

Namun saya tak habis pikir tentang alasan yang terakhir. Buat saya, sejarah itu teramat sangat penting.

Pentingnya sejarah

Mari kita mulai dari kata² George Santayana:

"Dia yang tak belajar sejarah akan mengulanginya."

Saya harus menambahkan: "Sayangnya yang diulangi itu bagian mengerikannya, bukan bagian keemasannya."

Karena Amerika Serikat tak belajar sejarah militer Asia Pasifik, armada mereka berhasil dibokong oleh AL Jepang di tahun 1941, sama seperti AL Jepang membokong armada Rusia di Port Arthur 35 tahun sebelumnya.

Karena tak belajar sejarah Napoleon, Hitler memutuskan menyerang Uni Soviet secara langsung, dan akhirnya dia terkubur oleh serangan balik Uni Soviet.

Karena tak belajar sejarah ekonomi, banyak orang terburu nafsu menanamkan uangnya dalam "bubble assets" dan kehilangan segalanya cuma beberapa tahun atau bulan kemudian.

Karena tak belajar sejarah bisnis, banyak orang terburu nafsu ikut skema ponzi, MLM, dll.

Dst.  

Kenapa demikian? Bukankah sejarah sendiri dipenuhi oleh contoh² sukses dan zaman keemasan? Kenapa yang terulang adalah kisah² tragisnya?

Setelah saya pikir², saya teringat kutipan dari novel "Anna Karenina" yang ditulis Tolstoy:

"Keluarga bahagia itu semuanya mirip; keluarga sengsara itu sengsara secara beraneka ragam."

Sukses atau bahagia itu susah. Kita harus memenuhi BANYAK hal untuk bisa sukses. Salah sedikit saja, semua jadi berantakan.

Kembali ke pelajaran sejarah dan kehidupan kita. Kehidupan ini masalah pilihan. Untuk mencapai "zaman keemasan" kita harus membuat SERENTETAN pilihan yang benar. Anggap di setiap pilihan kita harus memilih 10 opsi, rasanya cuma 2-3 opsi saja yang benar. Ketika kita belajar sejarah, minimal kita tahu "Opsi A itu akan menghancurkan kita, opsi B kelihatannya bagus tapi dalam 2-3 tahun akan jadi masalah besar, dst." Ketika kita memilih dengan buta, dengan tidak mengetahui sejarah, kemungkinan kita memilih opsi yang salah JAUH LEBIH BESAR. 

Perbaikan

Tapi mungkin saya terlalu berlebihan menganalisa pentingnya sejarah. MUNGKIN para siswa sebenarnya sadar betul pentingnya pelajaran ini. Mereka cuma bilang "Sejarah itu tak penting" sebagai alasan untuk TIDAK memplajarinya karena mereka bosan, karena mereka malas menghapal tanggal.

Kalau itu kenyataannya, berarti perbaikan kurikulum sejarah itu jauh lebih penting dari dugaan saya. Apa saja yang bisa dilakukan untuk membuat pelajaran sejarah menjadi "menarik" dan "mendidik"?

Pertama kita bisa mulai dengan mengurangi penekanan pada penghafalan. Tanggal dalam sejarah itu penting sebab tanggal memungkinkan kita membuat INDEX KRONOLOGIS kejadian di masa lalu. Namun masak kita lupa, di zaman modern ini, siswa yang memiliki BlackBerry bisa membuka wikipedia dan google dimanapun, tidak perlu lagi menghapalkan data² detil yang bisa kapan saja kita periksa di smartphone kita bukan?

Kedua, tekankan betapa menariknya kisah nyata. Jujur saja, saya tak banyak membaca novel sebab buat apa membaca novel kalau kisah nyata, yang benar² terjadi, sedemikian serunya? "Game of Thrones" memang seru dan menarik, tapinya cerita itu terilhami oleh "War of the Roses," perang saudara di Inggris, yang dipenuhi intrik, tipu muslihat, dan tentu saja pertempuran berdarah. Intrik² yang serupa dengan "War of the Roses" ini bisa kita temukan di banyak peristiwa sejarah lainnya. Misalnya, persatuan Jepang setelah era Sengoku, bersatunya Russia setelah era "Times of Troubles", perang² saudara di Cina daratan, perang 30 tahun di Jerman, dll. 

Apa lagi yang menarik dalam novel modern yah ... ah, perjuangan Harry Potter mengalahkan Voldemort! Perjuangan seorang underdog melawan kekuatan besar yg mendominasi dunia! Wah ini sih banyak sekali di dalam sejarah. Baca saja sejarah Chu Goan Chiang mengalahkan dominasi Mongol di Cina dan mendirikan dinasti Ming. Ada lagi cerita sejarah kerajaan Myanmar berhasil mengalahkan invasi besar dari Cina 6 kali! Baca juga sejarah perjuangan Belanda untuk merdeka dari dominasi Hapsburg! Bandingkan perjuangan tsb dengan perjuangan Indonesia sendiri! Oh iya, ternyata Ki Hajar Dewantara sudah melakukannya dan menulis artikel "Als ik Neederlander was ..." mengritik kemunafikan orang² Belanda yang menolak memerdekakan Indonesia ketika mereka merayakan kemerdekaan mereka sendiri.

Intinya: Fokus pada BAGAIMANA sejarah terjadi, pada prosesnya secara keseluruhan! BUKAN apa yang terjadi, bukan pada potongan-potongannya! Apalagi pada tanggal berapa hal itu terjadi!

Ketiga, selain "bagaimana" pertanyaan penting lainnya adalah "KENAPA." Apa saja faktor penyebab sebuah peristiwa bersejarah? Apa hukum atau logika atau hubungannya antara faktor² dan pelaku² sejarah itu? Apa mekanisme pembuat sejarah ini? Apa mekanisme ini masih ada di masa kini? Kalau sudah tak ada, kenapa bisa tak ada lagi? Apa artinya?

Keempat, selain "bagaimana" dan "kenapa" teruskan dengan "apa relevansinya di saat ini"? Misalnya, saat saya membaca sejarah SA dan SS, organisasi tukang pukulnya partai Nazi di Jerman, saya langsung teringat pada perkembangan organisasi radikal di Indonesia. Ketika saya membaca berita Korea Utara berhasil membuat bom atom sementara negara² lain hanya memberi sangsi, saya langsung teringat pada kenyataan pahit bahwa kalau Jerman diserbu di tahun 1934, tidak akan ada holocaust, tidak akan ada dominasi Uni Soviet di Eropa Timur. Artinya, balik ke kata²nya Santayana: JANGAN MAU mengulangi masa lalu yang begitu mengerikannya! 

Tapi, rasanya impian tinggal impian. 

Memberi pelajaran sejarah seperti yang baru saja saya jabarkan SULIT. 

Meneruskan pelajaran sejarah saat ini GAMPANG.

Kenapa gampang? Lah, sang guru sejarah tak perlu susah² memberikan narasi yang menarik ketika mengajar, tinggal membaca buku text di depan kelas. Tak perlu susah² putar otak ketika membuat ulangan, tinggal menghapus tanggal² dari buku text dan meminta para siswa mengisi tanggal² itu. Dan kitapun menciptakan siswa² yang cuma bisa menghapal, bukan menganalisa. Dan kitapun ber-tanya², kenapa bangsa kita miskin terus, kenapa tak maju-maju ...

Liu Bei and Other Overrated Legendary Characters

I am often bothered by some of the details of legendary epics. Below are three legendary characters from those epics that practically pissed me off ...

Zhao Min/Tio Beng

From: Louis Cha's Heaven Sword and Dragon Sabre

She is the "true love" of Zhang Wuji/Thio Bu Ki. I am pissed by her because she is the very definition of a traitor. Oh yeah, she betrayed her family, her nation, her culture for a man. My bullshit detector AUTOMATICALLY detected 2 double standards at the same time:

1) If a man do that, he would be reviled. You betray your own nation for a woman? LOW LIFE TRAITOR! His reputation won't be far from Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, Quisling, or Wang Jingwei. Really. But since it is a woman who do that for a man ... "AAAAAH, so romantic!" Bullshit.

2) If a Chinese do that, she would be reviled too. How dare you betray the glorious middle Kingdom, center of the universe! But since she is a Mongol who actually betray her nation for the Chinese, suddenly it is all okay. Bullshit again!

A traitor is a traitor. He/she maybe useful, but I won't trust him/her. Let alone making her the main love interest. That's why I really can't enjoy this last part of the condor trilogy as much as the previous 2 parts. 

Lauw Pie. From US Public Domain.

Liu Bei/Lauw Pie

From: Luo Guanzhong/Lo Kuan Chong's Romances of the Three Kingdoms

This legendary novel tried REALLY HARD making Liu Bei the nicest politician in the story. Many pointed out that Lauw Pie is the best emperor among his peers of that time. There is only 2 problems though ...

1) That claim is basically based on an ancient notion that an emperor was chosen because his father is an emperor, or at least he has some family ties with previous emperors. Not because he is the most qualified man in the country. Even the genius Zhuge Liang/Cukat Liang used this argument. Whenever he debated on the topic of the best emperor candidate, he always returned to this argument: "He has the surname Lauw, the surname of the Emperors of the Han Dynasty! Oh yeah, the imperial historians already approved that he really descended from the Han Dynasty! Even Cao Cao/Co Coh can't deny that!" I know I has to put this in context, that this happens 2000 years ago, when "meritocracy" is still limited to cabinet level, but seriously, it become tiresome when they repeat this argument for the 1000th time.

2) He is a hypocrite. Really. After sooo many times spouted about "filial duties" "Confucian ideals" "put the people first" yadda yadda yadda, he finally met his end because he invaded Sun Kwan, to avenge his sworn brother, Guan Yu/Kwan Kong. Oh by the way, Sun Kwan realized his mistakes, and tried EVERYTHING to appease Lauw Pie. But no. That is not good enough. All his ministers, and generals, Cukat Liang included, tried EVERYTHING to change his mind. No. Revenge was his priority, not the people, not the country. After several months (or years?) of preparation, and ignoring Sun Kwan's and his minister's pleas, he finally invaded Sun Kwan. And all ended in fire ...

Cao Cao/Co Coh on the other hand ... is a ruthless bastard. But at least he didn't pretend to be "Just, filial, and above all ... nice"! Sun Kwan was something in the middle. Not as ruthless as Co Coh, but far less hypocritical than Lauw Pie. Either one of them was the far superior emperor's candidate.

So tell me again why Lauw Pie is our best candidate for the emperor position? 

The purity test. From US Public Domain.

Rama

From: Valmiki's Ramayana

Okay, no more Chinese character bashing. This time it is the Indian's turn. Let's talk about RAMA, the main hero of the epic "Ramayana." He was forced to leave his kingdom with his wife, Sinta, and his younger brother Lakhsmana. During that exile, Rahvana the demon king kidnapped Sinta. He lead an army of monkeys (I kid you not) to rescue his wife. Long story short, he defeated Rahvana and his demonic army. But, that is not the end of the epic. He suspected that Sinta was raped by Rahvana, so he tested Sinta by ordering her to walk into the fire of purity.

WHAAAAAT??

Are you fuckin kiddin me? He asked Sinta, a woman without magical or fighting or any other battle skill, to resist the Demon King rape? If the Demon King REALLY forcefully raped her, it would be her fault? As a decent human being I AM DISGUSTED! "A wife that is raped by another man can be killed" is a very despicable moral ... who am I kidding, many men are obsessed with virginity, obsessed with thinking that their woman is their PROPERTY, of course this kind of thinking is not unusual. Yeah, but it is still disgusting. Rama never loves Sinta. He only loves his ego. His ego was HURT when another man "steal his property."  His ego is the priority. His ego has to be satisfied, he couldn't "lose face" accepting back "used goods". What a misogynist jerk!

No wonder that Lakshmana, and EVERY SINGLE MONKEY there were horrified. Heck, even the remaining demons were all appalled! Oh yeah, by the way, if Sinta is really raped by Rahvana and FAIL at that test ... that means THOUSANDS of his monkeys army died for nothing. If I were them, I would be VERY PISSED. Same case with the remaining demons who just lost their king over this Indian version of Helen of Troy. 

Boy, I really wished Lakshmana snapped and provoked the whole monkey and demon armies to actually ganged up on Rama, and teach him a lesson to respect female! That would be awesome!

Mexifornia & Multiculturalism

Mexifornia is a book by Victor Davis Hanson, a military history professor, about illegal immigration in California, published around a decade ago. Nevertheless, the immigration problem is even more relevant today, especially after immigration become a hot issue that reduce votes for Mitt Romney.

This book is about something even bigger: the validity of multiculturalism, the ideology which states that every culture is equal. This book argues that is not the case.

The Problems

According to common sense, Mexicans should adapt to American culture once they were in California. According to multiculturalism, that common sense is racist. California has to adapt to the Mexican culture too since both culture are equals. 

So, because of multiculturalism, the illegal immigrants children have to be taught both English and Spanish. They master neither of them. 

Because of multiculturalism, "cultural studies" popped out in Californian universities. They basically teach that Mexico is a victim of American imperialism, that white people are just blood-sucking imperialist, that current Mexican culture is equal with American culture.

So, is multiculturalism can solve the immigration problem? Hanson brought several important pointsregarding illegal immigration problems:

1) Most of the Mexican immigrants are not even "Hispanics." They are brown-colored Indians. (p. 42.)

2) Oh, no matter how rich those Indians are, they are still pariahs in Mexico because of their darker skin color. They enter America not really to get rich, but to get even. (p. 58.) 

3) Legal US Citizens from other states pay more than twice what illegal immigrants pay for their education. (pp. 79 - 80)

4) If California accommodates Mexican  culture, wouldn't it means it turns itself into Mexico? Changing California society into the society those immigrants escaped from doesn't sound helpful to them. (p. 92.)

5) Who are the victims of the illegal-aliens criminals? Most likely they are another illegal-aliens. (p. 125.)

Those problems are totally ignored by multiculturalism. 

The reason for that willful ignorance is the crux of the problem: multiculturalism itself is antithetical to the reality that a culture can be superior to others. In this case, American culture is better than the current culture of Mexico. Just pick ANY indicator. GDP, GDP growth, Human Development Index, Corruption Index, crime rate, etc.. All of them pointed out that Mexico is a far worse place to live. No wonder so many Mexicans tries to escape to USA! And no, this is not about geography. Baja and Florida Peninsula is very similar, but the former is a wasteland, while the latter is a multiracial settlement. (p. 94.) 

But multiculturalists will deny this. They actually will accuse anyone who say things like this as "racist." Excuse me, but some culture IS inherently racist. Just asks those Indians who are treated like pariahs. American culture who actually say "your status is decided by your money" can be said as "materialistic" or "shallow" or many other things, but NOT racist. It is your money that matters, not your skin color. Oh yeah, by the way, giving favorable access and discounts to high-level education BASED ON YOUR RACE sounds like the very definition of racism. Now, who are the racists again?

You got the point, the problems created by illegal immigration WILL NEVER be solved by multiculturalism. Heck, multiculturalism DEFINITELY will exacerbate them!

The Solutions

So what is the solution? Hanson offered 3 options:

A) Continue the open borders, but this time with total cultural assimilation

-> People can still get the cheap labor.

-> In 50 years, race will be irrelevant.

-> But the law will still be contradicted. An unforced law undermines the whole legal system.

B) Fortify the border to shut down illegal immigration. Or at least minimize it.

-> The end the cheap labors -> market value of every legal worker would increase.

-> No more unenforced immigration law.

-> Solve the problem in 20 - 30 years.

C) Option #A & #B at the same time.

-> Wage for every legal worker would increase even faster.

-> No more unenforced immigration law.

-> Solve the problem immediately!

Then there is of course the 4th possibility ...

D) Continue the multiculturalism education

-> Education quality will be reduced.

-> Crime will soar.

-> California become Mexifornia, and people will start moving out, just like they move out from Mexico.

Will USA avoid option #D? Maybe. Maybe not. We are talking about American politics here, who already become the butt of the political joke around the world.

Let me close this with the most important point in this book, from page 135:

"But that subjugation of race to culture is forever a fragile state, not a natural condition. Each day it erodes if not actively maintained. Race, chauvinism, ethnicity creep hourly back into social life if not battled by citizens of strength and vision. A few malicious people can undo the work of centuries."

Context, Language, and Holy Scripture

Another favorite argument from Bible or Quran or any other holy scripts apologist:

"We have to put everything in context."

Or in similar spirit:

"You got it wrong. That is not what it say in original language."

They argue that the "universal message" and "perfect moral code" in the scripture is so good that everyone can use it, as long as the context of each verses is correctly assessed. 

Oh, you want to talk about context? Yippee, sounds like fun!

1) Thou shall not kill! Thou shall not steal!

Remember the 10 Commandments? We have to put that in context. Just like the whole book, it is basically a screw-up moral guidance, omitting many important morals while disregard freedom of religion. But that is not all! The context of the #6 and #8 commandments is actually "Thou shall not kill fellow Israelis! Thou shall not steal from fellow Israelis!  So, if you put it in context, we shall not kill anyone who believe in God, but we have to fight EVERYONE who refuse to worship Him! Oh yeah, don't forget to loot them too!

Why the context is like that? Hey, this is 3 thousand years before our current time, people at that time are TRIBAL. They don't speak about humanities. Not yet. They speak about their small tribes in the Levant. Gary Blecher has a say about tribal mentality: "My tribe YAY! Your tribe BOO! As simple as that."

Oh yeah, don't forget, after giving the 10 Commandments, God ordered the Israelis to kill everyone in the promised land, and of course loot their lands, livestocks, etc. Actions speaks louder than words folks! Q.E.D., the context of the 10 commandment is "Those non-believers are sub-human!"

You see ... even your precious 10 commandments IS A TRAVESTY if you put it in context! You still want to put everything in context? I am all game!

2) What is the context?

You may argue that I put the 10 Commandments in the wrong context. Okay, what is the correct context? To know the correct context, you have to know the ancient language of that time, their daily life, the geo-political situation of that time, the Zeitgeist of that era, etc.. IF you know more about those things than me, than you can argue that my "context" is not that accurate. That means ... you have to be an ancient historian to exactly know the context. That means ... at least 4 years in college, studying all existing documents in all forms from that era.

What? I thought you said that your holy scripture is a universal moral guidance? How come it is UNIVERSAL if you have to be an ancient historian to know the context? Silly me, when we talk about religion, FAITH reigns supreme, LOGIC is tossed from the discussion from the beginning!

3) Another context: the history of the Scripture.

Bart D. Ehrman explained eloquently the history of the new Testament. Basically, it was copied BY HAND, and in many cases BY ILLITERATES. Is he kiddin me? No, he is serious. Since Christianity is a religion for the low class at its infant stages during the ancient Roman time, where literacy was defined as "able to write your own name," it was understandable that most of the people who copy its document were actually illiterate.

You see where this is going right? If you ask illiterates to copy a text, rampant omissions, errors, and redundancies were INEVITABLE! 

That is the context of the Bible. Every single chapters and words were copied for hundreds of years by illiterates. Only after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, experts started to do these important duty. So ... you expect me to be 100% sure that this text is IDENTICAL to the ORIGINAL one wrote by Paul, Peter, John etc.?

Oh, the Quran was better, but not much. You see, the Quran was COMPILED after the death of Muhammad SAW. Wait ... so ... you say that the people who compiled it were PERFECT and couldn't make a mistake? Sorry, as far as I know, in Islam, only Allah is perfect. Don't expect me to put those compilers above criticism.

4) What language again?

Oh, mistakes in copying is not the only context to doubt the authenticity of any historical script. There is a language barrier too. You see ... many of the texts written in ancient language. Everyone who master more than one language know that THERE IS NO PERFECT TRANSLATION! Even when the language is close, like English and German, when you translate it from one to the other, in many cases it is very tricky. Here I have to give credit to the Quran, since it insists to use Arabic!

But that open another problems. First, I can easily say that means God is not fair, since he favor the Arabs. Isn't that a cultural imperialism at its best? The people who were subjugated never felt it since they thought it is God's will. YAY, important note for all tyrant and dictator wannabe:used religion to subjugate and control people! It works! Wait a minute, they already did that repeatedly! Silly me.

Second, you may preserve the authenticity of the script, but in the end, the laymen, the mass has to translate it IN THEIR HEAD to get its message. That means, we have to master Arabic in order to get its LITERAL meaning perfectly. So ... you have to spend HOURS in learning a foreign language only to get the correct moral guidance? So ... what is so universal about this book again?


5) How they wrote it?
Fine, I suspend my disbelieve. I give modern translators the benefit of doubt that they PERFECTLY can translate it, just like modern translators translate English to German or to Mandarin perfectly. The problem is, many of those original texts written in scriptio continua, which means they didn't use spaces, and only used capital letters. Oh yeah, forget about comma, period, question mark, and exclamation mark too! Scriptio continua is literally continuous script, without any break.

ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDIN ME? Even modern English in scriptio continua, is troublesome! Ehrman gave an example: "GODISNOWHERE" It can be "God is nowhere." It can also be "God is now here." Which one is the case? And you used text like this for your moral guidance?

You see, when you start to put "everything in context" you open a Pandora box. That only open thousands of ways to criticize your holy scripture. The context often makes the verse invalid in our time, because OUR MODERN CONTEXT involve human rights, scientific progress, etc. You know, shit that God of the ancient time FORGET to write, so secular-humanist, philosophers, and other non-believers have to figure by themselves. Once you read it "in context," that means you actually FILTER your holy scripture. You know "Look, at that time genocide is normal, so God order His people to genocide, but today it is not acceptable anymore." Err ... that means you put that filter above the words of God. Hey, here is a think, forget your scripture, JUST USE YOUR FILTER as your moral guidance. That is what Deist, humanist, atheist, agnostic, and free-thinker do all the time!

"The context" prove that your holy scripture is a horrible moral guidance. Most likely it is not authentic. Definitely it is not universal. Don't like it? Blame your God who is a lousy writer since He forget to put coherence, human rights, and so many other important traits of a good moral guidance. Blame God who refused to write any of His scripts in universal language, understood by every humanbeings. I never created this mess, I only point it out.

Further reading:
Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman.

Bright Color Animals, Poison, and Apple Inc

A non-poisonous frog.
Taken from wikipedia

A poison dart frog

Aposematism

There is one simple wisdom about our environment: bright color animals are usually poisonous! The idea is, the color warns their predators wannabe: "If you eat me, you will die too!" And this is not a mere anecdote or superstition. It's a real biological phenomena called aposematism. Poison dart frog, coral snake, etc use this tactic to survive.

But, since this is an imperfect world, a freeloader is inevitable. Many other animals who are not poisonous at all, develop similar bright colors through evolution. This way they can keep many predators away without the need to produce any kind of poison. There is also a scientific term for that: Batesian mimicry. The 2 frogs on the picture are examples of aposematism & Batesian mimicry.

Note that those Batesian mimics does NOT want to be freeloaders. Evolution here is not about the choice of the freeloaders, since they can't choose the color of their skins. It is about the choice of their predators! It is the predators who choose to avoid bright frogs for example, making bright frogs thrive, regardless whether they really poisonous or not. 

Aposematism in Business world

Same thing happens in our consumer-capitalist world.

In the animal world, bright color indicates poison. In the capitalist world, high price indicates high quality. Of course it is reasonable to charge higher if you have better goods/services. But that makes people think that high price per se is equal with high quality! You know what I am talking right? The overprice shits they sell on infomercials, caviars, etc. Oh, I almost forget, the biggest offender here is APPLE INC. ! They sell overprice products that basically do more or less the same, or even less in comparison with their competitors like Microsoft, Asus, Google, HTC, etc.

First I thought people who buy Apple products REPEATEDLY are just dumb. How come Steve Jobs' overpriced handphone, tablet, and computers used by so many? 

But after second thought, they are not dumb. The ridiculously high price IS part of the charm. That way Apple can claim how "different" they are from other computer producers. That way its users can boast "See this overprice shit with Apple logo on it? Yeah baby, MY PARENTS BUY IT FOR ME, unlike your poor or stingy parents! LOSER!" It is like if those batesian mimics boasting how poisonous they are to their peers too? No no, actually it is like some predators boasting that they avoid some bright frogs. "See how smart I am? I know that is poisonous so I avoid it!" the problem is, they actually got duped. They avoid harmless frogs. They boast their own ignorance. Never mind, most important is, they can boast. Let them be happy.

So Apple fanboys are not idiots. They are just jerks. Certified jerks. And there is another difference too. In the animal world, only the predators influence the process of aposematism and Batesian mimicries. In our capitalist world, both the producers (preys) and consumers (predators) decide his process. So, in other words: Apple Inc. is not an accidental freeloaders. They consciously choose to be freeloaders. Hey, who can blame them, they only want to squeeze tons of money from their customers ... sorry my bad, from their fanboys and worshipers.

Steve Jobs is the best milker of all time. Let's see whether Tim Cook can milk people as good as good ol' Steve!

Female vs Male Shopping!

Image from the SLS Blogspot

Many male complains about how their girlfriend or wife love to shop. 

They are baffled, so they moans and groans, "Why women really obsessed to shop?" 

I think that is a misguided complain. Man also love to shop. If you throw me into a big book store with credit card that will be paid by God of Money, I will definitely spend HOURS there, and buy DOZENS of books!Fictions and non-fictions! Many male don't like books but love audio-equipment like speakers, amplifiers, and headphones. Give them the same credit card, and throw them into an Audio-equipment expo. They will spend hours there and act similar like a woman in a department store. Well not 100 % the same, because there are differences in how they shop and what.

1) General vs Specific

Female usually love to shop general stuffs. You know, stuffs that you can find ANYWHERE. Shoes, clothes, hats, etc. Pick any shopping mall or plaza, I bet at least half of it sell those stuffs.

Male on the other hand love to shop specific stuffs. You know, stuffs that you can find ONLY at specific shops which is not that common. Stuffls like books, computers, electronics, audio-equipments, cars etc. Pick any shopping mall or plaza, usually only some shops sell those stuffs. Except if you go to a specific mall that specialized in selling that specific stuffs. (Electronic mall, Computer mall, etc.)

2) Small vs Big

Remember again stuffs women love to buy, they are usually small stuffs. It is not that expensive, so female are able to buy TONS of them in one spree. And the size is usually small too! You can lift all the stuffs that you shop easily!

Remember again stuffs male love to buy, they are usually big & expensive stuffs. That's why male are able only to buy those stuffs monthly. Oh, many of those stuffs are also big and heavy too. I think books is the only exception to this trend because books are not that expensive and are not that big or heavy.

So males, don't be THAT grumpy when your girlfriend or wife shops. You love to shop too! You only love to do it differently ...

The Big Blue Fleet

One of the most memorable thing in the movie Red Cliff is the epic feeling that radiated from the silver screen when they show Cao Cao's battle fleet on Yangtze river. Warship after warship were pumped, covering the horizon like one big blanket, all ready for action, in battle formation! Hell yeah!

Hey Hollywood  why not emulate that? I have one candidate: the big blue fleet or the 3rd/5th fleet or as I call it in my previous writing, "the FUCK YEAH Fleet" during the second world war! Make a movie about their exploit in the 2nd world war! You can begin with the battle of Philippine Sea, and end it with the fight against Kamikazes off Okinawa! Or no, make it a trilogy. The first one is going to cover the Fifth Fleet under Spruance in the Battle of Philippine Sea/The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. The second part is going to portray the 3rd fleet under Halsey in the Battle for Leyte Gulf. The Last part is going to tell the story about the kamikazes attack off Okinawa, when Spruance starts the command, and Halsey relieve him. HOW COME NOBODY MAKE THIS MOVIE? Here are 4 reasons why it will be a fantastic movie:

1) The Size

At its peak, this fleet has 20 fleet carriers, 8 battleships, and several hundreds cruisers and destroyers. That means, they could swarmed ANY Japanese base with 1000 aircraft. Oh, since USA didn't have any massive base in Pacific at that time, they also created service squadrons, which were de facto mobile bases! They can be repaired, re-fueled, and re-supplied in any lagoon, gulf, or any other calm-water area on Pacific.

The Fuck Yeah Fleet in action!

The largest ship in the fleet, USS Iowa,
serviced by the service squadron.
Told ya  it was a mobile base.

To put into perspective, this fleet is the largest fleet EVER! No country at that time, can match the size ofthe big blue fleet. Not the British, not the Japanese, NONE! They can gather every single warship they had and they are still numerically AND qualitatively inferior in comparison with the Fuck Yeah Fleet! Oh, by the way, they are only FRACTION of the US Navy of that time. At that time, the 7th fleet actively supported MacArthur, and had more or less same size, although their ships is older and they only used the small and slow escort carriers instead of fleet carriers.

Now imagine, seeing the Pacific Ocean from a bird-view perspective ... then slowly all the badass warships appear on the screen. Slowly, we will apprehend the enormous scale of the fleet. Slowly, we will be aware that all of those ships cover the whole horizon ... and more! Imagine that happens in 3D!! No, even better ... in IMAX!! I'll pay the ticket TWICE for that epic scene alone!

2) The Message

Hey, Hollywood has created tons of money every time they make movie about America thumpin its chest. This movie will do that exactly! 

For those history-ignorant reader, do you know who the "Fuck Yeah Fleet" fightin? The nasty Japanese. You know, the one that is DESPISED by everyone in Pacific even until today? Yeah, the one responsible for "The rape of Nanking" and the one who systematically organized sex-slavery all across the Pacific. Heck, they even try to whitewash those history in their history book instead of admitting and regretting it! They, arguably, is even better choice for a villain than the Nazi Germany! It is a just war, a clear-cut war that had to be won, unlike controversial wars in Vietnam ... or Iraq. 

3) The Finance

Don't tell me you don't have enough money to finance this kind of movie. Unlike "Avatar," there is no need for you to create the world, we have lots of oceans. Oh, and since it is an "American chest-thumping" movie, you can ask the navy to finance at least part of it. And you can help the finance of USPS too! More about that later ...

4) The Title
Heck, I even have a PERFECT title for this flick! Just name it like the best book title I have ever heard: "Eagle Against The Sun"! Is it catchy? Of course! Is it symbolic.? Hell yeah! Is it badass? FUCK YEAH! 

That has been said, the movie is not without risk. I have some tips about the risks too.

Tip 1: Keep Michael Bay or anyone with same mentality from this movie!

Seriously, think to make the continuation of "Tora Tora Tora" instead of "Pearl Harbor." The point is, the history of the Big Blue Fleet is already KICK ASS, no need to create a bullshit love story as the core. Other than that, it is not only about "stuffs blowing up" it is also about history, about a fight that the United States has endured. Don't repeat the mistakes of Pearl Harbor, bullshitting everyone that the movie is about the historical event, only to focus on a love story between 3 fictional characters.

Tip 2: You can make it big or small.

If you want to make it big, make one of the admiral (Halsey, McCain, Spruance, Mitscher, Nimitz, etc.) as the main character. This will make the movie play in macro-level, just like Tora-Tora-Tora. But you can make it small too. Put a sailor in Halsey or Spruance flagship as the main character. That way you can juggle with small-personal scale and macro-scale if you need to. If you want to make it small, assume it is a parallel story to "The Pacific" NOT the continuation of "Pearl Harbor."

Tip 3: If you really insist to put a romantic story in it ...

... make it about the admiral or the sailor missed his wife/girlfriend, about they communicating via letters. That way you can promote USPS too, I heard nowadays they have financial problem. No need to put any kind of "taking your girlfriend in an illegal joyride" like in Pearl Harbor. It is even BETTER if you use ACTUAL letters for this part! Or maybe you can make the story about how admiral Halsey hate his wife if you choose to make him the main character.

Tip 4: PLEASE, make the Japanese speak Japanese!

This is the one thing that "Pearl Harbor" did right: the Japanese speak Japanese. It is not that difficult to find East-Asian movie stars who can speak Japanese, I really hope you don't screw this up!

I really hope someone can make this movie. Like I said, it will be a badass movie!