Being and Stay Single

Being single is not easy for anybody's social life. You know the routine, friends, relatives, even close families often think that they have the right to order every single people. Like usual, the order is ALWAYS masquerade as questions like "Where is your girl/boyfriend?" or "When will you marry?". You know, questions that were asked in passive-aggressive tone. Most single people will just shut their mouth even though they are pissed by those orders. Not me. I already prepared an elaborate answer that shut the hell up of everyone who dare to give me those "perfectly camouflaged" order.

Middle Spot

Folks, let me remind you of 2 facts:

1) A good relationship is INFINITELY BETTER than being single.

2) A bad relationship is INFINITELY WORSE than being single.

Society remembers the #1, this is one of the reason they keep nagging, demanding that all single people have to have relationship. At the same time, society know perfectly well but ignore or forget #2. This 2 polar opposite facts bring us to the conclusion:

Being single is located IN THE MIDDLE of the happiness curve.

And, what is so bad about being in the middle? I heard "everything have to be in moderation" is today's mantra for happiness? That is not all. This sweet spot in the middle is even sweeter than you thought! Usually that is enough to deter those pesky friends & families, but in case they still insist ...

Calmness is good

There is also the problem that arise from the dynamic nature of a relationship. Some relationship can turn from good to bad in a second. And, it is not only the "bad relationship" that hurts, the downward movement from good to bad is EVEN WORSE! Just ask people who have been through divorce. So, people who stay single by intent, avoid all those dramas. They consciously choose to live in the calmness of the middle spot, without any movement anywhere for awhile. That calmness actually enhances the happiness! The only thing that can disturb that calmness, that sea of tranquility, is the pesky-nagging friends and relatives. 

It is not that all single people must stay single, to defend the "calmness" forever. Single people can also decide to take a risk, and seek for "mr/mrs right" and finally have a good relationship. But it is THEIR decision when and how to do it, not their friends, not their family. And let's speak about family.

Family

Oh, you are their family so you think you have the right to covertly order them? You LOVE to give them a lot of "between the lines" to be read by anyone in your family that is still single? Let me ask you this question philosophical question: 

IS IT YOUR LIFE OR THEIR LIFE?! 

Ordering anyone to have romantic relationship is easy. Making any relationship works isn't. Unfortunately, those people who give the order are not the one who suffer once the relationship gone sour. Who do you think will receive the shits when they are forced to date or, heaven's forbid, marry someone they don't like only because of social pressure? Not you, not their family, it is THEY WHO SUFFER. 

A sensible strategy

Found this quote from Niall Horan shortly before I finished this
article..He got it right.

What? You said I am too pessimistic? I don't count the potential rewards of a good relationship? Screw that, society already screaming about those rewards ad nauseam with bullhorns. It is time to for me to scream back:

"HELLO, 50% of all marriages have ended in DIVORCE! Thinking about a relationship gone sour before it happens is not pessimistic, it is realistic and rational! Any risk manager will agree with me!"

It is the opposite, people who don't calculate that risk, even after being reminded, are the one who is ignorant, or delusional, or both. 

So, stop worrying! Being single and consciously choosing to stay single is actually a sensible risk-management strategy!


Bonus: The Oatmeal already pointed out similar phenomena about having children

My Dream Car

I am appalled. Whenever I asked most men about their ultimate dream car, most of them answer with sport cars. You know, like:

Lamborghini Aventador? Pff, too regular.

Ferrari F12Berlinetta? It looks like an asshole.

Porsche 911? Are you kiddin me? That car is smaller than my fist!

Aston Martin whatever? Too snobbish.

Bugatti Veyron? Zzzzz ... snore ...

Let me list the reasons why ANY sport car sucks in my city, Jakarta:

1) Maneuverability 

The streets in Jakarta are simply too crowded. That's why you have to be brave to drive in Jakarta whenever you want to move your car to the next lane in a traffic jam. No, don't even try to shout, or scream, or pushing your horn. It is just useless. You only need to hit your gas pedal whenever you see an opening, whatever your distance to the next cars Good luck trying to do that with your Aston Martin! I bet your heart would scream far whenever you think about it. Speaking about crowded streets ...

2) Speed

That means you can't drive faster than 25 kmph. Even in some special cases whenever the streets were empty, you would hit some speed-bumps or holes or even a simple uneven surface. That would damaged your chassis in a blink of an eye. Just imagine your Ferrari's chassis got hit from below by a sledgehammer or pneumatic drill REPEATEDLY. Here, use my tissue to clean-up your tears. You'll need it!

3) Flooding

Other than that, until today (2014) flooding is still a routine problem in Jakarta. Try to run through 0,5 meter flood with your Bugatti Veyron. Picture the moment when dirty-black-waters of Jakarta flooded the gas-guzzling engine of your Bugatti Veyron. Here, I still have more tissues!

4) Criminals

Oh, driving those expensive sport cars would also draw attention of many criminals. You know, carjacks, robbers armed with axe, even corrupt policemen. Picture the moment when you and your sport cars got robbed by one of those criminals. NOT MANLY AT ALL!! BTW, looks like even all my tissues can't help you any longer ...

5) Capacity

The most popular cars in Jakarta are family cars. You know, cars where you bring not only your wife and children, but also your bro's wife, and his children too! Try to put all of that in your Porsche. Unless your  and your bro's whole family are clown by profession, that is just simply impossible! What, your dream cars can't even be used to transport your family? Man, your dream car sucks!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That's why none of those cars can hold the candle for my favorite car: GAZ BTR-80.

What? You never heard that name before? That's because most men were too busy eating up all the hype for those USELESS sport cars. That's because most men forget that utility ALWAYS beats fashion. Substance ALWAYS beats style. Their ears become deaf whenever a true dream car, like mine, arrive. Here let me give you its picture:

Here, let me put some of its specs (from wikipedia):

Specifications
Weight	13.6 tonnes (15.0 tons)
Length	7.7 m (25.3 ft)
Width	2.9 m (9.5 ft)
Height	2.41 m (7.9 ft)
Crew	3 (+7 passengers)

Engine	diesel KamAZ-7403 260 hp (190 kW)

Speed	80-90 km/h (49.7–55.9 m/h) swim 10 km/h (6.2 m/h)

Now, let's check those problems that make any sport car sucks again, shall we?

1) Crowded street and maneuverability

No need for arguing, screaming, or horn-pushing. A slight glance from anyone will convince them to give you ANY space! It is either YOUR WAY or the HARD WAY.

2) Speed

Read #1. With BTR-80, you just hit your gas pedal, and you'll brake for no one. Speed bumps? Holes? Uneven roads? Who cares, you are driving an 8 wheel drive armored battle vehicle!

3) Flooding

If you read the specs above carefully, you'll notice that it has 10 kmph swimming speed. Yes, BTR-80  can swim. Yes, IT REALLY CAN SWIM. 

4) Criminals

What kind of criminal dare to touch a combat vehicle? A soon-dead criminal, that's who.

5) Capacity

See the specs above? It can drive 10 people inside. Since the space is huge, you can also bring your whole family AND both yours and theirs motorcycles for examples.

Plus, there is a big bonus for every dad who owns a BTR-80.

Just imagine, everytime you drive your son to their school, EVERYONE would be awed. "Mercedes S Class? BMW? Lexus? Rolls Royce? You still can't beat my dad's BTR-80!"

Here, use my tissue to wipe your manly tears from your manly eyes. You'll need it.

BTW, I guess some of you will argue that Hummer already doing everything in my list. Not really.  Are you and your Hummer brave enough to run THROUGH Jakarta's traffic jam? Can your hummer ignore Indonesian road holes? Can your Hummer swim, I mean CAN IT REALLY SWIM? Is Hummer criminalproof? Can your Hummer bring you and 9 of your friends/families? NO, NO, NO, NO, AND NO!! So screw your Hummer too!

QED: Objectively, my dream car can objectively kick any of your dream car's buttocks anytime, anywhere, especially in Jakarta. Unlike sport cars, for BTR-80, style isn't exist to mask the absence of substance. It is the opposite, it is its utility, its substance that creates, permeates, and radiates style, MANLY STYLE!

Addendum 13.09.2014: I really envy this guy. At the same time, guys like him are those who give me hope for the future of mankind!

5 Reasons to Learn Mandarin ... and My Comments

I already stated my reason why Mandarin is stupid. And again.

So, it is only proper to comment on people who learn Mandarin. No, not only to comment, but also to judge. 

1) Because you were born in People's Republic of China/Singapore/Taiwan
Congrats! You just win a jackpot! Unlike any other people YOU will learn Mandarin as your native language! I assume that cut downs the difficulty level AT LEAST 60%. I really hope you consider to scrap that writing system of yours. You know, your logogram writing system ...


2) Because they have fallen in love with it!

No contest.

There is no accounting for taste. These people usually are fascinated, fallen in love with Mandarin because the beauty of the logogram script, DESPITE knowing how difficult they are. I say, GO FOR IT! It is always refreshing, empowering, and comforting to do things that you love!! All the problems and difficulties become fun if you really fallen in love with the language.

Nevertheless, we have to remember, some of these people refuse to admit the difficulties in Mandarin. They just assume that everyone will fall in love in it like them, and consider the difficulties irrelevant.
Also, many people fall into some confirmation bias. They can and have fall out of love of Mandarin once they face the staggering problems, but they refuse to admit it! I still love it dammit, and I still enjoy this! NO IT IS NOT DIFFICULT!

So be really careful when you ask opinion from people who "love Mandarin".

3) Because it is important!

The importance of Mandarin is undeniable. So is the fact that our time, energy, and money are limited. If you really want to master Mandarin, you will wasted YEARS or even DECADES. That means, you can already master say ... Spanish and Russian if you use that time, energy and money you spend on learning Mandarin. That means although Mandarin is arguably the 2nd most important foreign language, your energy can be used to learn the 3rd and 4th most important one, with less frustration and with similar, or even more, benefit.

Oh by the way, isn't it more efficient and effective if it were the Chinese who learn English/French/any other non-logogram language? Just sayin here ...

And you can't be Chinese, even after you speak and write Mandarin fluently. Seriously. Even overseas Chinese (See reason #5) have problems to be considered "Chinese" by many mainland Chinese AFTER mastering Mandarin. If you are a caucasian or african or South Asians, or any other people that distinctively NOT CHINESE, you will be considered similar to a monkey that can play piano. You know,"Nice tricks there, but you will only marry my daughter OVER MY DEAD BODY!" mentality.

4) Because your parents order you! No, order is not strong enough. Because your parents FORCE YOU!

News flash: you are a victim of child abuse. Seriously. What kind of parents forced their children to memorize thousands and thousands of symbol? What kind of parents obligated their children to learn a language that causes a pain in the neck whenever we use its dictionary? The time, energy, and money can be used for other things like ... learning Spanish, Swahili, and MANY other foreign languages!

Usually parents do that because they underestimate Mandarin. Show them this article and the links. Hopefully that would enlighten them.

5) Because you are a "Chinese"! An overseas Chinese BUT STILL A CHINESE!

In "Bahasa Indonesia" there is a word that is hard to translate to English: "Bebal". Usually people translate it into "foolish". Nope, it is different. A foolish person is a person who can't learn. A "bebal" person is a person who REFUSE TO LEARN.

Until today, Chinese culture IS A "BEBAL" CULTURE!! Every other people on earth already realized using a symbol for every single word is very stupid. That's why centuries or even milennias ago they created alphabet/abjad/abugida/syllabary. How the Chinese react to this difficulty? Chinese are smart and clever, they surely notice this, right? Nope. They say how PROUD they are of their "3000 years history." They are proud because their "heavenly language" permeates a high culture, unlike the "stupid alphabets" from the non-Chinese aka barbarians.

Yeah right. Sounds like 3000 years of refusal to learn to me. 

Now, YOU as a "modern Chinese" want to perpetuate this monstrosity and smugness voluntarily? SERIOUSLY?! Are you high?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My tips: if you learn Mandarin because reason #3 - #5 and HAVE TO learn Mandarin, SKIP THE STUPID LOGOGRAM! Just learn the Hanyu Pinyin romanization and the spoken language. The tonal nature of Mandarin already poses a challenge. No need to compound it with memorizing symbols in thousands. If reading those logograms is an absolute necessity, you can learn it AFTER you master the speaking and the Hanyu Pinyin.

Oh by the way, I don't want to put "bebal" label on any culture. That's why I really hoped that China can change and ditch that terrible logogram. I assure you, more people will learn Chinese after that. I assure you too, native speakers will learn to write FASTER than ever! Move the study of logogram into "classical Chinese", to the hobbyists only domain. Spare us, laymen, the horror.


Further reading:
Don't Learn Mandarin
Why Chinese is so Damn Hard

ISIS, ISIL, IS, Whatever

Some thugs just use brutal methods to carve some territory for themselves. They are so brutal that even Al Qaeda denounces them. Naturally this development alarmed many. Even people outside the Middle East are afraid of the new flow of terrorists. Do these thugs have any chance? Nah, they have ZERO percent chance of succeeding AT LEAST for two reasons:

1) Air Power

First, their success is due to governments everywhere underestimating them. Or in case of Syria, too busy to fight other threats. They are successful because they move in small numbers, making big powers with air supremacy unable to find and pounce them from the sky. Not anymore. Their success has made them cocky, moving in big numbers, with banners waving, providing targets for any ground attack aircraft! The Iraqi government just buy 25 Su-25 Frogfoots to do just that. How can ISIS react to such fury unleashed by these gunships? How can they stop gunships, heavy bombers, and other modern military equipments, bought from Russia or other countries, from massacring their warriors? They have no chance. Just ask Saddam Hussein army, they know the taste of fighting open war against first rate power with aerial supremacy.

2) No Money No Honey
Second, their source of income are multiple, but ultimately rest on their ability to loot Iraq and Syria. Once the Russians etc crush ISIS army (see #1), no chance in hell they can have this kind of money again. Without money, no terror organization can survive. Just ask the communist parties and rebels around the world after the collapse of USSR. Just ask how dependent the jihad recruiters schools on foreign money. They will resort to local donation. Good luck convincing Muslims to donate after the spectacular "WE WILL DESTORY KA'BAH" proclamation.


Ultimately, ISIS will fail because they are just too abhorrent, too cruel, too barbaric, even for Al Qaeda taste. When you burn everything around, everybody will go beyond afraid. Everybody will hate you and stop you. Violently. Looks like such simple logic escapes the hotshots in ISIS.

Melissa Bachman and Hunting

US TV presenter, Melissa Bachmann posted her hunting photos in South Africa. Then, tons of people are screaming about that. Some in the comment section of any article about that even wish her dead. Thousands sign a petition to ban her from entering South Africa.

First, let me start with a disclaimer: I HATE HUNTING. I am not interested in shooting animals! I never, and will never ever hunt anything to spend my freetime!

How to pay the bill?

At the same time, I know that running a National Park is extremely difficult and expensive! Especially in Africa, where tons of heavily armed poachers roam freely. At the same time, millions live in abject poverty nearby the park. At the same time, local governments there ... okay, no need to say anything about them. That means, a national park in Africa is far more expensive and difficult to run than a national park in a 1st world country. The situation is of course a little bit better in South Africa, but it is definitely far worse in other poorer African countries like Tanzania, Kenya, etc.

That means, national parks in Africa needs to pay more bills. They need to buy, install, and maintain miles of fences. They need to hire, equip, and pay lots of park rangers with guns to deter poachers. In many (or all?) African countries, they can expect less helps from their government. The park needs every single cent they can get! And surprise, surprise, hunters pay thousands of Dollars for the hunt! Thousands of Dollars that can be used to pay their bills! Check this list from South Africa as an example of hunting fees: African Sky

Criticizing Melissa Bachman means deterring the hunters to hunt in general, specifically in Africa. Stopping those hunters from hunting means stopping thousands of Dollars cashflow to the national parks. That will make the conservation far more difficult than today's condition, to say the least.

Overcrowding
Then national parks also have overcrowding problems: too many animals inside the national park.

What? That sounds nuts, how come there are "too many endangered animals"? The problem is, national parks have limited space. Animals, especially big one, needs space to provide food and water for them, to provide roaming area, in general: to support them, that means the limited space of national park can only support limited numbers of animals. Small herbivores like antelope and warthog can be controlled by the carnivores, but what about a top predator like lion? Or enormous herbivore with no predator like elephants? Once they are comfortable (the goal of any national park) they will breed, their numbers will grow exponentially. Too many elephants will devastate the grass and trees, killing small birds and rodents, and start a domino effect on the ecology. Too many lions will devastate the herbivores, starting another domino effect. So, what is the solution?

Relocation -> Moving the surplus animals to other place. It is difficult and expensive. The animals can be stressed and die because of it. Plus, for some animals, there are not enough demand, i.e., no place to be relocated.
Contraception -> Limiting the number of birth. This is another method. It is not as difficult and expensive as relocation, but it only solve the problem in the long run. National parks need immediate solution to solve this problem right now!
The last option is of course killing the surplus animals. If you expect that every killing done by veterinarians, you can also expect that the park receive far more bills. If you expect the ranger to shot the animals, then we return to the initial problem, plus unlike hunters, park rangers don't pay the park for the kills.

That means, license hunting is a solution for overcrowding! Let those hunters kill the extra animals, designated by the park! That means hunting actually solve two problems with one shot!

No wonder the national park defends the hunters. Good!

Conclusion
In the end, it boils down to two options:
1) Stop the hunters, depraving the national park of the fund, and take from them one tool to solve overcrowding problem, therefore endangered the whole park, the whole ecosystem, and killed many animals.
2) Let them hunt and kill some animals, let them pay for what they have done, therefore supporting the park both financially and ecologically.

Yes, that means "animal lovers" have to choose between two evils, but that is just the facts. Life is not always easy, we have to take tough, difficult choice. C'est la vie.

Suggestion

Of course those options are the current option. I have the 3rd option, but this is the hardest one.

Here is my suggestion to "environmentalists" or "animal lovers" who love to equate those hunters with Lucifer: donate thousands of Dollars to replace them BEFORE you scream with a bullhorn. Not only now but routinely like the hunters do. Oh, you need to pay even more as a compensation for any overcrowding. Devising a cheap-humane solution for overcrowding will also be very helpful.

Oh, you can't because you don't have money? You don't know how to solve their problem? Then, SHUT UP, and stop obstructing the conservation! Yes, it is counter-intuitive to say that hunting may save more animals than animal lovers, but that is objectively what happens here since hunters pay the conservation bill, while environmentalists scream to stop them! 

What? You don't like people killing animals for fun? I thought protecting the animals is more important than our ego? The fact stands: those hunters pay for conservation and help them solving the overcrowding problem while the animal lovers work hard with love to stop the hunters! Hey, I got news for you: love alone doesn't pay the national park bills! Love alone doesn't solve the overcrowding problem! So sorry to point this out, so sorry to prove objectively that your hated "animal killers" actually help more than you do, but painful truth is far more useful than comfortable falsehood.

By the way, I am not surprised with this nonsense. Private ranches in Texas are the only hope for scimitar-horned-oryx survival. They got their money from the hunting licenses there. Guess what,they experienced this bullcrap. What can be a win-win condition between survival of a magnificent species and hunters is ruined by some holier-than-thou treehuggers. 


Last words, I think this quote is fitting to close this writing:
"The truth will set you free ... but first, it will make you miserable!"

Other article:
Elephant overcrowding problem
Lion overcrowding problem

Freedom and Responsibilities

After the US government shutdown, the fight between liberals and conservatives intensifies!

But seriously, they are not really different. Here, I will put 2 examples where both sides deep down is actually basically the same:

1) Example one: military conscription/Draft

Most Liberals-Hippies join Libertarians from the right in this case: SAY NO TO CONSCRIPTION! Say yes to 100 % volunteer army! Freedom from the military! Oh, by the way, have you noticed that none of these hippies want to join the military? Their idea about collective security is: "Let other die to protect this nation state! I can spit on the military all the day, while receiving no penalty for being a security parasite!"

2) Example two: universal health care

This time, most conservatives join Libertarians: SAY NO TO UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! Say yes to 100% free market & charity (read: voluntary) based health care! Freedom from socialism! Oh, by the way, have you noticed that none of them want to help fellow Americans in health related financial trouble? Their idea about health care is: "WHAT? I have to pay more so other can have the chance to survive horrible diseases? SCREW THEM, LET THEM DIE!"

Extra Example: The Libertarians!

And finally of course you also have the Libertarians who are the disciples of Ayn Rand, whose idea about humanity is "everyone is a an egotistical-heartless bastard. I am only better in the sense that I am aware of this fact." They logically cheer up deaths! Hey, more deaths means less OTHER heartless bastards, that means less competition, and more benefits for ME! MORE FREEDOM BABY!

So, AMERICANS, stop all the fighting! You are all jerks, speaking about freedoms while in essence you want to act as irresponsible as possible. So, let's sing kumbaya together and celebrate your jerkiness and irresponsibility! 

God Tropes, Video Games, and Other Stuffs

You know, there is a vast conspiracy to perpetuate the grip of religion among humanities. A conspiracy to strengthened the grip of the clergies. Video games are part of it.

God Tropes in Video Games

Listen to me, how many times you play video games where in the end we discover that God is exist in some form? How many video games concluded that there is no afterlife? No even worse, most video games actually is ABOUT the fight against or for God, and about the afterlife.

This is an evidence that video games conspire
against not only atheism, but also secularism!

Here, let me list some examples:

• In Asura's Wrath, not only we play as a Demigod, the existence of "Naraka" or "Hell" is an important plot point.
• In God of War, we fight Olympus Gods, and become God itself.
• In many, if not most, RPG games, we fight in a quest to fight a demon-God, or fulfill "destiny".
• Even worse, in Civilization V, the states actually CREATE religions! That means they 100% indoctrinate the player to support theocracy! Don't let the social policy "secularism" fools you, the state still build the shrines, temples, mosques, cathedrals, etc. Can you believe that, public assets is used to finance construction of religious centers?
• Some most recent popular video games doesn't address this issue at all. For example, God and afterlife is irrelevant in Call of Duty or Battlefield series. But don't let them fool you! Absence of evidence is not the same with evident of absence!

Those examples are only the tip of the iceberg. Q.E.D., the whole video game industry conspired to repressed atheism.

Whining

Okay, step back, what do you think about my writing? I bet you thing that is just plain RIDICULOUS or STUPID or BATSHIT INSANE, or all of that. 

I can hear you complain "DUDE, CONSPIRACY THEORY IS BULLSHIT!!"

I can also hear you complain "Dude, stop being a whiner."

Hell yeah!

I wrote that piece by emulating Anita Sarkeesian approach. You know, "Everything is patriarchy conspiracy to undermine women" approach. Or should I say "I am a hammer therefore everything else is a nail" approach. I just switch patriarchy with religion, and women with atheism. 

Dear Ms. Sarkeesian, stop it. You, basically, are WHINING that the patriarchy is repressing women. Your whining actually empowered one of the bad stereotype of woman: all women are whiners. This stereotype is strongly connected to the trope you discuss: women are weak therefore need to be saved by men.


Badass Women
Your whining actually distract the public from badass women. You know, women whom you should put more attention to, in comparison with video games. Women like Hawa Abdi from Somalia who faced gun touting Somali militias. Women like Lyudmila Pavlichenko from Russia, who terrorize her countrie's invaders with her snipe. Women like Rukhsana Kauser who actually turned the table on some misogynist terrorists who tried to brutalize her family.

Those badass women prove that women are strong, intelligent, and able to rescue men. You don't help changing social stigma of your gender with your Youtube whining. Please, stop it, for your cause's sake.

Oh, playing the video games yourself (not only posting other's "Let's Play" video), or AT LEAST give some attribution to the original creator, will also help your cause tremendously. Stop hurting your case further.

I Really Love to Master These Languages

Göthe once said something like: "Our world is limited by the language(s) we master."

Amen.

Sadly, nobody has the time, energy, intelligence, and money to master all languages on earth. Therefore, it is an unreachable goal. That's why we selected some languages, languages that are directly useful to us, languages that we love, or both.

There are languages that I really want to learn but after giving it second thought, I decided against it. Here they are, from the one that I most eager to learn to the least eager one. Three factors decide it: aesthetic, usefulness, and easiness. Note that aesthethic is very, very subjective. My taste may differ than yours. On the other hand, easiness is subjective because my native language is Indonesian. 

Latin

Aesthetic: 100/100
Usefulness: 40/100
Easiness: 50/100
Total: 190/300
This is the language of the Roman Empire, the parent language all Romance languages. There is this ... mythical aura, radiated from each Latin words & sentences. I think this is thanks to the fact that Latin is the language of classic literature, the language of many motto, the language of the most powerful empire in ancient Europe, etc. You sounds educated, sophisticated, and smart if you said anything in Latin!

Mastering this language means opening the gate of beauty from the classic literature, the writings of Cicero, Plutarch, Cassius Dio, etc. It is also the language of tons of early Christian documents.

Mastering this language also make learning all Romance languages easier. Those languages are used extensively in Meso and Latin America.

Unfortunately, only limited people use this language in their daily life. That's the only reason why I don't learn it.

I will learn it when: I have free time, money & energy

Esperanto

Aesthetic: 50/100
Usefulness: 20/100
Easiness: 100/100
Total: 170/300
Created in Poland in the beginning of 20th century, this language was designed to be as easy as possible, to be the universal language of the world. That's why this language is very easy!

But, its speakers are limited. No historical texts, literature, or anything written in Esperanto by its creator. This language in practice become a "geek language" just like Klingonese from Star Trek and Elvish from The Lord of The Ring.

I will learn it when: it was used as national language of at least 3 countries ... or one big country.

Japanese

Aesthetic: 70/100
Usefulness: 70/100
Easiness: 20/100
Total: 160/300
I think this is the the most popular foreign language after English and Mandarin. Probably more popular than Mandarin. Hey, this is the original language of manga and anime!  

But, in the end, I don't want to learn it. One of the thing that I hated most is formality. I prefer egalitarian culture and society. This language is ALL ABOUT FORMALITY! 

There are multiple Pronouns that indicate social position. They have different verbs to describe exactly the same activity. The different is in how they emphasize politeness differently. You can't ask "Have you seen my garden?" because it is not modest enough. You have to say "Have you glance my unworthy garden?" At the same time, I also can't say "I have seen your garden" because that is not polite! I have to say "I enjoy your beautiful garden." 

Nuts. Plain nuts.

I will learn it when: they use the Latin alphabet, and they throw away that freakin hierarchical rule.

From wikipedia user OldakQuill

Sanskrit

Aesthetic: 90/100
Usefulness: 30/100
Easiness: 10/100
Total: 130/300
This is the Vedic language, the language of Indian culture that spread to Southeast Asia. Just like Latin, it also has the mythical aura, thanks to its historic importance. Unfortunately, just like Latin too, nobody really use this language in today's everyday life.

Unfortunately, I heard that this language is designed to be AS HARD AS POSSIBLE to ensure the monopolization of knowledge in the hand of few, i.e. the Brahmanic caste. It doesn't use alphabet. Instead, it uses abugida where its vowels got special treatments. Okay ... that is not as easy as alphabet but it can be learned. Oh, It also uses complicated grammar. VERY complicated grammar. For starters, it doesn't have 6 grammatical cases like Russian, or 4 like German, or 1.5 like English, or 1 like Bahasa Indonesia and many Asian languages. No, no, no, it has EIGHT cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, and locative. Try to stomach that.

No thanks, better use my energy somewhere else.

I will learn it when: I need it to save my life.

Chinese/Mandarin

Aesthetic: 40/100
Usefulness: 70/100
Easiness: 0/100 ... no, actually it is -200/100.
Total: -90/100
This is the language of my ancestors. They said it shows the power of the Chinese culture. So, I should learn it right? Yeah, I should ... but ...

I gave up. Really. I already tried more than once, it is just TOO DAMN HARD! Oh, the fact that I DON'T LIKE HOW IT SOUNDS didn't help either.

Let me reiterate why it is so damn hard:

Because they use tone to differentiate their words.

People in other language used tone to convey EMOTION. To differentiate a statement with a question. To stress the importance of certain part of the sentence. Etc. Not the Chinese and many other tonal languages like Thai, Vietnamese, and many African languages. They use it to differentiate WORDS! If you mess the tone in Mandarin, you can mistake "mother" with "horse" for example. That would be hilarious in a sitcom. Not so if you are the one who make the mistake.

Because the script is just STUPID.
Actually stupid is an understatement for such monstrosity. Seriously, why we need to memorize at least THREE THOUSANDS different characters? How can you write a dictionary or do any kind of sorting with that script? How complicated is the Chinese typing procedure? How can you GUESS how it sounds if you encounter a character for the first time?
I heard Vietnamese is hard too because it is a tonal language like Chinese. But at least they have the common sense to use Latin alphabet!
Sanskrit don't use Latin alphabet, and they have more complicated rules to write their alphabets. But at least their alphabet is not in thousands!
Russian may have complicated grammar and strange-looking alphabet, but at least it is only 33 characters. After one intensive day you can master it and know exactly the sound of each word!

I learn it when: Hell freezes over.
It is an understatement, the chance of hell freezes over is HIGHER than the chance of the Chinese people admit that their logogram script is stupid.  Seriously, I am sure even the need to save my life can't enable me to learn this language.

Criticism of Religion & Racism

Civilized people agree that racism is wrong. Anyone who declare that another race(s) is greedy, stupid, weak, or any other negative label will look like a fool, or a jerk. Or both.

Nowadays, people try to equate all criticism of Islam with "Islamophobia." After that, they equate "Islamophobia" with racism. See how Sam Harris, because of his criticism of Islam, was accused of first Islamophobia, THAN racism. Heck, they even tried to put this in the UN! Repeatedly! Of course this is not only about Islam, some people from other religions also think that their critiques are some sort of racist.  All of this reminds me of the authoritarian dictator named Soeharto from Indonesia, who equate religion with race and class conflict in his SARA policy. That is the context of this discourse, an authoritarian effort to silence critics. A "Big Brother" style effort to censor, and squeeze freedom of speech.

So, why criticisms toward religions are totally different than racism? Why criticism of religion is a sine qua non of a free society?

1) Genetic vs culture

Race is a genetic fact. Your skin color is imprinted inside your DNA. Not even plastic operation can change that. Religion on the other hand is a set of believe. It is a matter of choice. Anyone can reject their old religion and pick a new one anytime.

2) Your religion is not God

God is by definition above criticism. But religion is not God. Religion is a system, an ideology that was BELIEVED that it was written by God, then written and maintained by mere mortals. A critic of religion is a critic to a HUMAN. Don't insult God by equate Him with your preachers or prophet. They are 2 different beings. Oh, what is this has to do with race again? Doubting the truth of some of this believe is racist? Get real! 

Yes, we know you were offended, but your rage
also offended us!

3) Do they have the balls to be criticized?

None make a prohibition to criticize Einstein theory of relativity.

None persecute who hate Picasso's work. 

How come? Because both of them are ballsy enough to be criticized. Because their admirers are sane. smart, mature, and ballsy enough to let others criticized those 2 maestros. They don't throw "RACIST" accusation whenever anyone criticized Picasso's painting or Einstein's relativity theory. The lack of courage to be criticized really put the claim that those religion represent an omnipotent-omnibenevolent-being into great doubt.

4) I am offended!

You know this cliche: "I am offended, therefore I have the right to burn, loot, maim, and kill!" Are you kiddin? Everybody get offended EVERYDAY! An offensive statement is not a racist statement per se. Those people who react against offensive statement with violence are just whiner. They actually proved the point that their religion is a religion of war, of violence. They also humiliate their own religion, making it look far more insecure than other religions. Yes, there are tons of trolls and idiots, who criticize solely with name-calling, ad hominem, and without any substance. Let them embarrass  themselves. No need to make any physical threat to them, let alone attack them with machete. Don't embarrass yourself or your religion.

5) All religions made mistakes
Do you notice that many religion actually REGULATE slavery? Some religion also ordered genocides. Now ... imagine if anyone who try to abolish slavery was attacked as "blasphemer" ... oh right, silly me, that happened all the time. 

So seriously, if that is still not clear enough let me spell it for you: religion IS NOT RACE!

Affirmative Action and Quotas in Germany

Germany rejects Affirmative action. Their parliament refuse to put women quota on German's companies. Hurra! i already pointed out that affirmative action is sexist, racist, wrong, and in the end benefit no one, not even the women or the minorities or whomever its target group. In fact, it denigrates those target groups, since it assumes they can't be successful without any forceful intervention from the government. 

That's why the Deutsche Welle article that reports it baffled me. Sorry, "report" is not a correct word. "Feminist propaganda" is more appropriate. So, let's get started! Here are 2 most important points in that article that really annoys me.

First, these sentences: 
"Pohl admits that a quota is senseless, because it would not do justice to women and may even create new injustices. "But as long as we have no other instrument to solve the inequalities that still exist, it is unfortunately the only instrument that will work.""

Huh? Those sentences contradict each other. The first one validated my opinion. But, this Pohl suddenly change his mind. It is like saying "Racism is morally wrong, and economically unsound. It costs the society not only its moral high ground, but also its money. But since it is acceptable and beneficial for the society, we will use it."

Now, let's talk about "instrument to get gender equality." Hey, here is an idea, what about letting the women prove their capability in the company that decide to hire them WITHOUT quota, WITHOUT affirmative action? I am 100% sure many women can kick ass, they will prove to the whole world that misogyny is just stupid, detrimental, and above all ... expensive.

Second, we have this gem:
"Critics claim a women's quota "promotes mediocrity" and represents "an economic risk for the company." Sociology professor Heather Hofmeister says this argument is an indication of open misogyny: one can't just say that the female half of the population is less capable than the male, and Germany's good economic shape cannot be explained by the fact that its companies are almost exclusively run by men.""

Okay, here Hofmeister is just being sexist. Or dishonest.

"Women's quota promotes mediocrity and represent an economic risk" NOT because of the assumption that "all women are less capable than man." That is simply a strawman attack.

Gender equality is about moving BEYOND gender dichotomy. It is an idea that an individual gender has nothing to do with their competence. It is an idea that meritocracy is supreme, far above gender dichotomy. 

Look, let's just get real about those management positions, shall we?
Many women are more capable than many men.
Many men also more capable than many women.
A woman quota will advantage less competent women over a more competent men. It is a form of sexism, discrimination against men, not eradication of racism. The possibility that an incompetent women will be accepted ONLY because of her XX chromosome escaped Hofmeister entirely. I thought we are all about gender equality? Silly me, many feminist, leftist, etc just want to discriminate male, and starting the matriarch.

Let's just stop discriminating anyone just because she got a vagina. Don't start discriminate anyone just because he got a penis. Why it is so hard and complicated? Oh yeah, because according to many people, equality is not the issue. DOMINATION is actually the issue. Because according to certain ideology, two wrongs makes a right, and women has the right to dominate men. Silly me.

Three Reasons to Hate Asterix

I read all kind of comics. My top 10 comics consists of Japanese Manga , American superheroes, and Franco-Belgian comics. As long as it is a good read, I'd give my thumbs up!

There is this one very famous Franco-Belgian comics; on par with Tintin, Spirou & Fantasio, and the Smurfs; the comic that no matter how hard I tried to love it, I still hate it until today: Asterix by Goscinny and Uderzo. At first, I couldn't pointed out why exactly I hate that comic. Fortunately, now I can. So, let's get started, these are 3 main reasons why I hate this comic ....

Oh yeah, one last thing, there are still many small details of this comic that annoys me. I only list these 3 because they are the primary reasons.

1) No danger, no suspense

For those who have no idea about Asterix, basically this is a comic about a Celtic village in ancient France during the late Roman Republic. After the Roman Republic crushed the last Celtic resistant in the battle of Alesia to be more precise. This village managed to defy Roman rule due to the magic potion created by their resident druid, Panoramix/Getafix. The magic potion basically makes its user temporarily super-strong, super-fast, and invulnerable. Asterix sidekick, Obelix, has no need to drink that potion, because he drank the whole cauldron when he was very small, so he permanently has those superpowers. And ... everything went downhill after that.

Seriously, if you were a member of a village of supermen, with enemies armed only with spears and swords, life is not hard at all. This is one tricky part of writing a superhero story. If the superpower is too powerful, you take out all the suspense from it! You don't care anymore, since the enemy pose ZERO threat to the hero!  Every single Asterix comic book, I must emphasize here: EVERY SINGLE ONE, full with Asterix and Obelix sending Roman soldiers flying with their fist, while Roman swords, arrows, and spears can't even scratch their skin. It get's old quite fast. After 2 books, I start to snore. It is like reading a story about an expert ninja, master of illusion , hand-to-hand combat, projectile throwing, magic, and all other ninja stuffs, veteran of fighting against anything from the most vicious warlords to demon hordes ... only to fight a gang of primary-school bullies who cries whenever they see blood. In the end, the ninja won, and beat every single bully of the story. Boo-hoo, what a surprise! And this happens THROUGHOUT the series! I don't know about you, but I just can't stand the boredom.

And boredom is not the only thing that those magic potion created.

2) They are just a group of bullies.

After sometime, I also realize that they had gone too far in describing the relationship between Asterix and the Romans. Just like the writers of "Tom & Jerry" and "Bugs Bunny," which I despise wholeheartedly, they turn the victim into bullies. They repeatedly BEAT UP ANY ROMAN ARMY THEY MET, often without provocation, often definitely not out of self-defense, but for petty excuses.

If that is not bullying, I don't know what is.

Once again "It is cute and funny if the bully is the underdog (People from small village fighting against the Roman Legions.)." 

No it is not. Bullying is bullying, and disgusting.as hell.

And as my #1 pointed out, they are NOT the underdogs. Their superpower took out that status since book #1. Underdog or not, they are plain and simple bullies.

3) Because their enemies are stupid
Both #1 & #2 are reinforced by the stupidity of the Romans. Seriously, if I were the Romans, I would poison the village with the most lethal poison available. Just poison their wine or food before the feast that routinely done. Once everyone is dead, the Romans can turn the village into anything they like.

Or just poison Obelix and Panoramix. Without them, no superpower. Without any superpower, wiping out the village with conventional means would be a cakewalk.

Or what about this, kidnap Falbala, the girl that Obelix (and Asterix to lesser degree) has crush on, so Asterix & Obelix rush to save her, while Panoramix is attending one of the druid meeting. Crush the village during the window time when those 3 are not in the village. If they kept spare magic potion, make sure they waste it using feign attack(s). After finishing the village, than eliminate the 3 survivors one by one. THAT is what we call "defeat in detail" ladies and gentlemen!

Bottom line: There are SOO MANY other methods to neutralize the village, but did the Roman tries? Nope, because they are all stupid. 


So, in essence, it is excruciatingly hard to LIKE a comic whose heroes are just mega-powerful bullies, and the antagonists are not that bright.

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.