The Great Ashley Madison Hack

Dear Ashley Madison account owner:

Are you THAT stupid? You want to do those awful things secretly, and your next step is ... you give your identity to a company you never know personally? For good measure, you also declare your intention in that company´s website? I am 100% sure you deserve your current misery. Not only because you are an immoral arse, but also because you are that stupid.

Dear Ashley Madison owner, administrator, etc.:

Isn't it wonderful when people can't trust you anymore? Do you want to strangle those hackers who ruin that trust? Ah, that means you know how your clients SO feels about you. That is what we call empathy. That is what differentiate us from sociopath. That's why I can't help but smiling whenever I remember how this hack ruin your business. 

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!

Review: The Act of Killing

This is an imperfect world. Mass oppressions, mass murders, and genocides still happens until today. Hundreds, thousands, even millions were slaughtered for meaningless reason. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, racist Rwanda, racist Serbs, etc did that.

Decent people are always baffled by this, what kind of human beings were able to conduct such atrocities? How they deal with their empathy, their conscience? The movie maker Joshua Oppenheimer tried to somehow answer important questions like that with this documentary movie. 

The film started with an important disclaimer: unlike the Nazi Germany, or the Interhamwe militia in Rwanda, the perpetrators here were and still are the winners, people who have connections to the highest level of power in Indonesia. This is the movie about how some butchers from the 1960s "communist" massacres tried to create a movie to glorify their massacres. The movie focused especially on Anwar Congo, who before the massacre was a small-time movie theatre gangster (Preman in bahasa Indonesia).

The movie shows that those gangsters are so full of themselves. They proudly admit in front of camera how they enjoy those massacres, laughingly explained how they enjoy raping 14 years old "communist". Their pride is also extended to any other "gangster" activities, and even to the label "gangster"/preman itself. Many of them stated that the word preman came from the word "free man," people who are free, who want to do anything they like. Looks like that freedom includes freedom to threaten and extort some store owners in the market in front of a recording camera. Yes, they are THAT proud.

That pride even overcame their logic. In one scene, the gangsters re-enact the destruction of a communist village. The then-deputy of Sport Minister, Sakhyan Asmara come and lead the reenactment. After the shooting, he realized that such spectacle would impress the audience that the communists were the victims, and the gangsters were barbarous thugs. BUT, he also asked Oppenheimer NOT to delete that scene because "People need to know that Indonesians can be very furious when fighting against communist!"

That means this movie goes BEYOND the 1960s massacre. This is a documentary about Indonesia past and present gangster's culture. Oppenheimer asked Anwar Congo and his friends about "justice" and "truth." One of them said "truth is not always right, and justice is defined by the winner." As an Indonesian, I am sure there are millions who agree with this statement OR accept it as "unchangeable truth." This is exactly the reason why Indonesia will never become a developed country. Rule of law, human rights, and so many other civilized things are lower priorities in comparison with pride and personal fortune, they are SUBORDINATE to the existing gangster culture, and its acceptance by many Indonesians.

That alone make this movie fascinating, and there is one more important point here for me: the most important question is not about "justice" or the past. Not about whether those gangsters should be punished or not. For me, the future is far more important. That's why the biggest question is: 

"Can such atrocity happen again in Indonesia?" 
With such pride from doing it, with such glorification of previous atrocities, why not? And after second thought, I remember that the Shiah and the Ahmadis experienced similar atrocities TODAY. In essence, it is not the question "Can it happen again?" but "When will it stop?" At first, everything looks bleak. Looks like Indonesia is trapped in this appalling gangster culture. 

But, not all is lost. In the last part of the movie, Congo's empathy overcome his pride. He finally started to feel the pain of his victim after he played a communist sympathizer in one of the reenactment of the torture. We can clearly see from his eyes, from his body languages that the guilt finally manifested. Oppenheimer reminded him that he felt that EVEN THOUGH he knew that such torture is only a play, while all his victims knew their life would end shortly. Congo replied with "But I know Josh. I feel it." That scene alone give me hope that conscience exists, that such monstrosity is not acceptable, that Indonesia can overcome its gangster culture.

Nevertheless, it has to be stressed that looks like Anwar Congo is the exceptional case. His compatriots don't show any remorse or guilt. Indonesia still in the long way to reach "post-gangster culture" where rule of law & human rights are the norms, not mass murder & coercion.

Final verdict: 100/100. Thank you Joshua Oppenheimer, for sharing with the world the true face of Indonesia, for giving me hope that not all is lost. Let the world know the complete picture of Indonesia. Let Indonesians become aware of this atrocities and all madness that follows ...

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!

The Bible Screwed-Up Priorities

The Bible really screwed-up their priorities. Inside its 66 books it has a say about:

• How "unclean" women with period is! (Leviticus 15: 19-20) 
• Shaving (Leviticus 19:27)
• KEEP THOSE IMPERFECT-DISABLED PEOPLE FROM THE HOLY TEMPLE! (Leviticus 21:17 - 23)
• Prohibiting women from ball-squeezing (Deuteronomy 25:11)
• DONATE WELL OR DIE! (Acts 5) 
• Profanity (Ephesians 5:4) 
• There are still many ridiculous things that the Bible discusses and tries to regulate, but you get my point right?

While busy THREATENING everyone who does anything from that list in the wrong ways, the Bible never talk about:

Abolition of slavery 

Oh, I forgot, God repeatedly ordered the Israelis to enslave the non-believers! (Leviticus 25:44) Paul also ordered slaves to respect their master like man respect God! (Ephesians 6:5) And looks like Peter agreed with him! (1 Peter 2:18)  Silly me.

Freedom of religion 

Oh, I forgot, on the contrary, God repeatedly ordered His follower to BUTCHER Israelis who worship other God! (That's the main point of the book of Judges, Samuels, Kings, etc.) Silly me.

Prohibition of genocide

Oh, I forgot, on the contrary, God ordered the Israelis to KILL every single living being on any city they conquered! (That's the point of the whole book of Joshua, Judges, etc.) Heck, God even did a genocide himself! (The story of Noah.) Silly me.

And Christians still wonder why so many people think the Bible is a horrible moral guidance? Really? Are those Bible lovers THAT slow? 

n.b: check the Skeptic Annotated Bible for full analysis of every Bible verse.

Review of "Rurouni Kenshin"

KENSHIIIIIINN!!

Adapting a story from a book or a serial to the silver screen is tricky.

You really want to attract new fans, so sticking to the original source material is not the best option. Besides, you may alienate the original fans too, since they can be bored by the predictability of the movie.

At the same time, once you change too much, you infuriate the existing fans of the original. Sometimes you do this AND non-fans still hate the movie. Just ask the original fans of "Starship Trooper", "Dragon Ball" and "Avatar: The Last Airbender" and many people who don't have any clue about the original, AND dislike those movies.

You also need to be careful not to STRETCH the material. Just ask the die-hard Tolkien fans who cursed Peter Jackson thanks to "The Hobbit."

At the same time, you also can't over-compressed the material. That's why nobody even try to make the movie version of Silmarillion or the Bible.

So, based on that difficulty, I already gave 70 out of 100 for this movie. It basically compressed the first season, or "Tokyo Arc" of the Rurouni Kenshin anime & manga into a 2 hour movie, changing some details and sequences, but keep the main story essentially intact. Well done.

After that, let's compare it with the anime and manga to get the final verdict.

1) Music

The music is on par with the anime. It enhance each scene, and none sounds like out of place. Since it is a tie, I add 0 to the final score of this movie.

2) Takeda Kanryu

Holy hell, how come they turn the uninteresting drug dealer from the manga and anime to this fascinating character? In the movie, he is definitely the comic relief AND one of the Big Bad. Sounds like an oxymoron? Not for him. Really. He is so over-the-top, that I enjoy every single moment of his appearance! Heck, he even has 3 entourages that comically always follow him! Add 25 point for this superb change!

3) Sagara Sannosuke

The opposite is the movie version of Sagara Sannosuke. Whenever I saw Zanza in the manga or anime, I instantly think "Wow, what a brash, impulsive, and explosive person!" Not with this version. He looks trying SOOO hard to looks cool. Zzzz ... minus 10 points for this disappointing modification.

4) Saito Hajime/Goro Fujita

Saito here is a badass. Just like the manga and anime version, he looks cool even when he didn't do anything. The problem is, he really didn't do anything. Really. The writer made him do an action near the end, but frankly, Kenshin and Zanza can do just find without Saito there. Argh, how come you mess him like that? I am A BIG Saito fan, but now I am in the opinion that the movie will be better if he didn't show up in it. Minus 10 points for under-utilization of the best characther in the franchise.

5) Hittokiri Battousai/Himura Kenshin

For me, the movie version of Kenshin is superior to the anime & manga version. The manga version is a little bit too ... bipolar for me. One second he is the stupid, clumsy bum, another second he suddenly become a badass, then in the next scene he become a melancholic-emo. WTH? Yes, I know he SUPPOSED to mask his skill and his pain, but that is still too much. In my opinion, the movie version of Kenshin capture that conflict far more subtle and natural. Add 10 point for this improvement.

6) Kamiya Kaoru, Myojin Yahiko & Takani Megumi

I don't like Kaoru because she is the very definition of "Damsel in distress." She screams with tears ("KEEENNSHIIIIN!!"), and it almost always pissed me off. Yahiko & Megumi are OK. As characters, they are not annoying, but not really special. That said, the movie version of them is exactly the same with the anime & manga version. Not really special, but not bad either. In the end, they add/substract 0 points.

7) The action scenes

Is it just me or the movie sometimes has difficulty to decide whether they want to have a super-human fighting scene or a realistic one? Jin-E, and Sannosuke, move realistically, but it looks like Kenshin and Saito have mastered the art of defying gravity and inertia ... it is minor, but it is still disturbing. Substract 5 points for this inconsistency.

Final Verdict: 80 out of 100. It is a very good adaptation. If you are a big Rurouni Kenshin fan, it won't disappoint you. If you don't have any clue about it, this is a good summary & re-telling of the 1st season.

Amazing Quotes 27: The No Asshole Rule

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

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

-- page 29

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

-- page 31

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

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

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

-- page 67

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

-- page 77

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

-- page 82

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

-- page 118

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

Further reading:

Sutton's blog

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

Review: Sang Pencerah

SPOILER WARNING!!

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

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

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

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

Rinse and repeat.

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

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

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

WHAT??

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

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

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

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

My Question to God

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

"What question you want to ask to God?"

My question to God will be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More about God & Bibles:

Amazing Quotes about the Bible

Review of "Amos and Andrew"

After watching all the "circus" around 2012 US presidential election, where both sides threw "racist" accusation left and right, I was reminded of this vastly underrated comedy of error from the 1993: "Amos and Andrew."

Seriously, if you want to have basic knowledge about racism in USA, just watch this movie.

The movie is about a famous African-american professor and playwright, Andrew Sterling, who just moved to an island in New England. Very unfortunate of him, his white neighbor mistook him for a thief when they saw him set his stereo-set. They called the police, and a trigger-happy officer shot him. Repeatedly. The police realized their mistake later, but it was too late. So, they tried to cover it up. They made a deal with a petty criminal named Amos O'Dell, forced him to take Sterling's hostage. Meanwhile, the neighbors who started all this mess were pissed since they felt that they deserved MORE attention from the media, so they contact all major medias and started a national crisis. When a black-reverend friend of Sterling saw this, he lead an angry-black mob to the scene. Of course we all know this couldn't end well for anybody ...

First, the main casts & characters. Both Nicholas Cage who played Amos O'Dell and Samuel L. Jackson who played Andrew Sterling, put beautiful performances. Cage really used his "lazy bum" persona to maximum effect here, while Samuel L. Jackson showed that he can acts in role other than "a tough mothafucka" that become his image in all his well-known movies.

Second, the supporting casts and characters. The inept policemen really cracked me up whenever they were on screen. One of them even painted his face BLACK before "kicking some shit." So does the racist neighbors. And their dog. Aaaah, their adorable WHITE dog is so CUTE!!

Third, let's talk about racism. Unlike other movie that used racism as its theme, "Amos and Andrew" escaped the "all blacks are victims and many whites are racists" cliché.  It depicted racism from BOTH the whites and the blacks, and showed how racism imploded BOTH sides. Oh yeah, despite being a criminal, Amos O'Dell is actually THE LEAST racist important character in this movie, while on the other hand, Andrew Sterling is arguably one of the most racist. And that reverend friend of Sterling was a certified bigot-idiot who ALWAYS feels victimized. This is what I dislike from "racism" discourse in the US: many blacks react against racism from the whites with their own racism. Sometimes, whites even feel compelled to reverse their racism by doing "positive" racism. Just ask any blacks or whites who voted for Obama ONLY because of his skin color. This movie eloquently pointed out that both sides can be racist, and both sides would end in fire, sooner or later, if they keep it up.

Oh, one last thing. Ironically Samuel L. Jackson actually gave his vote for Obama ONLY because of the similarity of their skin color. Looks like he really forget this movie.

In the end, this movie never lost steam. It cracked one smart joke after another, from the beginning until the end. Kudos for that. A solid 95 out of 100. Watch it, especially if you want to know about racism in USA.

Resensi Buku "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism"

Saya sudah pernah menulis beberapa mitos yang dipercayai orang² kanan. Buku karangan Chang Ha-Joon ini menjelaskan BANYAK mitos mengenai ekonomi yang dipercayai orang² kanan. Berikut adalah 23 hal yang anda harus ketahui mengenai kapitalisme:

1) Tidak ada itu yang namanya pasar bebas.

2) Perusahaan sebaiknya tidak selalu dioperasikan demi kepentingan pemiliknya.

3) Kebanyakan orang di negara maju gajinya terlalu tinggi.

4) Mesin cuci itu lebih hebat pengaruhnya daripada internet.

5) Asumsikan yang terburuk dari orang lain, kau akan mendapatkan yang terburuk.

6) Stabilitas ekonomi makro tidak membuat ekonomi dunia stabil.

7) Kebijakan pro pasar bebas jarang menolong negara miskin.

8) Modal/kapital itu punya kewarganegaraan juga.

9) Kita masih hidup di era industri.

10) Standard hidup di Amerika Serikat bukan yang tertinggi di dunia.

11) Afrika tidak ditakdirkan untuk miskin.

12) Pemerintah bisa memilih pemenang.

13) "Trickle down effect" tidak bekerja.

14) Manager² di AS digaji terlalu tinggi.

15) Jiwa kewiraswastaan di negara miskin lebih tinggi daripada di negara kaya.

16) Kita tak cukup pintar untuk menyerahkan segalanya pada pasar bebas.

17) Pendidikan saja tidak cukup.

18) Apa yang baik untuk General Motors belum tentu baik untuk Amerika Serikat.

19) Kita masih hidup di era "Ekonomi terpimpin"

20) Persamaan kesempatan belum tentu adil.

21) Pemerintah yang besar membuat masyarakat lebih terbuka.

22) Pasar Finansial harus mengurangi efisiensinya.

23) Kebijakan ekonomi yang baik tidak membutuhkan ekonom.

Ini adalah buku yang baik untuk memperkenalkan ide² dasar ekonomi "non-kanan." Buku ini ideal untuk menjadi buku text "bagaimana cara mendebat ekonomi neo-liberal." Chang menjelaskan setiap point dengan detil, dengan contoh² kongkrit. 

Misalnya, ketika dia membahas #1 "Tidak ada itu yang namanya pasar bebas," dia menjelaskan bahwa semua yang kita sebut "pasar bebas" itu sebetulnya terbatas juga, masalahnya batasan²nya sudah begitu mengakar sampai² luput dari pandangan kita. Misalnya, pasar tenaga kerja kita dibatasi oleh UMUR. Semua negara maju sudah melarang "child labor," dan ekonom, politikus, dan usahawan paling kanan sekalipun takkan mengajukan argumen untuk "membebaskan pasar" dari "kekangan" batasan umur. 

Di #7, #12, #19, dan #21 Chang menunjuk bahwa kemajuan ekonomi Amerika Serikat, Jepang, Korea, Perancis, dan banyak negara lainnya bermula dari campur tangan pemerintah yang melindungi industri lokal dg subsidi, tarif, dan kredit murah. Sebaliknya, di #7 dan #11, Chang menunjuk banyak negara Afrika menjadi miskin karena mereka menggunakan kebijakan laissez-faire/neo-liberal. Hal serupa, to a lesser degree, terjadi di Amerika Latin.

Dst.

Bahasa yang digunakan buku ini juga tidak ber-belit², dan jargon² yg digunakan juga relatif mudah. Richard Feynman pernah bilang "Kamu tak bisa disebut mengerti sampai kamu bisa menjelaskannya pada seorang mahasiswa semester 1." Amin. Tidak seperti banyak buku yang ditulis untuk menunjukkan "kepintaran" penulisnya, buku ini mudah dibaca dan dimengerti. 


Buku ini amat disarankan untuk semua orang yang tertarik untuk memplajari ekonomi dan politik, baik dari spektrum kiri maupun kanan. Terutama untuk yang berada di kanan. Buku ini bisa membangunkan mereka dari mitos² mereka sendiri.

Homage to "Katyusha"

I already mentioned before, I have soft spot for Russian culture. That's why yesterday I was curious to find out about their folk song. I found the song called Катюша , or "Katyusha". 

Holy hell ... that is one of the most beautiful song I have ever heard.

But that is not all. I noticed that "Katyusha" is also the name of rocket artillery employed by the Russians during 2nd World War. I thought the name of this song was inspired by the artillery. Turned out it was the other way around. The artillery's name was inspired by this song, since this song was used during the "Great Patriotic War" firstly as a farewell song to the soldiers.

... I literally shed my tears of joy when I read that. That is simply the most beautiful facts about ANY song I have ever heard.

So, here is the song: 

And here is the lyrics:

Review of "The Lady"

If you have read anything about Burma/Myanmar from the media and hope that this movie will provide more information, keep your expectation low. Very low. Bottom-of-the-barrel low.

Let me summarized the movie in one sentence: innocent-pure-kind hearted-one dimensional Suu Kyi fight against power hungry-cruel-demonic-one dimensional military generals. Yes, this is a typical Hollywood flick. Pure "entertainment" complete with oversimplification and cheesiness.

The filmmakers did EVERY SINGLE TRICK to make Suu Kyi looks angelic, and the generals looks devilish. They showed how Suu Kyi's father singing Kumbaya with the minorities leaders, and Suu Kyi herself said "Democracy without the minorities is meaningless." Another example, when Suu Kyi waited the acceptance speech of her Noble peace prize, the evil military cut-off power to her house at the last minute to make sure she can't used her radio! When that scene started, I already sighed and muttered "please, oh please don't use this trick. Please ..."

Thanks to the film one-dimension portrayals, no wonder after the first 20 minutes, I started to see a halo on top of Michelle Yeoh's head, and some fire & brimstone when the generals gathered. I even convinced that the generals headquarter is located at Mount Doom.

Hey, why don't they mention the Panglong agreement? In that agreement, basically some minorities have the right to secede  from the Burmese state. Why they don't incorporate this important detail in Suu Kyi's struggle? Maybe because ... it will make the conflict not one-dimensional? Ah the horror of the higher dimensions ...

What else bothered me? Let's see ... other than the "love for her country," this movie is also focusing on the love story of Suu Kyi and her families. It could be interesting but since this is a one-dimension film, it became so cheesy that no cheese-based snacks was allowed in the theater. Add to the facts that I am aware of how it would end because I follow the development of Burma to some degree, there is no surprise at all. Zzzz ...

Final verdict: 50/100

It could be lower, but I am aware that for so many people who has no clue about Burma, this film could be very moving.

Top 10 Skyscrapers

I already poked fun to tons of "Bullshit Buildings," but let's make a more positive list. Here I will list my top 10 favorite skyscrapers. This totally depends on my taste on architecture, and has nothing to do with its utility. Some of them also were canceled or not yet built.

From: EnglishRussia

10) Ostankino Tower

Location: Moscow Russia

Built: 1963 - 1967

Pinnacle Height: 540 m

There are tons of sky-high tower. My personal favorite is Ostankino Tower in Moscow.

I have to admit, I am extremely biased when I choose this tower instead of other more popular towers like CN Towers. Hey, blame my soft-spot for anything Russian, but since this is a subjective list, of course my bias is the whole point. So, why not started it with this one?

Besides, despite its tallness, it is not too fat like Tokyo Skytree, or involving any extreme deviation from the straight-line nearby its top like the Kuala Lumpur Tower or Tianjin TV & Radio Tower. Oh yeah, I also dislike non-solidness, the mast-ness (Is that an existing English word?) of Tokyo Skytree and Canton Tower.

Ostankino Tower represent the best of the best of the towers, started this list at #10.

9) Burj Khalifa

Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Built: 2004 - 2010

Pinnacle Heigh: 830 m

Floor Area: 517.240 m²

Blame it to the publicity. Blame it to the media. Whatever. I like this extremely well-known skyscraper. I once criticized the Abraj-al-Bait as ugly, this skyscraper can be said at its anti-thesis.

You can feel the Arabian atmosphere permeated by its shape. Unlike the Abraj-al-Bait that basically shouts "HEY, I am the Arabian ripped-off of Big Ben!" this design screams originality.

If you view it from top, it is even cooler. Unlike most building here when you saw blocky shape from top, this sky scraper has tri-star shape, showing stability, beauty, and elegance at the same time.

Oh yeah, the spectacular Dubai fountain also located right in front of this giant. That adds another point for this building.

Originality, publicity, and the most spectacular music fountain secured the #9 position for Burj Khalifa.

8) Palace of the Soviets:

Location: Moscow, Russia

Built: Cancelled

Pinnacle Height: 495 m

Floor Area: ??

Despite all of the bullshitness of this building, I must admit that the design is awesome.

Yes, I am serious in putting one of the bullshit building in this list.

Why not? I already stated that every single building made to this list 100% by its aesthetic, not its utility. For the palace of the Soviets, it is not only tall, but also wide, large, and the statue on top of it adds grandeur to the already cool design. Even better, there is a large empty space in front of it, further enhancing its awesomeness. 

I can't help but wonder "Wow, if there is some miracle and they managed to erect this building, I will be awed when I stand in front of it and stare it with my own eyes."

For its grandeur, this bullshit building earned itself #8.

From: Bustler

7) Kingdom Tower

Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Built: Proposed

Pinnacle Height: 1.000 m

Floor Area: 319.000 m²

Holy hell, they really planned to build a 1 km tall building? I mean ... ONE KILOMETER TALL BUILDING? Shit just got real!

That alone clenched a position in this Top 10 list. But that is not all. Unlike the Abraj-al-Bait, the design of this tower is very sleek and modern.

It is also very simple. Sometimes, simple design just work. Hey, one reason why the Abraj-al-bait is ugly as hell is its nonsensical complexity.

What else could be said about this tall tower? Hmm ... ah, why give a shit, it is a goddamn 1 kilometer building! Height doesn't always translated into beauty but 1 kilometer of height is just too awesome to be ignored. Of course it deserves #7 position! NEXT!

From:
wikipedia

6) Empire State Building

Location: New York, USA

Built: 1930 - 1931

Pinnacle Height: 443 m

Floor Area: 208.879 m²

Unlike many other building here, this one was already known by all of us since our primary school time, I presume.  It is everywhere, it is one of the most iconic representation of the phrase "sky scraper" itself. This building already captivated my eyes when I read the word "sky scraper" for the first time, thus I am quite sentimental about this tower.

But sentimentality is not the only reason why this building was included in this list. The art-deco architecture here combined the blocky shape of the tower, and the sharpness of the antennae gracefully. 

This proportionally perfect skyscraper also impressed me with its intricacies, and symmetries. The fact that it looks like it had several blocks also added to its sophistication.

It is impossible not to put this classic and iconic building on this list, therefore the Empire State Building stand tall at #6.

From arkoudi.de

5) Ulmer Münster

Location: Ulm, Germany

Built: 1377 - 1890

Pinnacle Height: 161,5 m
I am not really into church and cathedral architecture. But I make an exception for this one. With good reasons.

It is tall, it is grand, it is antique, it is the Ulmer Münster, the tallest church in da world. Yes, in da world!

It is the pinnacle of all Gothic design. It is the pinnacle of cathedral architecture. It is the pinnacle of Germany Christendom.

And this is also the only building in this list that was built BEFORE the beginning of 20th century. You have to respect that!

Ulmer Münster contemplatively sitting at #5.

By Path2k6

4) John Hancock Center

Location: Chicago, USA

Built: 1965 - 1969

Pinnacle Height: 457 m

Floor Area: 260.126 m²
Like I said before, sometimes, a simple design is the aesthetically best design. John Hancock Center in Chicago is a fine example of it. It is just a "simple black block with 2 antennae" but this building is still really cool.

The simple "block" design gives the impression of firmness, stability, and solidity.

The simple "black" color gleams the aura of non-compromise, strength, and power.

The dual antennae strangely increase the size of the building, enhancing its aura enormously.

John Hancock Center utilizes simplicity at most, comfortably rests at #4.

By Calvin Teo

3) Parkview Square

Location: Singapore

Built: 1999 - 2002

Pinnacle Height: 144 m

Floor Area: 39.145 m²

Unlike other skycrapers listed here, this one is not even reached 150 m. But this is about aesthetic, not height. Height does not always translated into beauty.

This building really fascinated me because during my stay in Singapore, this building shine in extreme awesomeness in comparison with its surrounding. Its classiness put other bland Singaporean buildings into shame. Effortlessly. Totally. Undoubtedly.

That's why my view on Singapore's downtown always focuses on this specific classic building. The art deco and oriental combination of the design works extremely beautifully here.

Parkview Square is an oasis in the middle of the desert of blandness named "Singapore downtown," without any problem grabbed the #3 position.

From:
Foster&Partners

2) Russia Tower

Location: Moscow, Russia

Built: cancelled

Pinnacle Height: ca. 600 m

Floor Area: 520.800 m²

Why Russians have the habit of canceling very awesome buildings? 

Seriously, when I saw this building's sketch, it was love at first sight. It soars high to the sky, and the beam from the lamp on its roof amplify that impression even more! 

It also reminded me of the ancient pyramid, while at the same time permeates modernity. Russian style modernity? The soaring light also imbued this skyscraper with the majestic aura it deserves.

Oh yeah, finally, bonus point for being located in Russia, and has "Russia" in its name! You can't be more Russian than that!

Russia Tower, towering at #2.

And the best sky scraper is ...

By Mätes II

1) Jin Mao Tower

Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

Built: 1994 - 1998

Pinnacle Height: 420 m

Floor Area: 278.707 m²
It is tall, it is majestic, it is classic, it is totally Chinese. It is the Jin Mao Tower. With so many terrific buildings in this world, it is a tough job to get #1, but the Jin Mao Tower did it.

Just see that building. It invokes grandeur permeated by ancient Chinese pagodas. And amplify it with its size. 

What else? Let's see ... it's shape radiates the classical-oriental aura and its material produces modern feeling, enhancing both contradictory feeling. Sounds impossible, but that's why this building is the best-designed building in this world, aesthetically, in my opinion.

Jin Mao Tower somehow woven 2 impossible contradictory aura, got the pinnacle position at this list.

Sources:

Emporis

Skyscraperpage