Erm... long time no see, so hopefully absence makes the blog grow more interesting

Well, let me start with an apology for not writing in this blog for more than half a year. I hope you all forgive me and continue to read my random thoughts, rants and musings.

Unfortunately, I had exams, stressful A-level exams "on which [my] future depended". If I didn't get the grades necessary for my first choice university, I personally would have been very gutted. But my expectations of myself don't really matter in my family - it's those of my parents I had to worry about.

You see, I come from a very traditional chinese family - we have really chinese (birth)names unpronounceable to westerners, we stir fry all our food, and being the "child," I a) have ridiculously high expectations thrust upon me, and b) am not allowed to question my parents' opinions regardless of how unreasonable/unlogical/unthoughtful they are. Or at least, that's how they want their child to be. It was rather funny seeing them with my grandparents when we went back to Beijing in the summer; grandparents who are in a rather complicated and tenuous situation, who are on the edge of being senile and simply are too stubborn to be open to discussion. Having said that, I must admit that I'm pretty ambitious and don't mind other people having expectations of me - at least not if they are reasonable.

Nevertheless, it is sometimes seen almost as an unofficial competition between chinese families to see who's kid got the highest marks in their maths exam (as opposed to most well-rounded), who's child helps the most with chores (as opposed to being popular with peers), who's child has the highest salary (as opposed to happiest in their job). It's true that some people may simply ask out of interest and politeness, but the friendly interest and politeness is often masking a deeper spirit of "family honour," or one-upmanship.

On a happier note, it probably does good in the long run. I'm not sure how, but i'm sure that in the long run I will find out... :/

x

The simple, bare niceties

Isn't it nice when pepole trust you?

Yesterday, I was just entering the swimming pool and a lady on crutches handed me the keys to her mercedes (which was way out of view of the reception) and asked me to put a parking ticket on the windscreen. It made me feel warm and fuzzy inside, for a while. :)

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but if I was in her position, I would certainly take the annoyance of having to walk up a few stairs on crutches over the inconvenience of having one beast of a car stolen.

This lead me to think - is it:
a) my facial features simply emanate warmth and trust
or
b) she is extremely rich and buying mercs is like clothes shopping for her
or
c) she is just too nice
or
d) she has too much faith in the police.

Basically, I wouldn't trust a random teenager with my car (if I had one).

And what if she had asked someone who was willing to just drive her car away? I wouldn't trust the police to sort stuff out quickly - there's been an abandoned car with a spectacularly broken bumper a few blocks from my house and it's been there for at least half a week. My guess: it's been stolen and taken away for some drunken joyriding before being crashed into some wall. And half a week without a car would be really inconvenient, especially in crutches.

Still though - I take pride in the fact that I was trusted :D

x

Reach for the stars, follow your heart's desire

Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want, or what we deserve. I was talking to someone today about a goal which he completely deserved to attain, and would have done had he not been so modest about his unrecognised achievements.

It is also unfortunate that few people go out of their depth to look for the positive aspects of people, and instead, concentrate of what is given to them at face value. I speak as one of those arrogant people who are very willing to let others know of their achievements, at least when it matters. But it does annoy me when people who aren't so well acquainted with showing off miss out on what they deserve because others do not have the time or the courtesy to try them out.

It annoys me more when people who are confident, boastful and fake achieve certain goals at the expense of those who are less keen to get a one up on everyone else.

And finally, it annoys me when people are chosen or rewarded simply for being nice, even if their individual assests relevant to a task at hand are less valuable than those of a person who is simply unable to maintain a fake smile for the duration of a conversation. Of course, people are understandably attracted to nice people (in the generic sense), and in most circumstances, you don't want to be around someone who is not nice. However, I still don't think someone who is nicer at face value should attain a goal at the expense of a less overtly nice person who deserves it more.

Having said all that, I will freely admit that I'm a hypocrite who plays the game but resents doing so. When necessary, I have no trouble projecting a fake persona, and I will definately forgo some of my morals to get something that I really want, then feel bad afterwards. But this is the way the world / our society rolls, and if everyone does it (let's face it, most people do) and knows its wrong, what can be done?

x

Let it NOT snow!

I don't know about everyone else, but personally, my tolerance to snow is waning. It has caused me to miss 4 days of school and spend that time at home under the constant watch of my parentals. They refused to let me go out into the snow with a few friends and have a snowball fight, and this was their reasoning:

1. Its cold. I'll get ill.
2. I'll infect my mother
3. She won't be able to go to work at her new job
4. She'll get fired.

Personally, i think this was a tad selfish because I'm not sure you can fire people for being ill. However, you can fire people for deliberately not even making the effort to turn up to work because they are too busy disallowing their son access to the outside world...
I tried to convince her that a cup of Lemsip cures all, but this didn't go down too well. For some reason, she was led to believe by that statement that I wanted her to be ill.
The other thing that was really strange was that they said I should get some new hobbies, and allowed / encouraged me to go out for a run in the snow on Thursday :/

Anyway, the point I'm trying to get at in a roundabout way is that right now, I'm finding the snow really frustrating. It needs to go away.

It doesn't help that it also gets turned to ice overnight. Coming back from a sleepover (well, film night - does sleeping for about 1 hour count as a sleepover?), trekking up the small hill to my house was a mission and a half. I am proud to say I only stacked it once because a car drove out in front of me and stole the piece of dry ground I was going to walk on.

Recap: snow makes be feel bored, clumsy and annoyed. These are not good emotions to be feeling. Therefore, I'm sick of snow.

x

I'm dreaming of a white snow day, when my parents aren't in the house

It snowed today.

Perhaps its just me, but I really don't like the idea of heavy snowfall anymore, at least until my mother has enough compassion to allow me to go out despite there being a tiny chance that I might catch a cold and pass it on to her.

However, this problem could be avoided if there was a snow day for us at school, but the roads were sufficiently un-iced so that my parentals could happily drive to work and back. Grrrrr.....

Why are we (general British public) so bad at preparing. We knew several days in advance that a snow storm was on its way from Russia, yet failed to do anything about it! Only now are people doing some hardcore gritting of major roads. Why is it that this weather probably seems mild to most Baltic states, yet they somehow keep it up and running when Britain just gives up?

"We're not used to it" is hardly an excuse. For example, in Germany, heavy snowfall is hardly common, but most cars there have snow tyres. They also remember to put grit on their roads when they expect low temperatures / a snowstorm.

If only work, but not school, could have resumed as usual today. Then, I could have been out in the snow instead of morosely watching the snow in my back garden whilst listening to Bach.

x

Cook, Robot.

After having watched I, Robot with Will Smith and co, I classed the film under science fiction - something that wouldn't happen in a million years, or at least not anytime soon.

But after watching some Chinese cookery programme with my parentals, I found out that in China, they have developed some kind of robot that can cook 50 dishes, and can have a 3 course meal ready in half an hour. It was even featured on TV! But is this kind of technological advancement really a) necessary and b) beneficial?

So the immediate benefits I can see is that if you can't be bothered to cook, then have your pet robot do it for you, and probably even clean up the dishes. If you could have robots to do all the menial jobs such as cleaning and cooking, it might even sort out the alledged immigration "problem."

But are we at the beginning of some increadibly slippery slope? What if these robots, in the not-too-distant future could be made to replace skilled workers in professions such as medicine, mathematics, physiotherapy, banking, law and even adult services? This might not seem to be a problem at first - after all, labour can probably be re-directed and people could just sit at home all day and make money by using robots to do their work. But what about accountability?

If something goes wrong, e.g. you're at the physio and the physiotherapist massages your back a bit too roughly and it hurts. The following things happen:

1. Speak to the physiotherapist and explain the problem
   
2. Physiotherapist acknowledges the problem
3. Physiotherapist appologises and learns from their mistake

Alternatively:

1. Lodge a complaint
2. Practice manager acknowledges complaint
3. Practice manager reprimands physiotherapist

Basically, it is clear who is accountable, because humans, unlike machines, are capable of thinking.

Suppose we are in a world where robots have most of the jobs. In the same situation, a sequence of events might look like this:

• Patient speaks to robot physiotherapist, but robot cannot respond helpfully as it has only been programmed to give massages.
• Patient sues, but robot lawyers, a robot judge and a jury of robots cannot find who is accoutable.
• Patient cries and is left to deal with the problem.

Ok, the example is a little extreme, especially if there are measured to prevent a world as pictured in I, Robot. Indeed, accountability is only a problem if a great deal of jobs are taken by robots who cannot be controlled, in which case, introduction of robots into the market as household slaves could be a good idea. I, for one, could definately use a robot to ensure that chocolate brownies emerge from my oven instead of a hard slab of combusted flour.

x

"Hi, I hate you. How was your weekend?"

There are people who I like and who like me, people I don't like and who don't like me, and people who I'm not sure about.

The third category comprises of people who I just can't make my mind up about. Most of the time, we are friendly, but sometimes, there is a small suspicion that they have a problem with me. Of course, it is doubtful that anybody's personality is flawless, but surely it is better to let someone know about their faults so that they can either reflect and evaluate, or tell you to " go forth and multiply" in strong language, perhaps with violence for added effect.

Remaining silent has its obvious advantages. Most do not like to have their personality analysed and ripped apart, and most do not like to inform other people about their defects. After all, it is better to keep more friends than to make more enemies (or is it - perhaps a subject for discussion in another blog post). It can't be guarenteed that people will always see or consider your point. Consider the following senario:

Person A, "Hi, how was your weekend?"
Person B, "Just go away. You're so nosy. Either that or you're really egotistical and want me to ask about your weekend so you can brag about how fast you drove your new car."
A, "Just trying to be friendly. I won't make that mistake again."

(Pretend for argument's sake that A is egotistical and B doesn't like it)

I would doubt that these two characters (not based on real life people) would ever be friends again,
UNLESS...

A saw that B had a point, understood B, and was less nosy / egotistical in front of B. Likewise, if B thought about what he/she said, they could come to an understanding and be friends again.

But suppose that A and B after this conversation were enemies for the rest of their lives. They would probably avoid talking and would never even try understand the other person's opinion. At least if they were fake and friendly, they might have sustained a longer period of "friendship".

The key is understanding. And how are we to understand if people are fake? We mean well when we do not flaunt our opinions of others to their faces, but suppose any criticisms could be taken constructively and that both sides could learn. Then, they may better understand one another and come to an agreement - to like or to dislike the other person. I, for one, would rather know where I stand with somebody than be content with the fact that they respond politely to smalltalk.

x

Me, myself and I

I just want to clarify that I am in no way "against" Christianity or any sensible religion that teaches good morals. I am against a certain breed of Christians who believe that they are holier than everyone else and who think they have the right to judge the lives of others using their own lives as examples of how to lead the perfect life. This only includes 2 people so far.

Also, I'm not against judging, as long as it is impartial and based on views from both sides. In most of my posts, I display one sided arguments, but I do not "judge" people who hold an alternative view or criticise them for it. If someone a) has an opposing point of view with decent points and b) will try to understand my view, then I want to hear their view too.

To all blog readers - thanks very much for reading this blog, and please take no offence. If you disagree, please leave a comment.

xx

"And on the 6th day, God created man" - an unlikely story

It actually frightens me how creationism is making a comeback, so much that many science teachers are being forced to teach creationism as a real alternative instead of natural selection in school. For me, anti-evolutionaries, on the whole, are people who either do not know what evolution is, or who have very limited knowledge and cannot deal with the overwhelming amount of knowledge in support of evolution and natural selection.

Evolution is the accumulated change of a species until we arrive at a result that is different from the original being. Those who do not believe in evolution therefore do not believe in change. Look around you. Living things change - we can do it by breeding bacteria on a petri dish in the space of a week. Just because a singly human does not live long enough to see it with large animals does not mean it isn't there. Through years of selective breeding, scientists have developed new species of crops, e.g. Brussel sprouts from the bog standard cabbage. If you still think evolution doesn't exist, open your eyes!

However, simply realising that evolution is correct does not immediately refute creationism. Is it possible that God created the first life form and then left life to its own devices? Doubtful. People who do not understand science use the argument that the chance of life as we know it today spontaneously errupting from nothing is about the same as a hurricane passing through a scapyard and leaving behind a fully functional plane. By these odds, they argue that God must have put life on Earth because it is too improbable that life just evolved.

Let's actually apply some logical reasoning to the situation. Life, according to natural selection and evolution, did not just spontaneously appear in all its full glory as we know it today. Life's progression took many smaller steps, each of which, though still unlikely, makes the whole thing far more probable than life just appearing from nothing (as it suggests in Genesis). Furthermore, if life is so complex and improbable, doesn't that make an omniscient, omnipotent god far more improbable? In which case, who or what created God? And who or what created the creator of God? Then, who or what created the creator of the creator of God? To me, that doesn't make any sense. The only way out of it is to say that God is outside of time - and that he is a power that we cannot comprehend. If this is true, what makes ardent creationists so sure that God created life if they cannot understand him? How can they follow or belive in somehting they do not understand? At least those of us who are more logical actually understand the concept that we believe is correct.

Ah, but the answer is, of course, faith. Or rather, irrational belief in something for which you know there is little evidence to support. Don't get me wrong, faith is sometimes a good thing, but when the alternative is logical and comprehensive, but rely on pure faith. Because God says so? But remember that you don't understand him, so how do you know he wants you to have faith? Ah, i see, the answer, yet again, is faith. How silly.

Once again, I might appear to be "anti-Christian" but i do respect the views of other people if they have been thought through. What I do not respect is blind faith - belief in something without even thinking about it. If you can think logically and arrive at a different, but still valid conclusion, then ok, I'm waiting to hear your side of the argument. If you cannot think for yourself and need to rely on faith, then at least trust those with brains. After all, God gave us brains, if that's what you believe.

xx

Free as a bird?

Are we really free in today's world? Ok, some say that we have freedom to do what we want, as long as nothing too harmful comes out of it. Yet we are bound by so many rules and regulations that "freedom" needs to be redefined.

In British society today, we are told that we are free. But free to do what exactly? To buy a newspaper? To talk to other people about my opinions? To choose what clothes I wear?
Beyond that, i'm not really sure how free I am, I'm putting this down to labels. Suppose that I smoke, wear a hoddie with trousers that go round my knees, swear a lot and use "street" language, then people would label me a chav and I would belong to a group of people who are all labelled chavs. But then suppose I would start listening to Classic FM instead of KISS (for example), I would be no longer labelled a chav, both by chav friends and others. So in im own interests of staying within a group, I would not listen to Classic FM. In other words, I do not have the freedom to do what I want. (I am not saying that all chavs smoke, swear, and dress badly. If you are reading this and consider yourself a chav is reading this, don't be offended - its simply what the rest of the world thinks of you and you are free to make up your own mind about yourself).

Suppose now that I wanted a bit of everything and did everything according to my tastes and not what society / my cliques expects of me. Then I would not be part of any group, and would find it difficult to fit in and make connections based on the fact that I don't belong. So in this respect, we are not free to do what we choose, and everyone must hide their true personality or project a false one in order to "belong." (After all belonging to a group has secured our evolutionary survival thus far, but that is a topic for a another post...)

Is this a bad thing? I vote no. Staying in a group has its obvious advantages, and if you don't like being fake, then there are plenty of other groups to join. In my experience, most cliques are simply formed of people who share a common interest. And even if staying in a group means projecting a persona that is not how you view yourself, it is better than the alternative of being alone. After all, since when are we completely free to live and think?- our thoughts and actions are shaped by those around us. Why should be look for complete social freedom when we know it comes at too high a cost?

X

Here I am- deliver me! ................................... or not.

Why do some "hardcore" christians feel the need to pray in public, deliver "you're going to hell" speeches and shove unwanted flyers into hands of those innocently passsing by?

As an atheist, perhaps I am unable to understand the subtleties of religion, but I shall do by best. Through my understanding of the Christian religion, God is able to talk to eveyone and values everyone equally. God knows everything, including when you're praying and what you're praying about.

Yet some Christians believe that they have the right to judge the actions of others simply because they go round praying in public and trying to force their judgements those around them (evangelise their friends). Yet how would a Christian be able to judge others without being free of sin, as it states in the Bible? Of course, it is because they are holier than everyone else and because they believe they are like Christ. Maybe I would be wrong in calling this blasphemy, perhaps, "aspiring to be like a role model" is a better phrase...

Perhaps it is time for those Christians to take a leaf from the books of their supposedly less holy Christian peers and realise that they are not God, and that God, and the rest of the world, does not appreciate them trying to be God.

X