The Paradox of the Insulting Comment

A furore erupted over two MP's period (literally) joke at women. They were, accordingly, branded sexists and were demanded to apologize.



I find it amusing, considering that there are tons of jokes poking fun at males too (Think: Why was Moses lost for 40 years? Because he was too dumb to ask for directions). Okay, that's insulting. Insulting our intelligence. I don't see any men's rights groups shouting "sexism" to high heaven.



So, in a sense, our deputy prime minister Najib is right when he says they should not be taken seriously. Because seriously, it was just a pun. It might've been said maliciously, but then people (usually females) tell the Moses joke maliciously too.



Yes, I defend them here, and think this whole thing is a lot over nothing.



But the irony here is evident. Jokes (as long as they are humorous) insulting women are fine. They should not be taken seriously.



On the other hand, I don't think those two MPs could have survived long if they had poked fun at, say, the Prophet Muhammad. Or his wife(s).



No, not even if it was a joke.



They would've been sacked before you could even say "Barisan Nasional", and I don't need to explain why the hypocrisy is so evident here.



You can make a joke insulting women in general (or men, for that matter). But no, any joke "defaming" Islam or anything related to it is not tolerated in our blessed country. Not even if it was...a joke.



For that matter: A joke by a US senator poking fun at Malaysian women would have the entire government up in arms. Etc. etc.



Sometimes, our country doesn't make sense.



Or perhaps I'm just crazy.

Tales of the Abyss

Abyss is the first game I've played in the rather long Tales Of (Insert Name of Game here) series, kindly lent to me by a friend.



It's an RPG, and you can tell straight away what's the story going to be like. For the initiated, the basic formula goes like this:

• Normal guy gets thrown into the midst of a huge conspiracy.
• Normal guy- now the protagonist- sets off to save the world with a motley crew of characters.
• Protagonist makes some mistakes, and attempts to find redemption.
• Gets the girl, and saves the world.

I've pretty much outlined the basic plot of Abyss here, and from the face of it, it's nothing remarkable. Truly, the story isn't that good. And the characters are, way way, too RPGish.



Alas, I'm a little too harsh here. It has its moments, and it kept me entertained. At least, the battle system did. It's not the usual turn-based, hands off RPG fights here, it's a system with combos and various moves that require you to tap your buttons. A lot.

Graphics wise, it's nothing too remarkable, bordering on cel-shading (but it's not). Quite colourful, but often rather blocky. The cut-scenes tend to be very choppy as well; sometimes you have no idea what's going on.



Storywise...well, you know, it follows formula. Mostly, it's about the antagonists trying to free the world from the "Score", something that tells everything that will happen from the beginning to the end of the world. Their reason? Because they want free will.



Okay, despite the two-bit philosophizing, it still managed to keep me interested. It might be terribly unoriginal and not-too-great a game, but it was fun enough. At least, fun enough for me to want to complete it.



Oh yeah, the average time in completing this game runs to about 60 hours. Loooong. Me, I just skipped one or two boring sidequests and clocked in at 45 hours. Still quite long, since I finished FFX in around 30 hours.



Yay, another RPG completed. Heh.

Rurouni Kenshin- Reminiscence

Reminiscence, a prequel OVA (of sorts) to the Rurouni Kenshin series (a.k.a. Samurai X) happens to be one of the highest rated animes of all time. AnimeNfo has it ranked at the No. 1 spot (for quite some time now).



Is it a surprise then, that I find it to be one of the most overrated? Never mind the high ratings and the fawning reviews. I think Reminiscence has its fair share of flaws.



But first the good things about it, or why it is rated so highly: It's visually brilliant. Animation wise, it's exceptional and probably the most beautiful anime I have seen yet. Then again, it's easy to put so much concentration into this series since it's quite short.



Character development is a plus here too. I found that the main characters were developed quite well (considering the short time). The music is quite nice too. If not a little too dramatic, at times.



And what of the story? Plotwise, it has its moments. But overall, one can't help but feel how unoriginal (or perhaps, unremarkable) this whole thing is. I won't reveal the plot, but suffice to say it uses a lot of overused story elements.

This is not bad if you can make good use out of those cliched formulas. But the show in a sense struggles to do so- at times it succeeds, at others it just sinks into formula.



A few other notes: Lots of graphic violence here, certainly more graphic than the other Rurouni Kenshin series. As for swordfights, don't expect any elaborate ones (including all sorts of esoteric fight moves we've come to see from that other series). That said, it has its fair share of battles. I must say, it's not that bad. But it could've been better.



Oh yes, and there's a convoluted romance. Supposedly to make it more interesting. All it does is to make it a little more complicating, as one tries to figure out who loves who (and hates who).



And while Reminiscence is good, it is not that good.

Certainty, In Relation to Christianity- Part One: The Problem Stated

There are many interpretations for a single fact. E.g.:



You hear a loud bang.



It could be: a. Something big dropped. b. A gunshot c. Thunder d. A bomb exploding



Here, most would pick a. for the reason that it is most likely. That is often the case, in terms of probabilities. But that is merely an interpretation (i.e. saying that something big dropped as an explanation for a loud noise would not constitute objective validated truth). It might just as be that it was a gunshot, or a bomb exploding.

Take a verse from the Bible; say, from the one of the Pauline epistles:



So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.



This is from Romans 9:18. The Apostle Paul in turn, refers to Exodus 7:3 (as well as other similar verses) that refer to the Lord hardening Pharaoh's heart. Interpretations vary at this point, most of them centering upon whether the "hardening" referred to here is caused by God or by Pharaoh himself (in which God let him harden his heart as interpreted; see Exodus 8:15,32).



A few issues are faced here: First with an apparent logical contradiction (who hardened whose heart?), and a theological problem (does this not go against free will?).



An exegetical analysis is not my purpose here; rather, it is to bring to attention the varied interpretations that a single verse (among others) can bring. The interpreters come from different hermeneutical backgrounds (e.g. liberal, conservative) as well as theological backgrounds (case in point: Calvinists and Arminians).



Thus we see different paradigms altogether (very often contradictory), each obviously claiming to have the right, better or preferred interpretation to any given passage from scripture.

A problem is presented here, inasmuch as to who is right in their interpretation. Surely, one side would have the right answer. The tricky part here is knowing who and what is right.



Certainty, in all regards, remains a little elusive.



Historically this has presented a major (if not the) major problem to Christianity and ecumenical unity in so far as each individual (and groups of) Christians would have their own opinion and interpretation of what they think the Bible says.



This has been a problem since the Early Church, as documented in the scriptures themselves: we have had the Gnostics and Judaizers. A little further in history, we have the Arians, Marcions and what not. The Church Fathers as well, revered as the beacons of orthodoxy they were, were not spared from dissent (including their own differing opinions on scriptural interpretation).



Many solutions have been given: Roman Catholicism offers uniformity, supposedly an evidence that they are the one true unchanging church. Yet such uniformity is questionable, as the Catholic body of doctrine was very much changing throughout the years, with novel doctrines added continuously.



Apparently, the faith that was "once for all" delivered to the saints hasn't been kept that properly.



The scriptures offer no such guarantee of complete certainty. At least, not anymore than it is guaranteed that a Christian would be absolutely spared from evil and suffering. A question is asked here: Why would God allow such a thing to his precious Church?



This in essence is a rephrasing of the problem of evil, in which I do not intend to tackle in depth here. A common theme runs through (most) theodicies offered: That is, God has a higher benevolent purpose in allowing such. And one would suppose that answer is applicable to such a question.



There are other approaches at the other end. One example would be the Emergent Conversation, with (some would say) postmodernism as its guiding framework. A better way to state it is that it "has in mind" postmodernism when it approaches questions of truth and certainty.



What would be their response to the problem of certainty (or uncertainty, to frame it in other words)? The reality of such a fact is embraced, and accepted, which is commendable (but to qualify such by adding: to a certain extent). Thus, theology as such becomes not rather a stagnant, unchangeable, unquestionable body of ideas. Rather, it is "organic", changing (depending upon the context of the individual).



As such, absolutism is regarded as undesirable, and an "inclusive" approach to truth is held. Hence, a more practical approach to Church is followed, where claims to absolute truth in the sense of classic expositional, exegetical preaching and teaching has lesser salience, if any at all.



I have so far sketched the problem, and outlined a few what I consider improper answers (this is not to say that they are totally undesirable; on the contrary, there is much that we may learn and adopt from the differing perspectives).



In the next part I hope to lay out what I think to be a possible solution, that avoids the forced "certainty" of Catholicism and the embrace of the reality of uncertainty (not necessarily bad) which leads to a diminished regard of exegesis and exposition in the context of church worship (bad).



Feel free to comment or criticize on where I have gone wrong and misrepresented or missed out some things.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Much has been made about the movie's confusing plot. Truth be told, it's pretty simple. You just have to keep in mind who is on whose side, what they are actually after at the moment, and who is actually...who. Sides get switched a lot of times here. Yeah. Confusing.



But Pirates 3 doesn't lack in any department (in regards to the last two movies), and continues upon nicely upon the formula followed by the first two movies. In this respect, if you enjoyed Pirates 1 & 2, you'll certainly love this installment.



As always, we have swordfights, ships, and sappy romance(s). Which is why Pirates is an unexceptional movie. Of course, that can't be said of it in the visual effects department, which is exhilarating enough.



Then again, the movies has always been about eye candy and, of course, Jack Sparrow. It's rather long too. So expect lots of draggy scenes. Which is unnecessary. Pirates has always been only about the action and the occasional one liner.



Oh yes, the ending harbors no cliffhangers. Although it is shown that they embark for a new adventure, just wait a little through the ending credits and you'll see some sense of closure. At least, I hope so. Another installment would be entertaining, but a trilogy is good enough, and another movie might be a little tiring.



File this under "entertaining". Expect no more, no less.





The Thoughtful Critic: C



The Relaxed Moviegoer: B+

Grave of the Fireflies

Made in 1988, it is one of the older animes out there. Hence, one notices the older, less fluid animation. But it nevertheless is beautifully animated. And the story is, to say the least, heart-rending.



I don't like sad shows. They annoy me. But some sad shows are good shows. Grave of the Fireflies is one of them, perhaps one of the best. Very few animes- movies, in fact- can create the depth of emotion it produces.



From one perspective it is a simple, overused story. A family's suffering in wartime. But the movie creates it in such a way as that when they suffer, we feel their suffering.



Some images are particularly gruesome, considering that this movie is aimed towards children. But even for adults, it is deep, it is sad.



The story centers mainly on a little girl, Setsuko. She, with her brother, attempt to survive the war in Japan. At first their times are happy. Then everything starts to fall apart. And the ending is probably one of the few endings out there you would rather not watch. Not because it's lousy. But because it is terribly, hopelessly sad.



But it does not reek of hopelessness, only of sorrow. It might seem strange for Japanese to moan over their losses, considering that they too inflicted much pain and suffering on their part. But it is not about "the Americans did this" or "the Japanese did this". It is, rather, "war did this".



Setsuko, the little girl, is the one who finally suffers the most.



I don't know if it can be interpreted as an anti-war film, although quite a few do treat it as such.



But regardless of its message, it's story is something that everyone ought to see. But don't expect to be entertained. No, not at all.



The Thoughtful Critic: B+



The Relaxed Moviegoer: B+

An Annoying Day...

This day has annoyed me to no end. But no hard feelings, Monday. Tuesday will come soon. =)



So I went to the hospital to get something patched onto my back. An allergy kit, to determine what I'm allergic to. I have a strong feeling it would be with "dust". Yes, allergic to dust. Nothing I can do about that, eh? Maybe I can live in a nice filtered room. Or a bubble. Oh, never.



Then I went to Low Yat Plaza (techie's heaven). Lots of computer stuff. ALL OF THEM OVERPRICED. Yes. Apparently, you get the best deals there. Yeh, right.



Example: RM 599 for an MP3 player I bought for RM 325. And they have the nerve to put a sticker on it saying "Very, very fair price". Ah, they being sarcastic. Then again, what of the poor sarcasm impaired shoppers who buy it? Do they know they've been swindled of nearly 300 ringgit? My goodness.



Ah well, here's to a better day.



Or maybe not, because in accordance to the rules of the patch test, I'm not allowed to bathe for one week.



Lovely.

I'm Not A Professional...In Blogging

YB Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin's statement that bloggers should be classified as "professional" or "non-professional" is disconcerting to me, a clearly non-professional blogger.



You see, only a blogger that is classified as a "professional" (whatever that happens to mean) can truly be trustworthy enough to have accurate content.



I'm sad to say that my content thus, is not truly trustworthy. Also, professional bloggers would be more "responsible". I suppose me, a non-pro, would not have such a virtuous characteristic. I am disheartened.



I wonder, though, why we bloggers cannot have our own say. Surely the right to vote presupposes that one has the right to their own say? But I guess those who vote must be professionals, preferably with a doctorate in political theory. Along with that, I am a minor (another legal term for that is "infant"), and thus cannot vote. But there are those who can.



Unfortunately not all of us have such qualifications, which is puzzling to see why even the most clueless of country folk who live most of their lives in sampans are allowed to vote.



Are they professionals? But I guess one is automatically a professional should you ever vote for BN.



Hmm. I don't know. But since I'm not a professional, you can ignore my comments, as they are untrustworthy, and I have an agenda to spread discord. I suppose YAB Zainuddin has one too, but hey, he is a professional. Right?



Of course blogs can be misused, but so can the voting slip. I humbly suggest that we register voters into "professional" and "non-professional" as well, so we can discard any votes from the latter group, as well as any who have ticked "DAP" (may it never be) or "PAS" (let it never be said). Clearly those who vote for these political parties are uneducated non-professionals, who have an agenda, that is, to spread discord.



But alas, I am a non-professional. My opinions are worth less than two cents.



I am also confused at his suggestion not to touch on matters agreed by "consensus" in order not to disturb peace and harmony.



This is puzzling, as the "consensus" in many districts were against having BN as the ruling political party. But he means here "majority consensus", which BN clearly has, and thus likewise the political party that must not be questioned.



Obviously, he is very politically correct. "Peace" and "harmony" (at least in his eyes) must never give way to what might be termed "truth". If the "truth" that is being discussed (especially in blogs) disturb the "harmony" and "peace" of the bumiputera status quo, then "truth" can pergi celaka.



Is the Constitution infallible? Many would treat it as such, and so to question it would be heresy.



But I seriously doubt that the framers of the Constitution would have liked the thought of people being stifled from "questioning" it, even though they would have liked to think that the Constitution is absolutely perfect.



But hey, I'm not a professional in blogging, right?



So why care? Why be so concerned?

A Tale of Two Exams

Yet another chapter from the chronicles of our college. Today's story will be that of a day in which two exams took place, something which was unprecedented in our short and remarkably uninteresting history.



Two exams. One law, one accounting. You would've thought that we'd die. But no, we made it. Thankfully.



First exam. Law. Our lecturer sat there, and she apparently got out on the wrong side of the bed. Grumpy, and shutting up anyone who attempted to dispel the tense silence.

I think it was because she forgot to bring her storybook. And the fact that she had to sit that for 3 hours, doing nothing but watch us and scold us. And after that, she has the (un)admirable job of marking our papers.



That was done. And I don't think I did too well. The time was too short. Too short for me to put in all the information that would've brought me marks. I'll be lucky if I get a credit. Oh well, I've been saying that again and again.



After lunch, our right hands (and left, of course) still numb from the writing, we were faced with our accounting exam.



If the law exam was east, the accounting exam would have been west. Yes, it was a huge contrast, a polar opposite. It was easy (at least, to most of us), it was leisurely, and we were allowed to ask "questions" (i.e. ask for help and pointers from each other).



So yes, I'm confident that I'll get some good results from this one. The sad thing? This exam will only contribute 20% to our overall marks. (The law exam contributes around 70%, I think)



It's a sad, yes, but true fact.

Shadow of the Colossus

There are good games, there are great games, and there is Shadow of the Colossus. Many games entertain us, but Colossus is one that inspires awe. If not for its aesthetic value, than for the haunting world in which the game takes place, aided by a brilliant score. And as for the gameplay...well, you fight 16 battles that require thought, strategy and luck.

It is a simple story that you start of with, one that is seemingly straightforward (not to mention used very frequently). Wander (the hero) goes to a "cursed land" in an effort to revive a girl. Obviously, he loves her (although that has been debated by fans). Still, it certainly looks like his motivation is love.

He enters into a large temple (in the game it's called a shrine). There he encounters the Dormin (apparently, dark spirits), and bargains with them for Mono's (the dead girl) life. They agree, but he must first destroy the 16 colossi. And he is told, there may be a heavy price. Thus, your adventure begins.

The soft-lighting effects here create a spectacular mood (it was first used in Ico, in which this game is a prequel of sorts to). As I said, the aesthetics are superb.

You wander (free-roaming style) in a huge expanse of land, fighting colossus by colossus. With each colossus defeated, your life is slowly drained (possibly being transfered to Mono). Soon, Wander grows old, pale, and wrinkled.

The storyline only "thickens" towards the end of the game. For the most part, until towards the end, the only thing that you do is find and slay the colossi. Sound boring? No, it isn't. For each colossus different tactics must be used, and hence why this game also falls under the "puzzle" genre.

Each Colossus (at least, a large part of them) are huge, very huge.


And your weapons? Bow and arrows, and your special sword (aha). Your horse, Agro, sometimes will play a crucial role in defeating the colossus as well. The battles are very often intense and aggravating to no end. One needs patience, brains and of course, a little bit of luck.

And when you defeat it? You are treated to a brilliant slow-mo death, complete with choir. A stirring end, not to mention satisfying.

But for the most part, you will be figuring out how to get to the colossus. The journeys are often long, and very boring. Your only company is your horse, whom you will be kicking to no end to make sure it reaches your destination as fast as it can.

The game is short (you can finish it in a few hours, if you're quick enough), but for the most part, the game entertains you very well.

Yes, there is no perfect game. Colossus has its flaws. Some might be bored with the repetitive structure of the game: Fight Colossus, travel, Fight Colossus, travel, and so on. The frame rate can get very annoying, as with the camera angles. But these are just small asides. Shadow of the Colossus is still an awesome game nonetheless.


The ending of the game is, perhaps, a little unexpected. Let me just say, it's a quite a sad one. And very ambiguous. Even the creator says that he merely has an interpretation of his story. So, there might be very little "canonical" understandings to the story here, but while the ending might leave some puzzled, it still gives us a sense of closure.

But certainly, this is a game you would want to play (and finish) more than one time.

Final say? Get it if you don't have it. Unfortunately, it's only for the PlayStation 2, but should you ever get it (or, perhaps a PS3), this should be one of the first games you should get.

Woohoo!!! Liverpool!!!

Okay, allow me a brief moment to gush over Liverpool's achievements. Two Champion's League finals in 3 years. Not bad. So it's either going to be Man U or AC Milan they're up against. Either way, I'm happy. We're through. And it's gonna be an interesting final.



Sorry to my Chelsea friends. I know one who is very dissapointed. But no, I'm happy. Hahaha!



Now, if only they can do better in the Premiership...

Spiderman 3 (And, Hopefully, The Last)

Don't get me wrong, the title is not me bashing this movie. It is good. It's just that the entire movie franchise is running out of steam (i.e. out of ideas), I think.

Yes, so I was one of the few Malaysians who went for it on an opening day. Not a few, actually. Many. Double holidays do invite the crowds to the malls. What an ingenious way to spend the time, no?

Truth be told, I wasn't really that excited, watching this movie. I am, however, excited about Transformers. But that's a different story.



If you've seen (and liked) Spiderman 1 & 2, well, you'll like this too. Spiderman 3 is devoutly devoted to the formula, and the writers did well in repeating the concept once more. It works, but the price to pay here is a marked lack of originality. The only thing new in this movie happens to be more villians + melodrama.



Again, that wasn't a bad thing. Spiderman 3 does the job, it keeps us entertained. It's funny, exciting, and it keeps us involved with the characters. Not to mention it's good on values. So what could go wrong?



The beginning, middle and end could. And following Murphy's law, they do go wrong. Well, not the whole thing. But quite a few parts are.



Take the beginning. It was rather choppy and disjointed, at least to me. Okay, surely it would get better. But not before we are introduced to the alien symbiote (perhaps the main villain here). How does it infect our good Spidey? Guess. Really, try to guess.



It falls out of nowhere (a meteorite). Poof. Hits the ground. Goo comes out. Alien goo. And what are the odds that Peter and Mary-Jane (the lovey dovey couple) are there, nearby as well? Oblivious to them, it latches onto Peter's bike.



Woohoo. This is no compliment. Is that how we are introduced to one of the main villains of this show? Okay, perhaps the part where a meteorite that contains an alien falling near Peter Parker is just a coincidence.



But what about Mr. Sandman? Even worse. Apparently, the real murderer of Peter's uncle (Ben Parker), he falls into a particle physics testing site (oh wow) while being chased by the police.



Unfortunately, as it just so happens, it's experiment time as well, and our poor villain to be gets caught right in the middle of it.



So the writers took a lot of liberties with the story here. But you can only push the envelope so far before the whole story descends into absurdity.



I'll not go into detail any further, but often times I saw how Spiderman 3 nearly falls apart. Kinda like Ocean's 12, where the (obviously drunk) writers inserted the scene where Julia Roberts acts as, well, Julia Roberts.



Well enough. I do not want to ruin your high hopes and your built up excitement (for all you Spidey lovers). Go ahead, watch. Enjoy. Especially the final battle. You'll love it, surely. But this ain't no perfect movie.



Many reviewers seem to acknowledge Spiderman 2 as the "best" of all superhero movies. Maybe. Unfortunately, if that is true, then Spiderman reached its pinnacle one movie ago, and now begins its decline. And decline it does.