Orchard Road

Well ladies and gents, I come to you today from Orchard Road, where I find myself using wireless from the new Far Coast coffee shop, even though i'm across the street at Starbucks haha. I don't quite get Singapore's Starbucks locations, as every Starbucks in Malaysia had free wireless, whereas here you have to be a SingTel or Starhub subscriber. I did read good news, however, that as of January most of the CBD will be covered by free wireless, so no more worries.

Anyways, whilst enjoying my decaf, skim milk cappucino and daily dose of Nicotine, I find myself people watching, and, being the ever so robust heterosexual male that I am, my gaze undoubtedly turns to individuals of the fairer sex. Singapore is interesting compared to America, in so much as it seems many women here take more time to make themselves up and what not. Makeup, stilettos, skirts and branded bags are the norm, as opposed to the ubiquitous Sanitary t-shirts, Rainbow slippers and jean skirts which permeated my experience as an undergrad. The reason i'm mentioning all this is that I find the attitude towards sex and gender roles here to be a study of contrasts, but perhaps a bit more honest than the one back in the part of the Bible Belt from which I come.

First and foremost, I think feminism has caught on a bit less in this part of the world. My views of that whole issue are a bit mixed, as I come from a hyper-feminist mother who would respond to any opposition towards feminist ideals with a threat to sever certain areas of the male anatomy. Nonetheless, I am more of an "equal rights for all" kind of guy, in that if women want to be treated equally then they should, but shouldn't expect preferential treatment. Nonetheless, women here get all doled up and pretty, and I can't say that I mind at all, but maybe it's because they put more of their self-esteem in a linkage to acceptance and appeal from men.

Conversely, though, I think women here are too shy. As an ang moh, I always get accused of having some sort of edge with women here. I would say that's not necessarily true, but maybe i'm just a schmuck and in fact it is. I am extraordinarily picky in my choice of women, and that includes inside and out. I often lament to myself that my standards may be too high, but I really don't know what to do in that department. Over the years, though, my social ineptitude has lessened, and I find myself in a better position in attracting women. I think that also has to do with age; the older you get, the more money matters. Whether or not you boyfriend is the star quarterback matters less than what he's bringing home every month.

I'm looking forward to getting older, though, as I must say I find a lot of women in the 25-30 range extremely sexy. I conjecture it's because they have more oof the confidence and maturity that I find attractive, plus are not constrained so much by the puritanical rants of parents which lead them to self-loathing and denial of one's sexuality.

This aspect leads me to the next thing I wanted to talk about, which is this whole religion and sex crap. I grew up in what amounted to (contrary to my family's denial) a relatively authoritarian and fundamentalist upbringing. James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and all that jazz were part of my life until I went to University, and are still definitely inclusive of my vocabulary. While my parents have become increasingly liberal, the black-and-white nature of it all has definitely led me to many crises of opinion, particularly on the issue of sex. For those of you who don't know this, in the bible belt from which I originate, the whole bullcrap "wait until you're married thing" still applies. I could write a thesis on this point, but since it's not my overall topic, I will just say that the reason so many little fundies divorce is that they marry to have sex, which is a load of bollocks if you ask me.

The main point I want to bring up is organised religion, particularly the virulent, fundamentalist kind, generally points towards denying one's inner nature and framing it within some sort of structure which was, frankly, likely developed by some senile old man and not God in whose name such stringent and idiotic regulations are formulated. I get the feeling that, when looking down at the world, the almighty probably finds the situation in Darfur, people dying of AIDS, and poverty slightly more striking issues than whether or not someone is attracted to another of the same gender. It's even more idiotic that, particularly in America, people are easily manipulated by such idiotic issues when focus should be elsewhere.

This corresponds with some recent news from the Vatican, that says that their official policy will shift from no condoms in any relations to allowing condoms between married couples in which one partner is HIV positive. Now don't get me wrong, I love the Pope, being a German and what not, but perhaps in the Vatican they just don't realise that not using condoms is probably the single largest cause of AIDS and unwanted pregnancy in the developing world, and hence parlays into poverty and food shortages (at least from a Malthusian perspective). Perhaps the Church should get its own business about pedophile priests cleaned up before dictating to others the gist of sexual morality, particularly as its own skewed policies, such as celibate clergy, have probably caused more harm than good.

In the end, I think the moral of the story is, do what makes you happy, and don't let some idiotic, hypocritical man who speaks in the name of God make you feel guilty about it. Because, in the end, Jesus hung out with very unholy people, didn't he?

The maelstrom of the mind

Well this is quite a random post, but I am inclined to write something on this without any particular direction other than that my mind dictates at the second. Pretty soon they're going to be showing 'A Beautiful Mind' on Channel 5, which is one of my favourite movies because it places some level of emphasis on social interaction and genius, which borders and crosses into mental illness. My question, whenever I see this movie is, in fact, how many other people have a similar affliction? Genius really does border on insanity, and I think smart people are generally more predisposed to developing mental illness, most notably depression. John Nash, while an exceptional person in the film and real life, is not unique in his illness. The question is how wide this problem really is.

Tonight i'm gonna head on over to the hawker stalls opposite Beauty World and indulge in some pricey Prata, etc. I suggest one of the stalls in the middle, as the ones on the end aren't as good. I don't know any names, though. The tandoori chicken is quite nice, although the one at The Soup Spoon in Raffles City is nicer. I am a big tandoori chicken fan, which is saying a lot given the fact I don't really like much in the Indian food department. Prata is always decent, although nothing compares with what you can get over in Malaysia. I miss the days in KL when I had access to all sorts of great Curries. TG's in Bukit Bintang had a great Portuguese Devil's Curry which compared moderately well to that served down in Malacca. I also miss Nando's... God I do! The peri-peri sauce is amazing. It all makes me wanna head up north to M'sia before I go back west for the holidays....

Speaking of trips to the west, i'm going to have to go off to VivoCity soon and buy a few sweaters for my trip to the colder regions of the world back in the USA. I saw a few nice sweaters at FOX and maybe Gant as well, so i'll have to look into those options. I'd buy Gap, but it's cheaper back in America so I will forego it here. I also need to go get my haircut by my oh-so-metro-yet-straight hairdresser at Hair Profile in Far East Plaza. It's pricier than my last frequented salon, but he does what I want him to do so it's worth the extra S$10.

Anyhow, that's enough of my aimless wanderings for this time around, maybe i'll come up with something substantive in a short time.

Mandatory sentencing: A good idea?

I must admit I am quite pleased with what I read in Today recently about Singaporean lawyers calling for a review and, in many cases, dissolution of mandatory sentencing laws. Mandatory sentencing, in my book, is one of the most idiotic aspects of any legal system, most blatantly so in America, but also definitely in Singapore. While some argue that such sentencing acts as a deterrent, I would counter that the nature of many crimes is unique, and the suspect in question's circumstances must be taken into account. An example of how mandatory sentencing can cause gross injustice is the U.S. state of Colorado's mandatory sentencing, in which many crimes associated with the murder of someone will result in an automatic sentence of life without parole. These crimes include assisting someone in destroying evidence of a murder, being an accomplice of someone in an attempted robbery which results in a homicide, and several degrees of homicide. Hence, 13 year olds can be sentenced to life in jail without even killing someone. More information on the Colorado system can be found here and here.

Mandatory sentencing, while politically popular due to its association with being "tough on crime" is, in my opinion, generally misguided. It is good that Singaporeans are finally looking to review and revise these statutes which, in some instances, could be potentially excessive.

Why a 'redneck'?

I was thinking recently that I should re-visit the issue of why I chose a term such as redneck to describe this blog. The inspiration came about one day on Wikipedia, when I was reading through various pages and found the one focused on the aforementioned, and often pejorative term. Towards the middle of the article, I found the following quote:

"Author Jim Goad's 1997 book The Redneck Manifesto explores the socioeconomic history of low-income Americans. According to Goad, rednecks are traditionally pro-labor and anti-establishment and have an anti-hierarchical religious orientation."

Well, thinking about it, these three characteristics generally apply to me. In terms of being pro-labour, i'm not exactly the most union-friendly person on Earth, but I do believe that workers should not be exploited, as they are, even today in my home state of North Carolina due to "right to work" and "open shop" laws. While, in some instances, labour unions have proven to be overly burdensome on industry, many countries (i.e. Germany) have effectively included a labour voice in industry and have reaped economic rewards. Many people in America might contest me on this, but, lest I ask my critics, have you ever been outside America, especially to Europe? If one has seen these systems in action first hand, I invite comments and criticism; otherwise, frankly, I don't see where there is any viability in arguing against my assertions without due experience. Substance is one thing, and rhetoric is something far different. Reflective of this, I seriously doubt I would be labeled the most "free enterprise" inclined individual around, though I definitely believe in relatively free trade, and am anti-protectionist.

Being anti-establishment is generally a description with which I would concur. I have serious issues with establishment and positions of authority, particularly those in whom I see a desire to manipulate due to greed or a lust for power. Of particular concern to me are those who use morality or religion to further their own desires or objectives. There are too many who sit in the pulpit and claim a moral mandate who, in themselves, are only motivated to raise themselves above others. Good examples of this about in the so-called "Christian Right" who seek to impose theocratic values on American society. I am not a revisionist who believes in a theistic glory plot, where all the Founding Fathers were "Great Men of God" who wanted to create the new Zion in America. In my view, those leading America in its nascent stages were more likely deists than anything else, and were more engaged with the anti-religious ideas of the Enlightenment than any desire to institute Judeo-Christian Values. This is not to say that I do not subscribe to some of the aforementioned ideals, but I will elaborate on this point further in this post.

The third characteristic of a redneck is an anti-hierarchial religious orientation. Of all the three, this one, as the cliche goes, "hits the nail on the head." I don't believe in wearing one's faith on one's sleeve, a view which is not shared by many prominent politicians, but I do have a deep seated belief in the greatness and value of Jesus Christ, both as a historical and religious figure. Digressing from the hackneyed, over-simplified paradigm of Jesus being a static character limited by the Bible and somehow conveniently in agreement with fundamentalists, I see Jesus as a radical, a revolutionary, and the most perfect being who ever existed. Many claim to find Jesus by having some sort of religious epiphany; I would argue that my belief and value that I find in Jesus is derived from the fact his attitudes were simplistic yet deep to the point that they have remained unmatched by anyone else in the human experience.

Jesus hated the establishment; it was, as one relatively familiar with Christian doctrine would know, the establishment, namely the Pharisees of Roman Judaea, who were responsible for his demise. Jesus associated with the unholy, the ostracised, and the poor. He was not generally seen with the "holy rollers" of his time, and was keen on sincerity and love, not the pretence of adherence to dogma or doctrine. He was not keen on power for himself, and encouraged others in an egalitarian fashion which, by modern American standards, would be considered left wing in the extreme. Jesus was, in the end, for the little guy and the underdog, and that is what makes him real to me. Conversely, my view of religion is reflective of this understanding.

I shun the hierarchy of the church, and, while I consider myself nominally a Methodist, have a great deal of admiration for the Quaker model of worship, which emphasizes the priesthood of the believer and the equality of congregants. I am inherently suspicious of all who wish to elevate themselves above others in the worship of any deity, and hence am hesitant to put my trust in institutions such as the clergy. In the end, I believe I am a purist in the Protestant tradition, believing in the value of the individual and his experience with God, putting that above doctrine or any other construct which has been devised to systematise Christianity since its foundation.

So, as these three areas generally apply to me, hence, I am a redneck.

Wah lau eh....

Well dear friends, the above title does indeed illustrate how I feel right now. I just submitted a draft of my theory chapter, but I feel like it borders on a load of .... if you know what I mean. It's not that the content is very bad, I just am lacking direction on where to go. I need ideas desperately. Anyways, on another note, i'm going back to the US on 3 December for about 5 weeks. Maybe i'll do some interesting blogging there on life in the world's only remaining superpower haha, it's shocking!

I must admit to everyone i've been flipping through the channels a bit lately, and came upon this Channel 5 TV show called BlogTV. Pardon me for saying so, but it seems to me that the two hosts, at least from the ads, err a bit on the side of being too old school and repressive? For example, one certain host said something to the extent that 18 year olds shouldn't be allowed to make political comments because, ahem, they 'haven't lived yet.' Well let me tell you something Mr. Ang Moh, there are quite a few 18 year olds who are living every day in Iraq being shot at, and I assure you that they likely have life experiences which warrant their ability (which they have in the US) to participate in politics, experiences which might in fact surpass your own. Which one is more 'character building,' being in a foxhole for a year or spending 30 behind some desk or microphone?

That said, Singapore and Malaysia are members of a group of nations that have the voting age set at 21 instead of 18. These include such countries as the Central African Republic, Fiji, Gabon, Lebanon, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tokelau, and Tonga. The youth vote, which the aforementioned host claims are so unqualified to comment on the old men and women in office who can send them to war and die, might disagree with his assessment. And, despite the fact I think my home country is completely insane in terms of the refuse to which they submit their youth, does at least recognise that if one is able to bleed and be sent home in a coffin for the state, he or she has a right to determine who will determine whether they live or die.

I'm not saying that I have a problem with the 21 voting age; in fact, I think in America if we are going to continue with the 21 drinking age we should raise the entire age of majority to 21, including the ability to be conscripted. What I do have an issue with is the fact that someone of the older generation feels compelled to tell individuals they have no right to speak their opinions simply because they weren't born at the right year. Regardless of how old an individual is, every opinion matters, young or old. Besides, brains stagnate with age, and every country needs fresh ideas to survive. So, maybe young Singaporeans should be able to give their voice, otherwise the older generation might find the gains of the past erased by their own inability to let the youth have the opportunities they themselves enjoy.