Awareness

I was at this conference where the term of awareness came up. The particular case was related to AIDS and cancer. I'm going to streamline it as usual and make the whole thing seem much more important than it is. Yes, it is.

The term 'cancer awareness' came up. This struck me more than odd. In what way could you ever be unaware of the fact that you have terminal cancer (yes, they all/most are) or of its causes. Cause let's face it, it's not AIDS; you cannot be aware that unprotected sex, drug abuse or whatever sort of blood or seminal fluid contacts can lead to that disease. Unless you start stamping everything as "potentially cancerous", from meat to electronics and radioactive material. And it won't matter, people will still eat meat, use electronics and get radiation poisoning because they were unaware.

There is to make you aware that you might get cancer (unless some limited information, such as the aforementioned radioactive poisoning, prolonged sun exposure et caetera) and once you have it, unlike AIDS, that until something goes really wrong with you, you won't know it, cancer is visible, painful and most certainly always leads to death.

So can you be made aware of the fact that you have cancer? Yes, it's called having it. You don't need much testing done for that. Can you be made aware of the things that cause cancer? Only if you list everything dangerous. Otherwise, no.

It's sad and I may be insensitive. But the real insensitive people are those that like to play with words and programs and organizations and whatnot. If I got AIDS tomorrow, I'd probably go for the medication, and try and lead a more careful life. I might die, might also not. If I got cancer, well, then it gets tough. I'll probably focus more on something more productive for posterity. But I will die. And I don't want to vomit 10 times a day while in horrific pain just to delay it. I want to go smooth. Will I be aware that I have cancer? Yes. Will I have been made aware by anything of how I got cancer or of the fact I have by outside influences. Most unlikely.

Hence my advice is live, happily first, and healthy, if you can. Political correctness is just wrong (and I'll touch that in another subject), why use words that dehumanize the human experiences? Fuck awareness or the next thing you'll know is them telling you to be aware that you're alive.

Representation

Representative democracy - now I don't know about you but whenever I hear this compound form of type of government I invariably start laughing inside - the term sounds so absurd, that it would be even more obvious if I were to put it next to another fine streak of human deception: democratic dictatorship; yes, that's how some of the communist countries officially name themselves. It's just plain hilarious.

Let's first consider representation. What are the elected officials representing? The popular interest? Oh really? Can you provide data as to an official voting against his interests just to satisfy people with whom he won't have to deal with for another 4 years (unless you live in a country where the recall function is implemented, which is rather nice)? In effect, everyone is egotistical, and everyone votes in their own self-interest. The difference between the official that is indulging himself in power and the people is that the latter have the counter-balancing of democratic system, i.e. even if everyone votes in their own interest, the most with the common interest win by majority rule. Democracy is simple: winner takes it all.

And that brings me to the second part of my commentary (couldn't really call it an argument now, could I?). It concerns the matter of democracy with a hint of representative system. No election can be representative and democratic at the same time. Sure, democracy exist in all tiers of decision, even in an oligarchy of 10, where 6 decide against 4; to this effect, if you claim the representative aspect, one vote (of the official) cannot equate the diversity of the magnitude in which he was elected (since he represents ALL of the citizens in the respective constituency, not only those that elected him). On the other side, if you argue the democratic aspect, it would totally conflict the representative facet: democracy compels you to always respect the majority rule, regardless of votes wasted. Dictatorship of majority.

And finally I come to the wittgensteinein angle of my argument (yes, now I can call it that). Democracy is a label applied to practical measures and undertakings of any construct (political - regime, social - corporation) to infer it legitimacy in front of those that should actually recognise their value: the populace, and more particularly, the majority. By repeatedly telling the masses they live in a democracy, they give up their undeniable democratic essence to a rather distorted minority that basically governs (or leads) outside the ethic ground they uphold. On that account, 'democracy' and notably 'representative democracy' are make-believe terms in the same scope as you would consider 'democratic dictatorship'. Funny thing is, the roles are reversed, and democracy actually is dictatorial.

Therefore, a small practical example requires to be satisfied: consider a community of 2001 individuals (I'll discuss direct democracy and its implications in the modern world another time, so let's skip the "oh, but..."). Individual no. 1 has to die, doesn't matter why, he just has to. So, as in a true, pure democratic state, the matter is subjected to vote. 999 vote against his death while the others 1001 vote for. That is his death sentence. Now, among the arguments you'd shout against this is that every life is priceless. I agree. You also say that we are all equal. By using simple logic and mathematics, 1001 priceless unique lives are decisively more than 999 (say even 1000, if the guy about to die can vote on the matter). And that's the proof of democracy. If you feel the need to name your system, please don't perjure the name of such a beautiful concept. Democracy is not representative. It's not open for debate. It's absolute, winner takes it all.

Vox populi :)

High School

An enthralling story about the friendship between 7 guys that goes awry as each of them discovers themselves with respect to their relationship which ends up taking unexpected turns reminding of the chaos theory.

Jiu jiang feng (Winds of September) delves into a common subject for most of us, the seemly endless times of high school (here also against the backdrop of chinese communism, however not as harsh as most imagine) when we'd get into trouble, got reprimanded, laughed it off and do it all over again. Two of the boys are sophomores, two juniors and three seniors, the latter not affording many more screw ups, or they risk expulsion. Yen is with Yun, however he is handsome and likes to flirth with other girls. Tang tutores Yun and secretly loves her, whilst covering the mishaps of Yen. And from here you can imagine any possible scenario; without spoiling, I shall nevertheless say that when one of the blocks of this friendship falls, it all comes down eventually, like a domino. The boys don't meet anymore, get agressive with one another, even lie to evade a police record. The unity goes away.

Remembering the high school years, let's value those gatherings, the schemes we always connived, the way friendships covered for our faults and the satisfaction you got that, even if things went bad, at least we were all in it together. And let's laugh.

I rate the movie 9/10

History

So a few weeks back, I had the chance of seeing Purple Violets, a witty romantic film which interested me not only because of the cast (Selma Blair, Patrick Wilson, Edward Burns) and the literate-connected theme (which was more used as a push-block) but for a historical genealogy of sentiments.

Now I know some of you may disagree with this rather pragmatic approach and argue that love is a spur of the moment, spontaneity act and you would not be mistaken. However, love is also something you can best comment empirically, i.e. after it is over, an empirical argument which you cannot displace for another experience's convenience. Hence, feelings cannot be rationalized but they can be valued upon an occurrence.

Getting to my point, after much pondering, I came to the idea that feelings are stronger and the relationship is more stable (by which I mean, anything you may understand through 'stable', be it hack'n'slash lunches and violent evenings on the kitchen table) when the partners know each other longer. Basically, a relationship has more chances of success the longer the two lovers have experienced life as a couple or as emotionally-distinct individuals, for it is experience which binds their feelings and during rough times, it is that which they have lived through a constant reference for stability and happiness. And it will be harder to really know a person as time goes by, since there will be less of each other's lives you have seen, got to know, experienced, got to love, and there will be no reference to a past that would alleviate pain; rather, it would only heighten the emotional disequilibrium.

So my point is, give history a chance.

Oh, and my rating for the movie is 7/10