BLOGGER



Youngest kid of six with an inferiority and black sheep complex, but determined that God saves not just his soul to heaven but the remainder of his manic-depressive life, so others won't say he became a Christian and remained a jerk.


MAIN THEMES

On identity
i won't be transparent before i'm opaque. and you'll get to know me starting from the small things: who my favourite bands are. what kind of movies i like. who are my heroes.

On Christianity
I’m convinced that when confronted with sincere, real love, the Jesus factor will become obvious. But let’s not plant the cross before we carry it. I’m not trying to con you.

On dreams
Some dreams are meant to be achieved. I know that. But maybe other dreams are meant to drive us, privately. Never known to anyone but ourselves.


OTHER THEMES

On melancholy
It is a sadness that, when choosing between crying and sighing, will choose sighing. I'd almost say that melancholy is being sad about sadness itself.

On memory and nostalgia
It saddens me when life moves forward and people decide that certain things are worth forgetting.

On language
I've learnt that the word irregardless is filed as a non-standard word in the English language. That's a lexicographer's way of saying it's not a real word.

On politics
Crowds are fickle things. So when we stand in the thousands and cry against the present government, do we know who we're actually crying for?

On society
People always want the best for themselves. But I want to sometimes take second or third or fourth best, just so that the loser down the road doesn't always have to come in last. It must feel like shit to always come in last.

On growing old
Leasehold property make me feel sad. It doesn't matter how old the family photos are that you put on your wall. It's your family but it's not really your wall.

On philosophy
I ask you, if God loves everyone, and if God is also incapable of loving evil, how can there be such a thing as an evil man?

On a daily basis
One line quips, like this.


CHAT





Thursday, November 04, 2004
RED LIGHT CROSSING

i've just been reading adrian's post on cheating and it has reminded me of debates i've had mid-crossing the road with vernon and jan respectively. adrian calls it a "social boundary" that needs to be kept. in the course of my debates, i've been whittled down to say that... red lights are a matter of common sense.

sure, we all need red lights and i get cheesed off by red-light shooters as much as the next social-commenter. it might, however, be an entirely different case when you're walking.

you see, what vernon and jan indoctrinated me with (vern, it was during trinity) is that red lights are just there to govern and negotiate our common senses where such common sense could easily fail and result in gross death. in other words, red lights - when you're walking - are simply a guide for what you already know. standing before a red light at 3am while walking home (why you would be walking home at that hour is, of course, an entirely different query) would require you to examine the necessity of obeying that said red light. especially, given that it is 3am, that no cars are to be seen anywhere. it would be uncommon-sensical, and highly counter-intuitive to stand there and wait the full 4 minutes just so you can make your 10 steps across a small road. it would also be foolishly legalistic.

so if it is true that red lights are only there where common sense would otherwise fail, then who is the arbiter of when and if common sense would prevail. this is where it gets tricky. this is also where you might want to realign with the "channeled opinion" and stick to the social boundary. would you cross if it was 2.15am and there were 2 cars gliding around?

i'll tell you when my flawed reasoning has instigated me to put the gas down and shoot past a red one. guilty as charged, right. i confess it here publicly. the traffic light at jalan damansara after BP has, what i would call, an unreasonably short green light time. and for the jams that it causes! and that we are on the main road! my confession will continue to state that i have, on a few occassions, gone ahead of the red light, following the two cars in front of me who also went past the red light (when it has just turned), creating a train of rogue cars, so to speak, breaking the law with strength in numbers. this confession will also go on to state that while beating that red light, my heart said, "this green light is too short. i hope all the cars behind me follow suit in protest".

but that's no way to protest, is it? i could write a letter somewhere, or (dismiss this) vandalise the traffic light to such a point that it no longer works and no longer works against me. (how vile that sounds!) surely, that too is no way. and by all intents and purposes, our country isn't quite built in the way that "writing a letter to the council" will get you much anywhere. i have a theory (the expounding of which is for another occassion) that the local councils here in klang valley, malaysia have an open agenda to murder my car's suspension by systematically inserting holes in the road after the tarring and smoothing process. the reason i bring this up is this: if my local council has an agenda to damage road vehicles (a fact i'm convinced of) then they can surely provide no recourse or remedy for the disgruntled roadusers behind those very vehicles. so writing letters won't do. so what do we do? certainly we can't keep breaking the law!

i'd like to just get away from such situations. i'd like to just beat it.

Labels:



Genusfrog [ 6:14 pm ]

3 Comments:

  • My my, I really do need to be careful about what I say to you Fergie. You have the memory of an elephant =).
    Right, into the thick of it. You remember when we were talking when I was last back in Malaysia? Remember about our topic on the brevities of situations? Likewise, the law recognises that different situations have different brevities (if I could use the word that way). Thus, if you cross the road while the light is red and you get caught you will perhaps be fined $50, rather than say, hung till death. Civil law, as opposed to criminal law, is there more to govern the day to day 'interaction' between the people of a civilisation (hence the word civil) so as to ensure smooth 'transactions' and activities that will make everyday life more pleasant. Thus jaywalking, littering and speeding etc. are civil offences. Criminal law on the other hand would be offences against the fundamental principles that allow 'civilised societies' to thrive. Thus theft, murder, corruption, etc. are deemed as criminal activities.
    The reason why I bring up the difference between criminal and civil law is to highlight the idea of brevity, which is my argument for the whole matter of crossing traffic lights.
    Now, for the matter of your shooting through red lights and trying to use my argument of jaywalking to suit your own purposes =). There is a very vast difference between jaywalking and shooting red lights. Firstly, by walking across the road you PROBABLY (emphasis very much intended) are more likely to endanger yourself as you are to endanger the oncoming car. If you drive through a red light, you are PROBABLY more likely to be endangering someone else AND yourself. Thus the law recognises the differences in consequences for the two, and therefore driving through a red light has a harsher punishment than walking. Of course, this is all academic until you get caught or get involved in an accident, which then makes it sadly very much more practical. In any event, I would always rather err on the side of caution.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:53 pm  

  • Rough day man, hope you feel better. When Paul says he takes joy is his struggles, I keep wondering if I take joy or just focus on how hard things are. You are an encouragement (even if you weren't joyful, you knew where your focus was).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:53 pm  

  • haha. yeah. thanks for the comment.
    long time no talk man.

    how ya been?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:55 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home