Where chaos stops and more chaos ensues. Where Filia plays the electric keyboard.
Where anything goes.
-//o_O\\7 *Home of the Awful, Mediocre and Pathetic* -//u_u\\7
|
|
Where chaos stops and more chaos ensues. Where Filia plays the electric keyboard. Where anything goes. -//o_O\\7 *Home of the Awful, Mediocre and Pathetic* -//u_u\\7 |
|
|
Saturday, September 11, 2004 A rather unhumorous riddle to start off my little commentary. Q. What is the difference between Charlotte and a terrorist? A. A terrorist will usually be willing to negotiate with you. Oh, right. As you may have guessed from the date and the lousy joke, not to mention from the circumstances of recent events, the topic of my little commentary today is terrorism. This past week, a gang of bloodthirsty fighters held an entire school in Ossetia in Russia to hostage and killed many of them regardless of age or gender. And just yesterday a car bomb rocked the Australian embassy in Indonesia. What's going on. Or, to sound a little more emphatic, just what the bloody hell is going on? Terrorism. Those who advocate negotiation (or, at least, some form of peaceful discussion) with suspected and blatantly obvious terrorist groups tend to claim that the privileged West needs to actually understand the situation facing the people who turn to, or actively support terrorism, and address the root causes rather than attack the symptoms. But what can be done when, in places such as Russia (Chechnya), Philippines (the MILF), Indonesia (Aceh) and Britain (the IRA), people just want to break away from your country without giving a damn about the effect of their actions on the majority? What about when the causes of the problems are issues of non-negotiation between the oppressors and the oppressed, like in Israel with the Palestinians or the various breakaway movements in Iraq and Afghanistan under American occupation? Or about people who do things for no reason other than simply out of hatred and prejudice? Could negotiation have feasibly prevented the September 11 attacks? Some things simply cannot be resolved by any amount of talking. Or have those pacifists already forgotten the lesson of Hitler at the Munich conferences? So the hawks argue. But does unleashing the full firepower of the better trained and equipped First World against the aggrieved and discontented, and consequently viciously munitinious Third World constitute the best method of dealing with terrorism. Note how the countries who have taken the most hardline stance against terrorist activities conducted against them, the United States, Russia and Israel, have suffered the most violent retribution from the seemingly ever-increasing hordes of murderous terrorists. By simply applying firepower while disregarding other factors and causes concerning the rise of terrorism in the Third World, it is arguable that such nations, far from winning a war against terrorism, have actually invited an even greater wave of terrorism to swell out, ready to break themselves against the trembling bastions of the west. So just what is the best way to deal with terrorism? Obviously, no one has really got the answer as of now, otherwise we'd all be living in peace and safety. Well, yes, one could always polish off an entire ideology of terrorists with a single, extremely large and consequently extremely deadly explosive, but that wouldn't make much sense when the West claims to be respecting the value of human rights. And consider the effects on the environment, too. Imagine what terrible things might ensue, now that the United States has already set a precedent for such action with their allegations of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And then one could just give the terrorists what they want and let them leave in peace, but to Neville Chamberlain's great embarrassment the truth is that appeasement always encourages greed, and it doesn't make sense to subjugate the will of the majority to that of the minority. Plus, it wouldn't make much sense at all ... giving someone something simply because they asked for it? Hardly economical. I can't solve this problem for the developed world, but I do have some suggestions to offer. For those who wish to dwell (for as long as possible) in the heat of action, my suggestions first and foremost for dealing with terrorism effectively are to conduct an utter disregard for that hideous travesty known as human rights. And it might also help to dispense with things like diplomacy, chivalry, rules of engagement and whatever, in short, since present methods have shown to be ineffective in dealing with terrorism, it's time to be the terrorists ourselves. Nations have already started this practice in the form of disregarding death threats launched against their nationals who have been taken hostage. All kudos to nations like South Korea and Italy for not succumbing to the terrorist threat even when a life was as stake. For what value is a single hostage compared to the untold vengeance an organised army can wreak against an ill-equipped rabble? Sure, it isn't popular with the masses, but are you really going to wait till a bombshell goes off in your city before steeling yourself to take action. Maybe it's because places like South Korea and Italy are already used to bombshells... Next, try turning the terrorist tactics on themselves. Shoot the vermin on sight or execute them summarily. Use NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons and smoke the hell out of them. Take their leaders hostage, hold them at gunpoint and then cruelly murder them in cold blood ... preferably after you manage to squeeze a deal out of the terrorists. Incite the populace to rebel and revolt, turn them into a frenzied mob ready to tear the terrorists limb from limb. Send your diplomat on negotiations armed with a bomb strapped around their waists, shoot the terrorist leader in his face and let loose death from within. No better than the terrorists themselves, you say? Well, think of the battle against terrorism not so much as a war between good and evil, as George W. Bush tends to put it, but a war between the majority and the minority. And we are the majority, and we intend the world to stay in our favour no matter what the costs, and the minority can suffer and die for all we care if they're not willing to put up with us. A little too harsh and cold-blooded for you? Really have that urge to negotiate? Well, as I'm no fan of compromise, I've nothing to say to you ... oh heck! Of course I don't want to be the one charging into the field to battle those guerillas and send them back to the forests. Of course I don't think people should die unnecessarily if the situation can be resolved peacefully to the benefit of both parties (though that would be pretty good as far as the problem of overpopulation on earth is concerned). Now, let's see ... terrorists commit terrorist acts because they want something that the privileged countries have got and don't want to give to them (in Osama's case it's the Americans' lives ... but most terrorists are more realistic than that), so a rather pretty solution would be to negotiate with terrorists by giving them a little of what they want, in exchange for something the terrorists have that the privileged countries don't ... a covert network, and a complete lack of ethics. Try conscripting them and using them as mercenaries. For even more exciting results, try 'officially' favouring one against another formerly cooperating with them, and set one against the other, although doing so might give you the equivalent of Italy's Mafia families. Alternately, one can try employing them against other countries, a handy trick when every major terrorist action tends to get blamed in Al-Qaeda or Jemaiyah Islamiyah or whatever. Libya and Syria have been accused of 'sponsoring' terrorist attacks ... perhaps this is an example of the above in action? Although there's always a danger of the terrorists turning on you due to them being devoid of loyalty, and letting terrorists into the inner workings of your nation's system as part of a deal is never a good idea. Maybe one could demand the location of their headquarters, or have them wear remote-activated bomb belts or something as part of the deal, though that sounds too far-fetched for any intelligent terrorist to agree to. Maybe we should just kill them, since that's all that they seem to want to do to us. They have an unreasonable demand for us, that we yield to them, and we have an unreasonable demand for them, that they yield to us. Unfortunately for them, we are in the majority, and they in the minority. Clearly, there is no more point in debating when a substantial group is so diametrically opposed to your group such that they see no desire in contesting the issue on your grounds, and the only resort is violence. It seems that inevitably, such conflicts will have to erupt in violence for as long as both groups are substantial, and one has a significant edge over the other. Now, fighting terrorism effectively is only a matter of understanding the costs involved in ensuring that the menace is put a stop to, if nothing else, for every moment. And what of the war in Iraq? Was George W. Bush justified in fighting for the deposition of Saddam Hussein? It's a question for another time, perhaps. And I may not like children much, but the terrorists who designed and carried out the attack in Beslan should be given a prize for having so decisively and effectively outwitted the Russian forces ... and then tortured and mutilated as brutally as possible as atonement for their crimes as separatist revolutionaries. posted by Charlotte | 4:58 pm (0) comments Monday, September 06, 2004 Book review! Yes, long awaited, and very much rusty and unpolished, but ... book review! Once again, the theme of this particular text is about humans and humanity. Why do I keep reading these kinds of novels? Is it because, since humanity is all around us, we are naturally inclined to discover more about it? Or is it because I'm perpetually intrigued and fascinated by this unusual race which is constantly engaged in the act of eliminating itself and yet proliferates over the whole globe? That remains to be seen. However, that which does not remain to be seen would be the subject of this particular novel, The Invisible Man, by Herbert George Wells. Hmm, it looks like a plot summary is in order here as well. Just like the other characters in Wells' repertoire, most of these characters are household names, yet no one really has any idea what the story is about. A tip to start you off ... if you have ever watched the movie Hollow Man, then let me tell you that it is actually a fairly good modern representation of the events of The Invisible Man, about a man who misuses the power of invisibility for selfish and evil means. Unlike Hollow Man, however, there are no ladies in the novel (as is typical in Wells' style) to distract those ogling perverts among you from the plot. Griffin, like so many other protagonists of the age, is a scientist who has been largely ostracised from society due to his pursual of a less savoury branch of scientific study. He is a chemist and a physicist, but due to his obsession with the dream of invisibility, he turns to experimentation on animals and, eventually, himself. Well, he succeeds, as is clear from that familiar image of the man in hat and cloak, and totally swathed with bandages. By reducing his refractive index to 1 (by means which are, as in the usual Wells fashion, left unexplaned) he manages to render himself invisible, only to find out that having others not being able to see him, and him not being able to see his own self, is not all that it was cracked up to be. The perils of invisibility can be left up to the reader's imagination. However, as I explained in comparing it to Hollow Man, the story can only be explained to a certain point by science alone. Being empowered renders one devious and unscrupulous, and naturally he misuses his invisibility to commit crimes like robbery and assault, until the bewildered townsfolk finally realise that it is the suspicious bandaged man who is the real criminal. A massive manhunt ensues as the Invisible Man, um, slips his robes and scarpers for it, stealing and attacking as far as is needed to survive. And then again, the excuse of survival explains the Invisible Man's behaviour only to a limit. When the Invisible Man flees and finally finds a safe haven in the villa of a supposed friend, he pauses to reflect and, spiteful and vicious creature that he is, explains his plans of using the power of invisibility to control others, first his fellow man, then a village, and maybe ... more? It is clear, however, that despite his powers his wishful thinking will get him nothing but killed, as his first 'victim' managed to scarper for his life with the Invisible Man's treasures and stolen goods. And his 'friend' decides that such a abhorrent creature is too dangerous to be left on the loose, empowered as he is, and discreetly calls in the calvary against him. And Griffin, the invisible man, after taking down some constables and the colonel of the local regiment, is finally killed. Lying dead in the streets, stark naked and beaten and trashed more cruelly than any human could bear to inflict upon another, his friend starts and ponders whether things might have turned out any different. What is interesting in The Invisible Man is that Wells dwells (hey, a rhyme!) not so much on the fact that Griffin is invisible but how his power affects his behaviour and mentality. It is clear even from a first reading that Wells makes a total sham out of the notion of being invisible, such as trying to explain how food dissipates into your invisible body and blood lost gains its visibility. And, as many critics are quick to point out, the horror of never being able to close your eyes. Just imagine ... you want to sleep, but you can't secure your own self-created darkness. No wonder the invisible man has a serious personality disorder. Of course, as one might immediately realise, invisibility lends itself to more devious and conniving trickery more than anything helpful or beneficial to others. The invisible man realises that he can steal, kill, and simply escape with near-impunity. But, as anyone is similarly quick to point out, power corrupts, and Griffin is transformed from a dedicated, if somewhat ill-tempered scientist, into an excessively demanding, self-approbating tyrant which is more than willing to resort to criminal means to achieve anything. Consider it an illustration of how power over one's fellow humans renders one ever more inhuman, to the very extent of no longer respecting the tenets of humanity. Debate on that. Isn't using one's abilities for selfish gain something which is only natural and to be expected? The fact that, as explained earlier, the invisibility is a self-serving ability, serves to emphasise the nature of human selfishness. But Wells also throws in an interesting caveat, that power only has value if there are others who are willing to submit to it. Alone, the invisible man, while not helpless, is definitely in a worser state than the beggar on the street. What is the use of stealing and killing when he cannot even interact intelligibly with the very people whom he exerts his dominance upon? He can't buy anything from shops, he can't ask for help, and people will walk into or step on him because they aren't aware of his presence. Which is why the invisible man seeks a human victim, a host, perhaps, who will act in proxy of him, and convey the desires, and later the terror of the invisible man to the rest of the unsuspecting human populace. This role he entrusts first to a beggar, who manages to elude him (with his loot!), and then to his friend a doctor, who betrays him. Power is nothing without the human victims to leech off, and, for all his 'power', the vulnerability of the solitude of the invisible man is highlighted in the final chapters as a massive manhunt is launched for an invisible killer. "Powdered glass. Yes, it sounds cruel, but it must be done. Tell the men to prepare powdered glass." Ooh. I get delirious with bloodlust just thinking about it ... I know lots of places where I would like to scatter a nice tinful of powdered glass, like the catwalks of all those flesh parades better known as beauty paegeants, for example. "Oh shut up, Charlotte, don't get carried away by your jealousy ("Hey!")." Speaking of power, like many other works of the time, The Invisible Man can also be interpreted as another socialist allegory written by one of those liberal socialists who lived during that time, emphasising the importance of interaction with the people, and how the invisible man, for all his power, managed to wield only limited influence before being cruelly trod down in the middle of the street by the weight of the masses. But that takes as much a stretch of imagination as it does for people to believe that L. Frank Baum wrote The Wizard of Oz as some kind of utopian prophecy. The bad? Well, I feel like holding on the negative comments this time, because many of the gripes I have have already been gone over with my discussions on other texts like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, etc. Male-dominated, too presumptiously scientific, many plot-altering late revelations, similar stock main characters (wise doctor, crazy scientist, foolish buffoon ...), and so on. Perhaps it would be more fair, given my already lengthy elaboration about those earlier faults, to simply comment rather than criticise this time around. The Invisible Man is not a plot-centric text. It does not leave you gripping your seat, um, your book expectantly wondering what is going to happen next, which is strangely unlike the case for many texts of that time. Given the invisible man's stealthy and evasive nature, that might be understandable, as the action only really heats up with the chase scene at the end. Instead, you will spend more of your time pondering and considering the situation presented within the text, both literally (as to Griffin's diatribe halfway through on the merits and difficulties of being invisible), and analytically (example already presented earlier). As to my recommendations, if you're a fan of the precursor to science fiction which is the creative writing of the late 19th century, there really isn't a reason why you should avoid this since it's a staple of the repertoire that includes The Time Machine, War of the Worlds, and more things by Wells and Verne especially. Otherwise, if you're looking for something stimulating to keep you thinking and pondering for a while about the nature of the way things are in this world, you might want to give this a read through. No real action or unusual plot development here, this is mostly about intellectual philosophising. Definitely worth the couple hours it would take to finish the 100+ pages of it. Got a couple of hours free? Then give it a try. posted by Charlotte | 4:56 pm (0) comments Sunday, September 05, 2004 Do not expect much of me of late. I have been exceedingly distracted recently, least of all by ... ho, hum ... many things? Let's just say that I finally managed to load up Hordes of the Underdark. And as to how I managed to load it up? Let's just say that ... that it's the main reason why I've been so distracted recently. posted by Charlotte | 4:52 pm (0) comments Disclaimer : The Slayers and Filia Ul Copt and all images thereof are the property of Hajime Kanzaka and Rui Araizumi. I don't own any of them, although if I had a choice I would want Filia ... ~//n_n\\7 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
 |
|||||
|
||||||
