Sunday, December 30, 2007
I was reading about
the death of Carlos Sousa at the claws of a Siberian Tiger(<-link) in the Los Angeles zoo...
The news in themselves are old news, but the emerging details are interesting, to say the least; specifically, I find the the part about the medics who "refused to enter until they knew they would be safe." quite problematic.
On one hand, I find it a disgusting violation of the Hippocrates oath: clearly, the good of the patient was not the highest priority of these
medics. On the other, I completely understand their fear for their lives.
So should a medic put his/her self, his/her very life at risk in the practice of medicine? I think that depends on WHY the person in question is practicing medicine: if the good of mankind is the motive, then yes, they should; if it's the good of their wallet, then clearly not. But which is it, and which was it? How do you define the limits of each? I don't know. If an ancient question has endured long enough to be posed in our times, it's probably extremely hard to answer.
Labels: Carlos Sousa, ethics, Hippocrates, medicine
Yes, I really do think that, thanks
12:13 PM
Thursday, December 27, 2007
I am not a newspaper, and I did not know the lady; it therefore somehow feels indecent, for me to praise the name of
Benazir Bhutto from mere hearsay.
And yet, it feels equally indecent, even
filthy, to be completely silent on the matter... So...
What do you say, really, when you hear of such a horrible murder? The disgust, the bone-deep shudder it evokes would apply to any murder. But perhaps we can take some small measure of comfort in the fact that this ...
ruthless execution (there is no other suitable term) has managed to immortalize Mrs. Bhutto, her life and her struggles, her will and desires, in ways that nothing else could have achieved. While I imagine that this is a very small consolation to her friends and children (who have my deepest, most earnest condolences), it is something at least: what other comfort is there to be had?
As I said, I did not know the lady, though greatly I do regret it. If you, reader, did and are mourning her... I hope this poem (by JRR Tolkien) will be of some comfort to you, as it was for me on my father's death:
In western lands beneath the Sun
the flowers may rise in Spring,
the trees may bud, the waters run,
the merry finches sing.
Or there maybe 'tis cloudless night
and swaying beeches bear
the Elven-stars as jewels white
amid their branching hair.
Though here at journey's end I lie
in darkness buried deep,
beyond all towers strong and high,
beyond all mountains steep,
above all shadows rides the Sun
and Stars for ever dwell:
I will not say the Day is done,
nor bid the Stars farewell.Labels: Benazir Bhutto, murder, Pakistan
Yes, I really do think that, thanks
11:55 PM
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
I guess this is the right day to wish everybody a Merry Christmas. Christmas is thank-you/best wishes season... and, aside from assorted loved ones (family members, household pets etc), there are a few other people who deserve thanks and wishes.
-Thank you... to those of my university's alumni who, out of kindness and concern, are serving as mentors to the young ones (="us"). We hope we will do as well as you are now when our turn comes.
-Thank you... to Richard Corbett MEP. Because I still read his blog daily (and sulk when there's no update); I'll just add this: there's two kinds of elected officials on the web: those who simply "friend" the entire country on facebook or myspace, and leave it at that... and those who go about their daily business, making interesting, informative updates on their blogs. From my vantage point... being friends on facebook is nice... but it's ONLY nice. It indicates an intention: after that? dedication is needed. And dedication is best shown when the elected official takes it upon himself to be, not only "our vice somewhere", but also the person that informs us about what happens there, too. Having a blog, and writing about important events in it? Now, THAT is a worthy contribution.
Among other things, it turns the tables: in our day and age, scandal and juicy tales tend to monopolize the attention of the printed press, to the detriment of minor considerations such as truth, factuality and accuracy. When it comes to the EU, it's easier to listen to carefully doctored stories, made up by europhobes for no other reason than to scare people, than to go do the "good citizen" thing and look to the source. And that's why Richard's blog is so important: it gives us, the readers, the Europeans, a front seat to developments in Brussels, providing the best of counters to a variety of silly, sensationalist stories that are conjured out of thin air (by some people of rather questionable ethics).
On top of that... it makes all the people who go on about "lack of transparency" in Brussels look like blithering idiots, much to the delight of europhiles like me. Thanks for that. Merry Christmas.
-Best wishes to... Jerry and Kate McCann. A few years ago, on new Year's eve, someone stole my dog. I was settling down for a very miserable year, until, at the literal 11th hour (23 PM), my mother found her (and the culprits). How much worse must it be for them. I cannot imagine what they are going through, but wish them fortitude, strength, and to find her. Preferably soon, but if this can't be... then just find her.
Labels: Christmas, Luck, Thank you, Wishes
Yes, I really do think that, thanks
10:57 AM
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Obesity seems to be coming up ever more often as a big, bad problem.
We've all heard that employers in the UK discriminate against obese people, because they consider obesity to be a sign of moral weakness and lack of control. We've all seen the token "fat girl" in movies and have all covertly pitied her.
But otherwise? Reuters press agency recently published an article according to which
"Obesity accounts for more than half of deaths of women in childbirth" (<- link).
But the prize surely goes to the Australian visitors of totaltravel.com, who, according to
this article (<-another link) is running a survey on the topic of "should larger people be forced to pay for two seats on a plane?".
The possible answers are: "Yes, I paid for my seat, I shouldn't have to share it" (65% of respondents), "No, they shouldn't be penalized because of their weight" (35%) and "I don't care, I fly first or business class anyway" (1%).
I'm not going to attempt to demolish this argument. I find it extremely, devastatingly sad. "I have paid for my seat, I shouldn't have to share it" is either a lovely display of the egopathic spirit of our times, or alternately, a demonstration of the fact that some form of discrimination is always prevalent in our society.
Nobody wants to be fat. Especially me (I AM fat). Too much stigma, too much drama, too many health implications. Does this entitle anyone to mock or discriminate against me because I am?
Labels: discrimination, fat, Policy, weight
Yes, I really do think that, thanks
11:30 AM
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Apparently, as I was posting the previous post, BBC world was publishing the results of the trial, which can be found ->
HERE<- .
I can only deplore this lamentable decision, even as I am happy that Mrs. Gibbons isn't getting a higher, or more painful, sentence. I am not upset about the deportation... I am assuming she will be quite pleased to be gone after this suffering is past.
Lamentable, truly.
And what of Sarah Khawad, whom I hesitate to style with a title such as "Mrs", for this gross misunderstanding and little cruelty, this callous disregard of a person's, a foreigner's life, freedom and health? Will she keep her job in the international, multicultural school?
Labels: Gillian Gibbons, Mohammed., Religions, Sarah Khawad, sentence, trial
Yes, I really do think that, thanks
7:30 PM
Being a very empathic person, I can feel my entire body go cold at the mere possibility that the possibility of Mrs. Gillian Gibbons (the teacher who was recently accused of inciting religious hatred by naming a teddy bear Mohammed).
But as a blogger, and a webjournalist... I want to ask a certain number of questions:
Does Mrs. Sarah Khawad have no brothers or cousins named Mohammed? What is the name of the judge judging Mrs Gibbons? What about the first names of the witnesses, police officers, etcetera? These questions have not been asked, and yet I find myself curious.
I, for one, do not think that naming a cuddly toy Mohammed(or Muhammad or whatever) is inciting religious hatred. I do however, think that
(1) Prosecuting a teacher about such a harmless thing, in a high-profile case that is naturally splattered all over the papers of the entire world, IS inciting religious hatred.
(2) Complaining about a teddy bear called Mohammed is also inciting religious hatred, unless it is simply the jealousy of a simply incompetent, pathetically nasty, rival.
As a result, it is my fondest hope that Mrs. Gibbons will be acquitted, for her sake and that of cultural concord and peace... and that Mrs. Khawad's bias against foreigners will be noted, commented upon, and registered as pertains to her further employment.
Labels: Gillian Gibbons, Mohammed., Sarah Khawad, Teddy Bear
Yes, I really do think that, thanks
7:15 PM
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Latest "big news":
David Beckham allegedly snubbed a group of child cancer survivors.
Allow me my sarcasm:
1) I'm absolutely sure it was wholly deliberate.
2) I'm convinced everyone NEEDED to know that juicy little tidbit of information.
And lastly... I'm very, very glad that these children survived cancer. And equally glad that "cancer survivor" is not written on their foreheads in big, neon letters, for the David Beckhams of the world to read. The yellow press really needs to have a fairer perspective on events that are purely accidental, and not use them in such a ridiculous sensationalist way.
There are people who shout at cancer survivors, people who fight with cancer survivors, people who argue with cancer survivors. My own father was ignored by most of his friends and acquaintances as soon as they heard he had cancer. And all these people don't get dragged through the mud, though in my humble opinion, they would deserve it much more than Beckham (at least, for this one)
Labels: Beckham, Cancer, survivors
Yes, I really do think that, thanks
5:22 PM
Brazil's Lula recently said that
God must be Brazilian, apparently echoing a popular saying of the country. But is he really? I am not sure whether
the 15-year old girl who was gang-raped by prison inmates in the state of Para would agree.
According to the article linked above, "this is a serious case of criminal negligence against women". No gentlemen, this is a serious case of criminal negligence against children first, and women later. Why? Because surely they must have known her age, and it should have protected her even against disrespect to her gender.
Wanting to have sex with an adult woman is human; forcing her into it is perverted.
Wanting to have sex with a child is always, always perverse, and always, always the disgusting act of a disturbed mind.
As per Victor Hugo's words, a teenager is
"the beginning of a woman in the end of a child". Which one was violated by this compulsory sexual act? The child that is no more, or the woman who has been ejected into womanhood in the nastiest, cruelest way possible?
Labels: Brazil, children, Group Rape, women
Yes, I really do think that, thanks
1:31 AM
Saturday, November 24, 2007
According to this yahoo-news article,
David Cameron is slamming the EU as being ennemies of freedom.
Personally, I cannot understand Mr. Cameron's concept of freedom: in what way do uniformous regulations steal individual freedoms?
While Mr. Cameron is certainly entitled to opinions, I find them to be in the proverbial eye of the (equally proverbial) beholder: In saying that there are these
"politicians and public officials who believe that they know best how to organise our lives, that they are the experts, so they must have the power", is he stating that this is the ideology of Labour, or is he simply assuming that all politicians share his conception, and that his ideas for "improving people's lives" are better than those of the Labour Party and the EU combined? And if the former, who made him the Labour's Spokesman? And if the latter, he appears to be rather overconfident, for someone who actually -LOST- the last elections (and who could, in fact, lose them again).
History is a fickle Mistress; whose side she is on will be judged
post, not
ante mortem. But regardless of when we will judge whether or not Mr. Cameron was in fact correct, I have to say I am quite tired of such hogwash. "Ennemies of Freedom", "ideas out of date". For crying out loud. I suppose that the Conservatives aren't really conservative, and that their ideas are actually revolutionary? The concept does boggle the mind.
Labels: Cameron, ennemies of freedom, Labour, statements
Yes, I really do think that, thanks
7:38 PM
