Life and How to Survive It

This is a well-written speech! Found this on Joel Kek’s blog and took it from Mr Wang Says So. This was written some time ago by Adrian Tan, a litigator and author of The Teenage Textbook, to the NTU graduating class of 2008.

–

I must say thank you to the faculty and staff of the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information for inviting me to give your convocation address. It’s a wonderful honour and a privilege for me to speak here for ten minutes without fear of contradiction, defamation or retaliation. I say this as a Singaporean and more so as a husband.

My wife is a wonderful person and perfect in every way except one. She is the editor of a magazine. She corrects people for a living. She has honed her expert skills over a quarter of a century, mostly by practising at home during conversations between her and me.

On the other hand, I am a litigator. Essentially, I spend my day telling people how wrong they are. I make my living being disagreeable.

Nevertheless, there is perfect harmony in our matrimonial home. That is because when an editor and a litigator have an argument, the one who triumphs is always the wife.

And so I want to start by giving one piece of advice to the men: when you’ve already won her heart, you don’t need to win every argument.

Marriage is considered one milestone of life. Some of you may already be married. Some of you may never be married. Some of you will be married. Some of you will enjoy the experience so much, you will be married many, many times. Good for you.

The next big milestone in your life is today: your graduation. The end of education. You’re done learning.

You’ve probably been told the big lie that “Learning is a lifelong process” and that therefore you will continue studying and taking masters’ degrees and doctorates and professorships and so on. You know the sort of people who tell you that? Teachers. Don’t you think there is some measure of conflict of interest? They are in the business of learning, after all. Where would they be without you? They need you to be repeat customers.

The good news is that they’re wrong.

The bad news is that you don’t need further education because your entire life is over. It is gone. That may come as a shock to some of you. You’re in your teens or early twenties. People may tell you that you will live to be 70, 80, 90 years old. That is your life expectancy.

I love that term: life expectancy. We all understand the term to mean the average life span of a group of people. But I’m here to talk about a bigger idea, which is what you expect from your life.

You may be very happy to know that Singapore is currently ranked as the country with the third highest life expectancy. We are behind Andorra and Japan, and tied with San Marino. It seems quite clear why people in those countries, and ours, live so long. We share one thing in common: our football teams are all hopeless. There’s very little danger of any of our citizens having their pulses raised by watching us play in the World Cup. Spectators are more likely to be lulled into a gentle and restful nap.

Singaporeans have a life expectancy of 81.8 years. Singapore men live to an average of 79.21 years, while Singapore women live more than five years longer, probably to take into account the additional time they need to spend in the bathroom.

So here you are, in your twenties, thinking that you’ll have another 40 years to go. Four decades in which to live long and prosper.

Bad news. Read the papers. There are people dropping dead when they’re 50, 40, 30 years old. Or quite possibly just after finishing their convocation. They would be very disappointed that they didn’t meet their life expectancy.

I’m here to tell you this. Forget about your life expectancy.

After all, it’s calculated based on an average. And you never, ever want to expect being average.

Revisit those expectations. You might be looking forward to working, falling in love, marrying, raising a family. You are told that, as graduates, you should expect to find a job paying so much, where your hours are so much, where your responsibilities are so much.

That is what is expected of you. And if you live up to it, it will be an awful waste.

If you expect that, you will be limiting yourself. You will be living your life according to boundaries set by average people. I have nothing against average people. But no one should aspire to be them. And you don’t need years of education by the best minds in Singapore to prepare you to be average.

What you should prepare for is mess. Life’s a mess. You are not entitled to expect anything from it. Life is not fair. Everything does not balance out in the end. Life happens, and you have no control over it. Good and bad things happen to you day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment. Your degree is a poor armour against fate.

Don’t expect anything. Erase all life expectancies. Just live. Your life is over as of today. At this point in time, you have grown as tall as you will ever be, you are physically the fittest you will ever be in your entire life and you are probably looking the best that you will ever look. This is as good as it gets. It is all downhill from here. Or up. No one knows.

What does this mean for you? It is good that your life is over.

Since your life is over, you are free. Let me tell you the many wonderful things that you can do when you are free.

The most important is this: do not work.

Work is anything that you are compelled to do. By its very nature, it is undesirable.

Work kills. The Japanese have a term “Karoshi”, which means death from overwork. That’s the most dramatic form of how work can kill. But it can also kill you in more subtle ways. If you work, then day by day, bit by bit, your soul is chipped away, disintegrating until there’s nothing left. A rock has been ground into sand and dust.

There’s a common misconception that work is necessary. You will meet people working at miserable jobs. They tell you they are “making a living”. No, they’re not. They’re dying, frittering away their fast-extinguishing lives doing things which are, at best, meaningless and, at worst, harmful.

People will tell you that work ennobles you, that work lends you a certain dignity. Work makes you free. The slogan “Arbeit macht frei” was placed at the entrances to a number of Nazi concentration camps. Utter nonsense.

Do not waste the vast majority of your life doing something you hate so that you can spend the small remainder sliver of your life in modest comfort. You may never reach that end anyway.

Resist the temptation to get a job. Instead, play. Find something you enjoy doing. Do it. Over and over again. You will become good at it for two reasons: you like it, and you do it often. Soon, that will have value in itself.

I like arguing, and I love language. So, I became a litigator. I enjoy it and I would do it for free. If I didn’t do that, I would’ve been in some other type of work that still involved writing fiction – probably a sports journalist.

So what should you do? You will find your own niche. I don’t imagine you will need to look very hard. By this time in your life, you will have a very good idea of what you will want to do. In fact, I’ll go further and say the ideal situation would be that you will not be able to stop yourself pursuing your passions. By this time you should know what your obsessions are. If you enjoy showing off your knowledge and feeling superior, you might become a teacher.

Find that pursuit that will energise you, consume you, become an obsession. Each day, you must rise with a restless enthusiasm. If you don’t, you are working.

Most of you will end up in activities which involve communication. To those of you I have a second message: be wary of the truth. I’m not asking you to speak it, or write it, for there are times when it is dangerous or impossible to do those things. The truth has a great capacity to offend and injure, and you will find that the closer you are to someone, the more care you must take to disguise or even conceal the truth. Often, there is great virtue in being evasive, or equivocating. There is also great skill. Any child can blurt out the truth, without thought to the consequences. It takes great maturity to appreciate the value of silence.

In order to be wary of the truth, you must first know it. That requires great frankness to yourself. Never fool the person in the mirror.

I have told you that your life is over, that you should not work, and that you should avoid telling the truth. I now say this to you: be hated.

It’s not as easy as it sounds. Do you know anyone who hates you? Yet every great figure who has contributed to the human race has been hated, not just by one person, but often by a great many. That hatred is so strong it has caused those great figures to be shunned, abused, murdered and in one famous instance, nailed to a cross.

One does not have to be evil to be hated. In fact, it’s often the case that one is hated precisely because one is trying to do right by one’s own convictions. It is far too easy to be liked, one merely has to be accommodating and hold no strong convictions. Then one will gravitate towards the centre and settle into the average. That cannot be your role. There are a great many bad people in the world, and if you are not offending them, you must be bad yourself. Popularity is a sure sign that you are doing something wrong.

The other side of the coin is this: fall in love.

I didn’t say “be loved”. That requires too much compromise. If one changes one’s looks, personality and values, one can be loved by anyone.

Rather, I exhort you to love another human being. It may seem odd for me to tell you this. You may expect it to happen naturally, without deliberation. That is false. Modern society is anti-love. We’ve taken a microscope to everyone to bring out their flaws and shortcomings. It far easier to find a reason not to love someone, than otherwise. Rejection requires only one reason. Love requires complete acceptance. It is hard work – the only kind of work that I find palatable.

Loving someone has great benefits. There is admiration, learning, attraction and something which, for the want of a better word, we call happiness. In loving someone, we become inspired to better ourselves in every way. We learn the truth worthlessness of material things. We celebrate being human. Loving is good for the soul.

Loving someone is therefore very important, and it is also important to choose the right person. Despite popular culture, love doesn’t happen by chance, at first sight, across a crowded dance floor. It grows slowly, sinking roots first before branching and blossoming. It is not a silly weed, but a mighty tree that weathers every storm.

You will find, that when you have someone to love, that the face is less important than the brain, and the body is less important than the heart.

You will also find that it is no great tragedy if your love is not reciprocated. You are not doing it to be loved back. Its value is to inspire you.

Finally, you will find that there is no half-measure when it comes to loving someone. You either don’t, or you do with every cell in your body, completely and utterly, without reservation or apology. It consumes you, and you are reborn, all the better for it.

Don’t work. Avoid telling the truth. Be hated. Love someone.

You’re going to have a busy life. Thank goodness there’s no life expectancy.

–

The Theory Acceptance Theory

Power is knowledge. The logical, emotional, spiritual and moral acceptance of a theory, concept or idea is invariably proportionate to the supposed “levels” of intellect in any domain, formal or informal, of the theorist (if deemed by society as the original proposer), however sound the said theory might be. Therefore:-

(i) If a theory, concept or idea is proposed by someone of recognised “levels” of intelligence in any domain, formal or informal, it will be accepted rapidly.

1. Reception – Little consideration of previous circumstances (such as a person of less recognised intelligence who previously reporting the said theory), general inaccuracy and non-verifiability will be given. Mere mention is required.
2. Transmission – Most broadcasting will be based on word-of-mouth spreading, often among social networks with peoples of naturally similar propensity to transmit the theory, with little/no regard of possible error.
3. Legacy – Most of these theories are short bursts of data which multiply rapidly but consequently decompose shortly after. Impacts on social networks and the society in general vary, but their effects may also be long-lasting, the chances of how radical the data is and the social power exerted by the original speaker.

Key examples range from Sarah Palin’s “death panels” to the person one always quotes, perceives as the intellectual beacon of a social network, and often relies on for pseudo-intellectual social assistance.

(ii) If a theory, concept or idea is proposed by someone of recognised “levels” of intelligence in any domain, formal or informal, it will be accepted rapidly.

1. Reception – Most consideration will be placed on thorough verification and elimination, despite current circumstances (such as a person of familiarity and similar social standing), general accuracy and verifiability.
2. Transmission – Most broadcasting will be rumour-based, relatively slow and in one-one social settings. Scepticism is multiplied as more agents receive the information.
3. Legacy – Most of these ideas are long streams of data which reproduce slowly and have high propensities of decomposition. Impacts on networks are likely to be limited. However, the effects in this category have the strange tendency to propagate a (very) long time later, with stunningly large repercussions on the society which originally reacted with scepticism.

Key examples range from key sociocultural achievements (Leonardo Da Vinci’s art forms, Galileo and his heliocentric theory) to the person whose social and intellectual contributions one often selectively ignores with general ease, choosing rather to attribute the said knowledge to those with “recognised” levels of intelligence.

Porah, sxc.hu

The decency to listen

The Dec 2009 D.C. Tea Party: a New Left Media film

The tea-party animals know neither what they are opposing or what they are supporting. Don’t they feel any disgrace?

I see this fundamental dichotomy in American politics of this day: armed with the well-espoused post-modern philosophy of “there’s no right or wrong” in politics, you can be Barack Obama or Glenn Beck and people will still support you. Little regard is paid to the reality of your facts or rationality of your argument, if you can just allude to big ideas like “freedom” and “democracy”, with a good rub of personality. Glenn Beck is the culmination of everything wrong in American politics, which is why the misled look up to him; Obama, on the other hand, represents ordered thinking and proper policy, which is why rational ones looks up to him.

The Rightists live in a dark era of irrationality, filled with Glenn and his fake-tearing, India-hating, diarrhoea-eructing filth. The natural result is an outpour of Americans bombarded with false lies. Once such a paradox holds true, democracy fails.

There was really a time when the American Right had the decency to listen, and therefore the wisdom to govern.

time

Studying is like plain water: a luxury many can afford, but few ever relish.

“Run, Sarah, Run!”

They chanted. It was the first Tea Party convention, and the room was electrified. Sarah Palin was the key attraction.  She did the usual, in order – insult Obama, Democrats, senior Republicans, then praise the American spirit. Nevermind that she is paid $100,000 for one-off speeches such as this in Nashville, Tennessee. Nevermind the grade-school tactics: on the palm of this woman’s hand, were “key words” she had to include during a Q&A session – energy, tax cuts, and the American spirit. (It is irony, distilled in its purest form, that she should take Obama out on using a “teleprompter” for one of his town hall sessions. Perhaps it’s more “folksy” to use a palm instead.)

Sarah Palin has emerged as a unique political entity on the American landscape – no longer candidate, no longer governor, and – thank god – not president. Therefore the key concern now also no longer lies in whether Sarah Palin is a thick-headed ignoramus or witless imbecile – we should have established erstwhile that she is both. Her decidedly dumb and viciously vague memoir Going Rogue highlights her complete ignorance over fundamental issues of national concern – as if we needed more.

But therein lies her unorthodoxy: her failures translate into a force indulging in deliberated disobedience and dissent, a carefully recalcitrant mould she tailor-makes to fit herself. And this lawless, even heretical, discord is populism at its best and worst – even it means insulting a gentle McCain, unantagonistic senior GOP senators, or the Democrats. (Her book focused predominantly on lashing at the former two.) Sarah Palin is not a person, she is an idea: she is America expressing traditional distrust in big government.

But she has channelled populist sentiment in a dangerously misguided manner. Media theorist Marshall McLuhan, famous for coining “the medium is the message”, expresses this trend succinctly: “The politician would only be too happy to abdicate in favour of his image, because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be.” While we may insult her for steeply lacking in content, she has already realised that she needs none of that.

The rules have changed. We may jeer at her self-fulfilling prophesies: if she instigates senators (and the people they supposedly represent) to stall reform, any tangible change will obviously be stalled. She subsequently rides on this lack of change to denounce the establishment – “How’s that hopey, changey stuff working out for ya’?” and perpetuates this vicious circle. The loss of the super-majority in Senate has rendered an already undemocratic Senate useless, feeding Palin more cannon fodder. Self-defeat awaits any opponent willing to renounce her first-rate unsophisticated and unfamiliarity with American concerns – her trump card is, in fact, a blatant disregard for anything to do with reality. Instead, she creates her own reality around her hand of spades. The role this frivolous dolt plays in the U.S. political mindfield deserves some serious rethinking. Suspicion that the GOP is grooming a new 2012 presidential candidate runs high, but we can never be too sure about anything Palin. The only two things we really know? She’s a “maverick”, and she’s one that America does not need – now now, not ever.

Will you marry me?

‘Cause I am your lady
And you are my man
Whenever you reach for me
I’ll do all that I can

Jennifer Rush and Celine Dion took their turns with the power ballad, and saw to its immense success. But are today’s marriages doing it justice? Last year, TIME carried an article about the upward trend of American households ditching the conventional marriage and doing without. And America is the country of controversy: any wrangle to be had, you’ll find it there.

But really, what implications will there be for society – without this little thing called “marriage”? Not only do existing couples find a loss of security, for the dating ones, that would be a disastrous loss of mutual affirmation. But homosexuals , society’s minority (society isn’t homogeneous, you know), will find it liberating at best, or self-defeating at worst. Nevertheless consensus is that heterosexual (“normal”) couples will suffer great loss.

Is marriage good? That underlying question is always considered, preferably in a dark, romantic setting to induce the correct answer, which is “yes”. As hard as it is for physicists to accept, human society has actually tended toward a state of less entropy – or reduced disorder. Society’s very premise is organisation and collectivisation. Marriage is, by far, the longest lasting, most invasive and most solid tenet in individual lives.

That needs a disclaimer, because I want to cover my a** it deserves genuine clarification. I do not oppose marriage. “Invasive” here is not used with negative connotation, but rather, true to its original stated meaning: interference. It is used on the same plane as “constructive” and “destructive interference” for Young’s double-slit experiment, given by Y=mλL/d.

Oh, the Greeks, in their heyday, had their “marriages”. But infidelity was common, and so was homosexuality. It was deemed “natural” to have partners of the same sex – known as pederasty. (Greek men were expected to bear a similar level of attraction to the beauty of male adolescents as  their wives. In fact the more old men found a male attractive, the higher recognition he was given in society.) Marriage happened only after the attraction – arguably the antithesis of today’s Asian societies, which, despite some social maturity, have not killed the holy cow – i.e., matrimony.

Fast forward a few centuries to modern-day USA. Consider this: more than half the married population has been divorced at least once. Don’t blame the evils of modernisation or anything or that sort: Chinese model essays only go that far in explaining this. (In fact, Chinese essays capture the essence of societal conditioning quite adequately – bite-sized, user-friendly chunks of societal codes you are obliged to memorise, ingest and internalise. Pass the O-levels and a model citizen morphs soon after.) And Singapore, with the “conservative Asian mindset” the government insists we have, isn’t free from the devil of divorce. One third of local marriages end up in failure. That’s one in every three couples you see at ION, holding hands, smiling, taking in the Orchard Road air.

Why so many marriages fizzle, flop and fall can be traced to either one or both spouses failing to answer basic questions in their marriage:

One, can they commit to silence? A silent partner isn’t really “silent”: in fact, it is usually the opposite. The partner fails to understand the root reasons for unhappiness, while the counterpart froths frustration, incapable or (after a while) unwilling to express fully their fundamental disagreements. Agreements are forged based on a consensus not to disagree. In the case where a cold war erupts at home – the post-WW2 one was assuredly milder – and nuclear winter spells silence, leaving situations to fester may mean unresolved discussions which in reality, should be discussed.

Then again, are you irreplaceable? (Now is the part where I appear philosophical, so stand back.) Marriage creates the conditions for misplaced comfort to snuggle nicely in the bed with the couple. Yes, being irreplaceable is the essence of love unconditionally meted – but is marriage love, or is it just society’s idea of what it should be? Irreplaceableness is the fundamental condition of the ideal romantic love, yet marriage discards this element. Can we then revere this social construct as so sacrosanct as to be unimpeachable? Beyonce offers her opinion in “Irreplaceable”:

I could have another you in a minute
Matter fact he’ll be here in a minute, baby…

I can have another you by tomorrow
So don’t you ever for a second get to thinking you’re irreplaceable

There’s this nagging suspicion that many marriages fail because of a decreasing sensitivity toward the partner’s emotions. Translation? Your fingers harden when you keep strumming them on the guitar strings. Twang twang twang snap. (it’s noisy, late, and i’m trying to sleep.)

A marriage less than ideal is one not worth having. Hence, marriage is a failed concept because it does not align itself with reality – it is unattainable. The universal reality is more, never less, entropy. But don’t be too carried away in this epistemological mumbo-jumbo: the decision to marry is ultimately made on a park bench, preferably with the moon in full bloom, meekly-lit lamps, and soft breezy ambience – cricket chirping optional.

-

P.S. For those wondering what the completely irrelevant formula stands for, ask this awfully goody-two-shoes SAT  Physics-taker personally.

P.P.S. And no, I’m not getting engaged, married or otherwise. This piece isn’t about me: love isn’t that shallow.

Here comes a new decade

Oh don’t worry this isn’t going to be esoteric stuff.

2009 was, by some distance, the most tumultuous year in my life. It has been a rollercoaster in any way conceivable – in particular, emotionally. It has been mostly un-enjoyable. I seemed happier this year, but I wasn’t. A select number of people and reasons were critical in creating the prevailing unhappiness.

It seems inauspicious that I begin the first post of the decade with these unhappy words. But they are true. Of course this year had its memorable moments made by outstanding people, and some scarcely know the extent of their actions. These people made my year bearable and sometimes, even good.

Envision yourself 10 years down the road. Just pause and do so. What will you be doing? Who will you be with? (in every possible way this can be construed) It seems nice and jolly for me, but that’s because I’m long-term bullish. As with all things, there are always possibilities that things could turn awry, or become unbelievably important. That’s how life goes.

Bye 2009. I learnt a lot from you, but that’s enough for now. Heyy 2010 and the decade to come. I know you really are the product of arbitrary time lines, but change should be quicker than you. Night.

will you please blog?

No. This isn’t one of those posts where I fill up the black screen with reasons why I didn’t blog messily scribbled, or I touch up some draft post composed months back and publish it, or I explain why I like writing – as seems fashionable nowadays when there is really nothing to write.

But the holidays are here. Need I tell you that? They are sickeningly short thanks to “rescheduled timetable” policy, which is as much irritating as tiring. The lethargy is observable in students in behaviour and attendance, in teachers in zeal and real syllabus covered, and in the bougainvilleas  in moisture content and colour vibrancy.

No. I’m not going to rant about lame school policy. Ranting is a custom discouraged by “this newspaper”. (Economist readers?)

The SATs are just five days away. I’ve completed a book – doing 10 practice tests remains a good way to prepare, because it makes you familiar with the questions. But that is no guarantee of a reduction in carelessness or (inversely) an increase in scores. Their math is, should we say, American. Their grammar (“critical reading” and “writing) is exacting and anal, which is probably the most rigorous part of SAT I. Their compre questions are occasionally vague and repetitive. Note, however, that the more difficult the passage, the less mistakes you will make.

No. Today isn’t the day where I talk about batteries of standardised tests carrying little significance. (But yes, my library SAT book is overdue. Library SAT books are notoriously vandalised; good Samaritans like me should be paid for the amount of eraser I use to erase wrong answers prior to taking the practice tests. I horde books to erase them of pencil scratchings. Tsk.)

On some recent shopping trips (alright I shop, but only occasionally and after some serious negotiations with my mum), I’ve observed this overt bias toward the ideal “Western” face. And the reason, I believe, is that we are inundated with Hollywood movies, Western models, and that sort of thing which influence us very much. The words “hot” and – what’s that – “cute” definitely didn’t come from over here. We tend to project these unconsciously-acquired “images” onto ourselves and the things we buy.

No. This blog doesn’t exist to discuss fashion. The trend may be Western neo-colonialism (of the mind, seeing how avant garde we have become) at play, but who really cares about these things nowadays? No one, right? Good.

Oh and work. I’ve not managed to clear up any of the files on my bay-window. It’s a load of papers shouting “WILL YOU PLEASE JUST FILE ME IN SO I WON’T FLY ABOUT.” The wind sixty metres above sea level is vicious. Photos are unnecessary to illustrate this point.  (This sentence is wrong, according to ETS, the business running SAT, because it’s in an unnecessarily passive voice.)And my dad bought a new psuedo-DSLR. It’s close at least to what a DSLR can do, just that it’s lighter, more portable, and does away with all the fancy lenses you need to buy to show (i) your affluence, otherwise (ii) your photo-taking abilities.

Having a DSLR and not knowing how to take a good photograph is criminal. Take a photo of the landscape and your flash light lurches up, erect and in rapt attention. You do not know what to do, so you wait for it to subside. By then the sun would have set.

An Open Letter by Bashar al-Assad

Dear Syria,

I am your President Bashar al-Assad. I was popularly elected at the age of 34, under the auspices of the Baath Party and my father, your previous President.

I am part of the Aluwite miniority clan, but, as unwilling as the Sunni Muslim majority was, I had a 97.2% support rate in the 2001 referendum. We exhibited that we were popularly selected, unlike other states like Bahrain or Jordan which have hereditary transfers of power. We were uncontested in this respect, and, having commanded the respect of all our people, I moved immediately for political reform.

When I was first elected, I took rapid action for a “New Deal” on rights. Over 600 political prisoners were released, most of them Islamists, and removed martial court and political prisons. I didn’t do those anymore. I gave the press some liberties, with sweeping conditions that they adopted our pan-Arabic stance. I believe the press necessarily enlighten the people of what their state is, and how their state responds to issues. The other parties have shown support for us by voluntarily curbing their newspapers.

I believe that we must join in solidarity in our unified fight against the Western forces of Satan. It is a national duty – Israel and the US constantly want to subert and destroy all that we hold dear, and we must prohibit them from doing so. It is in our interest, and indeed, in my interest too, therefore, to ensure that no Western concepts take root. I have banned democracy and its need for accountability and reform, as well as the civil society and its net of rights. These are solely Western concepts, and we cannot condone them if we are to protect our 4000-year-old superior heritage.

Some dissidents, agents of the West, have asked: why Lebanon? I have been trying to explain to us all, in the mist of martial law, that we had to assume responsibility of Lebanon as a natural political step, not because it generated profit for us by providing employment, but because our good ally, Iran, provides us with state cash in return for temporarily loaning space for Hezbollah operations. This organisation is crucial in our fight against the West, which we are winning. Iran’s nucleic rise means they can soon manufacture peaceful weapons, to make battle against the scarce US stockpiles and useless satellites.

We are of Arabian and Muslim ancestry, and we must continue to make the right foreign policy decisions for the right domestic reasons. We reject all US allies – Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Turkey – a conspiracy which we shall never forgive or forget. It is in our interest to maintain our cultural superiority. We will continue the good fight.

Once, in one of their many failed bids to conquer the entire Middle East, Israel was in desperation to succumb Golam Heights to us. They had mismanaged the region so badly, we knew at that point, they had given up in their quest. How could the cowards ever succeed in dominating the entire world with heretic ideology, if they had not even managed to administer, let alone govern, Golam Heights. It was then that I poured grace and mercy on the Israelis – to relieve them of their burden of governing not just Golam Heights, but also help them manage 20 km into their territory. It was a sincere action on my part to relieve the oppressed – by proposing this, Syria was in fact alleviating Israel’s chronic political situations.

And what did their Sharon do? That reincarnation of the devil, that messenger of Hell, so blatantly rejected our offers. They disagreed so vehemently when all we were doing was showing compassion, giving the weak excuse that they would have no water supply. Which man -  let alone an entire state – in the right mind, would throw us that stupid reasoning? They were stalling the negotiations, even betraying their America. Who can trust them?

It is this government’s considered policy to ensure that we keep our Arabian tradition which saw us through the past millennium and made us the cultural hub of the world. I urge you, in view of keeping the peace, to support us. We are the government who will protect us against the Western hegemony and their continued pursuit to conquer the entire Middle East. It will only be a matter of time before we remove them altogether – with Israel wiped off – then the Arab nations will rejoice in the name of our fatherland and our god.

Unity by Islam. Strength by faith. Syria by Baath.

Always and forever -

Your President,

Bashar

 

(I wrote this a very, very long time ago – that means December last year. Renyan will take care to correct any factual errors, should they appear, because he knows about this. This was written all in one sitting – I had researched quite a bit into him after reading some BBC articles. Unless you’ve been living under a rock in a cave on a mountain under the sea floor, you should have heard of this guy.)

born royalty, and then what?

Look at this list of people. You’ll realise how much they have accomplished.

They’re the same age as me. At the same time (and age) they’ve accomplished significantly more in their lives. Some have found their “calling” by being very good in what they do.

As the list for those born each year is created on Wikipedia, those appearing are either royalty, have been conceived through fancy technology, or were born with unique abnormalities. Yet as the years pass, each “batch” of the world’s young begins to reveal their potential and then – boomz – a talent explosion. And time begets irony: those born into this world with “royal blood” are gradually overshadowed by those who prove their worth, despite having “inferior” platelets. They don’t just kick football – they act, sing, dance, figure-skate. And just for starters, we have Miley Cyrus – no, no, I know what you’re thinking – who nevertheless has carved out quite a career for herself. Oh, did I mention? She earned $25 million last year. (Money doesn’t determine success, but it does serves as a crude barometer of success in some careers.)

I wish I could do those, or have a defining talent. Chances are, you desire the same thing too. We all do, because belong firmly in the former group of the Privileged. There are those among us who shine, but there are lights all over – on the soccer field, on the track, in the exam hall, in the studio. The world suffers from no dearth of talent, and definitely no lack of light.

We should carve out areas where we can fully excel. Not in the SS, National Education, our-only-resource-is-people sort of way. But in a revolutionary expression of creative energy.

Something – I don’t know - unique.

La.