Seth Godin with 9 tips on how to write like a blogger. His no.2 cuts straight to the point:
Realize that people have choices. With 80 million other blogs to choose from, I know you could leave at any moment (see, there goes someone now). So that makes blog writing shorter and faster and more exciting.
Thinking out loud, what if we were to replace the word 'blog' with 'sermon'?
"As Paul Virilio in one of his more enigmatic, but highly insightful, quips tell us: “The speed of light does not merely transform the world. It becomes the world. Globalization is the speed of light.”
"At we approach the speed of light time condenses and space contorts. Globalization yields an instantaneity of both communications and relationships, a transcendence of the simply cultural and the merely social...In the postmodern cosmopolis relationships are radically “deterritorialized” (Deleuze). Postmodern Christianity is the “radical relationality” that the postmodern cosmopolis makes possible."
Lisa Gates lists 29 fulfilment-sapping responses in dire need of being wiped off our vocabulary. Of them all, the only I'd propose not eliminating is no.6 as I believe 'having a baby' isn't a "Just Do It" decision.
But as for (most of) the rest, hmm, sound familiar?
1. I don’t have the time. 2. Everything on my to-do list is important and essential. 3. I can’t quit. If I do, everything will fall apart. 4. If I take time off, I’ll lose my game. 5. Nobody will hire me, I’m too old. 6. You’re supposed to get married and then have the baby. 7. Get your diploma, go to college, get a master’s, get married, get a career, have a family, grow old, die. 8. I need an MFA to get published. 9. Art is good, but if you want to make a living, you have to get a real job. 10. I am a complete loser without my [to-do list] [blackberry] [iphone] [rolodex]. 11. You’re a loser if you use a rolodex. 12. I can’t delete all those emails. 13. You have to get a telephone. Everyone has a telephone. 14. Nobody will respect me if I don’t have a Ph.D. 15. I have to know how it ends before I begin. 16. You have to start at the bottom if you want to get to the top. 17. A black man can never be president. 18. My vote doesn’t count. 19. Women over 50 should not have long hair. 20. I’m not creative. 21. Investing is pointless as my age; I should have started years ago. 22. It’s all my mother’s fault. 23. It’s all your mother’s fault. 24. I don’t have any choice. 25. If I don’t make it by 30, I never will. 26. If you’re an artist, you need a career to fall back on. 27. Finding love is just not in the cards for me. 28. I’d rather travel, but I have to get a degree first. 29. There’s nothing I can do about it (the all-time favorite).
These are real pictures - of lenticular clouds. They usually formed in high-altitudes (how's that for a no-brainer? *grin*)...aren't they simply breath-taking?
Tricia is currently the Director of the Centre for Public Policy Studies, at which she engages in national socio-economic issues through research, analysis and fostering policy dialogue. This covers a wide range of issues, dealing for example, with inter-faith dialogue and economic policies. Her work involves interacting closely with the country's socio-political environment. She hopes to work constructively toward a matured and united Malaysia, and envisions faith and vocation as one, as we seek common goals and platforms in the long-term nation-building process. She blogs on www.egalitaria.wordpress.com.
For those who have toiled many years fighting injustice in Malaysia, the results of the 12th General Election was considered vindication. Growing frustration with the administration led to what has been called a “political tsunami”, leading to the stronghold Barisan Nasional coalition losing its two-thirds majority at Parliament level. More shocking was its loss of four states, leaving the loose Opposition coalition to lead five State Governments in total, also unprecedented since Malaysia’s independence in 1957.
There were certainly a host of factors leading to this watershed event. Touted very much as an elections in which people exercised punishment votes, the percentage of popular vote for the coalition Government fell from 63% in 2004 to 51.2% in 2008, showing only slightly more than half of Malaysia’s voting population showing support for the present administration. These “push” variables have been charted out in analytic terms, listed in simple order as state corruption, inflation, displeasure with the New Economic Policy and its accompanying preferential policies for the Bumiputera community (made up of Malays and natives of the land) resulting in gross intra-ethnic socio economic disparity, issues of religious freedom, the economy, and the general perception of institutional and structural failures (the judiciary and police are two in particular).
One of the more significant “pull” factors was Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia’s ex-Deputy Prime Minister, who, after his recent release from seven-year imprisonment, went on massive rounds all across the country to rally for candidates in his party (Parti Keadilan Rakyat, originally formed on the premise of highlighting political injustice that was served him in 1998). Anwar’s ambition is to shoot for power, namely as head honcho of the state, and observers see these results as steadily laying the bricks in that very direction. The fact that the nation’s ex-Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed (arch enemy of Anwar), launched a series of strong criticism against the present Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi added fuel to the fire.
In a complexity of sorts, Malaysians had a plethora of issues and platforms to choose from, in voting against Barisan Nasional. All seemed to work in favour of the opposition, even if this was not considered a viable alternative. If one were not necessarily an Anwar supporter, one would weigh carefully the once-considered-wisdom of Dr Mahathir. If one were not necessarily an advocate for human rights and social justice, one would cite the dwindling economy as a reason to awaken the seemingly slackening Government. In either corner one turned, one was hit smack in the face with endless issues 360 degrees all around. The degrees and complexities to which each issue lent itself to the fabric of dissatisfaction remains to be explored. Some, for example, have argued that the Government’s last-minute decision to withdraw the use of indelible ink (earlier promised tooth and nail to enhance transparent election processes) was the straw that broke the camel’s back, proving the insincerity and potential fraudulence of the system.
As results streamed in steadily on a late Saturday night, into an early Sunday on March the 9th, Malaysians awoke to a new dawn. This new Malaysia was one characterised by an empowerment that although ironically belonged to the people, was also unrecognisable. For so long had frustrations simmered silently, until no longer could a storm in a teacup remain still. Despite initial hiccups, political instability within the opposition groups (PKR, DAP, PAS) and Government (UMNO, MCA, MIC, and others), this momentous event marks a positive step for Malaysia’s democratisation process as a whole. People now acknowledge their role as participatory citizens in the future of the nation, the very element necessary in any democracy.
Perseverance and longsuffering take on a new meaning in light of this new Malaysia. Many strived towards achieving a goal, although this goal was nowhere near in sight. Underlying this was a belief, real or imagined, that someday their work would reap good fruit. Now, whether or not these results would have been harvested in one’s lifetime is irrelevant, since dedication to a cause (for social, economic and political justice) should not be influenced by one’s belief in its ease of attainment. No, many should (and would) have continued working anyway, in creating a better society, whether or not the Elections resulted in opposition obtaining zero or 82 Parliamentary seats.
The point is, sweet victory was tasted and it is a welcome reminder that little “kingdoms on earth” can be exemplified right here, right now. Why the results of the Elections are considered a victory is not because Barisan Nasional lost numerous seats, nor was it because the Opposition control five out of 13 state Governments, a fivefold achievement. It is because Malaysians are now pointed in the direction of democratisation, an equitable society, social justice, principled governance (over and above race-based politics), public accountability, and freedom of expression. For all political parties to recognise this is a giant step for the country. Now begins the actual work in putting rhetoric into practice. Malaysians are holding their breath, but they acknowledge this. That this outcome has been a blessing of the most extraordinary kind.
Meaningful education is not about learning the subjects (e.g. Maths, Science, etc.). It's learning about life via the subjects.
In the International Baccalaureate, students ultimately engage in the Areas of Interaction i.e. the items surrounding the center of the diagram below, and the subjects (those at the outer edge of the hexagon) are vehicles of learning.
Learning is thus two-pronged, and children are provided with a coherent framework by which to both excel in, say, Maths and be aware and engaged with their own community (in "Community & Service", for example). The Areas of Interaction (AOI) are what make the education thoroughly meaningful and relevant.
Perhaps Christian education should be like this. The 'subjects' are what we're used to:
Theology (of God, of Man, of Salvation, etc.)
Church History
Discipleship
Apologetics
Old & New Testament Survey, etc.
But the AOIs' could be things like:
Technology
Politics
Psychology
Business
Ecology
Culture
Health, etc.
Maybe Christian educators can focus on interacting, engaging and making responsible choices on the AOIs', with such awareness and application being informed by the kingdom subjects.
Could we imagine a diagram for Christian education similar to the above?
The goal, of course, is to transform and 'redeem' the AOIs', NOT just to get 'head-knowledge' of the Christian topics. It's the intellectual version of getting the church 'out of' the church.
What do you think? Could it create more 'world-impacting' kingdom people, eager to both change their community with kingdom curriculum?
I've never heard or seen Clark Pinnock speak. The below is a video from last year at the 2007 Open Theology and Science Conference, the title of his lecture being Open Theology (A Project of Love).
He sounds very weak and hesitant, I wonder if he could read his notes all that well. He also says he had prostate surgery 'a few months ago', so maybe that could be part of it.
The below is the first part out of seven (click on the link and see the links for the next parts if you're interested). I think the first four parts are the lecture with the remaining three devoted to Q&A.
I was surfing for articles on the Malaysian economy and John Lee's site, Infernal Ramblings, topped the search charts. A South-East Asian studies post-graduate student, he also wrote a piece entitled Why UMNO Was Right and the Terengganu Sultan Wrong, the gist of his argument being:
"Like pretty much all the countries following the Westminster system around the world, Terengganu requires the Sultan to appoint an MB who he believes can command the confidence of a majority of the state assembly.
It quite logically follows from this that the Sultan initially erred in appointing Ahmad Said. Maybe one could believe that Ahmad would gain the support of the state assemblymen, but once it became clear that they would oppose his appointment, the Sultan's judgement was wrong."
How do you 'balance' the constitutional rights of the monarchy against the will of the people? On paper the Sultan has the power to select, but the paper also includes a caveat which apparently isn't being met altogether.
If you're one of the guys I invited for an interview today, I apologise if you're reading this. I hope you understand my frustration.
At first it felt good. Being on the other side of the JobStreet portal was fun for a change. It was good to get to click'Reject', 'Keep for Reference' and 'Short-Listed' instead of checking Job Apps and hoping the status will change, know what I mean? And there were dozens of you. For once, my having a job felt like the best thing in the world.
But then I started calling up a few of you I short-listed. These are the results:
Four of you didn't bother picking up the phone - it was about 10 o'clock, not awake?
One of you asked me where I was calling from and when I told you Kuala Lumpur you said, "Err, but I'm in Kedah, I don't think I can come down" - then, in the name of every bus and train that has broken down on the way from the Northern Peninsular to the Federal Territory, why did you apply?
Another one of you said, "Uh" no less than five times to me before speaking in very poor English - whilst I appreciate your efforts to try to impress me, it may be worth reminding you that "Uh" sounds FAR less appealing to a potential employer than, "No problem", "Okay", "I understand" and so on
Another one of you had the gall to ask me to call you back - I hope your multi-million dollar deal you were trying to clinch, or the person whose lungs you were trying to resuscitate, or the suicide-jumper you were trying to talk from leaping, you know, I hope things went okay. I trust it was worth more than hearing from me again, because I'm sure I've conveniently lost your contact details after this call.
And you. Goodness, you. You were one of two hopeful ones. At least you picked up your phone, spoke politely and agreed to the interview date and time.
But an hour later, you send me an email whose grammar, coherence and lexical quality blew me away:
"Sorry tomorrow i not attent your interview because i have travel to {ABC}, now i'm working at {XYZ}. So i hope you in invite me next week."
I've got some serious advice. Ranking yourself a 5 out of 10 in Written English, whilst not entirely immodest, isn't very accurate because it implies you would PASS an examination on written communication - and I doubt it.
I'm also sorry to say that, no, i not think i in invite you to attent interview again because i have lose hope in Malaysia grads who hunt jobs.
This is not a Tom Cruise movie, nor is it a Meryl Streep movie and it's barely a Robert Redford movie. Frankly, Lions for Lambs is barely a "movie" at all and if you wish to enjoy it you mustn't think of it as such, let alone a blockbuster movie. L4L is best savoured as a pseudo-documentary, not quite like Inconvenient Truth, though not that far away either.
In fact, the film could really be named Inconvenient Talk or Inconvenient Topics, as it's really about, well, talking about tough topics with no clear consensus view - in politics, in education, in media about the role of America and Americans in the war on terror, in the classroom, in public knowledge, in government, as minorities, as the privileged and so on.
You've got Robert Redford, a professor trying to convince possibly his brightest student that there's more to life than just earning degrees and growing rich. His take on crises like the Iraqi war, possibly echoing Redford's personal view, is that the younger generation can't sit back and blame the hopeless politicians. The people of America have got to do something, although two other students of his take the view to (what he views as) an extreme position by actualling signing up to fight.
These two students - a Puerto Rican and Negro - also form the other key segment of the show, a snow-battle in the mountains of Afghanistan resulting from a very poorly planned US military op. This fiasco was in turn the brainchild of Senator Jasper Irving, played with boyish gusto by Tom Cruise, the poster child of American Republican politics who says all the right things and ducks most of the tough questions, and does both with a huge grin. Irving invites Meryl Streep's character, a journalist, to do an exclusive on the new military strategy and in the process engages in a tense debate on the failures and futures of American foreign policy in the context of the war on terror.
L4L is all about the arguments. Back forth back forth - it's one big plurivocal textbook played out in motion picturesque.
Should Americans be indifferent, should they apologise, should they curse the politicians (those who never say anything but never stop talking, and who keep repeating that, "I am NOT running for President") and ignore them, or should they take an active role which may involve sacrificing 'the good life' (of good colleges, high salaries and big walls)?
Should the United States pull its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and risk "a shattered Iraq, a hopeless Afghanistan and a nuclear Iran"? Or should America continue to put their boys in the firing line, up the tempo and seek to annihilate the rebel forces and the 'Tali' (ban - get it?) once and for all? Are good and brave Americans who enlist for military action being stupid and throwing their futures away, like lions led by lambs? Or would it be better to seek alternative routes of engagement, until one is drafted into the army?
Can one disagree with another's patriotic actions whilst revering the other's reasons for them? (Can, in fact, motives and actions be so neatly separated?)
So you have professors, wise monkeys, counselling young lions not to be led to the slaughter by lambs like the Senators, themselves challenged by elephant-journalists with large memories - whilst the entire jungle is in crisis.
Welcome to the circus of life. There are animals everywhere and no one's really sure what's happening, but everyone's hoping there'll be a happy ending. Before we all tear each other apart, limb from bloody limb.
Went down memory lane this morning with a viewing of Dreamworks' Prince of Egypt for the Junior Christian Fellowship.
What's delightful is how the movie was far better than the original experience.
Somehow I could feel the tension in Moses as he had to leave his palace in Egypt for a future as a wandering descendant of the very slaves he watched over.
I almost cried with Pharoah over the loss of his son and I knew full well the stubborness, the go-to-hell-ness in his eyes and heart towards what his mind couldn't deny was the will of God.
I sensed the freedom of the Hebrew slaves as they walked (although they really actually ran) out of Egypt.
And, of course, the song took it all away.
What the movie didn't highlight, though, was the divine hardening of Pharoah's heart i.e. after a time (after the plague of boils, Exo 9:12), God removed Pharoah's ability to say Yes to God's commands.
This is sobering. God judges us by canceling out our ability to make sound judgements, at least temporarily. Still, I believe God's hardening is less like a carving in stone and more like a parent slamming a stubbon child's door, effectively blocking his 'choices'.
This is my blood, shed for you.
But today is Good Friday. And sometimes I wonder if God hardened His own heart towards His Son. What must it have required for the most loving Father to not only 'slam the door' on the perfect Son, but to also plunge that knife in? Without a hardened, broken heart, could God have let the Cross happen? God saved us by cancelling out (for an agonising instant!) His love for His Son, in order that His love for the world could be made triumphantly manifest.
The Cross ripped through the Godhead for all eternity. It was no cheap substitution, no mere 'symbolic' victory but a thoroughly (and eternally) deathly event which dealt a fatal blow to anything unreal, impure, ungodly, untruthful - anything hinting of non-being.
There can be miracles, if you believe - in my blood, shed for you.
