How would you feel?

Listening to: nothing

You're at a club, handing over your coat to the cloakroom, and the guys behind you start hassling you with the usual 'all right darling', 'give us a dance eh' nonsense...and then you hear one saying 'she could do with a boob job'.

How would you feel?

Choosing demons

Listening to: Nothing

So everyone's been going gaga over the events in Egypt over the past few weeks. Everyone except me. Don't get me wrong, I get it. The people want the right to select their leader, yes. And the numbers have been pretty phenomenal, yes. And it's been peaceful for the most part, yes. I get it. But...I dunno...it just seems a bit over-hyped really. Every Tom, Dick and Harry appears to be tripping over himself trying to spout the most profound yet ultimately rehashed rhetoric about the situation, each claiming to understand and empathise with the Egyptian people more than the other. It all just smells of people trying to cash in on the Egyptian people's legitimate issues in order to get their 15 mins of relative fame. Needless to say, I got a bit fed up.

There's also the issue of the democracy fanboys. You know, the ones that go "OMG this is like the most amazing thing to ever happen to the world ever! Peace and love and flowersinthesunshine, yo!" Oh ffs give me a break. This is politics. You replace one demon with another. Whether the new demon is less of a demon than the old one...well you'll only know that in 30yrs' time. For the time being, just try and make sure that the demon in charge is doing what's right for the country right now. We're all human. We're all fallible (unless you're the Pope, of course). And as long as we're governing ourselves, we're all prone to failures of some sort. It's not that I'm cynical or even apathetic about 'people power' (ok maybe a bit cynical)...but I don't believe that any one event can shape the future of a country. Yes it might alter the course in the short term, but no one can foresee the long term implications. Take Japan for instance. Did anyone think at the end of WWII that merely 60 years down the line, one of the major problems facing the country would be the abundance of old people? And to those who disagree with me and think that a single event (albeit unprecedented) can solve all the world's problems, I have two words: Barack Obama.

Nay, I am of the opinion that lasting change takes time. Not weeks or months, or even a couple of years...I mean decades - at least a generation. For a society to develop, mindsets have to change. And that doesn't happen easily. Take, for instance, the documentary I watched earlier today. My favourite DJ in the world, Scott Mills, visited Uganda to see what it was like for gay people living there. I'm still a bit shaken by the number of people who thought it perfectly acceptable to say that homosexuals should be killed. And the man who said that it's a 'proven fact' that life expectancy is reduced by 24 years if you're gay. I mean seriously, wtf is in their water? Even accounting for heavy editing (I'm not naive enough to believe in the 'impartiality' of the BBC), those views are still extreme. I can understand someone taking the Bible literally and saying that homosexuality is a sin...but to advocate the death penalty? What happened to not killing people? I thought that was in the Bible too...?

It saddens (and angers) me that people across the world are persecuted for being themselves. It's not even a matter of expressing an opinion - their 'crime' is their mere existence. The prejudices against women and different ethnicities are thankfully nowhere near as severe any more, but they do still exist. The gender stereotypes that are embraced by all communities merely reinforce the double standards that exist in society, and the same goes for racial stereotypes. It's easy to see that stuff like this won't change overnight.

What saddens me even more, is that while so much work remains to be done to overcome these serious injustices, the majority of people are happily preoccupied with choosing their favourite demon.

Who let the brats out?

Listening to: 'Three Marlenas' by The Wallflowers [Bringing Down The Horse]

How do you deal with the insolent brats? How do you deal with the kids that think teachers should be at their beck and call? How do you deal with the kids that think the world revolves around them? How do you deal with the kids that ooze that annoying, ungrateful sense of entitlement that is all too common in the younger generation?

Do you slap them and tell them to respect their elders? Do you tell them to stop being such a self-absorbed whiny little piece of shit and quit whinging? Do you tell them that while you acknowledge the fact that they're probably somewhat intelligent, it doesn't mean that the sun shines out of their ass? Do you tell them that their sarcasm only serves to prove their immaturity and that they should get back to you when they've decided to grow up? Do you stick your tongue out at them and say "Oooh I'm scared now!" and roll your eyes? Do you look at them and say "Look at my face. Is my face bovvered?" and carry on like they don't exist?

I wanted to do all of the above this morning. To one person. Luckily, I managed to keep my cool and I explained the situation to them, and I said that if they had a problem with the teaching arrangements, they should speak to my superior. And then I went and told my superior that he might get a visit from an annoying little prick :D. It probably won't happen, 'cos these egotistical types tend to be quite cowardly. Still, I got confirmation from my superior that I had done the right thing, which made me feel better.

I love teaching. And I hate not being able to help students. But I am not a servant. I don't have to put up with shit from spoilt brats. I will go out of my way to help kids who are appreciative of my efforts, but the ones that throw their toys out will just have to wait their turn.

*sigh*

Let me not google that for you!

Listening to: Radio 1

A conversation that happens all too often -

Retard: Hey PR, so I have this question that I need answering...can you answer it for me?
Me: *mutter under breath* Erm...*finds answer on google*...there you go

How I want the conversation to go:

Retard: Hey PR, so I have this question that I need answering...can you answer it for me?
Me: You're connected to the internet, yeah?
Retard: Yeah...
Me: You can type, yeah?
Retard: Yeah...
Me: So WHY DON'T YOU F***ING GOOGLE IT YOURSELF, MORON?!?!?!

The last time I checked, I wasn't an encyclopaedia. There is no website called www.askpseudorandom.com. So why don't you pull your finger out and do something for yourself for a change? Even my parents knows how to find stuff on the internet without asking me, and they're over 60!

Yes I know there's lmgtfy, but the type of people who ask me dumb stuff are usually the type of 'sensitive' people who'd get offended if I were to answer with that link, and I can't be bothered dealing with the aftermath.

OK rant over.

Doing my bit

Listening to: 'Take Off Your Cool' by Outkast ft. Norah Jones [Speakerboxx/The Love Below]

I found out about Blog Action Day via this post by Whacko. It seemed like a cool idea, so I registered my blog on the website, thereby making a commitment to blog about Climate Change today. Now that I'm sitting in front of my computer, I can't think of what to say. Oh well, I'll just ramble as usual then.

I can't say I was that bothered about Climate Change when I was growing up. What with exams, friends, boys etc., environmental responsibility was a non-issue. Then I came to the UK and my room in College had a recycling bin, the student body had an 'environmental officer', and we had a course on 'sustainability'. I was being more environmentally responsible, but not consciously...I was doing so simply because the infrastructure was in place.

Things are a bit different now. I carry a shopping bag with me at all times so I don't have to use polythene bags, I have a compost bin, I recycle paper, glass, cardboard, batteries, and plastics (at least whatever the Council has the facilities for), and I'm conscious about energy consumption. British Gas' 'Zero Carbon' option is pricey, but it ensures that my consumption is matched with renewable sources. And I really don't know what everyone's complaining about - the light from the energy-saving bulbs I'm using isn't harsh at all!

I'm not sure why I started doing all this. The infrastructure was available, yes...but it was by no means 'in place' like it was at College. I could've easily ignored the green wheelie bin and just dumped everything in the black bin. But something's switched inside. Environmental responsibility has kicked in.

The climate is changing. No matter what the cynics say, society's impact on the environment will someday blow up in our faces. We could lobby governments, criticise politicians for not making a genuine effort, blame everything on the oil companies...but at the end of the day, this is our planet, and we are responsible for our actions. I think the productive (and responsible) thing to do, would be to follow the 3R's in our own little way.

• Reduce consumption
• Re-use assets
• Recycle waste

I mean, why not?

US Open: FAIL

Listening to: Radio 1

Last night's US Open Men's Quarterfinal between Rafael Nadal and Fernando Gonzalez was suspended in the middle of the 2nd set tie-break due to rain. I've been having a look at the comments on the US Open website and two themes caught my attention.

1. Get a roof! - The US usually laughs at Britain for being old-fashioned, stuffy and generally uncool. So maybe they still wear white at Wimbledon, and maybe it's all about the traditional formalities (bowing/curtsying to any member of the Royal Family was only discontinued in 2003)...but after the retractable roof was installed over Centre Court, there's no way you can call us 'uncool'. Maybe it's just me, but I let out a little giggle when I read the comments telling the USTA to take a page out of the All England Club's book. Really, if they're gonna have such a tight schedule, there should be a much better inclement weather policy. Tsk tsk USTA.
2. What a rip-off! - The plan is, the Rafa-Gonzo match will be recommenced after the completion of the Kim-Serena Semifinal. There are quite a few issues with this.
   
   • According to the BBC website, it's raining in NYC and start of play will be delayed by at least two hours. How many more delays can we afford? While I accept that Kim and Serena shouldn't have to suffer because it rained last night, I don't see why Rafa and Gonzo should suffer either. As far as I'm aware, only the Arthur Ashe stadium is being used for matches today (apart from some peripheral courts for doubles/girls/boys matches). Why not use the Louis Armstrong stadium for the Rafa-Gonzo match? And what about Wozniacki and Wickmayer? They're gonna have to wait till this 'extra' match finishes to get on court for their Semi. And considering the first two sets have been tie-breaks, I'll bet they're in for a long wait. How is that fair?
   • What do you mean my ticket isn't honoured? Or maybe that should be 'honored' (heh, Americans). According to the website, tickets that were valid for the Thursday night session won't be valid for the continuation of the Rafa-Gonzo match. This has got a lot of fans riled up, and with good reason. Unlike Wimbledon, it appears you can buy tickets for a specific session for the US Open, so presumably the people who got tickets for Thursday night actually wanted to see Rafa and Gonzo. Now in my mind they could've issued last night's audience with special passes that would allow them in for the Rafa-Gonzo match but not any of the others being held today. That would've been even easier if it was being played on Louis Armstrong. But nooooo...the USTA in a display of infinite wisdom is denying all the Rafa/Gonzo fans and frustrating all the Wozniacki/Wickmayer fans. Way to go.
     

Anyway, what to do. I'm more than a bit concerned about Rafa's fitness, but we'll see. I'm currently awaiting the start of the Kim-Serena Semifinal, which should be good. Clijsters has had a dream comeback to the professional circuit, and it would be lovely to see her beat Serena. But only if it STOPS RAINING!!!!!!!!!

*sigh*

My philosophy of teaching

Listening to: 'End of the Road' by Boyz II Men [Cooleyhighharmony]

I’m currently applying for a place on the Teaching Associate Programme here, and a major part of the application form involves me detailing my philosophy of teaching. Yeah I’m not entirely sure what that is either. Well I am, kinda…it’s just that all these ideas are floating around in my head and the last time I wrote a 500-word essay was… … …you get the picture :D. Anyway, I was procrastinating over the application when Whacko talked about education in his Going Global blog (thanks for the timely - albeit unintentional - kick up the backside, Whacko!). So when I escaped to London last weekend, I took with me a print-out of his post for inspiration and a notebook, and used the train journey to jot down my thoughts. The result was a multitude of bullet points and fragmented sentences, with no continuity whatsoever. Joy. Now with the deadline looming, I have no option but to sit down and force myself to collect my thoughts. Here goes.

For those of you not familiar with the Cambridge undergraduate system, supervisions are small-group tutorials designed to complement the standard large-group lectures. I haven’t lectured yet, but I have been supervising undergraduates for three years (eek!).

---

If I were to summarise what I believe to be the role of a teacher, it would be to equip students with the skills they require to achieve their potential. This requires dissemination of information in a manner that enables students to understand what they learn, understand its relevance, and use it when necessary. In my experience there are four objectives that must be achieved in order for a teaching experience to be successful. They are detailed below.

1. Instil enthusiasm
   
   In order to make the student receptive to the subject being taught, it is necessary to instil enthusiasm in the course and the lesson. Looking back on my personal experience, the majority of university courses that I performed well in were taught by lecturers and supervisors that were visibly enthusiastic about their subject. They created a relaxed, interactive environment conducive to learning, and encouraged discussion where appropriate. They also highlighted the relevance of their subject outside the classroom, thereby giving the student added incentive to pay attention.


2. Promote understanding
   
   The Cambridge ethos has always focused heavily on mastering the fundamentals, and with good reason. Given the current rate of scientific advancement, engineering practices are rapidly evolving, but they are still based on the same scientific principles. It is therefore important to ensure that students are comfortable enough with the basics, so that (in keeping with Cambridge tradition) they may go on to be at the forefront of technological development.
   It is also important to acknowledge that intelligence and ability vary across the student population. It is the teacher’s responsibility to develop an approach that maximises the individual student’s chance of understanding the topic. I do not believe that there is a ‘one size fits all’ method in this respect. This is especially true in Engineering sciences, where there is a healthy mix of highly theoretical and practical modules. In my previous supervisions, some of my students have been able to grasp a certain concept directly from the lecture; others have required me to explain the same concept in one or more alternative ways.


3. Assist retention
   
   While the teacher should make it easier for the student to understand their subject, the student has the ultimate responsibility when it comes to the retention of knowledge. The teacher can, however, improve the student’s chances at the examination by carrying out continuous assessment via examples papers, issuing revision sheets, going through exam papers from previous years, tying the course content into that of other courses to establish relevance etc. These are all methods I have used in my supervisions. As someone who has been a student on the courses that I supervise, I feel I am also able to share my personal experiences with my students, which will hopefully aid their exam preparation.


4. Bolster confidence
   
   The purpose of an Engineering degree is not purely academic. It is important that once students have studied each course, they are able to use the knowledge thus gained as professionals in the field. There are many students, in my experience, whose technical knowledge is more than adequate; however they lack the confidence required to display this competency. It is a supervisor’s responsibility to recognise these students and encourage them to engage in discussions, explain concepts to less able students, and become more confident in their own ability.

It is my belief that a teacher that keeps these points in mind will be in a position to have a positive impact on their students. However, my opinion is based on three years of supervising experience, and I am well aware that I too have a lot to learn.

---

So erm, yeah. That’s what I think. Hopefully they'll like it. As far as I'm aware it's not something that'll affect whether I get on the programme or not, so let's see. It’s 2.50am now, and I cannot stress enough the relevance of this PhD Comic. Me go sleep now.

This house proposes that we are all racists xenophobes

Listening to: 'Kinderszenen: Träumerei' by Robert Schumann

'Racism' is an ugly word with ugly connotations. It conjures up images of Apartheid in South Africa during the latter half of the 20th century, the LA riots in '92, and (closer to home) rioting Sinhalese in '83, to name but a few. The OED defines racism as -

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

TheWhacksteR has written some very interesting posts about the role of racism in Sri Lanka. Based on the above definition, I don't think 'racism' actually plays a very big role in Sri Lanka at all. Xenophobia on the other hand, is rife.

Say what? Returning to OED, xenophobia is defined thus -

a deep antipathy to foreigners

For the purpose of this discussion, we shall take 'foreigner' to imply 'someone not of your kind'. So when I use the word 'xenophobia', what I mean is -

a fear of, or aversion to, someone not of your kind

Doesn't this seem plausible? Someone 'of your kind' will have a similar upbringing, similar values, similar language, similar traditions...you get the picture. Someone 'not of your kind' on the other hand, will have...well you don't really know, do you? And therein lies the root of the problem. You don't have any firsthand knowledge of their values, language or traditions...so you buy into negative stereotypes based on anecdotal evidence.

Baseless negative stereotypes are everywhere. In Sri Lanka, I’ve heard the Sinhalese are stupid, Tamils are racist, Muslims are stingy and Burghers are promiscuous. Yet I know plenty of people that defy all these labels. And what about Britain? Apparently Northerners are uncivilised, Essex girls are tasteless, Scots are racist, English are stuffy, South Asians are unclean, Chinese are rude, Blacks are violent and Muslims dress 'funny' and blow shit up. And again, I know people from all these regions and communities that defy the stereotypes. But if these stereotypes were all you had heard about a particular group of people, wouldn't you be apprehensive?

So why are all xenophobes not racists? I see racism as a superiority complex based on the prejudices borne out of xenophobia. And as with many complexes, it is a manifestation of insecurity. Someone who is insecure about his position in society is more likely to feel the need to convince others (and himself) of his supposed superiority, than someone who is perfectly comfortable with his position in society. The latter might still be wary of other communities, but he won't see them as a threat...and hence his actions will not be affected. The former, on the other hand, will always act to set himself apart from those whom he feels threatened by...in this case, other communities. As I see it...the latter is a xenophobe, but the former is a racist.

So what's the solution then? There has been a lot of discussion about secularising schools in Sri Lanka and reinstating English as the main language. Secularisation would serve to educate people about other cultures and reduce the effects of stereotyping, but look at what's happening in Britain. After years of having a somewhat successful secular state school system, we're now witnessing the birth of a number of 'faith schools'. These schools cater to a particular community (usually Catholics, Muslims or Hindus) and have special allowances for religious and cultural activity, and in some cases, lessons in the native language of the 'home country' (e.g. Hindi). Their justification is that the secular system does not provide a sufficient platform for students (usually 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants) to maintain their cultural heritage.

How about language then? Surely a common language would bypass the communication barrier? Well in the UK (home of the English language), the National Health Service sends out invitations for Cervical Screening Tests in 14 languages. Yes, English and Welsh plus twelve unofficial languages (including Arabic and Polish). Why? Because the UK can't seem to convince ethnic minorities that it’s beneficial to learn English. And when some delusional postmaster thinks he can enforce change, he is criticised for violating the rights of British citizens (Which right? The Right Not to be Arsed to Learn the de facto National Language?). If the UK is having difficulty in getting everyone to speak English, I'm not sure how successful Sri Lanka would be.

So the problem remains: how to get rid of xenophobia. Can we? Should we? I don't know. Sachintha replied to Whack's posts and he commented on how we feel safe in our 'groups'. Attempting to assimilate our ethnicities into one 'kiri kopi'-coloured nationality will compromise that sense of belonging, and might not be that easy to achieve. And why should we? Are we not proud of our ethnicities, as we are of our nationality? As I told Whack -

I am Sinhalese and Sri Lankan, in the same way I am female and left-handed. They're not the same, and yet they're not mutually exclusive. And one doesn't rank above the other. They co-exist. And they're both integral parts of me.

I think the question we should be asking ourselves is, how do we prevent xenophobia from escalating into racism? The government can bring in all the legislation it likes to nullify the effects of racism, but it won't stop retards from telling Whack to 'go back to Arabia'. It is my view that for the mindset to change, we need to be directed by those we respect: our parents, teachers and religious mentors. These people have a huge role to play in 'demonising' racial discrimination. From a personal perspective, if more Buddhist monks preached the benefits of spreading Loving Kindness (Metta) to all Sri Lankans instead of going and joining the JHU, we'd be much better off.

This is an absolutely mammoth post so I think I'll stop now. In closing, I think we're all xenophobic and this is natural. However, I don't think that this xenophobia has escalated into racism in the majority of the Sri Lankan population. I don't think it's easy to wipe out xenophobia, but we can stop it from turning nasty. And to do this, I think we need to call on those who have a cultural, rather than political, influence over us. OK I’m done.

Mad World

Listening to: 'Meccano' by Red Light Company [Fine Fascination]

The world pissed me off today. Thrice.

1. "You're poor, therefore you must be unhappy."

I was listening to the radio today, as I always do, and I was listening to Jo Whiley's Changing Tracks. Today's story was about a girl who spent her gap year in Uganda, and what a great time she had and how it changed her life etc. When speaking of the Ugandan kids she worked with, she said the following -

...despite living in abject poverty, they were always smiling...

Well what did you expect? Did you think they'd be walking around feeling suicidal just because they live in a poor country?! Honestly! The concept of contentment is alien to the majority of these studenty types. They live in a world where your self worth is measured by how many colours of nail polish you have, or the type of iPod you own, or how drunk you got at last night's party. They float from the skies to these 'developing countries' thinking that they'll make a marked difference to the region and come back talking about how lovely the people are. And those people? To them, they're just a nice foreigner who came on holiday.

I'm not saying that these students don't have good intentions - they do. What I'm saying is that a lot of them don't understand a life outside their own. They don't see how a child from a rural village can enjoy life. They don't see that there's more to life than material possessions. They don't see that one year of teaching English is not going to change the futures of these kids at all. I just can't see it as anything other than a glorified holiday.

2. Tailor-made babies

According to this article, a fertility clinic in the States is offering sex and physical trait selection. Yeah that's right...if you want only a baby boy with only blue eyes and only blonde hair, head over to this clinic. I really hope this is just another case of BBC editorialising things 'cos if it's the truth, I want to puke. I can understand using this technology for screening of genetic disorders such as Down's Syndrome and Huntington's Disease. If parents choose to abort a pregnancy that would result in a baby with Down's Syndrome, that's their prerogative. But to discard a foetus because it has the wrong hair colour?!?!?! How superficial are we getting? This is a human life we're talking about, not a washing machine!

3. Rules are rules

So apparently the team from Corpus Christi, Oxford that won this year's University Challenge has been disqualified, because one of their team mates graduated half way through the competition and therefore ceased to be a student. OK, rules are rules...and while I would've preferred common sense to prevail (because I think they deserved to win), I can accept the BBC's decision. What I can't understand is, if this was such a big issue, why didn't it come out earlier?! Why wait until they've won to bring this up? Why wasn't it highlighted during the however many other matches they played? Have they checked the details of every other participant in the history of University Challenge? Or was it just that some bonfire pisser got upset that this college had won twice and decided dig around in the hope that they'd find some goss? Well they found some, so I hope they're happy.

Unity in Diversity

Listening to: 'Suddenly I See' by KT Tunstall [Eye to the Telescope]

Some would say that there's no point in looking back, and that apportioning blame is counter-intuitive to progress. Others would say that retrospect is essential in order to understand the bigger picture. What do I think? I think that retrospect is needed, but not as a means to apportion blame. It should be with a view to learn from our mistakes and avoid them from recurring. If there's anything I'm sure of, it's that history cannot be allowed to repeat itself.

It's been 61 years since the Brits gave up in the Indian Ocean. I remember reading about our quest for independence during O/L History. It didn't strike me at the time, but it is now more than apparent that we were not a 'united', or rather, 'unitary' Ceylon, even then. We learnt about the founding fathers of our nation - Senanayake, Dharmapala, Gunawardena, Arunachalam, Ramanathan, Siddi Lebbe (and others, whose names I forget) - who all campaigned for their own kind. Did we ever try to fight our common enemy together? Not in the books I read. We were too busy ensuring the progress of our own ethnic groups to be concerned that we were falling into the very trap that the Brits themselves had set - 'divide and rule'.

There are more recent examples of this phenomenon in action. It is rumoured that the Prabha-Karuna split was due to differences between Northern and Eastern communities within the LTTE. It could also be said that the reason the LTTE still exists is that the mainstream political parties have been too busy slinging mud at each other to address the situation properly.

So as we commence our 62nd year of self-governance, I have one main wish. That when our soldiers finish doing what they set out to do, we stop thinking as Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors, Burghers and so on, and start thinking as Sri Lankans. This should not mean a watering-down of our cultural identities or a suppression of our history. We should be proud of our cultural heritage, but not use it as a weapon against our fellow countrymen. The cynics would say that 'unity in diversity' is an unattainable Utopian concept, but the cynics have been wrong before.

Take it or leave it

Listening to: 'Crack The Shutters' by Snow Patrol [A Hundred Million Suns]

So the story: A 13 yr old girl has won the right to refuse a heart transplant. She has been taking medication for leukaemia since she was 5, and as a result of this medication, she has developed a hole in her heart. She was offered a heart transplant in July 2007 but she refused it on the grounds that it might not work, and even if it did, she'd have to take medicine for the rest of her life. Her Primary Care Trust (i.e. the NHS Trust that manages the hospitals in her area) tried to take her family to court, saying they would remove the girl from their register if she wasn't brought in for surgery (the reason presumably being that she is below the age of consent, and therefore her opinion cannot be taken into consideration). They have now dropped their case, after a child protection officer said that the girl was adamant that she didn't want surgery, and she wanted to die at home with dignity.

I see three (maybe four) potential points for discussion.

1. She is 13 - can she make an informed decision?
   Well according to UK laws, if she understands the issues and the consequences, she can be considered legally competent. So presumably the answer would be yes. There are plenty of over-18s whose competence is questionable, so I think it's fair to treat these situations on a case-by-case basis.


2. Should the PCT have gone to court?
   This is where I add my 2c. I would say 'no', and the title of this post should tell you what my view is on the matter. There are millions of people in this country who are not receiving the medical care they require because of the financial and physical strain on the NHS. There are millions of people who want to be treated, who want to be given the slightest chance to improve their quality of life. There are millions of people who are willing to take the risk of surgery because the prospect of being cured is so attractive and they've got nothing to lose. So why should the NHS waste money and resources on someone who doesn't want to be treated? A heart transplant is a huge financial undertaking for the NHS. If the patient in question doesn't want to make use of the services available, so be it! Someone else who actually wants to live can make use of that opportunity. I know it's the doctor's responsibility to have the patient's best interests at heart, but if the patient doesn't care, I don't see why the doctor should.


3. Her reasons for refusing surgery
   • 'Cos it might not work - Well using that logic, cancer patients (herself included) shouldn't be treated, because none of the medical methods have a 100% success rate. I shouldn't fly home next month, 'cos the plane might crash, or Colombo might get bombed, or someone might ask me about my love life etc. etc. I shouldn't have had my spine surgery 'cos there was a chance of me ending up paralysed. I shouldn't wake up in the morning 'cos I might have a bad day. What bollocks.
   • If it does work, she'll have to take medicine for the rest of her life - OMG this is where I completely lose it! How many people on this planet take medicine every day? I know insulin-dependent diabetics who have been taking daily insulin injections since they were 13. There are soldiers who have been wounded in battle, who wear their prosthetic arms and legs every morning. There are people in developing countries who walk miles every day just to fill up a jug of water...and she's complaining about some tablets? What makes her so special? What a spoilt brat.


4. Die with 'dignity'?
   Eh? I watched my grandmother pass away due to old age and nothing else (I don't mean figuratively - I was chanting pirith at her bedside when she died) and she couldn't have asked for a more peaceful way to go (unless she was asleep). Let me tell you - there is nothing dignified about death. This dignity business is a fabrication of the media for the purpose of the euthanasia debate, which is irrelevant here. I can understand the girl not wanting to die with a million and one tubes inside her, but the chances of that happening are in no way decreased by her refusing surgery. The use of such a buzzword in this context only weakens her argument in my eyes.

I understand that she has a medical condition that makes her life very difficult, but her reasons for preferring to wither and die make me sad. At the end of the day though, it is her decision and no one can force her, so I respect that. Let me put it this way: I respect her right to choose, but I don't respect her choice. I can do that, can't I?

(Un)Rul e (y) Brittania

Listening to: 'Ai No Corrida' by Rhythms Del Mundo [Rhythms Del Mundo, Cuba]

I just saw this article about two drunk British women who had tried to open a cabin door mid-flight on BBC. Wow, they're sure helping to cement the reputation Britain has for being a nation of alco hooligans. What I don't get is, why? Why does Britain have this reputation? Why is the country full of knife-wielding teenage chavs who spend their days and nights getting drunk on Tesco value vodka? Why does the UK supposedly have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Western Europe? Surely issues like juvenile delinquency and poor sexual health should be more common in less developed countries? Why is it that with so much opportunity for success in this country, a considerable number are pissing about at home and fudging benefit claims so they can drink the Treasury dry?

Why am I more bothered about this than the British themselves?

How do you like your tea?

Listening to: '4 Minutes' by Madonna, ft. Timbaland and Justin Timberlake [Hard Candy]

I take mine with two sugars, no milk...my cousin takes hers with milk, no sugar. To each her own. Some guys like good ol' fashioned missionary-style...Max Mosley likes BDSM. To each his own. Or not, as the present case may be.

The News of the World (I refuse to provide links to trash, Google it if you must) got footage of the FIA boss engaging in a role-playing S&M encounter with five prostitutes, and decided it was their duty to expose it as a 'sick Nazi-style orgy'. Judging by the descriptions I've read, there's no dead give-away that the role-play was Nazi-esque (they spoke in German, yes, and Mosley was a 'prisoner'...but there was no reference to Jews, and no Nazi symbols). Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't...but I don't think anyone can say without a doubt that it was. I believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', so I'll assume that it wasn't.

There are two things about this media exposé that bother me. The first, is invasion of privacy. Yes, Max Mosley is famous. Yes, he is in a position of responsibility. Are his extra-marital activities anyone's business but his and his wife's? No. Should we be concerned that he's getting cosy with prostitutes? I don't think so. I don't condone the behaviour, but it's his private life. As long as it doesn't affect his performance as FIA president, I don't think it affects the general public. There are plenty of men who've engaged in extra-marital activities while being in public office...have we persecuted them? No. So why Mosley?

This brings me to my second point, which ties into the intro to this post (yes, there was a purpose to the 'tea' analogy). BDSM may not be my cup of tea (hehe), but it's not my place to judge those who do enjoy it. What gives the NotW the right to call the incident 'sick'? Who are we to judge other people's likes and dislikes? As long as all parties involved are consenting adults, they shouldn't be judged.

Personally, I think the NotW's reason for bringing in the Nazi angle has more to do with Mosley's father (fascist union founder Sir Oswald Mosley), than anything else. The real issue (as I see it) is the tabloid portrayal of the BDSM scene as something deplorable, disgusting and unbecoming of a respectable official. It shows a level of ignorance and prejudice that one wouldn't expect in this day and age. It shows a lack of respect to those who choose to engage in BDSM, and a 'la-la land' view that all officials are examples of 'model' human beings.

Mosley is suing the pants off the NotW for invasion of privacy, and I think quite rightly so. Some would say that a man who's been cheating on his wife with prostitutes shouldn't be allowed to sue the people who found him out, but I think his fate regarding his infidelity should be up to his wife to decide (hint: she should divorce him and ask for whatever he gets from the payout ;-) ). Anyway, we shall see.

The Can't Do Culture

Listening to: 'Mistress Mabel' by The Fratellis [Here We Stand]

There was an article on the beeb a few days ago, that spoke about how 'the British are uniquely happy to admit being bad at maths'. And then about half an hour ago, the DJ on Radio 1 confessed to being a horrendous cook. And it got me thinking...why are people so keen to embrace failure?

The article postulates that school children would probably do anything to avoid being labelled as a swot. While that can be understood in terms of avoiding the bullies, what about the same attitude in other avenues of life? Why do we not strive to improve our lives? Why are we so willing to sit around like lemons and blame everyone and everything around us? Binge-drinking is blamed on low-price supermarket alcohol. Debt is blamed on the government. Negative body image is blamed on celebrities. Why don't we exercise our willpower and resist the booze offers? Why don't we learn how to budget our expenses? Why don't we make sure that we're healthy and then love our healthy bodies, regardless of how others look? Why don't we try? Is it that cool to be inadequate?

Please, don't shoot!

Listening to: 'I'm Not Gonna Teach Your Boyfriend How To Dance With You [The Twelves Remix]' by The Black Kids [-]

I like taking photos. Whether they're silly candids of family and friends, documentations of significant occasions, or attempts at artistic interpretations of the world we live in, I am snap-happy. If the weather's good, I usually have my camera with me, just in case I see something worth capturing. And I definitely have it with me if I'm travelling. I'm learning more and more about how to develop my hobby, and while I can only aspire to mimic the talents of haelio, Co25 and others, I am content with what I do produce.

"Yay, she's found a hobby!", you might think, after my whinging about needing a distraction. Yeah I thought so too. But it appears the Met might not agree.

I'm sorry, but can someone please define "odd"?!?!? If I kneel down on the pavement in order to get a better angle for my pseudo-arty pic of Nelson's Column, am I 'odd'? If I spend 20mins on Westminster Bridge taking as many photos as I can of the London Eye and the Houses of Parliament from as many angles as possible, am I 'odd'? If I have brown skin (and a beard/headscarf - delete as appropriate) and I'm walking around with a camera and a backpack (full of lenses and a tripod), taking pictures of sights that would be appreciated by the photographic community, but considered pointless by everyone else, am I 'odd'?

London-based flickr groups have been buzzing with tales of innocent amateur photographers being 'stop & search'ed by police, for taking photographs in public places. Now the mainstream media - well at least the times and the bbc - have got wind of the situation. I spent a while trying to find some kind of guidance for amateur photographers on relevant government websites, but to no avail. So basically, no one knows what photographers can and cannot legally photograph in public. The general consensus is that anything goes, but would you risk a run-in with the boys in blue?

A concerned citizen has set up an e-petition on the PM's website, asking for clarification of photography laws in the UK, and the numbers are steadily rising. You can show your support here (as long as you're a British citizen/resident). I'm sceptical about whether it'll amount to much, but you know what they say - "evil thrives when good people do nothing".

The Race Race

Listening to: 'Help Yourself' by Amy Winehouse [Frank]

Race has been making the headlines again (as if it ever stopped!). Last month we had Harbhajan allegedly calling Symonds a monkey, resulting in all hell breaking loose. Apparently, it would've been less of an issue if Harbhajan had insulted Symonds' mother instead. So it's ok to insult the person who brought you into this world and loves you more than anyone else, but it's not ok to comment on the amount of melanin you have? Hmm, iiiinteresting.

Then this month we have Lewis Hamilton, whose 'family' made an appearance at the Circuit de Catalunya. I mean seriously guys...the guy's skin colour has nothing to do with his beef with your sweetheart Alonso...grow up! Booing him is understandable, but dressing up as a golliwog?! That's just retarded.

And in the midst of it all, we have Barrak Obama, trying his best to establish himself as more than just a 'black' presidential hopeful. Sorry m'dear, but just as Hillary's always gonna be looked as a woman before she's seen as a politician, in the eyes of the people, you're 'black' (or African American, for the PC-conscious amongst you) before you're anything else.

Which reminds me...when I was on holiday in the States, I was at a Sri Lankan gathering (man, we're everywhere!), and one lady was telling me about her daughter's wedding...

My son-in-law - he's caucasian, you know - he loved all the fuss...they're not used to such big weddings!

HAHAHAHAHAHA I'm sorry but that's the first time I've heard a white guy being referred to as 'caucasian'. I honestly couldn't care less if the guy was caucasian, negroid or mongoloid...if she said 'American', I would've got the gist of her point. I fought hard to contain the giggles.

But yeah, back to my serious monologue. I addressed Hillary's issue a while back so I don't think I need to go there again. But I think essentially, the same thing applies with race. I mean, so what if you're white/black/brown/yellow/red? Heck, maybe I should add orange for those of us who like our fake tans. It's just a colour, people! The same goes for eyes, hair, and the size of your genitalia. Who cares?! And if you do happen to find yourself at the receiving end of a racial slur, why get all upset? It's not like they criticised your character or your capability, or anything that actually matters.

But then why incorporate race into an insult in the first place?

History repeats (or maybe I just never learn)

Listening to: 'Hotel Paper' by Michelle Branch [Hotel Paper]

Seven years ago, I dared to criticise the leadership. There were things that I felt needed to change for the betterment of the community, and I thought (albeit mistakenly) that a little bit of constructive criticism from someone within the community would be appreciated. Did I insult them? No. Did I criticise them behind their backs? No. Did they get offended anyway? Hell yeah. Did they bully me to an extent that I told myself I would never voice my opinion again? You bet. Did I keep that promise? Well...

Yesterday, I dared to criticise the leadership. There were things that I felt needed to change for the betterment of the community, and I thought that a little bit of constructive criticism from someone affected (albeit slightly) by the situation would be appreciated. I was supported by some, so I know that I wasn't being delusional. Did I insult the leadership? No. Did they take my criticism personally and get offended anyway? Hell yeah.

Why is it that some people can't take constructive criticism? I have nothing to gain from criticising them, so my input is purely for their benefit. Instead of looking at it from a rational point of view, however, they choose to employ a knee-jerk reaction and rant and rave like lunatics. Arrogant, childish lunatics.

And why is it that I can't keep my mouth shut? Glutton for punishment? Masochist? Idiot? All of the above, I suppose.

Officially ancient

Listening to: Radio 1

OK I'd like to start off by saying, I have nothing against teenage girls OR continental Europeans. And consequently, I have nothing against continental European teenage girls. But I also have to say, I don't understand them. Why do these beings (especially those of the French or Spanish variety) feel the need to walk down a narrow Cambridge street with arms linked? Are they attached at the elbow? Did someone threaten them with torture if they lost physical contact for more than 0.001 seconds? Will they fall down if they try to walk by themselves? Has no one taught them that people walk down the street in both directions and sometimes it might be necessary to let the other person pass? No? Hmm...well that explains it.

These girls are at least 14...I thought only six yr olds did such things. The last time I walked with my arms linked through a friend's was...was...was...well, you get the picture. Although I guess six yr olds don't walk about with one arm linked through a friend's arm and the other arm attached to a hand carrying a cigarette.

Sigh, I don't get teenagers.

In Search of Equality

Listening to: 'By Your Side' by Sade [Lovers Rock]

In a previous post, I mentioned my new-found obsession with Jorge Cham's genius comic strip - PhD Comics - Piled Higher and Deeper. I also included the strip Engineering Ratio as a sample. Now I added it 'cos as a female engineer, I find it very funny, and totally true. Recently though, I've been thinking about what the comic actually portrays.

The indisputable fact is that she's a female engineer, and therefore part of the minority. My question is...so what? Does the fact that she's the only female in the class mean that she's a freak? Does it make her a model woman who has achieved equality in a "man's world"? Personally, I think the low number of females in Engineering is more due to women not wanting to become engineers rather than them not being able to. As for her position as a role model to other women...is it more important to celebrate the fact that she's able to work in a traditionally 'male' field, or that she's able to do what she wants to? I think the latter.

The same applies with the male-female ratio of university entrants. So there are more guys than girls...so what? Apart from the fact that the guys are gonna have less girls to hit on, I don't see a problem. If the success rate of applicants was greater for guys than girls...then that would be something to look into. However, I'm too lazy to check if such an analysis exists online. Cambridge has a habit of investigating why there's supposedly a lesser percentage of girls getting 1sts compared to the guys - I'll tell you why...'cos we choose to waste our time crying rivers over stupid jerks who've treated us badly instead of studying, that's why! It's got nothing to do with our intellectual capacity as females.

Let's leave education aside for the time being. These days there's a lot of discussion about Niqabs, Hijabs, Burqas and 'freedom' (in a 'Western civilisation' context) for Muslim women. Now I won't pretend to be clueful on the religious requirements, but as I understand, it's largely a personal choice. So ideally, 'freedom' for Muslim women would be the freedom to choose which item of clothing they'd rather wear, and not be judged by society (regardless of location) because of that choice. Contrary to popular perception, not every woman wants to wear spaghetti straps and mini skirts ;-).

...Which brings me (almost cleverly, but not quite) to the point I'm trying to make. All these years, women have been 'fighting' for what we refer to as equal rights - the right to vote, the right to work, the right to be paid...the right to do whatever a man does. On the first point, we've done well. With regards to careers...apparently women are still paid less than men for the same work. I don't know how that result was obtained, but it's one that's used often. We're still in a society where a female engineer is labelled a 'freak'...and heaven help her if she's a computer scientist...(g)eeeeeeeek!!! In my opinion, while legislature may have changed, the mindset hasn't.

As it stands, the search for equality is more a yearning for everything that is masculine than a desire to be free to do what one chooses (if you're interested, try Ariel Levy's "Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture" - good read). The way I see it, it's far more important to ensure that every girl who wants to study (for example) Engineering and is smart enough has the same opportunity to do so as a guy in identical circumstances. It doesn't matter if there are only 5 girls who want to study Engineering...they shouldn't be denied the chance based on their gender. Gender shouldn't come into the equation at all. That, to me, would be equality. Not "I'm a woman but I can do anything a man can" but "I can do anything I want regardless of my gender".

Unfortunately, equality (like peace) is one of those lofty ideals that we dream about, but never genuinely work towards.

Elitism, Discrimination and the Curse of Cambridge...

Listening to: 'En Aranjuez Con Tu Amor' by Il Divo [Ancora]

...or "why I don't like to say I'm from Cambridge".

Let me start with a (few) disclaimer(s): I am in no way trying to rub it in your face. I do not think I'm better than you. I do not think that I'm the most privileged individual in the room. I am not some kind of alien who can't carry on a non-intellectual conversation. The fact that I'm a female engineer at Cambridge does not make me a freak.

Now let me ask you a question: do you believe me? Nah, didn't think so. And that, in my opinion, is where the problem lies. Stephen Fry, one of Cambridge's prominent alumni, said this last year:

The best thing about having gone to Cambridge University was never having to deal with not going there.

And essentially, I think that's what's happened. A kind of 'sour grapes' attitude adopted by some unsuccessful applicants has helped immortalise the 'Cambridge Elite' - something that (in my experience) hasn't existed for quite a while. On one hand, the university is trying its level best to appear more accessible to 'target' audiences - ethnic minorities, state schools, kids from broken homes. In the other corner, Cambridge graduates get the following reception when they go out into the 'big bad world' (these are things my friends have been told) -

"...is it because you're intellectually superior?"
"You're doing quite well at being approachable for someone from Cambridge."

And then of course there's the alpha female syndrome. Let me explain:

1. Go to party with no other Cambridge people present
2. Get introduced to Random Guy
3. Random Guy asks you where you're studying
4. You say 'Cambridge'
5. Random Guy's jaw drops - OR - Random Guy makes some sarcastic comment to prove that he's not intimidated (see that's just not convincing enough to me)
6. Random Guy conveniently finds a way to leave, with you standing by yourself looking like a mutt who can't carry on a conversation

Oh I'm sorry, did you get upset by the fact that I have a higher IQ than Britney Spears? D'oh.

And that's not all. Yesterday I learned the workings of Research Councils in the UK, and how universities get money for research. Bottom line: if the project is from Cambridge, it won't get any funding 'cos "otherwise the other universities will complain that the councils favour Cambridge". I'm sorry, what? What happened to Research Councils rewarding the most worthy projects? What happened to Research Councils aiding research??? I'm disillusioned already. I thought I avoided industry so that it wouldn't be about the money. And now I'm told that if I was doing the same project at a mushroom university, I'd probably get funding because it would 'make the council look good'. Ugh this makes me sick. Everything in this world is a bloody popularity contest.

So yes, hopefully now you understand the Curse of Cambridge. Hopefully now you understand why quite a few Cambridge people are reluctant to tell you which university they're from. Hopefully now you understand why Cambridge seems to be getting much less publicity for 'groundbreaking research' compared with past centuries.

Oh by the way, I passed Stephen Hawking on the corridor at Addenbrooke's Hospital yesterday.