Vietnamese parable of the elderly mother and filial regard

When I was growing up, the Vietnam-born son of Vietnamese refugees resettled in Australia, my parents often told me Vietnamese parables – short stories conveying wisdom collected through the ages.

I will share with you one. This one told to me by my Mother (but never my Father):

“The adult son comes home. He is rude to his elderly mother [for some reason I cannot remember]. Seeing his insolence, the mother chastises the adult son by paddling him with a stick. As the chastisement is being administered, the mother sees that the son has tears in his eyes.

She is puzzled by this and so she asks him: ‘Son, why are you crying? I am old and feeble. I cannot strike you with much force. What hurts you so?’

Wiping the tears from his eyes, the son replies: ‘Mother, I am crying because it hurts me to see you so old and feeble, and not as healthy and vibrant as you once were.’

It is my Mother’s birthday today, 10th October, and as the years go by, I have come to understand and appreciate this parable my Mother told me many moons ago. Sometimes, it’s the little things, said often enough, that makes the greatest impact.

Happy birthday Mum!

House proud

My friend Sean and his girlfriend Janey are visiting from Adelaide, Australia. They are the first guests to stay with us in our one bedroom apartment in Astoria.They arrived at the front of our building in a taxi. They called me, I came out and let them into the building (whilst giving them a hand with their luggage) and showed them up to our apartment.

In we stepped into the hallway and straight into the living room. And there they stayed. From the day-bed in the living room, they could see the bedroom and I pointed it out to them. Perhaps they went in for a sneak peek.

I have never understood the compunction to give visitors to one’s abode the “grand tour”. Though I admit that I have been given many grand tours before.

From a historical standpoint, I can hypothesize about how the grand tour tradition arose. That is, in many decades past, it was only the wealthy who could afford multi-room accommodations. So when a person had the good fortune to avail himself or herself of such abode, it was natural for them to show off their good fortune to his or her visitors as a very explicit and tangible sign that the hosts/owners had “arrived” in a material sense and also a social standing sense too.

As post-Industrial Revolution swelled the middle-class, more and more people were able to afford multi-room accommodations. And yet, in long industrialised countries where the great majority do live in modern comfort and convenience, we still feel the need to give first-time visitors the ‘grand tour’. Why? Do most of us do it from rote? Or do contemporary people do it for some other reason? Do we, as visitors, feel the need to reassure our hosts that yes, indeed, they spent their money well on their abode – a mutually reassuring “do ask, do tell” norm?

(Note, I do understand that the “grand tour” makes sense in the event of a renovation, when the visitor can make comparison with what had been.)

Because common sense is not so common Part 1: fully reclined car seats

“Because common sense is not so common” is one of my favourite sayings. I think it often.

And it is the inspiration for this blog. And more particularly, it is the inspiration for a new semi-regular category of entries on this blog. Hence the use of “Part 1″ reference. So, without further ado, I give you installment one:

“Death Nap: the dangers of tilting back the front seat – don’t do it” by Emily Bazelon in Slate.com. posted on 7th September 2007.

And its attendant comments in the discussion forum, the Fray. The comments section is very interesting.

In this article, the author discusses her recent car accident in which she incurred severe injuries but luckily survived. Her injuries were caused by the fact that, notwithstanding she had her lap-sash seat-belt fastened, she had her front passenger seat substantially reclined and not in the (proper and safe) upright position. Mz. Bazelon then proceeds to argue that the government and car companies have been hiding the truth about the dangers of travelling in a car with the seat fully reclined that it warrants an expose and a call for regulated warnings.

Emily Bazelon is an intelligent woman. She writes for Slate.com for goodness sakes! But this story fails the common sense test on many levels. Let me count the ways.

1. Mz. Bazelon fails to mention that, not withstanding the severe injuries she incurred, they would have been more serious, perhaps fatal, if she had not been wearing a seat-belt at all. Further, it should be obvious to the casual reader that if she had been wearing seat-belts and had the seat in the upright position then her injuries would have been much less severe.

I still remember that high school science class where it was shown that unrestrained dummies sitting in the front seats tend to either have a very unfriendly and forceful communication with the dashboard or instead tend to want to unorthodoxically exit the vehicle by crashing through the windshield.

2. Most cars and car ads show the seats in an upright position. And most of those car crash tests show the seats in the upright position too. The common sense deduction would be that seat belts are designed to be used in conjunction with seats that are upright.

3. It is also common sense, if one were to take some time to reflect, that seat-belts are designed and do work because in the event of a crash, the seat-belts hold you in position relative to the seat. That is, they hold you against the seat, making you one with it (and the car) and not like an unrestrained water melon that flies through the cabin from the rear parcel shelf onto the windscreen.

Many of us would have had near accidents whilst wearing seat-belts. We had prior experience with why and how the seat belts worked.

4. Personal responsibility is not the sole responsibility of the regulators. Regulation should be for situations that are unforseeable to the reasonable person. It should not be there as a reason to abrogate common sense. There should be no need for warnings on irons that read “Do not iron garment while wearing garment”.

Common sense is not so common, not because it is hard to figure out, but more likely because a person is too lazy to do it on his or her own or relies on others to bear the consequences.

I invite comments from readers for I have much to learn.

Abortion and the man’s right to choose

Anyone who has met me knows that I like to be logical. I also like to play with ideas or conduct Gedankenexperiment from time to time to see multiple sides of a situation.

Coming to America, one is surprised by how high-profile the abortion debate is in this country. Those who are pro-abortion state that a woman’s right to integrity of her body is paramount and sacrosanct. As I understand it, their view is also that a foetus is not a separate entity but an extension of the woman and her body. From this perspective then, the decision whether to abort or not is solely and ultimately the woman’s alone. As I understand it, many pro-abortionists (though not all) are feminists. For the sake of argument, I will conflate the two groups in this post.

From a logical perspective, no problems are encountered where upon learning that a woman is pregnant, both the father- and the mother-to-be agree that the foetus should be aborted. And likewise when both agree that the baby should be carried to full term.

Let us visit hypothetical situation X, where upon learning that a woman is pregnant, the father-to-be wants the woman have an abortion but the woman wants to keep the foetus. Pro-abortionists/feminists would argue that the foetus is a part of the woman’s body and further a woman’s right to bodily integrity is paramount. The woman is not bound to follow the father-to-be’s wishes. If the woman does keep the baby, then the man is forced to spend money on child-rearing, notwithstanding his express desire not to have the child.

Now consider the hypothetical situation Y, where upon learning that a woman is pregnant, the father-to-be wants the woman to carry the foetus to full term but it is now the woman who wants to have an abortion. Pro-abortionists/feminists would argue that the foetus is a part of the woman’s body and further a woman’s right to bodily integrity is paramount. The woman is not bound to follow the father-to-be’s wishes. The man is now forced to not spend money on child-rearing (this is different from the man not spending money on child-rearing at all), notwithstanding his express desire to have the child.

What I do not understand is why the decision whether to abort or not is solely and ultimately the woman’s alone.

If it takes two to make a baby, why should it only be the one to make the abortion decision? If, arguably, life is created at conception between a man (sperm) and a woman (ovum), then why is it that the destruction of such created life is at the choosing of only one? That is, if the ideal is that a man and a woman are equal partners in a relationship, then why is the man relegated to a position of powerlessness in matters of abortion? This powerlessness is reinforced by the legal system insofar as courts will award and enforce child support payments (even in situations where the man has expressed his desire not to have the child) and they have a bias to awarding custody to the mother.

This issue came to mind when I was eating dinner at a restaurant in Phoenix. The man next to us had a 2 month old baby in a capsule. We learned that his child was a result of a one night stand. The mother had told the man 2 weeks before the birth. After a paternity test and going through the courts, he was ordered to provide full child support and yet he was granted only weekend access to the child every alternate week. From appearances the man seemed happy to be a father and perhaps is a good father too. (What I want to know is whether the man is granted child support for the two days per fortnight he has the child or whether this has been absorbed into the calculus of his support payments.)
In this real life example, the decision whether to abort or not was solely the woman’s. In effect, the mother ‘forced’ the child upon the man. Yet the man cannot ‘force’ the child upon the woman. Is this fair as a matter of logic?

I invite your comments as I have much to learn.

The Middle Way and my Catholic experience

My parents are Buddhists. Both sides of my family come from a long line of Buddhists. Which is not surprising since a vast majority of Vietnamese are such (although there is a substantial Catholic Vietnamese minority).

Notwithstanding this, my parents put me through Catholic primary (elementary) and secondary school. That was an interesting experience and one which I considered quite seriously. In this environment, I learned about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ from a Catholic perspective.

Upon reflection, in my Catholic experience there was less of an emphasis on what was ‘good’ and more on what was ‘bad’. By this I mean that ‘good’ was represented by the ‘Golden Rule’: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (with modifications for cultural differences, of course). And that was basically it. Conversely, perversely, there was a lot of enumeration on what was ‘bad’. Much time was spent on the many sins, the Ten Commandments and the other transgressions spelt out in the Bible. To me, Catholicism’s prescription to leading a good and meaningful life is to avoid the ‘bad’ things but is light on how to achieve and do the ‘good’ things. It is an opt-out system: you lead a good life unless you transgress into ‘bad’ things.

This left me frustrated post-secondary school, with adulthood looming. So I read up a little on Buddhism. I find it attractive. It is an opt-in system: you only lead a good life by doing something good. And the principal guiding light is ‘the Middle Way’: the option that leads to goodness and happiness is the one between two extremes.

On charity, Buddhism says that generosity is the Middle Way between the extremes of not giving anything to charity and giving everything to charity. The only meaningful lesson from the Bible on charity to me is Jesus’ comment that the rich man’s donation of a bag of gold coins to the synagogue donation box was far outweighed by the donation of one solitary coin by a desperately poor one. But to my mind, this story in the Bible does not give guidance on how much one should give to show true generosity.

Of course, I have limited training and understanding of Buddhism and Catholicism, I proclaim to be an adherent of none of these religions. I have expressed these opinions not to denigrate one religion and exalt another, but rather to ruminate on what has given guidance so far and reflect on what I have yet to learn in the coming years.

Total relaxation, sleeping positions and death

I used to watch a lot of law and crime tv shows and movies. Inevitably, there would be a death. Sometimes the deceased would be shown lying in state in a(n open) coffin. And more often than not, the deceased would be shown lying on his or her back with arms either crossed atop the chest or by his or her sides. This deceased-person posture is fairly standard across cultures.

One may conclude from this that the living want to put the deceased in a state that maximises the comfort of the deceased as he or she will be spending eternity in such as state. That is, the living consider that the most relaxed position for eternal sleep is with one’s arms by one’s sides or crossed atop one’s chest. (I do not think that the dimensions of a coffin fully explain the pose as both poor and rich – consider Ancient Egyptian pharoahs – are placed in the same pose i.e. even though rich people who can afford a much larger coffin that could possibly accomodate a sleeping-on-one’s-side pose, they still end up buried in the standard deceased person’s pose.)
So, my question is: why don’t the living sleep in the same position?

Many people I know prefer to sleep on their sides, or on their stomachs and sometimes on their backs. And even if they do sleep on their backs, their arms are often not by their sides or across atop their chests but their limbs are flailed in various positions. That is, one can argue that the living persons sleeping positions are less than ideal to achieving total relaxation as embodied in the standard deceased person pose.

Is it because we, the living, subconsciously prefer tension and vexation and this manifests itself in our sleep posture?  I don’t think proposition is too far-fetched given that Buddhism (amongst other philosophies) says that to live is to suffer.

Have you consciously thought about this at all?  Or has it been a “natural” (i.e. subconscious) thing for you to sleep in a vexed position?  It’s something which has kept me up at night.

Blu tac in the office

I have noticed that American offices do not use blu tac, or its clones.

American office workers stick to cork pin-up boards, felt and carpet pin-up boards, magnetic boards and sticky tape. Which is all fine and good, but they deprive themselves of the awesomeness that is blu tac.
Firstly, blu tac is a useful adhesive. It can stick an object (whether flat or 3D) onto another object (whether flat or 3D) without permanently modifying either (i.e. no pin holes in either). The stickiness is quite strong – more than a post-it note and arguably more than a pin (as using a pin with paper leads to the paper ripping).

Secondly, it is reusable. Although it has the consistency and adhesive power of bubble gum, it can be removed from objects and surfaces without much force or damage and reused. All that is needed is a little warming up but playing with it in one’s hands like play-doh.

And thirdly, the blu tac can also be moulded into all manner of blu tac sculptures , lest you do not have any work to do (as you are super-efficient). Oh the many works of art that I have seen through my years!

I just find it strange why blu tac has not made it into the American office environment

Flushing, New York vs flushing, Australia

I have noticed a difference to resource conservation attitudes and practices in the U.S. as opposed to that in Australia, specifically when it comes to toilets.

Ahh yes, toilets.*  In Australia, since the mid-1990s methinks, there has been increased adoption of the dual-flush toilet.  This toilet design splits the water tank into two parts:  the first holds about 1/3 of the tank capacity and the second holds the remaining 2/3.  When the user urinates, she or he presses the ‘partial flush’ lever and the toilet is flushed using the lesser of the two partial tanks and only about 3 litres of water.  When the user defecates, she or he presses the ‘full flush’ lever and both partial tanks empty and uses about 6-8 litres of water.  Any reasonable person would agree that urine would require less water (and water pressure) to rid than a stool.

However, it seems that dual-flush toilets have not really caught on in the U.S.  I have been to several states here and have not seen them in any home (old or new) or commercial buildings or hotels.  And I think I know why.

When Sydney hosted the Olympics in 2000, the city also hosted Katie Couric and Matt Lauer et al,  as the Today Show  was  broadcasting from  there.  In  one of the between story exchanges between the hosts, Katie mentioned the state of Australian toilets.  Kate was shocked and incredulous about the dual-flush toilets in her hotel room, saying that she did not feel comfortable with only using a half-flush for a “Number 1″.  Her co-hosts agreed readily.

This, I  think,  is a vivid and accurate representation of the attitude of a large number of Americans to water conservation.  They have a difficult time prioritising (water) conservation over personal hygiene.  That is, the average American will not sacrifice their need to be and feel clean over the need to conserve.  Firstly, let me say that the U.S. apparently has abundant potable water supplies unlike Australia, so there is less of an obvious need to conserve water.  Secondly, I venture to say that Americans are generally insanely fastifious about personal hygiene and have an all-conquering need to be and feel ‘clean’.  (Note the astronomical rise of personal anti-bacterial soap sales and the large consumption of perfumes and colognes)

To me, it makes Uncommon Sense that  one should use a dual-flush toilet, that such use would not lead to any deterioration of the cleanliness of the toilet (i.e. the partial flush gets rid of all of the urine and there is no need to use a full flush), and that Americans should be more flexible with respect to the compromises one has to make in order to conserve resources.**

*  What I have noticed is that in the U.S., the toilet is almost always located in the bathroom (i.e. sink, shower and/or bath tub) whereas in Australia in most houses the toilet is located in its own little stall-sized room and the bathroom is adjacent and contains the sink, shower and/or bath tub.  Newer Australian houses may adopt the U.S. configuration, but I think only if there are multiple bathrooms in the house.

**  Perhaps not to the point of more hardcore conservationists whose refrain may be, “If it’s yellow, let it mellow; if it’s brown, flush it down”.

Seen on the subway: new shoes

You may have guessed from my previous post, Colour co-ordination in New York, that I am quite observant on the subway.

One of the things that I have noticed over my two years of riding the Number 1 train is how almost everyone on the subways seem to be wearing new shoes. The new shoes are often just released or recently released sports shoes or white walking shoes. (Have you thought about how difficult it is to keep white shoes pristinely white in the summer and winter of New York, where most people take public transport) So, when I look down at fellow passengers’ shoes, as I am apt to do for amusement and mental stimulation, and see a scruffy pair of shoes, I surmise that the person is either homeless (there are more than a few homeless people travelling the trains for warmth or coolness, depending on the season) or that they are out-of-towners from overseas or from another US city.

And even more interestingly, the newest looking shoes are more often that not worn by African-American or, to a lesser extent, Latino young men. This is not a racist comment. It is an accurate observation.

I made this observation to a senior administrator at my university (who has a PhD in a social science and lives in Harlem too) and she agreed. Her contention is that these young men most likley come from the inner city poor neighbourhoods in Manhattan (hence their presence on the Number 1 train) and they wear the latest and greatest new shoes as a signal that they do not come from the inner city poor neighbourhood. That is, it is a face saving gesture. As my learned friend suggests, it has been conditioned into these men that even if they are dirt poor, they should not let others know that they are dirt poor. This face saving motivation is not isolated to the African-American community. I can vouch for the fact that this also happens in the Asian community.

So, this is just another vignette of life in New York that I notice and I guess many visitors to this city do not.

Colour co-ordination in New York

About two years ago, when I was preparing to come to New York City for two years for graduate school, I researched on the web and asked recently returned friends and the UnCommon Female about what it was like to live in the Big Apple.

But none of the sources mentioned the bredth and depth of colour co-ordination of New York denizens. If you’re new to the city, or from the most remote capital city in the world (hint: it’s in Australia), this is intriguing.

I usually notice this more when I am travelling on the subway where I surreptitiously pay attention to others on the train, all the while ostensibly practising the ‘blank stare’ that is de rigeur for straphangers in this city.

For example, there was the guy who wore an orange shirt with matching orange shoes (no, not sandals, Crocs or thongs but shoes). How many times have you seen all-over orange shoes in a shoe store? Then there was the young guy with blue, green and yellow shoes and laces that matched his blue, green and yellow t-shirt and cap. Does this guy only buy blue, green and/or yellow shirts, just so he can maintain the colour co-ordination with his shoes? Or is it the other way around? Or does he have several pairs of shoes, each with their own designated colour co-ordinated outfits?

The most memorable incident occurred in late July 2007 when the UnCommon Female and I were on the NRW train coming back from Coney Island. Several stops into the journey, this family of 7, covering 4 generations, gets on. The whole family is dressed in a combination of royal blue and white. I mean, each family member had on something that was royal blue and something that was white. And nothing else in terms of colour.

Think about the extraordinariness of this (in any other place). The colour co-ordination is present notwithstanding that these 7 people: have differing tastes in clothes; are from 4 different generations; are from different sexes; and must have royal blue and white clothes.

And how does this co-ordination occur? Is there an authoritive pronouncement from the matriarch that tonight is “royal blue and white night”? Or do they come together in a family pow-wow and agree that they should all war royal blue and white tonight? Or is it by osmosis whereby one family member gets dressed first in royal blue and white and another family member sees that and likes the colours and also decides to do likewise, this process repeats itself and eventually making its way down the chain until the final family must also wear royal blue and white due to a subconscious or conscious need to conform, or family-pressure (it’s not strictly peer-pressure)?

I was in awe of this particular family, if only for the fact that it would never happen in my family.

Mind you, New York colour co-ordination has rubbed of somewhat on me. I do consider from time-to-time whether my shoes do match my shirt. But this is difficult to do, given that I only have a few pairs of shoes.