masterwordsmith-unplugged

A businessman was highly critical of his competitors’ storefront windows.

“Why, they are the dirtiest windows in town,” he claimed.

Fellow business people grew tired of the man’s continual criticism and nitpicking comments about the windows.

One day over coffee, the businessman carried the subject just too far.

Before leaving, a fellow store owner suggested the man get his own windows washed.

He followed the advice, and the next day at coffee, he exclaimed, “I can’t believe it. As soon as I washed my windows, my competitor must have cleaned his too. You should see them shine.”

Confucius once declared, “Don’t complain about the snow on your neighbor’s roof when your own doorstep is unclean.”

-Author Unknown-

A few days ago, this site hosted an excerpt from Aaron James book called  “Assholes: A Theory” . AARON JAMES holds a PhD from Harvard and is associate professor of philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. He is the author of Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy, and was awarded the Burkhardt Fellowship from the American Council of Learned Societies, spending the 2009–10 academic year at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. He’s an avid surfer (the experience of which has directly inspired this book) . . . and he’s not an asshole.

According to Amazon.com which sells the book here:


In the spirit of the mega-selling On Bullshit, philosopher Aaron James presents a theory of the asshole that is both intellectually provocative and existentially necessary.

What does it mean for someone to be an asshole? The answer is not obvious, despite the fact that we are often personally stuck dealing with people for whom there is no better name. Try as we might to avoid them, assholes are found everywhere—at work, at home, on the road, and in the public sphere. Encountering one causes great difficulty and personal strain, especially because we often cannot understand why exactly someone should be acting like that.

Asshole management begins with asshole understanding. Much as Machiavelli illuminated political strategy for princes, this book finally gives us the concepts to think or say why assholes disturb us so, and explains why such people seem part of the human social condition, especially in an age of raging narcissism and unbridled capitalism. These concepts are also practically useful, as understanding the asshole we are stuck with helps us think constructively about how to handle problems he (and they are mostly all men) presents. We get a better sense of when the asshole is best resisted, and when he is best ignored—a better sense of what is, and what is not, worth fighting for.

Some of the editorial reviews on Aaron James' book that have been featured in Amazon include:


Advance Praise for Assholes: A Theory:

“Aaron James provides us with a delightful philosophical romp through the world of assholes. I was especially tickled by his analysis of different types: smug assholes, royal assholes, the presidential asshole, corporate assholes, the reckless assholes, to name a few.”

—Robert I. Sutton, Stanford professor and author of the New York Times bestsellers The No Asshole Rule and Good Boss, Bad Boss

“Aaron James explores a very rude term that many now find unavoidable in the description of an alarming human type. His witty and accessible study of the personal and social problems the asshole creates draws on his lucid and brilliant accounts of the best in contemporary moral and political philosophy. James’s analysis of asshole capitalism is a tour de force of philosophically astute political analysis and criticism. This is a book that should appeal equally to the general reader and the philosophical specialist.”

—Marshall Cohen, founding editor of Philosophy and Public Affairs and university professor emeritus, University of Southern California

I hope I have convinced you to CLICK HERE to enjoy the  excerpt from “Assholes: A Theory”  by Aaron James. That post currently has more than 200 comments!!!

Happy reading and have a great day!!!!

An old Arab story goes that two boys – one rich and the other poor – were returning home from the market.

The rich boy bought honey-covered cookies and the poor one, a piece of old bread. 'I will let you eat my cookie if you play the dog for me,' the rich boy said.

The poor boy accepted and, on his fours on the walkway, he began to eat the rich boy's goodies.

The wise man Fath, who was watching the scene, said: 'If this poor boy had a little bit of dignity he would find out a way of making money.

But he prefers to turn into the rich boy's dog in order to eat his cookies. Tomorrow, when he is grown up, he will do the same for a public office and will be capable of betraying his country for a bag of gold.'

 'Many times we are tools of evil when we try to do good,' Al- Fahid said to his friend. 'I try to be constantly alert, but today I was used by the demon.'

'How come? You are known to be wise!' 'This morning I went to pray at the mosque.

Respecting the tradition, I took off my shoes before I went in; as I came out I noticed they had been stolen: I ended up creating a thief.' 'But that isn't your fault,' his friend said.

'It is my fault. It is easy to awake our fellow men's bad side. It is easy to irritate someone, sow discord, raise doubts, separate brothers. The Devil needs Man to carry out his actions - and that is why I am responsible.'

A group passed through the street: soldiers led a sentenced man to the gibbet. 'That man was no good,' a disciple said to Awas-el Salam.

'I once gave him a silver coin to help him get out of misery and he did nothing important.' 'He may be no good, but he might be walking to the gibbet now because of you.

It is possible that he used the money you gave him to buy a dagger, which he ended up using in the crime he committed; so, your hands are bloody as well. Instead of supporting him with love and tenderness, you chose do give him alms and get rid of your obligation.'

An old man was selling toys at the market in Bagdad. His buyers, knowing he had weak sight, would sometimes pay him with fake coins.

The old man noticed the trick but didn't say anything. In his prayers he asked God to forgive those who had tricked him.

'Perhaps they don't have much money and want to buy gifts for their children,' he would say to himself.

Time passed by and the man died. Standing before the portal of Paradise, he prayed once again. 'Lord,' he said, 'I am a sinner.

I did many things wrong, I am no better than the fake coins I was given. Forgive me!'

On that moment the gate opened and a Voice said: 'What should I forgive? How can I judge someone who has never judged anyone throughout his life?

-Translated from Portuguese by Bettina Dungs-
Source: HERE

Jean was walking with his grandfather through a public square in Paris.

At a certain point, he saw a shoemaker being mistreated by a client, whose footwear showed a flaw.

The shoemaker listened calmly to the complaint and apologized, promising to correct the error.
Jean and his grandfather stopped to have coffee at a bistro.

At the table next to them, the waiter asked a man to move his chair a little in order to make space.

That man burst into a torrent of complaints and refused to move.

“Never forget what you have seen today,” Jean’s grandfather said, “the shoemaker accepted the complaint, while this man next to us didn’t want to move.


“Useful men, who do useful things, don’t mind being treated as useless.

“But the useless always judge themselves as being important and hide all their incompetence behind authority.” 

-Written by Paul Coelho- 

The following story teaches lessons on assumptions, deceitfulness, dishonesty, creative problem-solving, arrogance and delusion.

A bishop invited a young priest to dinner.

During the meal, the priest noticed some signs of intimacy between the bishop and his housekeeper.

As the priest was leaving, the bishop said to him quietly, "I can guess what you are thinking, but really our relationship is strictly proper."

A few days later the housekeeper remarked to the bishop that a valuable antique solid silver soup ladle was missing - since the young priest's visit - and so she wondered if he might have taken it.

"I doubt it, but I will ask him," said the bishop.

So the bishop wrote to the priest: "Dear Father, I am not saying that 'you did' take a solid silver ladle from my house, and I am not saying that 'you did not' take a solid silver ladle from my house, but the fact is that the ladle has been missing since your visit.."

Duly, the bishop received the young priest's reply, which read: "Your Excellency, I'm not saying that 'you do' sleep with your housekeeper, and I'm not saying that 'you do not' sleep with your housekeeper, but the fact is that if you were sleeping in your own bed, you would by now have found the ladle."

-Author Unknown-

Please leave a comment to share your response to this story. Thanks! Have a great day!

I came across the following post from BBC and am reposting this specially for my A-level students as this topic has been tested before in the Advanced level GP examination. It is certainly a definitive post on lying. Take care and have a nice day!

Lying

A liar should have a good memory
Quintilian
O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion
Lying is probably one of the most common wrong acts that we carry out (one researcher has said 'lying is an unavoidable part of human nature'), so it's worth spending time thinking about it.

Most people would say that lying is always wrong, except when there's a good reason for it - which means that it's not always wrong!

But even people who think lying is always wrong have a problem... Consider the case where telling a lie would mean that 10 other lies would not be told. If 10 lies are worse than 1 lie then it would seem to be a good thing to tell the first lie, but if lying is always wrong then it's wrong to tell the first lie...

Acknowledgement

Nobody who writes about lying nowadays can do so without acknowledging an enormous debt to this groundbreaking book: Lying: Moral choice in public and private life, by Sisela Bok, 1978.

What is a lie?

Lying is a form of deception, but not all forms of deception are lies.

Lying is giving some information while believing it to be untrue, intending to deceive by doing so.

A lie has three essential features:

A lie communicates some information
The liar intends to deceive or mislead
The liar believes that what they are 'saying' is not true
There are some features that people think are part of lying but aren't actually necessary:

A lie does not have to give false information
A lies does not have to be told with a bad (malicious) intention - white lies are an example of lies told with a good intention
This definition says that what makes a lie a lie is that the liar intends to deceive (or at least to mislead) the person they are lying to. It says nothing about whether the information given is true or false.

This definition covers ordinary cases of lying and these two odd cases as well:

the case where someone inadvertently gives true information while believing that they're telling a lie
I want the last helping of pie for myself, so I lie to you that there is a worm in it. When I later eat that piece of pie I discover that there really is a worm in it
the case where nobody is deceived by me because they know that I always tell lies
Lying and statements

Some philosophers believe that lying requires a statement of some sort; they say that the liar must actually speak or write or gesture.

Sisella Bok, author of a major philosophical book on the subject of lying, defines a lie as:

an intentionally deceptive message in the form of a statement
Others stretch the definition to include doing nothing in response to a question, knowing that this will deceive the questioner.

Others include 'living a lie'; those cases where someone behaves in a way that misleads the rest of us as to their true nature.

Why is lying wrong?

There are many reasons why people think lying is wrong; which ones resonate best with you will depend on the way you think about ethics.

Lying is bad because a generally truthful world is a good thing: lying diminishes trust between human beings:
if people generally didn't tell the truth, life would become very difficult, as nobody could be trusted and nothing you heard or read could be trusted - you would have to find everything out for yourself
an untrusting world is also bad for liars - lying isn't much use if everyone is doing it
Lying is bad because it treats those who are lied to as a means to achieve the liar's purpose, rather than as a valuable end in themselves
Many people think that it is wrong to treat people as means not ends
Lying is bad because it makes it difficult for the person being lied to make a free and informed decision about the matter concerned
Lies lead people to base their decisions on false information
Lying is bad because it cannot sensibly be made into a universal principle
Many people think that something should only be accepted as an ethical rule if it can be applied in every case
Lying is bad because it's a basic moral wrong
Some things are fundamentally bad - lying is one of them
Lying is bad because it's something that Good People don't do
Good behaviour displays the virtues found in Good People
Lying is bad because it corrupts the liar
Telling lies may become a habit and if a person regularly indulges in one form of wrong-doing they may well become more comfortable with wrong-doing in general
Some religious people argue Lying is bad because it misuses the God-given gift of human communication
God gave humanity speech so that they could accurately share their thoughts - lying does the opposite
Some philosophers say lying is bad because language is essential to human societies and carries the obligation to use it truthfully
When people use language they effectively 'make a contract' to use it in a particular way - one of the clauses of this contract is not to use language deceitfully
What harm do lies do?

Lies obviously hurt the person who is lied to (most of the time), but they can also hurt the liar, and society in general.

The person who is lied to suffers if they don't find out because:

They are deprived of some control over their future because
They can no longer make an informed choice about the issue concerned
They are not fully informed about their possible courses of action
They may make a decision that they would not otherwise have made
They may suffer damage as a result of the lie
The person who is lied to suffers if they do find out because:

They feel badly treated - deceived and manipulated, and regarded as a person who doesn't deserve the truth
They see the damage they have suffered
They doubt their own ability to assess truth and make decisions
They become untrusting and uncertain and this too damages their ability to make free and informed choices
They may seek revenge
The liar is hurt because:

He has to remember the lies he's told
He must act in conformity with the lies
He may have to tell more lies to avoid being found out
He has to be wary of those he's lied to
His long-term credibility is at risk
He will probably suffer harm if he's found out
If he's found out, people are more likely to lie to him
If he's found out he's less likely to be believed in future
His own view of his integrity is damaged
He may find it easier to lie again or to do other wrongs
Those who tell 'good lies' don't generally suffer these consequences - although they may do so on some occasions.

Society is hurt because:

The general level of truthfulness falls - other people may be encouraged to lie
Lying may become a generally accepted practice in some quarters
It becomes harder for people to trust each other or the institutions of society
Social cohesion is weakened
Eventually no-one is able to believe anyone else and society collapses
When is it OK to lie?

MORE AT THIS LINK.

A senior executive of Standard Oil Company in 1901 made a wrong decision that cost the company more than $2 million. Back then this was a lot of money, even for Standard Oil.

John D. Rockefeller was still running the firm. On the day the news leaked out most of the executives of the company were finding various ingenious ways of avoiding Mr. Rockefeller, lest his wrath descend on their heads as well.

There was one exception, Edward Bedford, a partner in the company. Bedford was scheduled to see Rockefeller that day and he kept the appointment, even though he was prepared to listen to a long harangue against the man who made the error in judgment.

When he entered the office the powerful head of the gigantic Standard Oil empire was bent over his desk busily writing with a pencil on a pad of paper. Bedford stood silently, not wishing to interrupt. After a few minutes Rockefeller looked up.

“Oh, it’s you, Bedford,” he said calmly. “I suppose you’ve heard about our loss?”

Bedford said that he had.

“I’ve been thinking it over,” Rockefeller said, “and before I ask the man in to discuss the matter, I’ve been making some notes.”

At the top of the page Rockefeller had written the man’s name. There followed a long list of the man’s virtues, including a brief description of how he had helped the company make the right decision on three separate occasions that had earned many times the cost of his recent error.

Bedford said: “I never forgot that lesson. In later years, whenever I was tempted to rip into anyone, I forced myself first to sit down and thoughtfully compile as long a list of good points as I possibly could.”

“Invariably, by the time I finished my inventory, I would see the matter in its true perspective and keep my temper under control. There is no telling how many times this habit prevented me from committing one of the costliest mistakes any executive or any person can make -- losing his temper.”

“I commend it to anyone who must deal with people.”

~ Author Unknown ~

In 1987, sociologist Stanley Cohen first used the term moral panic in his work on Folk Devils and Moral Panics. Then, he defined it as a sporadic episode which, as it occurs, subjects society to bouts of moral panic, or in other terms, worry about the values and principles which society upholds which may be in jeopardy.

In Page 9 of that book, he describes its characteristics as "a condition, episode, person or group of persons [who] become defined as a threat to societal values and interests." Interestingly, Cohen discusses the way in which:

• the mass media fashions these episodes or
• stylises them and how they can be
• amplifying the nature of the facts and 
• consequently turning them into a national issue
• when the matter could have been contained on a local level.

Cohen's study originated from his interest in the youth culture and its perceived potential threat to social order. Throughout the decades since Cohen first discussed moral panics, different groups that could fit the criteria emerged and these include the Teddy Boys, Mods and Rockers, Skinheads and Hells Angels. They all become associated with certain types of violence, which in turn also provoke public reaction and emotion, as topics in their own right. Such issues as football hooliganism, drug abuse, vandalism and political demonstrations, all struck a chord in public opinion, but the impact might not have been on such a large scale, were it not for the part the mass media play in the exposition of the facts.

Now that is exactly what happened with regards to the recent brouhaha as reported in this Malaysian Insider article on Interfaith chief says Utusan report fans religious divide.

What was the agenda of that Utusan report and who did they deem as the perceived potential threat to the delicate balance of social order in our country? The answer is obvious. But WHY? And in that manner too!!

To understand the effect of that Utusan report, let's take a look at Cohen's study.

Basically, Cohen looked at the Mods and Rockers of the 1960's and the treatment they received in the public eye.That group was perceived as a threat to law and order mostly because of the manner in which they were portrayed in the  mass media.

Cohen argued that the mass media sensationalised an event and then called for a punishment to be set to persecute the offenders. 

Doesn't this sound EERIELY FAMILIAR????

In page 61 of this book The Mass Media and Power in Modern Britain (Oxford: University Press) by John Elridge, he said:  "In the process and as part of the dramatic element, scapegoats and folk devils are located and are woven into the narrative." In other words, it  society cannot accept responsibility for its own failures and so they look to find someone who can be incriminated!!!

Then the next process in the 'amplification' of deviance via media reports to persuade the public to concur with artificially generated opinions about the course of action to be taken. Wikipedia defines deviancy amplification spiral as  a media hype phenomenon defined by media critics as a cycle of increasing numbers of reports on a category of antisocial behavior or some other "undesirable" event.

Here's a summary of the process and what we may expect to see in the days to come!

1. The spiral starts with some "deviant" act. Usually the deviance is criminal but it can also involve lawful acts considered morally repugnant by most of society.

2. The mass media reports what they consider to be newsworthy, but the new focus on the issue uncovers hidden or borderline examples which themselves would not have been newsworthy except as they confirm the "pattern".

3. Reported cases of such "deviance" are often presented as just "the ones we know about" or "the tip of the iceberg," an assertion that is nearly impossible to disprove immediately.

4. For a variety of reasons, what is not frightening and would help the public keep a rational perspective (such as statistics showing that the behavior or event is actually less common or harmful than generally believed) tends to be ignored by the press.

5. Consequently, minor problems begin to look serious and rare events begin to seem common.

6. Members of the public are motivated to keep informed on these events.

7. The resulting publicity has potential to increase deviant behavior by glamorizing it or making it seem common or acceptable.

8. Public concern about crime typically forces the police and the law enforcement system to focus more resources on dealing with the specific deviancy than it warrants.

9. Judges and magistrates then come under public pressure to deal out harsher sentences and politicians pass new laws to increase their popularity by giving the impression that they are dealing with the perceived threat.

Cohen refers to this as the 'moral barricade', i.e. bishops, politicians and editors. Together with expert opinions, they reach an agreement about how to cope with the situation in hand, and the problem either disappears or at least deteriorates.

10. All this tends to convince the public that their fear was justified while the media continue to profit by reporting police and other law enforcement activity, which further perpetuates the spiral.

11. Wikipedia concedes that in modern times, however, media involvement is usual in any moral panic, making the spiral fairly common!!!

How Do We Deal With Moral Panics?

In Malaysia, moral panics happened in the past and your can read more at:

The Black Metal Subculture Among Malaysian Youth: Its Effects and the Role of Media

On moral panic, civility and the public square (Remember the Valentine's Day incident?)

Culture and Young People

If you have the time, please read this excellent article on Moral panic versus the risk society: the implications of the changing sites of social anxiety by Sheldon Ungar.

Elridge argues that even if they pass as quickly as they came and are long forgotten, there are occasions when the consequences and repercussions are so long lasting and so much in the public eye that they can affect legal and social policy or even the way society perceives itself.

The question that remains is how far are the authorities ready to go to stop the amplification of moral panics by the mass media?

As discussed in THIS POST, all writers must be committed to writing the truth with no evil agenda to spin. Words are powerful and must be spoken/written TO BUILD, TO UNITE and NOT TO DIVIDE!

Social order must be maintained and deviants who go out of their way to create disharmony of any sort MUST be punished as a deterrent to other would-be offenders. Failure to do so can exacerbate the problem.

We will have to wait and see what the authorities will do. In the mean time, let's keep calm. Let's hope that those embroiled in this controversy will close their eyes, put their hands on their hearts to be in touch with their moral conscience and do what needs to be done to maintain peace, unity and harmony in this land.

In an article by Clara Chooi in The Malaysian Insider HERE, Lim Kit Siang challenged MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek today to declare his party’s stand on the innocence of Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik and Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy in the PKFZ corruption scandal. That scenario really set me thinking.



Where is political accountability in our country? Are our politicians accountable to their political party/coalition or are they accountable to the rakyat? If the answer is both, who comes first?

According to The World Bank HERE,

Political accountability refers to the constraints placed on the behavior of public officials by organizations and constituencies with the power to apply sanctions on them. As political accountability increases, the costs to public officials of taking decisions that benefit their private interests at the expense of the broader public interest also increase, thus working as a deterrent/disincentive to corrupt practices.

Accountability rests largely on the effectiveness of the sanctions and the capacity of accountability institutions to monitor the actions, decisions, and private interests of public officials.

Effective sanctions on politicians can be enhanced most effectively through a meaningful degree of political competition in the electoral process. Such competition increases the likelihood that alternative candidates and parties will seek to expose corruption in government or hold politicians accountable for the poor performance associated with high levels of corruption.

Frankly, I believe LKS was not 'baiting' CSL over the scandal but putting in a legitimate request for him to shed more light on the PKFZ scandal.

I am not blindly supporting Lim Kit Siang's line of questioning. I firmly believe that in any scenario, without accountability, it is impossible for a democratic government to exist. Thereafter, the relationship of service between elected representatives and the voters is broken. As such, it is very clear that political accountability is absolutely vital and it is definitely the obligation of political leaders to answer to the public for whatever actions and decisions they made during their term of service!

When any government upholds the principles of political accountability, in reality, it actually provides the means by which it can check the power of politician. With that, there is a safeguard against abuse thereby paving the way for the leaders to govern effectively and efficiently.

On a more serious note, I firmly believe that the rakyat must be more vocal in their demand for political accountability and not depend on politicians alone to raise this issue. We have a right to expect high standards of accountability of elected representatives of our constituents is regarded. The higher the level of accountability, the better the quality of democracy that we see in our midst.

By maintaining accountability, leaders are straightaway improve the integrity of public governance. With that, we can be more sure that the government is serious in its battle against against corruption, abuse of positions of power,nepotism and other excesses.

On a more local level, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has declared that the principles of competency, accountability and transparency (CAT) are the key to reinventing the Penang state government.

"Our formula towards reinventing government is centred on the CAT philosophy; driven by competency, accountability and transparency. We believe a clean government can perform better than a corrupt one," he said.

So far, how many have actually stepped forward like he did (and with results too) to make such a strong stand on accountability? Honesty, integrity and honorable values should be part and parcel of any leader's value system.

When transparency exists, the public will be more confident in the status quo and the rakyat and the government can be slowly brought closer in understanding and mutual respect.

However, why then are some so reluctant to make public certain issues/reports/personal stand? What conclusions are we supposed to make when information is not forthcoming and standards of accountability are most questionable? What happens when those who demand accountability and transparency are shot down? Click HERE to read about Tony Pua's case.

Political accountability provides an avenue for the public to judge the performance of the government. With the knowledge that the rakyat have their eyes on them, it is more likely that those in office will be committed and compliant to their responsibilities and commitments thereby being less likely to break rules or laws. Thereafter, these public officials could maximize their potential and provide value for money in their area of service.

It is a full cycle for this means that the rakyat more and more confident in the government.

However, if there is poor governance and a serious deficiency in political accountability, the going may not be good for the citizens.

If you have time, please read Political Accountability in ‘Real-Existing’ Democracies: Meaning and Mechanisms by Philippe C. Schmitter and also PRESS COVERAGE AND POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY by James M. Snyder, Jr. and David Strömberg.

It is not an easy journey to achieve political accountability. We need a very responsible and powerful MSM to fulfil its function as a watchdog of the government and we know what a tall order that is over here.

Excerpt from HERE:

It has long been recognized that having a press that actively covers politics is essential for democratic governance. Informed voters are better able to hold elected officials accountable for their policy decisions, and most people get their information via the media. In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

“The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them with information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384

Frequently, however, an active press is missing from the political stage. At the national level, this is true in many weak democracies and poor countries, often because of political oppression or lack of an economic base to support large mass media.

The bitter truth is that we have a long way to go in our dream to see greater accountability but if we keep quiet and continue to swallow the bitter pill of silence, what will happen in the future?

The best solution is to realize that far too much $$$ has disappeared and to remember the standards of governance that LGE has set with his CAT policy.

And then it is not so difficult to realize that it is easy to decide which party should be at the helm of the government.

In the mean time, let us continue to demand for accountability and not keep silent any more. Approach your ADUN or MP. Speak to civil action groups or NGOs and voice your concerns. If you know of any misdeed, get evidence and lodge reports. Do not keep silent. And the same applies to all ADUNs and MPs.

We have to make a stand for accountability, transparency and good governance. After all, it IS our beloved nation.

In 2001, one of the essay questions that my A-Level students had to debate during my General Paper classes was whether lotteries should be legalized. Then, the only one who supported the motion was a Singaporean (who went on to study law at King's College). Nine years later, I cannot believe that this topic is a national issue as reported HERE by Malaysian Insider:

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders have slammed a proposal to legalise sports betting, accusing the government of prioritising profit over social well-being.

The government confirmed yesterday that it was considering awarding a licence for sports betting ahead of the 2010 Fifa World Cup in June, in what is seen as a move to boost flagging revenues.

PR leaders said they had long anticipated this move and had started an anti-gambling task force to pressure the government against legalising the vice.

They contend that legalising sports betting would have a negative social impact.

DAP Socialist Youth chief Anthony Loke said rumours the government was mulling the move had reached him a while back and this was raised in Parliament at the March sitting.

No answer was given then, said Loke, who leads the pact’s anti-gambling task force.

“This move shows that the government works in secrecy. There was never any consultation with the public and I am sure that the public would have a different opinion on the issue,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussin told reporters in Parliament yesterday that legal football betting was being considered to contain the expected spread of illegal betting activities during the World Cup.

However, PR leaders have viewed the move as a means to replenish drying state coffers.

“The government is very desperate to raise its revenue to bridge the wide deficit gap,” Loke remarked.

“But what they are doing is encouraging gambling in society, especially among the young. More people will get into gambling, which will spill into more social problems like the spurring of loan sharks. It will tear apart the social fabric,” he added.

PAS central working committee member Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad said the Barisan Nasional (BN) government had compromised its own morality by agreeing to legalise sports betting.

“I question what is in the conscience of (Prime Minister Datuk Seri) Najib (Razak) and especially all the muftis who are backing the BN government.

“In one breath, he is portraying this virtuous image, but on the other, he is allowing what then-premier Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had to put on hold,” said Dzulkefly, who sits on the task force on behalf of PAS.

Najib has been tapping gaming companies to boost revenue for the government since before he became prime minister in April last year.

A month after Najib assumed the Finance Ministry portfolio in September 2008, the government stealthily awarded an additional 10 special draws a year to three gaming companies, in a move to boost flagging government revenues ahead of the economic slowdown.

The number forecast operators involved were Magnum, Tanjong and Tan Sri Vincent Tan’s Berjaya Sports Toto.

The Kuala Selangor MP said Najib risks staining the image of his own Umno party, which supposedly thrives on the “religion, race and country” motto, saying the new policy would “throw all that out the window”.

“It does not even meet the minimal aspects of morality let alone Islamic values,” said the PAS leader.

Dear rakyat of Malaysia, we have to take umbrage to any public policy issue that legalizes sports betting. As discussed in the MI report, those who espouse the legalization of sports better rest the bulk of their case on the economic benefits the state can experience.

Some may even have the cheek to assert that such a move is good as it can negatively impact illegal gambling. The ones who oppose legalization of sports betting such as amateur and professional sports leagues, the horse race industry, and legal bookmakers can attest to the fact that sports wagering is not very profitable and can be very risky for the operator.

Another point of consideration is that legal wagering will be unable to compete effectively with the price of illegal operations. If so, legalized sports betting can only entice more into the sin of gambling!!!

Does it make sense then to enact a law to legalize sports betting? If we want our citizens to live on a higher moral ground, will such a move put us in good stead to face the challenges in this world and to steer away from temptation? Any moralistic argument against gambling hold no sway if our government broadly legitimizes sports betting! Put simply, what is the point of promoting religion and moral behavior if the authorities fan the popularity and sin of the sport rests by legitimizing citizens' ability to bet all because they hope to raise revenue?

What is wrong with them? Is it always ringgit over rakyat????

Is the country so poor that we have to raise revenue via the regressive GST that penalizes the poor and via legalized sports betting that tears apart the already delicate moral fabric of society because of the shortage of moral leaders who lead exemplary lifestyles?

Consider the following arguments against sports betting.

1. Any form of gambling, including sports betting, is morally wrong because it goes against human nature and nobility. Any gambler would be violating his or her conscience if he or she succumbs to greed. Gambling promotes greed. Period.

The goal of any form of gambling is to get lots of money quickly! Those in this industry have the means to accomplish their goal effectively because gambling is a lucrative business.

2. The tendency to indulge in gambling becomes an irrational act to maximize chance against reason. Imagine what it can do to youth, the main group that indulges in sports betting. Sports betting also destroys the will, since intentionally maximizing risk "is the will to have no will."

3. Any legalization of sports betting or gambling of any nature would almost certainly lead to an increase in the number of people who lose money. Does it make sense that people lose money so that others earn money????

4. Any pro-gambling legalization can accent tension that comes when one exercises free choice in such a way that may lead to harm either to the individual or to society. Consistent with this stance, the pro-gambling forces would like government to enact policies that promote "greater freedom" for mature adults, but adds "tighter controls on the freedoms" of children and "vulnerable consumers."

5. Any government has to moral responsibility should respect the individual's right to behave as he or she wishes without affecting others.

6. How come the government suddenly regards gambling as a socially acceptable habit all in the name of containing "the expected spread of illegal betting activities during the World Cup"?

7. Who are the ones who will earn profits from such a law? Magnum, Tanjong and Tan Sri Vincent Tan’s Berjaya Sports Toto and others? How will it fill the government's coffers?

8. If the government wants to increase revenue, it can do so via legitimate channels such as progressive taxes which should encourage responsible citizenship. It should not legitimize sports betting or any form of gambling for moral and religious reasons!

There are far too many considerations against the legalization of sports betting to be listed here. At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves why there are so many leakages in our country's expenditure and yet, instead of arresting this trend, some prefer to tax the people unnecessarily instead of plugging these leaks.

Is there no end to such mindless pursuits?

Say 'NO' to legalized sports betting.

Please voice your opinion/thoughts/view on this issue by leaving a comment. Thanks! Have a nice day!

Guess who made this statement: 'It morally wrong to ask for bonus as the country is still struggling to sail out of the economic downturn and people in the private sector are being retrenched.'

The Sun reported:

Limbo Rock is a popular song written by Kal Mann (under the pseudonym Jake Sheldon) and Billy Strange. An instrumental version was first recorded by The Champs in 1961. The first vocal version was recorded in 1962 by Chubby Checker (on Parkway Records): it reached number two on the Billboard Hot 100 and number one on the Cash Box charts. It was the last of Chubby Checker's career to reach the top ten.

Years ago, this song was used to do the Limbo Rock dance. According to Wikipedia:

Limbo is a dance that originated on the island of Trinidad, though Hawaii is often mistakenly associated with limbo. The dancer moves to a Caribbean rhythm, then leans backward and dances under a horizontal pole without touching it. Upon touching it or falling backwards, the dancer is "out". When several dancers compete, they travel in single file, and the stick is gradually lowered until only one dancer — who has not touched either the pole or the floor — remains.

This evening, I am using the limbo rock dance as an analogy to discuss the pathetic state of affairs in the country with reference to this report in THE STAR on how only a stern warning will be given to two Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) lecturers for plagiarising materials from the Internet to produce a guide book.

*FAINT*

Only a stern warning!!!! Can you beat that????

When I was lecturing in the American University Transfer Program at a local college, I failed a significant number of students for the English Composition I class when I detected a mere hint of plagiarism in their research papers because right from Day 1, I made it absolutely clear that plagiarism = fail for any assignment. I explained the different forms of plagiarism and also the moral aspects of that academic crime. In those days, we did not have sophisticated programs to detect plagiarism like what we have today.

I remember one girl plagiarised a whole booklet on Stonehenge. It was quite unfortunate for her that I had just returned from a holiday in UK and had visited that place and had bought that particular booklet. In another case, another girl plagiarized a whole paper presented by a State Councillor on tourism in Penang. I have a copy of the book that documented the proceedings of the conference and could recognize it immediately. In both cases, they denied it until I produced my copy of the printed material. The Stonehenge 'girl' failed the class and other courses and left the college whereas the second girl was very repentant and despite that failure, she picked up the pieces, scraped through my class by trying her best in other assignments and went on to a very good university in the east coast of USA. It has been 12 years since that incident and she still keeps in touch with me

Apart from those two cases, there was another boy who toggled his girlfriend's assignment for my Business Communication class. When interviewed, he continued to proclaim his innocence and even had the audacity to point out that the introductions for both assignments were different. He was dumbfounded when I showed him how the paragraphs matched although in different order.

Then in 2004, I failed quite a number of students in my Sociology class because of blatant and blind plagiarism for term papers which carried 30% of the grade. In one case, the whole paper - a critique of Eminem's "Mockingbird" was lifted off the net!!! I knew because I am an Eminem fan and had done loads of research on the meaning and background of the lyrics of his songs. In the end, those culprits graduated a semester later but went on to secure good jobs and some went overseas to complete their degree.

In 1993, I caught three boys copying each other's homework and I could tell which one was the one who did the real homework. All three were punished by the Principal then - they had to paint the school fence.

One of them went to a Japanese university for his first degree and went on to do his masters in Cornell University. This was the one who actually did the homework. The other went to another American university and runs his own business and the third one went on to an Australian university. I still keep in touch with them.

The point that I am trying to make is this.

I did not compromise on quality or principles with regards to plagiarism and copying. It was a painful decision to make but I did not waver at all in my stand and I am glad I did not. The fact that all but one of them made it in the real world shows that when plagiarism is nibbed in the bud, values are upheld and one's character is groomed in the right direction.

Coming back to the issue, as one who has 'retired', I am absolutely appalled, aghast, horrified and disgusted that the culprits got away with only a slap in their wrists! The steps taken by the authorities do more damage than anything to the already dwindling reputation of our local universities and reflects complete indifference to moral values and the responsibility of an educational institution to uphold academic integrity and excellence.

By just giving a stern warning, what are the authorities teaching other undergraduates, students and the society as a whole? Is this giving people an indirect message that the authorities concerned condone the act because the culprits can get away with it with hardly any strong deterrent to ensure that they or any other Malaysian/student/staff will ever plagiarize again. When social control is not exerted over people who carry out acts that go against the law or morals of a country, then what may be long term and short term effects of such a situation?

Think.

Think hard.

It seems so incredulous to me that while two lecturers - one a professor and another one who had recently received her PhD could carry out such an act and have the audacity to sell their plagiarized works!!!

And it took people SIX years to unravel this case of plagiarism.

WOW!! Talk about moving in slow motion.

Strange isn't it that some authorities just count from one to ten before they take action to zero in on whom they feel have flouted the law.

Let's not forget the Kartika case where the authorities slapped a hefty fine of RM5,000 and public caning for drinking a glass of beer. (You can read my former student's article in The Star HERE on that case. She is currently pursuing her Masters in Journalism in Montreal.)

And what have we here? For heaven's sake, just a STERN WARNING for plagiarism.

I can almost hear students giggling and saying, "Ooooo I am so scared!!! Scold me for plagiarizing!"

According to Wikipedia over HERE,

Ever notice how some people just seem to be able to be content and bounce back no matter what the circumstances? Research shows that this isn’t a gift or a talent – it’s a skill that they have developed. Surprised? Well, the real surprise is that you too can put to work their techniques and make your life happier too.

1. Happy people cooperate with life.

Each person has a destiny to fulfill. You can fight it or cooperate with it. Does that mean you just lay back and let life happen? No. But you can adopt the attitude that you will play the cards you are dealt the very best you can. When you begin to cooperate with life, you will notice new ways in which you are motivated. Life wants you to realize your destiny. Wouldn’t you rather cooperate than battle with life?

2. Happy people don’t just think positive, they act positive. Thinking positive definitely has its place, and you’ll need to change your thoughts to ever be truly happy. But don’t wait on the feelings to come. You have direct control over how you act and what you think (feelings and physiology are indirectly affected). If you want to be a happier person, act happier. If you want to be a more compassionate person, act more compassionate. If you want to be a friendlier person, act friendlier. The feelings will follow.

3. Happy people ask for what they need.

Good things don’t generally just fall out of the sky. Complaining gets you nothing, except to attract you to other complainers. If you believe that “you reap what you sow”, then asking for what you want makes much more sense than sowing complaints. It’s your choice-- you can choose to point fingers and assign blame, and still end up with nothing. Or you can simply ask.

4. Happy people are willing to change.

It’s contrary to all laws of nature for things to stand still. If you try to make that happen, you’ll always be disappointed. If you let fear of change stop you, you are in essence *agreeing* to not having what you want. You can believe that change will harm you and resist it. Or you can embrace it and believe that it will help you. It all depends on what you decide to believe.

5. Happy people don’t allow themselves to be defeated. A failure or set back does not mean that the goal will never be yours, nor is it evidence that you should quit. It simply means that you need more practice, more experience. Be willing to make mistakes. Don’t give up. Don’t allow one slipup, or setback from the outside, influence you to erase all the progress you’ve made. Feel the joy of the finish line!

6. Happy people live in the present.

If you are alert to the present, and anticipating the future, you are better able to take advantage of opportunities. If you are brooding over the past, you’ll be blinded to present possibilities, and lose the advantage for future prospects. A happy life is the product of living a great present. And a well lived present is a guarantee of a wonderful future. You can only affect your future by what you do today.

7. Happy people plan ahead.

Happy people know that they must exercise mastery in their lives, show control in their life in order to guard against feelings of being helpless and victims. Planning is essential to getting things done. Planning is essential to making sure you are spending time on your priorities, and not just the next thing that gets your attention. Plan for what’s important to you, and choose to spend your limited time, money, energy, and resources on it.

Kathy Gates is a Professional Life Coach in Scottsdale AZ. If you liked this article, you’ll love her “Beat the Procrastination Blues” program. Get more information at her website Real Life Coach, http://www.reallifecoach.com/ and sign up for the newsletter.

We're all familiar with the cycle:

1. We want new, but resist change.

2. We want satisfaction, but procrastinate.

3. We want control, but defer to circumstance.

So, what’s really stopping you?

A belief?

"I’m an incurable procrastinator, I’ll probably be late to my own funeral. Beliefs like this dictate your thoughts, and your thoughts turn into action -- or in this case, inaction. Instead, consciously turn those thoughts -- or offhand comments -- into something that can help you, not hinder you. I tend to be late with things, but I know if I prepare I can make it easier to be on time."

A habit?

While it seems too simple to actually have impact, success on any goal boils down to a good habit. If you eat well and exercise, you’ll be successful with a healthy lifestyle. If you don’t control your spending and put aside some for emergencies, you’ll conversely end up with financial woes. Do you habits help you or hurt you?

Easier not to do?

This is probably the most common stopper. "Sure, I’d love to have my own business, but ---". Change is not easy. No matter how small a change, you will feel uncomfortable at some points. We all know this, and sometimes it’s just easier to live with the ‘familiar unhappiness’ than to push through the inevitable uncomfortable feelings. Anticipate the feelings, and be ready to push through the change until it becomes a part of you.

Fear?

Are you a "What If?" thinker? This can paralyze if you always "what if" the negative. But "what if" you just did it anyway? What if you knew that if you were kind and giving some people would accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway. What if you find happiness, and you notice that others are jealous and spiteful. Be happy anyway. What if you knew that the good that you do today will be easily forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway.

In a poem often attributed to Mother Teresa but actually written by a young man from Harvard, he says no matter the "what if", do it anyway.

Because you see, it's never been about what other people think of you. It's never been between you and them. It's what you think of yourself.

Stop the Cycle.

Do what is right for you. Do what you believe in. Do what you feel good about -- whether that’s mopping the floor and raising toddlers, or going back to school, or writing that book at long last, or finally getting control over your life.

What’s really stopping you?

Nothing!

-written by Kathy Gates-

Kathy Gates is a Professional Life Coach in Scottsdale AZ. If you liked this article, you’ll love her "Beat the Procrastination Blues" program to help you find out what’s really stopping you -- and more importantly get a grip on it! Get more information at her website Real Life Coach, http://www.reallifecoach.com/ and sign up for the newsletter while you’re there.