Left Coast Leaner

Hello everyone. I've been absent here for some time. But if you are still checking out this space, I thought I'd let you know that I've packed up shop and moved elsewhere. You can now check out the Left Coast Leaner here, on blogspot.

Here's the first post on the new site.

It's a move I shoulda made a long time ago. I didn't do it while in China, however, because I was sure it would have been blocked. Indeed, it would have been periodically. But the format is just so much easier and cleaner. Hopefully it'll inspire me to write more.

Instead of blogging, I've been busy building a disc golf course in Singapore. It's coming along, and I hope to tell you more about it later. Meanwhile, see you in Blogger/Google Land.

It's easy to retch at the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold the legal-discrimination edict of Proposition 8. A shame, yes, but really not all that surprising. And, sadly, it was the "right" decision, in that the court's job is to interpret the constitution, not legislate. Like it or not, in a state famously "governed by proposition", the constitution actually allows the nuptial equivalent of separate drinking fountains for gay people.

That is reason enough for California to junk its current constitution and start from scratch. Suffocating 2/3-majority requirements that leave the state financially hamstrung every year is probably the most politically viable reason to start fresh, but the fact that California's constitution now officially promotes ignorance makes the whole thing seem worthless. The fact that a majority of ignoramuses can pass a measure so rooted in archaic understandings of human relationships proves the current system is seriously flawed in what is otherwise a fine state.

Then again, it's not all that bad when compared to the situation in Singapore. We learned earlier that views of homosexuality here are not exactly enlightened. And though I think people in the US who would deny a homosexual the right to marry the person he or she loves would be the same people a generation earlier tsk tsking at "uppity negroes" holding up traffic, I also realize that they don't hold a flame to attitudes here.

To review the basics: sex between two men in Singapore is against the law; it is a "gross indecency" under section 377A. Apparently, sex between women is OK, or at least not criminal -- they seem to differentiate between "lesbianism" and "homosexuality" here. To be fair, anal and oral sex of any kind was illegal here until 2007, when that ban was repealed. Progress?

Like elsewhere, I would hope attitudes towards homosexuals here are evolving and that discrimination will die out in the next generation. But reading some of the things printed in the paper last week makes me think attitudes here have a long way to go.

Take this letter to the Straits Times, posted on the website. The author sagely informs us that "sexually challenged" is not an offensive term referring to gays. He continues:

"It is a fact that homosexuality is an abnormality for the simple reason that it is against the laws of nature. Nature intended each species to reproduce itself and homosexuality does not do the job.

"It is possible that some people are born with homosexual inclinations but that does not make them normal. They are in the same category as people born mentally retarded or blind or deaf or mute. While we may sympathise with them, we do not think of them as normal."

How enlightening. (In case that link disappears, as the ST website is not terribly reliable in its archives, here's the cache.)

On Thursday, another article ran quoting a professor named Koo Tsai Kee, who delivered an impassioned plea to Parliament warning that "intolerance" poses the biggest threat to Singapore. Ok, you'd think, some truly wise words. (Here's the cache.)

"Intolerance", Mr Koo says, is a "growing cancer in society". But to him, intolerance only relates to "religious and racial bigotry". The AWARE saga (linked above) was a showdown between a group of conservative Christians and another group of (for the sake of derogatory hyperbole) homosexual sympathizers. That the debate was "framed" this way by the media, Mr Koo claims, shows there is a clear "intolerance of diversity". In other words, being supportive of gays is an affront to Christianity and, thus, a potentially destructive show of intolerance.

The way the saga was covered, Mr Koo suggests, was tainted by reporters "hobnobbing with the homosexual fraternity", something that calls into question "whether there should ever be an unregulated press". ST editor Han Fook Kwang rightly refuted such claims in his defense of ST's coverage, which was as complete as it could be under the circumstances.

But no one in the mix seems to understand the heart of the issue: Tolerance means tolerating everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. The very fact that there are laws on the books ANYWHERE that legalize discrimination and criminalize human nature is an affront to humanity. Until we see the end of officially sanctioned intolerance, the "growing cancer" will continue to spread.

Continue reading "Standing up for the "sexually challenged"" »

I wrote another blog post for the Straits Times website. I do it whenever I have a second, which has only been twice so far.

I surprised myself a little with this one, ignoring the knee-jerk liberal in me and concluding that Obama was right, or at least justified, in trying to block the release of the new batch of detainee abuse photos. (Maybe it's not so much my knee-jerk liberalism as my knee-jerk respect for Obama and pragmatism. It's a good thing I don't cover presidential politics because I, like so many White House reporters, would be accurately criticized for fawning over Obama. I'd be starry-eyed at every turn.)

I'm all about disclosure and the public's right to know. But disclosing the photos in question in this case seems a tad redundant. We've already seen what they depict and it's hard to see what good can come out of revisiting that dark moment in American history, Abu Ghraib. Maybe, as Obama argues, it'll make matters worse for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sure there's more to it than that; a reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog suggests why it's an especially clever move.

I admit, much of my opinion was formed based on things I read on Sullivan's The Daily Dish, particularly the idea that releasing the pics now would put a distracting amount of attention on General McChrystal, whom Obama has nominated to take over in Afghanistan. McChrystal seems like a good man for a job that needs finishing ASAP, though after reading this just now (from the same blog... man, he churns out a lot), it sounds like McChrystal has some dark secrets indeed.

The problem, of course, is that this sets a rotten precedent for the Freedom of Information Act, which Obama has essentially snubbed. That's not good. Needless to say, I'm not firmly in either camp.

But my opinion is not really what's interesting here. The main reason I would urge you to go to my post is to check out some of the comments left by readers on this one and the last one. They are brutal, laughable really. I've never been the focus of so much rage. I'll let them speak for themselves, without introduction. If any Leaner readers would like to participate in the debate, by all means weigh in.

Continue reading "Another blog post, and a whole host of enemies" »

I couldn't believe it when I saw it. I was on my way home from the CBD in Singapore, on the 70 bus. I was looking out the window as we passed SunTec City, the giant mall and convention center near the City Hall subway stop. Singapore was still a new place to me at the time, so there were many unusual sights for me to see. But this forced a double-take:

What in the world is a disc golf basket doing there?!

Disc golf in Asia is very rare indeed. The biannual Japan Open is well known and well attended (even if people grumble about the 150-weight-class requirement), and earlier this year Taiwan staged the first-ever Asian Open. There is also a course on the island of Koh Samui in Thailand. (Tragically, I took a trip to Koh Samui a few months ago, and despite knowing that there was a course somewhere in Thailand, I didn't realize it was actually the very spot I was on holiday until after I got back. Foolish. Anyway, I heard rumors that it has closed, which I hope is not true, though it would make me feel better since I blew it so badly earlier.) And of course, there's my failed attempt to get something going in Beijing.

The game does exist here in Singapore, despite the absence of permanent courses. This is pretty much all thanks to die-hard Lance DuBos, an ultimate player who acquired some portable golf baskets along the way and trucks them out to various spots on the island most weekends. There is a very small core of us that get together for a few hours, most often at the state-land park next to Kallang MRT, and throw discs -- that is, when we don't get pummeled by violent downpours and bone-rattling thunder-and-lightning strikes.

But no one can explain the basket pictured above; no one else even knew it existed. From what I can tell, it's on the grounds of the Raffles Education Corp College. I'm not entirely sure what this college is all about, but they seem to have some sort of design program. My best guess is that some student sometime put together a disc golf basket for a project and they just kept it around because it was quirky. It sits there, apparently embedded in the ground (it's not portable), sitting unused in a small plot of lawn next to a basketball court. I wonder if it's ever tasted the sweet ching of a disc sliding through its hanging chains...

I can think of several better places to put that basket (and between 8 and 17 others). Kallang would be one, though I think it works better as a temporary course. Another would be the plot of state land at the end of Guillemard road where it meets Sims, right next to the Judo Club. That spot is a little too swampy, though.

The most perfect spot on the island, from what I've seen, is the vast plot of rolling hills on Upper Serangoon Rd, between Aljunied and Braddell Rds. It is a crime not to have a disc golf course there. If we could only figure out the origin of that mysterious basket across from SunTec, maybe we could get this place on course to be a truly industrialized nation.

For a country as antiseptic and averse to dissent as Singapore, the last month has been a political dogfight.

The subject is homosexuality, the battleground a women's group called AWARE (Association for Women for Action and Research).

I think it's safe to say that, prior to the events of the last month and a half, many Singaporeans were unaware of AWARE's existence. From what I gather, it was a fairly innocuous women's advocacy group that, among other things, provided sex education and advice to middle school and high school kids. Like many other women's group in the world, much of the material AWARE provided encouraged young women to be proud of themselves and of their bodies, and to not be ashamed when their feelings and desires somehow conflicted with conventional views of sexuality and womanhood.

Of course, being gay is against the law in Singapore (gay sex, anyway), and to the tens of thousands of born-again Christians who are gaining an ever more vocal role in society here, homosexuality is an abomination against, well, everything.

Therein lies the dogfight. Actually, it's been called a "catfight", and has even included death threats.

At some point not long ago, a group of these born-agains deemed the "new guard" joined up with AWARE and attended a meeting to elect officers. They enacted a takeover, overwhelmingly electing themselves to leadership positions even though most members of the "old guard" had never met them or seen them at any previous AWARE functions. The new guard then acted to promptly cancel the services offered to 12- to 18-year-old girls "aimed at helping young people develop a healthy and positive attitude towards sexuality and empowering them in their decision-making", according to a Straits Times summary.

New AWARE president Maureen Ong said she found the sex-ed material "shocking". Here is what she found so troubling (brace yourself): "Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Just like heterosexuality, it is simply the way you are. Homosexuals also form meaningful relationships, and face the same emotional issues that heterosexuals do."

The new guard members were upset that AWARE had become "pro-gay" and were "promoting lesbianism and homosexuality" (different things, apparently). As the 71-year-old self-described "feminist mentor" Thio Su Mien said, “Are we going to have an entire generation of lesbians?”

The episode played out largely in the media, with letters to editors and blanket coverage for weeks. One of the new guard members questioned why the newspapers were even interested in the story, suggesting the media had some pro-gay bias by merely reporting on it. The Straits Times bent over backwards to be neutral in the ordeal -- indeed, it was the whole idea of treating homosexuality as a "neutral" thing, not bad, but not good, that sparked outrage in the first place.

(Fears that the Straits Times had any pro-gay bias were surely put to rest when, in an editorial on Friday, it said the AWARE sex-ed guide was fine in concept, but it had "references in it, about anal sex, for example, which are plainly out of line, whatever the context and qualifications made". This amounts to teaching children "wicked things", the editorial said. Talk about a civic debate...)

AWARE was certainly the buzz about the island. The controversy was even trending on Twitter for a while. But most of the discussion hinged on whether it was within AWARE's domain to distribute this sex-ed material, with its accepting language towards homosexuality. The question about whether it is right to have discriminatory laws in the first place was hardly addressed at all.

Most people seem to think the fact that so many people were openly debating a divisive social and religious issue at all is an encouraging sign in this actively apolitical population. Sure, but the real encouraging sign will be when that debate moves forward and becomes strong enough to enact real social change.

AWARE's "old guard" was ultimately reinstated, but the government struck down the group's right to distribute their sex-ed materials. In a statement, the Ministry of Education said: "In particular, some suggested responses in the instructor guide are explicit and inappropriate, and convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex."

Singapore wants to be taken seriously as a modern society and yet they have these laws on the book that sound like the dark ages. Let's just hope it's a generational divide.

On Monday, the Chinese government launched a new English-language newspaper called the Global Times. It seems strange to say a government launched a newspaper, but in the case of China, where all media is government controlled (or at least regulated), it's really not that strange.

My thoughts about it can be read here in what is, incidentally, my first byline in like six months and first in Singapore. (Also incidentally, if you Google News "global times" you'll get that same greasy picture of me staring back at you. I was not expecting a head shot that day. Gross.) Anyway, it's ground I've covered before, but still might be worth a look.

In short, Global Times will be hardly different from what we already get from China Daily. It's not bad, necessarily, just a little confusing. I mean who in their right mind would launch a newspaper these days? Maybe they're just looking for another method for the citizenry to learn English.

And just a quick note in response to some of the commenters on my Straits Times blog post: There are some who believe the comments made regarding China's press freedoms (or lack of them) could also be leveled at Singapore's press. This is nonsense; the situations are hardly the same (though the misunderstanding is understandable). Furthermore, such comments totally miss the point of the article.

Continue reading "New 'Global Times' in China an exercise in redundancy" »

In case you haven't seen this picture, what they've dubbed the "Hand of God", check it out:

Reason enough for me to believe in the beyond. I like to think of it as divine.

Here's another collection of images, also from the Telegraph, which proves divinity is a tripper.

(Thanks, Dude)

I took Easter weekend in a bit of a different direction this year -- I spent much of it finishing The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most outspoken atheists.

I generally bristle at the notion of atheism because I am in the camp that believes it is just an inverted form or religion. Dawkins gives a pretty good rebuttal to that position, in particular the claim that atheists are fundamentalists in their own right. While a fundamentalist holds his beliefs firm in the face of all evidence, Dawkins says, he and other scientists are willing to re-examine and drop any preconceived notions if the proper evidence is presented. Fair enough.

But the esteem with which he speaks of the noted scientists of history, especially Darwin and Einstein, rivals only that with which Christians speak of Christ or Muslims of the Prophet. Not for a minute am I discounting the importance or brilliance of these scientists, but Dawkins doesn't seem to realize that he's hitched his boat to these particular historical figures, while others choose to hitch their boats elsewhere. He is saying, in effect, "My god is bigger than his god."

Without falling too deep into the trap of post-modern cultural relativism, I think it is irresponsible and hardly useful to dismiss the beliefs of the vast majority of the world's population because it doesn't jibe with your own personal belief system. I don't want to sound too "everyone-is-entitled-to-his-own-beliefs-and-they-all-need-to-be-respected" here, but the thing that bothers me about Dawkins and this book -- indeed, much of religion -- is the need to convert. Dawkins says up front that he is out to convert people with this book, and I find his proselytizing hard to stomach. His tone is smarmy and condescending, and if he really wants to engage in a debate with religious types and not just preach to his choir, he should drop the 'tude.

His argument against God is strong in parts, even if familiar and a bit tired. Yes, the Bible has glaring historical inaccuracies, yes the Old Testament advocates unconscionable things, yes atrocities are carried out in God's name, yes religious texts can read like fairy tales. Right, I learned all that in my history of the Bible class my freshman year in college (a Lutheran college, I might add). But his argument weakens with a preponderance of rhetorical questions that smack of defensiveness: "If science cannot answer some ultimate questions, what makes anybody think that religion can?" and "What on earth is a why question?"

Here's one, it's simple: "Why?"

Flawed as it may be, religion offers an answer to people desperately seeking one. It may not be a satisfying answer to some people, but clearly the answer science provides is, at best, equally unsatisfying. How people employ the other aspects of religion is up to their own, sometimes deeply disturbing, devices. But for Dawkins to suggest -- nay, be certain -- that his way of making sense of the world is the only acceptable one and to scorn those that have different, more mystical views as foolish is, to me, the height of arrogance.

Dawkins is a brilliant biologist and I am in no position to quibble with him on specifics of evolution. I too, am a believer. But I think biology has its limits, confined to our young planet, and anything that purports to have all the answers -- as Dawkins clearly believes science does -- necessarily must look beyond earth and into space, "the heavens". Dawkins has a firm grip on how life developed on this rock we call Earth, and the passages about evolution are the most fascinating in the book.

But I'm not really interested in biology, certainly not as it relates to the fundamental questions of existence (something religion at least attempts to answer). As far as science goes, quantum physics and astrophysics are far more likely to provide satisfying explanations to things for which we have no answer. There's a reason the Higgs boson -- the theoretical particle that explains why things have mass -- is known as the "God particle". It is, perhaps, something humanity has inherently known about forever, but whose existence no one has been able to prove. Should it be worshiped? Why not? Should it be killed over? Of course not, but people will always find something to kill each other over.

I guess my real disagreement with Dawkins is that I believe in things unseen, in realities beyond our primitive consciousness and in the unknown and the unknowable. I believe in wonder and mystery and in dimensions beyond three. Logic is great and reason is crucial and sadly undervalued among the superstitious -- but they are only methods of dealing with reality as our meager senses allow us to perceive it. Maybe God is a delusion -- so what? The notion that humans are able to answer these ultimate questions is a delusion as well.

Furthermore, love it or hate it, religion is a cornerstone of culture. It connects us to generations past, and to ignore those ever-fraying ties is to cheapen the future. I like Easter. I like the flowers and the music and the joyousness and the traditions it allows me to share with the people I love. Why not embrace that?

Religion has given us the concept of education, fairness, progress. It's built schools, financed art and inspired works of beauty beyond comprehension. To say it has no value is to put on a pair of blinders and scream at the top of your lungs.

Dawkins is really good at belittling beliefs -- he's an nth-degree agitator. But religious extremism is an easy target, and he turns a blind eye to the truly wonderful things that religion provides. Maybe my sister was physically and biologically strong enough to overcome cancer, but who is Dawkins to say that it wasn't the strength of her faith that enabled her to pull through. Or the hopeless drug addict that drags himself out of an urban hellhole and says "it's only by the grace of God." Is Dawkins going to smugly tell him he's just full of superstitious shit, lied to and fooled into acquiescence?

I'm not going to take away an atheist's right to deny the existence of deities -- I'm not much into worship myself. But I have to believe there is something beyond us, beyond this, and definitely beyond Dawkins. I'm not sure how to classify myself, but one thing I am not is an atheist.

(This is another link worth checking out, but I was unable to find a place to stick it in.)

For some reason I thought I was the only Kings fan on the Ricky Rubio bandwagon, but I was obviously wrong.

Check out Sactown Royalty, preeminent Kings blog, to get yourself excited about the very real possibility that the Kings pick him up.

Now that he's put his name in the draft, all we have to do is pick him. I don't think any of the other teams who might get the first pick will have the balls not to pick Blake Griffen. As the above link points out, Petrie is the man when it comes to defying conventions.

As the Kings home in on the dubious distinction of being the hands-down worst team in the NBA -- a very real possibility with 16 wins and six to play, shit, they could even mathematically finish 50 games out of first place -- it seems like a generation ago that we were this close to a championship parade in Midtown.

It's safe to say the window has slammed closed on the good old days of the early aut years. We won't be seeing quality ball like that in Sacto for the foreseeable future. But a recent post on Truehoop reminds us that the has-been Kings are in some pretty good company of this-close losers. Worth it to read the whole thing; there's lots of good teams that approached the precipice but were too spineless to jump off.

Then you get to the part about the Kings, and the sad truths come pouring out (particularly painful ones underlined by me):

Sacramento Kings (1998-2006) The Kings window to take home the title began when Rick Adelman became head coach and ended when he was fired. The acquisition of Mike Bibby provided intrigue to a team that already had Chris Webber, Hedo Turkoglu, Doug Christie, Bobby Jackson, Peja Stojakovic and Vlade Divac. In 2002, the Kings were playing the Lakers in Game 7 of the Western Conference Finals. They forced overtime, but lost by 6 points when the dust settled. In that game, Bibby scored 29 points, with 16 of those coming in the 4th quarter and overtime, but it wasn't quite enough. Because of their inability to capitalize on a key opportunity, the Kings now own the 3rd-longest title drought in the 4 major sports, with their last title coming in 1951, when the team was in Rochester.

So we look to the future. I firmly believe (OK, more like hope) the future lies with Ricky Rubio, who I think is still too young to play even next year but will probably be drafted in June by some team. Lord knows the Kings need a PG, and these days it's a point guard's league. My fear is that the Kings land the #1 pick and are forced to take Blake Griffen, which is fine, I guess. Hard to argue with 27 and 14. But it will just add more jumble at the undersized PF/C position, and that certainly hasn't gotten anywhere in the past. The Kings need a top-level PG, period.

At any rate, the Kings have a reasonable nucleus, even if it was among the worst seasons in franchise history. Here's looking to the future.