How could the Ft. Hood shooting have happened?

Ft. Hood, Texas
Image by Bling$Bling via Flickr

By now, the entire nation has probably thought about why did a Major in the US Army opened fire on other soldiers in the deployment processing area of Ft. Hood, Texas.

Strangely, I actually think I have an answer for that.

In my opinion, the problem here is Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is depressed, either covertly or overtly. The depression, along with other stressful events, lead him to believe that 1) he must 'save' others from getting deployed, and 2) in doing so, he can 'save' himself from getting deployed as well. It is just unfortunate that he chose two pistols and more ammo as his tool to do the saving. And there are many factors that lead to his present day.

One such factor is his ethnic background. Some reported him as "Jordanian-American", though he seems to have identified himself as more of a Palestinian, according to his local mosque former Imam, even though he is born in Arlington, VA. His parents have long since passed away and his brothers and cousins are living here in the US. Reports say that his family "has Palestinian roots". It is likely he grew up with the stories of the difficult lives of his parents, whom eventually fled to Jordan, then emigrated to the US.

More environmentalism bullshit

Image via Wikipedia

Just learned that Sprint and Samsung is launching the "Reclaim", "a phone made out of 80% recycleable materials". I was surprised though that it wasn't the first "eco-friendly" phone. Motorola was actually first with "Renew" for T-mobile.

Well, *sounds* impressive, but how much of the Reclaim is really WORTH recycling? In general, the best way to "recycle" a cellphone is to donate it to a cause like battered women's shelter, so they can call 911 where-ever they are. Recycling electronics is often just not worth the time or money. They are simply too small to get much useful material out of them. The outer plastic shell is certainly recycleable.

Why are some religious people so... literal?

Image via Wikipedia

Religion, Darwin, and Evolution

Why must some people take the Bible so... LITERALLY? It's obvious that the world was NOT created in six days, and the world was not created in 4004 BC (ref: King James Bible).

In fact, St. Augustine, VERY famous Christian about 400 AD, wrote a book called "True meanings of Book of Genesis", where he specifically stated that the Bible should not be taken as the literally truth, and Bible is NOT SCIENCE< but myth and allegory. Bible are a collection of lessons and messages from God, and some concepts can only be explained metaphorically, such as creation of space and time.

So why does some people insist that the Bible is the literally truth? That started in the Reformation. Basically, the reformation claims that the Bible, NOT the Pope, is the true leader of Christianity. Rather than having the Pope telling you what the Bible means, each reader of the Bible should be able to decide what the Bible meant to him- or herself.

Is representative democracy obsolete?

Image by _ambrown via Flickr

Controversial Idea: Is Representative Democracy obsolete?

Thnk about it... the Greeks invented democracy, where any one who cares enough to argue policy can go down to the forum and join in the debate. But then, Greece back then are small city-states, each a government onto themselves.

Then comes the republic, when the distance prevents people from voicing their opinion directly, so representatives are chosen to speak for the people, so you don't have 10000 people stampeding into the capital just to get their voices heard.

Now, with the advent of telephone, TV, and advanced communications, it is possible to practice full democracy again... You no longer have to go physically to the government to be heard. There's e-mail, fax, phone, and so on. And if you care enough, you can always go physically.

So is representative democracy, i.e. republic, obsolete?

Malpractice suits: who really pays at the end?

Image via Wikipedia

Did you know that in New York City, 92.2% of OB/GYN doctors have been sued for malpractice at least once? And the average is 3 times each? The effect is OB/GYN driven out of the city altogether, or just GYN, no more OB.

Another OB/GYN doctor remarked: in 1981 his medical malpractice insurance is only $8000 per year. Now it's $155000 (2009). His practice can't pay for the insurance, at about $50 per appt, so he's getting out of the business. Average malpractice insurance for non-OB/GYN doctors in NYC is $40000.

Stats show that less than 30% of the malpractice suits actually have a chance of winning. The rest are frivolous.

Anti-bacterial / germicidal: the real health threat?

Image via Wikipedia

Anti-bacterial or germicidal products are all around us. We are lead to believe that they are better than the plain-jane versions. Dish-washing liquids now comes in germicidal varieties. Even computer keyboards comes in germicidal varieties. But has it gone too far?

First, are bacteria REALLY that harmful through contact? There are deadly bacteria. Bad forms of E Coli or Botulism and such sends plenty to hospital very year. However, those are all INGESTED bacteria. What bacteria is there that are dangerous through CONTACT?

I mean, you wouldn't use those germicidal hand cleaners on your food, do you? Say a cucumber, carrot, and so on, that you'd eat raw?

The only kind that are widely known is the "flesh-eating bacteria", and even then it needs some sort of an entrance. But what are the chances of running into those for the average Joe?

Second, what about the GOOD bacteria? There are plenty of stuff that lives inside you.

Third, what are the consequences of such germicidal mania? More serious than you think.

Nature is a self-regulating mechanism. If you push it one way, eventually it will push back. What will likely happen is in the near future the common germs that these germicidal agents may develop resistance to these agents. It's the natural thing to do. So we'll have to invent something STRONGER... and the war continues.

The danger to this scenario is... if the resistant strain somehow got crossed with a virulent strain, we'd end up with a pandemic that we can't stop.

And we already have "drug resistant" forms of many diseases. Drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis already exists to most common forms of antibiotics, and the super-advanced antibiotics cost an arm and a leg. (And you thought that TB had been eradicated from the world!) The "super germs" are causing problems in Europe a lot. Many have died in hospitals from these super-germ infections.

Why do we need all this germicidal stuff when a simple hand-washing will do? After all, hospitals have done it for a hundred years to prevent infections, right?

Prop 8 supports... What kind of ******** argument is this?

A bunch of conservative and religious organizations have united last year to pass Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to define marriage is between a man and a woman, thus making "same-sex marriages" illegal. There was a huge media blitz left and right, and in the end the Right won. But one wonders why are these people so anxious to 'save' it from the same-sex couples?

If you read their brochure, you can figure out where they're coming from:

[The following is translation of a real Chinese brochure passed out during Prop 8 mania. ]