Financial Crisis - tip of the iceberg

These days, financial crisis seems to hog the media: governments pumping in more money into their economies, large corporations posting record losses, well known large companies filing for bankruptcies, people losing their job leading to homes being foreclosed, cars being repossessed etc.

You would think that we had seen the worse of it all in the financial crisis. How would you feel if I were to say that worse has yet to come? I do not have a crystal ball nor am I a psychic but I believe that the world has grown so tiny, thanks to globalization, that what we are seeing in the media today is just the tip of the iceberg.

The following is extracted from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-16-crime-economy_N.htm :

The collapse of U.S. financial markets is forcing deep cuts in local police agencies and stoking fears among police chiefs that mass home foreclosures are bringing more crime to suburbs.

Problems created by the financial meltdown are starting to touch everything from police response times to unsolved crimes.

"As we see significant reductions, we'll be seeing increased response times, fewer cases solved and reduced services for victims of crime," says Prince William County, Va., Police Chief Charlie Deane. His $73 million budget could drop up to 30% next year because of declining property tax revenues.

Blocks of homes vacant from foreclosures are becoming magnets nationwide for gang members, drug users, prostitutes and thieves, who steal appliances and fixtures, Deane and other officers say.

At the same time, police agencies are dramatically reducing their forces as local governments struggle to allocate shrinking revenue from property and sales taxes to fund basic services.

This may very well be happening in other countries as well due to the ballooning credit crunch that many economies are now facing. A country’s economy is so heavily dependent on the well being of the financial sector; when this sector so much as sneezes (due to flu), the entire economy may suffer a seizure. The actual scenario now is the financial sector is crumbling, imagine what is happening to the economy.

When I was younger, I loved playing with dominoes. I would line them up in a long line and then I would push one tile down to see the domino effect. This is what happened in the financial crisis:

With good intentions (albeit against logic), USA Congress encourages lending to lower income people (which basically means high risk low returns instead of the conventional theory high risk high returns) resulting in the number of mortgages exposed to this group increase by a factor of 15 times (from a low of 2% high risk mortgages, it skyrocketed to 30%) (USA Congress being the 1st domino tile in a long line). Overzealous financial institutions (2nd, 3rd, 4th and more domino tiles) repackaged these high risk mortgages into low risk securities and sold them to investment banking firms (more and more domino tiles) who in turn sold them to individual and corporate investors worldwide (a whole lot more domino tiles). When the mortgages are defaulted, everyone gets burnt (and the domino tiles starts falling).

As a result, big corporations started posting record breaking massive losses, some even filed for bankruptcies, they had to reduce their costs thus they started retrenching. When people lose their jobs, that isn’t a nightmare; the nightmare begins when people find that they are no longer financially capable to continue to put food on the table or provide shelter for the family. That is when crime (blue and white collar) increases dramatically. This is just the tip of the iceberg; the domino tiles have yet to stop falling.

The corrective action for individuals is to appoint capable people to form a government and for the government to overhaul the entire financial system; never ever consider a high risk low return option.

The truth about financial crisis

Believe it or not, the global financial crisis spawned from good intentions that were poorly executed; the following is extracted from Wall Street Journal, who interviewed Stephen Schwarzman, the chairman of Blackstone Group
(http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/09/24/wall-street-crisis-stephen-schwarzman-explains-it-all/?mod=sp_deals ):

It’s a perfect storm. It started with Congress encouraging lending to lower-income people. You went from subprime loans being 2% of total loans in 2002 to 30% of total loans in 2006. That kind of enormous increase swept into the net people who shouldn’t have been borrowing.

Those loans were packaged into CDOs rated AAA, which led the investment-banking firms [buying them] to do little to no due diligence, and the securities were distributed throughout the world, where they started defaulting.

When they started defaulting, out of bad luck or bad judgment, we implemented fair value accounting….You had wildly different marks for this kind of security, which led to massive write-offs by the commercial banking and investment-banking system.

In the face of those losses…you needed to raise new equity…which came from sovereign-wealth funds in part, which then caused political resistance to sovereign-wealth funds, who predictably have withdrawn from putting money into the system….It seemed pretty obvious that would happen. We now find ourselves with a liquidity crisis where fundamentally the cost of money for financial intermediaries [such as investment banks] is significantly in excess of their cost of lending it. So several institutions found themselves in a structurally impossible position. We had a series of bankruptcies, whether Bear Stearns or Lehman, or forced sales like Merrill. Goldman reverted to a banking charter for a lower cost of funds, which today is still not low enough for the business.

So that’s the story of how we got there.

In this high technology era, it makes one shudder now as to who we can trust these days; when financial institutions blindly follows orders by politicians (who may or may not have any knowledge of financial markets), it is high time for us to put in some check and balance. The question is not what or how – it is a question of when these check and balances are put into place to prevent such a major fiasco from happening – again.

The corrective action would be to ensure that we elect the right people to form the government.

School Shooting - What makes a person kill

On 23rd September 2008, 10 students were shot dead by Matti Saari who then turned the gun on himself. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmPkjy3Rc56YqQQ1LYm_OfXgW5VwD93DDESG0) Reading the article above made me reflect on what is becoming to the human race.

A quick search on Google on “school shooting” revealed 1,780,000 results. I clicked on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting and I would not be lying when I say that my jaw dropped. I extracted the following:

Mind you, these are just the recent incidents for USA. There are many other documented cases that are listed at the website above. Reading these statistics really made me think whether by the time I have children, would it be safe for me to send my kids to schools?

While I take profound comfort at the strict gun control laws in Malaysia (probably the only reason why there aren’t any school shooting incidents in my country) I cannot but worry whether it will be safe for me to send my kids to school by the time they are of school going age. I cannot remember with absolute certainty but I do recall reading in the newspapers that students are getting more unruly and violent.

But what intrigued me most was what makes a person kill? I would like to quote Tapio Varmola, principal of Seinajoki University of Applied Sciences who commented on Matti Saari:

"I personally feel that maybe there are too many silent young boys in Finland who are alone. The parents, the schools and the healthcare system should do something together with young boys".
(http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/9/25/worldupdates/2008-09-24T233624Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-356358-1&sec=Worldupdates)

If silence can drive a person to kill, then I believe a possible solution to stop these killings would be to talk to as many people as possible. What do you think?

The corrective actions for us all is to play our part by reaching out to as many people as possible, regardless of gender, race, age and etc. What I mean is – START TALKING & START SAVING LIVES!

The truth about promises - how to keep them

Promises are like babies: easy to make, hard to deliver. ~Author Unknown

Half the promises people say were never kept, were never made. ~Edgar Watson Howe

The best way to keep one's word is not to give it. ~Napoleon Bonaparte

For every promise, there is price to pay. ~Jim Rohn

Promises are like crying babies in a theatre, they should be carried out at once. ~Norman Vincent Peale

We must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot. ~Abraham Lincoln

Promise is defined as (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=promises&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=000000)
Noun
S: (n) promise (a verbal commitment by one person to another agreeing to do (or not to do) something in the future)
S: (n) promise, hope (grounds for feeling hopeful about the future) "there is little or no promise that he will recover"
Verb
S: (v) promise, assure (make a promise or commitment)
S: (v) promise (promise to undertake or give) "I promise you my best effort"
S: (v) predict, foretell, prognosticate, call, forebode, anticipate, promise (make a prediction about; tell in advance) "Call the outcome of an election"
S: (v) promise (give grounds for expectations) "The new results were promising"; "The results promised fame and glory"

In view of so many broken promises, especially in light of the recent financial market meltdown in USA, can we ever trust someone who has broken their promises? It has become a norm for companies to over promise but under deliver; they promised something that they know couldn’t be delivered. For me, I would think that promises should only be made after careful consideration and must be delivered at all costs instead of saying it for the sake of saying it resulting in the failure of delivering the promise. One of the most important lessons that I have learnt is to under promise but over deliver; it simply means giving more than what was promised. End of the day, everyone is selling something, be it a product or service (in the form of a promise; this product / service can do this and this and this etc).

Using the financial market meltdown in USA as an example, can you imagine how does the employees, who are laid off, feel now that they are jobless and that they retirement plans are wrecked due to the fact that the companies that they have been slogging for numerous years have filed for bankruptcy? With this image in mind, how important it is for us to keep our promises?

Of the promises that I listed above, I do not agree with Napoleon Bonaparte’s way of keeping a promise. I think the best way to keep promises is to understand the implications of being able to deliver them and the implications of not being able to deliver them.

What do you think?

The truth about values

Enron filed for bankruptcy 2nd December 2001 leading to the massive plunge of its share prices from a high of more than USD90.00 to USD0.50. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal)

The main reason for Enron’s fall is no doubt the Arthur Andersen accounting firm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen)

The recent US financial meltdown is truly a déjà vu experience because history is repeating itself.

In the wake of the Enron scandal, we have the Bear Stearns fiasco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Stearns), Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and last but not least AIG. The massive losses posted by companies in the US financial market has directly prompted the Bush administration’s current proposal to spend USD700 billion capital injection to prop their financial market from crashing. At the same time, the FBI is investigating these firms for possible mortgage fraud (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/23/news/companies/fbi_finance/index.htm?cnn=yes).

To the best of my knowledge, corporations / companies are inanimate entities. It is the employees that makes or breaks corporations / companies. This fact leads me to question myself: what is it that made the above giant corporations to suffer massive financial losses? Surely the answer cannot be luck (or lack of it) or they were at the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. I believe the answer for the above scandals is simple: the corporations failed mainly because of wrong values.

Values is defined as (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=values)
S: (n) values (beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something)) "he has very conservatives values"

The basis for the massive financial market meltdown is US is largely blamed on the subprime mortgage crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis). In my opinion, that is not the real reason. The real reason behind the US financial market meltdown is the values of the employees in the corporations have ‘evolved’ drastically to the extent that they are no longer recognizable. Now why in the world would I say that?

Let me ask a simple question: who wouldn’t want lots of money? As corporations are inanimate entities, the financial health of corporations falls into the jurisdiction of the company’s board of directors. I think I would not be wrong to say that the word ‘directors’ was derived from ‘direct’ as in to provide directions. The biggest pre-requisite for directors should be the values that they subscribe to. If the directions provided by a director does not have good values embedded in it, chances are the outcome would be disastrous, as is evident in the financial meltdown in U.S.

Coming back to my earlier question: who wouldn’t want lots of money? Making lots of money isn’t difficult at all, that is if a person doesn’t subscribe to good values. Plenty of career options available for people who subscribe to dishonesty, selfishness and blatant disregard to rules / laws. But most end up behind bars. The truth about values is simple: good values will prevail over bad values. For a person who subscribe to honesty, selflessness and abides by rules / laws, it may be prove to take a longer time to accumulate lots of money but at the very least, the chances of them ending up behind bars are very low.

The corrective action = please educate and instil good values in children, relatives, friends, community, colleagues and everyone that you know in order to prevent any undesirable circumstances.

The truth about logic

Logic is defined as (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=logic)
S: (n) logic (the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference)
S: (n) logic (reasoned and reasonable judgment) "it made a certain kind of logic"
S: (n) logic (the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation) "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war"
S: (n) logic (the system of operations performed by a computer that underlies the machine's representation of logical operations)
S: (n) logic, logical system, system of logic (a system of reasoning)

With the vast increase in literacy rates since 1900, it is logical to assume that people are getting more educated. With more people getting more educated, it is logical to assume that the world should be having less issues / crises. What defies logic is the fact that instead of progressing forward, I suspect that the human civilization is actually regressing backwards (http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/08/truth-about-humans-are-we-evolving-or.html). How so? I met E.T’s (http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/07/are-you-et.html) who are highly educated but do not behave as a highly educated person. We proudly call ourselves civilized (human civilization) but we conveniently forget our civilities when it comes to discussion on corrective actions.

If it is logical for humans to live together in peace, why have we not achieved world peace? As the number of educated people increases, how is it logical that the chances for world peace actually diminishes instead of being increased? The hostilities that are happening world wide are mainly due to misunderstanding arising from ignorance of political, religious or cultural differences from one another. I have yet to come across a country who can proudly claim that their country’s politics are not marred by dirt / grime / mud). Surely that is illogical because politics are meant to be clean but how is it that politicians end up becoming dirty?

All of the religions in the world preached about living together in harmony. Is it logical that we end up killing one another to uphold the good name of our religions? What if one day an alien race were to come in peace but they do not practice any of our religions? Do we tell them “I am sorry but I have to exterminate you because you are a pagan?”. I find such thinking highly illogical befitting a civilized person.

Cultural differences have sparked many deaths as well. I read that in India, where banned caste systems are still being practiced, young couples are executed by their own family members because they tried to marry some1 from a lower caste. Human race has 6,000 years of recorded history, despite all these years, is it logical for us to continue to behave how we had behaved?

One of the definitions for crazy is doing the same thing over and over again BUT expecting different results. Taking into consideration that human race is behaving the same way but expecting world peace without making the extra effort to do so is tantamount to crazy. Is this a logical assumption?

The corrective action for us to progress forward is to adopt a logical approach in whatever we do. What do you think?

The Truth About Superstitions

“Break a mirror and risk 7 years of bad luck” was something that I read in one of the many The Adventures of Tintin comic book series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tintin) during my younger days.

I remember vividly when I showed the comic to my father and asked him “Why seven years, not more or less”?. He replied that it was an old belief by the Westerners.

Growing up, I discovered that for most of the superstitions, when I asked around, nobody knew the reason for such beliefs. Superstition is defined as (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=superstition) :

S: (n) superstition, superstitious notion (an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear)

For a more elaborate definition on superstition, please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

As superstition is defined as an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear, since knowledge was limited to the wealthy or nobility since ancient times, it makes sense that with the literacy rates increasing, the number of superstitions would slowly vanish. The main reason why superstitions would not vanish is because adults continue to emphasize it to their young. Some of the more common ones include (http://www.oldsuperstitions.com/) :
* An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
* All wishes on shooting stars come true.
* Friday the 13th.
* Walking under a ladder.
* 4 leaf clover / horseshoe
The list goes on and on.

It is human nature to blame, justify and give excuses as it is comparatively easier, and safer, than to investigate the actual reason. For an example, Friday the 13th is nothing more than an observation that a series of natural and man-made disasters taking place on Friday the 13th. It doesn’t make sense to me because every single day, there is a disaster, be it natural or man-made. I believe that births are a celebration of life and every single day thousands of new babies are born across the globe. This being the case, how can Friday the 13th be classified as a ‘bad’ day?

The 4 leaf clover / horseshoe are ancient beliefs symbolizing good luck – but how much research has been conducted on it to prove that they really do bring good luck? The truth about superstition is that if you believe in them, they will become manifest in your subconscious mind and the law of attraction will attract the necessary forces in the universe to make your belief come true. But where do you draw the line? Do you believe in all of them or only in the ones that you choose that you want to believe in? For me, I choose to believe in facts, not fiction. The corrective action would be for parents to stop disseminating such false beliefs to their children. I came across the following saying:

There is no cure for stupidity but there is a remedy for ignorance; it is called learning.

Superstition is a way of the past – in this era of Knowledge Economy, there is no room for ignorance.

Technorati

Technorati Profile

The truth about being tactful

In this modern day of nanotechnology, it is strange to see that humans are evolving (or are we devolving) (http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/08/truth-about-humans-are-we-evolving-or.html) into something more primitive when it comes to manners and tactfulness.

I come from a contact centre background and I am surprised that instead of becoming more tactful, people are becoming less tactful. In fact, consumers are capitalizing on any given opportunities to yell, scream and holler at customer service agents over the phone simply because they think they can. Many people think that the reason for them to behave in such a manner is because they were influenced by the media. I beg to differ.

In the movie “The Dark Knight”, Michael Caine played the role of Alfred PennyWorth. Rachel Dawes, Bruce Wayne’s long time girlfriend, handed an unsealed note to Alfred to be handed to Bruce. Rachel meant to tell Bruce that she has chosen Harvey Dent and that she will be marrying Harvey. Bruce was in a daze when he found out that he couldn’t save Rachel, the one woman he truly loves, and he muttered “she was going to wait for me”. Alfred, being tactful, decided that Bruce should be spared from the pain that was written in Rachel’s note and decided to burn the note. Throughout the movie, Alfred is the epitome of tactfulness.

Tactfulness is defined as the following: (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=tactful)
*S: (adj) tactful (having or showing a sense of what is fitting and considerate in dealing with others) "she was tactful enough not to shatter his illusion"; "a tactful remark eased her embarrassment"
*S: (adj) tactful, kid-glove (showing skill and sensitivity in dealing with people) "by diplomatic conduct he avoided antagonizing anyone"; "a tactful way of correcting someone"; "the agency got the kid-glove treatment on Capitol Hill"

In my opinion, tactfulness can only be applied when one is in control of one’s emotions; my MALT concept (http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/07/truth-about-mind-does-mind-exist.html) was derived specifically to emphasize how important it is for us to retain full control of our thinking faculties instead of subjecting ourselves to be emotionally hijacked into becoming an E.T. (http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/07/are-you-et.html)
Do share your thoughts.

The truth about humans - are we evolving or devolving?

What are the distinct characteristics that define a human? Is the human race evolving or devolving? In line with the saying ‘you reap what you sow’, I believe that in our race for evolution, we have successfully sowed the seeds of devolution. With the possible exception of the African continent, I believe that obesity is a major health concern faced by countless nations across the globe. Obese people have higher risks of being afflicted with:
* Cardiovascular diseases due to high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels.
* Diabetes
* Osteoarthritis
* Cancer

While it is true that the average lifespan for humans has increased tremendously from 47.3 years in 1900 to 77.8 in 2004 (from U.S. Statistics http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#027) mainly due to the advancement of medical sciences, advancement in general technology has led humans to lead a more comfortable live due to less physical exertion. It is because of less physical exertion that is directly contributing to the ‘devolution’ of the human race. Are these diseases a result of evolution of devolution?

In line with the saying ‘what goes up must come down’, isn’t it possible that by reaching the peak of evolution, the human race must face devolution? Surely after 6,000 years of recorded human civilization, the human race has evolved near peak levels? Take for an example in the Beijing Olympics 2008, where Michael Fred Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps) won the most number of gold medals at a single Olympics, a total of eight. In terms of human physique, if this is not an indication that the human race has evolved to near peak levels, I do not know what this is.

In terms of scientific advancement, physicists have made many breakthroughs in quantum physics to the extent that even the smallest building block particle has been proven to exist. In fact, scientists are building a USD8 billion international physics laboratory called CERN (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9473392). In terms of economic activities, the numbers of billionaires are increasing annually. In terms of academic achievements, the students are continuously creating new academic records. In every single field of study, new records are being created. If these are not indications of human evolution are near peak levels, what are they?

To quote the following sayings:
* We have eyes but we choose not to see
* We have ears but we choose not to hear

* We have limbs but we choose not to act

What are the corrective actions for us to implement if the continuous evolution will mean devolution for the majority of the global populace? Perhaps we should research into making daily tasks more physically challenging? I have no answers, only more questions. Do share your thoughts.

The truth about babies

Most parents I come across end up telling me that babies are easy to take care. Little do they know that they are being taken care by the baby. You may think I am a lunatic but I have seen how a smile from a baby wipes away the frown on a parent’s face; mind you, that parent just lost his job and chances of him getting employed was bleak.

In this case, who is taking care of whom? Yes, the parent is taking care of the baby in terms of food, clothing and shelter but the baby ‘fed’ the parent’s emotional needs. Many adults sneer at me when I said that there are many things we can learn from babies; until I asked them whether it is true that babies ALWAYS stand up regardless of the number of times they fall down. I read in the newspapers that teens and adults commit suicide but have never come across an article of a baby committing suicide. How it is a baby can handle greater adversity than a teen or an adult? I believe the answer is simple: they are innocent (a polite term for ignorance), thus the saying “ignorance is bliss”.

I read somewhere children as young as 8 can master 5 different languages given the proper lessons. I am 30 but I dare not claim that I master a single language. It means that right from birth, babies never stop learning but as adults, somehow we decided that we can stop learning because we have hit a certain number in our age. What adults tend to brush off is that babies or young children is able to learn because they remain focused. After all, they have no bills to pay, no deadlines to hit, no social issues to deal with, no headaches to worry about who to vote for in the coming elections etc. Perhaps the stumbling block for adults to learn is how to remain focused despite surmounting issues?

Back to babies, there are babies who cry all the time and parents try different kind of tricks to get their babies to stop crying and in most cases, the parents will succeed in their mission. In the adult world, there are delinquents who misbehaves but do the rest of the adults try different kind of tricks to get them to behave? I have seen how one baby tries to calm another baby that is crying; mind you, these babies are total strangers to one another in a shopping mall. But I do not see adult strangers consoling one another if one of them cries.

Once the babies learn how to talk, it seems that nothing can stop them from talking. With the advancement of emails and SMS (text messaging), it seems that adults are talking less and less. The truth about babies: we have lots to learn from them.

The truth about learning - what is your learning quotient

There is no doubt about it – children learn things very quickly. Even the most powerful computer in the world has yet to rival a child’s learning capacity. I have come across terms such as IQ (intelligence quotient), EQ (emotional quotient) and SQ (spiritual quotient) but I when I tried to Google ‘learning quotient’ and found that there was no definition, I was truly shocked.

In my opinion, Learning Quotient (LQ) should be given immediate emphasis, adults and children alike, because it plays an important role in our daily lives. Why is this important? Because every individual has different inclinations, such as visual, audio, action oriented, arithmetic and etc, it is important for us to gauge the best way for the individual to learn. And I felt that this can be best demonstrated via LQ. Humans need to be taught, and in order to be taught, the students must be able to learn.

For teachers (or parents or bosses for that matter) to teach effectively, I would like to think that LQ would enable them to understand why some students (or children or employees) learn faster from the rest. A simple test could be the following scenario:

Scenario 1
A teacher writes “1 +1 = 2” on the blackboard

Scenario 2
A teacher says one plus one equals to two.

Scenario 3
A teacher gives all the students 2 peas each and explains why 1 + 1 = 2

Scenario 4
A teacher gets the students to come up with different examples of the concept.

All 4 scenarios involves a teacher trying to teach students simple mathematics via different methods:

Scenario 1 = visual learner
Scenario 2 = audio learner
Scenario 3 = action learner
Scenario 4 = reaction learner = learns more as they teach

It seems deceptively simple but I assure that in real life situation, many parents or bosses take for granted that their children or employees learn from only ONE of the above scenarios, usually audio. Which is the reason why we keep hearing “how many times must I say….” and “didn’t I tell you this 3 times before?”.

I have seen it happen many times in real life how sports coaches tried in vain to tell their players not to repeat certain moves. If only they take the trouble to record the actions on video and show it to their players, they may save themselves a lot of misery.

There are probably a lot more scenarios to LQ and it would be great if you could share more with me.

The truth about conscience

I visited http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscience to learn that conscience is defined as:
1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or

motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates

of conscience.
2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or

inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.

It amazes me how seemingly simple decisions can lead to disastrous results because the decisions were made due to the absence of conscience. Enron and Arthur & Andersen are two of the more well known corporate examples whether so called ‘simple’ decisions made by the leader/s led to disastrous results; the leader/s decided that it was ‘acceptable’ to tell a ‘white lie’ as everyone was doing it. They justified their actions by saying that “my conscience is clear”. These are two of the well known incidents – what about those that are not known?

The terrorist attack on World Trade Centre in New York on September 11, 2001 will remain on my mind till the day I migrate from this world. I have always wondered how did the terrorists who piloted the planes got over their conscience; to commit suicide is one thing but to go to extreme lengths (learning to pilot a plane, coordinating attacks and hijacking several commercial planes simultaneously to commit mass suicide) is another thing altogether. This led me to think, is it possible for us to adjust our ‘conscience’? If conscience is about what is right or wrong, and since right or wrong can always be re-defined, it means that it is possible to tamper with our conscience. I came to realize that my conscience is being tampered with.

With the media focusing on the negative aspects of human actions (rape, robbery, murder, arson, white collar crimes, kidnapping, terrorist attacks, hijacking, rampant corruption etc), I come to realize that I am becoming more tolerant of such reports. I remember when I was learning martial arts many years ago, the first hit was the most painful. But the more hits I took, the less painful it was for me. Similarly, with the media emphasizing on the negativity, I find it that it is no coincidence that the rate of wrong doing keeps on increasing because everyone else’s conscience is numbed with the negativity.

Honestly speaking, I am sick and tired with all the wrongdoings taking place on this planet due to individuals in power who decided seemingly simple decisions that led to disastrous results. The funny thing about all these seemingly simple decisions; it was made with a clear conscience. Because of the higher rate of wrong doings, I conclude that our conscience is highly adaptable. Unlike birds, spiders or caterpillars, humans do not have the innate ability to know how to be a human. Birds know how to build a nest, spiders know how to weave spider webs and caterpillars know how to make cocoons without being taught.

What I am suggesting is that it is possible to realign our definition of right and wrong thus it is possible to redefine our conscience. That is the beauty and dangerous part of it: it is beautiful because we can learn how to make this world a better place (if you are in the media, emphasize on positivity instead of negativity). It is dangerous because some megalomaniac can utilize this fact to brainwash an army of soldiers to do his bidding.

While I agree that it is important to have freedom of press, perhaps we should consider implementing media with conscience?

The truth about fear - why you should fear fear itself

“Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.”
The above is quoted from Marie Curie (1867-1934), a French physicist, twice winner of the Nobel prize.

Fear, as an emotion, has assisted mankind’s forefathers throughout the millennia with the fight-or-flight response. According to Howstuffworks (http://health.howstuffworks.com/fear.htm) , fear is defined as:

Fear is a chain reaction in the brain that starts with a stressful stimulus and ends with the release of chemicals that cause a racing heart, fast breathing and energized muscles, among other things, also known as the fight-or-flight response.

Science has proven that emotions are essentially chemicals released in the brain; from a scientific point of view, we could probably synthesize medications to negate the release of fear in our brain thus ultimately ridding ourselves of fear as an emotion. However, that may lead to other unwanted results such as young children walking into a lion’s cage in the zoo due to the absence of fear or youths who end up stealing or robbing for being fearless.

Why should we fear nothing but fear itself? I would like to share some very interesting articles that I have read:
In August 2006, The Boston Globe newspaper featured an article with the title “Scared to Death”
(http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/08/06/scared_to_death/?page=1)

In October 2006, a doctor says that it is possible to suddenly die from intense fear or trauma. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/Story?id=2614635&page=1)

Recently in March 2008, German scientists have discovered that fear may freeze the blood in your veins thus increasing the risk of a heart attack (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/uob-ftf032508.php#)

In fact, when you Google the phrase “scared to death” you would probably find more than 2 million results. All over the world, people are intrigued to discover whether it is possible to be scared to death.

Assuming that the 3 articles are inconclusive due to insufficient amount of research conducted, should we live a life in fear?

Assuming that the 3 articles have some truth in them, should we fear nothing but fear itself?

The interesting part is, the more fearful you are, and the more likely you are to contract diseases. The question is, do you want to be healthy or do you want to be stricken with diseases? Now that you know that by fearing nothing but fear itself can assist you in becoming more healthy, which one would you choose? Make an informed decision, not a ‘fearful’ (emotional) one.

The truth about common sense

I would have thought that the definition of common sense would be straight forward but I wasn’t quite ready for the truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense


Whatever definition one uses, identifying particular items of knowledge as "common sense" becomes difficult. Philosophers may choose to avoid using the phrase when using precise language.

Isn’t it strange that we incorporate a phrase into our daily lives when the general consensus is there is no common sense? The image above shows a person trying to slot in a square peg into a round hole contrary to common sense. I have heard teachers reprimanding students to use their common sense because the students forgot to write down their names on the exam paper.

For myself, I have frequently encountered road bullies who do not seem to have common sense; they tailgate your vehicle to the extent that there is barely an inch of space between both vehicles in order to intimidate you. In one of my earlier articles “Are you E.T.”, road bullies truly illustrates how an E.T. would behave behind the wheels; common sense dictates that it is dangerous to tailgate a vehicle so closely. However, such road bullies do not have common sense, or do they choose to ignore it?

I believe that the majority of us chose to agree with the general consensus that there is no common sense simply because we have accepted the truth that the general population chose to ignore the fact that we do have a common sense. In this era of nanotechnology where the scientists are racing against time to map out the human genome project (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml) in their bid to search a cure for AIDS and cancer and other fatal diseases, we chose to be selfish with our individual needs.

When we sit down and think about it, common sense isn’t such a difficult concept, in fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that common sense is similar to my MALT concept (in my earlier post titled “The truth about the mind – does it exist). We are gifted with the ability to analyze and reason but we chose NOT to use our gifts. If common sense is universal, then there wouldn’t be wars or nuclear weapons or divorces for that matter.

The truth about common sense is not that it doesn’t exist, rather it has been overshadowed by other selfish reasons. What do you think?

Do you look before you jump or do you jump before you look

Life is about making choices; usually deceptively simple looking but it isn’t when you decide to zoom in deeper. Here’s another one for you to think about;

Do you look before you jump OR
Do you jump before you look?

Scenario 1:
Due to the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998, George lost all his life savings in the stock market. To top it all, he owes relatives, friends and banks a large sum of money. As the saying goes, desperate situation calls for desperate measures and George decides to end his life in a suicide pact with his business partner Bush. George and Bush closed their eyes and jumped off a 20 storey building and died side by side.

Scenario 2:
Due to the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998, Richard lost all his life savings in the stock market. To top it all, he owes relatives, friends and banks a large sum of money. As the saying goes, desperate situation calls for desperate measures and Richard decides to end his life in a suicide pact with his business partner Branson. Richard closed his eyes and jumped off a 20 storey building first and died instantly. Branson, eyes wide open, hesitated and he decided that he wanted to die in a more dignified manner. He decided to live and start a counselling hotline that is similar to Befrienders and subsequently went on to build many successful business ventures.

Both scenarios have similar circumstances but have different results. Truth hurts; and humans find it difficult to accept change. There are times in our lives when thinking (looking) may be the vital one nano-second that the window of opportunities to open for us to act (jump). For us to see that window of opportunity, we need both our eyes to be wide open and thinking clearly in spite of the surmounting odds stacked against us.

We can learn from the diamond – the hardest substance known to mankind - comes from a humble beginning as a coal but subjected to tremendous amount of pressure for millions of years. As humans do not have a chance to live for millions of years, how difficult can it be to live in spite of surmounting off stacked against us for several decades?

The choice is yours; who would you rather be in the above scenarios?

Corrective Actions - by C.A.: The truth about the mind - does the mind exist

Corrective Actions - by C.A.: The truth about the mind - does the mind exist

For more in depth explanation, please visit
http://iiresources.blogspot.com/2007/08/secret-of-human-mind.html

intellectual.INNOVATION.resources: the secret of HUMAN MIND

intellectual.INNOVATION.resources: the secret of HUMAN MIND

Very nice article. Here's a thought - does the human mind truly exist?

http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/07/truth-about-mind-does-mind-exist.html

Are you E.T.?

Steven Spielberg did a wonderful job in educating people about the term “E.T.”. Say E.T. to a group of ppl between the ages of 30 and above, chances are they will visualize the cute looking extra terrestrial on the left.

Using the same acronym, I would like to introduce Emotional Terrorist. I am unable to find a concrete definition for Emotional Terrorist, other than Errin Pizzey who wrote a book with the title “The Emotional Terrorist”. There are many articles on Emotional Terrorist on the Internet but I have neither the time nor the patience to read through ALL. I thought to myself, why don’t I define what is an E.T. (not the cute looking alien).

In my opinion, an Emotional Terrorist is a person who is adept in coercing other people’s decision making process by resorting, intentionally or otherwise, to physical actions or verbal statements or total inaction that will emotionally traumatize the other person in order to gain a favourable outcome.

Scenario 1:
A young child throws a tantrum, in an empty toy store, when the parent refuses to buy a toy for the child. The parent physically punishes the child for throwing a tantrum as the shopkeeper and the assistants are staring at the young child and the parent.

Scenario 2:
A young child throws a tantrum, in an empty toy store, when the parent refuses to buy a toy for the child. The parent gave a verbal warning to the young child to behave or be punished. The young child behaves.

Scenario 3:
A young child throws a tantrum, in an empty toy store, when the parent refuses to buy a toy for the child. The parent did nothing but to allow the child to bawl.

Each scenario is similar in the sense that:
There is a typical young child and a parent shopping in a typical empty toy store. And typically, the typical parent refuses to buy the typical young child a toy. However, what is interesting is there are three different outcomes:

* Physical punishment
* Verbal punishment
* Total inaction

What to do when you encounter an Emotional Terrorist? Should you run? Should you challenge the E.T? In my opinion, it is necessary to find out E.T.’s root of the problem. In order words, engage E.T. in a conversation to find out his / her actual needs. If E.T. is not feeling chatty, choose a better time to communicate about it (face to face, over the phone, email, texting, and etc).

If you thought that the young child was the E.T. for the above scenarios, you are partially correct. If you thought the parent was the E.T., you are partially correct as well. Because both the child and the parent was the E.T. Think about it.

Are you E.T.?

The truth about consciousness - what it is

I had many sleepless nights about the definition for consciousness (visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness ). The first sentence says it all:

Consciousness defies definition.

Doesn’t it just blows your mind? Sorry, according to my previous post, none of us actually have a mind. I should say, doesn’t it make you wonder what consciousness is? I came across the following concepts:
1) Unconscious mind
2) sub-conscious mind
3) conscious mind
4) super-conscious mind

Since from a scientific point of view, the mind doesn’t exist, and that consciousness defines definition, what the heck are the above concepts?

It is indeed amazing how we try to define something, the mind, that cannot be measured with man made inventions with one or more of our known senses (vision, hearing, smell, taste and touch); to top it all of, we introduce a concept called consciousness, which according to experts, defies definition.

My point is, we tend to simplify matters but are concepts pertaining to the mind and consciousness something that can be simplified? When it has baffled experts for centuries, if not millennia, and we have no concrete answers as to what is the mind and consciousness?

You may ask why is it important for each and everyone to learn what defines the mind and consciousness. To me, the answer is simply because if we do not know what is the mind and consciousness, how are we going to fully harness the power of our mind and / or consciousness? Time and again I am bombarded by the media, internet, books and conversations with friends of the ugly truth that the average human being only utilize a tiny fraction of their potential (ranges from 1% to 5% of the mind’s potential).

That scares me – that the average human being only utilizes a tiny fraction of their potential. Assuming that we can increase our potential by tenfold, at most, we are only using half our actual potential – makes me wonder what can we achieve with that…. World peace perhaps? End of diseases maybe?

How can we increase our mind / consciousness potential to higher levels? The corrective action would be to continue to ask questions and seek for answers. One of my favourite quotes are:
‘Questions are eternal, answer changes”.
It means that questions remain the same regardless of time and context, but the answer changes with time and context. This is proven with the mind and / or consciousness question. Question remains unchanged, answers have been evolving throughout time and context.

The corrective action would to adopt an attitute of never afraid to ask questions.

The truth about the mind - does the mind exist

There are many definitions about what is termed as the mind – I visited http://www.google.com.my/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:mind&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title and was amazed with what I saw.

I learnt from a selfless man who shared his wisdom freely and he taught me many things. From his teachings I came up with a concept that I termed MALT which is an acronym for open my Mind to Analytical and Logical Thinking. Since the first alphabet in MALT stands for mind, it stands to reason that I have to prove the existence of mind.

From a scientific perspective, for something to exist, it must be able to be measured according to one of the five known senses to humankind (vision, hearing, smell, taste and touch). As of 24th July 2008, there has been no known successful attempts to scientifically prove the existence of the human mind with any man-made inventions – I would love to be proven otherwise.

If we cannot prove the existence of the human mind, that means we do not know what it is, how it looks like, how large it is, what are its limits, what are its dimensions, what are its functions etc. Since we have no idea what the mind is, then why the heck do we say things like:
“Do not close your mind”, “do you mind”, “wandering mind”, or in my case “open your mind”?

I did not stumble upon the arguments myself; the arguments was beaten into my head by a group of final year university students. I was attempting to explain the MALT concept to them and to my amusement, and theirs, their explained that there is no mind to begin with. I did enjoy the sharing session for I would like to believe that I am a person who keeps an open “mind”.

As analytics and logic play a significant role in MALT, I agree with the students that for MALT to work, it is only logical to analyze what is the mind; in order words – to prove its existence. Since the existence of the mind cannot be scientifically be proven to exist, my MALT concept cannot work as MALT requires a mind in order to work.

For MALT to be credible, I take it upon myself to argue logically that the mind truly exist. This may take some time though……

The truth about being honest - I cannot tell a lie

"I cannot tell a lie" said George Washington to his father when his father asked who chopped down his favourite cherry tree. (http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/washington/advice.html) I have always wondered what George Washington would say to the numerous politicians in his country if he were to live till today, especially if George were to meet Bill Clinton - that would have been interesting.

I have always imagined what would he say to doctors who have to resort to 'lying' in order to give hope to terminally ill patients in order to give them hope to continue to their losing battles with their terminal diseases. What about those politicians who promise the moon to their supporters (voters) before they are elected but once they are elected into the office, they conveniently forget about promises made? Or the 'little white lies' each of us have conveniently used every now and then to get us out of tight spots?

The challenge in the 21st Century isn't about "I cannot tell a lie" anymore. It is about "I need to lie to keep my sanity" syndrome. E.g. from the doctor's perspective - in order to ensure that his / her patients continue to battle the losing fight against terminal diseases, doctors may suggest "experimental treatments" or drugs under human trial tests. Or the doctors may even suggest that the patient has 2-3 months to live when the actual fact may only be 2-3 days. I am not sure if doctors are trained to tell the brutal honest truth to patients who may not be psychologically fit to receive the news that he/she has a terminal disease. But what I am sure is that doctors are trained to be professional and that it not to be emotionally attached to their patients. Watching the movie Patch Adams made me change my mind and I am glad to be proven wrong that not all doctors are 'professionals'.

Not sure if politicians are trained to lie; I am unable to find a political class in any university that specializes in lying. In drama class perhaps but in politics? Could it be politicians lie because they have never been caught? Do we tell "little white lies" because we can get away with it?

George Washington may have lived in the 18th century but what has not changed is that all of us started life as an innocent being with a conscience. What has become of our conscience that we can justify lying? As the saying goes, practice makes perfect so every time we get away with 'little white lies' we are honing our skills in telling the untrue statements.

Perhaps people tell lies because they fear the outcome if they were to tell the truth? I would believe this case for the scenario shared above for the doctors. But what about politicians? What about ourselves? Something interesting I read some time ago called 'Children Learn What They Live'. http://www.empowermentresources.com/info2/childrenlearn-long_version.html

If we want to improve ourselves presently, we should look into our past actions and think of a remedy so that we are better prepared for the unknown future.

When I have a kid, (planning one in year 2010, hoping to be 10th October 2010), I will bear this poem in mind. Hope that you will too.

The truth about high oil prices.......

I find it bewildering that while the masses are suffering from increased oil prices, oil companies are literally laughing to the banks; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1167984.stm http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/investing-and-markets/article.html?in_article_id=429878&in_page_id=3 http://themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysian-news/34-malaysian-news/1841-petronas-posts-record-profit-of-rm61b The reason for the oil companies to laugh is because they are consistently reporting new record breaking profit levels that dwarfs many nations GDP. And these oil companies justify their profit levels because they say oil is in limited supply. That is, what they (oil companies) want you and the rest of the world to believe in.

With the media drumming up the fact that 'the world will run out of crude oil", (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warming/) I beg to differ. The world will not run out of crude oil supply but it will run out of easily accessible crude oil. That means oil companies need to venture out further and deeper to extract oil and at a higher cost and risk. But I don't see any oil companies announcing that they will be venturing further and deeper into the ocean to extract oil thus increasing the cost of oil extraction leading to higher oil prices now. In fact, not a single oil company in the world dares to venture to deep sea oil exploration and / or extraction due to many unknown factors involved. So this possibility will not be considered, for now. Perhaps this possibility for causing oil prices to skyrocket is likely in year 2025-2030. Let's explore the next possible reason for oil prices to shoot sky high....

Some say that oil price increase was due to the fact that demand for oil spiked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_since_2003 but was it really the cause? If the demand for oil spiked suddenly, why then did OPEC say that they will not increase production? http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/23/content_8035466.htm Extracted from the article:

OPEC Secretary General Abdullah al-Badri dismissed such demands as unfounded; claiming more oil on the market would not mean lower prices and the hike in prices had nothing to do with supply and demand. "OPEC will not hesitate to increase production if we think the higher price is caused by the shortage of oil in the market, but we are confident that it's not a shortage of oil. It's something else," said al-Badri.

Now that we have heard from the horse's mouth that there is no shortage, which means that there wasn't a spike in demand, that leaves only one possible reason for the oil increase: speculators. Surprisingly, there has been a barrage of articles defending speculators: http://www.newsweek.com/id/143786 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/lets_shoot_the_speculators.html http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1998.cfm http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/forecasts_trends/archive/2008/07/08/are-quot-speculators-quot-controlling-oil-prices.aspx

Since it is crystal clear that NOBODY (whether it is OPEC, or oil companies, or speculators) is to be blamed for the high oil prices, perhaps we should really think whether or not we have been misled all these while. Perhaps we should really reflect whether we have done enough to bring down oil prices. Sure, there are more gadgets that save petrol for your car but no one seems to forget that with high oil prices, we are buying fewer items with the same amount of money because everything went up in price! I don't see anyone coming up with a gadget that says "Enjoy 30% more tomatoes at no additional cost".

The truth about high oil prices is simple: GREED.

Think about it - the oil companies are making mega bucks and are reinvesting their profits to generate better returns, OPEC members are investing their easily attained oil profits into emerging economies for higher yields, and speculators are channelling their profits for a quick return.

Who is to be blamed? Apparently in this day and age of nanotechnology, there is no room for logic. Logically, high oil prices will hamper economic growth. Logically, high oil prices will drive inflation up. Logically, with low economic growth and lower purchasing power due to high inflation, it will drive employment down. Logically, with high unemployment, crime rate will shoot up. Simple logic isn't it? No? Uh, I forgot. All these aren't in $$$$$.

Can someone explain to oil companies, OPEC, speculators and governments? That would be the Corrective Action.