Trust and Faith – Paying it Forward

“Paying it Forward – performing a good deed not for immediate personal returns but hoping this good deed will inspire others to do likewise.”

Imagine the power of internet and social media were made available for Gandhi, or Mother Theresa, I think this world would intrinsically be a much better place than it is now. We do have evangelists circulating wisdom from Gandhi and Mother Theresa and we do get inspired by the words. But this pales in comparison to actually witnessing the very acts of their beliefs.

What was so amazing was that they inspired others into believing their own causes. Gandhi didn’t form a militia to stand up to tyrannies but through his own faith and resolute belief in right and wrong, and human sensibility, inspired a following to his cause. Mother Theresa didn’t engage the Vatican to spread her love and care for the lepers and diseased. She simply acted according to her own love of humanity. I don’t think she’d feel sad if no one knew what she did because I believe she did it out of her own tender heart. And the rest became history.

I came across this noble idea of charity while surfing Facebook. I called it Serving up charity. The premise of this charity is to feed the needy, without an organized form of movement. It calls for an act of random, spur of the moment contribution to helping the needy. The kind of random act that will actually put a big doofish smile on your face and bliss in your heart. The kind that you never ask for any form of physical or verbal returns from the recipient of your deed. The kind that speaks a quiet truth: trust in humankind and the faith that people are kind at heart. The kind that will inspire people to spread love and charity instead of encircling them.

Stop jumping up and down, I’m not comparing this idea or act to what Gandhi and Mother Theresa had done. But the fundamental premise is the same; the seed of belief from the heart when acted upon, propagates through the fabric of society.

But reality check here. The idea I spoke of may very well only work in Singapore, where it has an organized form of shared public eating areas. However, with a little imagination on our part, who is to say we can’t tweak it to suit your locality needs and still keep the flavor of the deed.

Along the way, you will encounter naysayers and haters. Leave them be, no use combating with their sensibility. They hold a system of beliefs that we may not understand, much like how they don’t understand ours. As long as you don’t lose faith in yours, the seed will definitely propagate.

I am very inspired by Steve Jobs and am lucky to have borne witness to his various innovations and I’d like to end by sharing the following:

“Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you want to become. Everything else is secondary”

~ lty ~

Guns and Sex

Question:

Wikipedia: Human rights are “commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.

If America is so concerned about human rights in developing nations, often speaking of jailed dissidents and journalists, treatment of their peoples, etc, then why is it so difficult to give rights to same-sex humans wanting legally recognized partnership? On the other hand, it is ok to let citizens bear arms.

Armed or not be Armed – is it really a question?

Back then, you had real enemies, it was called Civil war…hence a need to bear arms. I don’t believe there’s been a case where ‘The right to bear arms’ citizens have prevented an act of terrorism where it would’ve otherwise put the country at risks whereas there have been pretty widespread cases of rampant shootings that certainly put families at risks, daily.

If most of the rest of the free world don’t allow their citizens to bear arms, does that mean all these countries are infringing on the rights of humanity?

Granted, let’s try not rock the boat too much for now, and let’s say we accept the old scripture of the 2nd Amendment as gospel truth. In this era, really, do we need to have assault weapons for self-defense? When you have AK-47, it’s no longer self-defense, it’s all out war on the ready.

America is a great country, in my opinion, having lived there for some years. I admire America in general for innovativeness and truly being a land of opportunities. Most things work and a good general reflection of what a 1st world nation should be. However, I feel the country is mired too much in lobbyist’s interests, the political money and the newly created Banksterism way of society.

Most of the arguments for and against tend to lean on the ultra far-right or far-left. We’re talking about the right to live and life. Self-defense is when a perp comes into your house to rob you, I think a revolver is sufficed to protect yourself. When you have gangland shootings, it’s a war. When someone comes to your house with the intent to shoot you, it’s pre-meditated, maybe you should sort out your shit with this person.

But for a moment, let’s close our eyes and ponder, will lack of firearms be safer or more dangerous for society in general, I think we will have the answer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

equalitySame-sex Union

what’s so bad about same-sex marriage, especially in today’s context? We have no choice in how we were born, inside and out. In the past, I know of gay friends that come in and out of relationships, putting their lifestyle to scrutiny. Not so different for heterosexuals, A-type males, and some females, on a ‘conquest’ to ‘score’. Sooner or later, these A-types meet their match and they eventually get married and settle down, some still continuing with their ‘conquering’ ways. C’mon guys, admit this, even if only to yourself.

However, there come an age where we all want stability, straight, gay or asexual. We seek a soulmate and hope it will last the course of our lifetime. We enter into a legal instrument called marriage to help make this a permanent arrangement, as much as 2 people can be together. Then, of course, come all the other taxable instruments, such as properties, income taxes, alimony and legal fees.

Last checked, such instruments do not spell out specifically on gender but on arrangements. You work, you pay tax, you buy a property, you pay tax, you make capital gains, you freaking pay tax. It doesn’t say that your sexual preference affect the amount you pay, even for married couples. Let’s get on with the changing society. Actually, same-sex marriage may even help in rejuvenating the economy. Think about it. But seriously, if we’re already accepting gays into our mainstream society, so why is it so difficult to accept their union made legal?

According to Hicksville, it means condoning bestiality, sodomy and all other unnatural forms of sex. Hicksville, listen up…these acts of  carnal insertion are mostly perpetuated by heterosexuals who want more ‘creative’ ways of intercourse, and because you’re tire of your cousins. Perhaps you think gay couples will bring up gay children? Newsflash y’all, you can’t CHOOSE to be gay or un-gay. I know of friends who ‘switch’ sides when the time come; straight men and women, all married and parented, and later confronted their own sexuality, and gay friends who eventually got married to the opposite sex.

But elsewhere, societal changes have brought this issue to light and while it is not for everyone, it is something we need to accept as a modern truth, if not for any other reasons other than a freedom to choose, a freedom of choice. An inalienable rights of human beings?

~ lty ~