early morning errand wake up earlier and find your day different

As a modern woman who grows up in a family of thick Islamic tradition, the science-vs-religion debate always dominates when I try to find answers for life’s greatest questions.

Some of the questions are best left unanswered, though. Life. Death. Coincidence. Soulmate. Aliens.

Not so when it relates to anything that needs immediate action. Before putting something into action, we make plans, considerations, and choices. Choices. That’s my life’s greatest question. I used to think only because I’m cautious that I keep asking. I make choices difficultly. But as time flies, I get used to it and learn to take any risk from any choice I made. Still I keep asking, is life choice or are we led to choose certain options?

If you don’t believe in God, you’ll vote life-is-choice. As a Moslem, I believe that as humans, our destiny has been written. That includes birth, blessing, death, and soulmate.

But it doesn’t mean that life-is-choice answer is only for atheist and agnostic. Even Moslems are told to pursue their dreams, work hard, make plans, and prepare alternative choices. We don’t know how far He interferes. Did He make a certain scenario to unite you and your soulmate? Or He'll just let you struggle to find the one He already choose for you?

Soulmate is not my greatest concern, though. What else can be more intriguing than death? As a twenty-something who just began to enjoy life, I begin to think about death more. Not to mention since the recent earthquake that struck my city last September. Yes, that out-of-date news. We Padang dwellers might have forgot how it feels and continue our lives. But since the geologists believe that last 7.9 SR quake is not “it” - the long predicted massive earthquake followed by tsunami to happen here - we are forced to keep preparing and making evacuation plan. Planning, although we believe when death comes, then death it is.

It appears to us that implementation of the plan is not easy. When the September quake hit, most people ran to higher ground out of fear of tsunami. But some stays. Some who are brave enough and say “God will save us, but if He decides this is our end, then this is it, we cannot run away”.

I believe that we cannot escape death. But what about the plan? The plan made possible by science, which we, human, discover to make life easier? Surely we cannot predict exactly when and where the quake will hit. Fine. But the data of past quakes concludes that it’s time for the earth to "wake up". So, shouldn't we, organization men, prepare, plan, and react in case of danger? And what about the fear itself? The adrenaline rush? Isn’t it created for being an alarm? So we can react in any way that can avoid ourselves from harm?

I thought I had a brilliant answer for that. That we had to react to danger not to avoid death, but to prepare ourselves in case we are alive. Let’s say, to keep us from losing a leg, an arm, or sight in case He hadn’t plan to take our lives yet. But again, isn’t handicap or injury part of destiny? A choice He made for us?

Anyway, running away to higher ground during big quake is not the only plan Padang people have. Now the quake had left the ruin on our land, but we have to move on. We clean the pieces, rebuild the remnant, repair the damage, and of course, make better plans. One of the big plans is to relocate the city's most populous coastal area to higher ground.

Here comes the problem; whether the coastal dwellers are willing to move higher ground. The science-vs-religion debate is just one factor that makes moving the city’s most populous coastal area to higher ground difficult. Some of my Jakartan friends who grow up in Padang, including those whose houses are within 1 kilometer off the coast, say it’s not easy to persuade their parents to move far away from the coast. The reason is clear; they are sure they'll be save if God wish it.

Other factors are money and comfort, especially for the middle-aged group. Most are settled like my parents. Buying a new house or a piece of land is not something "normal" settled people think of, save for investment, maybe. But moving on is like starting all over again, just as the young or the newlyweds buy a new house using their savings or by installment, not by selling an old house to buy a new one. In this relocation case, the settled people can’t hope much in selling their coastal home because of the falling prices due to the tsunami prediction.

If the administration takes risk in relocating the city, it will take years and a bunch of money. They will have to relocate and rebuild government offices and markets. They might have to consider supporting financially the dwellers who are willing to move higher ground but have little money.

The hesitant dwellers may have other reasons we don’t know, though. But while we keep asking whether we make the right choice, we have to keep moving. Even if relocation will not save people's lives, if thousands of us are gonna die in a tsunami, it will help avoiding another financial disaster like now. At least we do something for the next generation. It’s still better than doing nothing. Keep making plan and implement it, and let Him do the rest.

Clearly the Economist is confident that online readers or non-subscribers like me will subscribe to the print edition once they implement their newest policy. They think their articles are so outstanding that readers cannot live without reading it. They believe readers won't find such great articles in other print media's free online subscription such as Newsweek and The New York Times.

They are right. It's unfortunate for readers that the media have different style of writing and biased. We, readers, choose media that conform our values, beliefs, and tastes. The media is political. Thus we have preferences. We even subscribe to several media to keep our perspectives balanced. Now we do our own "cover both sides" because the media no longer did.

Anyway, let's see if the Economist will survive with such policy. I'd be glad if they can, but still grumbling when I read that publisher's email.

Teman saya si Gentole mengeluh; "Fesbuk itu nge-distract. Temen-temen blogger gw jadi jarang posting."

Maksudnya dia ya nyindir saya juga. Dan saya juga tiba-tiba nyadar, blog ini semakin sepi. Sama seperti Gentole, blognya juga semakin sepi (dengan level berbeda tentunya, dia sih dari 100 komen per hari jadi 20 per hari, dasar orang terkenal hehehe piss Gen). Tapi apa benar gara-gara fesbuk? Blognya dia, misalnya, baru saja pindah ke segmen yang lebih serius, yang mungkin mengagetkan pembacanya. Sedangkan saya, mungkin karena tulisan yang jelek dan semangat posting sebatas hangat-hangat tahi ayam; maksudnya, frekuensi tidak jelas dan jarang pula.

Tapi memang teman-teman blogger saya juga pada menghilang. One by one. Mungkin benar kata Gentole; "di fesbuk, status aja dikomen...", dan teman saya yang lain, Yosie, juga bilang; "posting kok di blog, di notes dong, biar seru". Himawan sempat berinovasi dengan mempublikasikan blognya di fesbuk, dan mengeset notesnya untuk selalu mem-publish posting baru di blog. Tapi beberapa hari yang lalu saya lihat statusnya di fesbuk tentang niat istirahat ngeblog. Mungkin karena kesibukan atau apa, cuma Tuhan dan dia yang tahu. Seperti saya, dia juga bukan heavy fesbuker, jadi saya gak percaya dia beralih ke fesbuk. Tapi kok pengumumannya di fesbuk, bukan di blog? Ada lagi si Mona. Kadang posting di blog. Kadang di notes. Saya nggak tahu sampai sekarang kategorinya apa; what makes a post deserve to be in notes or blog. Mungkin Mona mau tampil seimbang dan gak pilih kasih hehehe

Gara-gara celetukan Gentole itu, saya jadi nyadar, ternyata di situ toh sisi "kapitalis"-nya fesbuk. Baru-baru ini saya baca kalau fesbuk, twitter, dan sejenisnya, adalah salah satu bentuk sosialisme dan komunisme baru. Semua orang ngelakuin hal-hal komunal; ngebentuk kaukus di fesbuk, ngumpulin massa di twitter, protes lewat fesbuk, sampai nyatuin informasi dengan wiki. Bentuk sosialisme baru ini bukan hanya karena fesbuk dan twitter, tapi karena internet, produk si kapitalisme sendiri. Fesbuk udah sukses membantu menggalang dukungan pembebasan Ibu Prita. Tapi, di sisi kapitalisnya, fesbuk seperti supermarket serba ada yang mematikan usaha warung-warung sekitar. Chat, foto, share status, notes, kaukus, fan page, dll, yang tadinya disediakan oleh masing-masing "warung" website berbeda, sekarang ada di fesbuk.

Jadi bagaimana website-website itu mau survive? Dari warung-warung yang saya lihat, belum ada yang bisa survive kalau ada supermarket atau mart di sekitarnya. Biasanya pada ganti ke bisnis lain; laundry atau tempat makan. Di sini analogi warung gak bisa dipakai lagi buat blog, jadi saya juga gak tau solusinya. Cuma saya masih kepikiran, jangan-jangan perubahan yang dibawa internet bukan menuju kultur "we are all writers" seperti prediksinya Milan Kundera, yang dijadiin header blognya Gentole, tapi justru ke tradisi "we are all status updaters, or tweeters"?

Some friends asked me what indie music is. Maybe because I mentioned it once when I found out that they listen to Glenn Fredly and Bryan Mcknight. A friend confused of what “indie” is; it’s not a genre, it’s just a kind of paradigm, when the musicians choose not to sell their creation to major label with their huge capital, but prefer instead a less-known record company with less money and whatever modest promotion it does to introduce the album to public. So he can’t distinguish the sound of indie from mainstream music. The other friend thought that indie music means a band that plays indigestible songs with their leather jacket and untidy hair. *sigh

Anyway, it occurred to me that I don’t even know what “indie” exactly means as well. Why do I listen to indie music? To be different? To be cool?

But I can recall why I listen to indie in the first place; because I’m not satisfied with mainstream music from major labels. Not because I’m such an idealist that I refuse to contribute to more profit for those corporations. I like mainstream too. Only most of the music stay for a short time in my head. I used to listen to radio and MTV much that I know all the newest songs. But that new songs, particularly hits, will be played over and over again, not only in the media, but also at malls and restaurants and cafes. Even if they’re not, I will play them again and again and again. And I’ll get bored on day three.

The problem is, not all majors are boring and not all indies are long-lasting. I’ll try to explain with the best logic I can. Major labels look for profits. Profits are greater when sales are higher and tours are bigger. Therefore, the music is designed to meet the taste of greater number of people. It doesn’t mean that most people have cheesier taste (if there is ever cheesy and sophisticated taste category in music). But greater number of people means wider range of different tastes; from simple three-tone-two-refrain song to a complicated synthesized orchestra. So majors need to reach the wider range possible; the best choice is the average, the median; who will favor not too simple yet not too complicated music. Is that correct?

I know I’m not capable enough to lecture about music. Excuse my shallow interpretation, for both mainstream and indie have various genres for everyone's taste. But that’s what mainstream music is for me. Easy to like but easy to forget. So when I listen to not-so-familiar rhyme or style of music, I try to be patient enough to wait to like it. Once I like it, it would stay longer in my head; a month if I’m lucky, but a week is already a record.

Maybe it’s sad that once again arts is valued based on numbers - the length of time it stays in my top list; just as income and property used as a variable to count happiness in capitalist America, which we always criticize in class. Indie and major, they’re no different in my case; both are valued by numbers.

I look for an excuse and stop at the most comforting one, the one from a friend who asked what indie is; listen to music that sounds good to you, brings the most enjoyable arts to you. I can’t make them believe that indie music is better. But indie music teach me one thing; there are loads of good music out there, they are not delivered to your living room through TV commercial, to your bedroom through the radio programme. They’re out there waiting to be discovered; from a friend, an acquaintance’s gig, an opening band in a big concert. Just as you can’t wait passively for the best things to happen to your life. You go for it, not wait for it.

What's so special about karaokeing? To sing a song? Definitely. To ease stress? Might be.Socialization? Yeah it works. So karaoke is best for every one who likes to sing, needs entertainment, and looks for some fun.

I'd be in the socialization category. I go karaoke to enjoy my time with friends whom I consider close enough to let them hear my "beautiful" voice and tease me after that.

And of course, since it's a socialization process, I prefer every one else singing along with me through the song. And I will also sing with anyone holding the microphone when I happen to know the song. The more people sing the song, the more credits I give to the song in terms of "socializing tracks". Anyone who sings a less known song is expected to skip to the next song soon because no one enjoy listening to an unfamiliar song sang not by the original singer.

So for me, karaokeing would be the moment I switch my taste to mainstream music (this is music snob speaking). No Interpol, no Bruce Springsteen (he's not famous in Indonesia), no Jens Lekman, no Wilco, even no Beatles, because none of the people I went karaoke with ever sing Beatles. The only acceptable songs are popular dangdut (I mean like Bang Toyyib or SMS or Jablai, which every one knows), boybands, and some decent pop like Jason Mraz or James Morrison.

That's what I thought. But when I went karaoke about two weeks ago, I realize that not all my theories are true. Yes I had to switch to mainstream (I just found out the newest American Idol is David Cook; the last American Idol I saw was won by Jordin Sparks, and I just realized how beautiful Rihanna is, although I never like her hairstyle), and surely anyone who sings a "snobby" song is forced to change it soon after the second refrain. What amazed me is the songs I considered mainstream apparently are not mainstream at all; most my karaoke mates sang less boyband, dangdut, and James Morrison. The most songs sang are Rihanna's, of which I know is Umbrella only.

I think I'm getting old. No, maybe that's because I went karaoke with friends who are younger than me. Well only one and three years younger. But I don't know most songs they sang; the ones by David Cook, Rihanna, Bow Wow (no longer "Lil", where have I been?). No, it's not me getting old. I'm just getting more snob and watch (M)TV less. What happen to me and MTV? I used to watch it after school and enjoy every program. I knew every new song. Well, maybe I am getting old, as old people like my parents, my older sister and brothers no longer keep up with new artists, albums, and genres. They stick to the music from their era. However, I don't. I also listen to music from decades ago because there are loads of great music back then.

Anyway

Some people don't think snobbism during karaoke a big issue, particularly the ones in the different cateogry. Two of my classmates, both are older than me, said that they hate people singing along with them during karaokeing. "It's my song," one of them told me. "The song is my choice and I don't want other people sing it too." I think these two fall into the karaoke maniacs category. My suspicion was confirmed when one of them told me that he has karaoke at home and his mom stay up until midnight just for karaokeing. Ok, it's in the family.

Or are they just some geezers like me?

I don't mind getting old. And I realize I'm the only one responsible for myself becoming a music snob. All I need to do is changing my karaoke-for-socialization theory. Or should I consider shifting to karaoke maniacs category? I'm a snob, why should I compromise with others' taste? The answer, as usual, is to be pragmatic; depends on the situation, right? :)