Canine Behavior

Canine, herd-like behavior

You undoubtedly have witnessed more than one occasion that if one dog barks for no particular reason, other dogs in the vicinity would join in the barking exercise. I am not a dog, so I don't know what the joining behavior means. I am neither a dog whisperer nor an animal behaviorist. But I do know, or think I know, quite a bit about many things, and my knowlege of them is not conducive to putting food on the table. Yet I perversely love to show off my "knowledge", hence today's "meditation".

You also undoubtedly have witnessed on more than one occasion that some "humans" have a deplorable habit of joining a fray when somebody is under attack. Such canine behavior has a name in Vietnamese. It's called "chó hùa" with obvious negative, disapproving connotation. Such "humans" do so because deep down they are no different from dogs. They have animal mentality. They are animalistic. But they will jump up and down in fury , foaming at the mouth if you have the audacity to intimate or opine that they don't deserve the cognomen "human". The obvious question is why there exists such a glaring cognitive dissonance. It is my not too-humble opinion that they suffer from an ailment, an affliction called "self-deception." Those dogs are accustomed to deceiving others, they end up deceiving themselves.

Having patiently and gamely stayed with me so far, you undoubtedly have a big question on your mind, and that is, if I ever consider myself an animal and exhibit animalistic behavior. The answer is unfortunately in the affirmative and there are times I am not proud of my behavior at all. I am working hard to remedy my deficiencies . There has been some improvement, but I have a long, long way to go. The fundamental difference between myself and the dogs is that I never consider that I am better than I really am. I am not a hypocrite.

The reason for my denunciation of the canine behavior by some "humans" is the attacks they have been inflicting on the ex-Premier Nguyen Cao Ky. I was not privy to all the inside info, so I could not determine if all the attacks were warranted, but today I read on the Internet, posted by a loyal assistant of Ky, a detailed defense full of facts and an amazing revelation that the Malaysian government granted him a Tun title which qualified him for two mansions and servants for life. These special priviledges were supposedly granted back in 1969, but somehow got lost in the shuffle and were just recently discovered and resurrected. Four facts stood out in the controversy around Ky as to whether he was a good man:

1. Ky didn't seem to amass great wealth during his years as a Premier as he didn't have a lavish lifestyle after his rule.
2. Ky has been known since his youth that he is generous and loyal to his friends.
3. Ky stuck around until the last day in Saigon, allegedly directing some resistance against artillery fires from the Vietcong.
4. The Malaysian government granted him the title Tun and the privileges that go along with the title. This was not a frivolous decision. If Ky is truly a person of bad character, I don't think the Malaysian government would not have gone through with it. The decision must have a considered one. I am sure that the possible reactions of the Vietcong government were taken into account.

Complete truth is hard to get. Sometimes we have to make do with partial truth. So far, based on tbe info provided by Ky's assistant on tbe Internet, a reasonable person would have to conclude that Ky cannot possibly a bad person. Please note Ky himself never publicly defended himself. He has maintained silence. Also, it looks like he has a friend in his former assistant. Anybody who has friends can't be that bad.

May I reveal that I have some good friends, too, all of them are women. Women seem to understand me better than men. I have a son and he loves me. I am quite sure when he gets married, he will invite me to his wedding. When a person is not invited to his child's wedding, something is seriously wrong with that person, no matter how sweet and dignified he appears to be. A bystander must conclude that person must be some kind of a phony.