Ohy, Ashley Cole. You bloody cunt faced git.

Did you know that Ashley Cole has written a biography? Yep, he has joined the ranks of the hundreds of footballers that think that they have been misunderstood in some way and writing about it will somehow miraculously bring about comprehension of their side of the story.

Well, I normally wouldn't care what happens in the personal lives of footballers, but I just so happen to be linked to the review of the biography. Lets see what Ashley has to say.

"One day I was just chilling with my homies, when this geezer call Jose come round me manor giving it large, saying he wants me to go hang with the Chelsea massive. Well, at the time I has got the hump with Arsenal, right, cos that David Dein has just offered me a contract for 55 long uns a week when I is expecting 60, minimum. Don't get me wrong, blood, it's not about the money. I is an ordinary lad from an ordinary background, for me money ain't what I am in the game for. I'd play for nothing, any day of the week.

"Which is roughly what Arsenal is expecting me to do. 55 a week: it's a joke. This Dein is dissin me, right? He is well out of order. So I says to this Jose: 'what you got then?' And this bald geezer what is with him gets out this like humungous cheque book and I'm telling you, the moment he gets it out, I feels six foot tall. Which is just as well, as this Jose says he ain't interested in left backs what are midgets.

"Now, as I say, Ashley Cole is just an ordinary lad what has supported Arsenal all his life, and he plays for the love of the game, that is his only motivation. Money and that, that's for others to work on. So from there on in, I leave things to my team of six agents, five accountants, three lawyers and seven actuaries. Plus the bloke what advises on off-shore investments in Chilean bearer bonds and Argentine footballers [they tell me, at the last count, that Ashley Cole owns three of Carlos Tevez's toes].

"While they is chatting, I just gets on with being part of the best team England has sent to the World Cup in 40 years, full of world-class players in every position. And I tell you what, we is that close to winning the thing. In fact, we would have done if we hadn't lost to the team that lost to the team that lost in the final.

"After that, I gets married. And that's another thing that the media gets all wrong. People think that me and Cheryl is just interested in seeing our picture in the papers, but that's rubbish, we is not like that. For Ashley Cole and his missus, it's magazines or nothing.

"Eventually I sign for Chelsea. I have to pinch myself to believe it's happening to me, an ordinary kid from an ordinary north London family: almost winning the World Cup, marrying the girl of every bloke's dreams and then joining the club I've supported ever since I seen the size of Peter Kenyon's wad. And the best thing is, I can walk away from Arsenal with my head held high. For Ashley Cole it has never been about money. It's all about respeck, innit."

When I finished reading it, the only thing I was thinking was WTF was that? I know people always say that footballers are stupid, but that is just in a league of its own. Thats not even english that he is writing. What the fuck is up with the nigga talk? Since when does a rich ass spoilt brat qualify to use street talk like that? And the ego, dear god!

Oh, and check out his analysis of England's performance in the World Cup. They lost to the team that lost to the team that lost the final. And he calls that close to winning. How is being beaten in the quarters even considered close to winning? The statement is so delusional, I don't think I'd be able to come up with shit like that if I smoked a joint, did some blow and downed 3 graveyards in the same night.

Misguided, egoistic and stupid, Ashley Cole has just cemented himself as the stupidest footballer since George Best. I think its amazing to note that he is going to spend the rest of his life in a delusion about just how great his life is without ever realizing how much of the real world he has missed.

Dumbass.

English 101.

People, the words extend and extent do not have the same meaning and cannot be used interchangeably.

extend - to stretch out; draw out to the full length: He extended the measuring tape as far as it would go.

extent - the space or degree to which a thing extends; length, area, volume, or scope: the extent of his lands; to be right to a certain extent.

I know I'm just being a stickler for rules here coz people who read the words in context will know what is being said, but its important. So please get it right.

Ktnxbai.

Prostitution is legal in Malaysia.

For all practical purposes at least. I suppose this discovery is one that came with a mixed bag of emotions. Mostly cynical vindication at the kind of hypocrisy that this stands for mixed with a tinge of surprise, mirth and a little bit of sadness.

Remember all those Hollywood cop movies where the hardest part about taking out organized crime is finding the locations? I used the believe that was partially the case in this country, but then I discovered the locations of all these 'hot-beds of crime' on the internet. Took me all but 5 minutes. Talk about being untouchable enough to flaunt your presence. Pft.

Makes me wonder about those vice-raid pictures I have been seeing all this while. I suppose those pimps forgot to pay their monthly dues. Heh.

Saya anti-rasuah my ass.

Castfire, you suck.

Whoever you are, wherever you might be based. The fact that you have somehow gotten the escapist to show all its zero punctuation in your prissy format is really pissing me off.

Because 99% of the time it doesn't load. Yeah, sure, maybe I have some settings wrong. But if you player doesn't work on my browser, then it sucks. Because then it wouldn't work on many other browsers seeing that I don't go tweaking around with my settings and everything is basically on default.

I don't care if your's is faster or is more efficient or is sharper than the others. I hate it, coz it is broken.

Can't we just have things in youtube? God damn it.

Random rant.

Okay, lets just get through the usual motions. I need to put up my usual disclaimers here. I'm not talking about anyone in particular, or any one experience in particular. This is a random rant brought on by what I suspect is a hormonal imbalance fueled by some insecurities and some disturbing revelations. So if you think I'm talking about you, I'm not. Don't perasaan.

For some reasons, there are activities that are considered universally enjoyable by humans, and young humans in their twenties in particular. So the general perception is that people who do not enjoy the same things that everyone else enjoys is a repressed loser. It is inconceivable for the majority that their favourite pastimes are not enjoyed by others.

I suppose its because the enjoyment of these activities is almost primeval. (no, I know what you are thinking. I'm not talking about sex) Since our primeval instincts are the ones that we can most readily identify with, it becomes almost blasphemous to live on the idea that there are some people out there whose neurons are networked in such a way that makes such experiences unpleasant instead of orgasmic. (Again, I'm not talking about sex. Its a figure of speech)

At this point, most of you are probably wishing that I get to the bloody point and say what I have to say. The funny thing is, I feel like I'm being bound by some literary chains that are telling me that my writing is probably going to alienate people from me. But then again, what I'm railing about all this while is so ingrained into the observable society that I'll probably be written off as a bitter loser who just doesn't get it. And as much as I would like to say that I do get it, no one will believe me, because the assumption is that, if I did understand, I wouldn't be writing this post in the first place. Confusing isn't it? Circular logic normally is.

Let me first introduce you to pet peeve number one. Alcohol. Actually, its more like getting high in general. I think this is where the problem is the worst. Sure, drinkers respect people who don't drink, but the respect comes from the assumption that there are external factors that are stopping the person from drinking. 'Religion says cannot' is a favourite, followed closely by 'parents won't approve'. Drinkers tend to assume that barring all repressive cultural influence, non-drinkers will be downing shots like there is no tomorrow. In a sense, non-drinkers are prudes. Its like how I tend to assume that given free will, Asian children will not allow their parents to dictate every aspect of their lives. I know its an unfair assumption to make, and in the same way, assuming that a non-drinker is lying when he or she says 'I don't like the feeling of getting high' is unfair. It won't stop them from thinking that though.

The same reasoning applies to clubbing. I have found people who genuinely dislike loud thumping music and flashing lights. And one common complaint that I have heard from them is that everyone else seems to think that they are losers with no life. Clubbers cannot even begin to understand why anyone would not want to sway rhythmically to catchy beats. (Yes, I'm trying very hard to be nice, as is evident in my choice of words). Again, in this case, people who don't subscribe to that school of thought are written off as pussies who don't dare give it a go. At risk of contextualizing this a little too much, I have tried it out. And I can conclude that it blows. Probably not as much as, say being held captive by a World War 2 Japanese general. But as something that I would willingly put myself through, it ranks pretty low.

Yes, I'm being judgmental, and a lot of you will be up in arms and pointing your fingers at someone else, trying very hard to convince yourself that you would never do such a thing. Here is the kicker : You Do. And it not a particularly bad thing, I do it too. I admitted one scenario in which I make liberal assumptions about the history and reasoning of an entire demographic group and come up with conclusions that are likely to be as untrue as they are unfair. If you think that you don't, thats because you have convinced yourself that you believe in the politically correct opinion. Thats lying to yourself.

And yes, I have just made many assumptions about you, dear readers. I am in actual fact, ranting about myself, which isn't really a smart thing to do and an even less smart thing to admit to doing. But I am having such a blast writing this very convoluted post.

And now I'm all out of ideas. So I bid you adieu.

Empowerment?

Call me old fashioned, but I find the ideas of female empowerment to be a little strange. There are aspects of some feminist movements that don't really make any sense to me.

I forgot where I read it, but one article once claimed that women will only be truly empowered if they are truly equal to men. Meaning they get to do whatever men do, and not be judged for it. The more provocative of the ideas behind that theory is that women should be able sleep around, wear whatever they want, and feel good about doing it. In a very convoluted kind of way, it does make some sense. Not making assumptions about a person's morality and way of life based on their lifestyle choices is giving that person the benefit of the doubt. That entails a certain level of respect for that person's autonomy, and ultimately, a recognition of individuality.

So, some women have gone out of their way to prove that point. I'm not sure that I fully understand the point that they are trying to make, but it is something that I can let slide. The funny thing is, some people are using the same argument to justify TV shows in the US that are clearly demeaning to women.

I was reading this book recently (I forgot the title, I forgot the author) about the direction that the female consciousness was taking as a whole. The first chapter talked about this show called 'Girls gone Wild' that featured very happening girls flashing for the cameras, all in the name of getting the special GGW T-shirt and hat. The author visited the set and found the girls clamouring for a chance to show themselves off the the rest of the country. That show has achieved brand recognition, and everywhere the crew goes, the girls turn up in droves. One particularly attractive one masturbated for the camera.

When asked why they were doing this, the standard reply was, "Its just a little bit of fun". More articulate girls then justified the show by using the above argument of empowerment. They say that they are just doing as forward thinking feminism encourages them to.

There are important differences. Actually, there is one overwhelming obvious difference; the end goal. The feminists were doing this for themselves. They had sex because they wanted to have sex. They showed cleavage because it made them feel good. The intentions were selfish. It was me, me and me. Their ego was all that mattered.

The GGW girls are not doing it for their own pride now are they? They are doing it to please the guys, the kind of work that a stripper does. I don't have anything against stripping to make a living, but you can't exactly say that it is empowering now can you? How exactly is doing something that panders to the whims of others empowering? Unless you mean those manipulative housewives who manage to stroke their husbands ego, but have him by his balls at the same time. But thats a different scenario altogether.

Putting yourself in Hustler and Loaded, knowing full well what men are thinking when they see those pictures is not empowerment. Its neo-slavery.

I thought I hated Chelsea.

I did. I thought it was the club that I hated. But now I know that I hate only one person. Didier Drogba.

He is the very embodiment of all that is wrong with humanity. He is petty, vindicative and such a bitch that a teen queenbee will be hard pressed to out-bitch him. If it wasn't for his incredible skill with the football, I don't think anyone would even put up with him.

Micheal Ballack probably hates him. Referees probably hate him too. I mean when you get some really ostentatious, muscle bound giant in your face everytime you make a slightly debatable decision, I think you would get annoyed too.

Most of all, he is arrogant. He must have his way, or he will kick up a big fuss. It is the same kind of behaviour that we see on Super Sweet 16. If someone kills his football career, I'm sure he will be able to find work at some Ivorian soap opera. He is plenty talented in that area. Some argue that he has a right to be arrogant. That doesn't change the fact that he doesn't have to be. We generally don't see Ronaldo or Fabregas make a complete pain of themselves. I remember them because of their football. I remember Drogba because he makes himself such a pain in the neck.

He is one of those people that think his abilities should compensate for everything. Maybe to Chelsea, it does. As long as he keeps scoring, they will put up with his crap. But every neutral I know seems to think that Drogba can shove the football up his arse.

Benitez was an idiot for starting a war of words with him. Drogba isn't worth anyone's time, especially not a manager's. But I think that outburst only underlines the contempt that Rafa has for Drogba. I'm sure he wished he can say everything that I am writing here in a press conference and smile as every journalist in the room nods in recognition of the truth that no one says out in the open. But because he can't character assassinate Drogba the way that I am doing now, he does the next best thing. He attacks the footballer's character on pitch and calls him a cheat.

Chelsea isn't evil. There are plenty of good people there. On the surface, at least. But one Drogba is enough to turn the club into Satan's vessel.

Disebabkan setitik nira, rosak susu sebelanga. Perfect way to describe this.

The 9 types of intelligence.

While I don't consider Howard Gardner's theory to be totally accurate, it does make a certain amount of sense to me.

A quick Wiki of multiple intelligence theory tells us that Gardner believes that no one kind of intelligence is more important than the other. I find that belief a bit naive to be honest.

It might be an unnecessarily utilitarian way of looking at life, but having what it takes to carve out a living sure beats everything else. I would personally rank logical intelligence near the top simply because so many jobs in the world right now need exactly that.

But looking at the types of intelligence, I can't help but to think that one single type stands out well above the rest in terms of importance as a life survival tool - interpersonal intelligence. Remember how people always say that its not what you know anymore, its who you know? I think that nicely sums up why its so bloody important to have interpersonal intelligence. 'Young adults with this kind of intelligence are leaders among their peers, are good at communicating, and seem to understand others’ feelings and motives.' I got that from some random site. Screw the last two. Look at the first one. Want to enter the corporate world? Intend on getting far? If you don't have this form of intelligence, then don't count on it. Actually, I would go as far as to say that it extends to all professions. A char kuey tiow seller with good interpersonal skills build up customer rapport. The only time when this doesn't affect your career is if you really and truly work alone. Like as a lighthouse watchman or something. Even then, you are going to need that intelligence when you approach your boss for a raise. If you ever approach your boss for a raise...

And what would be the worst one to have career wise? I have to say intrapersonal intelligence. 'These young adults may be shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.' Who needs self motivation when you can make people believe that you are already self motivated? Personally, I think that shyness is a death sentence in the world. People tend to view shy people and wonder what is going on in their minds, and constantly trying to guess if that person means harm. Shy people constantly avert people's gaze. Do people assume that the reluctance to make eye contact is due to shyness? I think most take it as a sign that the person is an egoistical prick. Isolation from the rest of humanity is something that no amount of gardening (naturalist intelligence), tennis aces (bodily kinesthetic intelligence), or best selling novels (linguistic intelligence) will be able to compensate for.

At this point, I would like to borrow a phrase used by my friend once. 'Socially retarded at every level'. Its a brutally honest quip that explains everything. It is a form of retardation, bad enough, in my opinion to warrant a certain amount of medical attention. I find it amusing how much we fight for equality at the workplace when this fairly obvious shortcoming is not accounted for. Maybe its hard to classify and hard to determine, but since when has something being hard to do ever been an excuse for not doing it? As of now, we only treat severe shyness. Unless its really bad, its not even recognized as a problem. Thats like saying that we will help people who have lost their leg, but those that have lost their foot don't need our help; they can deal with the problem on their own.

I know I'm not making any sense. I know that what I'm proposing is insane and even if it were possible, we are 20 years away from it. And even if we do come close, there would be protests from Scientologists and other mental purists. But I think its a problem, and its one worth solving.

Why does it have to be so hard?

Why can't things be easier? Why does the obviously right thing to do have to feel so neutral, but the consistently, stupidly dodgy path raise my pulse everytime I think about it? Why did the stakes have to raised? I know I asked them to be raised, but still... Now there is so much to lose, and so much I could regret. I'm good at lying to myself, but I'm not that good.

I know what I need to do. I just need to start feeling what I need to do. But thats the really hard part. I can't make myself feel it. Not now at least. Maybe, if I actually had the opportunity to help it along. Sometimes it feels like the opportunity is always there. Sometimes it seems completely unfeasible, even to the most hardcore impulsive action-taker I know.

Gah!

Message to the universe : I know that you can do a lot worse, but, please, be kind to me... You know the way my mind works. You know that to most other people, it won't even be a problem. But its insanely confusing to me. Stop messing around with my head. I'd really appreciate it.

I wish I didn't have to be so cryptic writing this, but for my continued survival, I think I ought to.

I have a second blog.

Yes, I do. It partially explains why I haven't really been posting as much here. Actually, thats just an excuse. I haven't been posting here because I honestly have nothing to post about. The ideas I have been getting are pretty offensive, and I rather keep them to myself. Or just share them with those whom I know will not flip. A public space just isn't the place to air those opinions.

But, the bit about the second blog is true. I didn't really have a choice. Its for a subject called Engineers and Society. Its rubbish. To me at least. Suddenly MMU notices that engineers are graduating with little or no knowledge about their surroundings and decides to do something about it. The result is this total retard of a subject.

And to make the engineers a little more outspoken, we have been required to blog. About the society. I don't know if you have seen the kind of people that populate the engineering faculty. If you do, then you will know that having an opinion is just something that they are not very good at. When all you do is study indisputable facts about our universe, you tend to get used to not arguing. So what we get is a big, drivelley pool of literary degenerati. The attempts at giving relationship tips are so bloody shallow, I really wanted to harm myself after reading the posts. Then there are the usual religious nutcases who want to talk about 'the greatest man who has ever lived' or 'why pork is haram'.

Some people have a problem with the system because it is more of a popularity contest than anything else. The more friends you have in class, the more stars you get on your articles, even if they may be close to being unreadable.

But my problem with the damn system is just the fact that it exposes the true extent of what engineers in MMU consider important and worth writing about. Its something I can live happily without ever knowing about. I don't want to know. It depresses me. And the worst part is I have to comment at least 3 times a week, which pretty much forces me to read the posts.

No escape. These lecturers think of everything.

Damn.

Near walk out.

I actually felt this urge to walk out of class in the middle of a lecture today.

The lecturer was an old friend; if students and lecturers can be considered friends in MMU. Being a pal, he noticed someone he didn't recognize and asked the offending girl if she was part of the class. She replied no.

That was fine.

He said that he liked having non-registered students in his class. Especially if they were girls. Mechanical engineering joke. Little chuckles all over class.

Still fine.

Then he asked the guy sitting next to her, "Is she yours?"

I perked up.

Then he added, "Who does she belong to?"

Frown. I like that lecturer, I think he is one of the best the whole faculty has to offer. And I really didn't want to make a scene. But I couldn't deny that nagging sense of unease that I felt when he said that.

Sure, you might say that he was just joking about. Well, to me its not funny. I find it deeply insulting actually. Am I over-reacting? To most people around me, probably yes. But I live along very strange ideals that few bother to understand. In the name of tact, I play along. But as happy I am with where I am now, when things like this happen, I can't help but to feel that I was born on the wrong side of the world.

Pope versus potter.

The church has never really been happy with Harry Potter and I always imagined that its because of all the hocus pocus involved and the number of children who actually believe it. That was until I read an article about a certain future pope being opposed to the stories because they blur the line between good and evil.

In all fairness, he didn't actually say exactly that. What he did was endorse a book Harry Potter- good or evil? by a German writer. That book claims that 'the Potter books corrupt the hearts of the young, preventing them from developing a properly ordered sense of good and evil, thus harming their relationship with God while that relationship is still in its infancy'.

That writer is either so smart she sees things that I cannot possibly see, or very, very naive. This is what I think of the world. Its a relentless sea of gray where we are all asked to make moral choices on a regular basis. There is no right or wrong; only what we perceive as right or wrong. Some people tell me that I have a fucked up moral compass. Some call me a heartless bastard incapable of pity. I don't really think I'm one.

I think that good and evil is a very lazy way to think of the world. It saves you the trouble of finding exactly where you stand on an issue because it narrows everything down to two options. Yes or no. Nothing in between. I used to think like that as a child, thanks to a steady diet of Enid Blyton and Disney. Debating beat those beliefs up pretty badly, and now, I still slightly resent the people who fed me stories that have very attractive and likable protagonists and butt ugly and repulsive antagonists. I can still feel the effects of those years of conditioning till now. I subconsciously expect every asshole I meet to be instantly unlikable and my subconscious takes a bit of a jolt when I find that nice people turning out to be dicks and bitches.

Sure, when we read a story, we want someone to cheer for. I'm not against that at all. All I'm saying is that a good dose of reality for children isn't really a bad thing. Every hero can have a dark side, just like how every villain can have a good side. Its never too early to realize this.

I freaking hate that country.

I can't think of any other title for this post, really. I could try naming it something more sensitive and then proceed to talk about how bloody scary this few days have been for me, but that really wouldn't be much fun now would it? (Damn, I'm starting to sound like yahtzee)

Anyways, this time, it really is the last straw. I'm sorry if you come from there, but the doctors in your country are useless. Even your specialists seem to have less medical training than a five year old waving a pink plastic stethoscope around. I will never forget the day that your doctors told my dad he needed an operation when all he needed were a few pills and a few lozenges. It seems like the only person who can get decent healthcare in your festering pus-pit of a country is your ex-president who seems to be more resilient than a cockroach.

This time, you people almost killed my dad. I'm not exaggerating. If he had waited another day for your bloody specialist to turn up, he wouldn't have come back in a wheelchair. He would be back in a coffin. As it is, I think that we got lucky. I have never seen him that way, and I never want to ever again.

Sure, there are lots of parties to blame. Sure, blaming an entire country for the failings of a few who were supposed to provide the very basic medical services is a simplistic and very unfair way of looking at the situation. But I'm pissed. One too many times, I say. I can only forgive so many times, and this time the transgression has taken a step too far.

I have never really liked the country, save for one little trip to the education capital. Most of the time, I reach the KLIA with a feeling of relief, as if I have returned to civilization. I don't expect I'll return willingly there.

The world is doomed.

Every so often, you come across things that you wish you never knew existed. It could be some form of evil. Or stupidity. Or something else equally depressing.

And you wonder how things like this can exist? What kind of cruel twist of fate put them on Earth? To read work that is bad is one thing. To read stuff that is so shallow and yet at the same time, blindly narcissistic is depressing on a whole new level.

It can actually sap your will to live. It makes you want to shoot yourself.

Sigh. Why la?

Movie critics.

Seriously now, I'm starting to get a little annoyed with them. I understand that they are paid for their reviews and therefore are expected to give a good one. I know that comparative analysis is inevitable when reviewing movies, and having read the book that spawned most of the movies, most reviewers use their prior experience reading the book and compare it with the movie.

Almost always, the movie ends up taking a beating. I have two examples. The Golden Compass was written based on the book Northern Lights, and the one review I have read has slammed the director for 'destroying one of the best pieces of child fiction ever written'. I know how he feels. I believe him when he said that the movie had been dumbed down by Hollywood. The generally happy, cheery feel to the movie doesn't quite capture a sense of epicness the way a dark tale spun around a properly scary Magisterium would. And not having happy endings is never an option with Hollywood, but it is in the world of books. So I guess for a sense of realism and immersability, book audiences will always be expecting something more than the usual children's fare.

I am Legend suffers from the same fate. The context of the title has been completely turned around, and now I actually find myself wanting to read the book, even if it is 50 year old science fiction. The movie is so much simpler than the book, but the idea in the book is just so bloody brilliant, I am actually a little upset that the producers didn't try to make it work on screen.

This is where my rant comes in. These movie reviewers are so used to a fare of intelligent story telling that everything else seems to suck in comparison. Most people I know found the Golden Compass to be a good movie. I didn't like it for the way the director made the movie or for the way the special effects were done. I loved it for the concept. I loved the idea of a nation of warrior polar bears and of a world that operates using a completely different set of rules of the universe. I'm sure the book did all that better, but it doesn't change the fact that the unacquainted will still be rightly impressed.

What I'm trying to say is very simple. If movie reviewers were wine tasters, they are only catering to the connoisseurs, the elitist bastards that uncork a bottle and sniff at the wine before pouring it in a glass and swirling it gently to oxygenate the bloody alcohol. Very few of their readers are that kind of people. We are social drinkers, happy we're even drinking wine at all. So fuck the flavour of the bloody thing, as long as it hasn't turned to bloody vinegar (which means very bad movie, like anything with Britney Spears or Madonna in it) then we would happily wolf it down and ask for a refill.

Am I just being too cynical?

I'm a bit annoyed right now because I just sacrificed one mark from my tennis subject. I missed out on that one attendance credit because I was trying to explain what I thought to the Soka Gakkai people in the CLC on Wednesday.

They were there collecting signatures to petition the Malaysian Government to do its part in nuclear non-proliferation. I'm all for nuclear non-proliferation, but I didn't sign the damned thing.

I'm not too clear as to why myself. It could be the religious tangent that these people were taking. They seemed completely convinced that peace on this planet can be achieved if we just believed very, very hard that it can be. If we can get humans to think peace first when they are faced with any conflict, then we will not have wars. I like the concept, but I just find it a little bit flimsy.

I argued long and hard that humanity is programmed to serve itself first, then look at lofty ideals. Find some food, don't get killed, get married. All those always take priority over the principle of non-violence. At least thats how I see the world. In response, I was shown the greatness of Ghandi and Nelson Mendela. When I asked the dude I was talking to if he actually believed that it was Ghandi's non-violent protests that put the British in the mood to be charitable to the Indian people and to give them the independence that they want, he actually gave me a solid yes.

I should have wised up at that point and just thanked him and walked away. It really is quite pointless trying to engage him when we disagree on such a fundamental level about human nature. But I kept going on.

I might have offended him a bit when I told him that I thought the entire exhibition made a mockery of an actual peace process. I thought it made a mockery of humanity, for them to assume that something can be achieved if we repeatedly tell people the same intangible moral principle. Any solution that isn't rooted in the basest urges of humanity is doomed to fail. There is always a reason, and if we can understand the reasons behind the actions that lead to conflict, then we can try to stop it degenerating into violence. Admittedly, my take on it is just as intangible, but I concede that every conflict is different. To propose a blanket solution that will bring world peace is just something that I expect to hear from a beauty pageant contestant.

At least I did tell him that I was going to be honest, and wasn't trying to offend him before I actually said all that. Being a good, but perhaps slightly confused Buddhist, he kept a perfectly straight face.

But they really did make me wonder for a moment if such blind faith in the natural goodness of humanity can actually work out. I've certainly seen stranger things happen.

I'm still a bit sore about that mark lost though. =P

I wonder...

A couple of years back, the Black Eyed Peas hit the scene. Everyone was introduced to 'Where is the love' and for a while, I actually listened along happily. Then they started showing what they were really about. Completely meaningless lyrics sung to catchy tunes. Reminds me of the joke that Chris Rock told about rap music. Women who love rap music don't care about the lyrics. For them, if the beat is right, they will dance all night.

Black eyed peas lyrics makes me want to put an ice pick through my skull. The problem is, I also notice that there are other artistes that sing stuff just as dumb as they do, but I don't feel any murderous impulse when I hear them. Snoop dog, 50 cent, and to a lesser extent, Sean Paul, they all rely on the beat and the cool factor to sell. But I don't hate them. In fact, I actually like some of their music. Okay, maybe not Snoop Dog, but the rest are passable.

Here is a line from Timbaland and Keri Hilson - They way I are

I'm about to strip and I'm well equipped
Can you handle me the way you are?

Blatant references to things impolite. Things that will make most people cringe in everyday conversation. Yet, I love this song.

And for some comparison here is the song by one of the BEP members gone solo.

If the girl real pretty,
Nine times out of ten,
She pretty like her mama.

And if her mama real ugly,
I guarantee ya she gon’ be ugly like her mama.

Everytime I hear this, I change the station.

I wonder what the difference really is. It can't be the complete disregard for general politeness and gender political correctness. Snoop dog is as misogynistic as rappers get, and yet I don't hate his music enough to avoid it.

It can't be the stupidity of the lyrics either, because I've heard lyrics just as stupid, and had no problems with it. Hey Ya by Outkast is a perfect example of this. Lend me some sugar, I am your neighbour? Shake it like a polariod picture? It doesn't get any more senseless than that, yet I have no problems with that song.

Then I thought maybe it was because I had a problem with Fergie being a sellout to the whole female gender, making me have a problem with her, and by extension, the people associated with her. I mean, she did introduce us all to her humps, her lovely lady lumps. But the pussycat dolls ask you to 'loosen up their buttons', females acting totally trampily. Yet I don't really have a bone to pick with the dolls.

As of now, I'm content to leave it as 'I just have a problem with you, never mind why'. But I'm still pretty damned curious as to why. Any ideas?

I'm getting really annoyed.

Its 1 a.m. and I don't normally blog at this time, not unless I'm super emo or something. But I've spent a good portion of tonight reading about the bersih rallies, and I'm getting really pissed off.

I'm not pro-opposition, just anti-stupidity. Someone sent me a link to our information minister's telephone interview with Al-jazzera. I thought Syed Hamid Albar was rubbish on Hardtalk. That was enough to make me rant and rave for a good 15 minutes. Zainuddin's performance on the other hand makes me contemplate denying being a Malaysian when people ask where I'm from. The simple mindedness and the utter childishness of the accusations that he hurled at the news network is something I would expect from a name-calling match between 12 year olds.

I really wonder if he realizes how stupid he actually sounded. He probably doesn't, seeing how he probably gets away with that kind of rethoric on home ground where the press is held at gun point and the people are fed government or anti-opposition propaganda on a daily basis. But Al-jazzera is an international news network. What you say is going to be broadcasted to millions all over the world. If it was me, I'd be shit nervous. I would really hate to say the wrong thing.
But even if you did ambush me, an engineering student who has never really played politics, and has no experience dealing with the press, I don't think I would have cocked up that badly. He is the information minister. How the hell did such incompetence find its way up the ranks of our government?

And how is this for scare tactics? RTM 1's report on the rally ended with footage from other violent protests from other countries and the message "Demonstrasi selalu berakhir dengan keganasan". All reports in the local newspapers were similarly biased. The way that this is being handled either shows complete idiocy on the part of the government or a severe underestimation of human intelligence. Seriously, if this is the best the can come up with, then they are morons. If they can't be bothered to do better because they know that they are going to get away with all this, then they are insulting my intelligence. And I'm tired of it. Everytime this happens, all I see is this patronizing old man patting me on the head like I'm a 5 year old child and telling me to behave myself and to listen to him because he has 'eaten more salt than I have rice'. Well, I have read more books than you have words, so there.

Disillusionment really is reaching its tipping point.

I don't like British Music.

WTF.

I swear I'm right. I swear I knew it all along.

The Dashboard Confessionals sang that and its been my little anthem since it was released.

You don't like British music huh? Apparently, Muse isn't quite your thing. Supermassive Blackhole not a good track? I believed it. Until you said you'd go to one of their concerts anyday. I shrugged. Muse had just visited, so maybe it was all the hype..

Oh. And the Sugarbabes suck too huh? And now, you liked them ever since they hit the air.

Yes, I'm nitpicking. They are non-issues. They don't matter, at least not to an average reasonable person. Yes, I'm bitter. So sue me.

Contradictions.

I've asked these two questions a number of times and I have never gotten an answer that is satisfactory. Both have things to do with Islamic principles and government policy.

Gripe one. Muslims can't gamble. There are active steps taken to keep them out of Genting. There are signs outside 4D gambling shops warning them to stay away. Yea, sure, lots of Muslims still end up buying the stuff, but what I'm interested in is the official Government stand on this, and not the efficiency of its enforcement. So far, as far as I know, the Government discourages Muslims from buying 4D. So, in essence, the government is against all forms of gambling done by Muslims and will try to regulate and put a stop to instances of it happening.

Yet, their kids gamble all the bloody time, oblivious to the fact that they are gambling. Remember those plastic egg vending machines that seem to be in every comic book and sundry shop? Those that seem to have different content inside? Or the card vending ones for that matter. Dragonball, Power Rangers, that kind of stuff. Thats gambling right there. If it is advertised on the outside that you stand to gain a figurine of hero X when you put a dollar into a machine and twist a dial, you are promising a chance of winning. Its now a game of chance, putting it neatly into the category of judi. If that isn't a clear enough example, here is another one. I remember this from back when I was 12. There is a keropok vendor near my school, selling all manner of crackers. One of his products is a tiny little packet of nearly inedible prawn crackers with a little gift on the inside. The packet itself cost 20 cents, and most of the time, you will get a little plastic lobster that cannot possibly cost more than half a cent. But, you stand to win one of those Tamiya car rip offs that go for about 5 bucks at the pasar malam. There are other prizes too. So, a little token fee for a shot at winning something that is worth 25 times as much as the original investment. Sound familiar?

Its all gambling, and yet these people get away with selling it to Muslims, and Muslim children at that. I'm not a Muslim and if someone pulled this kind of shit of on my 12 year old, I'd get pretty pissed off. And I don't have a God promising me eternal suffering if I went near any of that. Thats just fucked up.

Now, on to the second problem. Alcohol. Muslims can't touch that stuff. (debaters not withstanding) Not even food that has alcohol in it is allowed. Chinese food that contains a bit of rice wine is not halal anymore. Even if eating 2000 portions of it isn't enough to make you drunk. (Which I was told is the main justification for banning alcohol for all Muslims. Drunk people do stupid and very un-Islamic things) So imbibing alcohol molecules in any form is dosa, correct? So whats the deal with tapai? Its served all over the place and is as part of Malay culture as lemang and ulam. But its fermented glutinous rice, and fermented normally indicates a presence of alcohol. I know, because when I smelled a batch when I was a kid, it felt to me like smelling the fumes from a bottle of VHS tape cleaner. The smell of alcohol was THAT strong. Rum and raisin has a distinctive taste of alcohol, but hardly smells that strong. Yet, rum and raisin ice cream is in a fridge that carries the warning to Muslims that rum and raisin is not halal. If this isn't hypocrisy and selective application of rules, then I don't know what is. It is entirely possible that the Jabatan Agama Islam realizes this and decided they cannot do anything about it because the eating of tapai is so ingrained into our society already. I guess they realize what a sudden decision to make tapai non-halal would bring a lot of complications and get people asking questions that they are not quite prepared to answer.

But ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away. I guess with the immense control that the government has on any form of intelligent questioning, these inconsistencies can be stopped from ever surfacing as actual issues. To be honest, I think that they are non-issues too. Its just that if Malaysian Muslims are anal enough to care about the direction of the kiblat from space, and about the halalness of vaccines, I suppose something like this should be considered pretty big problems.