Oh porn, why doth thou beckon?

An example of porn

When I think about it I just don't get porn. Perhaps porn should just be seen and heard but not thought about in much depth. After all, porn movies rarely demand much, or if any, intellectual rigour or emotional depth. The plot is usually easy to follow that even our local politicians can understand them in one sitting, or may even have acted out some of them out themselves unknowingly, of course. And like the usual Hollywood summer blockbusters, we all know who is whom, whom does what to whom and how it ends. Yes, there are some variations in terms of where the limbs are placed, or whether one is standing, kneeling, on all fours or lying down but when you come down to it, there are just two main working components with a straightforward two stroke motion. Forward. Backward. Isn't it strange the amount of complexity people go through to seek for such an embrace in such a manner as pleasurable (generally anyway, Navel Gazing recognizes that there are occasional performances so dismal in quality that it would have been better for both participants to have not engaged in the act) as it is simple?

So we can understand the act itself and the reasons for doing so. (And if you don't please stop reading the rest of this article immediately. Read only what is in within these brackets. If you stay in here, you will be safe. Now, very slowly, press the reset button. Keep your eyes on the words in these brackets. Got it? Good.) Now that we've got rid of those fellas, as I was about to pose a question rhetorically, why do we enjoy porn, or in another way, watching other people copulating?

We are not engaged in the act with them. We do not know them. And they are not performing it live in front of us, it's recorded. In an immediate sense the performers don't care what we think. In most cases we will never meet them. It's not as if we haven't done it before, or done it in that fashion, or know how it feels. What is more they could make us feel inferior with their better bodies, better looks (okay, maybe not for most of the guys), better staying power, and are skilled at their craft to do some fonky positions like the verticle 69 and helicopter (novelty factor: 10 cool factor: 0). We are also less likely to perform the act in heels, with a bowtie around our neck, or crotchless underwear in a room filled with other people. The loudness of the moans would usually be less because we are embarassed if other people hear us having sex (what's so bad about hearing other people having a good time? Enjoy it like you would good news off the radio-ish, unless of course their dirty talk sounds up like some filthy DJ banter then turn the volume down. They are, after all, not there to talk). Our facial expressions would more likelier be less intense and pained looking than those on screen because we are not performing for people we would never meet and need to impress them with the intensity of our performance.

So what is it really? Why ah?

I mean aside from the fact that it's nice to watch every now and again in reasonable doses.

The Economy: A Stimulating Idiot's Guide (Reloaded)

Art originally wrote this piece which is published at Articulations and Loyarburok. We thought of putting it up again here with the pictures he actually wanted to use. I volunteered to undertake this. In return he graciously permitted me to '[f]eel free to re-write whatever is deemed fit and necessary.' So with this license, I thought I'd try doing something I've been wanting to try out: an Art/Daef collab. So here is the piece, reloaded! We hopes you enjoying its.

So, we're supposed to be insulated from the global economic meltdown like a turgid penis fully sheathed in a skin tight condom with the little tip flopping about impotently at the end. Like, uh, awesome dood! When countries with bigger metaphorical penises like America, Japan and Germans suffering economic-tile dysfunction so badly they're almost diagnosed as koro, we on our mishapen penile peninsular named Malaysia smiled like a pimp after his hoes turned good tricks all night. When the biggest economies were foretelling complete and utter financial disaster, our guys are telling us that you, me, and yeah you too, that we would be insulated because of our "diversified economy and strong foundations". Not only that dood. We not just gonna maintain our hard on, but we gonna grow it even bigger and better... 4.5% of penile growth they proclaimed. Forgetting that even with the condom on, their balls are still exposed.

Despite trenchant criticism from sounder economists that our Finance Ministry is living in Najibland, we are also insulated because of the wide spread mental therapy our Home Ministry has implemented known as 'Repeat Therapy'. Unfortunately, it does not apply to sex. For the virginal, Repeat Therapy is a process where we convince ourselves of the truth of something by repeating it until we cannot think of anything else. We have one of its most profound practitioners of this mind techonology with our beloved outgoing Prime Minister, the inimitable Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Remember when he repeatedly said "I am in control" as he was being shoved out the party? Or when he repeatedly chanted "I will be fair" when he was at best only in skin colour? Or in those private moments when he whispers consolingly to himself repeatedly, 'I know what I'm doing.' before falling asleep soundly. Stuff like that. So let's do the Badawi and keep chanting (unless you are Muslim then you can only chant in Arabic, because then it doesn't count as chanting even though it really is) 'Malaysia's economy is insulated' as our nuts hang out for the global financial epidemic to wipe it clean off.

The truth is the world economy is bad, getting worse and going to hit us like one big bad fiery meteor from hell up the arse. Check this. The International Labour Organisation projects that 23 million people are going to lose their jobs in Asia this year! (see here) 1% of that is 230,000. Even if Malaysia "contributes" 0.5% of that, it would mean 115,000 Malaysians would lose their job! Insulated? Like a condom with the head ripped off more like. And what about the approximately 300,000 Malaysians crazy enough to work in Singapore? If even 10% of them are retrenched, that means 30,000 people without jobs.

Now factor in the reduction of working days due to production cut-off, cancellation of over-time, forced holidays, compulsory masturbation and the freeze on bonus and salary increass; has our government given any thought what the cumulative effect of all that would do to our economy?

Condom with the head ripped off? Na'ah. 4.5% GDP growth? Ha ha. More like A bulldog ran over and slashed at our nuts and ripped off our no longer turgid penises with one savage yank (no I don't mean American). Just recently, Citibank Group forecasted that our GDP will in fact shrink to -1.5% this year! Economic koro dood. The big R. The Mama Kahuna. But remember what Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Nor Mohamad said earlier this year? No. We will not be in a recession. We will do fine. We will grow wings and halos will appear on our head as our genitals grow larger and wider. So repeat after them and it will be alright, okay?

The numbers are creeping out now. Malaysia's export has shrunk. In December 2008 alone, our export shrunk to 46 billion ringgit, which represents a 14.9% decline year on year (see here). Our biggest trading partner, America, is in a financial black hole. Japan, our traditional trading partner is seeing their consumer index dipping southward at an alarming rate. And we are insulated. Roight. The only guy who can probably pull insulated off in such an environment is David Copperfield but it's a shame he didn't do finance and economics.

So let's discuss economics in easy to understand terms. We want to use terms that can reach both the lowest and highest common denominator.

Lesson One: The Economy is Like a Set of Tits

God, aren't those awesome. Uh, where were we? Oh yeah. Tits. Big ones. We think we like 'em big. Because big means more and in this age of capitalism, bigger always means better. But the thing is, tits are generally not naturally big. Well, most of the time, that is. To make the economy big, we would have to do something to it like if we wanted to make a pair of tits firmer. We gotta stroke it, love it, want it. But they definitely ain't getting firmer or bigger just by staring hard at them. Plus, it's rude to stare you know.

No. That wouldn't do. We have to bring them to the operating table, cut them open and inject silicon to prop them up so that their nipples start pointing skyward and stitch 'em back discreet.ly Then they will be big. But no, we cannot just do that. That would be wrong.

We at Navel Gazing will always examine our subject matter thoroughly first. From this extensive examination, we can then determine what is wrong, or not quite right with them. Then after a shag or two, we go to the drawing board and plan. We would have to imagine then start sketching out modestly the kind of tits that we crave or may need. We cannot just make do with any old tits which are big. And we certainly cannot be mechanical about it by either injecting and injecting until the nipples start staring back at the owner or stimulate, stimulate and stimulate until the nipples get sore. If we did that, we'd have Frankenstein tits - monstrous, ugly and totally useless because they are so frightening!

Lesson Two: The Economy, Like Tits, Must be Proportionate

Just because big is good, don't think that the bigger they are, the better they will be. That is why China had to actually control its economics growth. They try to control growth around 8-10%. Sometimes it exceeds to 11%. But there must be control. Why? Because if we do not control the growth, the economy would grow too fast and a bubble effect would ensue. The bubble then, when it is too big, like tits, would burst! When it burst, it would ruin the hard on, dooood.

Lesson Three: Look at the Whole Body, Not Just the Tits

This is very important. Just imagine a 36FF on a 4'8" body with big hair. Whoa nelly!

So just like a woman's hawt body, the economy must be looked at as a whole. Not in selective spots here, there if not everywhere. We have micro economics and macro economics. Both must compliment each other the way our respective reproductive functions of both sexes do. Micro policies must be optimised to support the macro ones, like the various limbs and body work to support the breasts.

Which brings us to our next point. The economy does not exist in a vacuum. It is but one element in a bigger circle consisting of the society and the international community. And in that respect, politics plays an important role into the equation. Hence the economy cannot be detached from its direct impact on social and political life, or as we would happily argue sexual life! When planning the economy thoughts must be given to its societal impact.

What for instance are we going to do about the people who lose their jobs? What about retraining? What about creating small business opportunities? Or new job skills? And have we thought of the rising criminal activities which are induced by economics uncertainties or difficulties? What about health problems afflicting the people due to the economics downturn? What about health care system? Are we going to sacrifice educations in favour of a quick financial gain elsewhere? And what are we going to do when all these turmoils are over? Back to the same old game? Or new games? If it is the latter, do we need new rules and regulations? Are we going to diversify in something else? New and uncharted economics territory?

Lesson Four: Stimulations Must be Total

Don't just concentrate on the nipples! Just as a woman needs to be pleasured thoroughly and completely before she hits a multiple orgasm, those so called stimulus packages should be spread throughout the various economic sectors. They certainly should not be targetted solely at heavily politically connected industries like the construction industry. Just recently we heard that Road Builders (a subsidiary of IJM) was awarded the extensions of a road by 12 kilometers immediately after the concession of the toll road it operates expires! Hmmm... one expires and another one springs to life. Like an irrepresible hard on. Interesting.

Anyway, as we were saying, the stimulus plan must be wide ranging and holistic in nature. It mustn't be a stop gap measure. That's like being able to obtain a hard on easily but then suffering acutely from pre-mature ejaculation. Little point in it. Stimulation must have direction and work towards a goal, and must not be spaced too far apart. You just don't warm up the breasts only to go off for an hour and then come back for the main course. The economy just doesn't work like that. The fact that we have to announce a second stimulus just about 4 months after the first one shows that the first one was insufficient and not sufficiently thought out. We do not want a 3rd stimulus after this. Or a 4th one. There must be one holistic stimulus. Have we ever heard China launching a second stimulus in 4 months? Or Germany? Or wherever? Oh wait, maybe Chad... oh wait, they don't give a shit.

Our Government has a bad habit of introducing stop gap measures. While these may seem good at first, problems will continue to arise like a nasty ex-gf you just cannot get rid off. Any stimulus package must appreciate all angles. In particular, it must address all the issues raised in Lesson Three above. If not it is more useless than stimulus. And that is so not the very cool, dooood.

Pontifications of the Penis

A cross section of the penis as we know it

I have a penis so it goes that I'm man. That adores women. And admires men. So it means I'll get on my knees for the former. Not the latter. And for the most part, I enjoy wielding a penis. My penis. Not yours. Or yours. You sick bastard. I admit it's not the 15 incher most guys in their first flush of porn would crave for, but you can bet it's not something to pick your teeth with after you eat. More like a slow melting ice cream that doesn't melt ... kind of thing. 

Actually, I don't like the word 'penis' because it sounds so clinical, so formal, so I need to wear gloves before I use it sorta thang. I like 'cock' better. It sounds dirtier. More sinister. Infinite possibilities abound. And it also rhymes with 'rock' and partially with 'fuck'. The downside is that it also rhymes with 'lock' but who cares. I'll never rhyme cock with lock because it sounds a little offensive, and I just fucking hate sounding like some offensive 15 inch cock wielder. 

Which I'm not because I don't have the number. 15 to be precise. These days I've learned to be happy with what I have. Which means not having 15. That's what experience does to you. Or rather growing old. Sometimes though I can't quite tell the difference where one ends and the other begins or if it even started in the first place. And experience has taught me why I won't be content with 15.

Firstly, the surgery would hurt a lot. What's more, if I grafted a 15 incher, I might just get a massive stroke or heart attack whenever I get a boner, so that's no fun. 'Hey watch it honey, you don't want to turn me on! I might just die on you. But you can ride me after if you're into that.' What's more, if I had a 15 incher, it'll in all probability be black in colour. Like the Macbook out now. If you want a bigger hard drive, we only got them in black honeh! I may be Asian and all but big cocks are black. That's that man. I've never seen a 15 in any other colour. And, and I'd have to be all rapper like, wear big gold chains, swap my teeth for gold ones and get tattooed up. I'm just not into all that. Plus my rapping sucks and I can't play basketball or run really fast. So even if I had 15, it might be wasted on me. 

And the vagina can only fit up to about 6 inches. So what's the point of having a 7 course meal when the diner only wants 3 satisfyingly full courses? Yes, a vagina can stretch much wider to accomodate a child but let's not dismiss comfort and extraordinary circumstances so readily shall we. That niner is not just excess... it's waste. And I abhor waste! Having a 15 incher swaying on a windy day will just conflict with my intense sense of moderation and reduce me to schizophrenia, if not multiple personalities for me and my cock. The latter may have psychological problems pretending to be a stout 8'er when he really is a hefty 15. There are somethings you just cannot fool yourself about. 

A 15'er will never get the whole thing unless he's into horses. Even then, watch out for the kicks, cowboy! And, and, he won't be able to wear shorts in public that end at the thighs cos then the package will be showing. He would have no career in speed sports be it swimming or running because of the drag his cock caused. He cannot be terribly clever because most of the blood is usually swirling around his tower of cock. He would have to take many breaks to read, especially erotic stories. Even if 15 can be considered a super power, he can never have a cool superhero name because all of them will sound funny. Nobody will want him in their superteam and he will end up doing straight to video porno and die a lonely death naked in the tub in some cheap motel after overdosing on a potent mixture of viagra, cialis and cocaine with cheap German porn repeating silently on the television.

I guess it's hard being a 15'er too. 

Poor chaps. 

Spare a kind thought for the 15s yah? They're human too. 

Tarts in Bondage

Home
October 2008

Of Sex Objects

Betty Paige
World Renowned Sex Object

There are some women that vent about how derogatory it is for women to be treated as sex objects. I have for some time found this terribly annoying and am hereby submitting my riposte. Now a distinction needs first be drawn between a 'sex object' and 'an object for sex'. These are 2 different things. The latter is generally comprised of those offering sexual services either voluntarily or as a result of duress. They transform themselves into an object to be used for the sexual pleasure of others, to which their own sexual pleasure is of no consequence. A sex object is often mistaken for an object for sex. So what then is a sex object? It is someone who is able to symbolize not just sex but sexuality and sexiness.

Though a person often has to be beautiful/handsome or cum-in-your-pants HAWT, this singular feature does not a sex object make. More is necessarily required. I've seen lots of nova hot but clueless cardboard women. These women are lacking an important quality: sensuality (say it with me now), which intensifies, deepens, broadens, and infuses one's natural beauty (being what it is, not necessarily CIYPH) with sexuality. Just so you get an idea of what I'm talking about, go find some plants that have not yet been watered (better yet find a garden). Now ejaculate water on to it and take a hard look at it again. Do you see how fresh it looks? Do you notice how it looks almost horny as it drips with fresh cool water on its tender leaves? Do you see how the branches and trunk glisten in the sunlight, as if cleansed and ready for some action? If you don't you shouldn't be reading this. Go back and sleep with your parents you waste of carbon material. And if you do, that's what I'm talking about.

And in that sensuality is firmness to the softness, there is a familiarity at once both intensely familiar and intimate and yet at the same time distant and cool, there is an innocence to her coquettishness, there is a lover's touch in each social or friendly physical interaction, there is provocation of your fantasies as much as it forces you to suppress it, there is maturity and confidence as there is ignorance and reticence. Sensuality can be honed or refined but one must first possess it. Yet it is uncommon and even those that possess it often know little about how to develop it. It is a condemnation of our culture and society that there is now so little sensuality and too much sex. The difference can be illustrated thus: a striptease is sensuality, whipping off your clothes as if jumping into a river to save someone's life is sex. And there is just too many people jumping into the river. The problem is that they ain't saving anybody!

And because women who are able to combine raw beauty with refined sensuality are so uncommon, they should be celebrated and be offered a spot in Playboy instead of being dissed by their own sex. I mean let's face it, how many of us reading here have really come across a sex object or has ever been described as one? (If you are a sex object reading this, please email me immediately) If somebody told me I was a sex object, I'd reply thank you, ma'am/miss, but if it's a he then it'll be no thank you, sir (with nasty look). And then I'd immediately tell all my friends about it but will in all probability be laughed at by them and be accused as being delusional and making the whole thing up (I didn't you bastards!). So object not to the sex object. Because when you do you make an object out of u and me.

Pre-Marital Sex

Note: All puns are intended unless notified otherwise. Definition: Navel Gazing categorizes 'sex' as the complete act of copulation until ejaculation (whether premature or mature) or orgasm (multiple or otherwise). So even if there's a whole lot of bed shaking but no crash, we won't count it (even though we'd be quite happy to watch or assist in the video recording). It also does not include foreplay no matter how heavy such as blow jobs, cunnilingus and any form of masturbation,(mutual or otherwise).

Every now and again some unsuspecting fool will ask me, 'Do you believe in pre-marital sex?' I always wonder about such people. Were they dropped on their head when they were young? I tell them, 'I don't just believe in it, I pray feverishly for it (optional: you stupid fool!)'.

Why they use the word 'believe' never ceases to baffle me. And what is there to 'believe' about pre-marital sex? It happens. It happens a lot. As it should. Except to people who want it most. ... And you know what, it's probably happening all over the world in all sorts of funky places as you are reading this - in some nearby secondary jungle, in some filthy public toilet, in the backseat of a car, on the bosses' office desk, at the 7th floor of an internal fire escape of a building. Not that I would know but those 3gp video clips that get passed around sure help verify this (so thank you all of you selfless exhibitionists in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, and occasionally the Middle East)! And that's just counting the humans.

Don't forget animals always have pre-marital sex because there's nobody to marry those poor godless things. Bloody sinful heathens that they are! It's bad enough that as compared to humans they are naked most of the time or have their pubes cover their whole body and can have a riotous bout of sex in public without having to worry about on lookers or the local state religious departments raiding them. So that they get lots of pre-marital sex (granted its the only kind) is quite unfair and smells like the big H putting one over us humans. Sure we get opposable thumbs and big brains but hey, them animals get only pre-marital sex (which I understand from my assiduous analysis of voluminous literature both fiction and non-fiction about this category of sex is the best of its kind as opposed to virgin sex [homosexual or heterosexual], post-marital sex and lousy sex). That's probably the only reason why the big H made animals incomprehensible to us because they would be lording it all over us. I mean, that's why birds sing, hyenas laugh, horses' neigh and cows moo. They're gloating. If we had lots of that, we'd be doing a lot more singing, laughing, neighing and uh... mooing.

If I could enact legislation as easily as I could some really kinky sex fantasy and then pass it as easily as I answer Nature's routine call, you would by now be governed by the Compulsory Pre-Marital Sex Act 2008. This sexcellent Act would require all couples seeking to be married to have sex about 4 weeks before their marriage registration or nikah date with their intended lifelong partner. You could do it with someone else but complications are very likely to arise.

The first 2 weeks is to be spent having lots of sex in as many ways they can think of. The remaining 2 weeks is for the couple to decide whether to go through with their mutual lifelong commitment. If they are virgins that is. If they are not then the first 2 weeks is an encouraged option, unless of course they had already boned their brains out earlier in their courtship. Then only the first week is compulsory. Both are then to fill in a form setting out what they enjoyed, what they want more of, what other positions they want to try, which public places they would like to enact those fonky positions and any suggestions on equipment which will have to thereafter be affirmed before a Commissioner of Oaths. That's right - statutory declarations will be compulsory and must be submitted to the newly formed Ministry of Sexual Pleasure and Sexuality, which I fully expected to be appointed as both First and Second Minister.

The reason for this very pressing Act is to firstly establish sexual affinity between the couple. Trust me when I tell you that you don't want to marry this hot hoochie mama only to discover that she likes eating the carpet after she takes one look at your lamp (and lamp shade, where applicable). Or once your clothes are off, she realizes that she actually likes guys with lots of hair, especially on their back or ass (the disgusting bastards!). Or that she dislikes the smell of your body odour around your privies and needs to wear a gas mask to give you the Australian kiss. Or that he screams excitedly, 'I won! I won!' when he comes 2 minutes after he sticks in her. Loser.

Secondly, it is to ensure sexual compatibility in terms of performance and interests. Sure you may have the affinity but do you want to do the same things, the same positions? I mean, if you like only straightforward missionary sex (you uncreative bastard!) and she can only get going when you have a 12" spiked dildo up your ass, you got a problem. How big the problem is depends entirely on size of dildo and how roughly she manipulates it. Or perhaps she may have this awful habit of pulling out her magazine to read while you're 3 minutes in. It's not uncommon okay! The trouble with modern women is everything is a job and sex is their 5 minute power nap break. So you definitely wanna check this stuff out lest you be prepping for your bout of sexual dalliance by arranging the magazines on the bed. Loser.

Thirdly but not the least important, is to gauge your future partner's sexual desire not just for you but for sex as well. I know for a fact that there are a race of people walking the earth that have no interest in sex whatsoever. Though they may indulge in it 3 or 4 times in their life time, they could quite comfortably and calmly do without it. They sound human, they look human, hell they even eat what we do but don't be fooled my friend. Don't be fooled for a second.

They are fucking aliens. Only aliens don't like sex and well filmed and acted porn. And no they are probably not from Uranus (you immature bastard!). You don't want to tie the knot only to realize you've got to tie up your space shuttle as well. That first 2 weeks (or week depending on which is applicable to you) is therefore very important. These aliens may fool us for the 1st week but their alien inhibition cannot hold out that long provided inflict awesome bouts of fornication upon them. I know this because Pentagon knows this and have yet to declassify the documents on alien visitation but watch out for it in 2024.

Now that you know why you need me to be Prime Minister of Malaysia, please vote wisely in the next elections. I'll be in one of those independent parties with a strong sexual policy for government. So now go out there and register to vote and convert some of them aliens. They're taking over the world as we know it. And if you're an alien reading this, do us all a favour - go fuck yourself.

Leadership Qualities

These days everybody wants thinks they or their children need to be a leader to get ahead in life. And 'to get ahead in life' is usually measured in terms of income earning ability, not in terms of personal self development or a wide, mature and wise view of the world. If only life were so simplistic. But since people live in hope - they hope for the simplistic and so it is not uncommon to see 'leadership courses' for 10 year olds with words written inside an explosive word balloon promising 'Straight A's', 'CEO Position In the Future', 'Possible High Earnings in the Future'. They promise everything except Einstein like genius and Ron Jeremy like sexual abilities (and maybe penis) but I think they just haven't figured out how to work that angle. So you'll probably hear crap like that in 2 to 3 years (unless they get the whole penis angle going earlier).

This thinking is not just simplistic, it goes beyond, all the way deep into the realm of the stupid. Firstly, leaders need not be the smartest men or women in the room. Intelligence is not the only thing that makes a leader although a reasonable amount of this quality is important and encouraged. Hitler was not the brightest chap in the Nazi regime but he certainly was the most powerfully charismatic and psychotic of the lot, but he was a leader because he could lead. He led a nation into the second World War against other countries. He could command the confidence, minds and hearts of millions who hung on his every word like Jenna Jameson hangs on Mason's turgid and hard cock in Jenna's Playhouse.

This brings me to my next point. A leader is first and foremost someone who people tend to follow naturally or is able to command a following from people. He must have that undefinable quality of having people want to know what he thinks or does. And for that reason I think charisma to be the far greater and important quality to have as a leader. If people don't want to hear, see or be with you then there's no way you can utilize any of the other important skills as a leader such as intelligence, maturity, decisiveness, initiative and some outrageous fallibility or poor quality that always threatens to overshadow and wipe out his other good qualities in the realm of public opinion.

And this is why I think those leadership classes or seminars or little tuition groups that give leadership lessons to be full of leadershit and just a waste of time and money. You just cannot 'teach' either children or adults how to be a leader because charisma is natural. Sure you can work at it, make yourself look better, lose some weight, take elocution classes, completely slaughter the lambs at a Toastmasters dinner (hah!) and be a CEO of a company but you will never, ever have the gravitas, effect and power of natural charisma. To better explain this let's turn to the world of golf. Now there are a lot of good players out there - some with bags of natural talent and some who didn't have talent but worked very hard at it and came out on top. But none of them can match the sheer ability of Tiger Woods, God of Golf, whose natural talents alone outclass almost 70% of the field (his training eliminates the other 29%, that 1% is bad luck or bad tournament). No matter how hard you train, you will never beat him one on one when both of you are at your peak, because your peak is only half way up his peak. Puns are intended unless advised otherwise. That's how it is with natural charisma and cultured charisma, but with this difference: just because you do all those things, it does not necessarily mean that your efforts aggregate towards success.

And this is the other thing - not everybody can be a leader and I don't think everybody's supposed to be one. If everybody was a leader and busy giving orders, who's gonna do them? And leaders best quality is just that - leading people. Their other skills tend to pale into comparison with this one. So though leaders are the most visible point of focus for media and the public perception, there are others that 'make' the leader - his advisor, his lawyer, his public relations officer, etc, the waiters, waitresses, the trash collectors, right down to the janitor that keeps histoilets clean (thank you so much good sir and madam or miss! I want you to know I appreciate you!). Alexander the Great would not have been great if he did not have good and dependable generals and soldiers, in fact he would be Alexander the Dead.

Finally, J. Paul Getty in his terribly readable and interesting instruction cum biography 'How to be Rich' talks about what a leader is from a business perspective which I think to be of general application: 'The successful businessman is a leader - who solicits opinion and advice from his subordinates, but makes the final decisions, gives the orders and assumes the responsibility for whatever happens.' And this is not the kind of leadership you see much of in Malaysia. Making the decisions and taking responsibility for it. There are a lot of pretenders around here. Alot of the so called leaders you see around here take the consensus based approach to decision making.

You can guess by now that I'm the type who thinks this 'consensus based decision making' to be a lot of nonsense (this is as polite as I can be to describing just what I think about it without using a whole jizzload of four and several six and seven letter words that would make even Pedro's grandmother's blush [he's some Colombian 23 year old plumber I never met and admit I am taking improper liberties with him and especially his grandmother]). Whazzat mean? To me, how I see it is that the leader now just turns into a manifestation or mouthpiece of that collective consensus. So he is like a speaker phone, merely a conduit. And a conduit certainly cannot lead people much less find its own arsehole, so a leader who takes that kind of approach is a leader in the fake sense of the word.

If it's so obvious Mr. Daef, why do they do this? Well you snotting little piece of shit to ask, because these fakers have what all politicians always need - someone to blame. And that in politics is priceless. So since whatever cock decision was done consensus based the faker can now place blame on everybody and claim that since they were only translating the will of the majority, they cannot be at fault and therefore have to resign or sacked. Ducking the bullet they are supposed to take. That is what passes off for leadership around here these days.

And that is all I have to say about that today.

Things To Try Once #1

The Earthquake - This
earth-shaking extravaganza
combining 8 scoops of old
fashioned ice cream and rich
toppings: chocolate fudge, hot
fudge, butterscotch, hot caramel,
strawberry, pineapple jam,
marshmallow, mixed almonds,
whipped cream and cherries.

This is a bloody free ad for Swensen's, but heck it this is good fun. Try the regular size. See how far you get. Good fun for families and friends who don't mind dipping into the same bowl with utensils they've put in their mouth. Some people have issues. Seriously.

Telekom can thank my arse

It was reported in the newspapers today that Menara TM was going to be transformed into an inspirational wall. We are told that in order to do this, Telekom Malaysia Berhad (TM) will use 28 large format projectors and beam images between 8pm and midnight. Those images will comprise of the country's 5 Prime Ministers, 'unsung heroes' and 'ordinary Malaysians'. As if all this were not enough, 'inspiring messages to people who have contributed to the nation' will also be shone onto the wall of inspiration. Datuk Abdul Wahid Omar, the TM Group Chief Executive, explained this complete and utter waste of money, 'This initiative is aimed at fostering a sense of nationhood as well as to show gratitude to all Malaysians who have helped to build a beautiful nation.' It is not quite clear what psychological, sociological or even economic study they relied on in coming to the conclusion that beaming images of those people would result in 'fostering a sense of nationhood' much less how spending obscene amounts of money in that manner would 'show gratitude to all Malaysians...' Tell you what Datuk Abdul Wahid, why don't you show your gratitude by making sure we get our money's worth for that sham broadband package called 'Streamyx' that TM is offering instead of spending all that money on advertising and initiatives like this?

But it's so exciting to hear that TM has kicked off 'TM Merdeka Millionaire', 'the reward programme where a lucky customer could walk away with RM 1 million in cash.' I mean celebrate our country's 50th year from the colonial yoke and you could win RM 1 million in cash. I'm not quite sure how this programme has any relation to Merdeka aside from the fact that the word Merdeka is used in this programme which reinforces the mentality here that to make your fortune is a matter of plain stupid luck, but like we like to say, 'Malaysia boleh!'

As if that were not enough, TM is also publishing a commemorative book reflecting its proud history of growth and achievements as a government linked company. Wow. Just what we needed (like a sodomy without the lube)! And the fun doesn't stop there. They're going to give away national flags at TM Points for free! It's so inspiring how TM values the symbol of the flag that they make cheap replicas and give them freely to anyone who wanted one. If that is not the symbol of corporate patriotism, I don't know what is (and to be honest, wouldn't want to know either).

All this is to fit into the theme for TM's Merdeka celebrations this year which is 'Thanking Malaysians.' And TM should not just be thanking us, they should be licking our arses. Check out these numbers from Datamonitor: "The group recorded revenues of MYR16,399.2 million (approximately $4,648.5 million) during the fiscal year ended December 2006, an increase of 17.6% over 2005. The operating profit of the group was MYR3,490.6 million (approximately $989.4 million) during fiscal year 2006, an increase of 97.3% over 2005. The net profit was MYR2,302.3 million (approximately $652.6 million) in fiscal year 2006, as compared to net profit of MYR855.5 (approximately $242.5 million) in 2005."

TM made an operating profit of almost RM 3.5 billion which is an increase of 97.3% over their operating profit for the year ending 2005. And you can bet your shitty streamyx connection that all those events are going to be organized by a bunch of cronies and people/companies with vested interests. If TM really wanted to thank Malaysians then (i) make less profit of us you bastards (ii) constantly improve and maintain your service and (iii) don't waste money like you are on these Merdeka celebrations because you are a corporate entity, not a goddamned individual and were not even around during Merdeka.

TM is not celebrating Merdeka. It's cheapened it by making it an excuse to pour astounding sums of money to no good purpose, meaning or significance.

50 Years of Merdeka?

You have probably been bombarded about it since the beginning of this year, had it pounded into your skull with the promotions, features, specials and cheap petty commercial exploitation of trinkets that bear our country's flag or colours: This is our 50th anniversary as a Malaysian (not quite but we'll go with that for now) nation. Now don't get me wrong, I am enjoying the wealth of information in the blast back to the past as done nicely in the New Straits Times, those old sepia toned or black and white photographs of people attired in the fashion of the times and the reminiscing about those embryonic days. I have always thought of the past, not as a decree to which we are slavishly bound to abide by but a place from which lessons are to be drawn and relationships understood.

The only real problem I have with this whole 50th anniversary thing is that 31st August 2007 is not the 50th anniversary of our nation. It would be something like the 43rd anniversary because Malaysia was finally formed on 16 September 1963 when the Federation of Malaya linked up with Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore. And if you want to be really anal about it then we should count it from the time Singapore left the country which is 9 August 1965. I therefore prefer this date because that is the Malaysia we are left with today. That means by my count we've already missed our anniversary and we are only at our 42nd anniversary. Yawn.

The intensity of these celebrations are no doubt isolating our fellow Sarawakian and Sabahan countrymen. There they are. Known as being part of Malaysia yet being excluded from many commercial and governmental developmental projects, exploited for its natural resources and tourism, and the date of celebration as a nation is not when they joined but when the Federation of Malaya obtained independence from British rule. I am told that they generally don't like us Peninsular folk. (Would be happy to stand corrected!) Can you blame them?

Reinforcing this 31st August 1957 date as being the celebration as a nation as it is found now is a denial of historical fact. It is a denial of our formation as a Malaysian nation. But it is not a fantasy, but a wish, a hope like a prayer, a doa - for a return to simpler and more honest times. A certain innocence so to speak. But we will not just get there by merely longing for it. We have to work at it. And we can start by acknowledging our true date of celebration as a nation: 9 August 1965.

The Secret Ingredient

Flirting has been defined by Wordnet as 'playful behavior intended to arouse sexual interest'. The problem with these dictionary terms is that its very preciseness and exactitude necessarily results in a loss of flavour. Flirting is basically mutual teasing where both parties make allusions to each other's sexuality, drop implied illusory invitations to sexual affections that could be easily dispelled with a phrase, and throughout the interaction each party seemingly believe sthose invitations and act as if they are about to accept them but always escaping in the end, turning it down, or accepting it in the end.

But what is it that makes this kind of flirting so exciting and engaging for its participants? I posit that it is the presence 'tension of possibilities'. Before either participant to the flirtation yields, there is actually a large array of fairly possible alternatives or options available that in a hypothetical sort of way could be exercised or selected. Some of these alternatives are usually the subject matter discussed in very daring detail during a flirtation. These possibilities creates a tension not only as between the possibilities but also between you and those possibilities. This is because they are available to you all at once. However, upon picking one you eradicate all the other options. And whilst one may have varying levels of attraction, difficulty comes from the choosing of one over the other because some are so equally pleasing. When you don't choose and and maintain the potential of all those possibilities that creates interest.

But keeping all possibilities open also implies that there is a sense of uncertainty or an unknown to all these options. Just because we imagine these options doesn't mean if we pick them they will play out exactly as we had hoped. So there is a slight sense of fear that lines all these possibilities. It is not an overwhelming fear that paralyzes but just enough to provoke curiosity and therefore create a sense of excitement.

There is another aspect to this tension of possibilities - empowerment. The more options and therefore range of motions and potential of action that one accumulates or has available to one's self at any one time, the more control you have over a particular situation. One way of looking at poverty is that it is merely an almost complete lack of meaningful options that are available to them to enable them to construct something meaningful or worthwhile for themselves. Control over yourself is empowerment but control over others is powerful. The example of flirtation is also deliberate to flesh out just how it applies at the micro level as between humans interacting at play and on the macro level as at the international level as within and between countries where the citizens of the country, every one of them is that sliver of potential.

I also believe that the presence of the tension of possibilities in a situation is also important because it allows for the birth of one of mankind's most valuable possessions. Hope.

Music Downloads

If you listen to Mix or Hitz (for the record Hitz.fm annoyz the pizz outz of me a bit more), and should those stations ever be named by truth, they should be named LoudMouthsLowBrowHumourAdHungryBatstards.fm, you would may have heard this anti-piracy warning that they play quite often. It goes something along the lines of if people kept downloading music then there will be no more music in the world because nobody would pay the artist. They get some girl to say this but you doubt her sincerity because you think she's probably downloading as well and got paid well to say this crap. To emphasize their point they play the sound of a quiet night intruded only by the sound of crickets chirping occasionally. 'There would be no more music in the world,' she says sadly, or something like that.

Whilst I get their message - downloading is a form of piracy and it is illegal - I thought their presentation sucked. Really. Just because everybody is downloading doesn't mean that there will be no more music simply because artist will refuse to compose or play their music if they are not paid. The first thought that occured to me when I heard that was - who said the only kind of music is the corporate commercial rock that these companies sponsor? Just because it wasn't burned on a CD doesn't mean it is not legitimate, valid and wholesome music. Just because a record company didn't issue an album on it doesn't mean that it is not 'music'.

Music can be found in the most complex of symphonies right down to just our fingers and the table drumming away. And humanity needs music as much as music needs humanity to arise and inspire. And let's get one thing right - downloading just means that record companies don't get to pay their stable of artists. It doesn't necessarily mean that artists don't get paid. The cunning part about the 'infomercial' is how the record companies are not mentioned at all. They focus on the issue of payment of the artist instead of talking about their cut, as if the entire revenue went to the artists.

Downloading is now a fact of internet life as is digitized music as is the fact that digitized music is easily downloadable and alot of people like doing it. Instead of harping about the evils of downloading music which is really a lost cause in an environment where enforcement is like some mystical gryphon that only awakes when something is being done in the full glare of the media, these record companies should have gone the iTunes way and come up with a sustainable model that is sensitive to the consumer ($0.99 per song). What the record companies have failed to understand with this campaign is that digital rights protection mechanisms or whatever it is they install will be ultimately futile because at some point somebody is going to crack the code. That is the nature of internet security - always evolving and changing. And all that money spent on it will have been a waste and consumers have to pay for it. They have to understand that the time for selling music the way they did before the era of the internet is now long gone (by internet time). They have to work with the downloading revenue and make the best of it, otherwise they would be out of business, not the musician because it is the latter that can produce the music not the former.

In Defence of Islam?

Those who, stand either individually or in clumps, claim that they are defending Islam do not trust in Allah and thereby blaspheme. These people are of narrow minds and materialistic creed. Let us consider some of the more relevant and obvious repercussions of accepting Allah as the "The Originator of the heavens and the earth!" (Surah 6:101) which is basically this Universe, and the many billion other universes out there, all that space, and clutter in between. We, in truth, don't even make up an atom of a grain of sand in the entire scheme of things. And those are just His creations - so, in truth, we will never be able to even comprehend Allah. Whoever claims they do, makes false claims for godhood. And therefore sins.

Let us consider this starting point: that we are unfathomably small in His entire design. We die out just like all other living things on this earth. Our lifespan is short - a maximum of just over one hundred - with an average of about late 60s these days. We, as Homo Sapiens, only arrived on the scene relatively recently i.e. about 400,000 years ago, and our recorded history only stretches back to about 32,000 years ago with those cave paintings in Chauvet Cave of Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc Cave, in southern France. The earth is estimated by scientists to be approximately between 4.5 - 6 billion years old. So that's how we are even compared to the earth. Nothing much. And the universe? Scientists currently estimate it to be about 13.7 billion years old. So in terms of times our Homo Sapien race existence compared to the universe - our significance is 0.0000029197080. Now you then divide that but all the many people, animals, etc. and you come through and we realize how insignificant any of us are.

When seen in this light, that Allah was long before us and shall be for ever, so what does it matter if some of his most insignificant creations on one of His billions, if not trillions, of galaxies and planet, does not believe in Him? What does it matter that there are these non-believers who speak ill of Him? The truth is that no one can harm Allah or his religion because we are in His realm. What is more, going by scripture, we are all answerable to him on Judgment Day, so why should we have to answer to someone lesser whilst we are alive? A comparative analogy of the relationship between Allah and mankind/His Universe would be as a computer programmer to his program. Whatever program a programmer programs into his computer can never harm him (assuming it is your usual standard desktop PC and not some robotic killer machine whose sole purpose is to annihilate any living thing) - he can manipulate it, change it, do virtually anything to it but the computer or its programs or the product of its program can never, ever harm the programmer. So when there is no threat, there cannot be a defence.

And Allah is Eternal and Creator of All - what possible threat can there be to the Supreme Being of the Universe? If even Satan himself cannot bring about such an event (because he will get his butt kicked in the End of Days), then what more the mere sons of Adam? And what do these ants think they can do in Allah's defence? That some of his sons thinks that Allah is in need of protection is to betray what they really think of themselves and Allah. The first is that they think too highly of himself and his worth to the Allah and the Universe and secondly, they think too lowly of Allah and his Creations. They do not say this explicitly, but there is no need to because actions have always spoken louder than words.

So what is this Defence of Islam really about then? It's the same thing that has happened over the centuries where religion is concerned: frustrated, unthinking, unlearned, morally and ethically corrupt human beings who want to achieve some control in his life and do so by piggybacking on a religion to establish a high moral position and to burn with righteous anger with supposed authority from God with which he can then carry out his psychosis. This Defence of Islam strategy is an attempt to play up their victimhood (defence presupposes an attack) to try and attract sympathy from unconcerned or unrelated parties. But then in banding together and claiming defence they then allow themselves the possibility of a pre-attack strike (because that is a defence too which America used as a justification in attacking Iraq). Ultimately, the entire strategy is geared towards confrontation and violence.

The truth of the matter is that the Defence of Islam was never about Allah. It was always about the corrupt Muslims who seek not to worship Allah in humility but to try reach His exalted status; and then in failing so miserably and ending up no better than Satan and his cronies, end up ultimately becoming a disgrace both to Islam and Allah.

A Junkie Hooker

(Subtitle: Meditations upon empathising in harbouring ambitions of being a junkie hooker for at least twenty thousandth of a microsecond)

If there was anybody who came closer to more than a microsecond of harbouring any ambitions of being a junky hooker, that person might be me. It's crazy, I know, but thankfully, the fever passed as quickly as it gripped me. Before, I had any chance to act out that seemingly insane sort of ambition, which would rank up there with mass murderers and the guy who has to clean the cages in the zoo, it left, as if driven from me like a bad spirit exorcised from the depths of my soul. Despite its terribly limited time with me, I managed to glance some insight into such a lifestyle.

If there was one attractive feature of such a lifestyle it is its sheer simplicity, in essence. Screw people for money. Buy and use drugs. There you go. A complete and total lifestyle in eight words. You cannot get any simpler than that. Of course there is the attendant necessities such as rest, preserving one's physical condition appropriately to be able to carry out such a lifestyle, place to stay, etc. But simplicity in what it is you are all about. Drugs and sex. And by drugs, I mean the hardcore, addictive stuff like heroin. The burn out rate however, I imagine, would be pretty damn quick. Thing about the cake and eating it and then wanting to keep it all applies there.

And this is simple compared to say a typical Malay middle class local graduate who had to borrow money for his tertiary education (okay the last part is fiction). Quickly find a job so that he can pay off his loan, and establish himself by looking for a place to settle down (if he is not staying with his parents, or even if he is, he will soon), get a set of workable wheels, there's his social, familial and love interests to occupy his hours of leisure aside from his own interests. And suddenly things get complicated. He has many things to juggle. Comparing this to the junkie hooker's lifestyle, we see how the latter triumphs the former in terms of simplicity and, as a friend of mine one's described those things, in putting down no 'anchors'.

But the junkie hooker's ultra-simple lifestyle pays the price of limitedness. That choice is one which is very hard to unmake in one sense, and in another, that he will never feel or experience many other things in life other than drugs and sex and the limited range of emotions that lifestyle can only foster (pun intended). And that's what that middle class lifestyle that is progressing would allow, the possibility of the full range and depths of human emotions and possibilities. There is now room for travel, literature, laughter, companionship, for a healthy sort of love to blossom just as they will disappointment, tears and sadness. The point is that there is wealth of experience to be enjoyed and should be.

The horror then of that lifestyle is that a whole world of possibilities and existences is reduced, if not utterly annihilated, to sex, money and drugs, and even that not for very long. There would be little life left in that style. It is the death before death. But I can see how some people who need to escape so far away from everything and simplify their lifestyle so ruthlessly. Sometimes the world gets too great for them and there is no other way. They run, they hide. They simplify. I feel sorry and sad for them now instead of a sense of disgust which I may perhaps feel if confronted with them in real life.

Removes fishnet stockings and thick colourful make up from face.

Say, uh, anybody got a joint or something?

Censor Me A Titty

It is a curious thing that in Malaysia, the censors only have their scissors (and lord knows what else) out for sex. If there is even the remotest hint of sexual influence in a scene, and they of course are thoroughly qualified in detecting it though remaining steadfastedly free of its influence (unlike us inferior beings), it will be snipped, cut, blacked or ripped out. When I think of these censors, I imagine short, some thin, some fat, goatied men with long flowing jubah, some with spectacles, some with contacts, without underpants walking around holding a pair of those elegant long beaked steel ones in their right hands. Their nimble fingers eagerly spreading and shutting its arms. They would only use their index finger on their left hand to point at whatever it was they were pointing at before uttering, 'Apa tu?' (What's that'?). I haven't quite worked out what their introductory music score would be like yet, but I'm working on it. But strangely, they allow some of the most hideous violence to be visited upon a human being to be aired in a cavaliar and widespread manner in virtually all forms of popular media - video and computer games, music, movies, television, etc.

This is what I have always wondered: Why is it the policy of our censors to banish expressions of love (hardcore or very explicit softcore sex excepted) and promote expressions of hatred and conflict (playful slapping and light S&M and that means no leather masks excepted)? Maybe I'm nuts or something but I thought it would have been the other way around. There is already so much violence in our own lives with daily reports of snatch thefts, murders, rapes and corruption that the last thing we actually need is something glorifying it and routinely being used as a means of dispute resolution. So what is the basis of this policy of promoting violence?

And it is because of all this daily routine violence that we need to promote and encourage love and respect for one another. I am not saying that showing people kissing or making love does that but I think it does not detract from that policy. And for the love of God, can we please get real! Just watching this stuff doesn't serve as a massive dose of aphrodisiac that makes people want to go and hump each other like a bunch of rabbits. And what is the basis of this policy of erasing expressions of love?

The zeal with which these censors try to erase a kiss, even the faint expression of a nipple or a tasteful lovemaking scene sometimes makes me wonder whether they feared sex or hated sex more, or were just a bunch of seedy perverts all round. I mean, think about it - all those tits, ass, genitals and sex watched on a regular basis and then get edited out - where does it all go? Who watches the scissormen? What kind of people are these? Who are these men and women of such erudition and maturity that they can sit above us and tell us what we can or cannot watch? One day, a scandal is going to hit the fan (if it hasn't happened already) that some of these fellas make montages of the censored material for their own personal collections.

And the irony of all this is that they can censor all that but then they let through books by Harold Robbins, Sydney Sheldon, Eric Van Lustbader, Jackie Collins and lemme tell ya, some of the stuff that goes on in there - even I get a little shy explaining it to people (and on these matters, I am not one who is usually coy on the subject). The difference? Even though books are a visual medium, they are for some strange reason okay. Actually, I think it's because these people actually cannot read or their reading abilities are extremely limited (read: stupid and shallow). Their abilities appear to be only confined to visually obscene material, not literature. So forget to even ask these fellas to root out subversive ideas in philosopy laden books. One would probably need a machine powered drill to get it through these fellas (even then I'm not hopeful). Even when they wanted to do it, as they did with Karen Armstrong's 'Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam' in 2006, they buggered it up. For one, Ms. Armstrong is no hack. In fact, in 1999 she was honoured by the Islamic Centre of Southern California for 'promoting understanding among faiths.' Funnier is that the book had long been circulating in the country for some time now. That's like bolting the gate after the cows have bolted. Moo.

But their fascination with violence and their undeniable incompetence doesn't interest me as much as this institutional aversion to sex in its many manifestations. Why are governments, religions and civil society so afraid of it? Why are mature adults in groups afraid of something natural, pleasurable and, for those that want a family (and actually including those who do not want one), necessary? In this entire piece, I am referring only to consensual sex between two consenting people of sufficient maturity (for whichever applicable culture) and so would not include sex induced by force or violence.

I don't quite know but I think it has something to do with the uncertainty with which sex may affect someone though it usually tends to be positive. I mean 'positive' in the sense that it usually orientates one towards a sense of confidence (you are attractive enough) which then emboldens and a fleeting happiness and a general sense of contentment (blame it on the orgasm). When you are internally content and confident of yourself, you will be less easily persuaded by for instance, propaganda. So in one sense sex is subversive. And sex then places this seed of independence and creates an environment that would allow a need for greater freedom for one's self to be born. But this seed also needs to be fertilized and watered by carefully chosen intellectual fare and emotional nourishment to enable one to blossom into a mature and responsible citizen.

But that's just probably one of my theories about why people should be shagging more. And this by the way is all opined and written with no offence to the sanctity of virginity and any virgins reading this.

Anyway, should really stop thinking so much about this stuff.

Tut too too tee to.

Malaysians Love Reality TV Shows

Yep. They just love it! Notice the word “they”? That’s not because I am not Malaysian. That’s because I frigging loathe them (the reality TV that is)!

Whoever started the idea of reality TV should, in my world, be blindfolded, cuffed, led to the basement, shot and chopped to pieces! The truth is, all of them are not real. I mean who would watch a real reality TV show right? Imagine American Idol being full of REAL Americans. You know, the short fat slobs that they are and all the rednecks from Texas trying to sing Barry Manilow’s “Copacabana” while shaking their fat arse in their torn denim. Who would want to watch that? Stevie Wonder? And so American Idol is full of well manicured and groomed young men who look like a cross between Simon Le Bon (of 30 years ago) and Boy George (also of 30 years ago). And the women have legs running way up to their shoulders passing their well endowed and obviously enhanced breasts and a very exquisitely pierced navel. Never mind the singing. What matters is their appearance and of course, their moves. Hell yeah…they could move I tell ya! And whose is the brain behind the decision to make Paula Abdul one of the judges? I mean, Paula Abdul judging what appears to be a singing contest? Condoleeza Rice would make a better choice I think.

Even the supposedly boring act of looking for an apprentice is a reality TV act nowadays. Donald Trump is looking for an apprentice. Donald Trump wants some publicity and money (as if whatever he has is not yet enough). Donald Trump needs to pay for his daughter’s boob jobs. So, Donald Trump has a reality TV show. Reality TV? Naah…it pushes the redefinition of “reality” to a new boundary! Erm…why are the women in The Apprentice so yummy looking? Is there no ugly or un-presentable lady American who is brainy nowadays? Must all blondes be intelligent nowadays? Hey…this is unfair! And why are all the men in The Apprentice look so good they make Hans Isaac insecure? And oh ya, they are immaculately dressed and attired too. Where are the fat ones? And the ones who look like Bill Gates? Hello?

Than we have Fear Factor. Hahah…more like Yucky Factor to me. I mean, grown ups eating worms and swallowing cow dung. That’s not confronting fears. That is proof that human beings, particularly American, would do anything and go to whatever extent to make some money and be famous in the process. And of course, all of them, the participants, are good looking men and women. Hallo, the ugly ones don’t have any fear ah?

And of course, reality TV has caught up in Malaysia. The mother of all reality TV shows in Malaysia is of course Akademi Fantasia. Yes, the ASTRO show which unearths talent-less, tone deaf and clueless but good looking young Malaysians and turn them into iconic money machines. I mean, where the hell do they find all these kids? Oh my God! My daughter’s pet frog could sing better than all of them combined.

Yes, I have made my point. I hate reality TV shows. The only relevant reality TV show to me is a show in which all our cabinet ministers take part. They will be given a task each week to complete and the public can judge them via sms. To make the show a bit colourful, we will have judges as well. Hmm…Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh would make nice judges. Just to lend some more credence to the judging process, we could also have Tun Dr Mahathir as a judge. The definite twist to this show is that the public get to judge even the judges! The ministers could be asked to complete the following tasks:

- to build good presentable toilet which costs less than RM400000;

- to come up with a nice merry go round which costs less than RM30 million a year;

- to build a good and modern hospital in less than 6 years;

- to come up with just ONE good reason on why highway concessionaires should be compensated by the government when they are making profits in the hundred of millions annually;

- to learn good manners and proper way of answering questions by the people without being defensive;

- to learn what collective responsibilities is all about and stop blaming each other when inter ministerial problems crop up.

I promise that I would be the first to send in my sms.

Thinking about Technology

In Malaysia, people often associate technology with science, as if without the latter, we would not have the former. It is not surprising because some dictionaries even define technology as simply 'the application of science.' This is incorrect and therefore misleading. Technology is merely the means or, if you like, the mechanics, of doing something.

An illustration is needed to better understand what I mean. Let assume there is this sick man. He has only two kinds of treatment available to him. One is with a witchdoctor. The other is with a medically qualified doctor with extensive experience in that area of sickness.

The witchdoctor's treatment may call for a few chickens to be slaughtered in an unhygenic manner, some guy in a loin skin cloth thumping a drum made of the skins of rare albino donkeys, some dyes to smear on their body and some wicked though limited dance moves around a bonfire. After the dance and mass open air orgy that follows that treatment, the patient is supposed to get better.

The doctor's treatment would usually involve the patient sent to some machines to have his insides turned out and represented in squiggly lines or numbers for the doctor to pore over. The patient would be told he had to cut down on his smoking, exercise more, eat less, sleep more, work less, etc. Usually he would be given some drugs (regretfully not the recreational type) to take to help him heal. Perhaps a few more consultations until the doctor finishes up the payment on his yacht (docked at Langkawi, probably, bastard) and the patient is supposed to get better.

Both are technology. In the age of science, we think as we do now that the doctor's treatment would be better and more effective than the witchdoctor's. And we would probably right (although one should not simply discount the beneficial effects of an open air orgy). But we must distinguish the concept of technology from its reliability. Just because the witchdoctor's method is likely to be less reliable (although much more fun) doesn't make it any less a kind of technology. Scientific technology tends to be superior than witchcraft technology because of their respective methodologies. Witchcraft technology relies on and assimilates ancestral myths, cultural practices and symbolism. Scientific technology relies on observing the mechanics of natural phenomena, figuring how it works, drawing up a hypothesis which is vigorously tested conceptually, mathematically and experimentally.

However we associate science with technology because the fruits of science tend to be more reliable, its methodology can be tested and tried by anybody with the requisite means, and we find that it empowers us, amplifies us, extends us. Witchcraft technology leaves us all in a mystery except the witchdoctor (who just maybe as well!). One would think that given a little thought on this matter would make it quite clear which we should rely on most of the time.

That Malaysia has so many of these witchdoctor's about (they are called a bomoh here) makes it difficult to wonder without a sense of despair why this is so.

The Illusion of the Silent Majority

Sometimes, in an argument, I have heard this Silent Majority being bandied about. Its advocates usually cap the end of their argument with it. For example, '(Whatever is being argued for)...blah blah blah and I believe the Silent Majority is with us.'

Uh. Right. I have always felt a little uneasy about this notion of the Silent Majority. As if there were was a legion of still silent pale partially rotting zombies ready to vote whichever way their preacher claimed.

How can we know what this hallowed Silent Majority are thinking of when they are silent? We cannot assume they are with us on this or that issue simply because they lay quiet. Although silence in political action equals to acquiescence, it does not apply to political opinion. In the realm of political opinion, you cannot claim to speak for a group unless they have agreed for you to be their representative (this to be distinguished from speaking for the benefit of the disenfranchised natives and marginalized segments of society). Other than that, you speak for yourself and yourself only, and those who voice their association with you on certain issues.

After all, how can anyone claim to speak for the Silent Majority when they refuse to speak? That is like someone claiming to speak for someone who is in a coma.