i was watching the national geographic channel's Seconds From Disaster last night. the episode dealt with the 7th August bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam in 1998. the episode focused on the incident at the Kenyan capital.

the suicide bomber drove a truck into the US embassy compound and finally detonated the vehicle. unfortunately (and fortunately), it wasn't american soil that suffered the brunt of the bombing. over 200 mostly kenyan citizens in an adjacent civilian building were killed when the structure they were in collapsed like a pack of cards.

the modus operandi of the suicide bombers was not unfamiliar. a similar tactic was employed back in 1993 when an attempt was made to destroy new york's world trade centre. a truck filled with explosives also rammed its way into the marriott hotel in islamabad last year.

as i was falling asleep, i was thinking about terror attacks that have occurred in the recent past. and i was reminded of the messages aired on screens at our train platforms. it constantly reminds you to look out for suspicious individuals, and to report abandoned bags to the authorities. similar ads are also plastered in buses.

now these ads have disturbed me for quite some time (it's only now i'm blogging about them). they seem to suggest that terrorists are quite conspicuous. yes, bombings are in part attributed to bags left on trains and buses and other such public spaces. but this is not the only way such acts are carried out.

why would a suicide bomber need a bulky bag? all he needs is to strap the bomb to himself to cause damage. that's all it takes to cause carnage and chaos! why are we limiting our vigilance to 'bulky' items? heck, something dangerous could be lurking in that non-assuming plastic bag even! and in the first place, some of the train staff do not perform thorough checks anyways. i remember being stopped once when i was on the way to the airport. i opened my bag as instructed. the fella took a cursory look, rummaged the clothes a little for good measure, and let me go. and the same thing happens at the airport. no one really checks at the airport train station because i suppose it is assumed that everyone's flown in from some place and their baggage has undergone security checks. but can we be that complacent?

all i'm saying is that maybe we need to take the message of terrorism and anti-terror measures to the next level? i think it is time the authorities, perhaps, install metal detectors or the like at train stations, much like those i saw at the metro stations in delhi.

yes, it might slow things down a little but why not? at least i'll be guaranteed a safe journey.

just because we've not experienced a terror strike doesn't mean we wait till something happens before we take action.

'happy halloween' is a greeting that is no longer just an american exchange.
i've lost count of the number of SMSes or MSN messages i received yesterday wishing me a spooky day.

my terse reply was that i don't celebrate this holiday. and why should i? what's the fuss with halloween anyways? in asia, we've got a long history of folklore dealing with pontianaks (vampires), chudails (witches) and a host of other members of the undead. the chinese celebrate the hungry ghost festival. i dun hear people sounding excited about the 7th month. maybe it has more serious undertones?

but this is not a matter of american/asian ghosts. it's the underlying problem that the rest of us have -- we simply think everything american or western is cool(er).

why do we need the west's 'endorsement' for our own cultures to be hip? until the hippies came along, it was almost uncool to be culturally rooted. before hindi cinema was accepted in the west, it was almost strange for me, according to some people, to be watching such films. not like things have improved. today all people can think of when they think of hindi cinema is colourful films and song and dances. not really a change in perception, but a change in how they are received. kung fu's big because the americans think jackie chan and bruce lee were awesome. angkor wat and borobudur are 'must-sees' because the west thinks so (even if some singaporeans don't even know what/where these monuments are).

yesterday, i was in Sam's car when a cyclist sped and meandered around stationary vehicles as if his life depended on it. Sam related an incident when a caucasian cyclist had taken up a whole lane, thus slowing traffic behind him. and apparently no one honked. and why would they?

had it been a bangladeshi or a chinese national cycling down the road as if his father had bought it, the vehicles behind would have started an orchestra of trumpets. but because it was a caucasian man, no one did anything. heck, they'd probably have laid down on the road and let the cyclist go over them if it'd have made his ride more pleasant.

we'd gone to this bar/restaurant in Colva (south goa), while i was there, on the 2nd of october. it was gandhi's birthday. and as is the case on such national occasions, no alcohol is to be served (dry day). we still saw a table of caucasians having beer.

when we were placing our orders, a friend of mine asked for a beer. the waiter reminded us that it's dry day. so why were the caucasians allowed to have it? just because they're foreigners? the waiter was sheepish and said something along the lines of, oh it was allowed for a few hours earlier and we've stopped for now to prevent getting caught. how convenient.

colonialism is a thing of the past..or is it?

i can't say i hate the white man. i have caucasian friends and they're lovely people. it's just embarrassing that we asians let ourselves down over and over again.

jago re!

it's a known fact: i travel with a copy of lonely planet.

so when the Goa guide suggested cycling from Panaji to Old Goa, i was hooked. but the adventure began long before i started pedalling. i first had to find a bicycle rental shop in the Goan capital. at some point it seemed a bus ride would be the way to go. but i asked around and found a little place which rents out bikes.

and i was off! lonely planet warns you about the heavy traffic between the city and the bridge over the Mandovi River. it doesn't mention the fact that there are pavements which cancels out somewhat, any concerns one may have with dealing with incessant honking on roads where might is right.

conversely, once the road is reduced to a two-lane one, lonely planet says traffic trickles; but there are no pavements. for some reason i wasn't too worried, so long as i stayed on the left most side of the road. but i have to admit there were times i became fatalistic: what if i get come under a speeding bus? what if i swerve into the river? how will the other guys find out?

but the pressing issue was this: the road to Old Goa was long. well, relatively. it was a 9 kilometre ride. i started off filled with enthusiasm. but 20 minutes or so later i was getting bored. when was Old Goa going to show up? and as if on cue, it appeared before me like a revelation: wide roads, pavements, trees, and churches on both sides. i actually continued cycling ahead, still in awe of how the scene before my eyes had appeared virtually out of nowhere.

once i regained my senses, i pedalled back to the entrance of the Church of St Francis of Assisi. i also walked into the SE Cathedral, which is supposed to be the largest church in Asia. i could believe it. it was the largest one i've ever been to (then again, it's not like i've been to many). the interior is largely plain, save for one beautifully carved/decorated chapel on the right (after the side entrance). then there's the Basilica of Bom Jesus. i liked the altar here, and the highlight is the body of St Francis Xavier himself. i snapped a couple of photos though i later wondered if that was the right thing to do. oh well.

the return trip to Panaji was somehow quicker. i returned to the city with feet blistered, so much so that i walked around barefoot for some time. my own doing really, cos i had put on a pair of new flip flops. ouch!

but it was all good. i survived the streets of Panaji on a bicycle.

woo hoo!

we arrived in Goa at about 2am, on the 28th of September - 6 hours behind schedule. it was probably the long and winding road to and from Jog Falls, which trickled, almost, over a cliff. i thought it looked tired. but having a reputation to keep, it pushed on with whatever little force it could muster -- much like Basanti dancing to save Veeru's life in Sholay.

the Calangute area, and much else of north Goa, is littered with low single-storeyed houses. i can't recall seeing anything that stretched to the second level. some came in different colours -- yellow, blue, red -- perhaps a reflection of the area's hippie past. churches are sprinkled sparingly along the way, none of which we visited. what we did visit were forts.

what remains of the Terekhol Fort now is a whitewashed church -- the rest of the premise has become a luxury hotel. and you're reminded of this fact when a waiter doesn't allow you to even snap a picture of the entrance to the lounge. a form of neo-colonialism? i was to find out that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Chapora Fort was a slippery walk up, no thanks to small rocks ever eager to roll under the soles of your flip flops. the fort itself is in ruins, but i imagine it wasn't really a looker to begin with (were the portuguese really lacking in the creativity department? or perhaps they channeled their energies to Fort Aguada further south). but what the fort did offer was splendid views of the surrounding greenery, Vagator beach, and the Arabian Sea. it was here that Farhan Akhtar's debut film, Dil Chahta Hai (2001) was shot. the scene involved the 3 protagonists talking about their future -- about whether they would stick together no matter which road(s) life takes them.

as we laughed and pushed ourselves off the ground for the camera, a similar question forced its way into my mind.

three years ago today, the thai military staged a coup which overthrew the then-prime minister, thaksin shinawatra. things have not been the same in the country since then -- what with the several mass rallies and violence that has broken out in bangkok in recent times.

of course, the political bipolarity in thailand has caused previous unrest in the country. but the 2006 coup takes on a personal dimension for me.

during that time, i was in correspondence with two people i got to know online who were living in bangkok -- a maldivian named satish, and saif, a bangladeshi. i was speaking to them separately for months and we discovered we have quite a number of things in common. satish and saif had both on various occasions tried to persuade me to go to bangkok to meet them. i always brushed the suggestion aside. how would i go? i was still in school, and there were other priorities in place (school fees, bills).

on the night of the coup, i was talking to satish, sometime around 10-11pm Singapore time. at some point, he told me a coup had been declared in the country. in my mind i saw military personnel, and tanks even, taking to the streets to maintain order. i didn't ask satish if that were the case. he didn't know either since he was at home. but he did say he had to inform his flatmate, who was out of the house at the moment.

probably an hour or so later, saif came online. i asked him if he knew about the coup. he told me his flatmate had informed him about it.

just then there was an overwhelming feeling within: i realised right then that these two live in the same house! so i asked them separately where their housemate's from. bingo!

when they found out, i was laughing and fully awake at 1am. that too after having felt very sleepy sometime around midnight of 20th of september. the two of them there, well they were apparently laughing their heads off; so much so that a neighbour shouted at them for disrupting the quiet at that hour.

my 'fifteen more minutes' of chat ended at 3am, and culminated in a decision to visit bangkok at the end of the year. and i did.

i have to admit at some point it felt surreal to see these two people who were nothing more than words for so long. but i was glad i met them (it was also probably one of the most daring things i'd done -- to travel abroad and meet 'strangers').

i met saif again in october 2008 when i was in delhi. satish i have yet to meet again since that december of 2006.

but as i type this entry, i wonder if i'll again meet these two fellas as a result of some political impetus...

i was reading the papers this morning about this indian woman who's taking up 'bollywood' dance classes.

it's one thing if the uninitiated says hindi films are only fluff to be enjoyed and forgotten. but it's quite another for a fellow indian to say that.

maybe she hasn't watched enough to realise that the industry does churn out good films. but does this warrant such a sweeping statement? does hollywood come up with thought-provoking subjects all the time?

add to this the fact that she reinforces the stereotype that indian films are about nothing but dancing around trees. come on, they've moved on!

give it a break already.


on a side note, im beginning to think my blog has become very angsty.
bachchan fan maybe?
agneepath, agneepath.

i was reading in the bus on my way to work this morning, music piped in.

but i still began hearing the voice of a woman sitting some seats ahead of me (i didn't turn up the volume of my ipod).

so there i was watching this woman talking to, presumably, her husband. nothing unusual surely. except the man was looking out the window the whole time she spoke.

picture this: woman goes on and on while facing her husband, while he's only looking out, barely moving. in fact, he looked like he was leaning closer to the window than to her.

and all this went on for about 25 minutes.

not once did i hear the man say anything in response.

and you wonder why men die before women.

but who's complaining? :)

i was just a month shy of turning 14 when i watched Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge in Amritsar, India.

i still remember us walking into the dark cinema, as Amrish Puri's character, Baldev Singh, ruminates about Punjabi pigeons which are more familiar to him than the Londoner ones he was feeding in the opening sequence.

for the uninitiated, DDLJ was one of the first films (if not the first) to deal with the theme of diasporic indians. it also touched on non-resident indians and their longing to return to their homeland.

of course, there's yash chopra's romantic take on punjab -- what with the fields drenched in yellow, young girls singing and laughing, and that train choo-chooing in the background.

but somewhere within those scenes i guess the seeds of a similar longing had been planted. and i realized this only recently!

i had always thought a screening of the 1971 purab aur paschim (east, west) in 2000 was the moment i woke up to a deeper affiliation to the land of my grandparents. but i guess my mum played a major role in laying the foundations of this awareness when she brought us to india in nov 1995. she wanted us (my sister and i) to know where we came from. and back then i fit the stereotypical role of a kid from a better-off country entering an environment that was very different from what i was used to. but india cast its spell on me, as it has on so many before me.

i learnt that though money makes things easier, it's not the only pleasure in life. i realized how lucky i was for so many things God has blessed me with. and when Baldev Singh talked about returning to his Punjab, i feel there is a similar longing (though it may not be specifically for the same region).

there's a forgettable film (tera jadoo chal gaya, 2000) in which there's a scene i remember for some strange reason. the male lead (played by Abhishek Bachchan) tells his love interest that it is believed if you turn back to look at the taj mahal (presumably on your way out), you will return to see it again.

i cannot for the life of me remember if i took a last look at the structure when i was there in '95. but i have gone back to the country again since that time.

twice.

so far.

i just read deepika shetty's review of Love Aaj Kal (ST, 5th Aug 2009).
granted it's not that great a movie.
true, deepika padukone's delivery was not very convincing.

but shetty makes the film sound completely un-watchable.

and seriously, the temporal vissicitudes were not all that jarring and confusing as she so claims. it's not like '21 grams' where scenes jumped back and forth almost randomly, leaving the audience to catch up as quickly as they could. and no one's complained about the swinging timeline in the film anyways. so was Imtiaz Ali trying to be too avant-garde? hardly.

and as for shetty's gripe with the dialogues, i thought some were fun. at least they weren't cliched.

i'm not trying to defend the film per se, but shetty's review leaves much to be desired.

such writing reminds you not to always trust reviews.

i was sitting in the gurdwara this morning when i noticed this cute little kid follow his mother around the memorial shrine. but instead emulating what his mother was doing, he walked out into the outer sitting area towards his father.

at first one would not think much of it: the kid is just being a kid. he doesn't necessarily know what's going on. but of course! his parents could mechanize him into following a certain pattern while in the gurdwara, but he would not know why he's doing what he's been told to. indeed, our parents shape our religious inclination from a young age. nothing wrong with that since we all need guidance.

but then i thought about those people who decided to follow a certain faith back when the different religions came into being. for example, some hindus and muslims converted to sikhism for differing reasons. but let's leave rationality out of the equation for a moment. let's take the position that they chose the path they did out of a conviction that this new way of life worked for them.

this made me think about conversions: what's wrong with them if one believes that the faith one is about to embrace will 'work' for him/her, is compatible with one's belief system? think about it, if those people back then didn't convert to the various religions we have today, we'd not be following those faiths (personally, i should be either hindu or muslim, depending on what my ancestors practiced before they decided sikhism was the way to go).

yet we frown upon people within our communities who decide to take a new path in being close to God. is it really an issue of having to stick with the religion you're born into? or are we more concerned about maintaining strength in numbers?

i suppose its easy for me to raise such questions since i take on a more syncretic approach to religion. i believe every one of them has something to offer, some teaching that i personally believe in. but if i were to think about it with greater depth, is it really the teaching or the ritual that im concerned with? think about it, all religions have similar fundamentals (e.g. don't kill, don't steal, etc). maybe we're too preoccupied with the ritualistic aspects to understand the deeper meaning of life, and our relationship with God?

of course im not picking on any ritual or saying one or the other is wrong. rituals are necessary i suppose. i follow some too. but i guess at the end of the day we shouldn't forget that all religions point toward the same direction (some of you may choose to differ on this point).

and i guess we shouldn't be quick to judge someone who decides to embrace another faith. let God decide if what he/she has done is right or wrong. if it were wrong, i don't think those people those centuries ago would have converted to the faiths they chose for themselves, would they?

i woke up on friday morning to an sms from my sister:

farah fawcett and michael jackson have passed away.

it took a while to sink in. farah fawcett's death didn't exactly catch me unaware. she was after all battling cancer. but how'd MJ's death happen?

shock and disbelief soon turned into grief. i can't say i cried or anything, but i was saddened.

but MJ's death revealed to me that so many people i know loved the man's music. it was heartening, despite the fact that it took his death for me to find out. but better late than never. ditto images of millions of people around the world dancing on the streets to his songs.

im still in disbelief whenever i watch his videos. MTV had a one hour tribute to him on sat and sun. MJ's videos made me smile, some made me laugh. yet two gave me a lumpy feeling in the throat.

whatever it is the man did in his life, that's for God to judge. as far as im concerned, his music formed the crux of his existence. and how he managed to touch people all over the world -- even in countries that know no word of english but can easily sing along to MJ's songs.

indeed, before there was barack obama, michael jackson was changing the world. he was bringing us together.

his legacy will live on.

be happy wherever you are, MJ.

i watched the baader meinhof complex based on a few words that jumped out at me while reading the synopsis: 1960s, american imperialism, germany, revolution. gives you an idea of what the film was about.

to say the film is emotionally charged is no exaggeration. the opening sequence sows the seed of terrorism with images that will probably stick in my mind for some time to come. indeed, the film raised several questions while i was watching it.

west germany was capitalist, an ally of the US. in the film events unfold to point to the fact that the federal republic was more of a police state. and to hammer home the point that this was not an isolated case, we are shown images from france and the US, where students protested against the vietnam war, where people took to the streets in the 1968 revolution in paris. and there were pictures from prague as well, and the 1968 soviet suppression of czech dissent. all these images reminded me of that photograph we saw in our politics/art/popular culture module in nus. there was a shot of an american student who'd been shot dead for protesting against some cause or the other.
back to the movie, the viewer is also bombarded with images of a burning vietnam, a viet cong being shot dead, the buddhist monk who turned to self-immolation, the naked girl running down a road after her village was burnt.

if communism was really oppressive, how was the capitalist system any different? in the film one of the character rightly points out, the west just wants to eat and shop so that they don't have to be 'aware'. it's because otherwise, they'd have to do something. in another scene, she calls a journalist's work theoretical masterbation. rightly so.

and this brings me to my next question: where are the demonstrators today? more specifically, what's happened to us, the youth? we're always talking about a better world, we don't agree with so many things that happen out there..but that's pretty much it. we discuss such things over sheesha and tea, sigh, and let them be. and in the same breath, some even go on and on about the wonders of shopping online and buying the latest gadgets.

as i've mentioned before, my problem with capitalism is wastage. but the system thrives on a seamless flow to ensure profits. again, im no communist, but you get the picture. how are we 'democratic', how is our existence 'free', when someone dictates the terms of those freedoms? going back to the film, a peaceful protest turns ugly and the police (and the state) hit back at its own citizens who point questioning fingers. do we elect you for the goodies you shower us with for votes, only to be hammered when we demand answers? and then these same people start questioning the rise of radicalism among the disgruntled.

but is terrorism really the way to go? yes, i was cheering on the RAF in its infancy. that was before the second and third generation of the group started escalating violence and killing innocents. rightly so, a character in the film tells the authorities the 'time for talk' is over, when he was asked about how the violence could be stopped. he also pointed out how the aims of the RAF have 'evolved' with the latter generations of the outfit.

the film is highly relevant to what's happening today. and it ends off in a way that proves this. but what next for terrorism? what's the next giant leap? we're trying to understand the motivations of such groups, their grievances. but is this going to be enough? what about the evolving nature of such warfare?

so i've recently watched two films that centre around marriage. dysfunctional ones.

one was the academy award nominee, Revolutionary Road, starring leonardo di caprio and kate winslet. the other was the french, 5X2.

some have compared RR to sam mendes' earlier film, American Beauty. i've not seen the latter but going by RR, i think i just might. leo and kate are frank and april in the 1950s. they are idealistic, they have dreams. and they mock everyone else who conform to the mould of american suburbia: nice house, lovely lawn, a job, a car, family. you get the picture.

but frank and april fall into a similar trap. an 'ordinarily blissful' set up is something that april is not satisfied with. and her marriage is on the rocks.

we are taken back to the couple's courting days, when their dreams were burning bright. so april thinks, why should these dreams be buried after marriage? she convinces frank to leave his job (which he doesn't quite like) and move to paris (based on something frank had mentioned when they were younger). just like that.

the couple is convinced this is the right thing to do. it would let them 'live their dreams', rejuvenate their marriage. but people around them are skeptical. not surprising. try telling someone today that you intend to quit your job, and you'll have a barrage of questions thrown at you. why? for how long? how are you gonna support yourself?

frank and april scoff at such concerns. they're only concerned about what they want, what'll make them happy. nietzsche would have been proud of them. they were exercising their will to power, their will to do what they as individuals should do and break away from the herd.

but how long does society and the capitalist machinery let you do what you really want? frank, the 'practical and rational half' soon realizes that although he hates his job, it gives him purpose. it feeds the family. but 'emotional' april remains adamant. she wants to live life on her terms. it is perhaps why the movie ends the way it does, with the removal of the element that threatens the system.

in 5X2, we first meet a couple, marion and gilles, who're finalizing the details of their divorce. after which they engage in a final sexual act which ends unpleasantly. we are then taken back to an earlier period of their married life when things were already not working. 3 chapters follow from these 2 in the following order: the birth of their son nicolas, the couple's wedding, and the first time they meet.

as someone else reviewed on imdb, if the events were told in a chronological fashion, it wouldn't have been particularly exciting. but to reverse the order of the story heightens the viewer's desire to find out what messed up the relationship. and i agree.

in every chapter that follows, we realize that its not any single event that unravelled the marriage: it's gilles abandoning his wife when she was in labour, the unease with sexual deviance, betrayals.

for me, i was especially intrigued by gilles' absence when his son was born. when marion calls him and says she might go into labour, i expected him to drop his work and head to the hospital immediately. but the very next shot shows him having a leisurely lunch at some cafe. later after finally seeing his son, gilles disappears and is seen sitting in his car somewhere. what were the issues that were plaguing him? was he not ready to be a dad? true, he had 8-9 months to get ready but is anyone ever really prepared to be in charge of another person that emerges from another's womb? think ross in friends when he had ben (the guy wasn't ready for the baby to have him).

and as if to alleviate the guilt for what he'd done (it's complicated, he says), gilles calls marion and tells her he loves her. in a later chapter (which is chronologically earlier), marion does the same thing when she betrays gilles on their wedding day.

the film also gives us a parallel peek of the relationships between gilles' brother and his lover, and marion's parents. they have their ups and downs, as do all relationships. but they seem to be holding up. in a memorable sequence during gilles and marion's wedding, she watches her parents dancing to smoke gets in your eyes. after an earlier sequence in the film where the two fought, you only see a flame glowing on their faces. that of hope. that they will survive.

but marion and gilles will not last. and by the end of the film, it may make you wonder how this happened. by this time you become privy to how they actually fell in love, how they walked into the sunset at the beach, to begin a life together. and you know that like the setting sun, the light of their love would be extinguished. how unfortunate.

wow been ages.
and what better topic to bring me here than the 'singapore identity'.
and before anyone says im condemning this island or being ungrateful, lemme assure you this post is in response to something a certain minister said.

last week home affairs minister wong kan seng said journalists in singapore shouldn't be too caught up with their stories. he was referring to the aware saga and the coverage it got. the minister was saying that such extensive and breathless coverage of such an incident wasn't necessary. the irony was that the TODAY paper carried 2-3 pages of the aware saga and wks's response in the same edition.

my question is this: why didn't it warrant the attention it got? cos its not a government-based issue? true, the government runs the country but doesn't civil society have a part too? finally you see democracy at play in all its chaotic and rowdy nature. singaporeans were ACTUALLY engaged and passionate about something. is it really 'wrong' or 'bad' to feel about something that matters? i thought that builds a sense of identity, to feel a part of something.

and then conversely, singaporeans are accused of not being patriotic, labeled as 'quitters'. what gives?

then again, sometimes i wonder how much people care about the country. jackie chan recently said we don't have self-respect, when he talked about the ban of chewing gum. i have to say i agree. think about it. if your country mattered to you, do you REALLY need fines to stop you from littering or spitting? whatever happened to not doing such things because you take pride in the cleanliness of your country? you wouldn't litter and spit in your own house would you? i remember reading somewhere about jordanians who don't litter precisely because they don't want to dirty their country. they take pride in keeping their environment spick and span.

im not the most (maybe not at all) patriotic. but it pisses me off when people act in such an uncouth manner.

the best part is, some of these very same people would complain about people in our neighbouring countries. what really sets this apparently 'first world' country from others then?

grr.

what do the Ramayana and blues have in common?
nothing, until Nina Paley came along.

you see, the lady has created an animated version of the Ramayana and aptly called it, Sita Sings the Blues. and true to the title, you'll see a (dare-i-say) "sexy" Sita singing Annette Hanshaw's tunes.

i have to admit it was entertaining. many people think so too. they find the film refreshing and say it has spurred them to find out more about hinduism and the epic. and they should. the film gives a neat summary of the epic without going into too much details.

but this raises a question too. is it necessary to sex up such epics? in an interview, nina paley said she faced obstacles every step of the way: from copyright issues to opposition from hindu groups (im wondering if her caucasian background has any bearing on how those against her film have reacted).

it brings to mind the controversy surrounding the prophet muhammad cartoons a couple of years ago. the danes had called it 'freedom of speech'. nina paley calls her work an exercise of this right too, and her desire to produce art.

but where do we draw the line?

someone asked if it'd be acceptable if something similar was done to re-tell the story of jesus christ.

i'd like to know too.

quite recently everyone was doing a list of their 25 random things. i did it too. and so it was with much amusement i read the papers this morning and came across an article about the same list of quirks.

this one's written by daniel reimold visiting scholar at NTU. some made me smile:

1. they speak to me softly in perfect english, then turn around and scream in singlish to their friends. (this one strangely reminded me of vaid)

3. they admit they are apathetic, and speak about it passionately.

4. they complain about the lack of culture on their school campuses, then immediately go back to studying.

13. ..they pose everywhere. i recently saw a group of students smile for multiple pictures with their taxi driver at Clarke Quay. he was smiling too. the meter was running.

14. a few engage in serious blogging, but most just blog about their friends, and pets, and upload pictures of last night's dinner. (reminds me of some blogs i've read)

15. they are very productive during classes - at catching up with friends on MSN Messenger and updating their Facebook status. (took me back to one of those lectures in NUS)

20. their eyes have a tint of worldiness to them, especially the young men who've been through national service.

24. they love to dance..
25. but it does not mean they have rhythm. (some of us do)

for the full list, check out page B8 of the straits times on 16th march.

so virtually anything and everything's available (or will soon be) at mustafa centre. but one thing this 24-hour shopping centre doesn't offer me:

environmental-friendliness.

specifically, im troubled with the need to use plastic bags for every purchase. and i mean EVERY purchase.

yesterday i was there to buy earphones and a tiny box of saffron for my mum. both could fit comfortably into my pockets (thank you cargo pants). but the cashier insisted on giving me a bag for it. i even asked her if i could just put the items into my pocket. she refused as if i'd asked her whether she'd just farted.

i should have asked her why i couldn't leave without a bag. after all, there are a million cameras in the store. the entrances/exits have those 'sensor gates' (or whatever it is they're called).

anyways, i walked out of there, removed that plastic grip around the bag and gave it to the guy at the bag counter. and he told me to throw it into a bin nearby. this time i said no, adding that it could still be used.

i can't believe people can be so nonchalant about using or disposing of plastic bags without batting an eyelid. even when they don't necessarily need it. i mean, if one is already carrying a bag, why can't one just dump one's purchase in there? and if one does indeed have some weird fetish for plastic bags, please think about REUSE-ing them?!

once again, sometimes i wish i could do something to correct people who're environmentally-unfriendly.

grr.

i like how we humans have an obsession with a superiority complex: over other people and the animal kingdom.

just two weeks ago a plane ditched in New York's Hudson River, after what appeared to be a collision with a flock of birds.

shortly after, a report emerged which said BIRDS threaten OUR flights.

in today's Sunday Times, a writer calls birds a HAZARD to human beings.

my question is this: aren't WE the real HAZARD, and don't WE threaten THEIR flight?

birds have been flying for the longest time! we started about a hundred years ago. who's the newcomer up there? (and then we conveniently carve up air space and claim sovereignty, but that's a separate issue)

true enough, the birds poop on us. i've been hit before. but i don't think they actually have a system where they can control it or decide where to drop their bombs. just cos we can doesn't mean we should expect the same thing from animals. perhaps we can train them (but it seems some people still don't, what with dog's droppings on pavements. but i digress again).

(and if we're concerned about animals being 'pests', we should remember that we create the mess which invites them. think trash and other improperly disposed off food which draws the roaches and rats.)

my point is, we should stop being so selfish. we have infringed on nature so much already. to say nature's trespassing our space is just laughable and ridiculous!

Barack Obama's inauguration means so much to so many people. but it may not mean the same thing to any two people.

he is the son of a kenyan. he shares his name with a city/town in japan. he grew up in indonesia. heck, there's even an indonesian man who resembles obama. simply put, on one hand, obama's victory is significant by some form of association for some people.

others see him as an agent of change, a new president that will perhaps pull the US economy out of the mess it is in. a democrat who might change american policy on the wars in iraq and afghanistan, on guantanamo bay.

thing is, he could have been any other man to assume the most powerful position in the world. but Obama's a man of colour too.

im not being racist of course. at the risk of harping on the poignant moment we are passing through, obama taking office means so much more for african-americans. im not sure about the younger generation but it certainly holds much significance for the generation before them.

those people who were subjected to racism and segregation; those who were roused by martin luther king, those whose hopes were dashed when the civil rights leader was assassinated.

did they ever see this coming? i certainly never thought i'd see anyone but a white man lead the united states.

but the struggle against racism continues. not only in america, but in the rest of the world. obama's ascent to the presidency goes to show a dream can come true. and so it is possible for the rest of us to look past the colour of our skins. it'll take time. but im glad i have witnessed this step in the right direction.

at the same time, there is no room for complacency. obama's rise to power doesn't mean it'll be easier for people of colour to get what they want. we'll still have to work for what they want. if anything, obama's victory and rise to power should urge them to persevere, to make a difference.

in 2002, the best actor honours at the oscars went to african-americans: denzel washington and halle barry. only once before did an african-american win the top honours at the academy awards (sidney poitier). back then i felt a sense of achievement. i felt a sense of pride for people of colour.

today an african-american enters the white house. it is the 'giant leap for mankind', for our generation.

Straits Times reported a war of words among the three Khans in Hindi cinema: aamir, shah rukh, and salman.

i will not copy all of the text here, but thought it'd be nice to share this bit which i agree with (and yes, i suppose it does have to do with my srk bias anyways).

"People who are No. 1 don't state the obvious. For me, Amitabh Bachchan is No 1. Does he ever make claims about that? Does (singer) Lata Mangeshkar make claims about it? Superstars don't need to say anything about their status."

- Aamir Khan, on Shah Rukh Khan making claims about how big his brand name is.