Sunday, December 26, 2004
Monday, December 13, 2004
Snowballed - Singapore's Stonewall?
If you have ever visited, or ever get a chance to, a bar called Stonewall in New York City, you would probably shrug it off as just another watering hole and walk by. Those who know it for its significance will understand that that was the Ground Zero for the gay rights movement in NYC. The story is quite colorful. Drag queens holding police officers hostage. The Samson-ites taking on the Goliaths.
It may seem quite funny now, but then, it was a different world.
And to fight that world was a feat that took bravery only a feather boa could muster. And it was a feat that could have resulted in disaster. Fortunately for the Americans, what resulted was the birth of a beautiful rainbow.
Singapore has often been likened to the US of days gone by; one visiting American lecturer even put it down circa the 1950s-1960s (think Elizabeth Montgomery in Bewitched). The values and morals apparently mirror those of a simpler time in the great U S of A. But as history has shown for the Americans, values and morals change with the times. And it either evolves slowly, or its gets punched in the gut to move along.
The latter usually happens, when the so called conservative majority refuses to recognize that their world is changing or has already changed. It's what would eventually be termed in daytime talk shows, championed by Oprah herself, as denial.
So here it is. Singapore is in denial and she needs Dr. Phil.
You may have heard. The Singapore Police, that basically sees themselves as the upholder of public opinion, recently rejected the application for a licence by gay portal Fridae.com, to organize a year end dance party. For my international friends, in Singapore, you need a licence for everything. EVERYTHING. (read: if you have a dance show, you may have to dance for the authorities first before they allow your show to go on).
The Police claimed that they "do not discriminate against (gays), the Police also recognise that Singapore is still, by and large, a conservative and traditional society. Hence, the Police cannot approve any application for an event which goes against the moral values of a large majority of Singaporeans."
Some of those living in Singapore pointedly blame the recent events on a recent speech given by Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Senior Minister Of State For Information, Communications And The Arts & Health on the 27th November at the Singapore AIDS Conference. The sentiment was that Dr. Balaji's speech was anti-gay and served only to fire the prejudice of the conservatives.
But in assessing his speech made available on the official ministry website, http://www.moh.gov.sg/corp/about/newsroom/speeches/details.do?id=29294601, one may argue that much of what he has said has been taken out of context by the media.
In his speech, Dr. Balaji said that his ministry had 2 risk groups: "They are gays or MSM, ie Men having Sex with Men, and heterosexual men having casual sex abroad." He also added that "our specialists are worried about an explosion of AIDS cases among gays."
Dr.Balaji could be faulted for two things. His misinformed view that men having sex with men are exclusively gay, since apparently in his world bisexuality does not exist. To this I would say, go watch the movie Alexander, and if he really wants it, I could ask Oprah to send him a tape of her show on married men who love other men.
The second fault is just a misuse of the word explosion. Yes, it is true there have been more cases among the gay community recently. However, the leading advocate for HIV prevention in SIngapore Action for Aids, states that 'heterosexual spread is now the main method of transmission in Singapore. And over 75% of infections around the world are acquired through heterosexual intercourse'.
As Dr Rev Yap Kim How, former Bishop of The Methodist Church in Singapore & Malaysia states: "The gay community has done much, much more than the heterosexual community that I belong to in addressing sexuality and related sexual diseases and their prevention. It is in the heterosexual community that we need more education on such matters."
So while Dr.Balaji concedes, that "promiscuity is a risk factor for both gays and heterosexuals", the media have pounced on certain gay related statements and blew them up to be bigger than a water filled condom.
Andy Ho, a journalist with a local daily, connected Dr.Balaji's statement of 'an alarming Aids epidemic', with his interpretation that "gay men's unsafe sex practices were the biggest cause for concern". Needless to say, the last statement was not featured in Dr.Balaji's transcripts.
The journalist goes on to say:
"Urged on by new, disinhibiting club drugs like Ecstasy (in combination with Viagra), risky behaviour is now, compared to the pre-Haart era, twice as likely for HIV-positive gays and one-and-a-half-times more
likely for HIV-negative gays. In fact, according to the UCSF study mentioned above, a third of gays with HIV feel that Haart has made unprotected sex that much more thinkable for them now."
His conclusion was to question the logic of making anti-virals inexpensive and readily available since they make "HIV-positive gay fit enough to cruise around for casual, anonymous and risky sex, thereby spreading his virus and fuelling the second wave". Gay people are seen, therefore as loaded guns, in spite of the rate of transmission among heterosexuals. But I could share with Mr.Ho, how many straight men I know, married and single, locals and expats, spread themselves thinly and secretly, in search of the golden orgasm, he would realize that anonymous and risky sex is not exclusive to gay people. Casual sex is not driven by sexual preference, its driven by horniness and hormones. And that my dear Mr.Ho, anyone can choose to have, unless Mr.Ho himself does not understand the concept of being horny. Hm.
Mr.Ho's concerns are fueled by perceptions.
In his own words he believes the "gay world ... glorifies muscles, partying, drugs and anonymous sex". Furthermore, he believes that "to change their sexual behaviour will require going beyond publicity
campaigns. Instead, issues that belong more in the therapist's office, like self-esteem and self-hatred, will have to be confronted".
Mr.Ho's perceptions are even more dangerous than most, for if the authorities were to weight them in, people maybe find anti-virals that they actually need survive to be inaccessible by cost. Making his perceptions not only damning, but murderous.
It is interesting that Mr.Ho, like Dr.Balaji and Singaporean conservatives, believes that again the gay community are only made up on men. In Singapore, the concept of GLBT sounds more like a food item (think BLT). His perception that gay people possess issues of self-esteem issues and self-hatred is not only outright strange and prejudicial, it also undermines and devalues the moderate majority who live extremely actualized regular lives (some better than on his journalist salary). In his view, one can argue that Mr.Ho believes that gay people are lesser creatures deserving medical help to get over their problem of 'wrongly' identifying themselves in the sexual orientation bracket.
Certainly, as in any segment of society, there will be those in the gay community with issues. These issues are undoubtedly fueled by the negativity the press projects onto the conservatives. It becomes a question of right to exist, not exclusively on the morality of a different lifestyle.
Case in point: A ex-colleague in the media company I belonged to, revealed at the end of his tenure that he was gay. He chose to keep that a secret while he was still with the company for several reasons: that in spite of the fact diversity was considered the norm for most media companies, he didn't feel that same level of acceptance in this one. He also felt that his career needed to be protected for he viewed his department head to be a homophobe. Whether this is actually true is debatable. I will say that she did label yours truly as 'creative', a term I viewed as her catch phrase for 'gay'. She would add also that 'creative' people are loud and had an impression that one cannot take some things they do seriously (read: non-managerial material).
The bottom line is impressions lead people to react. And impressions are seldom factual.
That media company has more gays, lesbians and bisexuals I don't even care to count. The sad truth is, even in an American MNC that champions creativity, diversity, equality and originality in the United States, the so called labeled 'creative' people are forced to hide their identity out of fear. Fear of reprisals, of having their rice bowls affected, of being treated different.
The closet, or as we say it in Asia, wardrobe is literally a 'big one' in that company.
But even as sexual preference is apparently not an issue in terrestrial media, as many of the top executives are openly part of the family, the fears are real and affect many segments of Singapore society.
So the story has come to this.
The man acting as the husband in the Bewitched series was himself gay. Making he and Elizabeth Montgomery total professionals for all that kissing they had to do at the end of each episode. Oh, so they had gay people in the white bread, white picket fences era in America too!
Singapore is no longer stuck in a time warp of pre-Disco America.
The media plays an important role in forging opinions.
Singapore is, regardless of denials, a very, very gay country.
So, where do we go from here?
The rejection of the licence just serves to fuel to the slowly burning flame. An American friend told me that Stonewall happened because the gay community was tired of unfair treatment, of continually living in an air of being tolerated but not accepted, their right of existence being controlled for the shrinking conservatives.
Perhaps Snowball may fire up the younger GLBT community out of their Singaporean apathy and do something to claim their right to the world, and to eradicate impressions that a person like Mr. Andy Ho possess.
Or perhaps this international controversy may dwindle to an ember. But an ember still has heat. And it is foreseeable that it is a matter of time before Singapore breaks its own pattern of denial and recognize that the gay community is here, and is here to stay.
Watch this small space in the world. This writer will commit to this: Singapore will play an important part in GLBT rights in Asia, and the economics of recognizing the GLBT community will soon be too hard to ignore, whether she likes it or not.
Peace.
The Snowball Controversy:
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=1359&viewarticle=1&searchtype=all
The International Response:
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=1360&viewarticle=1&searchtype=all
The HIV Statistics:
http://www.afa.org.sg/astats.htm
------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:
This is a private message and the personal views of this writer does not reflect those of anyone mentioned within the article. At no time can this article be reproduced without permission by the writer.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Net Chats
A girlfriend of mine has just had the closest thing to being reborn. She joined the international chat community, she is an official Netizen.
It was interesting seeing her take her first few paces. A myriad of emotions seemed to overwhelm her. Excitement, surprise, uncertainty among others. Watching her was like a watching a flashback in time, when I first started chatting.
Phew. I've said it. I chat.
Certainly there shouldn't be any stigma associated with this. After all, it's supposed to be harmless anonymous communication with just about anyone with a computer. Web businesses have just about made a killing with this phenomenon, so what could possibly be wrong with it? Why did a part of me want to warn my friend about the perils of chatting?
The perils do not lie with the very concept of chatting. When you think about it, chatting is nothing more than a first introduction, with the chat software replacing a friend or family member as the middle man. Some liken it to meeting someone in a bar. Without the fear of immediate rejection.
Which brings me to a point. The fear of rejection is alive and well in cyberspace. It is this morbid and paralyzing fear of rejection that generates the first problem associated with chatting. Some people create profiles that are best kept to fantasy novels. Height, weight, waist size are either inaccurate or total fabrications. For unlike a bar setting where the visual impact cannot be hidden, the chat room buys you time. Perhaps the personality can overcome any initial concerns by the other party. So what could have been an immediate rejection could become a later acceptance based on a deeper connection. Yeah, right. A lie is a lie even in cyberspace.
The moralist in me wants to say if you can't be proud of who you are, and if other won't accept you for who you are, then stuff it.
But then again, there are other reasons why people go down the yellow brick road. Some have said that they get tired of using their real profiles and pictures only to have others hijack them for their own use. Fake profiles are so rampant that seriously no one knows who they are talking to anymore. And in an age where paedophiles and flesh eating men are scouring cyberspace, that is something to be truly concerned about.
Beyond the issue of identity though, you have to wonder what can come next from a chat. My girlfriend was mortified, being a net virgin that she is, to have had men offering to show her their willies on camera. Of course for the newbie that could be absolutely disgusting. But how long after the barrage of offers before curiosity sets in, you give in and you end up questioning your entire moral values. Is it wrong to see other willing and able adults bare all for cyberspace? Is it odd to be turned on by people you can't even touch?
Is it even odder that many chatters seem to have a dislike to take things to the next level? And hello, we aren't talking sex...yet. Text communication is one thing. Voice communication is another. And if you are in the same vicinity, face to face communication is the final goal. The 'bar' setting. Theoretically of course.
Many feel that taking the voice step is a huge one to take. And meeting in person, well, that is just too risky. I guess when people become used to communicating in cyberspace, real time becomes real hard.
Perhaps the fear of rejection is the prevalent issue still. It is so easy to hide behind text, a profile (real or fake) and not have to deal with the hassle of a real meeting. I have personally chatted with people who seem so wonderful online, but who refuse to talk on the phone or even meet. They seem more comfortable carrying on 'anonymous' chatting, which becomes ridiculous since chats eventually betray some part of yourself to the other person. How does anyone conduct anonymous chats when after a while it's no longer chats between strangers?
Of course there are the exceptions. There are people who are actually open to the possibility of making that great friend, or even lover. I too have heard the Hollywood fairy tale of people meeting their life partners through the internet. Whether we want to admit it or not, we all have secret desire to have a "You've Got Mail" scenario happen to us. We've all wanted to speak of a lot of 'nothings' that add up to a 'something'. Net relationships, like any real time connection takes time to develop, even longer I would argue. Trust is something that has left the room in cyberspace and it takes a leap of faith to say you really know the person you met online. But if real time meetings fail, then do we really have to blame it on the net? Could it be that real time dynamics and chemistry just did not work, as it could have been in say a 'bar' setting?
Still, imagine meeting that person. Imagine having a great time. Imagine being intimate. Invariably the question lingers, is this person putting on an act? Is this person for real? So even if real time dynamics work, what would I say to my friends and family about where I met this person? "Hi Mom, Dad, this is David, he is a US Navy man and I met him on the net...He's wonderful!!!". Yeah right. You don't know what's worse in terms of image: the fact he is a navy man or you met him on the net.
The stigma of a net chat.
Should I warn my girlfriend about the perils of chatting? Should I spare her the sleepless nights of chatting only to get a handful of truly meaningful relationships over a span of years?
I don't know. But I will say this. When you think about the old way of communicating, through the written word on paper, through letters, you realize how far we have come. But the sentimentalist in all of us will remember the joy of receiving a letter from a pen pal, cherishing every word that was written and every postage stamp that got it to its destination. Perhaps technology has made communication so disposable it becomes too easy to say things you don't necessarily mean or feel. And it has made language a bastardized construct as opposed to the art form it was before.
It's funny. While technology and communication is supposed to bring people closer together, it seems to be taking them apart. It becomes a pity that a fantastic medium of instant connection is not exploited for its true value. I admit I have chatted with a lot of people over say 4 years. But I can count with my fingers how many I have kept in touch with and forged meaningful relationships with. Perhaps though, those few people out of the thousands, and the hope of meeting yet another one of those great real people, make the next click on the mouse worth it.
It was interesting seeing her take her first few paces. A myriad of emotions seemed to overwhelm her. Excitement, surprise, uncertainty among others. Watching her was like a watching a flashback in time, when I first started chatting.
Phew. I've said it. I chat.
Certainly there shouldn't be any stigma associated with this. After all, it's supposed to be harmless anonymous communication with just about anyone with a computer. Web businesses have just about made a killing with this phenomenon, so what could possibly be wrong with it? Why did a part of me want to warn my friend about the perils of chatting?
The perils do not lie with the very concept of chatting. When you think about it, chatting is nothing more than a first introduction, with the chat software replacing a friend or family member as the middle man. Some liken it to meeting someone in a bar. Without the fear of immediate rejection.
Which brings me to a point. The fear of rejection is alive and well in cyberspace. It is this morbid and paralyzing fear of rejection that generates the first problem associated with chatting. Some people create profiles that are best kept to fantasy novels. Height, weight, waist size are either inaccurate or total fabrications. For unlike a bar setting where the visual impact cannot be hidden, the chat room buys you time. Perhaps the personality can overcome any initial concerns by the other party. So what could have been an immediate rejection could become a later acceptance based on a deeper connection. Yeah, right. A lie is a lie even in cyberspace.
The moralist in me wants to say if you can't be proud of who you are, and if other won't accept you for who you are, then stuff it.
But then again, there are other reasons why people go down the yellow brick road. Some have said that they get tired of using their real profiles and pictures only to have others hijack them for their own use. Fake profiles are so rampant that seriously no one knows who they are talking to anymore. And in an age where paedophiles and flesh eating men are scouring cyberspace, that is something to be truly concerned about.
Beyond the issue of identity though, you have to wonder what can come next from a chat. My girlfriend was mortified, being a net virgin that she is, to have had men offering to show her their willies on camera. Of course for the newbie that could be absolutely disgusting. But how long after the barrage of offers before curiosity sets in, you give in and you end up questioning your entire moral values. Is it wrong to see other willing and able adults bare all for cyberspace? Is it odd to be turned on by people you can't even touch?
Is it even odder that many chatters seem to have a dislike to take things to the next level? And hello, we aren't talking sex...yet. Text communication is one thing. Voice communication is another. And if you are in the same vicinity, face to face communication is the final goal. The 'bar' setting. Theoretically of course.
Many feel that taking the voice step is a huge one to take. And meeting in person, well, that is just too risky. I guess when people become used to communicating in cyberspace, real time becomes real hard.
Perhaps the fear of rejection is the prevalent issue still. It is so easy to hide behind text, a profile (real or fake) and not have to deal with the hassle of a real meeting. I have personally chatted with people who seem so wonderful online, but who refuse to talk on the phone or even meet. They seem more comfortable carrying on 'anonymous' chatting, which becomes ridiculous since chats eventually betray some part of yourself to the other person. How does anyone conduct anonymous chats when after a while it's no longer chats between strangers?
Of course there are the exceptions. There are people who are actually open to the possibility of making that great friend, or even lover. I too have heard the Hollywood fairy tale of people meeting their life partners through the internet. Whether we want to admit it or not, we all have secret desire to have a "You've Got Mail" scenario happen to us. We've all wanted to speak of a lot of 'nothings' that add up to a 'something'. Net relationships, like any real time connection takes time to develop, even longer I would argue. Trust is something that has left the room in cyberspace and it takes a leap of faith to say you really know the person you met online. But if real time meetings fail, then do we really have to blame it on the net? Could it be that real time dynamics and chemistry just did not work, as it could have been in say a 'bar' setting?
Still, imagine meeting that person. Imagine having a great time. Imagine being intimate. Invariably the question lingers, is this person putting on an act? Is this person for real? So even if real time dynamics work, what would I say to my friends and family about where I met this person? "Hi Mom, Dad, this is David, he is a US Navy man and I met him on the net...He's wonderful!!!". Yeah right. You don't know what's worse in terms of image: the fact he is a navy man or you met him on the net.
The stigma of a net chat.
Should I warn my girlfriend about the perils of chatting? Should I spare her the sleepless nights of chatting only to get a handful of truly meaningful relationships over a span of years?
I don't know. But I will say this. When you think about the old way of communicating, through the written word on paper, through letters, you realize how far we have come. But the sentimentalist in all of us will remember the joy of receiving a letter from a pen pal, cherishing every word that was written and every postage stamp that got it to its destination. Perhaps technology has made communication so disposable it becomes too easy to say things you don't necessarily mean or feel. And it has made language a bastardized construct as opposed to the art form it was before.
It's funny. While technology and communication is supposed to bring people closer together, it seems to be taking them apart. It becomes a pity that a fantastic medium of instant connection is not exploited for its true value. I admit I have chatted with a lot of people over say 4 years. But I can count with my fingers how many I have kept in touch with and forged meaningful relationships with. Perhaps though, those few people out of the thousands, and the hope of meeting yet another one of those great real people, make the next click on the mouse worth it.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Bush is back
BIG SIGH.
Bush is back.
It is interesting to generally see the bigger US cities supported Kerry. Could it possibly be big cities are where people with passports live? Or perhaps disposable income rich GLBT people reside there?
It is more telling that the yeehaaww colonies backed Bush. Unsurprising really. Let me tell you my experience in MIddle America before my family moved to a bigger city.
Not a lot of international news. Newspapers preferred to cover local news, read: "firefighters save dog from burning house". Lots of greasy junk food and refillable soda fountains.
A distant in law said: Oh yes i travel, I was in Las Vegas last year. Internationally? Oh NO. I cant stand long flights. There is a big world out there? Na, I dont like long flights. I don't have a passport.
Reaction: my eyes rolled to the sky so violently, they fell out of their sockets and onto the floor. And I might add, it was so hard to be plastic and smile politely. It appeared that there were enough ignorant people in Middle America that are so devoid of having an international perspective they are like a blank page you can write nonsense on. Singapore is in China. Tropical means only Hawaii. Filipinos are Latin American cousins. Bush is actually smart and Bushism should be put into the Oxford dictionary.
These people live in areas that Bush may have forgotten; there are people who are by Asian terms, very Kampung, very rural village. Economically challenged. Streets uncared for. Small dollar stores. Forget about Tiffany or Kenneth Cole. And Victoria's Secrets is something only naughty prostitute like girls wear.
I saw shops that have been abandoned, rows and rows of them. It was like a scene out of Bowling for Columbine. The mood was catching. Staying there too long would destroy your spirit. You would end up like the dust on the walls of those abandoned shops. Where was Bush's pro-employment initiatives there?
So I am glad I have my passport to bring me to places where life isn't dictated by fear and depression, even as the US is insisting even residents from the visa waiver program would have to get fingerprinted.
It will be more of a hassle to get in to the US I am sure. I foresee the walls of Fortress America getting higher and higher. And with the news of evangelical vote, the divide between Christian pro Israel US and the Islamic world may increase as well.
A Channel NewsAsia report before the results were announced interviewed an American male living in Singapore.
He said that he could not get over how non Americans are so concerned about the elections that should only be a matter for American citizens to grapple with. He said that all the issues Bush was discussing during the campaign trail, even about terror, was relevant only to Americans. Therefore, he concluded, it was basically no one else's business. Perhaps he was right, since news reports showed that Americans voted finally based on shared values, not about international politics and the US's conduct in it.
Still that interviewee seems to have wasted his time living away from home. If a blonde like Cameron Diaz can tell television viewers that having travelled widely, she realized Americans are alone in the world, then it is clear that American politics does affect other countries and should be viewed as inseparable from World politics. One must also remember a massive CNN initiative with the Oprah Winfrey Show before Iraq was invaded (notice the use of the word), where noted anchors/reporters made it clear that in every part of the world, on the ground the US has lost moral authority in the way it was conducting itself on the global stage.
That American in Singapore has shut his eyes to the impact his country has on others. Perhaps he is in Singapore to live up to his capitalist background. Take the riches of another place for one's own gain, then leave, never caring what has been left behind. It is colonialism for the new millennium.
And perhaps he could not see that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Global negative opinion towards a nation cannot be the fault of those that share that sentiment. It is illogical to accept that. Those that would are blind and arrogant. Much like the arrogance displayed at the post victory news conference today where much was elaborated on how freedom and democracy is a must for every nation of the world, and that is the only way to protect the safety of Americans in the long term. Have Americans ever wondered, who voted them to decide what is best for others? And if American politics is only a concern for citizens, why do they think they then have the moral right to interfere in other nations' politics? And is it possible that a different way of life could actually be ok?
Arrogance.
In classic Bush like form. And like the Ugly American visitor, the Channel NewsAsia interviewee. He is pro Bush.
It is sad.
Four more bad years.
BIG SIGH.
---------
footnote: it is funny. If democracy is so fantastic, then why hasn't Bush forced it into Brunei? Is Brunei a democracy, being Islamic and having a Sultan as an overall ruler? Probably does not matter either way, Brunei is rich. Politics may be politics, but money still rules ultimately.
Bush is back.
It is interesting to generally see the bigger US cities supported Kerry. Could it possibly be big cities are where people with passports live? Or perhaps disposable income rich GLBT people reside there?
It is more telling that the yeehaaww colonies backed Bush. Unsurprising really. Let me tell you my experience in MIddle America before my family moved to a bigger city.
Not a lot of international news. Newspapers preferred to cover local news, read: "firefighters save dog from burning house". Lots of greasy junk food and refillable soda fountains.
A distant in law said: Oh yes i travel, I was in Las Vegas last year. Internationally? Oh NO. I cant stand long flights. There is a big world out there? Na, I dont like long flights. I don't have a passport.
Reaction: my eyes rolled to the sky so violently, they fell out of their sockets and onto the floor. And I might add, it was so hard to be plastic and smile politely. It appeared that there were enough ignorant people in Middle America that are so devoid of having an international perspective they are like a blank page you can write nonsense on. Singapore is in China. Tropical means only Hawaii. Filipinos are Latin American cousins. Bush is actually smart and Bushism should be put into the Oxford dictionary.
These people live in areas that Bush may have forgotten; there are people who are by Asian terms, very Kampung, very rural village. Economically challenged. Streets uncared for. Small dollar stores. Forget about Tiffany or Kenneth Cole. And Victoria's Secrets is something only naughty prostitute like girls wear.
I saw shops that have been abandoned, rows and rows of them. It was like a scene out of Bowling for Columbine. The mood was catching. Staying there too long would destroy your spirit. You would end up like the dust on the walls of those abandoned shops. Where was Bush's pro-employment initiatives there?
So I am glad I have my passport to bring me to places where life isn't dictated by fear and depression, even as the US is insisting even residents from the visa waiver program would have to get fingerprinted.
It will be more of a hassle to get in to the US I am sure. I foresee the walls of Fortress America getting higher and higher. And with the news of evangelical vote, the divide between Christian pro Israel US and the Islamic world may increase as well.
A Channel NewsAsia report before the results were announced interviewed an American male living in Singapore.
He said that he could not get over how non Americans are so concerned about the elections that should only be a matter for American citizens to grapple with. He said that all the issues Bush was discussing during the campaign trail, even about terror, was relevant only to Americans. Therefore, he concluded, it was basically no one else's business. Perhaps he was right, since news reports showed that Americans voted finally based on shared values, not about international politics and the US's conduct in it.
Still that interviewee seems to have wasted his time living away from home. If a blonde like Cameron Diaz can tell television viewers that having travelled widely, she realized Americans are alone in the world, then it is clear that American politics does affect other countries and should be viewed as inseparable from World politics. One must also remember a massive CNN initiative with the Oprah Winfrey Show before Iraq was invaded (notice the use of the word), where noted anchors/reporters made it clear that in every part of the world, on the ground the US has lost moral authority in the way it was conducting itself on the global stage.
That American in Singapore has shut his eyes to the impact his country has on others. Perhaps he is in Singapore to live up to his capitalist background. Take the riches of another place for one's own gain, then leave, never caring what has been left behind. It is colonialism for the new millennium.
And perhaps he could not see that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Global negative opinion towards a nation cannot be the fault of those that share that sentiment. It is illogical to accept that. Those that would are blind and arrogant. Much like the arrogance displayed at the post victory news conference today where much was elaborated on how freedom and democracy is a must for every nation of the world, and that is the only way to protect the safety of Americans in the long term. Have Americans ever wondered, who voted them to decide what is best for others? And if American politics is only a concern for citizens, why do they think they then have the moral right to interfere in other nations' politics? And is it possible that a different way of life could actually be ok?
Arrogance.
In classic Bush like form. And like the Ugly American visitor, the Channel NewsAsia interviewee. He is pro Bush.
It is sad.
Four more bad years.
BIG SIGH.
---------
footnote: it is funny. If democracy is so fantastic, then why hasn't Bush forced it into Brunei? Is Brunei a democracy, being Islamic and having a Sultan as an overall ruler? Probably does not matter either way, Brunei is rich. Politics may be politics, but money still rules ultimately.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Fragrance Reviews - Men Only
When the names of fragrances are permutations of the word ‘men’, you know it’s going to take some doing to separate the men from the boys.
What will it take to get red-blooded men rushing to the store? Could it be the FiFi awards (the Oscars of the fragrance industry) the scents have won? Or perhaps the packaging? Well, the following five fragrances have found ways to hit the right spots. Follow the finger snaps (1 for EW! to 5 for AH!) and you’ll know how to choose.
Jean Paul Gaultier – Le Male
Finally! A scent we can call our own!
Admit it: we do judge a man by his package. And in this case JPG wants you to judge Le Male (or The Male to you Anglophiles...duh) by its packaging.
A bottle in the shape of a muscular torso in a sailor’s outfit can cure any man’s homo-erectile dysfunction. It’s the stuff gay men’s fantasies are made of, and using the iconic sailor is a validation that gay culture is merging into mainstream consciousness. Mind you, a straight man might be tempted to push that poor excuse of a homo-wannabe status called metrosexual a little further!
Still, smooth sexy body aside, it’s always the inside that counts. A fine mix of lavender, mint, orange blossom and vanilla makes this scent sweet, and almost romantic. Fear not, sweet doesn’t mean feminine, and its musky undertones ensure that.
This is one distinctive scent that will make you unforgettable and it guarantees attention. Absolutely love it. Wear it like a badge on your sleeve, it solidifies your indentity without having to be draped in Pride colors! What does it deserve?
Verdict: 5 Snaps with both hands baby!
Dolce and Gabbana –Pour Homme
Have you ever arrived at the airport to check into cattle class, only to envy the gentleman walking confidently into the First Class lounge?
Well, guess what he would be wearing on his body? If it’s not you (yet), don’t worry. You can still get there if you run out and get Dolce & Gabbana Pour Homme (For Men…duh again).
Its sophistication starts right out the box. The blue velvety feel is as elegant as a Dolce and Gabbana fall collection suit, and the bottle follows a clean, uncluttered line.
The fragrance follows this idea through. The lemon, orange and lavender essences is surprisingly fresh and calm at the same time. It wraps around you without being overpowering. This is a scent that is truly an accessory, not the main attraction.
It would not be out of place in Monte Carlo or the French Riviera. It doesn’t scream, “Look at me!” and is more likely to suit the self assured, global traveler who gets invited to black tie events.
If you are yet to experience the joys of First Class, try this fragrance first. Aspiration always begins with inspiration.
Verdict: 4 Snaps in a Discrete Round the World Fashion
Marc Jacobs – Men
The bottle and the packaging would have us believe that men are as simple as a brick. I can’t say it wows me but together they garnered a FiFi for best packaging of 2003! Go figure.
The scent is something else though. It is certainly in a class of its own. It is distinctive although because it isn’t as visible or provocative (or targeted) as say, Le Male, it will take a while for people to catch up with recognition.
The first testing conjured up these words: creamy, coconut, tropical. I know it’s odd but smelling this made me want to order a pina colada and put on my tanning lotion.
Perhaps it is the rich, heavy odor of gardenia with honeysuckle. Or perhaps it’s the Egyptian jasmine, which is the costliest scent in the fragrance, that imparts the smooth silky mood.
Seeing that this scent is also a FiFi winner for Fragrance of the Year, it must have done something right. If you like your scents light, this could be for you. Now if only the packaging comes complete with your own beach boy!
Verdict: 3.5 snaps (as in snap, snap, snap and that’s enough!)
Chanel – Allure Men
I love Allure period. Case closed.
Seriously though, Chanel really knows how to make a person stand out without having to be outlandish. The ring on its cap is all it needs to attract attention. That is the mark of great style, which is what this fragrance is about.
I could go on and on about its composition, such as the sweetness of vanilla and the earthiness of patchouli. But to truly appreciate Allure Men is to understand the mastery in how it’s crafted.
Most fragrances "dry down" and smell different from the start to the finish. First you smell top notes, then middle, then base. Allure is rare in the fact that it is a multi-note fragrance that does not dry down in this fashion, but rather consistently maintains its own integrity.
Similarly, style is consistent. And the man who chooses this scent possesses this quality. He is comfortable in his own skin; he is not a wannabe. Imagine a man who is able to walk tall in tuxedo pants and sandals. Why? Because it’s just him. It’s the small details that sets him apart. They say that God is in the details, and if that is true, Allure is pure heaven. Really, really love this one.
Verdict: 5 snaps in a sweeping circle (like a Chanel ring!)
Ralph Lauren – Polo Blue
FiFi winner? Really? This is like Marisa Tomei winning the Oscar!
The flask like bottle is a yawn. And the blue packaging is a little expected. But the fragrance? Fortunately it is a little more than what was expected. There is a refreshing perkiness when you first spray it on, thanks to its top notes of cucumber and tangerine. And I am happy to report that this zing still carries through even though the dry down notes of basil and moss sets it down to a warm and spicy base.
Ralph Lauren says this latest fragrance is for the man who is masculine without being macho. I say that this fragrance is ‘safe’ and is for the homo in the blue jeans. This is not for the guy in that great Zegna suit, or the Zara shopathoner. This is for the man who prioritizes casual comfort over sharp elegance. He is the guy who labels himself as straight acting although there is nothing straight about him.
He is the anti-thesis of the guy who would love Le Male. Don’t misunderstand me, there is nothing wrong with the blue jeans dude. So if this is right up your alley, spray spray spray. I however, like my Zegnas. So….
Verdict: 3 Snaps, done really slowly…..
Saturday, August 28, 2004
People are Dispensable, Like Sweaters
NOTE: THIS IS A SIMPLY A PIECE OF CREATIVE WRITING, INSPIRED BY A WELL WRITTEN NOTE (SEE BELOW). IT IS NOT MEANT TO DEMEAN OR BELITTLE OR DEGRADE THE CONTENT OF THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE. THIS PIECE IS JUST SOMETHING YOU WOULD EXPECT IF THERE WAS SUCH A THING AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IN SINGAPORE. A VALUABLE PRIVILEGE FOUND ONLY IN AMERICA AND EUROPE (NOT TOO SURE ABT GREAT BRITAIN THOUGH).
DO LAUGH DISCREETLY IF YOU MUST. BUT PLEASE RESPECT THE SWEATERS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As all of you undoubtedly now realize, when I have something to say I say it and money cannot buy me off from speaking my mind and fear cannot change my values and principles (other people may differ).
Redundancies unfortunately happens when you buy two sweaters of the same color. When you buy two sweaters of different colors, they serve different purposes. When you have bought too many sweaters and your wardrobe is full, you take responsibility and blame yourself for being greedy. Then if you need to clear the space in the wardrobe, you offer the sweaters to loving homes or to the less fortunate who can benefit from their beauty. But oh, to throw them in the waste basket would be, well a waste. Since they are after all beautiful.
But decisions like (these) are enormously difficult and they are arrived only after serious thought. Which to go, which to stay, which will make my dirty past go away. Oops. Is there truly a way to decide logically? Perhaps its best to go with, which sweater suits your personality and temperament. Your type of sweater. Even if they are basic black or tartan checks. And trash the rest that doesn't feel your new vibe.
But still, decisions like these are made for one reason only, to simply do what is best for the wardrobe, and one's plans to make it more suited to one's taste, and a possible expansion of that taste. Of course if you really want to do what is best for the wardrobe, you might consider making space in the ENTIRE wardrobe, and not just the sweater drawer. For example, say, the socks drawers too, and hmm, the underwear drawer. After all, just clearing sweaters won't truly clear up too much space and may make you look like you have something against your own sweaters, one may even call it a grudge or personal gripe against the clothing article that has worked so hard to keep you warm. Na. You don't want to be seen to be ungrateful.
But fashion is an ever changing entity, and although fashion should be about more than just sweaters, sweaters can never take their positions in the wardrobe for granted, unless they come back in style somehow in a few years. But by that time, you would buy the same designs again at higher prices anyway. Still the clearing of stock for one season is a limited event, and no further reduction should be anticipated....until the wardrobe needs freshening up next season of course.
Well, the future will look positive once you have more space. And you certainly can entertain ambitious plans to make your wardrobe even better than before, especially if you remove colors and just have basic black for every day of the year.
So while it is a difficult and unusual experience for most people to clear out their wardrobe, they should do it and get over it.
After all, what's a bunch of beautiful sweaters?
Sent:
To: All Singapore Staff
Subject:
As all of you undoubtedly now realise several redundancies were unfortunately announced today. Decisions like this are enormously difficult for all concerned and they are arrived at only after serious thought and for one reason only. The reason is simply what is best for the company, its shareholders and employees. Companies are ever changing entities and while none of us can ever take our positions for granted no further reduction in staff numbers are anticipated
The future is looking very positive for HBO Asia and we are hoping to announce some ambitious plans for the company soon.
I realise this is a difficult and unusual experience for most but I hope all can put things behind them as we move the business of HBO Asia forward.
------------------------
footnote: the lady on the left of me, the one with the rose, i considered as my sister in the office. she stabbed everyone in the back including her boss, and eventually assumed her boss' position. way to go office politics!
oh and the fat guy next to me, is the main protagonist in everything that has happened , but of course that does not mean squat in terms of being humane and fair. am i bitter....NAAAA...anyone who has fantasies about japanese schoolgirls in stockings needs our sympathy. nuff said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)