Random

I've got nothing important to say this time, so lets talk about crap.

Ages ago, i accidentally found a website about random confessions in which people are telling their secrets. Nothing more exciting than knowing about peoples skeleton in their closet.

I'd better stop here and give some of the confessions and the tags as well.

Silent is golden
1. i do really smelly silent farts and everyone blames the office vegan who sits two desks down from me.

Notes on A Scandal
2. i deliberately repeated year 12 so i could be over 18 and have an affair with my english teacher. (seemed to be well-planned, didnt it)

Bowling for colombines
3. I hate all humanity.

Monster in law
4. i pretend to like all the crappy girly presents my mother in law gives me (like make up, and handbags), and then give them to my friends as birthday and christmas presents.

Catch me if you can
5. I like to steal things from Woolworths. It makes me feel good.

While you were sleeping
6. i pretended to be asleep during sex more than once with my ex boyfriend so that he would hurry up and cum so i could actually go back to real sleep.

You've got mail
7. i sent an anonymous note through internal mail to a guy i work with telling him how sexy i thought he was, but it ended up going to the wrong desk. now the really unattractive accounts guy thinks he's hot and tries to chat up all the girls in the office.

Happy Feet
8. I love sniffing my feet. Especially when they've been in enclosed shoes all day. I have a feet fetish.

Getting some information

If you'd like to get information on something, the best way will be going straight to the source. Alternatively, you could ask friends and families who might know a bit or experienced something that you are after. Hypothetically, you will do the second option if the first one is unavailable.

These days, where internet access is as important as holiday, you can find anything on-line. The problem is to find websites that is updated regularly. Aware of the importance of having websites, many government offices in Indonesia also have their websites despite the update is done every full-moon or depending on the mood of the webmaster.

The bad thing is of course when you don't have internet access. But don't worry as your friends or families might have information that you're looking for. So you can ask your aunty's friend who works at travel agent about visa matters instead of going off to the embassy and make enquiry.

Some people in Indonesia tend to choose the second option. Fair enough for those who consider internet access is luxurious thing. But if it is not expensive to go to the main source, going to the place makes this efforts is worthwhile. I am not sure why the probability is bigger to opt for the second one. Here are some reasons why the second option is preferred.

1. I don't think the civil services in Indonesia are helpful enough with people who need information. Although there is a reception desk at the front, you can probably find them at the back: smoking or playing chess or doing both of them simultaneously. If you are lucky, they might have been giggling to see homemade porns of Indonesians couples on their mobiles.

2. Even if they are on their desk and happy to answer your questions, you will probably be left confused after that conversation as they like to beat around the bush (my friend calls this beating around the bush habit keris philosophy as their way of thought is following the shape of keris which has sinuous blades and is becoming straight at the end, get it?). As this happens, you begin to realise that you are having a lesson on the euphemism language used in the bureaucracy.

3. Inconsistency of information is also discouraging factor for people who make enquiry. One person has different information than the others. Signs do not match with the actual facts, particularly when it comes to price.

4. When you get there, you may perhaps see some people pushing into the only counter available and pull out their magical lines: "i am friend of such and such, i was told by such and such to see you...".

5. You can go ballistic on them but must be wary of the repercussion as they will gang up against you.

6. If you are lucky enough, you will find security guards very helpful and to your surprise, they can be more knowledgeable than the receptionist.

Having calculated these scenarios, of course, you will realise that getting information from the government office in Indonesia is like a mission of finding dr. Livingstone (i presume?). So it sounds very 'efficient' to find out from your own circles. It cost you nothing and if it is not satisfying, you won't loose anything.

Putting all information on-line is sometimes not always good. It undermines the role of receptionist. Moreover, an updated-website-until-the-last-minute will be a good excuse to cut off conversation and i thought this is another way to say: 'fuck off'. You will discouragingly ask the question to the bimbo who is only interested in nail, hair, and shoes and her enticingly rebellious boyfriend.

Thank God, this does not happen in Indonesia and i'll be happy to ask my uncles and aunties, friends and cousins or pay someone else to do it.

Bad English

When i started uni, my lecturers always reminded us that we should write cogently by writing with simple structure and using less jargon. Good writers are always writing clearly so others will find it easy to understand what they'd like to talk about. They also warn us not be tempted to use the jargon if we don't really know how to use it appropriately. They then ended their advise by lamenting how painful it was to mark bad essays which have complicated sentences, unstructured arguments, poor references, and so on. I agree partly with them, except their complains about bad essays.

Surely they know how does it feel to be first year students. You are easily amazed to find new jargon in your reading brick (the most favourite ones are juxtaposition and dichotomy) and tried to use them in your essays. You thought these words will make yourself looking more intelligent. I am not sure what happens in other faculties. But in the faculty of arts, especially in the field of anthropology, sociology, philosophy, political science, history, and the like, you will find many jargon used in their discussions.

I recalled on many occasion that jargon and complicated sentences are found in the articles written by social, cultural theorists, historians, and political scientists. Is this an eerie phenomena as academic's works is one way through which public and scholars can communicate to each other?

Dennis Dutton, holding a professorship position of philosophy in the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, created a contest of bad writings. Amongst the awardees are prominent scholar in queer theory and gender, Judith Butler, a literary critics, Homi K Bhabha and a Marxian literary theorist, Fredric Jameson. The award, however, ceased in 1998 after it sparked outrage amongst scholars.

Here is an example of writing from Butler in a journal Diacritic which was used by Dutton to support his decision to chose Butler as the winner.

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

Butler, Bhabha and Jameson's writings are indeed very difficult to digest (I would add GayatriSpivak!). But that does not mean they do not have a clue how to write in English nor do they know how to write in a journal article. Sometimes our vocabulary are too poor to describe something abstract like ideas. Even in a daily conversation, we often understand 'one thing' although that thing does not have a clear description. Style and being informative could also be a good excuse to defend sentences which have millions clauses. If you have thousand informations which are useful and relevant to the topic, surely you won't put them away. So when all is combined together it could come up with a sentence which takes up the whole paragraph.

A letter to a prick

*Note: The frequent vulgar language in this posting is intentionally used in order to show the author's emotional state.

To the Indonesian Supreme Court

I received an on-line petition through email two days ago. It is about a campaign against censorship towards some history textbook in Indonesia.

According to a brief background on the petition, since 5th of March 2007, there have been 13 books subject to censorship primarily due to the failure of stating the involvement of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) in a failed coup attempt which was so-called 30th September Movement (G30s). Historians no longer put the acronym PKI after G30S as many academic research disputed the fact that the PKI masterminded the coup. Meanwhile the government insists in their version that the PKI was involved in the coup and the acronym should therefore be added on. As quoted in the jakartapost.com (15 March 2007), the announcement launched by the supreme court stated that the books are not only failed to state the 'facts' but challenge 'accepted truth', which could create public disorder.

I am appalled by this remark as only a horrible prick could make such announcement. It is perhaps completely out of my range of knowledge why the supreme court could make that comments.

Allow me to ask what does the supreme court refer to accepted truth in the statement above? Who does accept this version of truth? Of millions people in Indonesia who are fortunate enough to attend to school, how many people will actually believe that PKI was involved? They might have accepted it as the only truth regarding the coup. Yet i am convinced that those who once believed your story may have changed their perspective as many version of historical writings on that event were published. I ask again, therefore, whose fucking truth is challenged in this sense? It is obviously your truth. I also believe that your fuckin brain would reject that truth as well but since your master keeps standing behind you with the stick, there is no option left.

I would like to admit with sincerity about my experience of being a student in Indonesia before Reform movement. I was one of the fortunate people who experienced your brainwashed program, which was called 'history subject' at school. At first i was so proud of you soon the film screening on the coup has finished. Every time the history class finished, i came out of the class with a grin on my face. "I've learnt the truth in our history". Now, i realise and is very pleased to arrive at the conclusion that what happened then was not learning history but learning your political perspective. And i stop thinking of you and everyone who tried and will try to feed me and others with your truth as the hero of the nation. In fact, you are just a bunch of arsehole. So stick that truth up your fucking arse!

The 'accepted truth' that you have mentioned is built by separating fathers, mothers, sons and daughters from their beloved families through the most brutal and barbarous methods: beheading their heads and incarcerating them in camps and wished they would rot there. Not satisfied with all of these, you told the whole nation of your sexually violent fantasy with the story of fucking nympho women who had an orgy party to cut off the generals' dicks. You fucking ruined their families who tried to recover after long imprisonment by blocking their access to work for the government offices, and built monuments and museums which have the archives of your heroic acts.

It is apparently not enough for you to support the already-wobbly foundation of truth that you have built. Since many hidden stories are unfolded either through books or testimonies, you realised that you can not disseminate your deceitful story. Now you are aiming at students whom you thought easy to be deceived. What kind of generation that we would have in the future if they have to believe all fabricated truth? Would anyone be happy to have fucking zombie-like students who are always nodding to what people say? Would you be proud if your children come home and tell you during dinner conversation that they answered all of the teachers history questions with that 'accepted truth'? If you would, then i am dying to see if you can keep your fucking head up once your kids know that what you have told them was an utterly shit.

It could be wise of you if you can stop now and realise that any attempts of fabricating truth is futile. Banning the books as another method would seem to be fizzer. This attempt would only reveal to the whole nation that you are in a state of panic. The more than 30 years foundation of truth has been eroded by survivors' stories albeit they have risked themlseves for doing it. Or if you just want to keep disgracing yourself, please do it as long as you want to and it will do nothing to make us believing your story, you fucking idot prick!

Indignantly yours
spew-it-all

*note: the link for the news of thejakartapost.com will not take you to the article. You must sign up first and it's free. Then type 'ban books stir murky memories' in the search engine.

Holocaust Denier

I have not been checking out the mailing list that i am subscribing. Last night when i checked it again, i stumbled upon one posting which infuriated me. It was about holocaust. This guy has a doubt that the figure of 6 millions Jews killed is exaggerated but admitted if holocaust did happen. Once i perused his writing, i began to sense his anti-Semitic tone. To support his argument, he quoted some revisionist historians such as Bradley R. Smith and a German-born who is now living in Adelaide, Fredrick Toben.

It is absolutely fine if one calls into question the approximate number of victims killed in Auschwitz. However, the doubt shall not be followed by an analysis which suggests that exaggeration was intentionally made in order to favour Jews interest in the entire world. As far as i know, identifying victims is one of the most difficult task even though it is carried out soon after the conflict ceased. As in Jews case, who can give an accurate data about all the victims. No one can have a definite answer to that question. Although Nazi used census data to register all Jews before deporting them to the camp, killings of unregistered Jews during that process is highly likely to happen. It could also be possible to imagine that not all Jews' identities were successfully recorded.

The estimations of victims range from 1.5 millions to 6 millions. Using different sources is the reason why the numbers differ vastly.

Discussion on the list not only focused on the number but went on to other topics such as whether Hitler has planned the killings or not, gas chamber, anti-defamation law and so on. In this mailing list people are likely to stick their necks up and try to make stupid remarks even though they know little about what they are saying.

But what really gets up my nose is the obsession with the number of victims. What matters to you or anyone else if one research suggests that the actual number is 50.000? Does it mean what happened then was not a big deal in human history? Or sympathy is worth more than 50.000 innocent people?

At the end of 2006, a conference was set up in Iran which aimed at challenging the fact about holocaust. The Iranian president's remark on the truth of holocaust sparked outrages around the globe. Holocaust was a fabricated tale which is used by Jews to build the Israel state. His remark showed how his historical understanding is very poor. Many evidence revealed that the Shoah indeed took place.

Early this year, German proposed EU to draft law which proscribe defamation against Jews. In this case, holocaust deniers would get stiff sentences. Some said that this idea will make the civil rights to speak freely at peril. Freedom of speech is kind of shield that is often used by holocaust deniers. David Irving once used the right to express opinion without fear which is guaranteed by any countries that promotes civil liberties. But it is hard to draw a clear line between expressing opinion which is protected by law and defamation towards a certain group. If one questions as to whether genocide is an appropriate term to describe what happened in Rwanda or Bosnia, should we drag this person to gaol for vilification even though the question is raised purely based on inquisitive feeling?

Interestingly, Deborah Lipstadt, a historian who won her case against David Irving opposed to the idea of proscribing holocaust denial. She is the heroine in history wars regarding the holocaust. Her book was a fierce attack against holocaust deniers but she disagree with the idea of giving harsh punishment to deniers. She has three reasons why she rejects this kind of law. First, the free speech is supposed to be protected by law. Secondly the law will boost up the popularity of holocaust deniers and turn them into martyr. Last thing, "such laws suggest that we don’t have the history, the documentation, the evidence to make the case for the Holocaust having happened. They suggest we don’t trust the truth. But we do have the evidence, and we should keep on developing it and deepening it, and we should trust it".

I agree with Lipstadt assessment. I believe in free speech and throughout human history, many lives have gone to fight over this basic right. Yet i am also aware that some people would try relentlessly to 'rectify' historical events with their ideological baggage. They may not have noble dreams of enriching our knowledge of historical understanding.

Disagreement in the historical debates is not something bad since history is a never ending dialog. But such dialog should acknowledge its rule, especially the rule of honesty.

On fantasy

When i realised that my workplace is in the same building with the Victorian Police, i have been pondering about fantasy as a topic which i'd like to write in my blog.

Austin V. Whittall wrote an article about fantasy supported by collection of sources. In the article he quoted a survey conducted in UK that reveals firemen as ladies' favourite. This 'man-on-fire' job recorded 47.3% whereas the precentage of others occupations such as soldiers, businessmen, football players, pilots, and policemen range from 25-28%. Having sex with nurses is men biggest whimsies (53.9%) then followed by maids (44.2%) and air hostesses (39.6%), and businesswomen (24%) while male students like to have sex with their teachers (66.7%) (I have some sexy teachers and lecturers!).

I could not understand why firemen is so popular. Maybe it is because the role that firemen have as they will be ready anytime to rescue us. Heroicness in this sense could be a great aphrodisiac but also could tell us more about women's idea of masculinity. I am not sure about this as i haven't asked my female friends about what do they think of firemen.

As to teachers, something forbidden and taboo are probably two things that give a stimulating feeling. Intimate relationship between teachers and their pupils are strongly forbade. Different in ages also seems to be an issue. Having this fantasy is kind of blurring boundaries between normality and deviance.

The survey said that power and money are potential aphrodisiac in relate to fantasy about bussiness people. But i think that power could be played out in some fantasies. Maid, for instance, has submissive role. Likewise, in scenario with the policemen, some will think themselves as bad girls who give their hands to be handcuffed and say "arrest me officer, i am a bad girl".

If power lies behind these fantasies, it is quite odd that we haven't heard people fantasising about people working for social security services. They are very powerful. You will give them any information that they want although you have already given to them two weeks ago.

What was not covered in the survey is the dream of having sex with pool cleaners. Maybe this is quite difficult as not many people have pool in their houses. The other reason is perhaps the concern with environmental. How could you call pool cleaner if there is a severe drought at your state? Even if you don't care less, your neighbour will dob you in to Water Restriction Patroli.

It could be interesting to know what the result will be if such survey is conducted in others countries. Will tuk-tuk or pedicab drivers be the most favourite?

I think in the next few years or so, the most favourite fantasy would be bloggers!

Sorry, you are in Victoria!

I didn't have a funny feeling when i bought a ticket of the machine inside the tram this morning. As always, i pay concession fee instead of full fare. Little green sticker on my student card is kind of magic which gives me a privilege every time i travel with public transports. This morning the magic sticker did not do anything to help me out. I got caught by officers who did inspection.

Once i got off at Southern Cross station, i jumped on the elevator to go up to the next level (concourse). In front of the exit gate, there were several officers standing up in a row like pawns and asking randomly to commuters about their tickets. Bad luck, i was picked up.

I told them that i've just moved from Sydney and i didn't have any concession card issued by the Victorian authority but i have one concession sticker on my Sydney University's student card. I explained further that i used that sticker in other state and it was fine. So i thought i can be used it as well in Victoria. They said i am not entitled to concession fee if i am using that concession card in Victoria. The Victorian government has its own rule under which students have a separate concession card that can be obtained through their educational institutions. Then one officer grabbed her pocket book and started to write a report about me. Perfect! My identity has to be divulged as i did not bring any ID with my current address in it. Lucky she could not speak to anyone on the numbers that i gave her. While she was writing the report, an officer who stood next to her told me that i will receive a letter about this matter and if i got fined, i can make appeal against it. He added that i may get fined or may not as my case was quite strong. "Any question", asked her soon she finished writing her report. I asked how much the maximum fine will be. "One hundred and fifty eight dollars!". "Fuck you very much!". I am livid.

I knew that you will need a concession card issued by the Victorian authority while you are in Melbourne. But my reason for not having it organised is that i don't want to follow their stupid logic. Students from Victoria would not be fined if they travel with their concession card in Sydney, New South Wales. So why should students from NSW organise a different kind of concession card while they are in Victoria? Concession for local students mean a lot as it could ease them financially. Concession card in Victoria has to be organised from universities in Victoria. So any students who have this privilege in their own states have to regretfully ignore their status. I could not imagine the most stupid scenario than a NSW student travels in Melbourne with a full fare ticket as their concession card can not be used in Victoria.

I got the impression that Melbourne seems to try to make itself different from other cities in Australia, particularly when it is compared to Sydney. Every time someone says "in Sydney...", people in Melb would probably say, "We are different". Yes you are indeed. Horrid weather, no city beaches, a weird transport regulation, Tram or i'd rather call it electric snail, Stupid 'football' game which is combining football and rugby, a hideous Eiffel wannabe tower are sort of things which make you different!

Pretext for mass murder

I have been waiting for one particular book about the pogrom in 1965. The book which is written by a historian John Roosa, is called Pretext of Mass Murder: The September 30th Movement and Suharto's Coup d'État in Indonesia. This book is meant to give a new interpretation of the cataclysmic event in the Indonesian history. Luckily enough, Monash university library has the book on its shelve. So i make the book my company while i travel to the city.

Many scholars have talked about the coup attempt in 1965. However, they mostly focused on what actually happened in 30th September. In fact, not long after the coup, hundred thousands people were haunted and brutally murdered. All survivors of the mass murder were incarcerated for two decades or so. The preoccupation of finding the main culprit of the movement has given less weight on the aftermath. The relevancy of mass murder in the emergence of New Order did not gain much attention. Scholars mostly preoccupied with questions such as: Did the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) know and was involved in the movement? What was the role of Sukarno? Did he approve the coup as he was close to left-leaning organisations and the PKI? Or did Suharto and his army plot the movement and intended to be failed so he could use it as an excuse to wipe out the Army's bitter rival?

In his book, Roosa also discussed some arguments from other scholars who wrote about the event. This includes Harold Crouch, Ben Anderson and Ruth McVey, and Wertheim.

Roosa's main argument was that the movement was a pretext for Suharto and his army to crack down Sukarnoist and others left-leaning organisations which could significantly impede the army to come to power. By dismantling the most loyal Sukarno's supporters, the path to presidency was not difficult. The mass murder of approximately 500.000 people who were allegedly communist member should therefore be understood as means to build the new regime. It would be difficult to imagine a regime with a strong military back-up ruling the country if Sukarno and the PKI were not entirely dismantled. By taking control over media Suharto and his army enabled to circulate propaganda to blame the PKI. When army could finally seized the power, communism was an anathema in the Indonesian politics. By giving context to the mass murder, Roosa successfully disputed the idea, which is generally found in discussion, that the gruesome violence was civilians conflict. While the propaganda succeeded in fuelling up the anger mass, it didnt make hard for the army to make the purge campaign went on well.

His argument sounds as it would be difficult for any groups at that time to directly challenge the power of Sukarno. It would be too risky for the army to attack the PKI as the president had a close tie with the party. The failed movement, which involved some high profile members of the party and military officers, then opened up opportunity for the army to attack the PKI and Sukarno's supporters.

He uses a lot of sources to support his argument. It ranges from official document of US government, oral testimonies of survivors, newspaper, to a neglected postmortem analysis written by a general, according to Roosa, who was a core of the movement.

I think Roosa should be commended for his effort of solving the biggest puzzle in the Indonesian history. Writing the history of September movement is the most difficult task. Many of people who allegedly had useful information had died, either being executed or illness. Official documents are not easily accessible. But Roosa took the challenge and found his way to scholarly write a narrative account on the event.

Something to laugh at

I am not writing about sex this time...(i heard someone just said: damn!). Sorry, life has been pretty hectic for the last three days and the biggest consequence is that i didn't have time to sit down in front of my laptop and find any interesting topic on the web.

Instead i have one story to share. A real story. It is a funny one, i thought.

This happened ages ago when i was still fresh off the boat. It was only 6 months in Australia. When i worked at Italian restaurant at The Rocks, Sydney, i used to do a lot of Christmas function. Christmas function is always fun but if you ask some waitstaff they will curse you for saying that Christmas function is fun.

Anyway at one function, i served the table and kept an eye on the drinks. About 9.00 PM, the guesses were getting noisier which gave you a clear indication that alcohol starts to work. I came to one table to do my job. But before i cleared some bottles i asked anyone if they would like another round. One girl--she seems nice--asked me, "Can I have something sexual?"

I was a bit shocked as this was never expected. I didn't know what to do. So I smiled at her to give impression that i am okay with that impertinent as question and kept picking up empty bottles before rushing off to the bar.

The second time, i came back to the same table. I thought she must have learnt from previous experience. But i was completely wrong. She called me and ordered something.

The girl: "Can i have a quick fuck?". Oh dear! Not again. I stood up there for a minute and could not give any answer but looked at her face. After that pause, i found my courage to say something.

Me: "I am sorry i can't give you". Soon i answered her, i hurried back to the bar. When i got there, i told my workmate about that girl.

Me: "One girl on table two asked for a quick fuck.

Workmate: "Did you give it to her?

Me: "Christ, No. Do you think i am insane?" I thought if fancied her where i am gonna do it anyway. Toilet is too risky and staff room is even worse as some waitstaff like to go up there to have their illegal break for cigarette.

He realised that I didn't seem to understand what he meant. So he went on.

Workmate: "Quick fuck is a name for drink". Soon he finished saying this, everyone in the bar laughed joyfully at me while i stood up there feeling embarrassed.

Later on i've learnt that all shots have funny name.

G-String gave me PhD

If no one would ever have thought that G-String could give someone PhD title, well you should listen to Katherine Frank. Once Kate Frank pretty much depended her life on G-String. She used it to earn money while she was undegrad student and again she used it as medium to go deeply into stips clubs' life.

Although her job is time-consuming, she managed to have a chat with the customers who just enjoyed her entartainment. A good anthropologist would be trying as close as possible, preferably deeply involved, to the activities which she/he is studying. Kate seems to understand this perfectly and 6 years dancing on the stage and circling the pole was a convincing proof. No doubt! During that time, 30 customers who 'objectified' her agreed to turn the role: being her object of study. (I am not really into anthropology--that's why i am choosing history instead--even though i studied quite alot when i took few units in Gender Studies. And that's enough, i thought. But still i am pretty impressed with their obsession of turning 'seen' into 'scene').

Strip clubs, she said in the preface of her book, are kind of intermediate space between home and work. Inside the club, males could experience more their sexuality and gender identities in the most pleasurable way. Her research is particularly focusing on males who frequently visit the club albeit physical contacts between dancer and customer are strictly disallowed. She explored some aspects found in the relationship between regular visitors and the club such as consumption, marriage, authenticity and so on. The thesis was then published into a book with the title: G-String and Sympathy.

When i checked her CV i am very surprised to know that she is obviously a good scholar. She completed her BA with magna cum laude in General Studies (at that time she was a dancer). Then she earned master in cultural anthropology at Duke University a place where she also completed her PhD thesis. She is now postdoctoral fellow in Wisconsin-Madison.

I think her research is very encouraging for those who want to do Phd. It might be great if i could be her research assistant or maybe doing Phd thesis with the subject: Sinful Fantasy: Thesis, G-String and Erotic Supervision. Any ideas with the subject?

History of Fellatio

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Debunking Myths

I googled the word 'myth' and found an interesting website which contains myths. An impressive project! www.snopes.com

I could not, however, understand some, mainly, all things that are related to America. Anyway, here are some 'knowledge' which are debunked.

We have heard people saying, rather convincingly, that the song Puff the magic dragon is about marijuana. By thinking of some words on the title, more likely we tend to be persuaded by such information. In fact, the most famous Paul and Mary's song is not about dope. It is rather about the innocent of childhood lost. Leonard Lipton of Cornell had written a poem which in turn was made into a well-known song.

Another interesting fact which could have a come as shock to us is that dictionary-makers have made a terrible mistake. For five years, Webster International Dictionary 1935 put a non-existing word-in-english, dord as an entry.

Julius Caesar did not anything to do with Caesar Salad. Caesar Cardini was the man who invented this dish and the salad was therefore named after him.

Vibrators will be having a tough competitor. It is not definitely something alive but it is clomipramine. This anti-depressant is reported to have a pleasant side effect. Some candidly said that they are very delighted with the effect that the drug has caused. It can give you orgasm when you are yawning, even if it is deliberately done. Awesome!

Distrusting others

When you are about to cross the street, the first thing in your mind is perhaps to press the crossing button then you wait for the red ligth turning to green. But have you noticed that people will press the button although some people who are there first might have pressed it too?

I am not sure whether this happens to anyone else. It occurs to me gazillion times when i am about to cross the street at the traffic light, people always press the crossing button even though i pressed it already, and perhaps others who have been standing there. Sometimes i'd like to say: "Dont worry about it, i have pressed it already". But i dont have the balls to do it.

Surely, you are safe to assume that people before you already did it based on the common purpose that we have. You are not standing next to the traffic light to have a wee, are you? So you only need to press once anyway. This is not like when you are about to take lift. There are two buttons on lift which tells you where do you want the lift to go. Press UP if you want to go to 2nd or 3rd floor and press DOWN otherwise. While the traffic light has only one button (unless you are blind and it means you need to hold the vibrating button), it has no other functions except for crossing over.

What does it mean? Is it a sign of distrust? Or is it just telling us how technology has shaped urban behaviour? We are obedient enough to follow the street signs which are meant to protect our safety. Thank God for this. Ironically, our sensibility does not seem to be big as our concern with safety issue. Safety first they said, fuck other things! Old sage says that we should not trust any strangers. No objection with that. But how damage will you have if a complete stanger who has the same purpose with us do our favour at the traffic light?

Requiescat In Pace

El pueblo unido jamás será vencido, ¡el pueblo unido jamás será vencido! ...

My phone was ringing. It is 3.00 am.

I heard my brother's voice said calmly: "Grandma is gone. It was at 9.00 pm."

"Oh okay", i said. I knew this is going to happen soon. But never expect this soon. She was okay the last time i spoke to my mum. It was just a little bit of trouble when she's breathing. "I am alright", she said to my mum.

Oddly enough, last weekend she called out my name three times just before i was about to ring my mum. So she was asked by my mum to speak to me. We had a brief talk and was surprisingly good as her elderly age make her hearing ability declined. Once she had a chuckle when i told her that i need to pile up money so i can visit her next year. Never realise that was the last laugh i would hear from her.

She died peacefully at 93 and that makes us feeling unburdened. But i still feel sad. So does anyone who feels the loss after she died. I wanted to cry but i could not. Not because of my 'masculine images' held me back for doing it, it is rather me not wanting to be selfish. I know it is absolutely fine to cry and it is even good to release your tense, anger and so on. But this time i thought if i cried for her that does not mean for her. It is rather for myself who did not want to accept the feeling of losing her.

My grandma is a typical Javanese woman. She is a resemblance of her generation where women ought to be obedient and are accepting the power of the husband. Like the other fortunate girls, she went to a Dutch school but tradition did not have any room for her, and other girls, but kitchen and bed. But she never complained, not even once. Her calmness and patience are two things that always fascinates me. She does not seem to like things deep-seated inside her. Perhaps her quietness would like to tell us more about this. But we never thought there was something underneath her silence.

She told my aunties that she was waiting for the right time as she did not have any responsibility anymore. "I am very old and with my age now, i just want to wait for the right time", she said in Javanese language. I am uncertain, however, whether yesterday was the right time for her. But surely with her readiness anyday could be perfect for her.

I can think of particular moments where we used to laugh together. She always laughed when i pretended to be an ambtenaar (working in the administration) and spoke a terrible Dutch. She laughed at my accent.

Since you knew that the right time will be up soon and you were ready for it, i could not do anything but saying goodbye. Usually i hate to say goodbye but this time, i could say goodbye without tears dropping from my eyes because you died in a very dignified way.