Happy CNY

I like CNY celebrations as much as I like being robbed. I hate almost everything about CNY including the following:

(a) dazed smiling kids dressed in spanky red clothes which they wear once a year. Such kids could be recognised by the plastic smile they wear, permanently itched on their face from meeting the infinity+1 relatives they met (but never remembered their names);

(b) waay too many mandarin oranges being handed out. I hate oranges. If I want vitamin C, I will take a pill. Some of these oranges got traded around so much that they changed colour and sooner or later got handed back to you. Come on, let's not pretend. You mean, you eat all the oranges being given to you? Please. ;

(c) the colours of CNY are red, gold and boring.

(d) the same questions being repeated nth-infinity by your relatives (what's your job, how much you are earning, WHY AREN'T YOU MARRIED and where is your spouse/girlfriend/mistress?)
Next time, when I am in town for CNY, I shall wear the below sign over my neck to all relatives' house:

I think it will be a hit in Singapore. The above is just a business draft for guys. I have another in mind for ladies who are forced to act as virtuous daughters during CNY and force to answer questions after questions from fat aunties and uncles along the line of "Work so hard for what, you poor thing you. 30+ and still not married". Try wearing the following placard over your neck:

I think these will sell well in Singapore.

"Waking up kids later makes scientific sense" - No it doesn't, dumbass.

I have a busy day today but I just can't help noticing that some parents have written in to the ST Forum for schools to start later than 7.30 am to give more students more rest. One of the dumbass parent actually said "I would like to provide some scientific evidence to support the suggestion to start school later to allow school children sufficient sleep and rest".

Ooh, another brilliant scientific observation from a "well-informed" parent probably quoting from some dumbass scientific journal he accidentally picked up at Borders. The joy!

The "well-informed" parent wrote that "longitudinal studies found that tired students are likely to have impaired motivation and unintended sleep episodes".

You know, I wanted to barf when I read this. Confused as to what the hell he is trying to say? No worries. Facing this tidal wave of garbled syntex and confused metaphors, Captain Obvious shall don his armour of simple English and pick up his magical +1 axe of common sense and translate this gibberish for you.

Firstly, any smart ass that say "longitudinal studies" should be shot for being . . . well, a smart ass. Longitudinal studies basically meant a study of a group of people over time. Only smarty pants say such things to impress their dumbass girlfriends. Don't be intimidated by smart asses who quote this term out of some dusty scientific text. It is in fact more accurate to say "a study over x weeks or x period of time". Next time someone says "longitudinal studies prove this", just retort by saying "latitudinal studies proves otherwise leh". And see that dumbass shut the hell up and start scratching his head as to what are latitudinal studies.

Secondly, ". . . . students having unintended sleep episodes . . . ". You know, there is a simple English phrase for all this scientific shit. You can simply say students will start DOZING OFF, you dumbass. "Unintended sleep episodes". Yeah right. Where the hell you get this shit phrase from?

Thirdly, " . . . tired students are likely to have impaired motivation . . . " This one just make me want to scream. REALLY? YOU THINK? Do you need to pick up a scientific journal to actually come to this nobel prize winning conclusion? Tired students are less motivated? Wow, I never could tell. Dipshit.

Ah, but the "well-informed" parent does not start here even though he is showing his stupidity more and more in every paragraph. He concluded his scientific observation by saying "a recent study in a Minneapolis school district in the US reported that delaying high school start times from 7.15 am to 8.40 am gave students an hour more sleep per night and resulted in improved attendance rates".

So later starting times meant better attendance? Duh. Pardon my ignorance, but who the hell cares about better attendance? I want our god damn schools to deliver quality education to those who are are bothered and disciplined enough to turn up on time. If you want better attendance, why don't you ask schools to start at 11 am or 2 pm, dipshit? Ooh, and also no homework for the kids else the kids might have to go to bed late and not get their f** ten hours of nap so that they are in a better shape the next day. Weaklings.

I can't believe how pussy are the parents nowadays. Schools should continue to lock out students who are late or better still, fine their asses to the tune of US$100 a minute (like construction project liquidated damages except on a minute by minute basis) and then make their parents walk around with a placard on the parade square saying "I am a bad and lazy parent who does not have the balls to wake my kids up on time for school".

The dumbass parent signed off by saying "Give schoolchildren the opportunity to sleep, rest, dream and consequently learn better". Let Captain Obvious tell him a secret which perhaps was not passed down to him over the years. For many of my generation, we have been getting up at 6 am (for many, 5.30 am), drink a cup of milo and then walked to school in pitched darkness. Now that is discipline at a young age. We grow up okay. You want our kids to learn better? Use a damn stick. Preferably with a nail at the end of it.

Quit messing around with school starting times in the name of science and "better learning", dumbass.

Fairy Stupid Tale Part 2 - Goldilocks and the Three Barely Thinking Bears

Everybody, please give a round of applause for the defending intercontinental champion of fairy stupid tales - "Goldilocks and the Three Bears". Clap, clap, boo, hiss. Someone threw a boot over the stage.

There are very few fairy tales that could rival Goldilocks and the Three Bears in terms of stupidity and sheer mind numbing dumbness. I recalled when I first heard this story when I was a child. I felt stupid and dirty after hearing it. There was this pain somewhere near the top of my skull that told me that my intelligence level just dipped precariously low to the level of a door knob. Even my teacher looked embarrassed reading this tale drenched in hypocrisy and dripping with irrelevance. When I asked the teacher what was the point of the story, I recalled she muttered something about it was not nice for young children to wander into the woods and should not ask too many questions. You could tell back then that teachers were already disgruntled about their jobs.

For those that do not know the story, I envy your ignorance. In a nutshell, a young blond girl (thus the name Goldilocks), got her ass lost in the woods and wandered into a nice civilised house inhabited by three nice bears (Papa, Mama and Baby Bear). The law-abiding bears were out for a walk before dinner. Dumbass Goldilocks brazenly walked into the house, breaking all known conventions of trespasses and meddled with the Bears' chairs and beds. She then violated the criminal code by engaging in stealing and eating the Bears' dinners. The exact adjectives differ from story to story, but generally the mother and father's beds and chairs are "too hard" and "too soft" and their porridges are "too hot" and "too cold", with the Baby bears' porridge, chair, and bed being "just right." The nerve of some thieving kids. Hardcore criminal Goldilocks was still asleep in baby's bed when the bears return home. Baby Bear was heart-broken at his messed up bed and empty porridge bowl. Master criminal mind Goldilocks then fled for her life with Baby Bear sobbing in the background.

What was the moral of the story? None. No, really, there was no point to the story. If Papa Bear had whooped Goldilocks's blond ass and laid the smackdown (TM) on her, there might be a vague point somewhere that crime doesn't pay especially if the victim is a 400 pounds bear. Instead, we are encouraging our kids to be rude, trespass wantonly onto other civilians' properties, steal food and generally commit evil because they can get away scot-free. Or because they think they are cute and the adults wouldn't mind. Blah.

The story should go on like this : Driven by the pain of losing his porridge, Baby Bear grew up 20 years later into a massive furry hulk and was feared throughout the forest as an ass-kicking champion of law and order. Hearing that Goldilocks had now married the handsome prince and had a spoilt brat of a prince, Baby Bear went to Shaolin Temple to learn martial arts from the monks. Mastering the "Shadowless Paws" (monks tried in vain to teach him the shadowless kicks but unfortunately, 500 pound bears can't even hop), he then went to the castle to avenge the 20-year old humiliation. Goldilocks was out shopping for LV. So Baby Bear defeated all the soldiers and then the handsome prince, ate him up but discovered that it was "too hard". He then ate the spoilt brat of a son, but he was "too soft". When Goldilocks returned with her LV Murakami Speedy 30, she discovered Baby Bear sitting on the throne, picking his teeth with a bone. He then ate Goldilocks up and finally 'It was just Right"! He then took the LV bag and returned to the forest and gave it to Mother Bear, thus proclaiming that revenge had been taken. He then set out on a quest to eat the evil makers of LV but that would be another story.

Moral of the story : Crime does not pay. Might not be now, might not be near, but someone will come to kick your rear (hey, it rhymes).

Fairy Stupid Tale - Three Little Pigs and the Big, Bad and Frankly Worthless Moral Message

I have a thing for fairy tales. I think I read pretty much all the fairy tales written by Grimms and Hans Christian Andersen one time or the other. I did an informal survey using a sample size of two (just me and a Korean friend at lunch) on fairy tales and something odd struck me. I can assure everyone that the findings are acurate and scientific. All "brilliant scientists" out there will agree that with a grand sample size of two, how can my survey findings not be accurate and worthy enough to be published in a scientific journal?

Well, it seems that the very first fairy tale told to us by our teachers and parents is always the story of the "Three Little Pigs and the Big Bad Wolf".

Now, nobody know for sure why our parents or teachers read this story first to us and not other tales like say Little Match Girl, or even more exciting stuff such as He-Man vs Skeletor on Snake Mountain (ha-ha) where He-Man kicked Skeletor, Beast Man and Trap-Jaw's asses and asked hot Evil-Lyn for a date. Now that is a fairy tale to charm the kids.

In all probabilities, our parents / teachers are trying to keep the screaming kids quiet by huffing and puffing like a wolf (in other words act like a dumbass) and saying cute things like "not on the hair of my chinny chin chin". Most teachers don't look anywhere near like He-Man or She-Ra (in case you don't know, she is He-Man's sister, the sexy one but with a rubbish pony as a war horse) anyway. Reading Little Red Riding Hood might also not be advisable as explaining to the kids why a wolf could cross dress into a kinky grandma's outfit might scare the kids or at least confuse their sexual orientation in the future.

Everybody, and I do mean everybody, knows how this one goes. Big bad wolf blew down two houses made of straw and sticks and ate the two pigs. The third brother built a house of bricks and the wolf obviously could not blow it down (duh - why did wolf even bother trying). Wolf then tried climbing the chimney, fall into a pot of hot water and became dinner for the third intelligent pig. All the children cheered, thinking the forces of evil has been defeated by intelligence, cunning and hardwork and went home to play with their playstations. The teachers cheered too, relieved that the class is over and they could now go to Clark Quay and drink their sorrows of being stuck in this job away.

Ok, the fairy tale blows. Screw the hidden meaning of the third pig defeating evil using intelligence and hard work.

Firstly, pigs don't have hair on their chin (?) so where does the "hair on the chinny chin chin comes" from? I am sure James Orchard Halliwell Philips when compiling all these nursery tales in 1843 would never make that mistake. Any dumbass who say pigs have hairs on their chin should really go take a long hard look of himself in a mirror.

Secondly, I don't understand the concept of blowing down a house of sticks and straw (?). I mean someone kick the door down and eat the ham dinner already. How strong could a straw or stick door be? You have lungs strong enough to blow down a whole house but has to ask for permission to enter and not able to kick down a sticks/straw door? Pussy. You might as well get Wile. E. Coyote to help, you stupid wolf.

Thirdly, if children follow the example of the third pig and become book smart, hardworking students who don't play and just spend time studying, he is just going to be one sad pig. It will be his two brothers who have fun, networked and made friends who will become more successful in life- likely to be businessmen. Whatever happened to more rounded individuals (pigs) which our government wanted our kids to be? The first and second pigs are "happening" pigs who could sing and dance. The third pig will become another engineer or BEM grad (horrors) who collects bricks. Zzzzzz. The first two pigs will soon become entrepenurs and upgrade from stick/straw houses to condominium and employ pandas (bamboo chewing mean asses-I like them) to guard the gates against maurauding wolves. So teachers, don't tell your kids to be like the third pig who don't play and just collect bricks. These kids get a "F" in life.

You want a fairy tale that kids could learn from? Then relate the Transformers' story of Decepticon Starscream (which is the coolest transformer of all time). Anybody who doesn't know Transformers ought to take a step back now and evaluate his pointless existence. Starscream's story is a story of ambition and betrayal. In other words, he is cool.

He is ruthless, cold-blooded and cruel, but is also possessed of a cowardly streak. He will kick you when you're down, but is unlikely to take any direct action without backup (credit to answers.com for the insightful take on a badass character). He betrayed his boss Decepticon leader Megatron many times and even created Bruticus to fight his colleagues. He made a fatal mistake of assuming leadership thinking Megatron was destroyed. When Megatron returned as Galvatron, he finally got tired of the backstabbing Starscream and ass-kicked him to oblivion.

Moral of the story to kids: Don't trust anybody. If you want to backstab someone, make sure he is really dead before assuming total control.

By the way, Transformers rule!

Defending NKF patients

What's wrong with our people in charge? Why do they keep stating the obvious and pretend that it is something new and is a brilliant idea?

I just read that our Health Ministry wanted to push to have more kidney patients opting for kidney transplants instead of turning to dialysis. Our Ministry said that "if we want our renal failure patients to live better quality lives, and to live longer, we should actively encourage transplantation instead of mindlessly expanding dialysis centres".

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at their stupidity. May I just say assume the persona of Captain Obvious for a second and say:

"THAT IS SO NOT THE POINT. AARGH".

So those dumbasses at the Health Ministry suddenly woke up (only after the NKF scandal hammer blow) and start accusing NKF patients for not opting for transplantation. Really? So the Ministry think that these patients love to be on kidney dialysis? "No, no don't give me a new kidney, I love NKF and want to be on kidney dialysis forever?" Well, why don't CO whisper a secret to those dumbasses? The secret is . . . . . .

"YOU THINK THE PATIENTS LIKE TO BE STUCK TO A BED FOR FOUR HOURS A DAY, THREE EVENINGS A WEEK? THEY ARE STUCK THERE BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH DONORS' KIDNEYS TO GO AROUND, STUPID."

Enough with the dumbness already, those stupid lemon eaters (credit to Dilbert). I am running out of adjectives to insult these people's intelligence level and the rubbish they sprout just to make their ideas look good to the ignorant public. It is a supply issue, not a demand problem, stupid. My father has been waiting desperately for a donor since 1997. Eight bloody long years and not a donor in sight. The same for all his friends at the ward, some had actually passed away from waiting. The waiting list is so bloody long, you could fold the list into a thick stack and drop it on a policy maker's head and knock some common sense into him. (Don't bet on it though. Judging by their statements, these officials' skulls are thick). Why don't some of these people go visit a NKF ward and see the patients' embarrassement in being strapped to a bed and be looked like a invalid? Does it look fun to them? I have seen a young lady in her 20's in the ward, eyes red as she was strapped to the dialysis machine. Her life, hopes of a career and family, all wrecked by a illness in which in all probability not her fault. Do you think she doesn't want a new kidney?

Why don't our Health Ministry spend less time talking and more effort in encouraging healthy people to make their wills early to donate their organs in the event of their deaths e.g. from fatal accidents? Not just kidneys, but other organs such as corneas so that the blind could see again. I know the Muslims have a religious issue with the donation of organs after death. Fair enough. But it is such groups of concerned populace which we should be speaking to, to understand their concerns from the religious perspective and if possible, allay their fears. Stop picking on all the poor kidney patients, majority of them are poor taxi drivers, clerks and delivery agents who would love to have a new kidney.

And how much does a kidney transplant operation costs again? Let me guess. Does it cost an arm and leg to replace a kidney? WOW, SWEET DEAL, MAN. Who's game?

A break from slamming LV - Trip to Vang Vieng

Unfortunate visitors to this blog (how the hell you arrive here?) will no doubt have the impression that I am a sad and bitter man who has no money to buy LV and spend his days in front of the computer complaining about rich people and stuff which he could not afford to buy.

The truth is . . . Hmm, actually the above visual picture looks right.

But even sad and bitter people have some fun now and then. Now it is not easy doing so in Laos of course where the usual amenitites associated with city life are missing. The locals' thinking of nightlife usually consist of family and friends get-togethers downing copious amount of alcohol in the process. The Lao produced their own version of rice wine called Lao Lao, which alcohol content is way above 50% and I could actually use it to wash my car. Powerful stuff.

Some of the fun that you could have here requires you to travel outside the city to visit harder-to-reach places. I went on a three-hour drive over the weekend to Vang Vieng, a town which raison d'etre is to serve foreigners, specifically backpackers travelling on a shoe string budget.

(Your proverbial village by the river against the backdrop of mountains)

Vang Vieng is a well kept secret in the global backpackers' community. The town is scenic and set on a river bank (Nam Song river), and it has a long mostly unused airfield runway parallel to it. It is known for its beautiful sunsets, pink skys over a mountain horizon, and lazy river tubing. Food and accomodation (guesthouses) are dirt cheap. A backpacker I met stayed at this guesthouse for US$2 a day and he had been up here for a month. What you could do:

a) Walk out to the nearby caves
b) Lay by the river on plastic mats and drink Beer Lao
c) Tubing down the river. U$3.50 includes ride to start point. Dry bag U$1.
d) Kayaking the river (about US$6)

Being a backpackers' paradise, it has the look of a cowboy's town i.e. it reeks of lawlessness. Afterall, this town is where "Air America" did their secret gun and drug dealings with the Hmong people during the Vietnam War. It is also a well kept secret that cheap drugs are available here. Former travellers have reported that it costs US$3 for one bag of Marijuana, U$5 per bag of opium and US$5 bag of 'Jah-Bah' (Literally 'Crazy Drug' - Meth Amphetamine).

So you get tons of scruffy backpackers looking suspiciously stoned and walking around confused as well as in many cases, half naked. Check out the following scruffy dude and his girlfriend who almost walked straight into my car. WTF. And these are considered the good looking ones.

Screw the drugs and legions of scruffy backpackers. I am here to do kayaking.

(Your standard evening shot)

Kayaking down the Nam Song river takes about 3 hours. Rapids are slow and you just have to be careful not to capsize in the shallow rocky parts of the river where you might get a nasty bump. There are even many beer stops along the river where you can buy a can of Lao beer for US$0.80 and a "cigarette" for a US$1.

The kayaking is relaxing and gives many locals the chance to oggle at skimpily dressed foreigners which are lazing on tubes (rubber tyres) and getting drunk.

Ok, you see the pretty girl (right picture) on the tube who looked so happy and jolly? Shortly after waving her hands at my camera, she showed me her middle finger and vomitted into the river. Real classy. Biatch.

I spent the Saturday night watching soccer in a real crummy joint with backpackers. It was Manchester City vs Manchester United. Bad decision. United was down 0-2 by halftime, Ronaldo got sent off and we lost eventually 1-3. To make matters worse, this dumb Lao guy kept yelling "Saam sung" (i.e. 3-0) whenever City launched an attack at the United goal. I mean, get drunk elsewhere already. To compound a worse night, the food blows. Never order honey baked chicken in Vang Vieng.

(Lots of these places for foreigners who are contented to just lay there and watch TV)

Brillant revelations from "brilliant" scientists - Ha Ha

I almost spilled my coffee when I read the newspaper today. Xinhua news reported that "getting out of bed in the morning may be the most dangerous move you make all day, a new US medical study has found". I panicked and thought "oh no, I should have stayed in bed. Damn, waking up is dangerous!". I promptly off my computer and fell asleep at my desk to avoid any more life-threatening dangers.

On closer inspection, according to researchers at the University of Colorado, their "research" showed that when a person woke up, short-term memory, counting skills and cognitive abilities were impaired during the groggy period. Dr Wright said that "it takes some time until we are able to be efficent in our ability to make decisions and think clearly during sleep inertia".

Everybody repeat after me " DUH". These scientists waste millions of dollars on "scientific research" just to tell us that we would be groggy after waking up? And we should be careful not to trip and bump our head when we are groggy? Wow, thanks brilliant scientists! In all my years, I could never, ever realise that I would be a bit blurred when I first opened my eyes after a nap. Calling it a fancy name "sleep inertia" doesn't make your "discovery" brilliant. Go research something useful like a cure for sleepwalking or cancer already. Dumbasses.

And to add scientific insult to injury, Dr Wright said (probably with a straight face since he squandered every research dollar on something inconsequential like this) that "the serious effects are probably gone within 10 minutes (of waking up)". WOW, that is AWESOME discovery! I would stop being blur after 10 minutes of waking up? Nooo . . You think?

Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) must be pretty desperate to publish this sort of rubbish in its journal. They might as well publish an article on how a person could gain more weight eating chocolates than a starving Ethiopian kid who has only tree bark for meals. I can just imagine how the editors' meeting went when deciding what to put up for that month's issue.

Chief Editor : We have a deadline by 3 pm today. What articles could we put inside the journal? SCIENCE has an article on a South Korean scientist completing the DNA mapping of human stem cells (Ha Ha). What do we have by 3 pm to rival it?

Editor A : I got one! We have a new finding from Thailand's medical science department that a new drug called SH Instant which combines three medicinal herbs from China and two from Thailand can strengthen the immune systems of people with HIV and help control the virus! It is the result of a six-year, 80 million baht (US$2 million) research project. 40 out of 60 patients taking the drug fared better than the other 20! (This is true by the way)

Chief Editor : Who will read that sort of rubbish such as getting a cure for HIV? Stop giving dumbass ideas. I want a cutting edge scientific issue that will make everybody sit up and take notice! A scientific finding that will rival stem cell discovery!

Chief Editor's dumbass son : Uh . . . . How about publishing a report which every dumbasses in the world already knows? That a person will be groggy after waking up?

Chief Editor : That's my boy! Brilliant!

I can't stand "brilliant" scientists and their supposedly "discoveries". On one end of the spectrum, we know now that some are probably faking their research findings. South Korean scientist Dr Hwang Woo Suk, previously known as"Supreme Scientist" fabricated two papers on stem-cell research and disgraced his country and people. On the other end, we have Dr Wright telling us things we already know.

Isn't it amazing at what these people can get away with?

Something odd on NKF

I understand from someone that today's Berita Harian covers a NKF story that 125 staff had left NKF including 27 who resigned after KPMG revealed THAT report. BH also reported that resignations did not affect the operations of the charity as they were mostly administrative staff.

I know BH was trying to reassure people that it is business as usual at NKF despite the spate of resignations but I personally find it creepy that the departure of 125 staff are not missed at all even if all of them are in administrative positions. Are we saying that the organisation was that bloated and 125 staff weren't needed in the first place? Holy macaroni. NFK had a lot of fat indeed.

Louis Vuitton Kasbek PM

I thought I visit purseblog.com just to check what new fangled rubbish LV has come up with to make my life miserable. Bad mistake. LV rolled out a "man-bag" (ho ho ho) in Dec 2005 called the LV Kasbek PM. Priced at US$1470, women everywhere are raving about how sleek it looked, and how good their men would look carrying this "man-bag". Check out the following comments on the bag:

Lady A : If men in this world only realized how sexy it is to carry a sleek designer bag, they may begin to understand us a little better. So for the small amount of men that are out there reading this, do us all a favor and keep in mind that a) we like when you dress nice and b) you are allowed to wear a nice bag and still be considered manly!

Lady B : I am trying SO hard to get my boyfriend to carry a man-bag. This one may find it's way into our home!

I feel so sad when I read the comments. Hoping your man will carry a "man-bag" and thinking that he will look sexy with it (barf) is certainly the most wrong and deluded idea since T T Durai thought" Maybe I will take Straits Times to court for defamation suit even though the gold tap, first class travel stories are all true. Heh Heh, I am so smart." It is also like calling your son Romeo and expecting him to have a normal life (another blog entry later).

Ok, I will make this entry short since I am stating the obvious here (what else from CO) and the more I read these women's comments, the more I need to lay down with a wet towel over my head.

First rule : One word : GAY. If a man carry a "man-bag", he is not manly, he is gay. If a man is carrying a LV "man-bag", he is a closeted man who will be SO gay in the future. There is almost no exception. Woman think man who carry "man-bags" are cute. The obvious reality which women refuse to accept is that men who wear Prada lace-ups, Hugo Boss flat-front pants and Paul Smith dress shirt and cuff links into a muscle T-shirt and carry "man-bags" are 100% gay. If your boyfriend or husband start lingering outside a LV shop window, don't be happy for him. Fear the worst.

Second rule : A man who spent US$1470 on a "man-bag" ought to be shot and have his body flogged. After flogging, shoot him again. Rinse and repeat.

Third rule : Anybody who coined the word "metrosexual" for this bag should receive a helluva of a beatdown from the rest of mankind (the remaining straight ones). Honestly, the word did more damage to man's pride in the last decade than a hundred commercials from David Beckham. By inventing the word, the British journalist Michael Simpson massacred the English lexicon (witness the proliferation of BS terms for men such as retrosexual and technosexual) and gave ammunition to woman to embarass their men by comparing them to metrosexual symbols such as David Beckham, Brad Pitt (with his blond plaits as Achilles in Troy)and Ben Affleck.

By the way, Brad Pitt blows as Achilles. Midway throught the movie, I half expected Achilles to whip out a LV handbag and fling it at Hector to confuse him. I was also praying for the Trojan horse to topple and crush Brad Pitt's blond gay ass (and his LV handbags) instead.

To all woman, look. These men are handsome and looked good in anything. If your man is not Brad Pitt material, carrying a LV man-bag and forcing him to wear plaits or pony tail won't make him Beckhamesque. Trust me, other men will laugh at him. If I really wants "to get in touch with my feminine side", I eat chocolates. This is about as close to a feminine side all men should go. Anything beyond that is pink territory.

Back to the LV Kasbek PM bag.

CO's verdict : The only way this bag could be anymore gay, it is for it to be pink. With a Hello Kitty on the cover. I don't even know whether this is a briefcase or a woman's handbag. I rather carry a plastic bag than this latest fashion disaster or should I say, LV's latest attempt to reduce men to "metrosexuals". If you are a straight man, you should too. Otherwise Rule 2 applies.

5 women every guy's gotta date (rubbish sprouted by MSN)

I saw this article on MSN.com during Xmas. MSN.com is my default internet browser which means that everytime I try to surf the internet, I get swamped with articles like "Woman marries dolphin" or "Top ten tips to lose weight" or "Where the sexiest bartenders work". Hey MSN, how about an article on "How to irritate everybody by clogging up the page with useless articles and tips which caters only to Americans and nobody cares"? Aargh.

Right, so there was an article during Xmas which caught my eye although I was trying hard to skip the page altogether. It is called "5 woman every guy's gotta date" written by a guy called Jonathan Small, a free lance journalist from LA. The article's introduction stated that before settling down, these are (I quote) "the gals every man should date. Why? For the connection you two feel, of course, but also for the relationship lessons each one will teach you."

Ooh, fantastic, I thought. Nevermind that the title of the article is grammatically incorrect (hint : Mr Small, learn how to use the apostrophe). I am going to learn the art of dating from a lifeless website and a small-time stranger / bit-part journalist from LA. Joy!

I shall quote some parts of his article and provide my own translation (in italics) of what Mr Small is really trying to convey.

Type #1: The Older Woman
If you haven’t tried dating up the age chain, you don’t know what you’ve been missing. Mature women have been places, seen things, and have a sophistication and wisdom that you, my young friend, can—and should—soak up like a sponge. Older women know who they are and what they want,” explains Dr. Gilda. Spend time with one and you’ll gain a terrific perspective on life, and realize that being a desirable woman doesn’t mean being a woman younger than you are.

CO's translation : Congratulations, you are going to be a slave to the older woman! Welcome Igor, to your new mistress. Some Igors (credit to Terry Pratchett) has vampires as masters. Your new mistress walked around with a chip on her shoulder, thinking why life is so unfair that a gorgeous and successful woman like her couldn't get hitched. Better get used to bursting your wallet to eat with her at expensive places likes Lawrys. No McDonalds or Kenny Rogers for her, no siree! The older woman did not climb their corporate ladder to eat at a hawker centre or use the public transport either. Terrific perspective? More like a horrific perspective and a devil's contract to listen to her angst and bitching. That said, fetch me a napkin Igor!


Type #2: The Guy’s Girl
Every guy needs to experience that rare breed of gal who looks and talks like a woman, but loves sports, beer, and action flicks—in short, who acts like a guy.

CO's translation : There is a word for girls who loves sports, beer and action flicks and acts like a guy. The word is "ugly" or possibly "lesbian". Which planet did Mr Small live in? It sure ain't Earth! Maybe LA is filled with ugly skanks running around, barfing and digging their noses while dousing down copious amounts of beer and screaming at the TV whenever the LA Lakers loses (which is a lot nowadays). Bring this girl home if you want your parents to disown you.

Type #3: The Free Spirit
This girl always stops to smell the roses. She’s totally creative, spiritual, spontaneous—maybe a tad ditzy—and she relies more on instinct and inspiration than reason and good planning.

CO's translation : This is the kind of girl that insists you to walk with her in the rain without an umbrella and thinks it is romantic for a man to piggyback her down orchard road. This is also the kind of girl who watches Titanic at least 5 times (I am flying, Jack!), loves arts, watches artsy and expensive dramas at the Esplanade and keep telling you to be spontaneous. Surprise me, she says. I love such girls, if only to spontaneously powerbomb her and surprisingly ditch her on the spot.

Type #4: The Brainy Chick
Michael of Austin, TX, recalls his brainy ex-girlfriend this way: “She taught me how to debate with the best of them. I had to bring something to the table or she’d get bored. She challenged me in a way I wasn’t used to and that felt great.

CO's translation : You said brainy ex-girlfriend. Prosecution rests its case.


Type #5: The Seductress
It’s not for the reason you might think. Says Dr. Gilda, “Every guy needs to get this type of girl out of his system. Because he’ll quickly realize that sex alone cannot sustain a relationship".

CO's translation : You know, this is what pisses me off. It is like a rich guy ditching his Mercedes and has the hypocrisy to tell the poor guy that "you are so lucky, you don't have money so you have no choice but to take public transportation. Me? I am so rich that I have a headache choosing between a Mercedes or a BMW. What I should do ar? Why can't I be like you?" The next thing you know he is driving around in a Lexus.

To top it off, Mr Small has the arrogance to say that he has dated each of the above women—and vouches for them all. Thank you for your useless insight, Mr Small. By the way, having a surname called Small really sucks. You might have dated many women, but you still couldn't hold down a proper job in LA. Before anyone retorts that he is a journalist, free lance journalist is located at the bottom of the food chain of journalism i.e. somewhere at bacteria level. Show some integrity and determination, loser. Maybe then you could see through a proper relationship and get a proper job. Thank you for ruining Xmas. Shut up before I clothesline you already.