Reader Leilani Torres sent me the link to this clip, and I'm not quite sure to make of it.
I know there's not enough time in the world to discuss every instance of someone putting something racially provocative on the Youtubes; I just found this rather interesting because it bears such a resemblance to Alexandra Wallace's "ching chong ting tong ling long" clip that became infamous a few months back. But at the same time, this one seems so ridiculous that it seems more of a joke and not really anything to get worked up about. The comments at WorldStarHipHop where this came from are mostly hateful (the term "f****** b**** is used frequently - I have no idea what that could mean). But I dunno. I still think this is dumb, but then so is most of the crap on Youtube. But I didn't actually find it particularly offensive. Should I have? Let me know what you think.
Sunday, 21 August 2011
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Singapore's answer to Michael Winslow
I think one day I'll start a website devoted solely to amusing Asian uncles.
Friday, 12 August 2011
What the f***, Comedy Central?
To my friends Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart: it's been nice knowing you.
For the last year or so, The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart have been two of my favourite shows, providing a valuable window on American politics. First, when they were on ABC2, then when they lost the rights, via the Comedy Central website.
No longer.
Comedy Central has apparently signed an exclusive deal with Foxtel that blocks Australian viewers from watching the show online. Switching on yesterday to get my daily dose of Stewart, I was greeted everywhere with the message: "Sorry, this video is unavailable from your location."
So now Australian fans will only be able to watch these programs if they pay for it. Of course, they are not on free-to-air in the US either as I understand it, but Americans can still watch it online nonetheless.
So what the f***, Comedy Central?
There are several ironies here. Firstly, Stewart ran a story a couple of weeks ago complaining about how British broadcasting authorities had censored The Daily Show because of laws forbidding the use of parliamentary footage for satirical purposes. At least the British can still watch you, Jon.
But more ridiculous is that the company that Australians will have to pay money to in order to watch The Daily Show is Foxtel, owned by Rupert Murdoch. Part of the same global corporation responsible for Fox News, the right-wing propaganda station that Stewart rails against on a nightly basis.
I won't be forking out the monthly fee to Foxtel, because I have more important things to spend money on, such as putting food on the table, keeping a roof over my head, and paying my way through school.
So thanks for the memories Jon and Stephen, it's been fun.
UPDATE:
So, I've sniffed around, and the internet being what it is, there are still ways to watch it. I'm not a technical computer-thingy-type-person, but you can watch it via a proxy IP address. Plus there are other ways. Search around.
For the last year or so, The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart have been two of my favourite shows, providing a valuable window on American politics. First, when they were on ABC2, then when they lost the rights, via the Comedy Central website.
No longer.
Comedy Central has apparently signed an exclusive deal with Foxtel that blocks Australian viewers from watching the show online. Switching on yesterday to get my daily dose of Stewart, I was greeted everywhere with the message: "Sorry, this video is unavailable from your location."
So now Australian fans will only be able to watch these programs if they pay for it. Of course, they are not on free-to-air in the US either as I understand it, but Americans can still watch it online nonetheless.
So what the f***, Comedy Central?
There are several ironies here. Firstly, Stewart ran a story a couple of weeks ago complaining about how British broadcasting authorities had censored The Daily Show because of laws forbidding the use of parliamentary footage for satirical purposes. At least the British can still watch you, Jon.
But more ridiculous is that the company that Australians will have to pay money to in order to watch The Daily Show is Foxtel, owned by Rupert Murdoch. Part of the same global corporation responsible for Fox News, the right-wing propaganda station that Stewart rails against on a nightly basis.
I won't be forking out the monthly fee to Foxtel, because I have more important things to spend money on, such as putting food on the table, keeping a roof over my head, and paying my way through school.
So thanks for the memories Jon and Stephen, it's been fun.
UPDATE:
So, I've sniffed around, and the internet being what it is, there are still ways to watch it. I'm not a technical computer-thingy-type-person, but you can watch it via a proxy IP address. Plus there are other ways. Search around.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
It's not The Revolution
Civilization is, as always, only a thin veneer.
Now that the streets of Britain have turned into a remake of 28 Days Later, it's interesting to contrast it with the other "popular uprisings" that the world has witnessed this year, across the Arab world. There will undoubtedly be a minority on the radical Left who will make this all about The State and The Pigs versus The People or whatever, but that's mostly bullshit really. While there are certainly some legitimate resentments fueling the rampant destruction that began in Tottenham and overtook the country, ultimately the majority of it is little more than young men giving themselves license to unleash their anti-social sides on the world around them.
While there has also been an ugly side to the protests that occurred in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere, those were people who actually lived in conditions of oppression and poverty, who rose up against the power structure in a relatively peaceful fashion. While the rioters in England are largely from the underclass, and are poor and disenfranchised by the standards of the UK, I imagine most people in North Africa would consider them to be immensely privileged. As with the anarchists who decided to cause havoc in London in March this year, it seems that there will always be a barbaric element in society that even relative affluence cannot silence. People all over the world living in genuinely appalling conditions can frequently stage uprisings that don't devolve into randomly stealing and breaking stuff.
I wonder what people in Burma would think of all this business.
This person knows the deal:
Now that the streets of Britain have turned into a remake of 28 Days Later, it's interesting to contrast it with the other "popular uprisings" that the world has witnessed this year, across the Arab world. There will undoubtedly be a minority on the radical Left who will make this all about The State and The Pigs versus The People or whatever, but that's mostly bullshit really. While there are certainly some legitimate resentments fueling the rampant destruction that began in Tottenham and overtook the country, ultimately the majority of it is little more than young men giving themselves license to unleash their anti-social sides on the world around them.
While there has also been an ugly side to the protests that occurred in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere, those were people who actually lived in conditions of oppression and poverty, who rose up against the power structure in a relatively peaceful fashion. While the rioters in England are largely from the underclass, and are poor and disenfranchised by the standards of the UK, I imagine most people in North Africa would consider them to be immensely privileged. As with the anarchists who decided to cause havoc in London in March this year, it seems that there will always be a barbaric element in society that even relative affluence cannot silence. People all over the world living in genuinely appalling conditions can frequently stage uprisings that don't devolve into randomly stealing and breaking stuff.
I wonder what people in Burma would think of all this business.
This person knows the deal:
Friday, 5 August 2011
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Malaysia’s behaviour lessons for non-Muslims during Ramadan
(Cross-posted at Brown Pundits)
A couple of race- and religion-related controversies in Malaysia this week.
8TV decided to axe a series of public service announcements after claims that they were racist against Chinese-Malaysians. The ad campaign was aimed at teaching non-Muslims how to behave respectfully during Ramadan, and portrays a young Chinese woman speaking in a loud and crass fashion at the market and eating in public. See for yourself:
(8TV is having a lot of these clips deleted from Youtube; try here if you can't see it.)
I wouldn't call this racist, but it is laughably pathetic nonetheless, particularly the bit when a shocked Malay man shields his daughter's eyes from seeing the woman's armpits (blurred for good measure). There are plenty of influential Malay voices in the media, government and religious spheres who love to play the victim card ad infinitum - cultivating the perception that the non-Malay, non-Muslim minorities are somehow trampling all over Malay rights and religious sensitivities.
Also this week on the topic of respectful behaviour:
The Football Association of Malaysia has apologised to Chelsea after the London club complained of anti-Semitic abuse in their tour match against a Malaysian XI recently, directed at Israeli winger Yossi Benayoun. Yet it is an apology that seems disingenuous in the face of the Malaysian State's attitudes towards Israel.
I've watched highlights of this game, and while I couldn't hear anything racial, Benayoun is audibly booed every time he touches the ball, something the other Chelsea players are not subjected to. Benayoun himself is a likeable footballer who is completely uncontroversial aside from being Israeli.)
“The FA of Malaysia would like to strongly register that we do not condone any form of racism in football,” the statement read. “If such an incident did happen we would like to apologise to the player concerned and also to Chelsea FC. From our initial observations, if such an incident took place, it would have involved a small section of spectators at the match. This surely does not reflect the feelings of the majority of fans in this football-loving country.”
Of course, Malaysians should probably reflect on a history of anti-Semitism in the country. Last time Chelsea toured Malaysia in 2008 there was talk that then coach Avram Grant and defender Tal Ben Haim would not be granted visas to enter the country. Former PM Mahathir Mohamad once claimed that the Jews ruled the world by proxy. And it was only a couple of weeks ago that government-backed newspaper Utusan Malaysia made the ludicrous claim that the recent rallies for democracy in KL may have been the work of Jews.
Since the two countries have very little to do with each other in practical terms, and most Malaysians will never actually meet a Jew, this feeling originates solely from the fact that Malays are Muslim and therefore lots of them just assume that disliking Jews is part of their religious duty.
A couple of race- and religion-related controversies in Malaysia this week.
8TV decided to axe a series of public service announcements after claims that they were racist against Chinese-Malaysians. The ad campaign was aimed at teaching non-Muslims how to behave respectfully during Ramadan, and portrays a young Chinese woman speaking in a loud and crass fashion at the market and eating in public. See for yourself:
(8TV is having a lot of these clips deleted from Youtube; try here if you can't see it.)
I wouldn't call this racist, but it is laughably pathetic nonetheless, particularly the bit when a shocked Malay man shields his daughter's eyes from seeing the woman's armpits (blurred for good measure). There are plenty of influential Malay voices in the media, government and religious spheres who love to play the victim card ad infinitum - cultivating the perception that the non-Malay, non-Muslim minorities are somehow trampling all over Malay rights and religious sensitivities.
Also this week on the topic of respectful behaviour:
The Football Association of Malaysia has apologised to Chelsea after the London club complained of anti-Semitic abuse in their tour match against a Malaysian XI recently, directed at Israeli winger Yossi Benayoun. Yet it is an apology that seems disingenuous in the face of the Malaysian State's attitudes towards Israel.
I've watched highlights of this game, and while I couldn't hear anything racial, Benayoun is audibly booed every time he touches the ball, something the other Chelsea players are not subjected to. Benayoun himself is a likeable footballer who is completely uncontroversial aside from being Israeli.)
“The FA of Malaysia would like to strongly register that we do not condone any form of racism in football,” the statement read. “If such an incident did happen we would like to apologise to the player concerned and also to Chelsea FC. From our initial observations, if such an incident took place, it would have involved a small section of spectators at the match. This surely does not reflect the feelings of the majority of fans in this football-loving country.”
Of course, Malaysians should probably reflect on a history of anti-Semitism in the country. Last time Chelsea toured Malaysia in 2008 there was talk that then coach Avram Grant and defender Tal Ben Haim would not be granted visas to enter the country. Former PM Mahathir Mohamad once claimed that the Jews ruled the world by proxy. And it was only a couple of weeks ago that government-backed newspaper Utusan Malaysia made the ludicrous claim that the recent rallies for democracy in KL may have been the work of Jews.
Since the two countries have very little to do with each other in practical terms, and most Malaysians will never actually meet a Jew, this feeling originates solely from the fact that Malays are Muslim and therefore lots of them just assume that disliking Jews is part of their religious duty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)