Kittens! Inspired by Kittens!

I read about this video on the Boston Metro the other day so I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds this clip mindlessly funny. It's this six-year-old narrating a picture book. "I want pie! I want beef jerky!" "Double Head!" Hahaa. I need to meet this kid. We'd get along.

You'll either find this funny or retarded. I find it funny, which probably says a lot about my sense of humor.

Be an Electron!

Electrons repel each other on any surface. So that they're never too close to each other if they don't have to be. If they are, they get very, very, uncomfortable.

Strangers, if you found your way to this blog accidentally, this post is for you. I have a very important request.

If we see each other on the train, let's give each other some space, shall we? If I am holding on to the bottom of the metal pole, hold on to the top. If I choose to stand in the front, stand in the back. If the car is empty, there's really no need to sit next to me, really. I might bite.

Don't stand right up on me at the bus stop. Don't follow me if I choose to walk up and down the platform. And if we have to sit next to each other, don't have your leg touch mine.

It's not that I don't like you. I just don't need to smell your breath or your shampoo. I don't need whatever you are drinking or eating to spray onto my face. (It has happened.) And don't bump into me repeatedly; I might just sock you in the head.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I am a really affectionate girl. I like to hug, kiss and cuddle. With people I love. Not you. We're not best friends.

So be an electron, people! Repel that charge! Make the world a better place. Give me some breathing room and I promise I won't taser you. Mmmk? Great. Thanks. See you on the T.

A Movie Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

This past weekend I finally saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Finally! I've been wanting to see this movie for weeks. It is a beautiful story told beautifully, with wonderful cinematography, music, and characters. It was very well made. The scenes were paced nicely too; I did not look at my watch once, despite the movie being almost three hours long. I loved the life and culture of New Orleans was so richly weaved into this story. That was captured so well.

One thing that disappointed me just a wee bit was Brad Pitt's performance. He pulled it off nicely, going through all the right movements, but it wasn't the mind blowing Oscar-winning performance I expected. He didn't take it above and beyond. When he wasn't playing old man, Brad was just, well, Brad. He cruised around on his motorbike, hung out with beautiful women, and even wore that newsboy hat of his. It's a shame, because I really rooting for this to be his Academy Award winning performance. In this film, I'd just have to say that Brad's makeup did a better job than Brad.

Cate Blanchett, on the other hand, was the star of the two. Why wasn't she nominated? She brilliantly portrayed a vibrant young girl who evolves into a woman fraught with what old age has robbed from her. I am absolutely amazed at Cate Blanchett's versatility. She stepped into the role of an giddy, lively, teenager and then of a grounded old woman with such ease and believability. It was amazing to watch.

Taraji Henson also shone in this movie. She played Brad's surrogate mom. She exuded pure genuity and honesty in her role. She definitely stole some spotlight.

I don't know what it was though, but some bits in the movie just made me cringe a little, like the movie was pushing the envelope just a little too far. Like when a dashing Brad/Benjamin comes back to the house he grew up in, during his prime 'age'. He's tall, tan and buff, looking like he just stepped off the yacht with Angie and the kids, and runs around the house, calling for his petite, sassy, black mother, "Momma! Momma!" I don't know. Maybe Benjamin just looked too much like Brad for the scene to be convincing. Then there was that scene where Cate/Daisy lovingly cradles her dying lover in her arms--except he's a baby. Um, yeah. Awkward. And a little cheeseball.

At the Oscars, we know what this movie will win- Best Makeup, obviously. Maybe Costume Design. Best Picture, not likely. Next time, Brad. I give this movie a B.

Diddle Von Who?

Who is this woman? She's everywhere. Why does she look like that? She goes to events and things and does photo shoots. Why? There's even a Facebook group called Dita Von Teese is a work of art. Really? What is she famous for? What does she do? Questions, questions, so many unanswered questions.

A quick trip to Wikipedia tells me that Dita Von Teese is a burlesque dancer. What's a burlesque dancer? It's "a humorous theatrical entertainment involving parody and sometimes grotesque exaggeration." Burlesque later became associated with stripteasing. Gotcha.

Wiki also tells me that she was fascinated with retro style as a child. Hence her appearance. She began her career in a strip club. She later went on to pose for "fetish magazine covers," "fetish -related, soft-core pornographic movies, and Playboy. It was her appearances in Playboy that "finally won her father's respect for her profession". Oh, that's nice.

Fun facts: she's the one who came up with the idea of stripping in a martini glass. Interesting! So that's where that came from! She also was married to Marilyn Manson, ew. I feel so stupid for not knowing all this; apparently she's been around for a while. Hey, you learn something new everyday.

Clover the Inventor

Have you ever thought life would be easier if you had a product or service that did not yet exist? I have. In fact I have a few "inventions" up my sleeve. Pinky swear you won't steal them and I'll share them with you. Okay, here goes:

1) The Make-Your-Own-Sushi sushi bar
Have you ever looked at a sushi menu and thought, man, that roll would be perfect if it had tobiko on it, or I wish that roll came in 6 pieces, not 4? Well at the Make-Your-Own-Sushi sushi bar, selecting your own sushi ingredients could be as easy as ordering extra cheese on your burger. And why have the chef limit you on how many pieces you get? Order 6, 13, 44! And sure, it might come out tasting gross, but that would be your fault, not mine.

2) The Dry Clean Shampoo
Imagine this: you wake up after sleeping over with this new guy you've been dating, and your hair is a mess. It's greasy, it's frizzy. Calamity! Or, you're running late and need to get to work fast, but you haven't washed your hair in six days. Solution: The Dry Clean Shampoo! Just spritz it in your hair and excess grease and dirt is instantly removed. Hair feels clean and fresh, with that just-washed feeling.

3) The Aroma Theater
Don't they say that smell plays a huge role in creating and recalling memories? Doesn't smell enrich your experiences? Think of your spa visits. Now imagine being engaged in a great scene in a movie and experiences aromas from the foods or objects from the movie. (Pleasant aromas, not odors.) Think how cool Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory would be! And wow, think of how much product placement Axe could do. Lol.

4) The Butt Guard
Ladies, how many times have been rubbed up on or groped in the club, or on the subway? Me, four times too many. It is an outrage and we must develop proactive solutions to this. Introducing the Butt Guard. The Butt Guard is a cushioned apparatus that fastens snugly around your posterior region to guard it from unwanted physical attention. The Butt Guard is soft, light, and portable. It's completely ergonomically safe and biodegradable. And if you call now, we'll even throw in our limited edition Hannah Montana print Butt Guard, signed by Oprah.

Okay, this one might not work.

5) The Portable Privacy Curtain
Are you a celebrity who just can't go on your coffee run without being mobbed by the paps? Or are you just a super private person who craves your own space in public? Do you just plain hate the way your face looks in the morning? Well, throw those oversized sunglasses away! With this curtain that you can pull shut around your head, no one will know who you are or how horrible you look. Comes with mesh holes for sight. Completely breathable.

Phew! That's all I got for now. Suggestions welcome.

Let me say what I think about the whole Phelps thing. Nobody really thinks it's a big deal that he smoked pot, including me. It's more about the consequences of him getting caught doing it. It's dumb, really. A business mistake at best. Everyone was waiting to see if he'd lose all his multi-million dollar endorsements. And he did lose some. Deservingly so, he even admitted it. Okay, great. Moving on.

What disappointed me, was this:

At a keg party on Nov. 6, the witness describes Michael as "loud and obnoxious and slamming beers from the get-go. He was definitely the life of the party as every girl wanted a piece of him and every guy wanted to be his best buddy. He was eating it up.

So Michael Phelps is a meat head?! How disappointing! And he had us believing he was that wholesome, nice-boy character he crafted on SNL! That sucks. But hey, at least it wasn't a sex tape.

The Angie Effect

You would think that the response to Angie's philanthropy would have people volunteering at children hospitals. Giving more to charities. I don't know, adopting homeless pets. Never would I have thought that it would lead to this: baby collecting.

I just watched that crazy lady's interview with Ann Curry. You know that lady who just had 8 million babies from a sperm donor? I (and the commentator on NBC) couldn't help noticing the similarities this lady had (or was trying to have) with Angelina Jolie. Seriously. From the dark flowing hair, puffy lips, to even the way she talks! Not to mention wearing black to her Dateline interview with Ann Curry. Impostor.

It's disgusting! When Curry asks her how an only child ends up with 14 children (also unemployed and single, I might add) she says,

“That was always a dream of mine, to have a large family, a huge family, and I just longed for certain connections and attachments with another person that I really lacked, I believe, growing up,” she replied.

Nice. Why can't you form connections and attachments with voices in your head, like a normal crazy person? I also had just finished watching an episode of Supernanny, where nanny Jo visits this uncontrollable family of 10 kids. The mother, unable to care for her 10 kids as it is, wanted 2 more, just to fulfill her "dream" of having a dozen kids. Why?? So you can cook eggs and never have two left over? Geez!

And what's with Madonna, Queen of everything trendy, adopting an African baby? Please. (The funniest part of it was, right after the dad found out Madonna was adopting his kid, he wanted it back. Lol.)


For the love of God, people, babies are not accessories you wear to make yourself look cute, philanthropic, or selfless. Nor should they be replacements for comfort food. Or prozac. And Angelina Jolie collects babies because she is equipped to provide for them and raise them. What happened to the good ole' days of carrying around a puppy in a purse?

For All You Non-followers

Here are pictures of the adorable new additions to Hollywood's First Family. Their names are Knox and Vivienne. Please be informed. Aren't they gorgeous? I love how she popped them out right before the Oscars. Her timing is impeccable. Soon we'll all find out that it's an elaborate publicity stunt, all six kids. And they're really made out of play-dough.

In other news, Santa Angelina is currently in the Mother Land fighting for refugee rights. Save me, Santa Ange!!! I'm ethnic! And I live in an apartment the size of your bathroom!

Swooonnn..she is a goddess. Is there anything this woman can't do?

See more baby pics here.

Guess Who?

What is that expression? Fear? Confusion? Curiosity?

On a related note, I'm thinking about getting a bob.

Your Daily Dose of Cuteness

He looks like an old Japanese guy in a bathhouse. For more, go here.

Let's Talk Politics

So I'd like to take a break from the nonsense postings to talk about something I (and I'm sure a lot of you) have been asked about in the past few months. It's something I feel strongly about. I want you to read the below article (especially if you are Thai) because I think it's important. Now I don't even know if posting this is allowed-it's from The Economist-but we'll see what happens. It's from a couple of months ago, but I think it's still an eye-opener. You probably know a lot of this stuff already, but it's nice to hear someone put it all out there on paper. Who knows what's true, but like the writer of this article says, it's important to know all sides of a story. I'm also currently reading Paul Handley's book, which is referenced in this article. If you think this article is taboo, read Handley's book and it'll shock your yellow shirts off!


A Right Royal Mess

Dec 4th 2008 | BANGKOK
From The Economist print edition

Thailand’s interminable political conflict has much to do with the taboo subject of its monarchy. That is why the taboo must be broken

EPA

EVEN the most revered of kings, worshipped by his people as a demigod, is not immortal. Thais were reminded of this last month when six days of ornate cremation ceremonies, with gilded carriages and armies of extras in traditional costumes, were held for Princess Galyani, the elder sister of their beloved King Bhumibol Adulyadej (pictured above). There was talk in Bangkok of the princess’s funeral being a “dress rehearsal” for the end of Bhumibol’s reign, 62 years long so far. Making one of few public appearances this year, shortly before his 81st birthday on December 5th, the king did indeed look his age.

The funeral only briefly calmed a political conflict that has raged for three years between supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister ousted by royalist generals in the 2006 coup, and an opposition movement backed by much of Bangkok’s traditional elite, apparently including Queen Sirikit. But the day after the ceremonies ended a grenade exploded among anti-Thaksin protesters, killing one. The anti-government protesters, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), who had been occupying Government House since August, then seized Bangkok’s main airports, causing chaos. The siege was lifted only eight days later, after a court dissolved the main parties in the pro-Thaksin coalition government.

Mr Thaksin is in exile, convicted in absentia of corruption. But a government dominated by his allies has governed since democracy returned in last December’s elections. It looks poised to carry on under new party names despite the court ruling. Last month Mr Thaksin staged a huge rally of his “red shirt” supporters to remind his “yellow shirt” royalist foes in the PAD, who claim to be protecting the king against Mr Thaksin’s supposed republicanism, that he remains Thailand’s most popular politician.

Besides justified concerns about Mr Thaksin’s abuses of power, one of the royalists’ worries is that he was building, through populist policies such as cheap health care and microcredit, a patronage network and popular image that challenged the king’s. Another fear is that Mr Thaksin’s alleged generosity to Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn in the past was intended to build up influence with him once he succeeds to the throne. For these and other reasons, the little-told back-story of King Bhumibol is vital to understanding the predicament of this country of 64m people.

Many Thais will squirm at what follows, and will prefer the fairy-tale version of the king’s story. But the king’s past actions are root causes of a conflict dividing the country, and need to be examined.

Bhumibol’s tale, even if stripped of the mythology his courtiers have spent decades constructing around him, is exceptional. The American-born son of a half-Chinese commoner accidentally inherits a throne close to extinction and revives it, creating one of the world’s most powerful and wealthy monarchies, and surely the only one of any significance to have gained in political power in modern times. The king’s charisma, intelligence, talents (from playing the saxophone to rain-making, a science in which he holds a European patent) and deep concern for his people’s welfare make him adored at home and admired around the world. His image perhaps reaches its zenith in 1992, after the army shoots dozens of pro-democracy protesters in Bangkok, when television shows both the army leader (and prime minister) Suchinda Kraprayoon and the protest leader, Chamlong Srimuang (now a PAD stalwart), kneeling in an audience with him. Shortly afterwards General Suchinda resigns, and the king is given credit for the restoration of democracy.

However, Bhumibol’s story is also that of a king who lost faith in democracy (if he ever really had it), who constantly meddled behind the scenes in politics and thus, in the twilight of his reign, risks leaving behind a country unprepared for life without “Father”, as Thais affectionately call him. Understanding why a country that was until recently a beacon of pluralism in Asia has become such a “mess”, as the king put it in 2006, is impossible without lifting the thick veil of reverence surrounding him.

This is not easy because, paradoxically, a king whose adulation by his subjects is supposedly near-universal is nevertheless deemed to need protection, in the form of the world’s most ferociously enforced lèse-majesté law. Whereas other monarchies have mostly abolished or stopped enforcing such laws, Thailand’s was made harsher in the 1970s. Even the most mild, reasoned criticism of the monarchy is forbidden, punishable by up to 15 years in jail. This has had a remarkable effect not just on Thais but on successive generations of Western diplomats, academics and journalists who, with few exceptions, have meekly censored themselves.

All the king’s men

The origins of this, in part, were in the Vietnam war, in which America found King Bhumibol a staunch anti-communist ally. Recognising his value as an anti-red icon, America pumped propaganda funds into a campaign to put the king’s portrait in every Thai home. Even today, although quick to decry undemocratic moves in other Asian countries, America rarely protests at the arrests of Thais and foreigners for criticising the monarchy. Foreign journalists and academics need visas and access to officialdom to do their jobs, and thus have played down the royal angle to any story.

As a result of this conspiracy of silence, only one serious biography exists of one of Asia’s most important leaders. “The King Never Smiles”, by Paul Handley, an American journalist (2006), notes that the king’s restoration of the power and prestige of the Thai monarchy “is one of the great untold stories of the 20th century.”

Mr Handley says that in the two intervening years nobody has disputed the main facts in his book; not even the most damning stuff, which explodes the myth that the king rarely intervenes in politics and then only on the side of good. Perhaps his gravest charge is that in 1976 the king seemed to condone the growth of right-wing vigilante groups that, along with the army, were later responsible for the slaughter of peaceful student protesters. As has happened often in modern Thai history (and could easily happen again now), the 1976 unrest was used as a pretext to topple the government and replace it with a royally approved one.

Bhumibol was 18 when he took the throne after the mysterious death of his ineffectual brother, King Ananda, in 1946. He promptly came under the sway of his uncles, princes itching to restore the power and wealth the crown had lost when the absolute monarchy was abolished in 1932. As he grew into his robes in the 1950s he created a comprehensive patronage system. The award of honours in exchange for donations to royal causes made the monarchy the predominant fount of charity. This “network monarchy”, as it was dubbed by Duncan McCargo, a British academic, put the king back at the centre of Thai society and recovered much of his lost power.

A theme now embraced with gusto by the PAD, inspired by the king’s speeches over the years, is that electoral politics is irretrievably filthy and that Thailand would do better with ad hoc rule by royally favoured “good men”. The epitome of these is General Prem Tinsulanonda who, as unelected prime minister in the semi-democracy of the 1980s, did more than anyone else to foster the idea of the king’s near-divinity. Now president of the privy council, General Prem is also supposedly above politics. But this too is a myth: he is widely seen as the mastermind of the 2006 coup. Shortly beforehand he told the army that the king was its “owner” and Mr Thaksin merely a replaceable “jockey”.

AP

Royalists wear yellow

The PAD is a motley bunch, united only by fanatical hatred of Mr Thaksin. It includes disgruntled businessmen, aristocratic ladies, members of a militaristic Buddhist outfit, formerly anti-monarchist intellectuals and reactionary army types. Its “new politics”, consisting of a partly appointed parliament, sweeping powers for military intervention and, of course, a strong crown, is “Premocracy” redux.

The army is a big part of the country’s predicament. Its generals believe they have a right to remove any government that incurs its, or the palace’s, displeasure—taking its cue from the monarchy that has approved so many of its coups. These two obstacles to Thailand’s democratic development are inextricably interlinked.

Mr Handley criticises the way the king has undermined the rule of law. When he has intervened to make known his wishes, his influence is such that it is taken as an order. In an example too late for the book, months before the 2006 coup the king ordered the country’s judges to do something about the political crisis. In a recording of a phone call between two Supreme Court judges shortly afterwards, later posted on the internet, one says they need to avoid the perception that they are following palace orders because “foreigners wouldn’t accept it”.

Since then, their interpretation of the king’s wishes has become increasingly clear, as the courts have rushed through cases against the former prime minister and his allies, while going easy on their critics. Some cases, such as the corruption allegations against Mr Thaksin, clearly deserved the courts’ attention. Others were trivial, such as the court-ordered sacking in September of Samak Sundaravej, the pro-Thaksin prime minister, for doing a television cookery show. In contrast, rebellion charges against the PAD’s leaders over their seizing of Government House were watered down and the courts freed them to continue the occupation.

None of this is to absolve Mr Thaksin and his cronies of their sins. But even his gravest abuse—a “war on drugs” in 2003, in which police were suspected of hundreds of extra-judicial killings—was not entirely his fault. The dirty war against supposed drug-dealers was misguidedly supported by Thais of all social classes. Even the king, in an equivocal speech that year, sounded at times as if he approved of it.

Father knows best

Other countries, from Spain to Brazil, have overcome dictatorial pasts to grow into strong democracies whose politics is mostly conducted in parliament, not on the streets. Thailand’s failure to follow suit is partly because “Father” has always been willing to step in and sort things out: his children have never quite had to grow up. The Democrats, the parliamentary opposition, are opportunists, cheering on the PAD while seemingly hoping for another royally approved coup to land the government in their lap.

AFP

Princess Sirindhorn is preferred...

The rage of Bangkok’s traditional elite against Mr Thaksin stems partly from embarrassment at having originally supported him. When he came to power in 2001 there was a feeling that Thailand needed a strong “CEO” leader, as the former businessman presented himself. His then party, Thai Rak Thai (TRT), was the first in Thai history to win a parliamentary majority on its own, and formed the first elected government to serve a full term, after which it was re-elected. Mr Thaksin’s policies of improved public services and credit for the poor, though self-serving, promised to improve an unequal, hierarchical society: another reason why the old palace-linked elite wants him eliminated.

The government of generals and bureaucrats installed by the 2006 coup-makers performed miserably. In last December’s elections, though TRT had been disbanded, Mr Thaksin’s new People’s Power Party won most seats. This spurred the PAD to resume its protests. In clashes in October PAD members fought the police with guns, bombs and sharp staves, hoping the army would again use disorder as the pretext for a coup. The PAD nevertheless blamed the clashes entirely on police brutality, and the anti-Thaksin Bangkok press let it get away with this. The death of one PAD member, apparently blown up in his car by the bomb he was carrying, was quickly buried. But the death of a young woman, reportedly when a police tear-gas canister exploded, became a cause célèbre.

Up to this point there were only whispers as to why the PAD enjoyed such lenient treatment—even from the army, which refused to help the police remove protesters from government offices. However, rumours of an extremely influential backer were confirmed when Queen Sirikit, attended by a clutch of cameramen, presided over the dead woman’s cremation. The king remained silent.

Nobody can discuss, of course, what effect the queen’s support has had on the majority of Thais who still, apparently, back Mr Thaksin. A whirl of lèse-majesté accusations have been made against pro- and anti-Thaksin figures. But the PAD’s ever more menacing behaviour, the palace’s failure to disown it, and the group’s insistence that Thais must choose between loyalty to Mr Thaksin and to the king, may be doing untold damage to the crown itself. Some of Mr Thaksin’s voters must be contemplating the flip-side of the PAD’s argument: if the monarchy is against the leader they keep voting for, maybe it is against them. Such feelings may only be encouraged by the PAD’s condescending arguments that the rural poor, Mr Thaksin’s main support base, are too “uneducated” to have political opinions, so their voting power must be reduced.

Bloomberg

…to the stiff crown prince

At a pro-Thaksin rally in July a young activist ranted against the monarchy, calling the king “a thorn in the side of democracy” for having backed so many coups, and warning the royal family they risked the guillotine. She was quickly arrested. What shocked the royalist establishment was not just the startling criticism of the king—but that the activist was cheered. “It is more and more difficult for them to hold the illusion that the monarchy is universally adored,” says a Thai academic.

This illusion is crumbling amid growing worry about what happens when the king’s reign ends. The fears over Mr Thaksin’s past influence on the crown prince are overshadowed by far deeper ones about the suitability of the heir to the throne. Vajiralongkorn has shown little of his father’s charisma or devotion to duty, and in his youth suffered from a bad reputation. In a newspaper interview he defended himself against accusations that he was a gangster. But even his mother, in an extraordinary set of interviews on a visit to America in 1981, conceded he was a “bit of a Don Juan”. “If the people of Thailand do not approve of the behaviour of my son, then he would either have to change his behaviour or resign from the royal family,” she said.

The Thai press dutifully self-censored and certainly would not repeat these criticisms now. Nevertheless, the crown prince will probably remain deeply disliked. There has been speculation over the years that the king might pass the crown to the much more popular Princess Sirindhorn, who now does most of his job of touring the country to meet the masses. The 8pm nightly royal news on television constantly shows her, smiling through endless visits and ceremonies, making merit at Buddhist temples and doing other good works. In the crown prince’s rare appearances he looks reluctant and stiff, and is rarely seen meeting ordinary people.

The patrilineal tradition of the Chakri dynasty is unlikely to be broken. And the prominent role played by the crown prince in Princess Galyani’s cremation removed any doubts about whether he was the chosen heir, says a Thai academic. Even so, many Thais, a superstitious people, will remember an old prophecy that the dynasty would last for only nine generations—Bhumibol is the ninth Chakri king—and that a tenth would be a disaster.

Some day my prince…

For all these reasons, a former senior official with strong palace ties says there is a terror of what will come after Bhumibol. “When we say ‘Long live the king’ we really mean it, because we can’t bear to think of what the next step will be,” he says. Most Thais are too young to remember a time before Bhumibol took the throne. His death will be a leap into the unknown. It would seem wise for royal advisers to be doing some succession planning. But, says the former official, none seems to be going on. And any advice offered would probably not be heeded: “The king is his own man. Nobody advises the king,” he says.

In the shorter term, a trigger for renewed confrontation may be, if a pro-Thaksin government survives, its plan to amend the constitution passed during the military regime that followed the 2006 coup. Some mooted changes, such as restoring a fully elected Senate, seem reasonable. But the PAD assumes the main motive is to relieve Mr Thaksin and his allies of the various legal charges against them. Neither side yet seems willing to compromise. Both have made clear their readiness to use street mobs to achieve their ends.

A messy but effective “Thai-style compromise” is still hoped for, to pull the country back from the brink. It is even possible to dream of the red- and yellow-shirt movements transforming themselves into a well-behaved, mainstream two-party system with broad public participation. This, in turn, might help the country escape the dead hand of the courtiers and generals who are trying to drag the country into the past. But none of this is likely.

If Bhumibol’s glittering reign either ends in conflagration or leads to a Thailand paralysed by endless strife, with nobody of his stature to break the deadlock, it will be a tragedy. But he will have played a leading role in bringing about such an outcome. There is of course an opposing case to be made—that the king has been a stabilising influence in a volatile age, that his devotion to duty has been an inspiring example and that he has only ever done what he thought best for the country. But that case has been made publicly, day in, day out, for decades. Thais are not allowed to discuss in public the other side of the coin.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12724800

Angie on SNL

Hilarious! This new girl's pretty good.

Video Recaps | Full Episodes | Webisodes

The Happiest Place on Earth

Wow! I didn't know I'd be serial blogger!

Anyhoos, I wanted to tell you about something exciting. The entire fam and I are going on vaycaycay next month courtesy of Mom. We're going to Disney World! I'm so excited. I was given the honors of planning the entire thing, and I managed to score a deal at the Port Orleans Riverside Resort, pictured above. It looks perrrty nice. Other than the resort, I have no idea of what to expect. Last time I went to Disney was when I was a little kid. I don't even know if I'll be able to go on any of the rides for the mere reason that I'm chicken-shit. Oh well, there's always the ferris wheel. I think they might be surprising us with something though, because every time I call the agent asks us if we are celebrating anything. I tell them Bar Mitzvah. Just kidding.

Has anyone been lately? Share some tips, experiences. I'll even tell Mickey you said hi.

Behold--The Eyeball Magnifyer

Throughout the centuries, women have physically altered themselves to look more appealing. They've bound their feet, they've gone through genital mutilation, they've worn neck rings to elongate their necks. Then of course there are the less drastic measures: hair dying, eyelash curling, nail painting. The latest body altering trend?

Pupil Enlargement.

Well, not really. Contact lens manufacturers now make lens that are supposed to "give you bigger, livelier eyes with a more expressive look." Translation: you'll look like an anime heroine. Has this been around for a while? I don't know. Seems new to me. It's all the rage right now in Asia.

During my last trip to Thailand a couple of months ago I stopped into an optical store. It was my last day there and I wanted to to buy a box of contacts. Yes, in Thailand you can do that--no prescription needed. I bought the only kind they had with my base curve size. Unbeknownst to me, they were the eyeball enlarging kind. I realized this when I put them on and and whoa....my eyes were big.

I have to admit, I kind of like them though. I think the brand I got makes them look really subtle. So you don't look bug-eyed or cracked-out or anything. Nobody's asked me so far if I was going into shock or having a seizure. So I think I'm okay.

To come to think of it though, all these physical traits women strive for usually have associations to an evolutionary benefit. For example, say, men like women with big hips and small waists because it's a sign of fertility. Or they like big breasts for that same child-rearing rationale. Why do men like women with big eyes, baby-like eyes? Maybe it's a signal that we'll be able to see clearly when the big, baby-eating boar comes running for our kids. Haha.

Or maybe they just want us to look like anime porn stars. Random thoughts, random thoughts.

My Personal Tribute to Ayush Mahesh Khedekar

Have you seen Slumdog Millionaire? It was good. I liked it. It's winning every award under the sun, but let me extend my appreciation to someone who hasn't won anything yet. Here's to the little guy who bravely jumped into a pile of what was supposed to be sh*t. (I hope it was chocolate). He did a really good job getting the audience to fall in love the character, and was darn cute doing it!

According to Perez, though (yes, I am citing Perez), some kid stars from this movie are still living in poverty. The other two main kids were paid $1060 and $3600 for a year's worth of work. That's sad. I wonder if they know how well known they have become.

25 Fabulous Things

I received this on Facebook:

"Once you've been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I want to know more about you."

Fun! Thought I'd post it here so I would be able to share it and come back and look at it from time to time. Here goes, ready?

1. I have five different nicknames and no one person knows all of them.
2. I hate milk.
3. If I am involved in a boring conversation I usually tune out.
4. I once had a stalker.
5. I shake out the fizz out of my Coke before I drink it.
6. I am a closet Brangaloony and I google image them when I am extremely bored at work.
7. I love to eat.
8. I once was told that if I was a color, I would shift between turquoise blue and deep blue, like the ocean. I like that.
9. I like to make people laugh.
10. Slow walkers and loud people on cell phones irritate the crap out of me.
11. Once, to sneak out of an alarmed house, I tied a rope around a bed, threw it out the window, and climbed out.
12. I've had pigeon before and I liked it.
13. I secretly want to go to a Britney Spears concert.
14. I hate math and I suck at it.
15. I mentally play Extreme Makeover on other people on the subway.
16. I like babies.
17. I think skiing is overrated.
18. My dream is to move to Manhattan.
19. I love to read.
20. I think vegetarians are really missing out.
21. I want to go for a ride in a hot air balloon.
22. I am obsessed with baby shoes.
23. I am a city girl, through and through.
24. I am a lefty and I firmly believe that lefties have special powers.
25. I always tell the cashier that my name is Janine when I'm in line at Starbucks.

Reality Remorse

So...the other day I got sucked into watching 1.5 hours of the classy VH1 production I Love Money. Yup. A descendent of Survivor, it's about a bunch of people doing anything for a ridiculous amount of money none of them deserve. This was right after a brain numbing full hour of For the Love of Ray Jay, one of VH1's wonderful interpretations of The Bachelor. All in all, it was 2.5 hours of screeching, bad fake accents, bleeped-out profanity, fake boobs and shirtless toolboxes. I ended up going to bed at 2 a.m.

The next morning I woke up with a strange, familiar feeling. You know, the feeling you get the day after you eat a really, big, fat, meal and go straight to bed. Or after you spend A LOT of money on something you don't need. I call it, my friends, reality remorse. Because by waiting out to see if Stripper 1 tears off Stripper 2's weave I paid a dear opportunity cost. I could have been reading a good book to better myself. I could have been...*sob*...sleeping!

What happened to reality TV anyway?? Since when did watching reality TV become about public humiliation? Since when did people turn to reality shows to indulge in the lowest-common-denominator kind of entertainment? Could it have something to do with the fact that we've come to associate TV-watching with gluttony; stuffing our faces with chips and soda on the couch?

Sigh. I guess I'll just steer clear of reality shows for now. Or VH1 for that matter. I'm sticking to my Law & Order though. Love that show.