the rule of fools

the problem with this oft over-aggrandized method of rule is that it is, by definition, the rule of the many. who the fuck thought that that's a good way to run anything? do those who want democracy not realize that the average human being is only twice removed from his more base nature of eating, fucking and literally killing the competition? so instead of entrusting rule to those smart enough to actually make decisions that will affect the lives of millions, we decide instead to entrust it to the same simpletons who make paris hilton popular. does this make sense?

democracy, for the love of god, is not the rule by that which is best for a nation, but rather the rule by what most people want. people want to engorge themselves on mcd's. people want to smoke. people need to be convinced to wear a helmet while moving at high speeds on a glorified bicycle. people obsess with reality tv. the riffraff cannot be trusted with rule, yet paradoxically we insist that listening to everyone is the best way to rule. how can someone who knows nothing of economy, history or basic science in anything be asked to vote on climate or health laws? how can they decide what the best fiscal policy for a country is?

democracy doesn't give you what you want, it only gives the chance to everyone and gives the majority what they want - right and wrong be damned. were it not for a few brave souls, we'd still have slavery and women subjugation, thanks to democracy. how about women's right to vote? saudi and kuwait are looked upon (deservedly, i may add) as backwards and oppressive due to their policies regarding women and voting, but one needs to look no further than the smug switzerland for a true showcase of democracy friendly europe: liechtenstein didn't allow women to vote until 1984.

long live democracy, the rule of fools.

update: i misread a sentence that lead me to assume that liechtenstein was part of switzerland. apologies to the the 35,000 that make the population of liechtenstein and to the swiss. switzerland is a true leader in women's rights with federal voting granted to women as early as 1971!, while appenzell ausserrhoden (a canton in switzerland) granted women the right in 1989. phew, that was close!

the new ipad is here!

omg it has a fucking camera! i can't wait to shoot movies with my oversized iphone! and listen to this, it comes with a choice of TWO colors! omg omg omg i'm getting one now! omg i'll be the envy of all my original ipad toting loser friends!

how to overthrow a leader

(serious note: the below is a humorous entry that does not in any way attempt to make light of the events or deaths in the region. i salute every single tunisian, egyptian, libyan, bahraini and yemeni who stood strong for their countries, and i am humbled by those who have given their lives. i wrote it because if you take the leaders' speeches before they leave, they can be copied verbatim one to the other)
1. look for a country ripe for the picking, preferably with a dictator in power for more than a decade
2. start a facebook page decrying the abuse and inequality
3. wait for 10 to 15 thousand members then announce a demonstration
4. demonstrate. make sure you tell everyone on twitter, facebook and aljazeera before you start. the internet is susceptible to insane leaders.
5. surprisingly, the government will either ignore you or try to pacify you. when that happens, find a prominent location (historically speaking, a large roundabout seems to work better than average, but that's just a fluke - a large park or open area might work as well, though squares should be strictly avoided), setup tents and basic services and pray very hard that your leader isn't insane.
6. wait for the leader to claim that you and your posse are foreigners, or drunkards, or separatists. that will increase your posse!
7. wait till the leader claims he will not leave ever and that he will eradicate you.
8. chant "leave! leave! leave!"
9. leader overthrown
caution:
1. may (will most probably) cause deaths. proceed with caution
2. the economy will suffer, but that's a short-term issue and it will recover
3. it is preferable to have an organized opposition to avoid a leadership void
4. camping may be prolonged - plan routes for provisions and medical aid

religion: pick what you like, blindly disregard the rest

so british gay couples want to get a religious wedding. a muslim one at that.

what. the. fuck.

i mean help me out here guys. i'm all for gay love - in fact i root for people to marry whoever the fuck they want. but hypocrisy just drives me up the wall. aren't same-sex relationships banned in islam? i mean, an american imam "reasons that to deny gay Muslim couples the right to a religious union, goes against teachings in the Koran". really? doesn't being homosexual go against the teaching of that same book you quote?

this religious slectivity of what we think is or isn't blessed by allah or god or yahweh or zeus makes me livid. you're either religious and follow a book, and you're not and you go what you heart and mind tell you. if you choose what part of religion you want to follow that doesn't make you religious, it just makes you a hypocrite.

customer doesn't like your service? no problem; sue them. way to go #BenihanaKUW

i am posting this to teach the idiot managing benihana kuwait that with the help of the internet, two dictators were overthrown so far; surely a lowly manager of a restaurant isn't beyond its reach? tsk tsk.

a blogger ate there and blogged his review of the restaurant. it wasn't particularly critical, but for a brand name like benihana, his experience was underwhelming to say the least.

after a few rather bizarre comments to the contrary (all ending in LOLs - seriously, are the people working there 13?), the manager decided to reveal himself and sue the blogger. fucking genius.

now as far as i know, benihana (the japanese brand name owner) hasn't done anything, apparently they don't have power to interfere with legal moves made by their franchisees. but boy oh boy is that idiot getting fired.

why am i posting this? i want justice to be served by those who were offended; free-thinking bloggers. spread the word. #BenihanaKUW

it burns because its people decided to speak up. it burns in anger and frustration and oppression.
it burns because to fix something rotten, you have to tear it down and start over. you have to kill the roots. you have to burn them.
it burns because someone stood their ground and said "enough". and another joined them. and another. and another. and everyone thought "yes, we've had enough"
it burns because there is hope still alive.
it burns because to kill a disease you have to burn it.
egypt burns, but it burns for its own good.

i'll talk to god myself, thank you very much

so walking in the streets of beirut, an old lady was asking for handouts. she was sitting in a strategic location, where a pole narrows the sidewalk enough till you can't pass by without noticing her. she was sitting there asking for help, and exclaiming in a loud voice how she's asking god to bless you.

which made me think.

(a) i don't need your help in asking god for anything. if i were inclined to do so, i would speak directly to him myself - not sure what value you add in the process. you don't exactly inspire a preferred relationship with the creator

(b) i think your product is bogus. i mean, wouldn't you say it's quite inefficient for you to ask god to bless me in return for me to help you, instead of asking him to help you directly? surely all the time and energy you spend asking god to bless people will be much more effective if it's channeled directly at you? as such, your prayers are not incentive at all for me to help.

we're all socialists at heart - even americans!

obama has been a victim of his own ambition. i've read an excellent article on businessweek. however, i would like to quote a few points in there:
"Political equality is a sacred idea to Americans; economic equality, however, is not"
"The United States, according to this study, is a nation of people who would like to spread the wealth around. They just don't know it.
Can it really be that simple? In part, this work fits into a proud tradition of social science research demonstrating the basic ignorance of the average American."
"Yet studies have also shown that voters have an impressive ability to absorb information that contradicts their beliefs without letting it change their minds."
really these snippets do not give the article its justice, though it does do a good job of some american bashing. apologies to ethan in advance.

but it also highlights a bigger problem in human psyche: it is dangerous for intelligent people to try to explain things to idiots. see an intelligent person will stop at points they don't understand, they will put in the effort to understand. an idiot will just apply their own prejudices and assume they "got it". long live idiocy!

the dubai class chasm - in one sentence

"let the guys from almusalla come to friendly challenge class - we'll pay for their metro"
- ahmed, in difc

the social network

i have recently watched the social network. excellent movie. excellent writing, excellent acting, gripping drama and so fucking relevant. excellent movie. in fact, i left the theater thinking this: will our kids grow up and be shown this movie in schools, as a historical overview of their social environments. i mean it brought to mind the bigger question of whether facebook will become the default interaction environment?

i mean, how many times do you email a friend to touch base? maybe to share docs and stuff, but just to say hi, or organize an outing, or to share pictures, facebook is the place to go. think of this: how many times do you find posts on facebook where people post something like "lost my phone, inbox me your numbers" or "got bbm, my pin is xxxx". so facebook is becoming the default mode of communication, more essential than a mobile phone.

which brings to mind another interesting conflict (got a few hits in the news recently): google vs facebook. why would a search company have beef with facebook? two points, (a) small one, google is trying to flex its social muscles, with things like buzz and latitude, etc. so facebook's dominance is tough to break. (b) big one, facebook is a world closed on itself: google can't search it. google's search capability, linked to its ad revenue, is the company's bread and butter. the fact that google had its applications open to facebook but not vice versa, finally dawned on them as a point of contention, and now they closed the interfaces. in other words, if facebook won't share info, google won't share either. interesting.

so this takes me back to my original point: will our children be facebooking or googling? which one is more important? the case for google is simple: it democratizes information. the ability to reach a very specific piece of information quickly and with relevant results is google's secret. it's an amazing ability that can't be binged or yahood. for facebook: it's simple as well, it's simply connecting people. the ability to get and keep in touch is amazing. i think that google is more important, but that's the engineer in me. some will identify facebook, for those who value human interaction more than human intellect.

one thing has to be kept in mind though, which is sometimes missed. both these companies work towards one common goal: money.