What price one point? Liverpool 1 - Arsenal 1

Well, Liverpool managed a draw against Arsenal. Good enough, given the balance of the match and the performances of the two teams. One might even say that Liverpool was lucky to come away with this one point. Arsenal missed several good chances, had a seemingly legitimate shout for a penalty turned down and dominated the midfield after Xabi Alonso's substitution.

Compared to the performance against Baksitas, this was a marked improvement by Liverpool. They defended much better, for one thing. It was positively godsent not to concede an own goal for the third match running. But there is an obvious lack of creativity going forward, more pronounced than ever in light of the recent exploits of Arsenal and Manchester United, both teams achieving a brand of football to which Liverpool dare not aspire. Heck, even Chelsea managed a 6-0 hammering of Manchester City over the weekend.

Still, it could be said that creative, attacking football is not a pre-requisite for successful teams. Chelsea won two Premiership titles without ever much caring to be entertaining while they were grinding out results.

The problem is that Liverpool is not grinding out the wins. Although undefeated in the Premiership, the team lies sixth and behind Blackburn, of all indignities. After just one quarter of the season, they have already settled too many matches in draws that should have been victories. At the end of the season, surely the team will lament the points dropped in the draws againt Portsmouth, Birmingham and the beleaguered Tottenham.

Of course, this draw against Arsenal is not one of the ones Liverpool should or could have won.
All things considered, a point against a clearly superior Arsenal team is a good point to have gained. However, this is a point earned at the expense of injuries to Torres, Alonso and Mascherano. Without Torres, one hardly knows where the goals are going to come from. Crouch seems the best bet of the forward line, but I am afraid Benitez's persistence with not starting Crouch might even drive him away from Liverpool.

I am reserving space for yet another mention of Voronin, the non-striking wonder. Benitez must have liked something about him, but all I am seeing so far is a rather cumbersome player with a distinct lack of pace and grace, and the unfortunate tendency to waste good chances. Whenever a good pass or cross falls to him, I groan in anticipation of an off-target shot or a complete failure to connect. It's gotten to where I am hoping not to see a pony-tailed figure in the penalty box when Liverpool is mounting an attack.

I am beginning to think that the Premiership is a no-go zone for Ukrainian strikers named Andriy. Maybe Benitez should have learnt something from the Shiva experiment at Chelsea and there is no doubting that Shevchenko is the more accomplished player. Looking at the Guardian's ever-so helpful players statistics page, I find that Voronin has played 10 internationals (with 8 starts) this season and not yet managed to score. Hmm, I suppose Liverpool is actually lucky that he is managing a better goals:games ratio with club than he has with country??

Here's hoping that third time's the charm! Prove me wrong, Andriy!!

B&S Watch Update - Episode 14

Last week's episode clocked in at 50 minutes, ads included.

Kevin's story line with Chad was censored almost to nothing. In fact, I have a feeling the average non-Internet-checking viewer might not know that Chad and Kevin have been involved for a couple of episodes now. We did get to actually see Jason Lewis in person, which makes a nice change from just seeing his name in the guest star list. Kevin's ex-boyfriend, Scotty, also put in an appearance in this episode. It was supposed to be a romantic triangle of sorts, not that we would know based on what we get to see. The way that Kevin's story lines are censored, one has to wonder why Scotty and Chad randomly pop in and out of his life to have strangely truncated exchanges and share the occasional meaningful glance.

Again, I must give props to the censors for an adroit job in excising mentions of Kevin's sex life from the episode. The opening scene was a multi-way conversation about the Valentine's Days shenanigans of the brothers and sisters. Whoever wielded the scissors did a fantastic job to eliminate all evidence of Kevin's confession that he had slept with Scotty, mentioned initially by Kevin himself and then repeatedly brought up with both his sisters. It was masterful editing; as ever, the unsuspecting viewer would probably have thought of Kevin as celibate. However, one could easily tell from Matthew Rhys's expression that he was not simply lending a listening ear to his siblings' laments about their ill-advised hookups. Besides, the humour in the situation was that ALL of the single Walkers had somehow managed to sleep with someone against their own better judgment. This was censorship that undermined the comedy.

Istanbul: Happy memories no more

I went to Youtube and watched Arsenal put 7 goals past Slavia Prague, including the perfect team goal (goal number 6).

Then I watched the live telecast of Liverpool losing 2-1 to Besiktas at Istanbul.

Liverpool plays Arsenal in the Premier League on Sunday. I am NOT looking forward to this. The timing could not be worse.

But then again, the team that will play Arsenal on Sunday will probably bear no resemblance to the one that lost at Istanbul today. Benitez will make at least 7 changes. But I bet he will start Voronin again (who once again missed a few chances tonight).

And Chelsea, supposedly the team in crisis just a few weeks ago, scored a 2-0 victory against Schalke. Man Utd scored 4 to beat Dynamo Kiev 2-4 in the Ukraine. Everyone is winning, except Liverpool!!

Bleeargh.

Live the Dream Finale or How I Learnt to Stop Griping and Admire Ken Lim

Tonight sealed it. Ken Lim has won me over with his acerbic jibes and his ability to drip with disdain without being rude.

He is still a manipulative, miserable old SOB most of the time, but I have to give him huge props for being manipulative and miserable with style. It's no mean feat!

Peformance Show:

Victor Tang: He sounds better this week than he did two weeks ago. That's not necessarily saying a lot, but it is a marked improvement. The first song was pitchier than a cricket training ground. The 2nd was much better in terms of pitch but had about as much oomph as flat beer. He has nice enough vocal tone when he manages to keep in key, but why does he sing everything in that simpering manner?

Fendi: He's sticking to his R&B comfort zone and all the better for it. The first song (Change the World) was very nice indeed with the semi-scatting and a cool, relaxed vibe. He went for ultra high difficulty levels on the second song (Isn't She Lovely). Seriously, we are talking the equivalent of coloratura fireworks here. He came very close to pulling off all the vocal tricks. There were a few flat spots but in the face of such impressive vocal pyrotechnics, it seems churlish to nitpick.

By Definition: They are so very entertaining and dynamic, never a dull moment on stage. The first song was typical By Definition - dramatic, musically tight and fun. The second song (Elvis Presley's A Little Less Conversation) was a complete blast! The energy level was off the charts! I think it's possibly the best performance I have seen on this show. This is a band in the best sense where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Catsine Cradle: I really like the way they sound. And the lead singer is in great voice tonight. He is definitely among the best singers, if not THE best singer, in the competition, in both categories. The first song was authentic classic acoustic rock - cleanly sung, aurally a pleasure. The second song was more of the same - great singing. It was Jeff's (the lead-singer) show and the two guitarists could have been a minus-one track for all we knew.

Judges: Well, it is all about Ken Lim, isn't it? He is more entertaining than most of the contestants. Next to By Definition's 2nd song, the most entertaining segments of the show were Ken's critiques of Victor Tang. The second critique was a thing of beauty, with its underhanded "compliments", references to politicians and veiled suggestions of ruthlessness, insincerity and possibly corruption. The crack about Victor having "qualities lacking in Singapore's opposition parties" was classic! I hope someone uploads this to Youtube, because it's worth hearing again. And he also cleverly slipped in a jibe at Victor when he was commenting on Fendi. It takes real style to pull this off. Definitely not for amateurs.

The judges were totally unsubtle about whom they want to win. Once Dick started the ball rolling by telling Fendi out right, "We knew you would win", the guest judges similarly showed no compunction in declaring their favourites.


Result Show:

Victor Tang is SO very out of his league. When the top four finalists performed together, his vocal shortcomings were showcased and amplified several times over. Not good.

I must say that Taufik Batisah has taken very well to musical Idol-dom. He has always been a good singer and a very cool, confident performer. Nowadays, he is exuding star power while retaining his hometown-boy charm. Mediacorp pulled out the stops for his performance, giving him a full complement of back-up dancers and special lighting effects.

The Top 10 finalists were trotted out to perform a medley of songs. First the top 5 soloists. Boy oh boy oh boy. Victor Tang was so outclassed by the other 4 soloists. The contrast in quality was painful. Olynn and Robert Tsunga were probably the best two singers in the solo category and were naturally the first two eliminated. Olynn was especially impressive to me. Shauna Simon looked very nice despite wearing horizontal stripes and sang well too.

In the group category, Catsine Cradle kicked things off with a really lovely performance of a song that I know but cannot remember the title of (this was just beautiful, they should have done this in competition). The Sugarettes sounded pleasant, Revelina was adorable as usual and By Definition put on another one of their signature roof-raising performances. Sadly, After the Rain brings everything crashing down around our ears with a weirdly screamy and off-key performance.

The Papaya Sisters sang that old standard about the beautiful roses, but I was hopelessly distracted by their costumes.

The Click Five came on and sang a couple of songs, including one where the finalists joined in. Theirs is not the kind of music I usually listen to, but it is very listenable. And they are rather pleasant on the eye, though I do not approve of the hair.

Results time:

Fendi wins the solo category!! Utt then asked Ken the most rhetorical question ever - "Did the right person win?". Hahaha, Ken was scoffing and even asked if it was meant to be a trick question. He then proceeded to congratulate Fendi and make a crack about Shrek 2.

And it's By Definition winning the group category! Wow, the judges get the winners that they want. Dick got the honour of telling Utt that yes, Singapore got it right.

Mormon Memories and Current Skepticism

I have been re-reading Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" (full book review to come at An Unused Voice) ahead of HBO's telecast of Big Love. This HBO Original series chronicles a polygamist family in Utah living the Principle of "plural marriage", a Principle originally revealed by god to Joseph Smith, founder and first prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, also known as the LDS church or simply the Mormon church.

Of course, the modern Mormon church has eschewed polygamy for many years. Current adherents of the Principle are typically followers of "Mormon spin-off" faiths and usually collectively known as Mormon fundamentalists. The core of Krakauer's book is the tale of two Mormon fundamentalists who commit a senseless double-murder while in the grip of a religious fervour. Around this central narrative, Krakauer recounts the thoroughly fascinating history of Mormonism, from Joseph Smith's first encounter with the angel Moroni, through the Brigham Young years, to the 1890 Manifesto reversing the church position on plural marriage and the subsequent proliferation of polygamist sects splintering from the mainstream church. He also tells us a little about the modern Mormon church, including how many believers go on missions to convert the masses to the one true church.

While reading all of this, I suddenly remembered that I have had an encounter with Mormon missionaries. This was back in my days as a university student in Australia. Two very friendly, neatly dressed women knocked at my apartment door. They asked me if I was a believer in god, if I had ever gone to church, if I ever thought about what might help make the world better. I can't remember what I told them. Back then, I would sometimes tell the evangelist types that I did visit church and was "considering the faith", just to get them off my back. Perhaps this is what I told these two friendly ladies. I remember that they were not overly persistent, but they did say that their church was different. I also distinctly remember one of them saying "Not to worry, we are not Jehovah's Witnesses". Come to think of it, that was a pretty strange thing to say!

They did not ask to be let into the apartment and left me with a pamphlet, urging me to read it. I think one of them said that if I prayed upon reading the pamphlet, the truth of its message will be shown to me.

I vaguely remember the pamphlet; the front page was green in colour, possibly with a tree/ leaf or earth motif. But I might be confusing this with other church materials that I have seen over the years. I mean, the average church pamphlet designer does tend to like the Garden of Eden / God's Heaven on Earth theme - the "nature" clip-art collection must get a thorough ransacking.

What I definitely am NOT confusing with other church materials are the contents of the pamphlet. In a few paragraphs and not many words, the pamphlet told the story of the angel Moroni giving Joseph Smith the golden plates, upon which were written the Truth of the coming of Christ to the New World, the message of his 2nd coming and the salvation of man. Joseph Smith, the prophet of god, then translated the golden plates into the Book of Mormon and founded the one true church, the LDS church.

Okay, I admit I did not pray as the missionaries had suggested. However, there was something about the pamphlet - the conviction of its proclaimations, the font, the layout, the way the words "Book of Mormon" were made to seemingly glow on the page - well, I half-expected to be visited by a flash of light or something. It was all so far fetched, I almost thought there must be some truth to it. I knew nothing about Mormonism, apart from the fact that Donnie and Marie Osmond, whom I had seen on their eponymous TV show as a child, were Mormons.

Well, there was no flash of light, nor the "burning bosom" that I now know that Mormons talk about. The truth was not shown to me. I did learn that the LDS church had some pretty non-orthodox beliefs. I had not earlier connected Mormonism to LDS. I had some vague knowledge of the existence of the LDS church (they have been in Asia for quite a while), but I could not tell from the name of the church that there was such an outlandish story behind the faith. Jesus visited America, an angel visiting a 19th century American prophet, sacred golden plates - I mean, this seems the stuff of bad Victorian-era fiction!

Since then, I have read a few more things about Joseph Smith and Mormon history. Boy, they were wise to leave some of this stuff off the pamphlets. The thing about the magic translating spectacles would have been an instant deal-breaker for me. And the fact that the magic translating spectacles conveniently disappeared without a trace. Magic spectacles that Joseph Smith put on to read the sacred golden plates! It's like something you read to kids as a bedtime story! This was all very fine and well for people in the 19th century to believe, but I cannot imagine myself ever getting past this. I guess my own half-Buddhist, half-secular-humanist leanings have something to do with my predisposition towards skepticism, but come on! Magic spectacles! A magic quill would have been much sexier. Look what it did for JK Rowling!

And I haven't even gotten to the hat! Once he had lost the magic spectacles, Joseph Smith had to resort to translating the golden plates by sticking his head in an upturned hat, into which he had placed his special magic peep stone. See how "magic" is everywhere in this story? But never mind the magic for now - he translated sacred scripture by looking into a hat!! Again, this was probably quite appealing in the 19th century. It probably struck people back then as being refreshingly down to earth and balanced out the grandiosity of the angel and the great glittering golden plates.

But .... he was looking into a hat. Not wearing it, or touching it, or even pulling a rabbit out of it (which would have been more in keeping with the magic theme). Sticking his head inside the hat. It's all rather ... undignified, no?? If the magic spectacles had not sent me fleeing, this definitely would have done it.

And that is all without getting in the story told in the Book of Mormon itself. The convoluted tale of Lehi who journeyed with his followers from Israel to the New World six hundred years before Christ, his sons Laman and Nephi, the rival clans of Lamanites (the baddies) and Nephites (the goodies), Jesus visiting them in the New World after his resurrection and the final doomed battle between the two clans which killed off the Nephites, leaving as their last survivor a man named Moroni, who would later visit Joseph Smith in angel form to deliver this story inscribed on the golden plates.

There is one telling detail in this story. The Lamanites were an unruly, ungodly bunch and were cursed by God with dark skin as punishment. Later on the Lamanites wiped off the Nephites from the face of the earth and went on to become the forebears of the native Americans (or American Indians). All this is purported to have happened pre-Columbus and the complete annihilation of the fair-skinned Nephites explains why Columbus found no whitemen when he discovered America.

See, this is the sort of story that would have made perfect sense to your average 19th century American. Historians agree that many Americans in that era were proudly, prodigiously racist. That people of colour were "cursed by God" was something they could readily accept and believe. That the "savages" of the native American tribes were descended from a cursed race only enforced the righteousness of the godly pale-skinned true believers. Joseph Smith's home-spun saga of Good versus Evil fed and flattered the preconceived notions of the time. It pandered to its intended audience and it was a story with great purchase because of that.

Seen through our more enlightened eyes (or perhaps, simply our evolved value systems), it is blatantly, horribly racist. Off-puttingly so. But also in a way that is transparently a product of its time. More than any of the logical inconsistencies of the Book of Mormon (eg. descriptions of animals, equipment and tools that had not arrived in the Americas till after Columbus), this little detail tells me that this was a story of Joseph Smith's creation, not one that is divinely revealed. It's bad fanfiction of the 19th century vintage - riffing off a familiar story or character (in this case, Jesus Christ) by setting said story or character in a different time or place (in this case, America), replete with anachronisms (in this case, too many to recount), convenient and pat plot contrivances (in this case, the Nephite genocide) and consciously "knowing" references (in this case, the cursed Lamanites) that appeal directly to fandom (in this case, the average 19th century American amenable to embracing a new faith).

Even if I could get past the silliness of the spectacles and the hat, I absolutely draw the line at bad fanfiction. Really, there isn't even the consolation of a non-canon slash pairing. It's entirely unsupportable.

And, in Gay News today ....

Update on the 377a situation. Needless to say and to the surprise of exactly nobody, Parliament has decided to retain it.

Media reports said www.repeal377a.com garnered over 9,000 signatories for the online letter, and over 2000 for the petition to Parliament. The keep377a site got over 15,000 signatures. Oh well, it's not unexpected, but still somewhat disappointing.

On a somewhat related note, JK Rowling revealed over the weekend that Albus Dumbledore is gay (reaction posted at An Unused Voice). The international Harry Potter fandom is variously thrilled, dismayed, over-reacting and indifferent. I dare not seek out Singaporean reactions, after the encounter with keep377a. I just wonder whether someone is going to set up a website to denounce the Harry Potter series (www.repealHarryPotter.com, anyone?). Or perhaps a good, old-fashioned ritual book-burning? Or the environmentally friendly option - "Save the Earth, save our values: Recycle your Harry Potter books!" Maybe they could turn the HP books into toilet paper, which would bring the whole thing back to what started it in the first place: the a**hole.

2007 F1 Season: Speed merchants vs Spin merchants

The English had a bad week in sports. The soccer team succumbed to Russia mid-week, putting their Euro 2008 qualification hopes in peril and as expected, prompting calls for Second Choice Steve to get the sack. I don't know, this was always going to be a touch match for England, on the artificial pitch in Moscow and pitted against Guus Hiddink's tactical nous at home. I think these were points they should have expected to drop right at the start of the campaign. On Saturday (or Sunday morning in this part of the world), the rugby team went down valiantly to South Africa in the Rugby World Cup final. I thought that England did great in that match. They were clearly outclassed by the Springboks but held their own and played above their limitations.

It seemed that Lewis Hamilton would salvage English pride in a week of sporting blows. I fully expected him to duly score the needed points and take the F1 World Driver's Championship. Unlike the soccer and rugby teams, Hamilton was clearly favoured to win and more importantly, had put himself in a strong position to do so - he was leading the WDC on points and had qualified ahead of both his challengers. Which is why the astounding result from yesterday's Brazillian Grand Prix is probably the biggest blow of all to English expectations.

For the record, Kimi Raikonnen won the race, Fernando Alonso was third and Lewis Hamilton an unexpected 7th. The WDC points table ended up with Raikonnen on 110 points, Hamilton and Alonso tied on 109 points but Hamilton being declared 2nd place finisher on a count-back.

It was an almost surreal unfolding of events right from the flag-off. By the 2nd corner of the first lap, Hamilton was down to 8th. A few laps later, he was down to 19th after a gearbox failure. The unthinkable had happened - Hamilton seemed to be blowing it!! Raikkonen had pushed up to 2nd, but Alonso was right behind him in third. At that stage, advantage Alonso. Suddenly, Robert Kubica overtook Alonso and it was all up for grabs again. Then Raikonnen took the race lead after a pit stop, but Alonso was back in third and Hamilton had fought his way back into the points and was in with a shout again. Things kept changing and viewers who watched the race on Star Sports were not helped by the commentator's apparent uncertainty over the points calculation.

Following the race via the Star Sports commentary was completely chaotic. They were simply so determined to keep Hamilton's hopes alive. At one stage, the commentators were convinced that Hamilton (then in 8th place) was within 2-3 seconds of a cluster of cars in 4th to 6th places. One computer update later, it was clarified that he was close to the 7th place car but was in fact almost 30 seconds behind the 6th place car.

With fewer than 10 laps to go, the commentators finally got it straightened out and told us unequivocally that Kimi Raikonnen would be the 2007 World Champion if he won the race and the other two finished in their current positions, as they were likely to do. Finally and rather belatedly, when all hope for an English winner seemed gone, they began to commend Raikonnen as a deserving World Champion. Mind you, I sensed a somewhat insultingly dismissive tone in these comments, but perhaps it was just bitter disappointment. "He's not the wonder-of-all-wonders, genius-of-all-geniuses that is Lewis Hamilton, but he deserves to be World Champion." Why, thank you, Steve Slater and Matthew NotChrisGoodwin (sorry, didn't catch the name at the start of the telecast). I am sure Kimi Raikonnen is so very pleased to have your stamp of approval.

By and large, the commentary and media coverage of the 2007 F1 season has been blatantly and nauseatingly pro-Hamilton. Of course, the problem partially lies with us being English speakers and English readers, and so we get British commentary and coverage by British media. Even so, the parochialism in the F1 coverage was downright obnoxious, much more so than in English coverage of the national cricket, rugby or soccer teams. I wonder if it was because Hamilton came so much closer to being World Champion, that his ascent to the top had been so assured, that his crowning seemed a matter of formality and as such, a matter of entitlement.

Whatever the reason, it was enough for me to root for Raikonnen yesterday and failing that, Alonso. I had been put off enough to adopt the Australia ABE (Anyone But England) mantra .

Kimi Raikonnen won the World Championship where it mattered, by scoring points on the race track. He won 6 races this year, more than Alonso and Hamilton who both won 4. By that measure alone, he "deserves" (take that, Slater and NotGoodwin) to be World Champion. He struggled to adapt to the car initially and has had more than his fair share of bad luck with engine reliability issues (I think he is legitimately the unluckiest driver in F1) but he ground out the finishes and scored points when he could. He was part of a Ferrari team that struggled with consistency but crucially, operated as a team from the first race to the last and did not allow itself to splinter internally, unlike some other team we could think of.

During a race held at the height of the "spy" scandal, one of the Star Sports commentator confidently declared that "If you are a neutral, you would want McLaren to beat the Ferraris this weekend!". That about summed it up for me. Okay, I am not exactly a neutral, but how were Ferrari the bad guys when they were the ones who had their secrets given to the enemy?? McLaren certainly has a fine line in portraying themselves as hard done by, and the media has done its part to hone that impression.

And now, ludicrously, McLaren mismanager Ron Dennis intends to appeal the result of the Brazillian Grand Prix on a technicality relating to fuel temperatures. He apparently wants the 4th to 6th placed cars of Rosberg, Heidfeld and Kubica to be excluded from the final standings because the petrol in these cars had cooled to a temperature lower than the regulation 10 degrees below ambient. The race stewards had already conducted an inquiry and ruled that the placings would stand. Apparently, this is not good enough for McLaren who are intending to lodge an appeal, which if successful, could see Hamilton promoted to 4th and scoring the points needed to win the World Championship.

You know, it seems implausible that either McLaren or Hamilton would want to win the Championship in this backdoor manner. F1 has enough PR issues without having the WDC decided not on the race circuit, but in the courts.

Then again, not only McLaren but Bernie Ecclestone and the FIA also appeared to be desperate for Hamilton to win this year. So maybe they don't mind how they award him the title, as long as they get it to him somehow. Already, he seems to have avoided being docked points in several situation which may have gone against most other drivers. He is purportedly the "ambassador" they want for the sport; he is young, British, articulate and media-savvy. That he is of mixed-race in a sport dominated by decidedly WASPy types is deemed a triumph of modern multi-culturalism. It seems that F1 wants Lewis Hamilton as World Champion more than Hamilton himself does. The PR people are dying to have a glamourous golden boy as World Champion, after years of the polarising Schumacher and two years of the confident but unflamboyant Alonso.

Here's the rub of it - I don't find Lewis Hamilton likeable. I don't think he would make a great ambassador for F1 outside of England. Even within England, he might put off some people because he can come across as a mean-spirited SOB. I think I am more repulsed by Hamilton's public persona than I ever was by Alonso's. I did not care for Alonso because his on-track confidence sometimes manifested itself as arrogance and self-involvement off-track, although he does seem overall a decent enough chap. Hamilton strikes me as being more than just cocky or self-centred (which you have to be to succeed at this level). He seems to have a genuine nasty streak in him, which came to a boil in his unwarranted media attacks on Alonso. Neither of them covered themselves in glory over this situation, but Hamilton was in the driver's seat (heh, almost literally). He had the points lead and the openly avowed support of Ron Dennis and the McLaren team. He was in a position to take the moral high ground and keep his trap shut. Maybe he was just buying too much into his own publicity and being young, he can still tout immaturity as an excuse. I have no doubt that he is probably a pretty nice guy, but he gives off a vibe that I cannot warm to. We are talking about his PR value here, not Hamilton personally, whom I do not and cannot know.

This is not to discount his abilities as a driver. He's had a phenomenal season by any measure and will probably go on to become one of the great drivers of F1. He will likely one day make a great champion. I just don't think he will necessarily make a great ambassador right now.

I hope the people in charge of the F1 inquiry summarily dismiss the McLaren's appeal. Why was it that both McLaren drivers escaped points deduction although the team was disqualified from the constructors' race because of the spy saga? Because the FIA made an "emotional" rather than a "logical" decision to keep alive one of the most exciting championship races in recent years. I am not sure how they can, in good conscience, allow the title to be decided by a technical decision now, having set a precedence of punishing the team but not the drivers. If they deduct any points at all, it should be contructors championship points from the teams - Williams and BMW - who mismanaged the petrol temperature, and not the drivers who had nothing to do with this at all.

McLaren failed to win because the team was shockingly mismanaged. The entire spy email scandal could have been avoided if Ron Dennis was a better man-manager who did not make Alonso feel marginalised in his own team. Nobody came out of that smelling of roses. Alonso's threat to Dennis at the Hungarian Grand Prix was unconscionable. At the same time, Dennis choosing to take the information straight to the authorities revealed a complete inability to keep his own house in order. This was airing your dirty linen in public because you could not fix your own washing machine. Yes, Hamilton's race heroics took everyone by surprise and the team did not expect to deal with the rookie being ahead of the world champion. This is a management challenge, specifically a man-management challenge. In sports management, handling multiple massive egos is practically de rigeur. McLaren failed at this, in a much bigger way than Ferarri failed in the engine reliability stakes. (Raikonnen also made a telling comment about being much happier at Ferarri than he had been in his several years at McLaren, which was another pointed denouement of McLaren's failure in team management).

Ultimately, Raikonnen won because he won the most races, he was the fastest on the track the most often and he was part of the stronger team. If the F1 authorities conspire to award the WDC title to Hamilton, the suits in the boardroom would triumph over the jumpsuits in the pits and on the race-track. They obviously want a "new face of F1", but at what price?

Update: Well, good on Hamilton for saying he does not want to win the Championship on a technicality. Of course, it does sound rather like a response to the salvo fired by Alonso in an earlier interview with Spanish media. I am not much buying his professed ignorance of why McLaren is pursuing the appeal. He might not like it or agree with it, but he must certainly know why they are doing it. I think the PR spin machine are on the job here.

Things I learnt from ESPN Star Sports

As I type, something called the Gaming Championship Series is showing on Star Sports. I love it - a bunch of computer game geeks competing against each other, complete with cheering spectators and over-excited commentators. They even do WWE style intros!

A couple of weeks back, ESPN introduced me to the global phenomenon of "speed stacking" via their telecast of the World Stacking Championship. That was just fascinating. Apart from anything else, all the competitors are kids but take their sport as seriously as any multi-titled professional sportsperson. I especially enjoyed the "doubles" event and the team stack-off event, during which the commentators delighted me no end by discussingz stacking technique.

Other events that I have had the pleasure of watching on ESPN and Star Sports include the World Speed-Eating Championships (featuring competitors that are universally thin but can pack away more in 90 seconds than I do in two days), the US National Spelling Bee (this is SO great!) and the Speed Chess Championship.

It's so great that these sorts of things are being shown on sports channels. I wouldn't normally think of such competitive events as being "sports", but if they're good enough for ESPN and Star Sports, they're good enough for me.

Section 377a: The Keep vs Repeal Debate

When I was recently ranting about censorship of gay relationships on TV, I said I was not lobbying for gay rights.

Well, now I am.

Today's TODAY newspaper had an article on two websites dedicated to petitioning the Singapore government on Section 377a of Singapore's Penal code, which criminalises sex between men.

In one corner is www.repeal377a.com, a website with an open letter to the Prime Minister and a petition to be presented to Parliament.

In response, a group has set up a site supporting keeping S377a. I am not linking to it, because reading the first few lines on the site raised my blood pressure. The superior tone was galling, as was the smug assumption of the moral high ground, as if someone had bestowed upon them the status of arbiter of "family values". Not to mention the odious and condescending capitalisation of "WE, the Majority".

It may be a gross simplification to say this, but Nazi Germany had its roots in disturbingly similar sentiments. So does the Klu Klux Klan. "THEY, the Majority" (or at least the voices that spoke for them) were all too eager to assert their right to have their "values" (superiority of the white race) protected and not to be "forced" to accept something (assimilation of Jews, Poles, coloured people and other "untouchables") they are "not ready" for.

I totally, completely understand that Singapore is an Asian society, with conservative values. People are not comfortable with the concept of homosexuality, which seems so far from what we regard as the "norm". Fair enough. But how does that give any of us the right to say that homosexual acts are illegal or criminal? This is a question of law, surely, and the parameters and axioms by which laws are enacted and defined.

Frankly, I am amazed that this should be an issue in a country which prides itself on the separation of church/mosque/temple and state. If one accepts (as one should if not guided by religious tenets) that (a) homosexuality might be genetic; (b) the mere act of homosexual intercourse does not harm either the participants or anyone else; and (c) what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their own business; then what call is there for criminalising gay sex? It is faith-based value systems that cast homosexuality as "wrong" or "sinful", the same way that that certain faiths denounce pre-marital sex or birth control. Neither pre-marital sex nor birth control are illegal, are they? Which is as it should be, because the laws of the state are separate from the rules of faith.

If something is rendered illegal just because "the majority" is not comfortable with it, where would that leave us? At various points in history, it would have been illegal for women to work, for interracial couples to marry and have children, for anyone to wear black during Chinese New Year, for governments to raise taxes!!

So, you self-righteous, supercilious lot "you, the majority", please come down from your high horse. Something is not illegal just because it offends you personally. I am personally deeply offended by frilly ankle socks, talentless pop bands, bad put-on American accents by SIA flight attendants and many, many more things. You don't see me petitioning for these to be made illegal, not that I have not thought about it. Seriously, unless we are talking strictly about political elections, going the direction of "majority" vs "minority" is getting into dangerous territory in any country with diversity in its populace. In elections, the "majority" chooses the government of the day, but the "minority" is not denied the public services of government. Going beyond that, "the wisdom of crowds" can reveal very unappealing aspects of human nature.

Do the rights of the few not matter more than the "comfort level" of the many? How do we define the civil liberties of citizens in a democratic nation? Does the right to vote not represent the importance of the individual? Do gay people not have the right to do as they wish in the privacy of their bedrooms?

Another thing about the whole "majority" message that really bothered me is how it is almost like the campaign platform of one George W. Bush. It sounds like something from Focus on the Family, even bringing up gay marriage and adoption as if this was America and we were in the midst of the Bush vs Kerry period all over again. The irony, of course, is that the "majority" would accuse the pro-repeal group of being too "Westernised" in our way of thinking.

A few of the comments from the anti-repeal camp could almost be classified as expressions of bigotry, but many are more misguided than hateful, in my opinion. One letter to TODAY linked from the anti-repeal site said this:

I am not against homosexuals; I recognise that they are as human and Singaporean as I am. As citizens, they already enjoy the same rights as the others.

But what they are pushing for now is the Singaporean majority's approval of their behaviour. It is clear the majority does not covet the agenda that gay activists are pushing for. If Parliament repeals Section 377A, we will be unwittingly consenting to such behaviour.

Honey, "they already enjoy the same rights as the others"? You have a right to make love to whoever you want. GAY PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THAT SAME RIGHT!!

And I doubt that the gay community is seeking "majority's approval of their behaviour." Right now, they would be pretty happy if you just left them alone to live their lives without fear of being thrown into jail for what they do in their private space.

Gay people probably do not give much of a damn about what heterosexuals do in the bedroom. Can heterosexuals not extend the same courtesy to them? Why the prurient interest in other people's affairs?

Off to www.repeal377a.com to sign the open letter.

Rugby World Cup Dilemma

Should I support England in this weekend's Rugby World Cup finals?

I usually root for the English football (soccer variant) team in internationals. Then again, they have not won major honours in so many years that I have never supported England in a major final.

A little while ago, I fell into the habit of cheering on the English cricket team. It was back when they used to under-perform so magnificently that I could not help but throw my support behind them. Whenever they won against major opposition (read Australia), it was occasion for much joy and overflowing jubilation, the more so for being unexpected.

Besides, the English media and public are always so entertaining when they engage in self-flagellation after bad results in any sport. They are also shockingly gracious losers - far less inclined to blame refereeing than many other nations. It's half the reason why I nurse a soft spot England's cricket team and certainly one of the best side benefits from supporting the football team.

There is something comforting about supporting a sporting team that gives no cause for inflated expectations. I just enjoy the victories when they come and rue the losses with stoic resignation.

But now, suddenly and completely out of nowhere, England has a team in a World Cup final! I hardly know how to process this most unlikely of situations. Supporting England actually means supporting a team that has a chance at a very major trophy. I am almost afraid of jinxing them if I root for them openly. Sure, they are underdogs going into this final, but there is a palpable expectation that they can beat South Africa and most improbably, retain the World Cup won four years ago.

It's deliciously set up. England was thrashed by South Africa in their opening group match. One month later, they meet again in the finals. England had pulled off superhuman efforts to beat Australia and hosts France to reach the finals. The tide is with them, as is the hope of a nation. It's almost too ideal; a set up for the most glorious of culminations or for the most sobering bubble-bursting.

I don't know. It's always more fun to watch rugby when I have a side to support. I just don't know if I can, or should, throw my lot with the England camp.

At it again: Kevin Walker and the Shrinking Episodes

I think I am going to institute a weekly B&S-watch.

Last night's episode of Brothers and Sisters clocked in at 48 minutes, advertisements included. Guess whose story-line was cut?

At the top of the episode, we saw Jason Lewis among the list of guest stars' names flashing on the screen. 48 minutes later, end credits rolling, we had not seen so much as a hair of Chad's (the character that Jason Lewis plays on the show).

The "outing" of Kevin to his grandmother (bonus outing of Rob Lowe's brother included at no cost!) was aired in its entirety. It was the same old thing - okay to be gay, okay to talk about being gay, but not okay to show people in gay relationships.

You know what? I want to see this Kevin - Chad relationship. It explores an interesting subject: the dilemma of the closeted gay celebrity who cannot afford to be outed because of his career. It says something about celebrity worship, the ephemera of public image, self and identity in an industry where visibility is currency. B&S is not high art, but it is cleverly written and beneath its soap-opera conventions, it has a very real take on life as lived in upper-middle class suburbia (certainly more real than anything dished out in Desperate Housewives).

Are we going to really go through the whole season without ever seeing Kevin Walker and his romantic relationships and entanglements? Come on, Mediacorp, something has to give.

Request #1,901,542 to Mediacorp. RE: Brothers and Sisters

Dear Mediacorp,

I was so pleased to learn that the series Brothers and Sisters would be aired on Singapore television. Having heard great things about it from American viewers and critics, I was very much looking forward to a high quality drama with top notch acting.

After watching around half of the first season, I can wholeheartedly say that the show has more than fulfilled my expectations. I am grateful to the Mediacorp executives who made the decision to purchase the screening rights. Thank you!

I am sure that as a customer-focused organisation, you are always seeking feedback from viewers on ways to further improve the quality of your programming and service. With regards to Brothers and Sisters, I have several comments and a suggestion:

Could you have a discreet word with your friendly censor at the Media Development Authority? As an industry insider, could you perhaps impress upon them that the basic concept behind an ensemble piece such as Brothers and Sisters is that the multiple plots and characters interact to create the whole viewing experience?

For many weeks now, the character of Kevin Walker (Matthew Rhys) would mysteriously disappear from episodes, pop up in scenes without context or have his plotlines drop off completely with no resolution. This was particularly jarring in the Camelot episode, where Kevin becomes inexplicably inebriated during the charity dinner, seemingly without any motivation or reason at all. A quick search on the Internet informed us that he was having a tiff with his boyfriend during the dinner.

Obviously, this is the sticking point with the censors - the portrayal of a gay relationship. Being gay is perfectly fine and so is talking about it. We have known from the first episode that Kevin is gay. Casual mention is made of it by various characters in various episodes, and none of these have been censored. They acknowledge it and even make jokes about gay stereotypes. The show has had plotlines revolving around Kevin's sexual orientation, such as his discomfort with his sister working for a senator that had voted against the same-sex marriage bill.

As long as it's not about Kevin's love life, we get to see it all. The mere whiff of a boyfriend on the horizon and the scissors are hard at work. This show is primarily a soap drama. Romantic relationships are the lifeblood of the genre. Cutting all scenes relating to Kevin's love life means that we are missing HUGE chunks of the episodes. A few episodes have run under 40 minutes after removing the advertisement breaks. Apart from anything else, it is unfair to the talents of Matthew Rhys, who has done exemplary work on the show from what we have seen of him, despite being a Welshman acting with an American accent.

I understand that censorship is not within Mediacorp's control. However, perhaps Mediacorp could dialogue with MDA on how scenes can be censored to keep Kevin's story lines intact. Certainly, I do not expect that same-sex displays of affection should be shown on national TV. However, surely discussions between two people in a gay relationship should not be non grata?

In the most recently aired episode, we were shown scenes of two men essentially flirting with each other in the early stages of a romantic connection. One of the characters did not make his homosexuality overt, but everyone watching must have known what they were seeing. If this passed the censors, I believe similar latitude can be granted to showing people in gay relationships dealing with relationship issues and talking to each other as couples do.

Already, Mediacorp tags a Mature Audience advisory to the top of each episode and has taken the step of airing this series at the late hour of 11 pm. People who watch this show at this time slot are NOT going to be in vapours at the thought of two men getting together and being together. Here's another suggestion: why not commission a survey and canvas the attitudes of your typical Brothers and Sisters viewer towards the depiction of on-screen gay relationships? I am willing to bet that most, like me, would find it a complete non-issue.

I am not crusading for gay rights in Singapore, as that is not at all the issue at hand. This is a much simpler matter. An enjoyable TV show is being rendered less enjoyable. I simply think that with a little more judicious wielding of the black tape, we could all be enjoying Brothers and Sisters a lot more.

With thanks for your kind attention,
A Loyal Viewer.

PS. By the way, when you speak with your friendly neighbourhood censor, could you commend them on exemplary in-scene cutting work? The kitchen scene in last week's episode was masterfully executed. All Kevin's comments about his date were completely cut and from an editing perspective, it was seamlessly done. Of course, discerning viewers did wonder why there was no pay-off from the earlier scenes of Kevin flirting with Jason Lewis's character. The adroit censorship work almost left us thinking that the writers had left this loose end untied.

More Scattered Thoughts: "Live Blogging" Live the Dream: Top 6

Round 1: Party!! Contestants' Choice.

Missed Shauna Simon's first song.

Fendi is his usual competent self. He definitely can sing, although I don't usually like his song choices, no difference this time.

Oooh, Ken Lim really wants Fendi in the finals - he's basically saying that it was not a great performance, but he's a better singer than the other two!

Victor Tang is SO mellow, he's practically comatose.

Yup, Dick has it right - "mild" is the right word for this performance.

Aww, Kuo Po is trying to be nice, I think.

Ken Lim! That's probably the best of his weekly zingers directed at poor Victor. He managed to insult Victor Tang by calling his competitors' fans "cheapskate". Very good psychological manipulation there - he knows he can't do anything about the people who vote for Victor, regardless of how he sings, so he's lighting a fire under Fendi's and Shauna's fans.

By Definition is a right old rock band. Lots of energy and attitude.

Judges uniformly love them. Wow, both Dick and Ken are saying they should win. No, no, no! That makes their fans complacent! Have they not learnt anything from AI and SI?

Revelina are singing well as usual, but are not at all comfortable singing this party, disco genre.

Wow, Dick is almost tearing apart, but doing it regretfully. I think he likes them, but could really not get into the performance at all.

At least Kuo Po recognises that it was well sung.

Ken Lim's references to Harry Potter when he talks about Revelina are getting nonsensical. The theme is supposed to be party, so it was not as if they had much choice - whatever they sing, it is always going to be "This is what happens when Harry Potter tries to do ...".

Catsine Cradle sound like just about any other guitar-strumming band out there. The singing is pretty good but the performance is not particularly exciting.

I agree with the judges! Good soloist, but non-existent presence as a band.

I don't know why I have this impression, but the lead singer of Catsine Cradle seems to be a bit of a brown-noser. Overly eager to thank the judges and keen to spin all criticism as positive.

Round 2: Judges' Choice

Shauna: The song is too rangy for her, a few noticeable problems with register changes. On the whole, it's a valiant effort and a good performance for her. It was effortful but she pulled it off.

Dick's comments about "wanting it" are so subjective. I think he's just vibing off Shauna's overly careful performance, which was more to do with her technical problems than any real lack of desire.

Oh, at least Kuo Po gives her props for putting on a good show!

Ken Lim really, really wants Victor Tang gone! He's challenging Shauna's fans to vote.

Fendi: The judges give him Josh Groban! Wow, talk about challenging the contestants. I can't wait to see what they saddle Victor Tang with! A song very far out of his comfort zone and I think he's doing very well.

Dick is in a bad mood tonight.

Ken Lim now pulls out the old standby: "let's judge a contestant over his body of work. In other words, please vote for Fendi and kick out Victor Tang!

Victor: They gave him a party song! What??? Dick was just going on earlier about how party songs may not be his strong suit.

I am not sure what Dick is going on about. Pop songs with clean simple melodies suit Victor Tang, but he lacks energy for pop songs? So, basically, NOTHING suits him?

Kuo Po brings some sanity to the proceedings by saying that Victor is basically a balladeer (well, not a very good one, really, and it's not so much that he is a balladeer but that he prefers to sing ballads badly, rather than singing other types of songs just as badly). More sense being made as she mentions the monotony of the performance.

Ken Lim is really the most enjoyable thing about this show. He managed to get in a really mean insult about Victor "lacking in substance" then graciously backtracks into faux-civility by calling him a nice guy and wishing him all the best in the result show. It's amazing how Ken does not trip over his own contortions! He really, really wants Victor gone! But the judges were the ones who brought him back for the Wild Card show, which gave him the chance to be in the final rounds!

By Definition: Oooh, they are given Santana to sing!! I must say, they really are MUCH better than Superband. This is a true band performance, not just a soloist backed by anonymous musicians. Like something we would have seen on Rockstar: Some_Band.

All three judges just want them to win! Ken asks them to vote for themselves by taking an advance on the $60K prize money. Okay, Ken Lim, props to you for that pretty clever piece of advice.

Revelina: A slowish song from NSync. Lots of harmony. Sweet.

Dick likes them again. It was the costuming in their first number (white glasses and checkered outfits) that he didn't get.

Aww, Kuo Po is sweet and says she won't mind them winning either.

Ken Lim pulls the "likability" card on them this time around. He's clearly rooting for Harry Potter (Revelina) and the Sultans of Style (By Definition) to be in the finals. Hey, Catsine Cradle have not performed yet!!

Catsine Cradle: Singing Howie Day's Collide. They say upfront they are sticking to the original version. Ooh, are they going to get a "not taking risk" critique for this? I am getting that same sense of a typical acoustic band with a very good lead singer and invisible instrumentalists.

Dick likes it but seems a bit uninvolved, like he could not much care one way or the other. I think he just wish that the band is as good as the lead singer.

Kuo Po says the song was "too easy" for them. Is this her way of saying that they could have tried harder, ie the "not taking risk" critique?

Ken Lim praises the lead singer saying that he would have won the competition by now had he entered as a soloist. Aah, Ken Lim. In one fell swoop, he manages to subtly put down the band and not so subtly insult all the remaning contestants in the solo category as well.

The Travails of being a Liverpool supporter

Man, it's actually like hard labour supporting this team.

At the end of both of last week's matches, I was completely exhausted by the sheer mental exertion of sustaining hope for an equalising goal. They managed one last night, but they should have been going for a victory, not a draw!

Usually, when I call out a player and declare him incompetent, he will go on to defy my judgment and perform heroics for the rest of the season. So, here goes ... Voronin, WTF??? What the hell was that pussy-footing around in the first half when there was such a great scoring chance? It should have been 2-0 by the half hour mark! I just had this sinking feeling in my stomach when Liverpool failed to capitalise on that chance and true enough, Spurs equalised minutes later.

Well done to Spurs, though. They have managed to draw with both of my teams this week. I will not begrudge them the points. Although I am decidedly NOT looking forward to constant reminders from commentators that "Villa was 4-1 up at this point and look at how that ended up".

Otherwise, it was a great sporting weekend in terms of results that went the way of my personal preferences. Raikonnen won the F1 Grand Prix in Shanghai and the World Championship title race goes down to the wire (although I think Hamilton will still win).

And most gloriously and improbably, France will meet England in the Rugby World Cup semifinals! I like the All-Blacks, but the back-to-back upsets in the quarterfinals were just the stuff of sporting heaven. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I woke up on Sunday morning, checked the BBC website and saw that France had beaten the mighty All-Blacks!! I had watched until the first half and went to bed, expecting that New Zealand would handily retain their lead or even extend it.

After all the blustering about the superiority of Southern Hemisphere rugby, there will be a Northern Hemisphere team in the final. And two of the mighty Tri-Nation teams were out in the quarters! Unthinkable! I know a thing or two about Aussie and NZ parochialism in sport commentary and I wonder how smoothly the humble pie is going down! Of course, the New Zealand journalists may well blame the loss on the referee not penalising the forward pass that led to France's lead-taking try. Which would not so much be pie, but something of a fruitier vintage.

Scattered thoughts: Live the Dream Top 3

What's the deal with making contestants sing in Asian languages that are not their mother tongues? Is this to give Dawn Yip something to do?

Dawn is judging this show in the exact same way she did on Campus Superstar! Lots of comments about "feel" and "performance quality". She's rather cool about this whole gig and is really getting into the spirit of things.

Ken Lim is determined to pigeon-hole the Revelina boys into the Harry Potter sweet geek box. As reality TV boxes goes, this is one of the weirder ones and perhaps the most limiting. Poor kids. Maybe poor Naza really wants to ditch the glasses but he's stuck with them now.

Wow, Dick Lee shows his bitchy side and tells off the Catsine Cradle guys for apparently not paying attention to him! So much for him being the Paula Abdul of this show! I like bitchy Dick.

Oy, butchered Mandarin is not fun to listen to! Neither is butchered Korean.

Ken Lim has a dig at Channel U's Superband! Hahaha! I love it! I am dying to know whether he thinks Revelina is better than Milubing, the winner of Superband, or if he just thinks Revelina is generally better than the typical group that competed in Superband. Either way, he's right, but I rather like to think that he is slyly knocking down the sweet but decidedly non-super Milubing kids.

And Ken has a second go at Superband! Even after lukewarm comments for By Definition, he says they are another group that is still better than Superband!

Suddenly, I am thinking how absolutely awesome Ken Lim would have been as a Superband judge. What wonderful and scathing put-downs would he have offered to the wannabe goth stylings of Lucify, the gimmicky cutesiness of Milubing, the emo warblings of Brods, the OTT theatrical tendencies of Qinobi? Boy, oh boy, how he would have taken apart the really bad ones whose names I cannot remember, like the all-girl group that could neither sing nor dance that well and the mixed-gender non-instrument playing group that got the lowest points ever.

Why are they devoting so many minutes of the results show to the two Project Superstar champs? One's a bit of a non-singer and the other is a bit of a non-performer (not saying who's which). We could wrap up the result show 5 minutes earlier without this bit of filler. Was this to give Darren a chance to shill the new staging of Beauty World? Dick Lee could have done it.

Aaaand ... they pull a"nobody goes home" gimmick ala American Idol during the self-congratulatory "Idol Gives Back" episode. Of course, this week's Live the Dream is tied to the President's Star Charity and you can't have someone being eliminated when votes are actually counting towards the PSC donations. Bleahhh, it's not even an original coup although the contestants did seem genuinely taken aback.

Exhibit 10932 that Murphy's Law works

Sometimes, you just have one of those days when life seems hell bent on bashing you over the head. That's when you KNOW that Murphy's Law is inviolate.

Case in point: Why is it that you get a huge, uncontrollable sneezing fit when in the middle of brushing your teeth? Specifically at the point when you've worked up a mouthful of foam and are standing nowhere near the basin? (Okay, I admit that I don't brush my teeth while standing over the wash basin. I often brush my teeth in the mornings while sitting in front of my laptop reading email or checking overnight soccer scores - I am mighty adept at using my left hand to work the touchpad!). Seriously, you could be two seconds away from having toothpaste foam all over things that are not amenable to having toothpaste foam on them.