It's not a mere matter of politics.
written: 10:01 p.m. on Sunday, Jan. 25, 2009
First: I hope Djokovic loses tonight but Marcos Baghdatis gave back the two breaks he got in the second and lost the tie-break. They're on serve in the third. LE SIGH!
Along a similar vein, maybe I should stop hoping for Roger's rivals to lose, just in case karma bites me in the ass. Just in case.
Second: I want to marry Dinara Safina. She's Marat Safin's sister and the same age as me and I absolutely loved her when I saw how she came back from 2-5 in the third set to win the match. She's unbelievably muscular. Even better, she plays like a man. I love her. LOVE! Daniela Hanchutova may be the hottest female tennis player ever, but Safina is currently my favourite female, and my pick to win the trophy on the women's side. I thought she was fugly as hell for the longest time. I still think she's not the most attractive female around, but I think it's the almost-butch vibe about her that makes me think she's attractive now. HAHA. Apparently she lost 7 kilos over the off-season in an effort to improve her fitness. She was really hard on herself even after winning that match with that amazing comeback, which only makes me respect her more. I don't like people that rest on their laurels and repeatedly pat themselves on the back for a job well done when it could have been done much better. Safina could've won it a lot faster, but she didn't - and she recognised that.
I love her. She faces the Aussie favourite Jelena Dokic next, and although I was really happy Dokic won that foul-looking Russian who shrieks like a hyena as she hits the ball (who was also responsible for ejecting that annoying, fist-pumping Ana Ivanovic from the tournament), I totally want my Safina to win. She's amazing. She can TOTALLY win this tournament if she doesn't lose her focus and hits the ball on all the right spots.
On second thought, she's actually quite pretty. She looks a lot better with her hair down and not pulled back when she's playing.
Moving on now. Once again, two things I want to say:
First, I knew there was a reason why Barack Obama being president would be a really good thing for the world. Kudos to him for shutting down Guantanamo Bay, among other things.
We were assigned this long article in Intelligence Law by some guy who basically defended one of the Bush Administration's many legally-questionable anti-terror policies. I didn't read it, but I scanned the intro and had a quick look at the headings of the article and it was enough for me to get a sense of the guy's (predictable) argument. It was quite strange, because he advanced his constitutional argument on the basis that the US is fighting a war on terror, and the Constitution gives the President far-reaching executive power in times of war, and therefore the Terrorist Surveillance Programme (more wire-tapping) is constitutional.
I mean, really. Really. Maybe I should read it to get the whole argument, but even from the superficial angle, the argument is obviously quite stupid. Just because someone called it a war, doesn't quite mean it's really a war. It's easy to call something a 'war' to justify expanding executive powers. I'm not saying that Bush wasn't acting in America's best interest when the whole 'war on terror' schtick began post-9/11, but...just because he called it a war, doesn't mean it really is a war. Maybe the rhetoric wasn't so objectionable in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but it's almost eight years on. Surely it became quite clear that this is no war, because it has defied all accepted and anticipated notions of what 'war' is.
Thank goodness for Barack Obama. There is nothing more foul, more repugnant, than a country that prides itself on its enlightened values and ideals sullying those very values and ideals. Eight years of the Republican, anti-liberal, quasi-Dark Ages of the Bush Administration is more than enough. For once, I'm actually quite hopeful about the world's future.
Second, it's no secret that there exists amongst Singaporeans a certain bias against PRC women, and an unfortunate conception that they are all money-grabbing wenches who are not to be trusted. But I realise today my bias has nothing to do with that, and that my bias isn't limited to PRC women alone.
My bias is entirely political. To those that know why I'm talking about this, good for you. To those that don't, it's okay, it's not terribly important. What I will say, though, is that the idea of dating a foreigner, i.e. a non-Singaporean (maybe non-Singaporean who isn't Taiwanese. Maybe, but I'm not sure), is already quite hard to swallow. If he criticises my country, I'd actually get pretty defensive if I find his criticisms baseless and unqualified. I'd actually get pretty offended if his own country is way worse off than Singapore. Shocker, right? I know.
But anyway, that aside, dating a PRC would be undoubtedly worse. I haven't came across a single PRC person that doesn't think Taiwan isn't a part of China. And I cannot date a person that thinks - fully believes in his heart or whatever - that Taiwan is a part of China.
This extends also to the people around me, the people closest to me, the people I love. My bias against PRCers is purely political and has nothing to do with their characters. My bias, therefore, should have nothing to do with who anyone chooses to date.
But it does. I'm sorry, but it does. It does.
And the best part? As long as Taiwan doesn't get the real independence it obviously deserves, I'm never going to stop disliking PRCers just because they are from the People's Republic of China.
Back to tennis: Baggy just won the third set! Jeez, it's nearly 2 a.m. in Melbourne and they're still playing. Bet Djoker's pissed at Roger now for taking so long to win and delaying all the night matches. HAHAHA.
MARCOS BAGHDATIS FOR THE WIN!
before sunrise // before sunset
Previously:
- - Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2017
I'm moving. - Sunday, Jul. 11, 2010
In all honesty - Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010
What I want for my birthday... - Sunday, Jul. 04, 2010
On Roger's behalf. - Friday, Jul. 02, 2010