An interesting series of posts are emerging on the Syrian blogsphere. Apparently, the whole thing started when Razan* rightly lashed out at another Syrian ‘blogger’ (whom I am not aware of, yet.) Both Razan’s and the other guy’s blogs are in Arabic. Dania picked up from Razan and gave her input on the subject. Followed by Abu Fares, whose post I read this morning (and the other posts in backward order) and been thinking about them since then.
Apparently, there’s a divide in the Syrian blogsphere between the religious and the secular. OK. I will try my best not to offend anyone here. But let me first give you an idea what’s going on.
A blogger X (I don’t know who’s he yet and please Razan if you’re reading this, link him to me), is mobilizing and inviting hackers from around the Muslim world to seek and destroy certain Syrian blogs with suspicious agenda.
You know the kind of blogs that are irrelevant (according to him).
Or the kind of bloggers that express their immoral personal freedom in an immoral style, which sometimes reaches the limit of blasphemy and sexual perversion.
As you see, this is a very clear and basic criterion. Should you have any doubt, you can always refer to Mr. X. He’s the absolute arbiter in the world of morality and immorality alike.
I think I should send my posts for his gracious approval before I post them here, because if I am not sane enough to fear (and seek) his moral judgment, then I’ll be the next subject of his electronic scalpel. Oh, it’s not him with the scalpel; it’s his army of pious hackerz in their bloodstained scuffs.
What a childish, immature, insecure and utterly disgusting bullshit.
________________________________
* Razan for those who don't her, is a courageous, anti-occupation, pro Palestine blogger with great enthusiasim and tenacity. And opposite to the public belief, I admire her and her blog immesly. :)
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Quantum of Solace. (Review)
If you haven’t seen the movie yet then don’t. It aint worth the money. But you’re not going to listen to me are you? So go ahead and see it for yourself, but before you do that, let me spoil it for you.
The plot is incoherent and it has many loopholes. It starts up with one thousands questions and only answers three or four. I don’t care about the water resources in Bolivia or how that might be a major scheme to tap into the water resources of the whole world (as the movie synopsis suggested). I don’t care about the personal baggage of the protagonist. He fails to express emotions or show sympathy except toward the female co-star whose cause is not very well woven into the plot from the first place. Who was the CIA siding with? Were they just biding their time till they get to know who’s going to be the dominant power in Bolivia? Or did they have a deeper conspiratorial stuff going on that I haven’t picked up? What’s the significance of Bond’s Italian friend? And why was Bond very moved by his death? Lots of things don’t check out. It’s true that Bond’s movies are about action (and truth be told, action scenes were actually good). But you’re left bored and confused and almost feeling awkward when there’s a lull in the lethal actions.
Daniel Craig is actually a good actor. He proved so in Casino Royale. He’s the rough agent, the part-time renegade that will seek and destroy on his own. We like our invincible heroes. You walk through the theatre door knowing that Bond is going to weather all the chases and dodge all the bullets and come out victorious in the end, leaving death and destruction in his wake. I left wondering: where’s the fun in that? Am I supposed to be impressed by the exchanges of banter and sexual innuendoes between bond and every female he lays his eyes on?
The plot is incoherent and it has many loopholes. It starts up with one thousands questions and only answers three or four. I don’t care about the water resources in Bolivia or how that might be a major scheme to tap into the water resources of the whole world (as the movie synopsis suggested). I don’t care about the personal baggage of the protagonist. He fails to express emotions or show sympathy except toward the female co-star whose cause is not very well woven into the plot from the first place. Who was the CIA siding with? Were they just biding their time till they get to know who’s going to be the dominant power in Bolivia? Or did they have a deeper conspiratorial stuff going on that I haven’t picked up? What’s the significance of Bond’s Italian friend? And why was Bond very moved by his death? Lots of things don’t check out. It’s true that Bond’s movies are about action (and truth be told, action scenes were actually good). But you’re left bored and confused and almost feeling awkward when there’s a lull in the lethal actions.
Daniel Craig is actually a good actor. He proved so in Casino Royale. He’s the rough agent, the part-time renegade that will seek and destroy on his own. We like our invincible heroes. You walk through the theatre door knowing that Bond is going to weather all the chases and dodge all the bullets and come out victorious in the end, leaving death and destruction in his wake. I left wondering: where’s the fun in that? Am I supposed to be impressed by the exchanges of banter and sexual innuendoes between bond and every female he lays his eyes on?
Bond might have the muscles, but they aren’t everything. Bond is actually stupid. No man would venture into such dangers unless he’s a total idiot, or because he knows he’s not going to get hurt. So we, me and him, both know that Bond is omnipotent and omniscient and he will get to his prey no matter what stands between them. So I guess I should’ve better spent my time sleeping or cracking watermelon seeds.
Or maybe, just maybe, this whole James Bond thing is not my cup of tea.
Or maybe, just maybe, this whole James Bond thing is not my cup of tea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)