Newer and more dangerous enemies are raised as the date draws near.
Oh well.
It's gonna be an slobberknocker weekend at the EPL: Man U versus Arsenal, Chelsea versus Liverpool.
Problem is I think the Gunners will crash and burn as usual. I have very bad premonitions about this.
The scores will probably be like 2-0 to Man U, and Chelsea will trash the Reds 3-1, or at the very worst they'll both draw 1-1. Man U still go on top, Arsenal slip into the relegation zone.
Why do I still keep the faith in the Gunners? Why do I still support them even as they crash to lesser teams and struggle without the old heroes like Bergkamp and Viera and Pires and Campbell and Ashley Cole?
Because I am an idealist, and Arsenal has a tradition of playing ideal football. And because they had a history of uber defence. Admittedly, that was before the Wenger days, but they still rocked back then, what with Tony Adams, Martin Keown, Lee Dixon, Nigel Winterburn, and of course David Seaman, creating an iron curtain across the Highbury goal.
So why Arsenal?
1. Thierry Henry
2. The old heroes of Bergkamp and Paddy Viera and Bobby Pires and Campbell and Ashley Cole (the old Ashley Cole, not the money-grubbing scum at Stamford Bridge), not to mention the brilliance of Anelka, Petit, and Marc Overmars.
3. The immortal legends of Tony Adams, Martin Keown, Lee Dixon, Nigel Winterburn, David Seaman, and Ian Wright.
4. The promise of youthful future as represented by Cesc Fabregas, Robin van Persie, Philippe Senderos, and Emmanuel Eboue.
5. The immaculate pitch at Highbury and the glorious new one at Ashburton Grove.
6. Winning a Championship Trophy unbeaten the whole season,
7. let alone going for 49 games unbeaten (would've been 50 but for bloody Man Utd). No one has ever done this. A dozen teams have got the Champions League, but no one has gone for 49 games without defeat. Invincible.
8. Conceding no goals for 10 consecutive Champions League matches.
9. The Wenger concept of ideal football.
10. Wenger's brilliance in the transfer market.
11. Wenger's sophisticated personality- so much more refined and higher-level than the likes of the ludicrously stupid Jose Moronho Loudmouth, the Neanderthalic "bash all dem Brainees outta deir skulls" philosophy of Sam Allyardyce, or the effective brutality of Sir Fergie.
The club was the only real challenger of the Man Utd monopoly. (Chelsea doesnt count, anything they win is void because they have unlimited funds. Thats like using a bloody cheat code in computer games).
Enough about soccer, its been a screwed up EPL ever since Moron-ho and the fucking Russian brat came in and messed things up superbly.
But life here on The Island (get the pun and the metaphor?) isnt much better anyway.
Our Benefactors have abrogated the MOU with the World Bank and the IMF in typical Singaporean -should I say "Party"- fashion: cloaking criminal totalitarianism with seemingly flawless legal casuistry and heavy-handed police action, combined with a sickening campaign of "wayang-ing" and boot-licking.
Elaborating about the latter-I mean, it's no coincidence that the Straits Times printed a "Special" section showcasing the clean, green, and fun side of The Island on the first day of the convention. Neither is it mere chance that the flagrant display of artistic talent, the "Bienniele", should take place just as the delegates arrive in town. Its a blindingly obvious case of cock sucking if you ask me. But that's relatively harmless compared to the former- the tyranny encased in ironclad legality.
Our Benefactors say they have "an obligation" to protect the delegates from harm and disruption. Fair enough. But they have blatantly ignored the obligation to allow civil and public debate and demonstration of ideas. Even the WB and IMF have specifically requested that these groups be allowed room to express themselves, but to no avail. The pathetic excuse given by Our Benefactors is that "troublemakers and undesirables and terrorists" (all bloody vague and incoherent stereotypical generalisations) pose a grave security threat.
When the actual fact is that the majority of these "terrorists" are in fact highly educated and professional and civilised, if passionate, people who believe in the rightness of their course.
It's blatant tyranny- label all dissidents "terrorists", and send in the police. So bloody blatant. But of course, no one will know, because all we Pliant Sheep know is what the papers say. And Our Benefactors tell the papers what to say.
I'm in danger of veering off into irrational whining, but the point has to be made. Singapore is looking bloody childlish and ridiculous by banning free expression of ideas and opposing views to those held by the WB and IMF Convention. I mean, even the mortal enemies of the Civil Groups, the WB and the IMF, are themselves looking forward to the CGs in open protest to their policies! That's where the real unstifled debate takes place!
Its truly unfortunate that Our Benefactors have decided to equate riots in Hong Kong and Vancouver with the idea that ALL Civil Groups are anarchists and terrorists hell bent on destruction and chaos. Unfortunate, and sinister.
I hope the whole world mocks Singapore in force for the immaturity and childlish behaviour of Our Benefactors. If they can't grow up and accept the messiness that comes with the globalization of the world, they are in for a deep shock.
It's just like your typical classroom scene in a junior college. Everyone is dressed up to pose and blend in and be cool. Then comes this dorkish boy with his pants pulled up to his armpits, with suspenders, thick black plastic specs, and ugly buck teeth, and says "hi, my name is Singapore, I'd like to be your friend and discuss economic issues in a proper place and setting." Sorry chum, not gonna happen.
Either Our Benefactors are so incredibly stupid that they cannot see what we look like in the Developed World's eyes, or they are so incredibly brutal that they hope to enforce our laws on the developed world body and it's Opinions.
One of the Supreme Benefactors mentioned that Our Benefactors could not allow public expression of ideas because then Our Benefactors would be in "deep political trouble" with their own citizens for practising double standards.
On the face of it, it looks deadset logical and noble, until one looks closer.
Double standards vis a vis foreigners are in full force already- no Conscription for "Foreign Talent", more relaxed criteria for Foreigners to enter the "Integrated Resorts" (another fuckingly retarded euphemism from Our Benefactors), and a whole bunch of other skewed laws. Our Benefactors are not interested in avoiding double standards per se- they simply pick and choose according to what they like.
Obviously, money is more important to Our Benefactors than freedom.
To put it all in perspective, Our Benefactors have done a surprisingly good job in steering The Island into relative wealth and prosperity. No doubt about it.
But in doing so Our Benefactors have entrenched themselves in a system of necessary opacity and necessary autocracy. They cannot break out of it and allow the noveau intelligentsia the room for expression, because they have become addicted to tight-fisted control over every single thing in the land.
They fear with an absolute paranoia that all will come to chaos unless they have total, complete domination over The Island and It's people, and that alone.
They thus rule with an absolute tyranny that promises financial and personal ruin to the Citizen unless he offers total, complete subservience to their vision of the future, and that alone.
Our Benefactors speak of the need for change and revival, of the necessity of economic flexibility, of the need to adapt and manoeuvre quickly through the trials of the times, yet they have not seen, or else are ignoring, the need for political change and revival, of the necessity of the expression of ideas, of the need for bold and forthright public debate about the trials of our times, and they persist in their path.
It must be the lure of power- absolute power. It cannot be anything else.
"Absolute Power..." (anyone dare to complete that famous phrase?)
