This list may help if one needs to be creative in telling another that he/she is neuron-challenged. :-)
1. Got into the gene pool when the lifeguard wasn't watching
2. A few fries short of a Happy Meal
3. An experiment in Artificial Stupidity
4. A few beers short of six-pack
5. Proof that evolution can go in reverse
6. Doesn't have all his Cornflakes in one box
7. The wheel's spinning, but the hamster's dead
8. One Fruit Loop shy of a full bowl
9. One taco short of a combination plate
10. A few feathers short of a whole duck
11. All foam, no beer
12. Body by Fisher, brains by Mattel
13. Has an I.Q. of 2, but it takes 3 to grunt
14. Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear
15. Couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions on the heel
16. Too much yardage between the goalposts
17. An intellect rivaled only by garden tools
18. As smart as bait
19. Doesn't have all his dogs on one leash
20. Some drink from the fountain of knowledge, he only gargled
21. Elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor
22. Forgot to pay his brain bill
23. Her antenna doesn't pick up all the channels
24. His belt doesn't go through all the loops
25. If he had another brain, it would be lonely
26. No grain in the silo
27. Fell out of the family tree
28. Receiver is off the hook
29. Several nuts short of a full pouch
30. He fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down
-Author Unknown-
According to Wikipedia:
"Cutting off the nose to spite the face" is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one's anger.
The phrase is known to have been used in the 12th century. It may be associated with the numerous legends of pious women disfiguring themselves in order to protect their virginity. These cases include Saint Eusebia, Saint Ebba, Saint Oda of Hainault and Saint Margaret of Hungary.
The most famous[citation needed] of these cases was that of Aebbe the Younger, the Mother Superior of the monastery of Coldingham. In 867 AD, Viking pirates from Zealand and Uppsala landed in Scotland. When news of the raid reached Saint Ebba, she gathered her nuns together and urged them to disfigure themselves, so that they might be unappealing to the Vikings. In this way, they hoped to protect their chastity. She demonstrated this by cutting off her nose and upper lip, and the nuns proceeded to do the same. The Viking raiders were so disgusted that they burned the entire building to the ground.
The expression has since become a blanket term for (often unwise) self-destructive actions motivated purely by anger or desire for revenge. For example, if a man was angered by his wife, he might burn down their house to punish her; however, burning down her house would also mean burning down his, along with all their combustible personal possessions.
In the 1796 edition of Grose's Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, "He cut off his nose to be revenged of his face." is defined as "one who, to be revenged on his neighbour, has materially injured himself." The word "spite" is used in the sense of revenge and "face" is used in the sense of honor.
Of late, it seems that class, elegance and good public relations tactics are seemingly in a state of want when we look at what some bloopers made by some political leaders.
It is quite shocking that in an attempt to ward off 'attacks' from their enemies, some cut the nose to spite the face. The lack of foresight and wisdom prevented them from seeing the ramifications of their words of defence. READ THIS.
Even a leader's written response to one particular MSM as published in another site has a mechanical error in the second sentence of the third paragraph. A rush job?
The recent debate revealed even another PR disaster.
Seriously, it appears that some are reacting emotionally rather than taking the bull by the horns and calling a spade a spade. If there are accusations, either admit or deny FIRMLY rather than exacerbating the situation by indulging in personal attacks.
It appears that those who have been in the limelight the past few days need to engage the rakyat in more intelligent terms.
The following articles would better acquaint us of the steps and strategies that they should have taken instead of all the drama-rama ruckus which leaves a bad taste in our mouths.
1. How to Counter the Reporter Ambush
2. Preparing for Damage Control
3. The Three C's of Credibility
4. The Case for a Reputation Protection Model
5. The Truth About PR Disasters
6. The 15 Biggest PR Disasters of the Decade
7. Learning from past PR Crises
8. Risk Issues and Crises Management
If those involved do not assess and contain the collateral damage, it is likely that the current Public Relations debacle may affect them negatively in the coming elections. Some examples would be the ongoing critiques of Bulletin Mutiara and how development in Penang that may not seem to be people-centric. We must not forget the bonanza articles in The Sunday Star about Penang.
People choose what they want to believe in based on their perceptions of the problems.
If issues are poorly handled such as when parties involved shoot anything from their mouths that end up shooting themselves in the foot, who is at fault? Hence, this is a major Public Relations crisis that some are facing.
Hopefully, they will come down from their ivory tower and connect with the rakyat!
Thanks to Angela who sent me the following post...
We are accustomed to being somewhere else rather than being in the here and now. While eating our meal we watch T.V. Consequently, we don't appreciate what we are eating or realize how much we are eating. While talking on the phone we take the opportunity to check our email, or read the newspaper. Afterwards, we cannot remember the conversation we had for ten minutes. In a meeting, many perfect the art of doodling. While driving, some like to take a nap; which has been proven to be a bad idea.
People go on a vacation with the view to enjoy the present. But the vacationer is often focused on the future. While on the beach, he is thinking about where to have lunch. While having lunch, he is thinking about checking out the museum. While others 'ooh' and 'aah' over the precious blue vase from the Ming dynasty, he is counting the number of postcards he should be buying for friends and family. While mailing postcards, he is thinking about where to take the family to dinner. While having dinner, he is thinking about sleeping. While packing for home, he and his family are making plans for the next vacation.
We are either burying our head in the past, thinking about 'how good it was back then,' or worrying about 'what's going to happen in the future.' Don't tell the present, but it seems that we don't seem to like it very much. We liked it fine in the past when it was the future, and we will like it in the future once it has turned into the past, but we don't care much for it right now.
Someone has said, "The past is history, and the future is a mystery. But the present is a real gift."
Think about it, and make friends with the present.
-Author Unknown-
Dante Gabriel Rossetti, the famous 19th-century poet and artist, was once approached by an elderly man. The old fellow had some sketches and drawings that he wanted Rossetti to look at and tell him if they were any good, or if they at least showed potential talent.
Rossetti looked them over carefully. After the first few, he knew that they were worthless, showing not the least sign of artistic talent. But Rossetti was a kind man, and he told the elderly man as gently as possible that the pictures were without much value and showed little talent. He was sorry, but he could not lie to the man. The visitor was disappointed, but seemed to expect Rossetti’s judgment.
He then apologized for taking up Rossetti’s time, but would he just look at a few more drawings – these done by a young art student? Rossetti looked over the second batch of sketches and immediately became enthusiastic over the talent they revealed. “These,” he said, “oh, these are good. This young student has great talent. He should be given every help and encouragement in his career as an artist. He has a great future if he will work hard and stick to it.”
Rossetti could see that the old fellow was deeply moved. “Who is this fine young artist?” he asked. “Your son?” “No,” said the old man sadly. “It is me – 40 years ago. If only I had heard your praise then! For you see, I got discouraged and gave up – too soon.”
- Author Unknown-
The following report written by Nicholas Wong was first published in Malaysiakini at 9.58 p.m. I did not follow the debate and only came across this article at midnight.
Debate 2.0: Better, but much more of the same
Barely five months after what was probably the nation’s first ever political debate on live television, the Chua Soi Lek-Lim Guan Eng rematch in English has been the most anticipated face-off in recent times.
Kicking off at 2.30pm at Sunway Pyramid Convention Centre today, the duel saw Lim eagerly showing off Pakatan Rakyat’s achievements while Chua set his sights on discrediting the opposition coalition’s policies, taking an offensive stance while trumpeting MCA’s own previous achievements.
However it looked to be more of the same from the very start, with Chua indulging in his familiar ‘pitting the Chinese against the Chinese’ argument against DAP, while Lim relied on his well-worn blaring of Penang’s successes.
But the MCA chief and the Penang chief minister both eventually got around to offering a little more substance in terms of discussing ‘whose policies benefit the country more’, the title of the debate.
Despite this, the hour-and-a-half session was mostly rhetoric and political chest-thumping.
And while last week’s back-and-forth in the media between Chua and Lim on the latter’s alleged affair did not carry over into the debate, the heated exchanges today suggest the fight is not over.
Adding to this was the noisy audience, who were disappointingly rowdy at times. Thankfully, with no microphones near them and only written question from the floor accepted, no new Ms Tow Truck emerged.
What resulted was a debate that was a step up from the first round, but still some way off from showing Malaysia to be the truly mature democracy that it aspires to be.
Round 1: The kickoff
A coin-flip saw Lim taking the microphone first, where he launched right into political attack mode against MCA, calling them “unqualified” to debate on policies, as Umno is the party calling the shots.
Not one to lose out, Chua hit back citing MCA’s 60-year history of nation building, belittling DAP’s habit of sourcing public donations without offering accountability on how the money was spent, suggesting that they should use the funds to establish a kindergarten in Penang instead.
Round 2: Moderator reins in debate
Michael Yeo, chairperson of the event organisers Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) then took his turn to pose the duo questions.
Both were asked their parties’ efforts in expanding their traditional base; for the MCA it was the urban middle-class voters, and for the DAP the non-Chinese voters.
Rather than taking the opportunity to show off MCA’s present-day efforts, Chua chose to rely on the party’s past record, like the setting up of Tunku Abdul Rahman College (TARC).
Lim was little better at staying on topic, delighting in hitting back at Chua on the TARC issue after responding to Yeo’s other question as to whether DAP was truly multiracial.
It was akin to watching two opposing ceramahs in the same room. Both sides chose to throw verbal blows at each other rather than win over the other side or latch onto the topic of policies.
Round 3: The panel’s turn to ask
After a five-minute break, the panel comprising MCA vice-president Chor Chee Heung, Rocketkini’s chief editor Wan Hamidi Hamid and Asli representative James Chin of Monash University’s School of Social Sciences took their turns to pose questions.
Expectedly, Chua sidestepped Wan Hamidi’s question if MCA is afraid of standing up to Umno, instead turning it into an attack on Pakatan.
Lim was no better, evading Chor’s poser on Pakatan’s minimum income plan in favour of jumping on the latter’s question that mentioned the government’s RM26 billion in leakages.
"This is the first time I hear a minister admitting that corruption is costing the government RM26 billion," quipped Lim.
James Chin, the independent panellist, posed both speakers an excellent question on their parties’ approach to the contentious New Economic Policy (NEP).
Lim took the usual opposition line of blaming the policy as ineffective in uplifting the Malay community, but did not offer any concrete suggestions on a replacement policy.
Chua, on the other hand, interestingly admitted that the NEP has been “hijacked”, but failed to capitalise on a possible fresh talking point when he did not elaborate.
And while both speakers predictably sidestepped the questions from the partisan panellists, it was again disappointing to see them offer little to no substance on the NEP issue, especially considering the debate’s intended focus.
Round 4: Posers from the floor
Some respite from the rhetoric thankfully came when questions from the floor were fielded. Asked about education policies, Lim stressed an “equal opportunities” policy and zeroed in on English language standards, proposing that the subject be made a compulsory pass in SPM.
Chua offered no solutions either and turned the tables on the “brain drain” frequently cited by the opposition with a disingenuous reply calling it a testimony that Malaysians are marketable internationally.
The closing remarks round finally saw some debate on policy, with both sides trumpeting their respective policies and heaping scorn on the other. Chua touted Felda’s recent public listing being “the second largest in the world” as a sign of Malaysia’s robust economy, but his boast that all the ports in Malaysia have been privatised except for Penang Port probably will not win him points.
Predictably Chua took his last shot at DAP’s attitude towards dissent, succumbing to the temptation of working in Lim’s supposed affair.
“I heard from the press in Penang that you cannot mention one person’s name, or DAP leaders will threaten to sue,” he quipped.
Lim fired back rattling off another list of Penang’s successes, including its low cost housing project, its designation as the country’s most “liveable” city and its debt reduction under Pakatan.
In an attempt at sophistication he even quoted Thomas Jefferson: "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
In all, the exchanges while characterised by the usual mudslinging from both sides, nevertheless did see the speakers highlighting and defending their parties’ policies.
The aftermath
However, this was with no thanks to the audience, who cheered and jeered liberally as the debaters either pandered to or angered them.
And while both leaders commendably avoided dragging their recent spat over the ‘other woman’ into the fray, their supporters were not as kind, with MCA’s camp (right) chanting “Xiao Hong” (the name of the lady involved in the rumour) and “CD” (in reference to Chua’s sex video scandal) marring the end of the debate.
Both sides were guilty of misbehaviour, with random supporters from either side jeering loudly at times before being told off by officials on the floor.
In closing the event, Yeo thanked both speakers for being “eloquent” in the debate; and while he may be correct, the same sadly cannot be said for the sharply partisan crowd.
