i din intend that. i dun want that 2 be like this.
i would not hav done the same. n i thot i hav that set aside.
i saw something, that triggered some long gone feelings n now itz haunting my spirit for finals. i wished i was more a man . i hope i hav grown n m more prepared for 2mr or the next stage . i hope i can study for finals. i hope i can slp. i hope...
Friday, March 24, 2006
Thursday, March 23, 2006
A religion UN
Yona Metzger, the Israelist Chief Rabbi called for " a UN with representatives of religious groups"in the International Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace in Seville, Spain yesterday. The conference displayed promising prospects of the feasibility of such plan carried out as the Imams and Rabbis leaders were prepared for constructive criticism from each other. They all agreed that "politicians lied but religious leaders have a different objective- to work towards a higher good " (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4800194.stm). That was reflected in the conference's language which was decribed as "usually brutally direct" and not "polite and diplomatic ", unlike the cunning politicians (with their tails hiding while they lie with a wide graceful smile on the face lol). The good thing is, they all strongly opposed the notion of any killing in the name of religions.
Well, the intention sure is noble. Any shout out to end killing in the world is always needed. However, there are a few hurdles to world peace through religious re-empowerment movements.
I dun mean to sound sacrelegious or blasphemous, but the Religion UN(referred as RUN here onwards, not official as well, simply for my convenience writing here) will have to always maintain the good will of the leaders/representatives. I concurr that all mainstream(or probably non mainstream) religions propagate good. However, not all religious leaders are saints. Bear in mind that many terrorist-attacks are initiated by religious leaders when it's hardly the last resort at times, aside from all those reasons why secularism was born. Assuming that those who project massive threats to innocents are not real religious leaders, will it really be different from politicians when leaders around the world, each representing their own ppl, come together 2 discuss global issues. Will they not have to listen to the ppl when it's opposing their gut feelings and conscience as a leader? Is a leader still a leader when his follower dump him for some unpopular, but not neccessarily evil notion? Politic is inevitable when ppl r to work on something together. Noble systems always fall not because of the nature of the system, but the nature of human.Clearly some sort of mechanism or definition is needed as to how much ppl's sentiment is considered.
This is not to say that the proposal would neccessarily be a farce. Logically, respected religious leaders would be more considerate than self-interests based politicians. The general assumptions are that religious leaders are less self centered and hence more inclined to speak for the real interest of the ppl. But again, only time can give the answer againt power corrosion.Another problem is how to qualify a religious leader. Would the RUN welcome the religious leaders of a Voo doo master? What's is its attitudes towards minor sects within a particular religion? What about Jedi master? What about the founder of Fa Lun Gong?Who defines a religion? What about the proportion of representation's distribution in RUN? For instance, how many seats for a particular sect in a particular religion? Are the leaders transboundary (geographically)? How are they going to determine who represents who then? All these complications will prevail when one RUN were to be founded.
And we have to think about the dynamic change it brings to domestic and global political sphere too. With the religions of the world coming together, will it be able to accumulate sheer support from the ppl each religion carries to interfere in state's policies? Will it be able to dictate that homosexuality is a crime? Will it force the gov to halt any public or private research of cloning or GM food? Will it silent the gov's campaign of safe sex using condoms? Will it then lead to A non religious UN? a secular UN? Is that not gonna further divide the already divided world? Clearly, a very carefully defined RUN is needed.
While itz worrisome that the RUN is overly powerful, its limits are shown in certain environments. For eg, a country which is dictated and firmly controlled by a military regime. What the religious leaders think mite not make any changes there. Neither will the ppl's voices, after religious leaders' preachery, will really make any changes, unless they revolt. Similarly, those religious leaders in exile, will not likely to restall their sovereignty(for eg Dalai Lama) through RUN. Well it's pretty crazy to think a bout a clash between RUN and UN's big 5 and is victorious against big 5. It's equally scary to think about an extreme conflict between those two cuz both hav nukes :P
Despite all those negative pop ups i had in mind, i personally hope that it will flourish into a peaceful resolution powerhouse pertaining religious issues. All religious conflicts can then be referred to RUN instead of exchanging bombs. But, the pretext is that it needs untouchable religious credibility, so that a peaceful standard/ measure can be applied world wide, and so that ppl wont resort to some other channels.
well cross ur fingers for me pals, final's nearing, so is fyp submission and presentation, and the EIT deadline 2. really feel mentally tormented
c ye when itz all over
good luck 2 all my frens having finals out there
Yona Metzger, the Israelist Chief Rabbi called for " a UN with representatives of religious groups"in the International Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace in Seville, Spain yesterday. The conference displayed promising prospects of the feasibility of such plan carried out as the Imams and Rabbis leaders were prepared for constructive criticism from each other. They all agreed that "politicians lied but religious leaders have a different objective- to work towards a higher good " (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4800194.stm). That was reflected in the conference's language which was decribed as "usually brutally direct" and not "polite and diplomatic ", unlike the cunning politicians (with their tails hiding while they lie with a wide graceful smile on the face lol). The good thing is, they all strongly opposed the notion of any killing in the name of religions.
Well, the intention sure is noble. Any shout out to end killing in the world is always needed. However, there are a few hurdles to world peace through religious re-empowerment movements.
I dun mean to sound sacrelegious or blasphemous, but the Religion UN(referred as RUN here onwards, not official as well, simply for my convenience writing here) will have to always maintain the good will of the leaders/representatives. I concurr that all mainstream(or probably non mainstream) religions propagate good. However, not all religious leaders are saints. Bear in mind that many terrorist-attacks are initiated by religious leaders when it's hardly the last resort at times, aside from all those reasons why secularism was born. Assuming that those who project massive threats to innocents are not real religious leaders, will it really be different from politicians when leaders around the world, each representing their own ppl, come together 2 discuss global issues. Will they not have to listen to the ppl when it's opposing their gut feelings and conscience as a leader? Is a leader still a leader when his follower dump him for some unpopular, but not neccessarily evil notion? Politic is inevitable when ppl r to work on something together. Noble systems always fall not because of the nature of the system, but the nature of human.Clearly some sort of mechanism or definition is needed as to how much ppl's sentiment is considered.
This is not to say that the proposal would neccessarily be a farce. Logically, respected religious leaders would be more considerate than self-interests based politicians. The general assumptions are that religious leaders are less self centered and hence more inclined to speak for the real interest of the ppl. But again, only time can give the answer againt power corrosion.Another problem is how to qualify a religious leader. Would the RUN welcome the religious leaders of a Voo doo master? What's is its attitudes towards minor sects within a particular religion? What about Jedi master? What about the founder of Fa Lun Gong?Who defines a religion? What about the proportion of representation's distribution in RUN? For instance, how many seats for a particular sect in a particular religion? Are the leaders transboundary (geographically)? How are they going to determine who represents who then? All these complications will prevail when one RUN were to be founded.
And we have to think about the dynamic change it brings to domestic and global political sphere too. With the religions of the world coming together, will it be able to accumulate sheer support from the ppl each religion carries to interfere in state's policies? Will it be able to dictate that homosexuality is a crime? Will it force the gov to halt any public or private research of cloning or GM food? Will it silent the gov's campaign of safe sex using condoms? Will it then lead to A non religious UN? a secular UN? Is that not gonna further divide the already divided world? Clearly, a very carefully defined RUN is needed.
While itz worrisome that the RUN is overly powerful, its limits are shown in certain environments. For eg, a country which is dictated and firmly controlled by a military regime. What the religious leaders think mite not make any changes there. Neither will the ppl's voices, after religious leaders' preachery, will really make any changes, unless they revolt. Similarly, those religious leaders in exile, will not likely to restall their sovereignty(for eg Dalai Lama) through RUN. Well it's pretty crazy to think a bout a clash between RUN and UN's big 5 and is victorious against big 5. It's equally scary to think about an extreme conflict between those two cuz both hav nukes :P
Despite all those negative pop ups i had in mind, i personally hope that it will flourish into a peaceful resolution powerhouse pertaining religious issues. All religious conflicts can then be referred to RUN instead of exchanging bombs. But, the pretext is that it needs untouchable religious credibility, so that a peaceful standard/ measure can be applied world wide, and so that ppl wont resort to some other channels.
well cross ur fingers for me pals, final's nearing, so is fyp submission and presentation, and the EIT deadline 2. really feel mentally tormented
c ye when itz all over
good luck 2 all my frens having finals out there
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
the spacecraft class ended earlier than it should. 2day's a pretty free day despite of still having all sort of to-dos washing my mind. yup 2nite i'll hav to load my mind before i talk 2 my supervisor again 2mr. not forgetting i'll hav a quiz for flight mech 2. hmmm itz gonna b interesting 2 think how 2 maximize the remaining time till 2mr. :P
with final nearing, 2day is however not a day of alacrity as usual :P feel pretty lifeless for no reason. n yet i hav to constantly worry about my internship placement which is pretty crucial to me for a few reasons. on-time graduation is one.
o n guess wat i jus checked bbc and thaksin's hinting on probable political break(lol wat does this mean anyway? it doesnt sound like a discharge nor a resignation. for more info , pls check http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4807758.stm). if he did resign, it means 'lazy politic' wins again. instead of tryin 2 educate/convince the rural thais (that forms thaksin's 'unshakable ' support base) that he's corrupt (if they really think that he is) , the oppositions chose an easy way to bring that on the streets (so did the ppl). i hav talked about how it cultivates a political practice which paves a detour from the on-going democratic establishment in that country. hope that its a rite choice.
n btw sony's delayin itz ps3 launch. take it easy guys :P.
with final nearing, 2day is however not a day of alacrity as usual :P feel pretty lifeless for no reason. n yet i hav to constantly worry about my internship placement which is pretty crucial to me for a few reasons. on-time graduation is one.
o n guess wat i jus checked bbc and thaksin's hinting on probable political break(lol wat does this mean anyway? it doesnt sound like a discharge nor a resignation. for more info , pls check http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4807758.stm). if he did resign, it means 'lazy politic' wins again. instead of tryin 2 educate/convince the rural thais (that forms thaksin's 'unshakable ' support base) that he's corrupt (if they really think that he is
n btw sony's delayin itz ps3 launch. take it easy guys :P.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
double edged swords of support groups in modern world
i'm basically bloggin in my aerospace lab now, thanks to my groupmates of taking care of other parts of the lab problems (takin a break now as i just finished my part, of cuz i will help later :P). people hav been workin in groups before history since we realized the synergy of workin together. hence, to help curing or extinguishing certain addictions or illness, we hav support groups to support each other, so that we r motivated when we r weak.
thatz y we have support groups in rehab centers, in sex addicts therapy n etc
however, the innovative us will always seek for wider applications in wateva progress we have. in japan, the biggest suicide pact was reported yesterday that all the members, who initially were afraid to die supported each other, encouraged one another when they were scared. with the aid of internet, strangers, who suddenly were intimate cuz they found something in common (wanna die) and developed a workin group to achieve certain objectives.
watz more worryin is that itz become a trend in that country as reflected by a sharp rise of suicide pact since last year (in 2005, 91 ppl died, while in 2004 55 died from suicide pacts)
thatz the beauty of a world with free flow of information. u can slash ur enemies throat w all the technological advance we hav. but sometimes, the enemy is ourselves sometimes. (n itz more tended to be in our modern lives)
frens do me a favor. if i ever tell u that i wanna die, do not give me a knife. :P
i love my life
cheerios
1st draft on 10.3.06 ,1520
i'm basically bloggin in my aerospace lab now, thanks to my groupmates of taking care of other parts of the lab problems (takin a break now as i just finished my part, of cuz i will help later :P). people hav been workin in groups before history since we realized the synergy of workin together. hence, to help curing or extinguishing certain addictions or illness, we hav support groups to support each other, so that we r motivated when we r weak.
thatz y we have support groups in rehab centers, in sex addicts therapy n etc
however, the innovative us will always seek for wider applications in wateva progress we have. in japan, the biggest suicide pact was reported yesterday that all the members, who initially were afraid to die supported each other, encouraged one another when they were scared. with the aid of internet, strangers, who suddenly were intimate cuz they found something in common (wanna die) and developed a workin group to achieve certain objectives.
watz more worryin is that itz become a trend in that country as reflected by a sharp rise of suicide pact since last year (in 2005, 91 ppl died, while in 2004 55 died from suicide pacts)
thatz the beauty of a world with free flow of information. u can slash ur enemies throat w all the technological advance we hav. but sometimes, the enemy is ourselves sometimes. (n itz more tended to be in our modern lives)
frens do me a favor. if i ever tell u that i wanna die, do not give me a knife. :P
i love my life
cheerios
1st draft on 10.3.06 ,1520
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
the magical power of a ray of light
i hav gotten back my aircraft design yesterday. did pretty well despite of all those hard times 2 even study for it. in the end of the day i jus gotta study for a few hours for it. well i really din even hope for anything for that paper and i thot i was doomed. jus as i thought that itz gonna ease up my mounted pressure a bit, i found that i was really wrong. i was sucked deeply into an undescribable warped world of helplessness when i wanted 2 do more for my final year project. hopeless was the only answer after i had desperation for some time. i was so tensed (that i felt like pullin my hair[regardless of wat purpose it served]) until i decided to be a man n do the right thing 2 talk 2 my supervisor. of cuz i was scolded. but then i was so much relieved after discovering that i dun have to dig so deep a shithole for my final year project. well to be really honest i could c a ray of light showering me (w some gothic music and flying pigeons as the background) when i was about 2 lose all hope and leave myself (& my FYP) to b swallowed into the darkness. :P
On the other hand, Mr Annan announced his outlines for a radical UN makeover yesterday. it encompasses a change on UN managerial practices to address the problems of mismanagement and the whole oil for food programme scandal. Among his proposals, there r calls to outsource certain UN functions for eg the current translation engine in New York city which is now unaffordably expensive.
besides that, a special unit of peacekeeping force will be established under the command and maneuver of the secretary general. and that's supposed to attend some urgent missions. well given that itz probably one of the toughest jobs on earth, he's not really doin that badly. despite of a pretty vocal urge for him 2 step down last year over UN's inability to react in opposition's of the big 5 in certain issues, he remains in his position, not without a reason. war on iraq, us's unilateralism, inability to express condemnation on Israel's walls with the amplification of the UN, all the results of UN's inherent frailties of inevitable reliance on those countries militarily and financially, were suddenly his fault as the SG.
wat the world has forgotten is wat he's done right while swarming us with charges against him on wat he;s done wrong. the world has 4got the big5 pressure that he has to deal with (as the main contributors financially and militarily) wheneva he wants to forward a peace loving people caring resolution. (for more on his contribution , we can refer to http://www.kituochakatiba.co.ug/annan.htm). well m not gonna keep on trumpeting his contribution here, not that i'm really a hardcore fan of him.
the point here is the proposals that he announced were not really addressing to the problems that many member states define. it doesnt discuss about any change in the security council nor any active measures in limiting the "menace of veto power". (quite frankly, after the cold war only a handful of vetoes r used, not to say that its justified tho). however, wat it offers is a more probable hand to countries that hav no interests to offer to the big5 to step in. in contrast for some ppl who drum for a drastic total remake of the security council(m not really gonna talk about that as a means to gain publicity n more support here), these small lil changes r probably more comforting. not only that itz more probable (well cuz itz not really a credible SC if u dun hav those big 5 2 stay, therefore u need 2 offer some carrots in exchange for their 'favor'), it solves the problems subtly to certain extent 2. the main current of the extreme make over propagators is that military involvement is highly dictated by the big5, regardless of itz necessity, severity and urgency. now that there's a special unit under the SG's command, there's a bridge to introduce other non SC members to decide on certain military issues, if not to the SG himself. of cuz there r concerns of the backlash like abuse of more power given to the SG. but its between the options of the SC and someone else. given that popular vote is not even close to the slightest probability so far, jus as the proposed make over plan, probably we can only try to give our good faith in it. besides, by having a troop under him, he cant possibly maneuver it to attack a country in which its leader shows him his middle finger rite? without dismantling the UN, this kinda indirect effort to fragment the concentration of power cant really b a really drastic one. at least not really those proposed so far. a ray of light mite not be strong enough to a lot of ppl, but at the same time it represents that darkness is gonna end soon. lol i hope its at least applicable 2 my own case.
jus like the attack in iraq. it has aroused the awakening of HR practice in its neighbours. women in Iran were rallying for equality yesterday. to think about this is worse than absurd not to long ago, but it happened yesterday. n we hav had more women representation at the parliamentary level in a handful of the arab countries after Iraq. i'm pretty sure this wasnt a part of US plan(despite how much they r tryin to snatch it). the point is when ppl see a glimpse of hope, they fight for their betterment. a hope of change in any case is not a bad one.
sometimes slight change can b 2 lil a progress and a lightyear far from the idealistic pic, but a lot of changes need to evolve slowly. drastic changes arent necessary all the times (most of the times itz jus a sensational gesture to draw ur attention to further some parties' self interests). this is especially true in the grand project in elimination of racial/ ethinic conflicts, or discrimination. this is becuz systemic changes alone don change ppl's perception, but a change of ppl's perception will always result in a fairer/ more representative systemic change. we have to bear in mind that we dont wanna destruct the the existing framework, we jus wanna improve that. those who always push for droppin UN neva said anything like who will do the job if not UN. similarly, those who wanna smash the veto neva said anything about who will execute peace orders if not them or who will bear the operational cost of sustainin UN. the only answer they hav is that itz unjustifiable, its unfair, its hegemonic. how about a more realistic try? they neva hav any founded / concrete ideas as wat they will really do that ensures the existence of the UN or similar body if the domimant parties retract from the frontline.
even if we wanted to get rid of their dictation, there r some prerequisites. one of them is that the other member states have to be militarily and economically strong enough to take over big5's jobs. but are we ready? for them, they jus wanna do it. probably they jus wanna feel great talkin 2 a gr8 compassionate audience and to lead high-spirited street protests. of cuz those r only my personal assessment. but the fact is, they dun provide a sound alternative which i think is pretty irresponsible. cuz even tho UN is not perfect, it's done pretty much to help. unless a bttr alternative is offered, we should keep it.
a ray of light in the darkness mite not be enough to make everything shiny, but the hope associated with that is really of tremendous thrust to fight for a bttr course. as for me, getting rid of the hopelessness for my project has definitely pulled me back in d positive track.
life is still beautiful to me
i hav gotten back my aircraft design yesterday. did pretty well despite of all those hard times 2 even study for it. in the end of the day i jus gotta study for a few hours for it. well i really din even hope for anything for that paper and i thot i was doomed. jus as i thought that itz gonna ease up my mounted pressure a bit, i found that i was really wrong. i was sucked deeply into an undescribable warped world of helplessness when i wanted 2 do more for my final year project. hopeless was the only answer after i had desperation for some time. i was so tensed (that i felt like pullin my hair[regardless of wat purpose it served]) until i decided to be a man n do the right thing 2 talk 2 my supervisor. of cuz i was scolded. but then i was so much relieved after discovering that i dun have to dig so deep a shithole for my final year project. well to be really honest i could c a ray of light showering me (w some gothic music and flying pigeons as the background) when i was about 2 lose all hope and leave myself (& my FYP) to b swallowed into the darkness. :P
On the other hand, Mr Annan announced his outlines for a radical UN makeover yesterday. it encompasses a change on UN managerial practices to address the problems of mismanagement and the whole oil for food programme scandal. Among his proposals, there r calls to outsource certain UN functions for eg the current translation engine in New York city which is now unaffordably expensive.
besides that, a special unit of peacekeeping force will be established under the command and maneuver of the secretary general. and that's supposed to attend some urgent missions. well given that itz probably one of the toughest jobs on earth, he's not really doin that badly. despite of a pretty vocal urge for him 2 step down last year over UN's inability to react in opposition's of the big 5 in certain issues, he remains in his position, not without a reason. war on iraq, us's unilateralism, inability to express condemnation on Israel's walls with the amplification of the UN, all the results of UN's inherent frailties of inevitable reliance on those countries militarily and financially, were suddenly his fault as the SG.
wat the world has forgotten is wat he's done right while swarming us with charges against him on wat he;s done wrong. the world has 4got the big5 pressure that he has to deal with (as the main contributors financially and militarily) wheneva he wants to forward a peace loving people caring resolution. (for more on his contribution , we can refer to http://www.kituochakatiba.co.ug/annan.htm). well m not gonna keep on trumpeting his contribution here, not that i'm really a hardcore fan of him.
the point here is the proposals that he announced were not really addressing to the problems that many member states define. it doesnt discuss about any change in the security council nor any active measures in limiting the "menace of veto power". (quite frankly, after the cold war only a handful of vetoes r used, not to say that its justified tho). however, wat it offers is a more probable hand to countries that hav no interests to offer to the big5 to step in. in contrast for some ppl who drum for a drastic total remake of the security council(m not really gonna talk about that as a means to gain publicity n more support here), these small lil changes r probably more comforting. not only that itz more probable (well cuz itz not really a credible SC if u dun hav those big 5 2 stay, therefore u need 2 offer some carrots in exchange for their 'favor'), it solves the problems subtly to certain extent 2. the main current of the extreme make over propagators is that military involvement is highly dictated by the big5, regardless of itz necessity, severity and urgency. now that there's a special unit under the SG's command, there's a bridge to introduce other non SC members to decide on certain military issues, if not to the SG himself. of cuz there r concerns of the backlash like abuse of more power given to the SG. but its between the options of the SC and someone else. given that popular vote is not even close to the slightest probability so far, jus as the proposed make over plan, probably we can only try to give our good faith in it. besides, by having a troop under him, he cant possibly maneuver it to attack a country in which its leader shows him his middle finger rite? without dismantling the UN, this kinda indirect effort to fragment the concentration of power cant really b a really drastic one. at least not really those proposed so far. a ray of light mite not be strong enough to a lot of ppl, but at the same time it represents that darkness is gonna end soon. lol i hope its at least applicable 2 my own case.
jus like the attack in iraq. it has aroused the awakening of HR practice in its neighbours. women in Iran were rallying for equality yesterday. to think about this is worse than absurd not to long ago, but it happened yesterday. n we hav had more women representation at the parliamentary level in a handful of the arab countries after Iraq. i'm pretty sure this wasnt a part of US plan(despite how much they r tryin to snatch it). the point is when ppl see a glimpse of hope, they fight for their betterment. a hope of change in any case is not a bad one.
sometimes slight change can b 2 lil a progress and a lightyear far from the idealistic pic, but a lot of changes need to evolve slowly. drastic changes arent necessary all the times (most of the times itz jus a sensational gesture to draw ur attention to further some parties' self interests). this is especially true in the grand project in elimination of racial/ ethinic conflicts, or discrimination. this is becuz systemic changes alone don change ppl's perception, but a change of ppl's perception will always result in a fairer/ more representative systemic change. we have to bear in mind that we dont wanna destruct the the existing framework, we jus wanna improve that. those who always push for droppin UN neva said anything like who will do the job if not UN. similarly, those who wanna smash the veto neva said anything about who will execute peace orders if not them or who will bear the operational cost of sustainin UN. the only answer they hav is that itz unjustifiable, its unfair, its hegemonic. how about a more realistic try? they neva hav any founded / concrete ideas as wat they will really do that ensures the existence of the UN or similar body if the domimant parties retract from the frontline.
even if we wanted to get rid of their dictation, there r some prerequisites. one of them is that the other member states have to be militarily and economically strong enough to take over big5's jobs. but are we ready? for them, they jus wanna do it. probably they jus wanna feel great talkin 2 a gr8 compassionate audience and to lead high-spirited street protests. of cuz those r only my personal assessment. but the fact is, they dun provide a sound alternative which i think is pretty irresponsible. cuz even tho UN is not perfect, it's done pretty much to help. unless a bttr alternative is offered, we should keep it.
a ray of light in the darkness mite not be enough to make everything shiny, but the hope associated with that is really of tremendous thrust to fight for a bttr course. as for me, getting rid of the hopelessness for my project has definitely pulled me back in d positive track.
life is still beautiful to me
Saturday, March 04, 2006
i'm not alone w my problems
watched final destination3 w kari 2day. not bad, reminds me of happy tree friends featuring real ppl. not that it bothers me, i gotta catch some breath in the end of the day anyway. but if i were 2 choose again, i would hav gotten the tickets for syriana.
i got back home, jeesh i realized the weather out there was no jokingly sizzling hot. i took a shower n was ready to get (back to/ raped by) my work but yea i couldnt really focus. sigh i really need 2 keep it rolling. m tired of being attacked by deadlines everyday (n some other prob2). well i really feel more depressed talkin bout my work so i'll drop that.
i then talked 2 my fren in the philipines, n apparently itz nothing like i thot. i would expect the military in town, while the people crouching quietly ready for the next demonstration of ppl power tat took down marcos and estrada. but nay, my fren sed everything is jus normal. no military no upset crowds on the streets. well it's not necessarily a bad thing after all. ever since the success of toppling marcos the corrupter, a culture of sacking elected leaders by force was born. ppl do believe in votes to elect a president but not in the case of changing one n hence the cyclical unrests wheneva a leader's deemed as a failure. thatz an obvious no-faith display in peaceful democratic resolution. it does nothing but hurting the country. leaving domestic peace alone, foreign investors will have to carefully think twice to really establish any kinf of corporal engagement there esp when the gov had been unable to handle these situations in the past. so if the reason that fuels the anguished crowd is poverty, this is the reason y more jobs cant b offered to the ppl (on top of business opportunity). if the leader is corrupted, there are ways to change it, there's no harm to do it peacefully and democratically, esp when the next election's is not scheduled at the end of the century.
ms arroyo's not alone in this region. this time mr thaksin is the man. after selling his telcom n media corp, he proposed a general election dated 2/4. dat should be safe, but alas, it would be one without the oppositions should it go on. three opposition parties refrained from the possible election. the PAD even threatens to escalate its rally to a violent one should Mr thaksin not resign by 5/3. y? isn't an election jus rite? it represents ppl will. daz the prob isnt it? despite of hikin anti thaksin movements in the cities, he has got continued support from the rural thais. well since some parties cant assure their victory, ppl's sentiment is flashed as (trump) cards again.thatz the game of the big guys isnt it? we, the people are always on their chess board. this time by both the gov and the opp. Mr PM, in return strikes back w his own supporters' rally to answer to the opp's rough challenge. if anything goes wrong, blood is really probable. thats even when the gr8 mr chamlong (hope i got it rite) voices his neutral stance in this issue.
again, there r some roots in the faith of unpeaceful resolution. there were 2 successful stories from a history of violence too. it brought down the government in 73 and 92, well dat probably explains a lil bout the political culture and the half hearted faith in actualizing a democracy- the ppl, the gov and the opp. unrests r not exclusive in these 2 countries. in malaysia, ppl need the gov to comfort'em following by the anger after a rise of 30 cents/liter in oil price (in the middle of growing fear from bird's flu). itz gr8 that it hasnt resulted in any visible unrest movements in this country.
in iraq, ppl r threatened by bombers.
jus as i hav said, every1 has some problems. daz a given, wat matters most is how we deal with'em. i personally think that violent resolutions and ppl's belief in it will not yield anything positive without dear cost(assuming that it does bring some good results).even if it does, it permits future violence. who will suffer? its the ppl. those politicians / business barons who fuel violent rejection of the gov don go up front. its the ppl. as ordinary ppl, wat we should realize is how to make a democratic gov works for us, not to learn how 2 work for certain gr8 ppl. we hav paid enough blood throughout history to glorify certain parties. no more blood should be shed 2 make;em richer/ more powerful.
m not a beauty pageant, but i do hope that peace prevails.
(*also posted on my hi5 and multiply )
watched final destination3 w kari 2day. not bad, reminds me of happy tree friends featuring real ppl. not that it bothers me, i gotta catch some breath in the end of the day anyway. but if i were 2 choose again, i would hav gotten the tickets for syriana.
i got back home, jeesh i realized the weather out there was no jokingly sizzling hot. i took a shower n was ready to get (back to/ raped by) my work but yea i couldnt really focus. sigh i really need 2 keep it rolling. m tired of being attacked by deadlines everyday (n some other prob2). well i really feel more depressed talkin bout my work so i'll drop that.
i then talked 2 my fren in the philipines, n apparently itz nothing like i thot. i would expect the military in town, while the people crouching quietly ready for the next demonstration of ppl power tat took down marcos and estrada. but nay, my fren sed everything is jus normal. no military no upset crowds on the streets. well it's not necessarily a bad thing after all. ever since the success of toppling marcos the corrupter, a culture of sacking elected leaders by force was born. ppl do believe in votes to elect a president but not in the case of changing one n hence the cyclical unrests wheneva a leader's deemed as a failure. thatz an obvious no-faith display in peaceful democratic resolution. it does nothing but hurting the country. leaving domestic peace alone, foreign investors will have to carefully think twice to really establish any kinf of corporal engagement there esp when the gov had been unable to handle these situations in the past. so if the reason that fuels the anguished crowd is poverty, this is the reason y more jobs cant b offered to the ppl (on top of business opportunity). if the leader is corrupted, there are ways to change it, there's no harm to do it peacefully and democratically, esp when the next election's is not scheduled at the end of the century.
ms arroyo's not alone in this region. this time mr thaksin is the man. after selling his telcom n media corp, he proposed a general election dated 2/4. dat should be safe, but alas, it would be one without the oppositions should it go on. three opposition parties refrained from the possible election. the PAD even threatens to escalate its rally to a violent one should Mr thaksin not resign by 5/3. y? isn't an election jus rite? it represents ppl will. daz the prob isnt it? despite of hikin anti thaksin movements in the cities, he has got continued support from the rural thais. well since some parties cant assure their victory, ppl's sentiment is flashed as (trump) cards again.thatz the game of the big guys isnt it? we, the people are always on their chess board. this time by both the gov and the opp. Mr PM, in return strikes back w his own supporters' rally to answer to the opp's rough challenge. if anything goes wrong, blood is really probable. thats even when the gr8 mr chamlong (hope i got it rite) voices his neutral stance in this issue.
again, there r some roots in the faith of unpeaceful resolution. there were 2 successful stories from a history of violence too. it brought down the government in 73 and 92, well dat probably explains a lil bout the political culture and the half hearted faith in actualizing a democracy- the ppl, the gov and the opp. unrests r not exclusive in these 2 countries. in malaysia, ppl need the gov to comfort'em following by the anger after a rise of 30 cents/liter in oil price (in the middle of growing fear from bird's flu). itz gr8 that it hasnt resulted in any visible unrest movements in this country.
in iraq, ppl r threatened by bombers.
jus as i hav said, every1 has some problems. daz a given, wat matters most is how we deal with'em. i personally think that violent resolutions and ppl's belief in it will not yield anything positive without dear cost(assuming that it does bring some good results).even if it does, it permits future violence. who will suffer? its the ppl. those politicians / business barons who fuel violent rejection of the gov don go up front. its the ppl. as ordinary ppl, wat we should realize is how to make a democratic gov works for us, not to learn how 2 work for certain gr8 ppl. we hav paid enough blood throughout history to glorify certain parties. no more blood should be shed 2 make;em richer/ more powerful.
m not a beauty pageant, but i do hope that peace prevails.
(*also posted on my hi5 and multiply )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)