EL Blog Post 2

Source Text: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Post 2: The Mess is on.

One must actually wonder why the statistics look so unfavorable right now. 6 years on from the events of 9/11/01, which began the entire Middle Eastern Saga, here is the scoreboard. No WMDs found, Osama not yet caught, Saddam executed, unstable situation in the Middle East, 3,400 American lives lost, many more Arab lives lost, no sustainable resolution in sight, and a approximate cost of $300 billion, no small sum for any country.

A fiasco, if one might be cynical about it.

Clearly, the Bush administration's rather gung-ho US "preemptive strike" policy seems to be costing them quite dearly, what with walking into the Middle East and overturning 2 whole governments, and never really finding what you were looking for, such as a man named Osama and the WMDs he and Saddam supposedly has on hand. It seems to be lowering many people's views of the Bush administration, so much so that even Americans themselves have lost faith, allowing the Congress to be taken over by the mainly anti-war Democrats.

This had led to much conflict between the presidential agenda and congressional agenda, which has, in its own time, led to the events that is the focus of this newspaper report. Once again, Congress has to decide on whether it should withhold funds from the troops in the Middle East or not, and this time it won't be so easy for them to decide. After all, the majority of the Democrats are not highly enamoured of Bush's plans, and that is plain.

However, it is of interest to note that it is also in their interest to support the funding of the troops, as it will make it seem as though they are in support of the troops, but just not in support of Bush's plan to resolve the war, as some of them may feel, or espouse.

Personally, I feel that this war, while originally justifiable in its nature (against terrorist aggression), has become something a lot less honorable in its latter years, and made to seem more like an attempt to find things that they have no evidence for (WMDs), and close up some loose ends (Saddam was formerly an ALLY of the US against the Soviets).

I also feel that the situation in the Middle East is not so easy to fix, as what they are up against is terrorism plus a religious philosophy which has been deeply ingrained in the psyche of those they are up against, so that they would actually be willing to die for what has been in their heads for so long, without questioning the worthwhileness of their deaths - if they die for their religion, then that alone makes them honorable.

Terrorists are like a pack of wolves, and that does not change. Just driving in with a big lumbering army is really not the smart way of doing things, it just leaves one open to the minor, but chaos-causing, slashing attacks that weaken armies, and then packs of wolves just love using. They should have never walked in like that in the first place. If they had proof, then they could walk in, without fear of such setbacks, because they would be vindicated by the proof.

But they didn't, and still don't have any, so too bad, seriously.

EL Blog Post 1

Source Text: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/11/15/singapore.sex.reut/index.html

Singapore's Sex Life: Now and for the Future.

It has been 4 years since this article was written. Since then, Singapore has been hit by the winds of change, and whether these winds are merely breezes that will whistle past the ears of Singaporeans, or gale-force hurricanes that will sweep the establishment off its feet, still remains to be seen.

Under this backdrop of developments, many major, if rather archaic Singapore laws on sex are also experiencing the tides of change.

Latest in these developments is the revision of the Penal Code of Singapore, which repeals Section 377 (on penetrative , non-reproductive sexual acts), and also the discussion over the feasibility of repealing its companion Section, 377A (the same, save for it affecting homosexuals instead), which remained untouched in the earlier revision.

It appears to be that the main issue is that it appears discriminatory to allow the same act for one group of people, but disallow it in another. Also, given Singapore's long running image of being conservative, and a semi-autocratic government, this discrimination does not particularly reflect well in our current society, as it makes Singapore, even to its own people (among the liberals at least), an archaic society.

But, to look deeper behind this supposed step towards a freer society, we must ask ourselves: even if we did become more liberal in our laws and regulations, would it be a good thing? Is this progress, or simply some form of regress under a thin, positive veneer of what we label "progress"?

Once we have some freedom, we will want more, and that is the painful, but inevitable truth. The government has effectively been withdrawn from the heterosexual bedroom, and now they wish to withdraw it from the homosexual bedroom.

While this can still be justified by raising the concept of "discrimination", I believe that if we keep on taking on this route, we will soon reach a point when there is no behavior, now regarded as vile and impermissible, that we cannot eventually find some concept, or some group of law practitioners, or some rights group to explain away or lobby for.

Granted, the homosexual minority in Singapore actually does have a lot of valid reasons to complain that they are being discriminated against, and if I wanted to be sympathetic, I would even say that it is somewhat justified for them to desire their own rights. The laws were, and some still are, against them, so it is natural for them to have ants in their pants over it.

However, the danger of losing our old moral standards, and the possibility of losing sight of the idea that "something is surely a wrong thing, no matter how good it may look" is still very real.

So, I shall refrain from joining the ranks of those who would celebrate and embrace this concept of freedom, and instead warn that we are facing a serious problem. Even if we could now claim that “there are some things we will never accept”, it’s really not a big deal, or even in the slightest a guarantee that there are some moral barriers we will not cross. Words about these were cheap 100 years ago, and words like these are still cheap now.

But, actions are not cheap, they have consequences. Instead of being besotted with what we think is a “beneficial revising of the law”, we should sit down and think about what these things could do to us, or the generations to come.

5 Quick Tips before an Argument

1. Please make sure you don't end up proving what you meant to disprove.
2. Please make sure you know whether 2 things are mutually exclusive, or not.
3. Please make sure you have enough background knowledge about a topic before you talk.
4. Please make sure you never, EVER back yourself into a corner
5. Please make sure you think before talking, or if not, convince people that you did.

And by the way, there is something wrong with what I wrote up there. If you know what is wrong, Cbox me.

Random Comparisons - Orwell and Huxley

Now, who was right? Aldous or George? 1984 or Brave new World?
In my opinion, Huxley has been easily proven right.

Orwell envisioned a world where we were suppressed,
Huxley envisioned one where we had no real restrictions.

Orwell envisioned a world where we didn't know enough,
Huxley envisioned one where we would be too distracted to do anything.

Orwell envisioned a totalitarian government of rules,
Huxley envisioned a totalitarian government of distractions

Orwell envisioned a world where what we feared would rule us,
Huxley envisioned one where what we loved would rule us.

Orwell's fear was the iron fist of communism and the threat of pain,
Huxley's fear was the phallus of hedonism and the threat of pleasure.


Now which one does it look like today? I shan't insult your intelligence by telling you.

Well, all their smartness and foresight aside...Neither of them really did anything to fix it, or their own lives for that matter. Huxley was an unabashed hedonist himself, and Orwell was a hardcore socialist. Ah well, too bad. At least they gave me something to dilate about.