Saddam had to go when he schemed to replace the US dollar for trading oil. This was a dangerous move that would jeopardize the already weak dollar. When countries have no need to use the dollar to buy/sell oil, the demand for US dollar is going to go down the sewage.
This was the logical reason put forth by many economists that explained why the hoax of WMD was shafted down the dead brains of the heads of Allied governments who then parroted the whole hoax to their people as truth, and joined the gang of the ‘Willing Coalition to kill Saddam and Iraqis’.
The Chinese and the Japanese have just signed an agreement to facilitate trade between the world’s number 2 and number 3 economies using Yuan and Yen, by passing the need to buy US dollars. The implications of this development on the US dollar are severe.
China is also working with the Asean states to promote the use of Yuan. And why not when the US dollar is slipping into the drain? Commercial transactions using US dollars are so treacherous that seemingly profitable deals may end up a big loss with the currency depreciating daily. It is a matter of time before the US dollars be dumped and turned into banana currency.
And hither will the TPP go when the Yuan starts to replace the US dollar as a reliable currency for trade? There is no need for war for the US economy to collapse. When the dollar becomes a useless piece of paper that no one wants, that will be the end of the Empire. It may come much sooner than expected.
12/27/2011
Ominous signs
The MRT trains have been running fairly smoothly for more than 20 years. Recently so many incidents and faults occurred in a span of a few weeks. And despite doing a complete check, faults are popping up frequently like the popping of champagne bottles. The regular disruption is now becoming the new normal and commuters better live with it, just like ponding in Orchard Road.
Should the whole train system be removed as it seems that it has reached the end of its usable life? Or it is just an ominous sign of bigger things to come, when seemingly things in good order just keep breaking down?
Should the whole train system be removed as it seems that it has reached the end of its usable life? Or it is just an ominous sign of bigger things to come, when seemingly things in good order just keep breaking down?
The shame of 2011
The death of Kim Jong Il has brought out some of the ugliest traits in some human beans across the world. In Taiwan, a news reader had the rude audacity to imitate the sorrows and grief in the way the North Korean news reader broadcast his death. And the Taiwanese thought it was fun. And some thought it was justifiable to win viewerships by such a poor taste act of disgraceful conduct.
The biggest disgraceful act happened at the UN when a 1 minute silence was proposed for the death of Kim, a national leader. The shameful boycott of this 1 minute observance was led by the US and its shameful allies, the European countries, Japan and South Korea. It was only a gesture of respect and condolence to Kim Jong Il, the leader of a nation. They really stooped really low in human decency to do such a darn thing.
Kim Jong Il was not Hitler nor was he a George Bush or Tony Blair whose hands were dripping with the bloods of Iraqis. How would the US and the European nations, supposedly civilised nations, behave in such a creepy and disgraceful way?
It was definitely uncalled for, and a very mean thing to do so.
The biggest disgraceful act happened at the UN when a 1 minute silence was proposed for the death of Kim, a national leader. The shameful boycott of this 1 minute observance was led by the US and its shameful allies, the European countries, Japan and South Korea. It was only a gesture of respect and condolence to Kim Jong Il, the leader of a nation. They really stooped really low in human decency to do such a darn thing.
Kim Jong Il was not Hitler nor was he a George Bush or Tony Blair whose hands were dripping with the bloods of Iraqis. How would the US and the European nations, supposedly civilised nations, behave in such a creepy and disgraceful way?
It was definitely uncalled for, and a very mean thing to do so.
The Art of Tolerance or Intolerance
Living in a multi racial and multi religious society is getting more complicated and even demanding of everyone to be extra sensitive to the needs and taboos of everyone. The special needs could now extend to people with medical or psychological conditions as well.
I will just confine to one specific factor of food and inviting people to a pig out or makan event, or a party, religious, cultural or just a simple wedding. The latter is of extra sensitive other than just an issue of food. Anyone who has been put through such an ordeal will know how difficult and sensitive is the invitation list as it could offend people for inviting and not inviting them, and serving them the right food. The vegetarians always felt shortchanged when others feasted on sumptious dishes and theirs were simply vegetables or glutens.
Putting that aside, let’s talk about an invitation to a Christmas Party. Not everyone is agreeable with the religion in the first place. That is another issue. Not everyone is agreeable with the food and the alcohol on offer. We have people who can’t take meat, some can’t take ham, some cannot consume alcohol, some can’t have sugar, some cannot take legume related products or nuts, some can only take vegetables and vegetables of certain types.
How is the host going to take care of all the prohibitions and cannot issue? To make sure that everyone is going to have what they want and nothing else is a tall order. The problem is with the host or organiser. If they want to invite people with special needs and sensitivity towards food, isn’t it their responsibility to make sure that the guest’s needs are met and be happy? To complicate problems, the numbers of guests with special needs may be so small, one may be diabetic, two may be vegetarians, and vegetarians also got different types, vegans and non vegans, one may not be able to take pork, a few may need food to be halal. And some cannot have fried food. So how?
One way is to go for the lowest common denominator whereby everyone can eat the same food and no one will be cheated. I can only think of a perfect menu, plain rice, porridge, bread, can have a few types, Swiss, English, French etc, and a spread of vegetables, and plenty of non alcoholic drinks, without sugar of course.
But if the host is rich and money is no issue, he could still have his cake and eat it, ask each guest to pick his own menu and engage an army of chefs to prepare anything under the sky.
Another option is to defer to the host, host priority. The guests will let the host decides what he wants to serve and eat whatever they can find suitable to them. I did that most of the time. I am vegetarians on 3 full days a week. And it is difficult to demand on my friends and host to prepare vegetarian food on the days that I am vegetarian. I don’t expect my friends or hosts to know that. So I make do with what is available. I pick on vegetarian dishes and may just stick to one dish and avoid the rest. Or if that is not possible, I will just take the vegetable and beans in a plate of meat food. But only I can do that, to accommodate the host and avoid making things difficult for them. I am my own boss and god when food is concerned. I decide. I choose to be vegetarian and no need to blame others.
Many people cannot decide as there is god and religion involved, there is also the doctor and his prescription for those with health issues. These make things that much more inflexible as to what can be eaten or not eaten is no longer a personal decision. The only thing left is plain water.
The issue I presented is tolerance of the host or tolerance of the guests. In the former, the guests make do with what is on the table, without putting any demands or pressure on the host. The latter, the host would have to bend backwards to meet the sensitivities of the guests.
I am not going to suggest that we go the Banquet way, where restaurants should all go halal. For the next step is, why just halal and not go for the lowest set of common denominator, vegetarian? When that be the case, then those deprived of their food preference would become the sensitive ones, making unyielding demands that their cravings for food must be satisfied.
It is tough to say who is being sensitive or insensitive to the needs of others when the issue is getting more complex, demanding and irritating when words like discrimination is hung on the front chests.
I will just confine to one specific factor of food and inviting people to a pig out or makan event, or a party, religious, cultural or just a simple wedding. The latter is of extra sensitive other than just an issue of food. Anyone who has been put through such an ordeal will know how difficult and sensitive is the invitation list as it could offend people for inviting and not inviting them, and serving them the right food. The vegetarians always felt shortchanged when others feasted on sumptious dishes and theirs were simply vegetables or glutens.
Putting that aside, let’s talk about an invitation to a Christmas Party. Not everyone is agreeable with the religion in the first place. That is another issue. Not everyone is agreeable with the food and the alcohol on offer. We have people who can’t take meat, some can’t take ham, some cannot consume alcohol, some can’t have sugar, some cannot take legume related products or nuts, some can only take vegetables and vegetables of certain types.
How is the host going to take care of all the prohibitions and cannot issue? To make sure that everyone is going to have what they want and nothing else is a tall order. The problem is with the host or organiser. If they want to invite people with special needs and sensitivity towards food, isn’t it their responsibility to make sure that the guest’s needs are met and be happy? To complicate problems, the numbers of guests with special needs may be so small, one may be diabetic, two may be vegetarians, and vegetarians also got different types, vegans and non vegans, one may not be able to take pork, a few may need food to be halal. And some cannot have fried food. So how?
One way is to go for the lowest common denominator whereby everyone can eat the same food and no one will be cheated. I can only think of a perfect menu, plain rice, porridge, bread, can have a few types, Swiss, English, French etc, and a spread of vegetables, and plenty of non alcoholic drinks, without sugar of course.
But if the host is rich and money is no issue, he could still have his cake and eat it, ask each guest to pick his own menu and engage an army of chefs to prepare anything under the sky.
Another option is to defer to the host, host priority. The guests will let the host decides what he wants to serve and eat whatever they can find suitable to them. I did that most of the time. I am vegetarians on 3 full days a week. And it is difficult to demand on my friends and host to prepare vegetarian food on the days that I am vegetarian. I don’t expect my friends or hosts to know that. So I make do with what is available. I pick on vegetarian dishes and may just stick to one dish and avoid the rest. Or if that is not possible, I will just take the vegetable and beans in a plate of meat food. But only I can do that, to accommodate the host and avoid making things difficult for them. I am my own boss and god when food is concerned. I decide. I choose to be vegetarian and no need to blame others.
Many people cannot decide as there is god and religion involved, there is also the doctor and his prescription for those with health issues. These make things that much more inflexible as to what can be eaten or not eaten is no longer a personal decision. The only thing left is plain water.
The issue I presented is tolerance of the host or tolerance of the guests. In the former, the guests make do with what is on the table, without putting any demands or pressure on the host. The latter, the host would have to bend backwards to meet the sensitivities of the guests.
I am not going to suggest that we go the Banquet way, where restaurants should all go halal. For the next step is, why just halal and not go for the lowest set of common denominator, vegetarian? When that be the case, then those deprived of their food preference would become the sensitive ones, making unyielding demands that their cravings for food must be satisfied.
It is tough to say who is being sensitive or insensitive to the needs of others when the issue is getting more complex, demanding and irritating when words like discrimination is hung on the front chests.
12/26/2011
The use and meaning of quotes
Very often we like to quote what other people said in our posts. And we quote for various reasons. One major use of quotes is that the person is an authority and what he said is important or makes sense. The famous quote of Lord Acton is being used daily in cyberspace, ‘Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.’
When people make this quote, they are agreeing completely with the author. Absolute power corrupts, a fact. But people may make this quote and then explains why they agree or even disagree. And they will explain why they disagree, sometimes by writing a whole book on it.
Some may misquote or quote it partially by saying power corrupts, and power corrupts absolutely, which has a slightly different meaning. It needs not be absolute power to corrupt absolutely. But the person who quoted is happy that as long as it is power, needs not be absolute, it can still corrupt absolutely. Other wise there is no point in making the reference. He believes that power alone can corrupt absolutely.
This is different from Acton’s original intent or idea. Acton only pronounced that in order for power to corrupt absolutely, it must be absolute power. His criteria is more demanding, not anyhow power, little power, small power, as long as it is power, it corrupts absolutely.
When someone quotes, it is quite easy to understand his intent or thinking, his values, what he subscribes to, what he agrees or disagrees, or what he believes in what he quoted.
‘A picture is worth a thousand words.’ Anyone making this quote must agree with the saying or enjoys the brevity of making a profound expression with so few words. This is an artistic reason for making a quote.
When people make this quote, they are agreeing completely with the author. Absolute power corrupts, a fact. But people may make this quote and then explains why they agree or even disagree. And they will explain why they disagree, sometimes by writing a whole book on it.
Some may misquote or quote it partially by saying power corrupts, and power corrupts absolutely, which has a slightly different meaning. It needs not be absolute power to corrupt absolutely. But the person who quoted is happy that as long as it is power, needs not be absolute, it can still corrupt absolutely. Other wise there is no point in making the reference. He believes that power alone can corrupt absolutely.
This is different from Acton’s original intent or idea. Acton only pronounced that in order for power to corrupt absolutely, it must be absolute power. His criteria is more demanding, not anyhow power, little power, small power, as long as it is power, it corrupts absolutely.
When someone quotes, it is quite easy to understand his intent or thinking, his values, what he subscribes to, what he agrees or disagrees, or what he believes in what he quoted.
‘A picture is worth a thousand words.’ Anyone making this quote must agree with the saying or enjoys the brevity of making a profound expression with so few words. This is an artistic reason for making a quote.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)