Logical thinking is a highly demanded skill of an individual. But it is
also possible to teach people to think stupid and still logical and
sounding absolutely reasonable, and can even be mathematically proven.
Let me try, 3 children only drink tea or coffee while a fourth drinks
chicken essence. Now if the result of this fourth child is better than
the other 3, then it can be concluded that drinking chicken essence
indeed can improve one’s grade. It can be the other way too.
Another example, most male Sinkies have done NS. And if a sample study
on 3 of them and a foreign student from a university is conducted and
found that the foreign student did better academically, it can be
concluded that doing NS is bad for academic studies. Or some may even
conclude that NS men are more stupid or less smart than those who did
not do NS, ie foreigners and the local girls.
To confirm this finding, check out on the same cohort of girls against
the NS men. If the girls are doing better, one more confirmation that
doing NS makes the men stupid. Then look at the foreign talents and if
they are appointed or employed in top positions over those who have done
NS, this is second confirmation that doing NS really made our boys
stupid.
With this astounding finding, the employers could go to the HR to demand
recruiting people that have not done NS. NS makes men stupid. So all
the top positions should rightfully go to foreigners or maybe girls who
have not done NS.
See how logical the reasoning is? Nah, I don’t think this kind of
thinking is being used to employ foreigners to fill up top positions in
the country, both in the public and private sectors, both in govt and in
the industries.
Logical deduction can be very misleading if the intention is to mislead. Ok, ok, this is academic or intellectual infidelity or dishonesty.
9/25/2013
US rhetoric at UN aims at 'bullying Russia, China' into Syria resolution
This article is from "Russia Today"
US rhetoric at UN aims at ‘bullying Russia, China’ into Syria resolution
Get short URL
Published time: September 24, 2013 21:57
United States President Barack Obama waves after speaking at the 68th United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2013 in New York City. (Andrew Burton/Getty Images/AFP)
US President Barack Obama requires a “mask” to legitimize unilateral action in Syria, Brian Becker, Director of Answer Coalition, told RT. He needs Russia and China to back a resolution so it can be conducted under a UN banner rather than the US alone.
RT: Obama says the US must remain heavily engaged in the Middle East because there won’t be anyone to fill the vacuum if Washington pulls out – is that a credible claim?
Brian Becker: Well, of course the US is acting in what it perceives to be its own interests, and I would have to say these are not the interests of the American people, per se, who don’t have big oil or banking investments in the Middle East. But there are big banks and there are big oil corporations and they have global interests, and they have particular interests in the Middle East. And the US policy is to protect those interests; that’s where two thirds of the world’s oil is.
President Obama says “we are an exceptional country,” meaning we shed our treasure and our blood for the interests of all but not for our own interests. I mean, that’s bogus, that’s completely a fraud. The US wants to dominate and it’s been the priority of its foreign policy to dominate this oil-rich region for the past 50 years.
RT: In defending past US military interventions, he also continued to build a case for regime change in Syria. How is that being received at the general assembly?
BB: I think all the countries of the world who want to be independent and sovereign countries who realize that President Obama – when he says “sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants” – that means the US government is arrogating to itself which regimes, which governments live, and which should be overthrown. So I think for those who are independent – they all see this as a great threat – not only to Syria, but to all those who may at some point defy the empire. Obama said in his speech “we a not an empire, it’s just useful propaganda,” but in fact the US government conduct itself exactly the way an empire does, only this time uses lofty rhetoric and noble causes as the motivation, presumably, for its interests.
US President Barack Obama proposes a toast during a luncheon at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly September 24, 2013 at the United Nations in New York. (AFP Photo/Don Emmert)
US President Barack Obama proposes a toast during a luncheon at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly September 24, 2013 at the United Nations in New York. (AFP Photo/Don Emmert)
RT: Let’s talk about those developments in Syria: The world’s chemical weapons watchdog – it’s said that it’s already cooperating on the chemical disarmament deal – so what about this idea of a UN Security Council resolution – would that actually change anything?
BB: We have to see – what the US and France are trying to do at the Security Council is to bully Russia and bully China in order to get wording into that resolution that would authorize them to carry out a military action under the rubric of the UN. But clearly the Obama administration says it has the authority to act unilaterally, but it would like to have some sort of shield or at least mask for that sort of unilateral operation. So they want to put in language that says that there must be consequences. And President Obama in his speech said if we don’t have consequences to enforce Syria’s compliance – which apparently Syria is complying – then it shows the UN has no ability to enforce international laws in its own resolutions.
We should remind President Obama the UN passed resolution 242 that said to Israel leave the Golan Heights, leave the West Bank – that was 46 years ago. No military action against Israel, and none is in the future. It’s a double standard, it’s hypocrisy. The US is trying to bully the UN Security Council to do what it really wants to do, which is to escalate the conflict in Syria, to overthrow their government.
RT: But isn’t it a fair condition – if Syria simply doesn’t play by the rules and doesn’t comply, then surely some sort of force has got to be put on it in order to make it comply – it’s a fair call isn’t it?
BB: I don’t think so – you notice President Obama said 98 percent of humanity says chemical weapons should be banned. The United States’ principle ally, Israel, refuses to get rid of its chemical weapons stockpile, or biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, so the Obama administrations is in fact quite selective about who can have and who shouldn’t have chemical weapons. But that’s not really the point.
Chemical weapons in this instance are a pretext for an escalating intervention. The Obama administration’s hand has been steadied because of global opposition, including massive domestic opposition in the United States. They’re trying to come back but they are in a weakened position right now.
US rhetoric at UN aims at ‘bullying Russia, China’ into Syria resolution
Get short URL
Published time: September 24, 2013 21:57
United States President Barack Obama waves after speaking at the 68th United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2013 in New York City. (Andrew Burton/Getty Images/AFP)
US President Barack Obama requires a “mask” to legitimize unilateral action in Syria, Brian Becker, Director of Answer Coalition, told RT. He needs Russia and China to back a resolution so it can be conducted under a UN banner rather than the US alone.
RT: Obama says the US must remain heavily engaged in the Middle East because there won’t be anyone to fill the vacuum if Washington pulls out – is that a credible claim?
Brian Becker: Well, of course the US is acting in what it perceives to be its own interests, and I would have to say these are not the interests of the American people, per se, who don’t have big oil or banking investments in the Middle East. But there are big banks and there are big oil corporations and they have global interests, and they have particular interests in the Middle East. And the US policy is to protect those interests; that’s where two thirds of the world’s oil is.
President Obama says “we are an exceptional country,” meaning we shed our treasure and our blood for the interests of all but not for our own interests. I mean, that’s bogus, that’s completely a fraud. The US wants to dominate and it’s been the priority of its foreign policy to dominate this oil-rich region for the past 50 years.
RT: In defending past US military interventions, he also continued to build a case for regime change in Syria. How is that being received at the general assembly?
BB: I think all the countries of the world who want to be independent and sovereign countries who realize that President Obama – when he says “sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants” – that means the US government is arrogating to itself which regimes, which governments live, and which should be overthrown. So I think for those who are independent – they all see this as a great threat – not only to Syria, but to all those who may at some point defy the empire. Obama said in his speech “we a not an empire, it’s just useful propaganda,” but in fact the US government conduct itself exactly the way an empire does, only this time uses lofty rhetoric and noble causes as the motivation, presumably, for its interests.
US President Barack Obama proposes a toast during a luncheon at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly September 24, 2013 at the United Nations in New York. (AFP Photo/Don Emmert)
US President Barack Obama proposes a toast during a luncheon at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly September 24, 2013 at the United Nations in New York. (AFP Photo/Don Emmert)
RT: Let’s talk about those developments in Syria: The world’s chemical weapons watchdog – it’s said that it’s already cooperating on the chemical disarmament deal – so what about this idea of a UN Security Council resolution – would that actually change anything?
BB: We have to see – what the US and France are trying to do at the Security Council is to bully Russia and bully China in order to get wording into that resolution that would authorize them to carry out a military action under the rubric of the UN. But clearly the Obama administration says it has the authority to act unilaterally, but it would like to have some sort of shield or at least mask for that sort of unilateral operation. So they want to put in language that says that there must be consequences. And President Obama in his speech said if we don’t have consequences to enforce Syria’s compliance – which apparently Syria is complying – then it shows the UN has no ability to enforce international laws in its own resolutions.
We should remind President Obama the UN passed resolution 242 that said to Israel leave the Golan Heights, leave the West Bank – that was 46 years ago. No military action against Israel, and none is in the future. It’s a double standard, it’s hypocrisy. The US is trying to bully the UN Security Council to do what it really wants to do, which is to escalate the conflict in Syria, to overthrow their government.
RT: But isn’t it a fair condition – if Syria simply doesn’t play by the rules and doesn’t comply, then surely some sort of force has got to be put on it in order to make it comply – it’s a fair call isn’t it?
BB: I don’t think so – you notice President Obama said 98 percent of humanity says chemical weapons should be banned. The United States’ principle ally, Israel, refuses to get rid of its chemical weapons stockpile, or biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, so the Obama administrations is in fact quite selective about who can have and who shouldn’t have chemical weapons. But that’s not really the point.
Chemical weapons in this instance are a pretext for an escalating intervention. The Obama administration’s hand has been steadied because of global opposition, including massive domestic opposition in the United States. They’re trying to come back but they are in a weakened position right now.
Medical appointments in world class health service
We have a world class health service, both private and public, and
equivalent to the best in the developed countries. This is something we
should be proud of and good for those who need medical care. This
morning there is a letter in the media by a Ms Tay Soh Hoon complaining
about a more than one year medical appointment for her husband with a
renal specialist in a public hospital, the Singapore General Hospital,
run like a private hospital as it has been privatized to be as efficient
as private hospitals.
Now, what is it like for someone with a medical condition that is deemed serious enough to need to see a specialist, in this case is something related to the kidney? Many would be worried to death and would want an immediate appointment with the specialist. A one month appointment would be deemed too long. A one year appointment is definitely unacceptable. How many with a condition could actually get into more serious trouble or may not survive a one year wait.
Waiting for one year in public privatized hospitals is becoming pretty common especially for non life threatening cases like fixing a set of braces. The waiting time could be 2 or 3 years. By then the urge or itch to have a set of braces may be gone. How many cases that were reasonably serious in nature and still need to wait for months or more for an appointment? Is this something acceptable from the professional opinion of the medical practitioners? Definitely it is not desirable and unacceptable for a world class medical health care service.
Heard that if one is willing to pay, go to the real private hospitals and appointments could be had immediately or within a few days depending on how much or desperate one is willing to pay. Heard also that in urgent cases, the waiting period could be shortened in public privatized hospitals as well. In this particular case, after many complaints for urgency, a 16 months wait was finally shorten to a year. Should Ms Tay rejoice for the victory? Should we celebrate that we have a world class healthcare system? Or maybe world class for those who can afford to pay in hard cash in the private hospitals?
What is going on? What world class? Have you heard of die waiting?
Now, what is it like for someone with a medical condition that is deemed serious enough to need to see a specialist, in this case is something related to the kidney? Many would be worried to death and would want an immediate appointment with the specialist. A one month appointment would be deemed too long. A one year appointment is definitely unacceptable. How many with a condition could actually get into more serious trouble or may not survive a one year wait.
Waiting for one year in public privatized hospitals is becoming pretty common especially for non life threatening cases like fixing a set of braces. The waiting time could be 2 or 3 years. By then the urge or itch to have a set of braces may be gone. How many cases that were reasonably serious in nature and still need to wait for months or more for an appointment? Is this something acceptable from the professional opinion of the medical practitioners? Definitely it is not desirable and unacceptable for a world class medical health care service.
Heard that if one is willing to pay, go to the real private hospitals and appointments could be had immediately or within a few days depending on how much or desperate one is willing to pay. Heard also that in urgent cases, the waiting period could be shortened in public privatized hospitals as well. In this particular case, after many complaints for urgency, a 16 months wait was finally shorten to a year. Should Ms Tay rejoice for the victory? Should we celebrate that we have a world class healthcare system? Or maybe world class for those who can afford to pay in hard cash in the private hospitals?
What is going on? What world class? Have you heard of die waiting?
Significant progress on hot button issues
In yesterday’s programme on Asking the PM, Hsien Loong was to a certain
extent congratulating the govt for making significant progress on hot
button issues like housing, public transport and foreigners/employment. I
could not hold my eyeballs steady as they kept rolling while he was
saying these things.
Should the people be jubilant, praise the govt for reacting to these painful issues that have hurt the people real bad for so long? How in the world could a proactive govt with its fingers on the pulse of the people allowed these problems to escalate to a point of losing control is amazing. And who the hell created all these problems in the first place?
My eyeballs rolled faster when he talked about the sense of identity, strengthening the Singaporean core, about individual citizens sacrificing for the national goals and blaming this generation for being different and less sacrificing than the early generations.
Somehow I got this feeling that citizens and the interests of citizens were cast aside in the mercenary pursuit for economic growth at all cost over the last decade or so when foreigners were brought in to replace citizens in nearly every aspect of life in the island.
The housing problem is a big shit that could not be unwound with the people all deep in debt. The employment scene when foreigners are happily employed by the millions and poor Sinkies ended jobless or underemployed or even being discriminated to favour employment of foreigners did not happen yesterday. How come the govt allowed it to happen, or the govt did not know?
Should the people pat the govt for doing a good job or whack it with a big stick? The FCF that is being rolled out is greeted with a lot of mixed feelings, sneers and suspicion that it is going to be another wayang. This tells a lot about the trust the people have on the govt. No need to say more. How did the govt reach just a state of distrust if it has been doing all the good things for the people? The people are daft and ungrateful?
Solving problems together, the govt thinking ahead and the people not thinking ahead? What was the govt thinking and saying when the people were crying out loud about the housing problems? No housing problem, no need to build more, housing was affordable, where got problem? If the people have not screamed their heads off in cyberspace about the employment shit when citizens were booted out of their jobs to be replaced by the foreigners, would the govt look up and listen, and take note?
Actually all the problems in a way were faked, over blown in cyberspace. If there is no internet and social media, there will be no problem at all. Nothing would be heard. The netizens are a nuisance, creating false and imaginary problems and giving the govt a hard time for no good reasons.
Now that the govt has acknowledge some of the problems raised, now that the MOM has started to do something about it, let’s hope the cynicism of the people does not turn out to be true, that it was all a wayang. The govt needs to rebuild its trust by the people if it is to stay relevant and believeable and be re elected. The people are watching with a very critical and cynical mindset. They are not going to take the words of the govt for granted. They want to see actions and real results that favour citizens, not locals.
So? Where do we go from here? Does the govt know that a medical appointment with the specialist in govt privatised hospitals can take more than a year? Is this an acceptable state of affair?
Should the people be jubilant, praise the govt for reacting to these painful issues that have hurt the people real bad for so long? How in the world could a proactive govt with its fingers on the pulse of the people allowed these problems to escalate to a point of losing control is amazing. And who the hell created all these problems in the first place?
My eyeballs rolled faster when he talked about the sense of identity, strengthening the Singaporean core, about individual citizens sacrificing for the national goals and blaming this generation for being different and less sacrificing than the early generations.
Somehow I got this feeling that citizens and the interests of citizens were cast aside in the mercenary pursuit for economic growth at all cost over the last decade or so when foreigners were brought in to replace citizens in nearly every aspect of life in the island.
The housing problem is a big shit that could not be unwound with the people all deep in debt. The employment scene when foreigners are happily employed by the millions and poor Sinkies ended jobless or underemployed or even being discriminated to favour employment of foreigners did not happen yesterday. How come the govt allowed it to happen, or the govt did not know?
Should the people pat the govt for doing a good job or whack it with a big stick? The FCF that is being rolled out is greeted with a lot of mixed feelings, sneers and suspicion that it is going to be another wayang. This tells a lot about the trust the people have on the govt. No need to say more. How did the govt reach just a state of distrust if it has been doing all the good things for the people? The people are daft and ungrateful?
Solving problems together, the govt thinking ahead and the people not thinking ahead? What was the govt thinking and saying when the people were crying out loud about the housing problems? No housing problem, no need to build more, housing was affordable, where got problem? If the people have not screamed their heads off in cyberspace about the employment shit when citizens were booted out of their jobs to be replaced by the foreigners, would the govt look up and listen, and take note?
Actually all the problems in a way were faked, over blown in cyberspace. If there is no internet and social media, there will be no problem at all. Nothing would be heard. The netizens are a nuisance, creating false and imaginary problems and giving the govt a hard time for no good reasons.
Now that the govt has acknowledge some of the problems raised, now that the MOM has started to do something about it, let’s hope the cynicism of the people does not turn out to be true, that it was all a wayang. The govt needs to rebuild its trust by the people if it is to stay relevant and believeable and be re elected. The people are watching with a very critical and cynical mindset. They are not going to take the words of the govt for granted. They want to see actions and real results that favour citizens, not locals.
So? Where do we go from here? Does the govt know that a medical appointment with the specialist in govt privatised hospitals can take more than a year? Is this an acceptable state of affair?
9/24/2013
Material Singapore kena slap, slap
The 5 day visit by Myanmar’s democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi ended
yesterday with a confirmed slap slap on materialistic Singapore. Many
Singaporeans must be squeezing to get up close with this lady from a
Third World country, economically and materially, with a whole list of
what Singapore can do for Myanmar. Come see this Singapore and that
Singapore. Come see Orchard Road and Sentosa, Changi Airport, HDB
flats…. We can build industrial parks for Myanmar, airports, sea ports,
shopping centres, artificial gardens, artificial beaches and parks, and
yes HDB flats. We can teach Myanmar, plenty of things, and plenty of
things for Myanmar to learn from us.
Aung San Suu Kyi was more amused than anything. What is there to learn from Singapore except materialism, mad rush, rat race. She was quoted to say, ‘That made me think, what is work all about? What are human beings for? What are human lives for? The Singapore answer will be to work, work and work. Work is everything, work is pride and dignity.
To this lady of international fame for fighting for democracy and human rights, there is more to just work and money, and work and work. There is a life worth living for. The quality of life is not just about materialism. She conceded that there are things that Myanmar could learn from Singapore but definitely not to copy our model of work, work and work. Myanmar would want to walk its own path to find its own way and happiness.
Her parting shot to Singapore, ‘Perhaps Singapore could learn from us a more relaxed way of life. Perhaps warmer and closer family relationships. I think we have much to offer you, you come and find out.’ Oooh la lah… This must be shocking to many successful Singaporeans with a lot of cash to paste on their faces. This woman from Myanmar wanted to teach us? How can?
Aung San Suu Kyi lives a life to improve lives, for freedom and human rights. We live a life of materialism, money and work. We even have to pay the govt for visiting our parents or our friends in their HDB flats. How is that for building kampong spirit and building a warmer relationship with friends and dear ones? We pay for everything and thus have to work and work to pay and pay.
Well, it is a matter of opinion and expectation of life. We still want to pay that hundred or two hundred thousand bucks to the hospitals to keep us alive to 100 years when we are 90. We need to find more money to live to 100 years. Thank God there is this god sent Medishield Life to help the Singaporeans to live a good life.
Aung San Suu Kyi was more amused than anything. What is there to learn from Singapore except materialism, mad rush, rat race. She was quoted to say, ‘That made me think, what is work all about? What are human beings for? What are human lives for? The Singapore answer will be to work, work and work. Work is everything, work is pride and dignity.
To this lady of international fame for fighting for democracy and human rights, there is more to just work and money, and work and work. There is a life worth living for. The quality of life is not just about materialism. She conceded that there are things that Myanmar could learn from Singapore but definitely not to copy our model of work, work and work. Myanmar would want to walk its own path to find its own way and happiness.
Her parting shot to Singapore, ‘Perhaps Singapore could learn from us a more relaxed way of life. Perhaps warmer and closer family relationships. I think we have much to offer you, you come and find out.’ Oooh la lah… This must be shocking to many successful Singaporeans with a lot of cash to paste on their faces. This woman from Myanmar wanted to teach us? How can?
Aung San Suu Kyi lives a life to improve lives, for freedom and human rights. We live a life of materialism, money and work. We even have to pay the govt for visiting our parents or our friends in their HDB flats. How is that for building kampong spirit and building a warmer relationship with friends and dear ones? We pay for everything and thus have to work and work to pay and pay.
Well, it is a matter of opinion and expectation of life. We still want to pay that hundred or two hundred thousand bucks to the hospitals to keep us alive to 100 years when we are 90. We need to find more money to live to 100 years. Thank God there is this god sent Medishield Life to help the Singaporeans to live a good life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)