Categories
Politics & government

[324] Of Israel and Palestine and MTB for USA 2004

It is amazing how people cement their belief into a small box without even considering that they could be wrong. If I go to a libertarian site, the people there would be celebrating the death of Sheikh Yassin while at the forums monopolized by the Muslims, most of them would be cursing Israel for killing the one of Hamas leaders.

I wonder, would he find a place in heaven or in fire down below? Was he a martyr or was he a killer?

As a brother in Islam, I can’t help but feel enrage by Israel’s action. How could one kill a helpless person that was sitting on a wheelchair in front of the mosque? How could Israel fire a missile from high up in the sky targeted at an old man down below?

But then, how could such a respected person, revered highly by most of the Muslims all around the world condone suicide bombing when clearly Islam prohibits suicide? How could such a person allow the killing to continue when he had every power to stop it?

The advocates of Israel would say that the killing was necessary to discourage further infiltration of Israel. But don’t they know that they are pouring more fuel to the raging fire? Would killing stop further killing from happening in their case?

For the sympathizers of Palestine, why do you curse Israel’s action but totally ignore the devastating effect of suicide bombing? Is being killed by a suicide bomber is any different than being killed by a missile?

I’ve always thought death is death. Is there any different between being killed by an AK-47 bullet and by a missile launched from a F-16?

Good Lord! A spade is a spade.

And for God’s sake, why can’t these people make peace?

For an idealist like me, who are sitting in front my computer without having to fear the possibility of being killed by a suicide bomber or facing the possibility my home being demolished by a bulldozer tomorrow, of course it’s easy for me to say why can’t they just negotiate.

And do you know why it’s easy to say that?

Because there is peace.

When there is peace, we are not supposed to be blinded by bias and prejudice like most of those Israelis and the Palestinians and the advocates of both sides. When there is peace, we are supposed to be more rational, more objective in our thinking and belief.

If you are the one that curses Israel for the oppression that they have done but say nothing when a suicide bomber pays an Israeli a visit or the one that says Israel has every right to defend itself while disregarding the Palestinians’ rights, then you are a bigot – you don’t deserve this peace that I am, and possibly you too, are enjoying.

Seriously, all you bigots should go to the Gaza Strip or Jerusalem or anywhere in or near Israel and fight for the side that you are cheering for. Die for your cause if you truly believe in Hamas or Sharon’s method.

Let us the idealists have our peace while you are pouring your own blood for some dead cause.

And if you share my religion, ask yourself this, does your God endorses these killings? If you say yes, then your God is not my God.

Hi. I am My Teddy Bear and I endorse this message.
My Teddy Bear for USA 2004.p/s – The fundamentalist has struck again. This time, they blew themselves up in Spain.

Categories
Personal Poetry

[323] Of waking up

Dikala Sang Suria bangkit,
ku masih lagi berdengkur,
bangkit ku laung bangkit,
tidak mahu ku nanti tersungkur.

Two exams in a day, ten minutes apart is not good, especially when you are a professional procrastinator.

Categories
Economics Environment Liberty

[322] Of Angi and smokers and irrational exuberance

After six months and two comments later, I’ve realized that I’ve made a mistake in this entry. It is supposed to be “Smoking brings no social benefit to anybody” (excluding the tobacco industry of course) instead of “Smokers bring no social benefit to anybody“.

I can’t really argue with Angi because her point is valid. So, a correction perhaps would suffice.

On the technical point, there were two comments, one by Jaboobie which is gone, no thanks to Haloscan.

On the side note, does anybody remember this Bull?

//www.theatlantic.com/. Fair Use.

1999 was almost 5 years ago but it seems like it was just yesterday. How time flies. Sigh…

Categories
Economics Environment

[321] Of oil price and ANWR

I’ve just realized one thing.

With the rising oil price, the pressure to drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) may be too great to resist. The last time the proposal to drill ANWR came up, the green won. If thing doesn’t change for the better, that victory might be short-lived.

At the same time, this could be what the green needs; something to justify the push toward renewable energy.

Drilling the ANWR might be the short run answer. It has been reported that the oil reserve under the ANWR could only supply the US merely six months worth of fuel.

Renewable energy is the long term solution. Considering solar power, it takes several more billion years for the Sun to die.

Being myopic, the oil industry lobbists would probally reignite the war for ANWR.

Let’s pray for the November election to come first (and of course, hope it’s Kerry) before the grey gets their act together and pushes for the proposal all over again.

Categories
Economics

[320] Of Micro$oft

Yesterday – actually it was the day before yesterday – the European Commission on behalf of the European Union slammed a $603 million penalty on Microsoft for unfair competition. Not so long ago, the same ruling was given out to Microsoft in the United States though with a heavier penalty – the company was supposed to be split into two different entities. Somehow, Microsoft appealed against the ruling and managed to keep itself in one piece. If my memory does not fail me, the last company that actually was split into several different entities was Standard Oil – now known as Exxon Mobil.

Apart from the half a billion Euro fine, Microsoft also has been ordered by the European Union to disclose relevant information to the public in order to promote a fair competition within a few months.

Currently, Microsoft has announced to appeal against the European ruling.

But is Microsoft really dangerous? Is it okay for the EU to punish Microsoft for being too successful? [Insert some funky music here]

It is no doubt that a monopoly would bring inefficiency into the market. In economic terms, Microsoft is charging the users a price higher than the firm’s marginal cost, gaining too much profit while producing too little. At the same time, deadweight loss to the society is unavoidable. Maybe,

Still, I believe in free market. My belief in laissez faire leads me to believe that it is wrong to punish Microsoft from being too successful.

The clash of the two concepts make me feel uncomfortable. Being both a green and a free-marketeer wannabe is hard.

However, in Microsoft case, one event made it easier for me to decide.
Weeks earlier, it was reported that Microsoft encouraged SCO to launch assault on Linux. SCO has of course denied this allegation but still, the tree doesn’t sway if the wind doesn’t blow.

Ladies and gentlemen, Micro$oft is as evil as Standard Oil and Exxon Mobil. And I support, cautiously, EU’s decision.