Thursday, January 01, 2009
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Should Bush be tried for war crimes?
Background
From the Sun; Lawrence Velvel, the dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, will host a conference in September aimed at preparing war crimes prosecutions against the president and members of his administration. Mr. Velvel hopes that the meeting will lay the groundwork "to pursue the guilty as long as necessary".
Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...
Albert: Should Bush be tried for war crimes?
Trebla: Absolutely
Albert: Would Bush be tried for war crimes?
Trebla: Never.
Albert: Should Bush be tried for torture, extraordinary rendition and other grotesque constitutional abuses?
Trebla: Absolutely
Albert: Would Bush be tried for torture, extraordinary rendition and other grotesque constitutional abuses?
Trebla: Unlikely.
Albert: Should Bush be tried for murdering American citizens by sending them to Iraq?
Trebla: Absolutely
Albert: Would Bush be tried for for murdering American citizens by sending them to Iraq?
Trebla: Depends on whether the Democrats have any backbone.
Albert: Let me ask these questions in a different order by assuming that the Democrats do have the gut to do something right for the American people.
Trebla: That's a big assumption! But I'll go along with you.
Albert: After Bush has been tried for for murdering American citizens by sending them to Iraq, would Bush be tried for torture, extraordinary rendition and other grotesque constitutional abuses?
Trebla: Likely
Albert: After Bush has been tried for torture, extraordinary rendition and other grotesque constitutional abuses, would Bush be tried for war crimes?
Trebla: Depends on whether the American citizens have the courage and moral stance to right the wrong.
Albert: Let's hope American can get this right.
From the Sun; Lawrence Velvel, the dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, will host a conference in September aimed at preparing war crimes prosecutions against the president and members of his administration. Mr. Velvel hopes that the meeting will lay the groundwork "to pursue the guilty as long as necessary".
Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...
Albert: Should Bush be tried for war crimes?
Trebla: Absolutely
Albert: Would Bush be tried for war crimes?
Trebla: Never.
Albert: Should Bush be tried for torture, extraordinary rendition and other grotesque constitutional abuses?
Trebla: Absolutely
Albert: Would Bush be tried for torture, extraordinary rendition and other grotesque constitutional abuses?
Trebla: Unlikely.
Albert: Should Bush be tried for murdering American citizens by sending them to Iraq?
Trebla: Absolutely
Albert: Would Bush be tried for for murdering American citizens by sending them to Iraq?
Trebla: Depends on whether the Democrats have any backbone.
Albert: Let me ask these questions in a different order by assuming that the Democrats do have the gut to do something right for the American people.
Trebla: That's a big assumption! But I'll go along with you.
Albert: After Bush has been tried for for murdering American citizens by sending them to Iraq, would Bush be tried for torture, extraordinary rendition and other grotesque constitutional abuses?
Trebla: Likely
Albert: After Bush has been tried for torture, extraordinary rendition and other grotesque constitutional abuses, would Bush be tried for war crimes?
Trebla: Depends on whether the American citizens have the courage and moral stance to right the wrong.
Albert: Let's hope American can get this right.
Labels: war crime
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Priest telling lies, as usual
Background
[abc news from Australia]The Catholic Church's most senior figure in Australia, Cardinal George Pell, has conceded a letter he wrote to a man who had been sexually assaulted by a priest was a mistake.
Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...
Albert: "a mistake" = Bull sh*t!
Trebla: Yes, according to ABC, Two allegations of abuse by the same priest were involved. AND more importantly, .Cardinal Pell signed a letter accepting the former altar boy's complaint on the same day he wrote to Mr Jones. How could it be a mistake. It is a cover-up!
Albert: Most media are still seeking church representatives for comments whenever there is a moral issue. That's is totally wrong.
Trebla:Agree. Priests at high position are totally unqualified to speak on any issue on moral.
Albert: Being at high position implies that they are really smart. Otherwise they won't be able to reach that position. Being smart, they should know that the Bible is just a friction. They know that god does not exist. But they continue to peach the wrong idea to the public meaning that they are only acting on their own interest, everyday continuously. They have no moral!
Trebla: If they really believe in the existence of god, then they are disqualified because of their stupidity.
[abc news from Australia]The Catholic Church's most senior figure in Australia, Cardinal George Pell, has conceded a letter he wrote to a man who had been sexually assaulted by a priest was a mistake.
Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...
Albert: "a mistake" = Bull sh*t!
Trebla: Yes, according to ABC, Two allegations of abuse by the same priest were involved. AND more importantly, .Cardinal Pell signed a letter accepting the former altar boy's complaint on the same day he wrote to Mr Jones. How could it be a mistake. It is a cover-up!
Albert: Most media are still seeking church representatives for comments whenever there is a moral issue. That's is totally wrong.
Trebla:Agree. Priests at high position are totally unqualified to speak on any issue on moral.
Albert: Being at high position implies that they are really smart. Otherwise they won't be able to reach that position. Being smart, they should know that the Bible is just a friction. They know that god does not exist. But they continue to peach the wrong idea to the public meaning that they are only acting on their own interest, everyday continuously. They have no moral!
Trebla: If they really believe in the existence of god, then they are disqualified because of their stupidity.
Labels: religion
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Who Own Your Child?
Background
This is another beautiful day. The twins are in an argument again.
Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...
Trebla: Do you own you child?
Albert: That is a wrong question? We don't own anybody. We have well passed the slave era.
Trebla: You are wrong. Someone own all our children.
Albert: Who?
Trebla: Definitely not you and me!
Albert: Please explain.
Trebla: Although you couple gave birth to your children, can you take their life away?
Albert: Of course not!
Trebla: That's right. By the concept of ownership, you can destory the thing you own if you so desire - even may not be morally right to do so.
Albert: So, we don't own our children. What is your point?
Trebla: Someone own our children!
Albert: Please explain.
Trebla: Someone can legally destory our children, Does that mean that that someone own our children?
Albert: But that someone does not exist!
Trebla: Wrong, that is the government who send our children to war knowing that there is a high possibility of dying.
Albert: But that's bcause we need to protect our country!
Trebla: In history, how wars were started? All wars are started because of someone's aggression and ambition. If there is no such evil person, there is no need to protect our country because there will be no people attacking us to start with.
Albert: But, we are talk about today!
Trebla: Yes, it is happening today. The US president sends his citizens to fight an unnecessary war. Does that demonstrate that the US president owns all the children of American people?
Albert: Aha!
This is another beautiful day. The twins are in an argument again.
Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...
Trebla: Do you own you child?
Albert: That is a wrong question? We don't own anybody. We have well passed the slave era.
Trebla: You are wrong. Someone own all our children.
Albert: Who?
Trebla: Definitely not you and me!
Albert: Please explain.
Trebla: Although you couple gave birth to your children, can you take their life away?
Albert: Of course not!
Trebla: That's right. By the concept of ownership, you can destory the thing you own if you so desire - even may not be morally right to do so.
Albert: So, we don't own our children. What is your point?
Trebla: Someone own our children!
Albert: Please explain.
Trebla: Someone can legally destory our children, Does that mean that that someone own our children?
Albert: But that someone does not exist!
Trebla: Wrong, that is the government who send our children to war knowing that there is a high possibility of dying.
Albert: But that's bcause we need to protect our country!
Trebla: In history, how wars were started? All wars are started because of someone's aggression and ambition. If there is no such evil person, there is no need to protect our country because there will be no people attacking us to start with.
Albert: But, we are talk about today!
Trebla: Yes, it is happening today. The US president sends his citizens to fight an unnecessary war. Does that demonstrate that the US president owns all the children of American people?
Albert: Aha!
Labels: human right
Sunday, June 15, 2008
This is not how to reward a hero!
Background
via Neatorama:
from Chicago Tribune
Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...
Albert: In US, you should just stand and watch a burning police car killed the cops inside. Otherwise you end up in jail - because you helped!
Trebla: That's extreme, brother! Jackson was accused of stealing a weapon and hence spent time in jail!
Albert: Come on. Common Sense! If one is busy helping people, one won't have time to steal weapon! To a nurse, why would she even want to have a weapon?
Trebla: To protect herself, may be/
Albert: Rather, is that because she is black?
Trebla: Don't start that!
Albert: It is even worse that the defense attorney want to appeal.
Trebla: OK, I am with you. There is no justice in US.
Albert: I believe there is only one thing in these people's mind.
Trebla: What is that?
Albert: $$$
Trebla: I don't understand. Jackson was not expecting to be falsely prosecuted and then won the law suit for a compensation. She would not have been able to see the $$$ when she rescued the police officers.
Albert: I meant the defense attorney. Law suit and appeals make money for the lawyers!
via Neatorama:
rachelle jackson, a trained nurse, pulled two policemen out of their burning squad car and rather than being thanked for her heroic effort, she was arrested on charges that she robbed, battered and disarmed a peace officer and jailed for 10 months!
from Chicago Tribune
Jackson filed a lawsuit, and on Thursday a federal jury found against the city and several Chicago police officers, awarding Jackson $7.7 million for false arrest, malicious prosecution, coercive questioning and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
...
Defense attorney Andrew Hale said the amount the jury awarded Jackson was "excessive" and that he would file post-trial motions to have the amount reduced.
Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...
Albert: In US, you should just stand and watch a burning police car killed the cops inside. Otherwise you end up in jail - because you helped!
Trebla: That's extreme, brother! Jackson was accused of stealing a weapon and hence spent time in jail!
Albert: Come on. Common Sense! If one is busy helping people, one won't have time to steal weapon! To a nurse, why would she even want to have a weapon?
Trebla: To protect herself, may be/
Albert: Rather, is that because she is black?
Trebla: Don't start that!
Albert: It is even worse that the defense attorney want to appeal.
Trebla: OK, I am with you. There is no justice in US.
Albert: I believe there is only one thing in these people's mind.
Trebla: What is that?
Albert: $$$
Trebla: I don't understand. Jackson was not expecting to be falsely prosecuted and then won the law suit for a compensation. She would not have been able to see the $$$ when she rescued the police officers.
Albert: I meant the defense attorney. Law suit and appeals make money for the lawyers!
Labels: justics
Monday, June 02, 2008
Petrol Prices
Background
The last week of Australian Parliment was spent on arguing whether Opposition's proposal of a 5cents reduction in the fuel tax will help the Australian families on top of the embrassing leaks of cabinet meeting information on the lack of evidence of "fuel watch" scheme to help to lower the fuel price.
Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...
Albert: Frankly, 5 cents out of $1.50 a litre of fuel is nothing. My average of 60L a tank only save me $3. It is a just a cuppa!
Trebla: Same for the "fuel watch". Asking the fuel stations to pre-advertise their price 24 hours before change is just an additional cost to the fuel stations. It won't reduce any price!
Albert: Shouldn't our elected representative really be able to sort out the real problem? It is supply and demand, stupid!
Trebla: Yea, the real solution is provide alternate solution so that we don't have to drive as much. For example improve the horrible public transport system!
Albert: Or invest in producing renewable fuel - not from food source, like algae growing in salt water!
Trebla: Is there anything wrong with the political system? Common people like you and me have more and better solution to the highly paid politicians!
The last week of Australian Parliment was spent on arguing whether Opposition's proposal of a 5cents reduction in the fuel tax will help the Australian families on top of the embrassing leaks of cabinet meeting information on the lack of evidence of "fuel watch" scheme to help to lower the fuel price.
Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...
Albert: Frankly, 5 cents out of $1.50 a litre of fuel is nothing. My average of 60L a tank only save me $3. It is a just a cuppa!
Trebla: Same for the "fuel watch". Asking the fuel stations to pre-advertise their price 24 hours before change is just an additional cost to the fuel stations. It won't reduce any price!
Albert: Shouldn't our elected representative really be able to sort out the real problem? It is supply and demand, stupid!
Trebla: Yea, the real solution is provide alternate solution so that we don't have to drive as much. For example improve the horrible public transport system!
Albert: Or invest in producing renewable fuel - not from food source, like algae growing in salt water!
Trebla: Is there anything wrong with the political system? Common people like you and me have more and better solution to the highly paid politicians!
Labels: Australian politics, fuel price
Monday, May 26, 2008
The Value of a Human Life: $129,000 or $500,000
Background
From Times, Stanford economists have demonstrated that the average value of a year of quality human life is actually closer to about $129,000, from the Medical Insurance's value of $50,000. However, the US Government pays $500,000 death benefit to a dead sodier's family.
Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...
Albert:Is there a value to a human life?
Trebla:Yes.
Albert:How much do you worth?
Trebla:Couple of Billions, may be
Albert:How much do I worth?
Trebla:A few hundred, at most!
Albert:What? Explain!
Trebla:I am a beautiful lady. If I marry a rich guy, he may be willing to spend billions to save my life. You are just an ordinary man. Nobody really cares about you. You are worthless.
Albert:Hey, remember, we are twins. You carry the same gene as me!
Trebla:But value is subjective.
Albert:Aha, that's why *I* worth Billions and *you* only worth hundreds.
Trebla:The question is *should a third party judge the value of one's life*?
From Times, Stanford economists have demonstrated that the average value of a year of quality human life is actually closer to about $129,000, from the Medical Insurance's value of $50,000. However, the US Government pays $500,000 death benefit to a dead sodier's family.
Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...
Albert:Is there a value to a human life?
Trebla:Yes.
Albert:How much do you worth?
Trebla:Couple of Billions, may be
Albert:How much do I worth?
Trebla:A few hundred, at most!
Albert:What? Explain!
Trebla:I am a beautiful lady. If I marry a rich guy, he may be willing to spend billions to save my life. You are just an ordinary man. Nobody really cares about you. You are worthless.
Albert:Hey, remember, we are twins. You carry the same gene as me!
Trebla:But value is subjective.
Albert:Aha, that's why *I* worth Billions and *you* only worth hundreds.
Trebla:The question is *should a third party judge the value of one's life*?
Labels: life value