Comment on A Mega Post on a Mega Topic I by BesttVictoria Я уже очень долго пытаюсь самостоятельно выучить английский язык. Но кроме обычного заучивания слов больше ничего не получается((( Возможно что-то запомнила, но с граммтикой и произношением совсем труба. Могу читать, но не могу говорить) Возможно кто-то из Вас занимается изучением английского? Посоветуйте книжку, или может курсы? А то совсем туго уже все стало((( Comment on A Mega Post on a Mega Topic I by clavackEcop Где лучше купить лотерею в инете? Comment on A Mega Post on a Mega Topic I by Liesclise Осторожно. Проблемы безопасности данных вконтакте. Оказываеться всеми любимый сайт вконтакте не очень то и охраняет наши данные. Даже если мы их удаляем, они всеравно не спешат их удалить. А потом если вами заинтересуються правоохранительные органы, вконтакте их выдаст им без проблем. Вообщем ждите гостей! Вот тут кое что по этой теме Читать полностью Comment on A Mega Post on a Mega Topic I by FaridaAnguAlieva Всем привет… Спасибо, очень помогло! Хороший форум, буду читать дальше, надеюсь подскажите что не так делаю. Буду держать в курсе читателей. Кстати, а наверно можно же тут дать рекламу? Подскажите, есть у вас на сайте раздел где почитать про рекламу? Comment on A Mega Post on a Mega Topic I by banyabanya печи +для бани скрытая +в бане порно +в бане скрытая видеокамера +в бане баня бабы сауна бабы +в бане в женской бане русская баня русские бани печи +для бани Comment on Democracy: What it can or cannot do by Fran Dear Eddard, Some time ago, I left a comment on your blog regarding a linguistic research project (see above) but I think I didn’t get an answer. Would you be interested? If you want to take part and/or have more questions, please drop me a note ( hack2301@uni-trier.de RE: Question ) so that I can then send you the ‘official’ project eMail. We’d really appreciate your help. (And really, completing our questionnaire takes less than 5 min.) Thanks very much in advance! Best regards, - Fran Comment on A Mega Post on a Mega Topic I by Arguetenten Может кого и зацепит Отсутствие рекламы и всплывающих окон. Более 2 Терабайтов видео! Обновление ежедневно! Бесплатный 24 часа доступ! Без СМС! Без ограничений! Посмотреть Comment on A Mega Post on a Mega Topic I by Arguetenten Может кого и зацепит Отсутствие рекламы и всплывающих окон. Более 2 Терабайтов видео! Обновление ежедневно! Бесплатный 24 часа доступ! Без СМС! Без ограничений! Перейти Comment on A Mega Post on a Mega Topic I by newbie_anna Помогите решить задачу по perl’у http://getwork.cc – мечтаю там работать… Comment on Of the YPAP Blog by Evitlextvem His skin—and hers—had already sprouted beads of oily lubrication to ease the grinding of bodies. He waited for Irin to stand, then did so himself, water sluicing off him. Youre an infuriating man. They stayed on their knees, slapping each others arms aside as they struggled for purchase. Little by little, she came back to herself. When theyd arrived, the rock before her had been solid and smooth. Are you sure you want to do this? Her fingers slid in, unhindered. First Gala, then Radin crowded close, surrounding her with warmth. This hadnt been part of her agreement with Radin. What more do you want me to say? Scowling, she tried to twist away from Lanthan, failing again. What do you say, Eyrie? Gods damn it, someone fuck me already. When he slapped her again, she complied, twisting over. He rolled his hips into her, taking his time in building toward climax. Even from a distance, the man was striking. He shared in her laughter, and she gloried at how easy it was. His strange eyes grew intent. No more magic than whats natural? Comment on Democracy: What it can or cannot do by The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 34 [...] he just shake the foundations of the PAP facade to the very core? (Part One) – Winter Is Coming: Democracy: What it can or cannot do [Recommended] – The Temasek Review: NMP calls for “repoliticizing” of universities – running [...] Comment on Democracy: What it can or cannot do by Max Winter might be coming but with the few of us huddled around here, there might not be a need for a fireplace after all Comment on Democracy: What it can or cannot do by Undemocratic Foreign Talent Democracy works relatively well in a homogeneous country, like the Scandanivians, and Japan, and even Korea and Taiwan – the latter despite the comic circus in their fist fights and chair throwing in parliament. But it also works – in a rather messy way – for countries less homogeneous, with India, coming to mind immediately. India is full of ethnic and religious divide, yet, it is the most successful democracy in a new country. It is inefficient, doubtlessly, but then the purpose of government is not efficiency, but to protect and safeguard the liberties and freedom of the people, balance out social inequalities and injustices in all aspects, harness the selfish man for the communal good, amongst other things. Of course a deeper analysis is required to determine whether in these terms, India is really a “successful” democracy. In relation to Singapore, I suppose this also ought to be a serious, and very fruitful, research for its supposedly world class varsities to do, namely to answer the question, to what extent the “ideals of democracy” are being attained in Singapore in all aspects – and what these ‘ideals” ought to be firstly – and not just see and measure everything in terms of money, which seems to be the only and only measure the Singapore government knows about. Comment on Democracy: What it can or cannot do by Overseas Singaporean Max, let me try to answer. The Scandinavian trio of Finland Sweden and Norway spring to mind. Add Denmark, Austria and Switzerland. There are of course more, but the 6 mentioned are the best examples, IMO. Comment on Democracy: What it can or cannot do by The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 20 Aug 2009 [...] he just shake the foundations of the PAP facade to the very core? (Part One) – Winter Is Coming: Democracy: What it can or cannot do – The Temasek Review: NMP calls for “repoliticizing” of universities – running legs: Something [...] Comment on Democracy: What it can or cannot do by Max Hi Ned, I take your own point on the purpose of democracy. But just a quick question, what are these democratic countries that are successful that you speak of? Democracy: What it can or cannot do Recently, a Nominated Member of Parliament, Mr Viswa Sadisvan, called on the government to stay true to the ideals of the pledge.  Such a task would entail “building a democratic society, based on justice and equality”. As expected, Mr Sadisvan was criticised by Minister Ng Eng Hen. The criticisms raised by Mr Ng are not new; in fact they are the same criticisms raised in response to demands for democratisation of society. Besides using the usual methods of dissing the idea of democracy (namely, by ignoring democratic countries who are successful and instead placing an undue emphasis on countries which suffer from political instability), Mr Ng also defended PAP’s practice of democracy by asking the rhetorical question: He questioned Mr Viswa’s view that these were ‘conventional practices of democracy’, and asked: ‘Is it so blindingly self-evident that they will work magic for us? Actually, if Mr Ng means to say that democracy cannot bring about economic development and bring good leaders to office, he is correct. Nevertheless, democracy does serve a purpose, albeit not the one that its critics claim. The Purpose of Democracy The idea of democracy includes principles such as popular sovereign, and that government can only govern with the consent of the governed. For democracy to function, civil liberties such as right to free speech, right to religious freedom and right to personal life and liberty are necessary and these rights are enforced by a judiciary which is independent. These rights flow from the need to ensure that the people are able to give valid consent to their government; this is done through free and fair elections. Underlying all this is the concept of limited government, through judicial review by the courts and the ballot box, the government is checked from abusing its powers. The concept of limited government seeks to establish a just order whereby the people can live their lives and achieve their maximum potential. Essentially, democracy seeks to build a society whereby people can develop and also resort to legal means of resolving disputes; thus obviating the need for a revolution and chaos. The Worst Form of Government, Except all others As seen above, democracy does not, by itself lead to high GDP. It does not lead to exceptional leaders who can develop a GDP. In fact, it could lead to leaders who may know nothing about economics. Nevertheless, that is not the purpose of democracy; instead, the aims of democracy are more modest; namely, to ensure that bad people do not take the reigns of government, and if they should ever take the reigns of power; the checks and balances of a democratic society (independent judiciary, civil society, opposition parties) would kick in to ensure that they would not be able to abuse their powers. In essence, democracy seeks to prevent the incidence of bad government. The safeguards in a democratic system would, ideally, prevent the incidence of conflict arising between people and their government; rather than armed revolution, the people can seek the courts’ assistance in vindicating their rights (and in turn checking the government’s abuse of said rights) and exercise their right to vote out their government. History has shown us that power tends to corrupt and the adverse consequences of a corrupt government, with untrammelled power, could lead to misery. Dealing with the idea of a benevolent dictatorship, one cannot help but observe that such a political arrangement is premised on the goodwill of the person or group wearing the mantle of a “benevolent dictator”; should the benevolent dictator end up like the Myanmar Junta, then the people would be placed under the yoke of oppression. Furthermore, such political systems are based on the persona of the ruler; should the ruler be replaced by someone incompetent or powerless, then the chances of revolts and chaos would increase; this is what happened after the death of Qin Shi Huang. A political order should seek to prevent revolution as revolutions are a mark of failure. As it stands now, only a democratic system could prevent such a situation from occuring. Indeed, the democracy may be the only way one can hold together society; the benefits of so doing would outweigh the short term disadvantages of a government which may be less efficient. Moral of the Story Therefore, the responses made by proponents of the government and by the minsters tend to miss the point. Democracy alone, cannot be the panacea to all the problems, social and economic, faced by society. Nevertheless, democracy can protect society from the excesses of a bad government and bring about a peaceful transition in society without the collapse of society itself (which would happen in the event of a revolution). The ability to achieve such a purpose thus makes democracy the worst form of all government, except for all others. Comment on Homosexuality: Myth & Reality by bc since when is sticking your dick up someones ass natural? Comment on The Kingdom of Heaven & Modern Society by Kingdom of Heaven movie « Give me a Hunger [...] more thoughts about this movie, I found this interesting blogpost. Also, if you’re so inclined to read about on the actual history (the [...] Comment on Its Time ST did the Right Thing by The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 44 [...] of middle-class living in Singapore – The Legal Janitor: Is this guy for real? – Winter is Coming: Its Time ST did the Right Thing – groundnotes: Leadership: Doing and Saying [Recommended] – TOC: Town Council explains herb garden [...] Comment on Its Time ST did the Right Thing by I am Singaporean VI - The Right Thing « Die neue Welle [...] an answer.  To this piece, there has been much opinion, ranging from incredulosity to outrage.  Greg Gan has been calling for the States’ Times to do The Right Thing (although I wonder what The Right Thing is.)  Honestly, i would send him a certificate for giving [...] Its Time ST did the Right Thing The ST editorial policy regarding the Strait Times has always been an unfathamoble mystery to me. This has been proven time and again by their consistent publishing (in print no less) of this fellow’s rants and diatribes. In fact it is shocking that his garbage seems to have been given prime position in the papers. It might be true that there is some objectivity out there, but there are varying factual scenarios which lead to a varied application of morals. Unfortunately such men as the writer often sit on a moral high horse and seek to castigate without engaging in any intellectual endeavour. It is sad that the voice of the fundamentalist seems to be given space in a national newspaper while other voices are ignored. Therefore it is time that ST did the right thing by not printing such ridiculous diatribes which are devoid of any sense and more akin to the clarion call to slaughter by Crusaders of old. As an aside, I do not purport to be an expert on Christianity, much less the denomination the writer is from. Nevertheless as a man of religion albeit of different persuasion I seriously doubt that Christianity imposes a duty to act like a prick, ie sitting on a moral high horse and condeming every single little thing. In fact I think this tale is particularly illuminating. But of course, such man as the writer will probably accuse me of using scripture for my own purposes, which is an irony and tinged with a bit of hypocrisy. Its Time ST did the Right Thing The ST editorial policy regarding the Strait Times has always been an unfathamoble mystery to me. This has been proven time and again by their consistent publishing (in print no less) of this fellow’s rants and diatribes. In fact it is shocking that his garbage seems to have been given prime position in the papers. It might be true that there is some objectivity out there, but there are varying factual scenarios which lead to a varied application of morals. Unfortunately such men as the writer often sit on a moral high horse and seek to castigate without engaging in any intellectual endeavour. It is sad that the voice of the fundamentalist seems to be given space in a national newspaper while other voices are ignored. Therefore it is time that ST did the right thing by not printing such ridiculous diatribes which are devoid of any sense and more akin to the clarion call to slaughter by Crusaders of old. As an aside, I do not purport to be an expert on Christianity, much less the denomination the writer is from. Nevertheless as a man of religion albeit of different persuasion I seriously doubt that Christianity imposes a duty to act like a prick, ie sitting on a moral high horse and condeming every single little thing. In fact I think this tale is particularly illuminating. But of course, such man as the writer will probably accuse me of using scripture for my own purposes, which is an irony and tinged with a bit of hypocrisy. The Lion of Anson When Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyeratnam’s name was mentioned in the morning radio, I expected to hear news regarding the constitution application to call for a by-election. Imagine my shock when I heard that the “Lion of Anson” had passed away. Mr Jeyeratnam’s passing leaves a void in Singapore; a void in this society where apathy and the dreaded “p” word pragmatism reign supreme. To the very end he stuck to his cause, braving “hatchets” from a powerful machinery, disdain and indifference from the very same people he fought for. It is sad that he passed on before his life’s task was achieved; joining historical luminaries like Zhuge Liang and Yue Fei (perhaps he is similar to Yue Fei who was knocked down by his own country). His dedication, courage, care for the littleman are all the more remarkable in a society where such traits are frowned upon unless they are utilised for purposes sanctioned by the powers that be. I only saw him once; at the MPH bookstore in Raffles City. If memory serves he was engaging in small talk with the cashier; something which most people rarely do, unless they want to complain. Thus it is with disgust that I read the reports on Mr Jeyeratnam’s passing; more specifically I was peeved at the “condolence” letters, being of the opinion that such letters were more concerned with painting the ruling party in a better light; which is an irony given that most of Mr Jeyeratnam’s travails had their origins from the self same source. It is also with concern that Mr Jeyeratnam will be forgotten and marginalised by the machinery of the state and thus eventually by the people whose cause he championed and for which he sacrificed much. Indeed his life is a clear manifestation of the saying:” a prophet is never liked in his own country”. Nevertheless I hope that Mr Jeyeratnam’s contributions can be encapsulated within the new Media so that his life, ideals and struggle will not be drowned out by the self-congratulatory reports found in the Mainstream media. Yes the Lion of Anson has passed on; it is now up to those willing and able to ensure that his spirit lives on, and that his sacrifices will not be in vain. *other bloggers have expressed their thoughts more eloquently here. Vote MP = Vote PAP? and the Presumption of Innocence Vote MP = Vote PAP? As expected, there will be no by-election in Jurong GRC, even though it appears that residents themselves would rather have such an election. Nevertheless Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s reported speech is illuminating for the deliberate conflation of two separate issues; namely voting for your MP and voting for a political party.  Indeed this also highlights the role the GRC has to play in entrenching the ruling party’s hegemony. Mr Lee claim is this, unlike other democracies like Britain in which MPs form the government, Singapore’s system emphasises on choosing political parties. So when an MP is elected, it means voters are also giving the mandate to the party represented by the MP to form the government. That is an erroneous view. Undeniably there are instances where the person votes for the MP and votes for the party. There are however various other instances where a person votes for the MP NOTWITHSTANDING his political affilations and there are other instances where a person is voted in merely because he hides behind a political party. Therefore Mr Lee cannot conclude with great authority that voting for one MP means a vote for PAP in general. And if one considers the various arguments on whether Singaporeans actually have choice (a rather difficult question; but then questions of choice always are), then Mr Lee’s simple equation; vote for (insert name here)= vote for PAP fails. Another example is this; suppose A lives in a GRC and there is an election; 6 candidates from each side contest. A is a vociferous supporter of the opposition and does not shy away from Mr JBJ or Mr CSJ when he sees them along Orchard Rd. Nevertheless A finds that 1 of the 6 PAP candidates is a very nice man (for whatever reason) and feels obliged to vote because he does not want this man to lose his seat. So he casts his vote for the ENTIRE team just because he likes this one person. Can one say that he supports PAP? No; he is merely voting the way because of one member in the team. Now moving the story along, what if nice MP suddenly retires from politics for whatever reason? Suddenly Mr A is left with a group of people he cares nothing about. His choice is gone, lost. He feels aggrieved and seeks to exercise once again his right to select his representatives. Of course in Singapore the story ends with the PM giving excuses and now and again engaging in abit of dooms day prophesying. The Presumption of Innocence This issue was first raised when the new AG, Walter Woon, gave a press statement whereby he introduced concepts such as legal innocence and factual innocence. This drew a stern rebuttal from the Honorable Justice of Appeal V K Rajah; just recently the new Law Minister K Shanmugam stepped into the fray in support of the AG. As stated by E-Jay in his post, it is true that there is no full proof legal system. There will be miscarriages of justice; and thus there will be times when the guilty cannot be brought to justice while the innocent will suffer such a miscarriage. Nevertheless in my opinion the crux of the issue is this: what kind of system would we like to have? Would we want a system which derogates from the principle of innocent until proven guilty (the so called crime control system)? Such a system draws a wide net, and increases the risks of ensnaring the truly innocent (echoes of such a system can be found in the Drug provisions). Or do we seek to give effect to the presumption of innocence and crafting a system in pursuance of that goal? In such a system those who are guilty may sometimes escape. The establishment’s stand is that the presumption of innocence is upheld. Which is well and good for I am a firm believer in the maxim “it is better to let 9 guilty people go then to allow 1 innocent to hang”. It is for this reason that I frown at the usual “deterrence” arguments commonly employed to support to derogation of the principle ( sometimes I do wonder if proponents of such arguments truly comprehend the stakes; perhaps they are of the impression that they will never be caught on the wrong side of such a system; well many people in the Western countries thought so too, yet they were convicted for crimes they did not do and some paid the highest penalty for it too; see The Innocent Man by John Grisham). Nevertheless in attempting to preserve the AGC’s reputation the AG and the Law minister are encouraging cynicism in the legal system;  such face saving exercises would have an adverse impact on those acquitted of crimes. In my opinion there is no reason why the AGC has to embark on this course; even the best institutions make mistakes; no one wins all the time. Here We Go Again…Again I remember those days in Active Service, when I and a bunch of other guys, in what would normally be the most exciting period of our lives (if we had not been born here that is), were forced to learn a variety of songs designed to bolster morale and what have you. My personal favourite was the song which started with “here we go again” and ended with some lines regarding the time left to book out. Little did I know at that time that the phrase “here we go again” would be symptomatic of the goings on in Singapore society. It was not too long ago that there were hikes in transport fares. TOC has done a good job of documenting the increases here. So imagine my disgust when I read this. To cut the long story short, SBS transit and SMRT Corp are once again planning to increase fares. And from past experience it appears that this is fait accompli; the fares will go up.  In fact my seemingly premature conclusion is bolstered by the wording used report; that “insiders are not holding their breath for any measurable increase this year. ” Therefore notwithstanding the lack of a so called measurable increase, the price is still going up…again. Of course these companies have come up with the usual excuses; chief among which is that fuel and energy costs have “significantly increased” over the years. Nevertheless one must recall that just recently there were several drops in pump prices. Unless SMRT and SBS are under a different fuel regime from drivers and taxi drivers, then I fail to see why this significant increase necessitates a price increase. Furtheremore even if there is a significant increase, I hardly see why there is an urgent need for SBS and SMRT to raise fares. According to the abovementioned article, SMRT posted a net profit of $150million. Thus I fail to see the need for an increase. In fact the cynical me would say that these companies are merely using inflation as an excuse to drive up their not inconsiderable profits. It is true that these companies are eager to maximise profit; that is where associations like the PTC come in to control and regulate these people. Unfortunately (though I could be mistaken) it appears that the PTC has often taken the side of the big boys and thus at the end of the day, the only losers are the people who rely on public transport. Comment on A Tale of Two Organisations by patriot To respect and honour Human Rights is to give oneself self respect, as everyone is a human. To control and lord over others is to abuse ones’ own authority, power and intelligence. Wise leadership leads, guides and cares, despotic leadership controls, manipulates and exploits(make uses of) their subjects. The distinctions are not difficult to discern. patriot. Comment on A Tale of Two Organisations by Observer (SG-HK) The truth is out from an independent group of observers, a very respectable group indeed. What do this group stand to gain? I think they are doing it for the sake of human mankind, that is all I made out of it (IBA Report). And our government is certainly quick to rebut. So quick indeed in its rebutal that wildest imagination take hold (well you have to give it a prize for consistency). And those “little tail wagging people - PAPrazzi Fed” were quick to jump on the wagon and regurgitate. Yes, these people did this to done us in. Really? How is it? Where’s the beef? Comment on Response to a Response by The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 14 Jul 2008 [...] of law and all that jazz - Sgpolitics: A desperate attempt at empty rhetoric - Winter is Coming: Response to a Response - Diary of A Singaporean Mind: MM Lee: There is a conspiracy against us! - TOC: Is MM Lee playing [...] Comment on A Tale of Two Organisations by The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 28 [...] Mr Wang Says So: The International Bar Association And Its Report on Singapore - Winter is Coming: A Tale of Two Organisations - IBA: Prosperity versus individual rights? Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in [...]