Hopefully 2009 will be a better year than 2008.
Everytime I planned a trip, something always cropped up.
Damn those terrorists and religious fanatics. Too balless to create a decent living, but felt it was better to blame everyone ELSE and decide to snuff their lives with other innocents along with a bang based on a stupid ideology that better all dead than try to strive for a better life - with their god blessing. Thanks, you religious assholes. If God wants to snuff out someone, they can do it themselves u dimwit.
Anycase, my Egypt was postponed because of some unrest (twice now). Then after planning my nice sweet india trip that cover Taj Maha for Jan, with all the tentative bookings, the bloody terrorists have to strike again and fuck up my plans (AGAIN).
There is virtually no where else on this planet that is safe or SANE or a matter a fact. Look at Thailand, all those political unrest, the poor manipulated by the rich, the fight for power and status. Guess who loses at both counts? The civilians, the economy. People never learn. With all these civil unrest, Thailand is now NOT a good spot to go. Indonesia is well... unsafe as usual. Philippines, with all the kidnapping at the tourists spot like Borracay, is also out of the picture. So apart from Europe, the only place left worth moving my butt is Japan. Henceforth, I'm heading ti Niseko for skiing in Jan and hopefully, nature doesnt create too much havoc and throw chaos to my trip plans.
Someone told me before.
Communism assumes the BEST of people, while Democracy assumes the WORST of people.
The rationale is this: Communism is built on the idea that everyone will share the goodness and that no one will be left behind. Democracy on the other hand is built with the presumption that people are selfish and all for oneself, and hence we need to fight for freedom, preserve freedom to protect was what "rightful" to an individual.
Communism is about "WE", Democracy is about "I". Ironical isnt it?
I had dinner before Xmas with an American friend. We talked briefly about politics in US and I asked if she was happy with the President outcome. Her response was "Sure I am happy! U know! We would never dream of having a minority race as a President. This is such a breakthrough and historical change! " Before I could even press on to ask my next question, my American friend added "You know, it doesnt matter what his policies are. The fact that he is black and got voted is a huge change!"
I swallowed my next sensitive question. In my head, questions swarmed. So, did the people vote a black president because they believed he would bring about solid change in policies, or they voted for him because of his race, regardless of his policies? Why are Americans (or other countries) soo dead focus on the ethnicity rather than his credential potential?
Maybe I have never been discriminated or lived in a country where you wear your colours like some sort of capability badges. So its hard for me to understand this lingo of "historical" event. To me, I had always believed in "May the BEST man win, and not, May the most coloured man win."
I wont give a shit if my next PM is an Indian, Malay or Eurasian, just like I wont even bate an eyelid for having an Indian President now. I just want someone judicious, smart, eloquent and wont be a disgrace to lead my country. So are Americans voting with common sense, future history will tell. Then again, I didnt warm up to either candidates any case.