February 05, 2006

Freedom of speech

if you come from african you know that people are brought not to say what want to say. at least you are not expected to say something people do not like. like, yes, what older {person} ones do not like. if you find yourself in the category of ordinary people or at worse poor people you are known to say least likeable words. it is commonly believed that once you are rich or at least belong the middle class you are wise if not intellegent, and you are one person who says the right thing. you have right of freedom of speech, you can say whatever you like at any given time. and you hardly harm anybody, not the group that have no right of freedom of speech to complain. they have no right to protest verbally

it is taught that is respect when you do not speak. it is the greatest form of politeness if you keep calm amidst all insults and every other senseless words that the elders, the righ and famous speak. tradittion, women do not speak while men are talking, even when they are deciding their fates. for those group the are exempted from the freedom of spech thing. you can say things of course, if you wish, but picking your audence might be much difficult. responses usually determine if you have chosen the right one. you must know that in african elders or the rich and famous do not tolerate criticism, especially when they come from the less important of the society.

here we are at europe, the land of freedom. place where everything goes, over the years people have realised the deep sense of equal right. the emancipate of women, the jews, the black, gypsy and of course the arabs. people learn at a very tender age to speak out their mind, children learn from the infancy period that you can always ask your parents to shut up whenver you do not like their parental instructions. while in african you can never use such against your parents or older person. tradittionally everybody is equally and the same amount of right of speech, people have lived long enough to learn how to deal or live with speeches they do not like. people are taught to deal with criticism and stand for your speech, for it is your right.

have they also manage to stay within the respect, meeknes and politness that is expected of any society. has it been all successfull having the right to the freedom of speech and still respect one another including any of form of politness?. is europ a ''say it all'' society?. personally, i have not experience that epsecially when it concerns europeans. there are still huge amount of respect among europeans, and greater number of people still choose to be calm even when they have right to speak. most people still believe that ''say it all'' only bring trouble and iresponsible speeches. so far i think they have manage to maintain the line between freedom of speech and verbal insanity.

Posted by michaels at 01:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 06, 2006

Wife beater's club

There is this guy, he is very close to heart. he is few years younger, but i have been like a mentor to him. when he got married few years ago he becam every happy, with his life and of course his wife. i was equally happy with him and every other thingsfor that matter. like i have said a guy who is there every minute of the hour, a friend who, if he is not in his home he is with me in my own home. so talk about everything else, we know every bit of each other.

when they got their first child which he witnessed the whole process, he asked me ''why on earth do some men beat their wives even after seeing what they go through during child delivery''. i thought first, i should not know since i have not been in those men's shoes. i answered instead, they must really be out of their mind to do such. months and years have come and pass since then.

So this one night his wife came to house sorbing, angry, frustrated and washed up with shame. it was written over her,she could not explain what had gone wrong, why they could not avoid the whole thing. she did not want to explain anything at all, she wanted out, go back to her parents. she hated marriage and her husband and men, her two kids, not important that moment. i was weak to my knee, had nothing to say. could only plead she stay, used her kids as reason to stay, said something like, there is always trouble in every marriage. even though theirs was not just everyday marriage trouble.

Why on earth do men beat their wifes, or sometimes girlfriends?. why is it easy for the guys to jump on the wifes and treat them for that moment as their greatest enemy?. why is it easy for a guy to control his anger and frustration with other men but, not with their wifes. why do men beat their wife after given them the most precious gift, why do we men make our wives feel so unwanted whenever we feel the need to put {beat} them to their place. i am too scared to bring the matter up once more with this guy, due to the fact i won't be able to reason with him. i will only like to yell to him and ask ''why on earth did you do that'', this guy is a nice guy, not just by my judgement but that did not stop him from going all out just to show his wife who is the man in the house.

Posted by michaels at 12:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 08, 2005

Justice for sales

Whenever a crime is committed we all expect justice to take place almost instantly, mostly those directly effected by the crime. there is also this setup mind that only criminals commit crimes, and that justifies our outright revange.
Max was very excited when the police told him that the ''killer of his only son has been caught. he did not bother to ask one simple question anybody could have asked even after loosing entire family. of course, who could blame the poor guy for wanting justice for his dead son, even though that would not have change anything.

what he did not know too is that justice is not a straight forward thing, it is not about reading his {the criminal} right to him. actually to get justice out of justice we need much more than that. the police always comes first, then the court, the lawyer and the much loved jury. the police, who mostly do the job very well and have our trust and support. the police who swear by the constitution to uphold the law, and the court, the right place to go when in need of justice. you see, my problem is that while these four bodies are different from each other and most of the time are at each others necks. they work together always either to pronounce justice or make sure it never happens.

max never thought that the police will do just anything to give him much prayed justice. he never knew while the police was making sure this ''criminal'' pays for what he supposedly did another fulltime criminal is getting his deal worked so that he never get death panelity. criminals always get the best from the police, court, lawyers and of course, the jury. simple because they know how to beat the law, always know their rights and the court always makes sure they get it. after which the police, the DA and defense lawyer congratulate each other for a job well done.

the one time we congratulate each is when everybody come out winners. the only looser is the guy who gotten thrown into jail {if he is lucky} only to be found innocent 15-20 years later. even though max have read about many of these cases, he never had second thought about the poor guy's right to defend himself. no money for a hot shot lawyer. that he does not have the experience with the police and the justice system. max never believed that the police do SOMETIMES supress evidence that could have exnorate this criminal suspect. it is easier and most convinient to do, trusting the justice system with justice, while you sit as a spectator in a footbal match. that is of course the last and the only place to be if your seek revange with help of justice, victims have right to take revange through justice system, and the police is tthere always to do their job. i will save you from this boring and pointless thoughts of mine, however, you must know what i am trying to say even though it seems miles away.

Jan is a child molester, he admited having doing things to kids, he was seen in the vicinity of a cime. a crime whereby a molested child was brutally murdered. he admited to the police that he was there, like many others. people usually come/go to the parks, this is why they are build -right?, so the only crime Jan commited so far is being at this park. the only eyewitness police could find was his obscure relationships with small footers. then, there was DNA evidence that clearly would have set Jan free, but it was not brought up in the house of justice. The victims family have waited so long to hear that there is a suspect and that he has already confessed to the crime. so Jan's arrest was big news, the family can now take up the pieces and move on with their lives. since such case does not take years to decide, Jan was sentenced to 20 years and his PRODEO lawyer, the family and the DA huged and kissed for justice carried out. hoped that every other things would stay the same or just go away, but just when it looked like they lived happily ever after, four years seem a long time to most people at least. this other guy appeared confessing the killing and few others. one, he lived few blocks from the crime scene, two, he is on top of the list of local police record of carrier criminals, three, eyewitness gave thorough description of him but those facts were not enough to deter the police from consciously subdueing evidence that could have save Jan 4 years in prison.

Posted by michaels at 08:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 31, 2005

better and safer without peace

Peace, one thing we all pray for. most religion start and end their prayers with it, but nobody had ever asked what will happen IF we have to live in peace.do we pray for peace because we know we cannot get it?.

if we have peace: most un-industrized countries won't export/import arms, lots of industries that produce and deal on military hardwares will close up. dropping millions of able bodied men/women to the street/responsibility of social welfare.forcing the cost of labour to go down, and of course bringing down cost of goods.this in turn, makes production of anything cheap and less profitable.

if there is peace: countries would have no reason to restrict other people-countries from visiting theirs. there would be no axes of evil ''state'', no terrorists. nobody -country would have to defend her border, all airports will have no security check. there would no need to deploy suffiscated thumb print and iris-scan to the borderzone or airports, because there would no threat from anybody.

Give us peace: the world would not have nothing to look forward to any more. among many things we desire average normal guy would pick peace first if it is given freely.one third of the world population have died in wars or it's after effect, and countless billions of dollars have also wasted fighting war so that we can have peace. obviously, war brings us deaths, hunger and diseases, but keeps the population growth in check.

if we live in peace: the world population will definately explode in just few years.i mean who wants that billions of people without food,imagine half a billion chinese visiting the US a year if peace {in real sense of it} exist east and west. how could europe manager about 250 million hungry African/Asia coming freely to work or enjoy their social welfare?.

whenever we exchange war for peace: we can live to trust each other, the world will be much more friendly, even too friendly that there will be no need for secret security services. imagine a world without THE mozad, mi5/6, fbi, cia, aivd, kgb etc. they will be jobless, those guys who are experts in anything that has nothing to do with peace. we should pray harder {maybe} for peace so that we may know if it's worth all the lives and money wasted fighting for it

Posted by michaels at 02:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 26, 2005

Air Travels

The last four weeks had seen numerous air crashes around the globe, each highlighting the gruesome nature of airplane crash. while most people were trying to find answers to the Cypriot Helios accident, which had most if not all the passengers frozen to death before the crash. other crashes followed which forced many, again, to divert their attentions to the recent accidents.

it is still clearly the safest means of transportation, but maybe, because planes are not expected to crash at all. that whenever the news of even two sitter plane crash we think that's awful. somebody told me that this time of the year is time we have most of the crashes. that made to think a little bit harder, may be he is right.do most of the airplane accidents happen this time of the year?. i am beginning to think that we have something to add to that than just inevitable mishap. maybe, due to the fact we know they happen at this of the year and have not done enough to change that.

automobile industries are doing at least something whenever some serious error is found in car that could lead to {mass} death or injuries. there is control and informations avaliable to consumers about automobile in general. planes, they are left alone at the hands owners and or operators to decide what is SAFE and how to apply most of the rules.these accidents happening this time of the years proves at least that heavenly forces are not behind each and every one of the crashes.

No wonder, some European countries have started publishing informations about badly managed airlines and their operators. consumers should have had this privilege to know about how these operators manage their plane. it may be also time to ask a different question, not just hiding under the stastics that says that airplanes are SAFER than all form of transportation.

Posted by michaels at 10:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack