me: violin exam's at 2pm on thurs, so i hav to practise getting up
early!
LSB: ... u n i, we hav different concepts of time
Someday I'll be part of your world.... *cries*
The true gods sigh for the cost and pain, - For the reed which grows nevermore again As a reed with the reeds in the river. - E.B. Browning
me: violin exam's at 2pm on thurs, so i hav to practise getting up
early!
LSB: ... u n i, we hav different concepts of time
Ministers from South-East Asian countries have reached agreement on a landmark draft charter.
The document gives the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean) a set of binding rules for the first time in the bloc's 40-year
existence.
The agreement comes after nearly two years of deliberations among members.
It includes a contentious provision to set up a commission monitoring human rights in the region - despite strong misgivings from some Asean
countries....
Diplomatic sources said Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam also had misgivings - fearing human rights probes could result in violations of the group's strict policy of non-interference in each others' affairs.
However the charter is seen as crucial for giving Asean - previously regarded as a mere talk shop - credibility and bargaining power on the world stage.
Mr Yeo says: "If there was any disagreement, it's over the actual
language that we use in the Charter. In the end we decided that it's not really the establishment of the human rights body which should be the issue. It's what the body ought to do. That really involves drawing up the terms of reference which all of us can agree to and actually, planning it properly and giving it a life of its own."
Still, Mr Yeo points out that the ministers have also decided that certain things would be left to the leaders to decide.
He says: "The question arises as to how the leaders among themselves will settle disagreements at the highest level, and we as ministers could not be prescribing rules to the leaders because they are a Committee of
Peers. They must decide amongst themselves how to resolve the differences and according to rules they themselves must establish.
"We don't quite know what crisis we will go through in the future, what difficult problems we will face. It is for the leaders, in their own wisdom and depending on their own personal relationship, to work out methods to resolve the differences."
A Star's Tale
As we know, many stars live far far away in the sky. If you look out your window, you will find the star whose story we are about to tell. It is the one twinkling in the top left-hand corner of your window-sky.
This star is a very old, lonely star, and has gazed down upon this earth for longer than any of us can imagine. The star remembers a time when there were no humans; it also remembers when it started to see the two-legged humans. The star recalls an age - a long one - in which darkness meant sleep and rest for humans. It recalls the recent birth of many human stars that shine as brightly as the stars in the sky, and remembers that as the human stars grew in numbers, the humans also started to wake in the night, and no longer slept as long or as often. Instead, in the light of the human stars, the humans laughed and wept and worked and danced with wild abandon. Sometimes the humans also gazed back at the star. The longer the star looked upon the distant and strange humans, the more it grew to love them, for love often grows out of memory, and the star had a long memory indeed.
However, when the sun rises each morning, its bright rays blind the star and the star can see no more, save for a brief instant in the grey light of the dawn, when it gazes its last upon the humans till night arrives again. Each dawn the star glimpses a little of the sort of life humans lead in the day - a girl packing her bag for school, a night watchman glancing at his watch, eager to be home, a bakery alive with delicious smells, roads increasingly crowded with vehicles bringing humans to places that remain unknown to the star.
As the star's love for the humans grew, so did its desire to understand the humans. What did humans do in the day, the star wondered. Why does the schoolgirl bring home sheets of paper that make her so unhappy? What family does the night watchman have? Why does the freshly baked bread disappear everyday? Where do humans go to in the day? The star loved the humans, but it never really knew them, and this made the star sad. It envied the sun, and hated it, and wished that somehow, day could come without the sun's rays, so that it could finally see its beloved humans in the day.
But the laws of nature are not like the laws of humans, which can be broken and paid for in prison-years, or even human lives. Nor are the laws of nature like the laws of children's fairy-tales. In children's fairy-tales love always triumphs, and while unfortunate events do occur, sadness is never eternal. The laws of nature cannot be broken and they care not for love or sad stars, so everyday the sun rises, and everyday the star is blinded. Hence, everyday, the star sheds tears of stardust that streak across the sky like fireworks, and the star lives in an eternity of loneliness, always loving but never knowing.
If some evening, while looking out your window, you spot that star in the top left-hand corner, stand on your toes and stretch your arm as far out of your window as you can, and wiggle your fingers. For while stars live far far away in the sky, every little bit closes the distance between stars and humans. And who knows? If you stretch far enough, you might just touch a lonely star.
My layman understanding of matters of justice and law. Most of the extracts below (italicised) taken from NYT "In Steps Big and Small, Supreme Court Moved Right":
Fully a third of the court’s decisions, more than in any recent term, were decided by 5-to-4 margins. Most of those, 19 of 24, were decided along ideological lines...
Once again proving that Justice is not blind, but it certainly wears blinkers.
In its most important patent ruling in years, the court tilted away from patent owners and made it easier to find that a patent had been improperly issued for an invention that was “obvious” and therefore undeserving of patent protection.
Finally. The list of patented 'inventions' in the US is a bit too long methinks.
The court made it easier for prosecutors in death penalty cases to remove potential jurors who express ambivalence about the death penalty. Writing for the 5-to-4 majority, Justice Kennedy said appeals courts must defer to a trial judge’s decision on whether a potential juror would be able to overcome qualms about capital punishment and be open to voting to impose a death sentence. The dissenters, in an opinion by Justice Stevens that Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer also joined, said this set the disqualification bar too low and would skew juries toward those most likely to vote for death.
Hmmm... On one hand a person who is, in principle, opposed to the death penalty has no place in a jury deciding whether a defendant should receive the death penalty. On the other hand, we're talking about ambivalence towards the death penalty. My gut feeling is that any person who is violently opposed to the death penalty would be disqualified without much controversy. So the question is whether this results in a tendency to disqualify those who merely feel hanging someone is distasteful (which is, I must add, the proper and normal human reaction), meaning that you end up with the probability of having a jury of rednecks who're too ready to bay for blood. (Yes yes... stereotypes! I admit!) I tend to lean liberal on the death penalty, and therefore the prospect of a jury of rednecks terrifies me. You see what secondary school Lit does to you? (I'm looking at you, Harper Lee.) I don't really know much about law (have I mentioned this already?), so I guess the answer might be obvious to the brilliant legal minds out there already. Ah well.
A deadline for filing a federal appeal could not be excused by the fact that a federal judge had given an inmate’s lawyer the wrong date, the court held in a 5 to 4 opinion by Justice Thomas.
This sucks. The poor guy is penalised because the federal judge screwed up? Punishing innocents for mistakes/crimes that are not their own sucks big-time.
Unfortunately that happens in Singapore too. I've talked a lot about the case of Amara Tochi elsewhere, so I won't say too much about this again. Suffice to say that he was put to death (killed, murdered) for bringing drugs into Singapore, even though he (almost certainly) didn't know that they were drugs. And it's not a case of a judge ruling overly harshly, or a mistake made in the sentencing (even though that would also suck). It's just the way it works in Singapore. I would encourage you to look at the section on the trial if you follow the link to the Wiki article.
What is justice and what is the law? Sometimes if you think about it, the divergence between the two is chilling.