Take my hand
We'll walk awhile,
we'll talk awhile
Feel my love
Always there beside you
Be the one
I know you'll tell me everything
You are the one
I cherish more than anything
I love you more than
you'll ever know
I love you more than
you'll ever see
More than my heart could ever show
I love you more than
you'll ever know
Think of me
And know that I'll believe in you
There'll always be
This precious time together
With every tear
A love so strong
No words could ever say
A love to last forever
I love you more than
you'll ever know
I love you more than
you'll ever see
more than my heart could ever show
I love you more than
you'll ever know
take my hand
we'll walk awhile,
we'll talk awhile
feel my love
always there beside you
be the one
I know you'll tell me everything
you are the one
I cherish more than anything
I love you more than
you'll ever know
I love you more than
you'll ever see
more than my heart could ever show
I love you more than you'll ever know
0oooohhh....
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Fell off the Horse
You talk and you understand. You preach and you love. Go on. Tell them what you have in mind.
The sooner you would find out it is hard to walk the talk. But do not take it as a discouragement. It is a struggle. Get back on the horse.
The sooner you would find out it is hard to walk the talk. But do not take it as a discouragement. It is a struggle. Get back on the horse.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
My Dream
My dream
Of a rooftop garden
Of a wind blow, sudden
My dream
Of a moonlight view
I would want to share with you
My dream
Is laid out in plan
Just need to scrape of some bran
My dream
Of a bench in my rooftop
Where I could see the starlight drops
My dream
Of a pianist playing Bach
With a lady dancing, holding my back
My dream
Used to be vivid
Used to be moving in speed
My dream
Of that gorgeous lady
Now seems to me very shady
Of a rooftop garden
Of a wind blow, sudden
My dream
Of a moonlight view
I would want to share with you
My dream
Is laid out in plan
Just need to scrape of some bran
My dream
Of a bench in my rooftop
Where I could see the starlight drops
My dream
Of a pianist playing Bach
With a lady dancing, holding my back
My dream
Used to be vivid
Used to be moving in speed
My dream
Of that gorgeous lady
Now seems to me very shady
October 2, 1991: The Day The US Spoke Erroneously Right
Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince illustrates the three essential abilities for a prince to govern: to redirect others to his own advantage, to manipulate resources, and to have the opportunity to access power. The United States of America undeniably has these three making it a master of political power play.
This shows in USA’s meddling in the current war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Matt Swagler, in his Behind the War in Congo, concludes that the strife in Congo is a “logical outcome of intervention by Western governments and profit-seeking corporations.” He asserts that the USA is fuelling both sides of the conflict to protect mining interests in the country. Swagler explains:
"Even if the U.S. could…guarantee a more stable environment … instability since 1994 has actually been the means by which many foreign profiteers have been able to move into the region…Ernest Wamba Dia Wamba states…"many neighboring countries would rather prefer having a weak Congo around, especially if they can even benefit from…the looting of resources in the Congo."
Congo is just one country exploited by the USA. The infamous 1974 Kissinger Report is a study made by USA on 13 countries (i.e. India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, etc) regarding population control. It explicitly details how a big population in these developing countries, where “special U.S. political and strategic interests” are present, could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from the said countries to the USA. The report recommended a population management program to be largely promoted in the 13 countries. It even discussed how the United Nations could be used to cover up the scheme.
For so many years, the USA had been an adept power player and had been getting away with it, but as the proverbial saying goes, “a fish is caught by its mouth.” On October 2, 1991, then U.S. Secretary of State James Bakes delivered a speech in front of the Organization of American States (OAS):
"This junta is illegal. Until President Aristide's government is restored, this junta will be treated as a pariah, without friends, without support, and without a future. This coup must not and will not succeed. It is imperative that we agree for the sake of Haitian democracy and the cause of democracy throughout the hemisphere, to act collectively to defend the legitimate government of President Aristide.”
The remark was made after Haiti’s first democratically elected President Jean Bertrand-Aristide asked for U.S. aid following a violent coup d’état. Then U.S. President George H. W. Bush even backed Baker’s call for Aristide’s reinstatement. There was also an attempt by the OAS to broker an agreement between Armed Forces Chief Lt General Raoul Cedras, the man in control of the junta, and Aristide but it was scrapped the deposed president at the last moment.
Nevertheless, the October 2 declaration proved to be a mere propaganda to avoid the indignation of Aristide’s substantial supporters, largely from Haiti’s urban poor. As events developed on October 5 and 6, the U.S. began humming a different tune. Kim Ives, in his opus, The Unmaking of a President, opines:
Most likely, Baker and Bush…supported Aristide's return in that first week after the coup so as not to challenge the shock and indignation of Haitians and other Latin Americans against so brazen and ille¬gal an ouster. But, in concert with the press, the U.S. government soon began tempering its call. "It is the rule of democracy that we support," White House press secretary Marlin Fitzwater announced on October 7.
Apparently, U.S. intervention did not stop there as it was, several years later, revealed that the U.S. had a hand in the coup:
“Emmanuel Constant (founder of FRAPH, a Haitian death squad whose goal is to stifle support for Aristide) is widely alleged, and himself claims, to have been in the pay of, and under the orders of, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the coup period.”
U.S. interest in Haiti is unclear but it would be well to note that Aristide’s administration was stopped at the height of his crusade against the aristocrats and the military officers who subjected Haiti under dictatorship, preceding Aristide’s rule. He was absorbed in weeding out these elite members that he even created a quasi-militia. He also promoted to high positions enlisted officers bypassing the military promotion system. This effectively earned the status of a dictator.
This status placed a threat to Haiti’s struggle for democracy. The USA, undisputable champion of liberal democracy, had to intervene to promote the western ideology. Edward Sullivan, then a Member of the Assembly, 69th Dist. Albany, writes to the editor of the New York Times:
A stable, democratic Haiti, developing economically, could be a lively trade partner of the United States, bringing profit to both countries.
It was also in the interest of U.S. that it tried to put on the reins on the junta that it allegedly constructed. In its bid to impose upon Haiti liberal democracy, the Clinton Administration supported a call by the U.N. Security Council to deploy 1 200 soldiers to help in the restoration of democracy. However, as The Progressive, a Haitian newspaper, pointed out in its 1993 editorial, the USA also extended protection for the military officers leading the junta should they choose to step down.
In all these events that transpired, it is crystal clear that USA knows what it wants and knows how to get it. The October 2, 1991 speech showed us how powerful U.S. could lay claim and adjudicate on international issues and be heard. It is also one standing proof of U.S. feel for the pulse of the public. Baker in his speech spoke erroneously right. Right in the sense that it was the most appropriate words to say at the political situation haunting Haiti; erroneous in that it contradicts itself and its next step.
The October 2 statement is a flagrant evidence of USA’s mastery of the political game.
This shows in USA’s meddling in the current war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Matt Swagler, in his Behind the War in Congo, concludes that the strife in Congo is a “logical outcome of intervention by Western governments and profit-seeking corporations.” He asserts that the USA is fuelling both sides of the conflict to protect mining interests in the country. Swagler explains:
"Even if the U.S. could…guarantee a more stable environment … instability since 1994 has actually been the means by which many foreign profiteers have been able to move into the region…Ernest Wamba Dia Wamba states…"many neighboring countries would rather prefer having a weak Congo around, especially if they can even benefit from…the looting of resources in the Congo."
Congo is just one country exploited by the USA. The infamous 1974 Kissinger Report is a study made by USA on 13 countries (i.e. India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, etc) regarding population control. It explicitly details how a big population in these developing countries, where “special U.S. political and strategic interests” are present, could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from the said countries to the USA. The report recommended a population management program to be largely promoted in the 13 countries. It even discussed how the United Nations could be used to cover up the scheme.
For so many years, the USA had been an adept power player and had been getting away with it, but as the proverbial saying goes, “a fish is caught by its mouth.” On October 2, 1991, then U.S. Secretary of State James Bakes delivered a speech in front of the Organization of American States (OAS):
"This junta is illegal. Until President Aristide's government is restored, this junta will be treated as a pariah, without friends, without support, and without a future. This coup must not and will not succeed. It is imperative that we agree for the sake of Haitian democracy and the cause of democracy throughout the hemisphere, to act collectively to defend the legitimate government of President Aristide.”
The remark was made after Haiti’s first democratically elected President Jean Bertrand-Aristide asked for U.S. aid following a violent coup d’état. Then U.S. President George H. W. Bush even backed Baker’s call for Aristide’s reinstatement. There was also an attempt by the OAS to broker an agreement between Armed Forces Chief Lt General Raoul Cedras, the man in control of the junta, and Aristide but it was scrapped the deposed president at the last moment.
Nevertheless, the October 2 declaration proved to be a mere propaganda to avoid the indignation of Aristide’s substantial supporters, largely from Haiti’s urban poor. As events developed on October 5 and 6, the U.S. began humming a different tune. Kim Ives, in his opus, The Unmaking of a President, opines:
Most likely, Baker and Bush…supported Aristide's return in that first week after the coup so as not to challenge the shock and indignation of Haitians and other Latin Americans against so brazen and ille¬gal an ouster. But, in concert with the press, the U.S. government soon began tempering its call. "It is the rule of democracy that we support," White House press secretary Marlin Fitzwater announced on October 7.
Apparently, U.S. intervention did not stop there as it was, several years later, revealed that the U.S. had a hand in the coup:
“Emmanuel Constant (founder of FRAPH, a Haitian death squad whose goal is to stifle support for Aristide) is widely alleged, and himself claims, to have been in the pay of, and under the orders of, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the coup period.”
U.S. interest in Haiti is unclear but it would be well to note that Aristide’s administration was stopped at the height of his crusade against the aristocrats and the military officers who subjected Haiti under dictatorship, preceding Aristide’s rule. He was absorbed in weeding out these elite members that he even created a quasi-militia. He also promoted to high positions enlisted officers bypassing the military promotion system. This effectively earned the status of a dictator.
This status placed a threat to Haiti’s struggle for democracy. The USA, undisputable champion of liberal democracy, had to intervene to promote the western ideology. Edward Sullivan, then a Member of the Assembly, 69th Dist. Albany, writes to the editor of the New York Times:
A stable, democratic Haiti, developing economically, could be a lively trade partner of the United States, bringing profit to both countries.
It was also in the interest of U.S. that it tried to put on the reins on the junta that it allegedly constructed. In its bid to impose upon Haiti liberal democracy, the Clinton Administration supported a call by the U.N. Security Council to deploy 1 200 soldiers to help in the restoration of democracy. However, as The Progressive, a Haitian newspaper, pointed out in its 1993 editorial, the USA also extended protection for the military officers leading the junta should they choose to step down.
In all these events that transpired, it is crystal clear that USA knows what it wants and knows how to get it. The October 2, 1991 speech showed us how powerful U.S. could lay claim and adjudicate on international issues and be heard. It is also one standing proof of U.S. feel for the pulse of the public. Baker in his speech spoke erroneously right. Right in the sense that it was the most appropriate words to say at the political situation haunting Haiti; erroneous in that it contradicts itself and its next step.
The October 2 statement is a flagrant evidence of USA’s mastery of the political game.
Something's Amiss
When I felt the conversation was taking too long and the words were fibbing and the distraction is echoing, I thought this would have to end soon. When I realized I failed to do my norms, I knew that this is going down the drain. When I looked at my boredom and randomly fired a question at you, I knew I was dead. Something was amiss. Or was it just pure stupidity.
The probable opprobrium of that comment should have triggered my intellect to crack its whip on my appetite. But something was amiss. Or perhaps, something went in place.
Emotional outbursts, like I said, should be controlled by reason. But it seemed I did not walk the talk. You caught me. Amazing. Stupid.
The merchant of Venice took a pound of my heart. It was all well. My reason was a pound less than the original heart I had. So it was a fair deal.
Now Plato, I know you would not smirk at me but could I imagine you smirking? Your thoughts and ideas pervade me now, not as comfort but as an insult. You were right, no good could come if the spirited element wrenches the reins from reason. You were bluntly right. Yet, mere knowledge of this does not seem to help much. Something is amiss.
The probable opprobrium of that comment should have triggered my intellect to crack its whip on my appetite. But something was amiss. Or perhaps, something went in place.
Emotional outbursts, like I said, should be controlled by reason. But it seemed I did not walk the talk. You caught me. Amazing. Stupid.
The merchant of Venice took a pound of my heart. It was all well. My reason was a pound less than the original heart I had. So it was a fair deal.
Now Plato, I know you would not smirk at me but could I imagine you smirking? Your thoughts and ideas pervade me now, not as comfort but as an insult. You were right, no good could come if the spirited element wrenches the reins from reason. You were bluntly right. Yet, mere knowledge of this does not seem to help much. Something is amiss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)