A truckload of subjects to be had today. Blame it on the TV. In fact, blame everything on the TV. And the parliament.
The TV is now blaring with three subsequent subjects: 1. The plane crash at Kaimana, Papua; 2. The construction of the new parliament building; and 3. The Minister of Law and Human Rights' new Drug Law.
I hate the TV's portrayal of all of them.
- The plane crash at Kaimana: the TV immediately conclude that the crash was caused by a defunct in the China-made airplane. The Minister of Trade and Economics, as someone who approved the purchase of the planes (after it was allegedly rejected by a former Vice President [who ran for president last election and failed miserably]; and then okay-ed by the same person), was called by the parliament to own up to her decision to buy the planes.
The problem with this matter is that there has been NO proof nor evidence whatsoever that the plane crash was caused by technical failure. Papua is a treacherous area - many mountains, superlarge rainforests, unpredictable weather. Any ish could have happened - including the pilot's probable mistake.
The TV, however, insisted that the plane crash was caused by a technical malfunction. In spite the above fact: the former VP who claimed he had rejected the purchase of the planes had eventually (verbally) okayed the purchase. Personally, I think said person is a tad senile.
- The construction of the new building for parliament. I've expressed my rejections on twitter starting of with
1: They claim they need space for 7-staff-members in a 20x20m office. I want to know WHY do they need 7 (technical) staff members to begin with. I thought to be a rep of the people, one need to be (at least) as smart as the people. If you're not as- or more-smart than the general population, why are you there? Why hasn't anybody fire you?
2. I worked in a law office. Out of the four partners, only ONE has 20x20 office. The rest has 3x3s. ALL of those offices are filled with books, paperworks, documents, etc.
They each work on (a minimum of) 4 cases per month. They each have one secretary SHARED with (at least) 2 other lawyers. They can work just fine, in spite the fact that they ALL have to face the imbecility that is Indonesia's legal system.
3. EACH of the members of parliament receive a salary of Rp 50m - excluding remunerations, session fees, visitation fees, defecating fees... At least they would bring a minimum of Rp 75M per month home. That might not look like much when converted to US$ (about US$8800). But in a country which (Capital's) minimum wage is a mere $200 per month, you kind of want to know why, for the love of God, would they still want to use the people's money (read: taxes) to build them a fancy schmancy new abode. Aside of that, you kind of wonder, why don't THEY - the 560 people of the parliament - just take out $100 out of their own salary each month to build the damn building, anyway? $100x560x12x4 = $2,688,000. That's Rp 22,848,000,000. Fine, so it's still short about Rp 600billion out of the proposed building's cost. But hey, why build using so much? Just use what you got, then!
4. The person they chose to "represent" their request on TV shows actually solidified my rejection. He is whining that: "My former professor" (never named) said that 'if you want to weaken a country, weaken the parliament!'" and "I have no place to place my staff! We have to queue to go to the loo!" My conclusion of this bully who is presenting is ass on TV is: He's a propagandist who uses bullying as method of "convincing" people. Whoever placed him at the parliament knows what they're doing, alright: if so-called "common sense" doesn't work, use bullying. Somebody's gonna heed, eventually.
5. In this matter, however, the TV is doing the right things: they bring in other bullies and let them morons fight on TV. Personally, I'm on the side of the bully who wants to bitchslap this parliament moron.
- The new (proposed) drug law. The Minister of Law and Human Rights proposed a new law of: "First time arrest of a drug user, arrested while carrying 1 gram of illegal substance will not face jail time, but instead will have to enroll in a mandatory rehabilitation (located in the jailhouse complex, but separate from felons)."
Personally, I agree. Drug users, IMO, are victims (as a start). If I have to argue about this, it will take a whole post on its own.
Guess who disagreed? The TV - who aired an interview with the head of the National Anti-Drug Task Force claiming that "100 [misquoted] grams is a lot and can be used by like, 100 people to get high for days! People only need 0.01 gram to get high!" - oy vey. I'd like to tell him that, wherever he found that info from, he should burn it. Hell, wherever he went to *school*, he should burn the damn school. Not only that 0.01 gram is minuscule, it also doesn't work if one wants to get high. Unless they use elephant tranquilizers (not really). The only thing that is large at 0.01 gram is.. well, feathers and cotton. I'm yet to hear people getting high on cottons.
The other interview with the head of the People's Coalition Anti Drugs said: "It could lead into drug pushers looking for loopholes in the system to escape jailtime."
They are yet to interview anyone who is pro to this new proposed law (*cough*me*cough*). I doubt they ever will interview anyone who will say: "Drug users are victim to start with. Drug use is a disease that requires professional and personal care to heal. Drug abusers should not be jailed, unless they sell their goods (not likely). Drug PUSHERS, however, ought to be hanged in public, quartered, and beheaded."
*takes deep breath*
A friend linked an article in an e-newspaper snickering at people who are caught in the digital lifestyle. Oh yes, I, too, would snicker at those literally caught in the digital lifestyle: those who buys digital gadgets just to keep up with the ever-changing digital inventions. The writer outlined that the speed of things-a-changing are decreasing: 20yrs from the invention of computers to PC, to 20 weeks from the invention of one gadgets to another.
He also said that people (who reads digitals) has less concentration than those who read paperbooks.
I would disagree. But hey, I'm an anomaly. I've been able to read since I was 3, has speed-of-reading of roughly 60wpm (I finish Harry Potter book [digitally] 7 in 3 hrs & can recite it back the next day). I think people ought to look at digital gadgets as object of convenience (carrying 100 e-books in digital format instead of paper format), not as an object of necessity. If you don't need it, don't bother. I've a phone that can play music, browse & make notes. I don't need an iPod. I've a laptop, I don't need an iPad.
I also have concentration power that enables me to choose to either multitask or focus. I can make a blog entry while playing a game, tweeting, and listening to TV. I can also shut down the TV (my preference) while toiling on website codes for hours. I'm sure there are many out there like me, those who has gadgets to convenience themselves and not to follow trends. But does the article writer care?
I'm sure not. The 'normals' aren't interesting enough to write about.
Anyway, how many of you actually read until this point?
More from living