this is pathetic but true.
since ltte is now appointing our president, it stands to reason that we should pay more attention to it's megalomaniac leader than to our mahinda buffalo, whose speech yesterday opening the new parliamentary session was empty as his head.
buffalo could have shown that he is in control of history during last week but failed. followers can't be leaders. and it's the prabhakaran who leads. if ppl fail to vote for peace, warlords will rule.
meantime rumor mill is grinding at high speed about a possible buffalo-tiger deal before the election to enforce the voter boycott. i personally do not believe that ltte decided on the boycott because of any such deal. but it may be possible that buffalo and co wanted a deal. if so and if any such deal or an attempt at one is made public, buffalo herd is going to pay dear.
that cbk wants to get into the parliament also bodes ill for the buffalo.
so what to expect from the bunker holed? war probably, if not in word.
there is some talk that they might give 14 day notice of withdrawal from cease fire agreement in the hero's day speech. but as far as i know this is not the time of year to start a war because of the rain, unless they already have the necessary forces in correct places (but then ltte is unpredictable in the extreme unlike the buffalo). most probably they will wait about 4 months, but meanwhile expect large scale provocations as they try their best to blame the government.
it's about time they carry ltte tv on rupavahini.
since ltte is now appointing our president, it stands to reason that we should pay more attention to it's megalomaniac leader than to our mahinda buffalo, whose speech yesterday opening the new parliamentary session was empty as his head.
buffalo could have shown that he is in control of history during last week but failed. followers can't be leaders. and it's the prabhakaran who leads. if ppl fail to vote for peace, warlords will rule.
meantime rumor mill is grinding at high speed about a possible buffalo-tiger deal before the election to enforce the voter boycott. i personally do not believe that ltte decided on the boycott because of any such deal. but it may be possible that buffalo and co wanted a deal. if so and if any such deal or an attempt at one is made public, buffalo herd is going to pay dear.
that cbk wants to get into the parliament also bodes ill for the buffalo.
so what to expect from the bunker holed? war probably, if not in word.
there is some talk that they might give 14 day notice of withdrawal from cease fire agreement in the hero's day speech. but as far as i know this is not the time of year to start a war because of the rain, unless they already have the necessary forces in correct places (but then ltte is unpredictable in the extreme unlike the buffalo). most probably they will wait about 4 months, but meanwhile expect large scale provocations as they try their best to blame the government.
it's about time they carry ltte tv on rupavahini.
45 comments:
ashanthi
unfortunately we do have to speculate in order to live and ensure that we do not lose personally as well as a country. speculating does not mean preempting.
you are right buffalo can't start a war even if he waned to, but the bunkerholed one might. since he by enforcing the boycott limited his own available options. question is when. that is why what he is going to say today is important.
as to what northeast tamils will get after their cowardly action, is unfortunately not relevant to anybody anymore. they do not count and they have only themselves to blame for not making use of a perfectly good opportunity to make something out of themselves on the 17th. as for their getting a country that is not going to happen, pv might get one, but they won't.
i am of course open to any debate.
buffalo's tboy:
your details are
Host Name- CPE-138-217-162-216.vic.bigpond.net.au
IP Address-138.217.162.216
ISP Telstrainternet22
this loser lives in foreign country like coward (and did not vote btw) and thinks he can declare war here against the tigers. fellow will be pissing in his pants if he set foot in sri lanka but thinks he can refer to 'our' soldiers. (how dare you?) such are the ppl who support buffalo. but buffalo is already ignoring them. as ashanthi says buffalo is dumb but not that dumb.
so 'tboy', go get in line with the rest of welfare junkies there as you do everyday and leave sri lanka to sri lankans.
Ashanthi - Sittingnut is right. Prabha will get his country but the Tamil ppl will not. Also, according to your definition of participation in democracy ("In order to participate in a democracy one must have the ability to win the right to govern.") no minorities in any country will be able to participate in democracy, democracy would cease to exist. I disagree, participation in democracy requires effective representation, not an ability to win. That is what is lacking in our system, that is why we need a sound political devolution of power which is perfectly consistent with a single nation. We need to tighten up our system of political representation, and that requires thorough dialogue between all the stakeholders. Sadly some entities are not willing to do this.
yaaro and everybody:
what do you think about 'tamil democratic congress'.
will it have any effect. i am very skeptical.
btw vp said 'by next year' not '1 year' like balasingham as you report. as i said in the main post they have to wait till the end of rainy season to start large scale operations. that would mean 4 to 6 months probably.
that is very harsh & not worthy of you - you misunderstand me. what i as a person think does not matter, what matters is how the politicians think and act, and they will think like i described above. since tamils in ne failed to deliver such ppl will not count on them in the future nor will ltte care much about them bc they so easily obeyed them. in politics there has to be a give and take.
for instance if ranil knew beforehand what to expect he would have been more accommodating to eastern muslims and more openly critical of the ltte's human right record and he would have allowed the sort of remarks that milinda and naveen made (which stated the obvious) thus making it difficult for buffaloes to paint him as a appeaser. when unp goes to polls next time something similar will happen. and if they get power they will more or less stick to the manifesto which means ne voters will lose.
as for monitoring it would have been better if we had armed monitors otherwise if one side decide to break the treaty monitors look ridicules as slmm already do. that ranil probably would have called in that kind of monitors(as he hinted when pm) if he got elected may have been one reason ltte boycotted.
i think you are right about tboy and dextr.
You must not, however, discount the opinions of all Sri lankans living overseas - i judge ppl by their honesty above all else and ppl like tboy who advocate war while living abroad are not honest(even to themselves). a honest case for war can be attempted but not by ppl like him.
for my part i hate war and warmongers from purely selfish motives, i will not gain anything by war but will gain a lot by peace.
same is true for lot of you i think.
How can terrorists manipulate a president so much? besides its the majority of SL ppl that voted for Mahinda na? So if he's such a loser how come the SL ppl didnt reflect that in their votes? (I heard that the votes were very close between Ranil and Mahinda).
Keshi.
NEW CHRISTMAS RELEASE!!! IN COLOMBO BOOKSHOPS!!!
*********************************
*********************************
*********************************
Daddy, Why Did Jesus Kill Grandma? (Teaching Youngsters About Hell)
by Pastor Arnold Perera
*********************************
*********************************
*********************************
List Price: Rs 350
Our Price: Rs 1000
You Save: Nothing. (Only Jesus Saves!)
Summary: God's violent anger is directed toward those who dare to question His perfect love for them. Grandma De Silva is no exception. One little slip of the tongue on her deathbed secured an eternity of separation from God. Marooned alone in the lake of fire, her only company is a visiting red-finned water demon who sodomizes her from the deep as fire waves crash into her screaming head and burst her wrinkled body into flames.
This beautifully illustrated Christian children's book is grounded in the timeless words of Jesus Christ. Jesus teaches all of his children not to be afraid of the Devil, but to be afraid of God. "But I forewarn you whom ye shall fear." Jesus says in Luke 12:5, "Fear Him, who after he hath killed hath the power to cast into hell." This is sound, true Christian doctrine, grounded in the Holy Bible. Talking to a four-year-old child about God's carefully constructed plan of eternal torture in Hell and His unquenchable thirst for human blood can be difficult, but this book makes it easy and fun!
Remember dear Grandma, who baked so well?
Soon she will be baking - This time in Hell!
Dear Daddy, why Grandma? What did she do?
Don't question it child, or God will GET YOU!
Why did the LTTE release three policemen they were holding hostage last week?
Goodwill gesture, or a part of a pact?
Reports are that Prabha was willing to allow polling IF Ranil agreed to certain pre-conditions. Ranil did not and neither he nor the co-chairs could persuade the LTTE to lift the boycott.
keshi:
it is not a question of manipulation of the president but manipulation of the election (by prohibiting some 600,000+ voters in north from voting when the majority was less than 29,000 and lead 187,000). by that they elected a person who has to act on extreme nationalistic agenda of his backers(if not his own). this can be used to blame the government if it comes to war.
jack point:
Goodwill gesture, or a part of a pact?- probably either a goodwill gesture towards the government or normal course of their 'courts', policemen after all were 'innocent' of any crime. it can not be part of a pact with a political party or person.
ranil had no choice at the last moment and ltte wanted it that way.
yaaro
thanks, for the clarification. that is highly significant.
why r sri lankan leaders so selfish and equally foolish?
Keshi.
Keshi,
Because the people choose such leaders.
Capitalist, what options do the SL ppl have when the same selfish leaders dont give up on their power-hunger?
Why cant all these leaders who have taken the seat for years and have done nothing for the wellbeing of SL ppl be chased out of power and bring in fresh heads to govern SL?
Keshi.
Keshi,
It is the people who choose the political leaders in Sri Lanka. If those leaders are bad then that is a result reflects very badly on the choices that people have made.
You ask -
Capitalist, what options do the SL ppl have when the same selfish leaders dont give up on their power-hunger
I'll tell you what choice the people have. The people can choose to vote against bad politicians and vote for good ones instead. It's as simple as that.
The usual thing that I hear when I say this is that there is nothing that the people can do because all the politicians who are contesting elections are bad. Well if that is the case then some intelligent, honest, capable men and women should step forward from amongst the people to stand for election and ask for the votes of the people. If nobody is stepping forward that’s also a very bad reflection on ”The people”.
Keshi,
And leaving aside the issue of why good, intelligent and capable people aren’t emerging from among the people to lead them, the voters at least have a responsibility to vote for the best choice from among the options that are available to them. They consistently fail to do so. They vote for (relatively) free market and capitamism oriented politicians only when the economy is on its knees like in 1977 and 2001. At other times they consistently fall for nationalist/socialist rhetoric and for the SCREAMS of people like Wimaal Weerawansa.
Ranil may not be a perfect person and he may have a thousand and one faults as a politician, but as a leader he is much better than the His Excellency Mahinda Rajapaksha. His policies would have taken Sri Lanka forward (Though not at the breathtaking speed of 10% per year which he promised.) HE Mahinda Rajapaksha’s (jvp dictated) policies will take Sri Lanka back to the era of economic stagnation. When that happens, whose fault will it be? It will certainly be the fault of the politician (HE President Rajapaksha), but the fault will not be his alone. The majority of the people who voted for the UPFA when the UNP candidate was much better will also bear much of the moral responsibility. Those who mindlessly went for nationalist/socialist rhetoric and those who were stupid enough to be influenced by the high decibel SCREAMING of Wimaal Weerawansa, those 49 lakh voters who chose the UPFA candidate will also bear the moral responsibility for the state the country would be in.
Concerning Ashanti’s observation -
Ashanti is entitled to her own opinion about Keshi’s ability to “nail things on the head”, but I am entitled to disagree with Keshi.
I made a well reasoned argument against something that Keshi had said. A well reasoned argument is not “rah rah rah” and it’s not “blah blah blah”.
When I say that people in Sri Lanka choose their leaders and that they should take responsibility for the way they vote, that’s not “blah blah blah”. When I say that Sri Lanka will soon descend into economic stagnation because of the wrong choice a majority of the people made at this presidential election and that those voters who made that choice (along with the president they elected) will be morally responsible when that happens then that is not “rah rah rah”.
When Keshi implies that the people have no option then I am entitled to disagree and say that people do in fact have choices. That’s why we have elections. To let the people choose.When I make that point, that’s not blabbering.
It’s my opinion!
And there is nothing unfair in me expressing it.
Ashanti’s post only shows her inability to distinguish between well reasoned arguments and blabbering.
In any case I really don’t understand what Ashenti’s point is. Is she actually saying that Keshi’s observations are so great that nobody should dare to disagree with them? I wish she was more specific with what she means when she says that I wasn’t being “fair”.
Is she saying that when Keshi implied that “people have no option” then I should have kept quiet even though in my opinion the people do in fact have options?
There is nothing “unfair” about me expressing my own opinions even if those opinions differ from the opinions of somebody of whome Miss.Ashanti thinks very highly.
"Does anyone think there is a possibility of a milatry coup with Ranil & CBK backers taking over?"
OMG YOU SILLY CUNT. HA HA HA
Capitalist...
**I'll tell you what choice the people have. The people can choose to vote against bad politicians and vote for good ones instead. It's as simple as that.
Then why arent they doing that? If Ranil is good or better than Mahinda (I honestly dun take anyone's side), then why didnt the majority of the SL ppl who live there reflect that from their votes?
**They consistently fail to do so.
So why do the ppl consistently fail?
I can't seem to understand why the MAJORITY of ppl in SL fail to vote for a righteous leader for SL. Surely the majority of SL ppl cant be wrong?? Even if it's fake votes, then why does that still occur is SL? Why cant the authorities look into corruption and first take precautions w.o. waiting for elections to take place? Are ALL the SL ppl sleeping...and I mean for so many years?
I guess thats why they consistently fail...they fail to wake up...to do something abt corruption in the first place. Instead all they do is argue over why they chose him and not the other...it's foolish cos it's always late by then.
Ashanthi :) thanks!
Keshi.
i was off line for just under 24 hrs straight bc of work and it seems that during that time lot of words have flowed.
capitalist, while you are perfectly right to express your opinion please do calm down. keshi is an angel, she is as different from wimal weerwansa as a person can be, so do not reply to her as if she is wimal. same is true about ashanthi. you can use the same tone as they do to you. i am sure you can find enough real buffalo herd members all over the place who deserve your 'righteous' anger. btw do get a blog. :-)
ashanthi:
thank you very much.:-)
keshi:
thanks for the compliment. : -)
i am not sure what you meant by your 'last' comment to ashanthi.
did you leave a comment to her here in this thread? if so i can't see it either, here, in atom feed, or in my auto email notifications.
there is however a comment by you to ashanthi in the earlier thread who-is-getting-better-of-whom, maybe you meant that. it is also the latest before the above comment
i am very sorry if that is not it.:-(
now for the discussion,
question seems to be who is to blame for the current mess in sri lanka, people or their leaders?
well as usual there is no clear answer.
capitalist is right, ppl have sometimes in fact gone for the bad choice when there was a choice. and they seems to suffer from a perennial insecurity complex and a outdated socialist mindset. most of them have no idea that we probably had the best government since independence during 2001- 2003 unp administration (that is my personal opinion) in fact they probably think the exact opposite. but we live in a democracy as sch every one (those who voted for and against) are morally responsible for voters decision.
but keshi is also right, when they have chosen wisely sometimes( and there is no doubt, if all the ppl were allowed to vote freely they would have gone for the wiser choice in the last presidential election), their leaders have let them down bc of their hunger for power.
fact is every one of sri lankan politicians( including ranil) have not done any thing worth mentioning to clean up their parties. they have in fact courted corrupt politicians in order make them join their party from others. party leaders have kept corrupt, stupid and incompetent garbage in their cabinets. nor have they given any extra preference for better candidates and mps.
take for example the 17th amendment establishing all those independent commissions(police , electoral, etc.). instead appointing independent commissioners these leader of ours are playing political waiting games in order to be able to appoint their own ppl in to them. as a result most of these commissions take ages to get going (so far the electoral commission has not been appointed and when the police commission's term expires -today in think- there is no replacement) and then they criticize them by proxy.
both an informed public and wiser leaders are essential to make this democracy work to its full potential.
btw this is a functioning democracy for all its faults, ppl have acted wisely in ensuring that it remains so, coups(military ones) wont get anywhere here and anyone attempting one is a stupid traitor.
ashanthi, we have to wait until buffalo falls due to contradictions in his own impossible policies, but the wait will not be long.:-)
oops,
keshi, you seem to have edited that comment. i did not notice :-( i was replying to your original comment.
Sittingnut,
I have nothing against Keshi. She just expressed her opinion. If you go through my previous posts carefully, you’ll notice that I didn’t say one word against Keshi. Not one word. (In fact if anybody can point out anything that I had said against Keshi then I will apologise to her.)
I can agree that the tone with which I answered Keshi’s point was “forceful”, but that tone was not directed against Keshi. It was directed against the majority of the people who continuosly vote irrisponsibly. Also, when I capitalised the word “scream” my intention was not to scream at Keshi but to mock Wimaal Weerawansa and the people who are entertained by such theatrics.(I had taken for granted that this was obvious but I am not sure anymore that it was obvious to everyone.)
The post I made at 9.06PM 11/29/2005 was directed towards Ashanti’s insenuation and not towards Keshi.
I disagree with Keshi’s opinion, but I never disrespect people just because I disagree with their opinons.
As for Ashanti, I never implied that she is comparable to Wimaal Weerawansa. I can agree with you that she is not a “monster”, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not she said something wrong directed against me. What angered me most about her post was the fact that it wasn’t even a direct allegation. It was an irresponsible insenuation. If she had directed the comment to me (Instead of just refering to me in the third person) and protested against whatever she saw as being offenssive, I would have just answered her points. But she didn’t make one specific point against me. She didn’t feel it necessary to explain how the things I said amounted to “blah blah blah”, she felt it unnecessary to explain how the things I said amounted to giving Keshi “a whole lot of heap”.
I can’t see how my tone towards Ashanti was any worse than her tone towards me. She accused me of blabbering and I accused her of not being able to make out the difference between a reasoned argument and blabber.
Was it so bad for me to accuse her of not being able to distinguish between blabber and a reasoned argument while it is o.k for her to accuse me of blabbering?
The only difference between Ashanti’s post and my reply was the fact that my reply was longer due to the fact that I gave reasoned arguments to back up the things I said while she didn’t do so.
I also referred to Ashanti in the third person and refered to her once as Miss.Ashanti. That was done because she did the same to me.
The rest of my post was just an explanation of why Ashanti’s insenuation is not true.
Keshi,
It is perfectly possible for the majority of the people in Sri Lanka to be wrong. (That applies to Sri Lanka as much as any other country.)
But if you disagree then I would like you to explain why you think that the majority of the people in Sri Lanka are always right. Is there any logican reason to believe that the majority of the Sri Lankan people are always right?
You said-
Then why aren’t they doing that? If Ranil is good or better than Mahinda (I honestly dun take anyone's side), then why didnt the majority of the SL ppl who live there reflect that from their votes?
That’s because the majority of the people were wrong. They wrongly think that Mahinda is better than Ranil. They think this because they enjoy the nationalist/socialist rhetoric dished out by the UPFA.
Sittingnut :) hey sorry abt that comment asking where my comment was...hehe...that was b4 I realised it was all in the previous post :P Thanks anyways!
I agree with Sittingnut...it's both ppl's and the leaders' fault. U explained it very clearly and sensibly, thanks!
Capitalist...
**But if you disagree then I would like you to explain why you think that the majority of the people in Sri Lanka are always right. Is there any logican reason to believe that the majority of the Sri Lankan people are always right?
Yes...in an election, the majority is considered 'right' that's why they have a voting system in elections :)
If u think Majority of the ppl r wrong, then there r a whole lot of other probs to solve in SL! Perhaps the education system etc. It would be really silly to believe that the majority of SL ppl think wrong just for the sake of standing by ur opinions.
Keshi.
keshi:
don't be sorry.
i should have read your final comment not the first one, before replying long after they were posted.
capitalist:
thank you very much for the clarification.
to get back to the argument,
i personally think you two are arguing about a subjective judgment about voters decision and it cannot be resolved conclusively.
who is to decide what is right an what is wrong? we all have our opinion but there is no objective way to judge between them.
capitalist and i think the decision is wrong, keshi thinks there was not much to choose from in the first place, most ppl in the south think the decision was right. everybody has a opinion and they are free to express that and argue why they are right.
let us be clear, voters were not deciding a simple white or black question. every one of them were effected differently by each candidate and each of their promises and actions. one may have voted bc of some subsidy promise, some one else bc they alway vote that way, some bc they like the candidate's smile, some decided to act slave to ltte and not vote, yet another may have decided on the least worse one in their opinion etc. it is not simply a case of 'nationalist/socialist rhetoric dished out by the upfa'.
however in a democracy voter's decision should be accepted and in that sense they are 'right'.
but we are also free to criticize those elected and to point out how they got elected on impossible policies(in our opinion) and hopefully to expect that all of them clean up their act and give better choice of policy in the future.
Sittingnut heyy..
**however in a democracy voter's decision should be accepted and in that sense they are 'right'.
Thats excatly what I mean.
**but we are also free to criticize those elected and to point out how they got elected on impossible policies..
Thats also right!
Yes every vote has a different reason behind it...but in the end what matters is the Majority of votes...and that means the majority of the reasons were in favor of the chosen guy, whether one likes it or not.
So if one thinks he got chosen for all for the wrong reasons then, that need to be publicised, the SL ppl need to be informed abt it in every possible way and means implemented to eliminate corruption, than crying over spilt milk - no not again plzz :)
Keshi.
I’m afraid you misunderstood what I said and the question I asked you.
When I said that “it is possible for the majority of the people to be wrong”, I wasn’t challenging the right of the majority of the people to elect whom ever they want.
In any case, the idea that the voter’s decision should be accepted in a democracy is captured more accurately by the phrase “The majority of the people have a right to choose the government of the country” than through the phrase “The majority of the people are always right”.
In any case, since the words right and wrong (apparently) leads to the possiblity of being misunderstood as a challenge to the soverignity of the people, I’ll phrase what I said in a different way –
It is perfectly possible for the majority of the people in Sri Lanka (or any other country for that matetr) to be mistaken. It is perfectly possible for the majority of the people of Sri Lanka to take decisions that are unintelligent and unwise.
You said –
It would be really silly to believe that the majority of SL ppl think wrong just for the sake of standing by ur opinions.
Since I have objective reasons to conclude that Ranil was a better choice in the last presidential election and since there is no reason to believe that the majority of the people in Sri Lanka (Or any other country of the world for that matter) always make intelligent and wise decisions the issue of me being silly on account of refusing to recognize the choics made by the majority of the people in the last election as being an intelligent choice doesn’t arise. [I should make a clarification (once again) regarding my refusal to recognize the choice of the majority as being an intelligent one. I am not in any way challenging the right of the majority of the people to make any choice they wish to. The decision made by the majority will (and should) prevail regradless of whether it was an intelligent decision or not. But the fact that everyone has to accept the fact that the decision made by the majority of the voters will prevail doesn’t imply that everyone should acknowledge that decision as being intelligent.]
I think I should sumarise how we got to the point of discussing this issue –
I said that Ranil was much better choice in the last election.
Then you asked -
“If Ranil is good or better than Mahinda (I honestly dun take anyone's side), then why didnt the majority of the SL ppl who live there reflect that from their votes?”
Then I answered that Ranil is in fact the better candidtate but that he lost because the people mistakenly thought that Mahinda is better.
The bottomline is that I think it is possible for the majority of the people to be mistaken and you think that it is impossible for the majority to be mistaken.
Keshi,
My previous post was meant to be addressed to you but I had forgotten to do so and am not able to edit it. Sorry abut that.
capitalist is a jobless retard. u gotta get laid dude...
Sittingnut,
There certainly are objective criteria to decide who the better candidate is. If that were not the case then I might as well toss a coin to decide whom to vote for in the next election!
One of the objective criteria was Ranil’s record from December 2001 to April 2004 and the fact that he gave life to an economy that was utterly ruined by the policies of the PA regime that existed till 2001. Another objective criterion is the dismal failure that socialist, neo-socialist and statist ideas have lead to throughout history and throughout the world (Including in Sri Lanka) and the fact that the UPFA (mainly due to the JVP influence) is steadilly moving towards a greater and greater degree of socialism.
The fact that it is not possible to achive a consensus on economic and political issues doesn’t mean thet those fields are subjective.
I contend that Ranil would have been a better President. That contention is primarilly based on the objective criteria that I just mentioned.
You said-
who is to decide what is right and what is wrong? we all have our opinion but there is no objective way to judge between them.
All our ideas have consequences when they are put into practice. Which ideas are true and which ideas are false can be determined by observing the consequances that those ideas have when put into practice.
The question of whether Ranil would have been a better candidate will be answered by “reality” and the answer will not come in a pleasant form.
The fact that the majority of the voters made a huge mistake when they voted for the UPFA in this presidential election will become clear soon enough when the economy begins to crumble because of JVP inspired UPFA policies. It’ll be much worse than the crisis of 2001 because the amount of “socialism” in the UPFA is much greater than it was in the PA.
Umm... what blood does WW have on his hands?
Capitalist..
No offense but today I have a more important thing to work on than argueing about who's right and who's wrong in SL - they are all selfish opportunists :) so let's just leave it there.
The imp thing I was talking about was attending a prayer vigil and a Amnesty meeting on behalf of a young man who was hanged in Singapore this morning...an Australian Vietnamese boy who carried drugs for the first time and was hanged today for it in Singapore. I want to do something more worthwhile like helping to eradicate death penalty
from this world, rather than crying over why Mahinda was chosen and not Ranil...none of them did any good to this world let alone to their motherland. If u r so crushed by SL ppl having chosen the wrong leader, then you should act upon it rather than argueing endlessly here.
Thanks anyways and have a good day!
Keshi.
keshi:
yes, not again. you are right
capitalist:
this is how oxford dictionary define objective(relevant meanings only)
objective -1 external to the mind; actually existing. 2 dealing with outward things or exhibiting facts uncolored by feelings or opinions.
now the criteria you put forward as objective do not in fact deserve that adjective according to above meaning. so,
Ranil’s record from December 2001 to April 2004- i agree with you. but most ppl do not. they are mistaken according to our opinion and our criteria for judging a administration and a economy, but not their criteria. most even almost all economists will agree with us, but economics is not physics.
dismal failure that socialist, neo-socialist and statist ideas have lead to throughout history and throughout the world-again i agree, but others do not. there is and never will be a method to prove they are wrong 100%, in the same way as, say to prove that earth is a globe.
The fact that it is not possible to achive a consensus on economic and political issues doesn’t mean thet those fields are subjective - yes we cannot achieve consensus (some ppl still believe that world is flat) but we need some thing in the nature of scientific proof archived in physics to say certain economic and political facts are objective.
i agree those who made a mistake(imo) will be answered by “reality” . in the same way we will be answered by reality if we are the ones mistaken. we have to wait or act to prove who is mistaken. at the moment who is mistaken is a subjective judgment.
The fact that the majority of the voters made a huge mistake when they voted for the UPFA in this presidential election will become clear soon enough when the economy begins to crumble because of JVP inspired UPFA policies. It’ll be much worse than the crisis of 2001 because the amount of “socialism” in the UPFA is much greater than it was in the PA.
there i no doubt in my mind that economy will collapse if buffalo chinthanaya is carried out to the letter . but it wont be carried out sri lanka cannot go back even if it wanted to. buffalo is a pragmatic politician, he will fail bc of incompetence and ineffectiveness, not bc he is going to carry out silly policies he advocated during the campaign. he is already backtracking on these policies.
in fact some ppl voted for buffalo knowing well that he would not carry them out, in the same way i voted for ranil knowing well that he will not carry out some of some of those subsidy promises in his manifesto. they voted bc of various reasons, as i stated above. some will be disappointed but some won't be. sri lankan voters are sophisticated enough to know that. only time will tell whether they made a right decision or not.
in the mean time we are free to point out why buffalo's policies and actions won't work and undermine him even, bc we believe we are 'right', that is our right. others might object that is their right.
ashanthi
I never implied that she is comparable to Wimaal Weerawansa. -who said you so implied? :-(
i thought one do not need a lawyer for blog suits. :-) oh, well.
anon12/01/2005 8:55 pm
what blood does WW have on his hands?- a lot and he will have more before he is done. do you know what he was doing in 87-89?
Sittingnut –
When I used the word “Objective” the meaning I had in mind was this (I’ll present it as a description of how I thought of the word rather than as a formal definition) –
Any idea, any assertion whose truth can be validated without making any reference to personal preferences, prejudices or idiosyncrasies etc. is objective. Otherwise, if an idea or an assertion cannot be validated without taking into consideration the personal preferences, prejudices or idiosyncrasies etc. of some real live human being, then that idea is subjective.
I don’t have any real problem with the definition you cited because it appears not to contradict the description I just gave.
From what you’ve said it really isn’t clear to me how the 2 criteria that I mentioned (i.e. Ranil’s record and the failure of socialism throughout history) are not objective either according to my description of the word or according to the definition you cited.
I’ll begin by dealing with the issue of “socialism’s failure throughout history.” This is something that can be demonstrated to any person provided that the concerned person is intelligent enough to grasp concepts relating to things he cannot see with his eyes and provided that the concerned person has a virtue called ”intellectual honesty”.
If a person examines the history of all countries that implemented socialist ideas and remains a socialist then that can only be because he is intellectually dishonest. That can happen only if he shrugges and practices willful blindness to the facts that contradict his beliefs while examining the history of socialism.
On the other hand, if a person honestly and thoroughly examines the history of socialism and is ready to modify his beliefs whenever he encounters facts that contradict them then that can only result in a complete refutation of socialism and a realization of it’s dismal consequences.
The long and short of it is this –
There can be one and only one conclusion that a person who examined thoroughly the history of socialism while maintaining intellectual honesty can come to - That it is filled with dismal consequences.
In that sense there is nothing subjective about the idea that socialism has dismal consequences. It can be validated without taking into any personal prejudices, personal preferences or idiosyncrasies of any individual. All one needs to do is honestly and thoroughly study the history of this world during the 20’Th century!
Similarly when we consider the issue of whether or not Ranil saved the Sri Lankan economy when he was in power there can be only one conclusion for anyone who honestly and thoroughly examines all of the pertinent factors. Anybody who disagrees with the idea that Ranil saved the Sri Lankan economey would have come to that conclusion either by not studying the issue at all or by ignoring facts that contradict his beliefs that he encountered while studying the issue. Both are forms of intellectual dishonesty. The fact that some people are intellectually dishonest enough to challenge the idea that Ranil saved the Sri Lankan economy doesn’t mean that this idea is subjective.
Whether or not it is possible to “prove” ideas relating to fields like economics and politics similar to the “scientific proof” encountered in physics and chemistry is an interesting issue but it is not really relevant to the issue of whether fields like economics are objective or subjective.
To begin with, anybody can have any theories or ideas about how a country can be developed and how the economy of a country can progress. But no matter which ideas people hold onto, reality doesn’t give us the luxury of achieving economic progressing through any random method that people devise within their imagination.(If that were the case then Economics would indeed be a subjective field.) Economic progress can be achieved only through specific policies and only by implementing specific ideas. Determining which economic principles and policies lead to prosperity is one of the tasks faced within the fields of economics and one of the tools that are available for the purpose of achieving this task is - history.
An honest evaluation of the history of the economies of various countries of the world cannot lead to any random conclusion concerning which principles lead to prosperity. An honest endeavor can only lead to the idea that economic progress can be achieved only through Capitalism.
This is what I mean when I say that economics is not a subjective field. The truth or falsehood of ideas within the field of economics can be determined without making any reference to any individual person or his personal preferences and personal prejudices. It can be done by studying history provided that one makes a commitment towards being intellectually honest.
doesn't capitalist have anything else to do?
to the best of my knowledge he was a journalist.
he almost singlehandedly transformed the jvp from a bankrupt marxist party to a formidable nationalist force with centrist economic policies. the man's got unbelievable charisma.
Anon @9.07PM:
Yeah, he has charisma all right. If by that you mean that he has a built-in amplifier within his body to SCREAM louder than anyone else.
Sittingnut,
Have you heard of the novelist and philosopher called “Ayn Rand” and her philosophy which is called “Objectivism”?
I think you’ll probably love her books (That conclusion is based on the ideas you’ve presented in your blog entries and on some of the comments you’ve made in other blogs.)
One of her books “Anthem” has come out of copyright restrictions and is available online.
Anthem(Click Here)
I don’t think it’ll take more than one hour to read.
It’s a short novel (A bit like a fairy tale!) that shows the importance of rational selfishness and rational egoism.
Anyway, I’ve got to say that I was very impressed by the quality of your writing. Initially I had thought that you must be somebody who was influenced by Ayn Rand’s books. But then I realized that her name is not in the “reading favorites list” of your profile. And of course the fact that we ended up arguing over whether knowledge is objective or subjective in the field of economics confirmed to me that you couldn’t have been heavily influenced by Ayn Rand’s books.
Anthem is a very small book compared to other books written by Ayn Rand. But it is the only one which is available to be read online. It is by reading books such as “The Virtue of Selfishness” and “Capitalism – The Unknown Ideal” that I was lead to realize that knowledge is objective in fields such as ethics, politics and economics etc.
Ayn Rand’s best book is “Atlas Shrugged” which is a 1000 page philosophical novel illustrated how respect for reason, rational selfishness and the imperative of achieving a capitalist economic/political system are all tied together. It also portrays the enormous importance tha philosophical ideas have on the way society operates and what could happen when a society begins to accept and embrace irrational ideas.
capitalist:
i am sorry but your arguments do not convince me that your contentions are objective as opposed to subjective. again i emphasize that i fully agree with your ideas regarding the socialism. but i do not think all the ppl who continue to hold socialist ideas, after all that happened in 20th century are 'intellectually dishonest'. they can hold on to these belief precisely because economics is not a science in the same sense as physics. i am however not going to argue for the validity of their ideas with you bc i too disagree with them. this blog (read the first post) was created to disagree with socialists not to defend them.
i admire ayn rand and i am familiar with 'objectivism'. see the articles on 'objectivist philosophy'(ref section 'influence on libertarianism') and articles 'libertarianism and objectivism and 'libertarianism' in wikepedia as to what makes libertarians different.
the section called 'response to objectivist philosophy' in the objectivist philosophy article gives some pointers as to why ppl do not accept it, as it were at literal meaning of the word.
btw why don't you get a blog yourself. we need more capitalists in the blogosphere.
Sittingnut,
I am familiar with Libertarianism, but still I found the article explaining the differences between Libertarianism and Objectivism to be interesting. Also, the first part of the Wikipedia article on Objectivism is a pretty good summation of what objectivism is all about, but I don’t agree with any of the criticisms of Objectivism listed at the end of it.
Yup, I agree that I should get a blog, but for personal reasons I will not be able to do it for some time.
I think the main difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism is that libertarianism is “neutral” on metaphysical, epistemological and ethical issues. In other words even somebody who admires mother Theresa because he thinks that it is a great thing for a person to spend his life serving other human beings [in other words somebody who upholds altruism] can be regarded as a libertarian so long as he confines his altruism to voluntary actions and agrees that altruism should not be enforced on anybody and upholds the “non-aggression principle” as far as political issues are concerned.
Similarly even a very religious person who believes in god can be regarded as a libertarian so long as he is committed to upholding the non-aggression principle on political issues.
Basically Libertarianism limits itself to political issues and is neutral on metaphysical, epistemological and ethical issues.
On the other hand Objectivism has a specific epistemological and ethical framework. A person who believes in God cannot be an objectivist even if he advocates capitalism because any belief in anything supernatural is contrary to Objectivist Metaphysics and epistemology. A person who admires mother Theresa’s altruism cannot be an Objectivist (even if he advocates the non-aggression principle) because that admiration for mother Theresa is contrary to Objectivist ethics which upholds rational selfishness.
I have always found the ethical dimension of Objectivism to be most compelling. The metaphysical and epistemological dimensions also completely transformed the way I look at and think of life. The political dimension of objectivism comes after these probably because I’ve advocated free market economics long before I ever heard of objectivism (while I was a teenager in fact) partly as a way of ensuring economic prosperity (though this didn’t mean that I advocated laissez-faire capitalism at that time in the way that I do now.)
Okay…. it was great discussing all these things with you. But I’ll have to take a brake from my involvement in the blogoshere now. :-)
(I can imagine the words “good riddance” being heard in front of the monitors of most of those who visit this blog!)
And I know that you would have probably told me to wind things up in your next post if I hadn’t announced the wind-up now! hehe
Keep up the good work! (And I’ll also get a blog once I am able to)
All the best!
Ashanti,
Thanks for the compliment!
Though I don't deserve it! hehe
Yup I agree with you, that was a wondeerfully witty comment. Every dictator and every mass murderer in history has had plenty of whatever it is that they call "Charisma".
All the best.
capitalist:
please stay engaged with the sri lankan blogosphere. i never tell anybody to wind things up. as for others, ppl(most ppl are silent observers here) seem to like it when arguments happen if visitor numbers here are any guide.
thanks.
ashanthi :
tboy is dextr, no doubt about it.
d/tboy :
you can't hide even if you try. comment away so we can laugh at you and your silly racist ideas borrowed from ww.
Goshh I can see a war of opinions here...the need to declare IM RIGHT often ends up in anger and collateral damage such as giving up on blogville and feeling that u were just treated unfair :)
Actually this looks exactly like the war that's happening in SL..until this I-ME-MYSELF attitude itself is destroyed, nothing will work out for our country SL...very sad.
** You must not, however, discount the opinions of all Sri lankans living overseas....
Ashanthi well-said, thanks. Though some of us live overseas, it doesnt mean we r traitors...we are still Sri Lankan, we wont forget that and we have a right to speak for SL's well-being. Some ppl remain losers wherever they go...such as the person who write filth here...filth wont get u anywhere mate...talk sense.
Sittingnut I think it's time for u to put up a new post :) or else ppl will continue to cry here and end up bashing each other up with empty speech. I'm disgusted at how some ppl have no respect for themselves even that they talk in filth just to get their points across! How low.
Keshi.
Sittingnut,
Hope you didn't misunderstand me. I am not going to give up on the Sri Lankan blogosphere.Just that I will not be able to take part actively for some time.
That's due to personal time contraints and not for any other reason.
(One problem that I have is that once I get absorbed on an issue, I cannot resist thinking it through to the end. Because of that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the issues that we were discussing during the last week. Too much time for my own good in fact! I think you’ll agree that this can be problematic if the concerned person is not a full time journalist or a “policy analyst” or something like that, which I am not.)
But I'll be back :-)
Anyway, I have to say that I honestly meant what I said when I said that it was great to discuss the things that we were discussing (I wasn't just being polite.)
It's very rare for an argument to proceed to the point where the underlying philosophical differences are identified (As was the case for us where we were able to figure out that the issue stemmed from whether knowledge is objectivs or subjective in the fieled of economics.) The fact that this happened is itself a plus point regardless of whether agreement was reached.
I think I was able to sharpen my understanding of the issues involved during the process of addressing the points that you raised. On that basis I'd say it was a productive exchange of ideas as well as being a debate.
keshi and ashanthi:
as you see i wrote a new post.:-)
i value the opinions of overseas sri lankans. only, i hate it when some of them act like they are more patriotic than ppl living here.
as for dextboy let him make a fool of himself. anybody reading his comment will know where to put them. though on occasion i like to draw these nutters out for entertainment value. i think ashanthi like to do that too.
anyway thanks.
capitalist:
glad you will be back. soon i hope.
you are right this sort of discussion when it is done sincerely do take up a lot of time and our lives offline do not allow us that luxury, but it is still rewarding most of the time. one of the things i admire about keshi is this fact she is able to stay passionately engaged in all the discussions that goes on in her blog as well as in lot of other blogs she visits, while she works. quite superhuman.
anyway i very much appreciate your contribution here and i am not being polite too. it was as you say a productive exchange of ideas. so thanks again.
Ashanthi and Sittingnut thanks - u 2 r the only ppl who talk sense here...
Abusers - get a life, u r no challenge to me..cos u have nothing in ur head...abuse is the lowest from of conversation and I pity u, cos that's all that u seem to know :) Poorly brought-up and badly rejected by the society. It's never too late to start all over again...be someone in this world than just remain a piece of trash all ur life. Good luck!
Keshi.
I have always found it hard to accept Ayn Rands work and objectivism comes across as too dogmatic. Doesn't have much room for the fallibility of humans and their actions. Personally prefer the Classical liberal come libertarian views.
ivap,
You said,
I have always found it hard to accept Ayn Rands work and objectivism comes across as too dogmatic
There is no problem in you finding it difficult to accept Ayn Rand’s work. What you accept is upto you.
On what basis are you saying that Objectivism is dogmatic?
Care to explain or give reasons for that assertion?
Or is it quite sufficient for you to declare that it “comes across” as being dogmatic?
Here are some things that Ayn Rand had said –
When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.
Ayn Rand
"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows. "
Ayn Rand
Would somebody who is “dogmatic” place as much importance on mans ability to reason as Ayn Rand did?
Objectivism holds that respect for reality and man’s ability to use reason are the means through which all knowledge is gained. There is nothing “dogmatic” about it.
Dogma means accepting something as being true simply because some ”authority figure” declares it to be true. There is nothing of that sort within Objectivism.
Gosh, for heaven’s sake! How can somebody even say that! That Objectivism is based on dogma!
I fell in love with Ayn Rand’s work precisely because she took great pains to explain in detail and prove every idea that she presented. I doubt if there is anybody who placed an emphasis on the importance of man’s ability to think for himself to the extent that Ayn Rand did. I doubt if there is anyone who respected that ability to the extent that Ayn Rand did by taking great pains to clearly explain everything she wrote.
Have you read Atlas Shrugged? Doesn’t that book portray the importance of thinking and reasoning and forming beliefs through your own thinking and reasoning?
Those who oppose Objectivism have always found it much easier and more convenient to resort to name calling than to refute the philosophy itself. Just saying that Objectivism is “dogmatic” without explaining the nature of the alleged “dogma” is just another form of name calling.
There is nothing in objectivism that assumes human beings to be infalible.
But there is a lot within Objectivism that asserts Man’s heroic potential.
Ayn Rand believed that literary work should focus on Man’s potential for heroism. For that reason her fiction centered on characters who were exceptional in the degree of their heroism.
Is that what you find to be objectionable?
capitalist -
"If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows"
The operative words being "if" and "one". The problem is not everyone recognizes it and neither can everyone can be expected to apply it consistently. Humans are fallible and vary in their capacities for reasoning. Any political "ism" needs to allow people to make their own mistakes and sometimes never learn from them.
dogmatic
adj 1: characterized by arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles
Would somebody who is “dogmatic” place as much importance on mans ability to reason as Ayn Rand did?
Dogmatic in the sense that it doesn't adequately recognize the ability of some to be unreasonable.
Don't get me wrong, objectivism is a good "individual" philosophy but not as an ideology for enabling an open society.
Have you read Atlas Shrugged?
Actually, I tried. Got around to about page 132(I think) and then lost interest. Must try again.
BTW - welcome to the blogosphere.
Post a Comment