Hokkian (Lanjutan)

Dari beberapa yang saya ketemukan, ternyata ada dua group bahasa Hokkian, pertama adalah "Min Man" yang dipakai banyak penduduk cina di Malaysia, Singapura dan Indonesia. Dialek ini berasai dari daerah selatan propinsi Fujian dan Taiwan dan dikenal sebagai dialek "Hokkian". Dialek lainnya ada "Min Bei" yang mayoritas digunakan di bagian utara propinsi Fujian, terutama di ibukotanya FuZhou.

Beberapa kata yang saya ingat adalah, misalnya dalam angka:

1 = It (Mandarin: Yi)
2 = Jie (Mandarin: Er)
3 = Sam (Mandarin: San)
4 = Su (Mandarin: Si)
5 = Go (Mandarin: Wu)
6 = liu (Mandarin: Liu)
7 = Ci (Mandarin: Qi)
8 = Pat (Mandarin: Ba)
9 = Kaw (Mandarin: Ka)

Misalnya, "Pat-Kwa" berarti "Segi delapan". "Jie Sam Su" (2-3-4), "Go Pek" (500), "Go Ban" (50,000), "Go Ceng" (5000), "Ji Go" (25), dsb.

0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	100	1000	10000	100000000
Traditional
Simplfied
Formal Trad. (Daxie)
Formal Simp. (Daxie)
Pinyin	ling2	yi1	er4	san1	si4	wu3	liu4	qi1	ba1	jiu3	shi2	bai3	qian1	wan4	yi4

Ada beberapa link yang patut dilihat untuk meluaskan pengetahuan tentang dialek ini:

http://my-malaysia.info/hokkien.html

Hokkian

Bertahun-tahun saya mendengar dan mengenali bahasa cina dialek Hokkian yang lazim digunakan di negeri-negeri bagian asia tenggara, seperti Indonesia, Malaysia dan Singapura. Selama ini, bahasa yang menjadi lebih awam di telinga saya akibat seringnya membaca cerita silat karya mediang Asmaraman Kho Ping Ho, ternyata sangat berbeda dengan bahasa cina yang dipakai oleh penduduk cina, terutama cina daratan (mainland).

Beberapa rekan kerja yang berasal dari cina daratan mengatakan, beberapa penduduk Taiwan faham bahasa ini. Iseng-iseng saya cari di Internet, saya temukan kenyataan bahwa letak asal-muasalnya bahasa ini muncul adalah di daerah pantai diseberang pulau Formosa (Taiwan), dan dibawah propinsi Guangdong (Kuang Zhou?). Kata "Hokkian" sendiri adalah berasal dari dialek itu, sementara dalam bahasa mandarin (cina standard), disebut "Fujien" atau "Fukien".

Menurut pendapat beberapa teman asal Cina, terdapat dua penulisan bahasa Cina sekarang ini. Pertama adalah "Cina disederhanakan" yg. dipakai di negeri Cina daratan, dan "Cina Tradisionil" yang mayoritas digunakan di negeri Taiwan. Contohnya, kalimat "Apa kabar" dalam bahasa cina ditulis 如何是你, sementara dalam pengucapannya akan berbeda antara dialek Kanton, Fukkien (Hokkian) dan Mandarin. Kata lain, misalnya 我爱你 (I love you), dalam hal ini kedua-duanya berbunyi serupa "Wo Ai Nie". "Wo" (dengan sedikit tekanan) berarti "saya", "Nie" berarti "kamu". Sementara itu, kata "Terima Kasih" (Thank You) diucapkan sangat berbeda antara dialek-dialek tersebut. Dialek Mandarin mengatakan "Shie-shie", sementara Hokkian mengucapkannya "Kam Sia". Saya menyadari ini saat terbang menggunakan maskapai penerbangan Taiwan (EVA Air). Pramugari di pesawat itu selalu menyampaikan pesan dalam dua dialek (Mandarin dan Hokkian).

Bagi yang akrab dengan cerita-cerita silat karya kenamaan dari median Asmaraman Kho Ping Ho akan mengenali kata-kata "Teecu", "Li-Hiap", "Enghiong", "Sute", "Suhu", "Subo", "Suheng", "Cici", "Koko", "Twa-ko", "Kim-Ci", "Locianpwe", "Kang-Ouw", "Siucai", "Bo-Ceng-li", dan sebagainnya. Semua kata-kata itu berdialek Hokkian dan tidak akan dimengerti oleh mayoritas Cina (yang berbahasa Mandarin).

Kata yang diinggeriskan "Kung-Fu" dalam dialek mandarin disebut Chuan Tou, sementara dalam dialek Hokkian (Fukien/Hokien), disebut "Kun Tao".

Pendidikan di US

Dari rangking yg. dilakukan oleh suatu majalah mingguan, 10 universitas teratas masih diraih US. ITB boro-boro masuk 50 besar, masuk 200 teratas saja tidak. Yg. hebat, Indian Institute of Technology masuk 100 teratas. IIT ini bahkan sudah 'bernama' di US. Perusahaan2 hi-tech kalau mendengar 'lulusan IIT' umumnya lebih tanggap dalam merekrut mereka. Semacam MIT-nya Asia.

Nah, yang negara berkembang kalah jauh dalam pendidikan (terutama pendidikan dasar) adalah dalam segi EQ seperti komunikasi, teamwork, apresiasi thp. usaha murid dan dorongan untuk belajar mandiri. Di sekeolah anak saya (yg. masih TK), sudah diajarkan bagaimana mengemukakan
pendapat, menulis cerita/paper, presentasi di depan kelas, kerja kelompok (teamwork). Mulai kelas 2 atau 3, telah diperintahkan menulis paper riset [tentu dalam skala anak2) dan presentasi di depan kelas, plus memperagakan alat2/benda2 riset mereka!).

Gurunya sangat apresiatif dan komunikatif terhadap murid. Murid yg. 'sangat bagus' dan biasa-biasa sama-sama dihargai pendapat dan kerjanya. Tidak pernah guru mengatakan 'kamu bodoh' dan sebagainya. (kalaupun ada, guru tersebut biasanya akan langsung ditegur keras).

Hasil pendidikan tersebut (yang berhubungan dg. EQ, bukan IQ yg. tinggi seperti di negara-negara semacam Cina atau India) terlihat jelas saat mereka memasuki lapangan kerja.
Rata-rata mereka menjadi manajer thp. bangsa-bangsa lainnya (di tempat kerja). Saya sendiri merasakan perbedaan bekerja dibawah manager asia (memang dari segi ilmu teknis mereka rata-rata unggul) dengan manager amerika (atau didikan amerika tulen).

Ini yg. kita masih ketinggalan sangat jauh. Coba, beberapa banyak sih lulusan ITB yg. lihai menulis paper ilimiah, jago berpresentasi dan pandai memimpin team? Atau open-minded dan apresiatif terhadap bawahan? Satu-dua tentu ada, tetapi kalau secara rata-rata masih
kurang. Belum lagi soal kemandirian (maklum, anak-anak di US itu 'diusir' dari rumah setelah mencapai umur 18 tahun, jadi mereka harus survive, baik dari biaya pendidikan dan biaya-biaya hidup lainnya).

Depresi dan Overwork

Sejumlah riset menunjukkan antara depresi dengan "overwork" (workaholic).
Di Yahoo.com beberapa waktu lalu diberitakan, riset-riset mutakhir menunjukkan resiko penyakit jantung bisa berkali lipat bagi orang yang bekerja lebih dari 40 jam/minggu.

Nah, sekarang tinggal kita sendiri yang memutuskan: penting mana, kesehatan atau duit? Orang banyak duit tapi sakit-sakitan, kebahagiaannya terenggut (belum lagi tambah stress keluar duit melulu buat berobat sana-sini), dan jauh dari keluarga. Kalau orang-orang bule Amriki dalam soal kesehatan sangat cerewet banget dan put it over everything lho. Secara umum, mereka lebih memilih dipecat dibanding harus kerja lembur terus2an.

Kolega saya (orang asia, tepatnya India) kerjanya ngoyo buanget, eh bukan diapperciate malah sering diledeki "does not have life", bla..bla. Sampai satu hari dia jatuh sakit yang katanya spt. kanker paru-paru (walau setelah didiagnose ulang, hanya alergi terhadap polen, yang umum terjadi di California). Tapi hal itu telah memberikan dampak positip mengubah pola kerjanya, tidak lagi lembur-lembur.

Capitalisme dan Pendidikan

Pertama kali saya ke Amerika Serikat, yg. saya kagumi dan iri bukan banyaknya jumlah mal (lebih banyak mall di Jakarta dibanding San Francisco), bukan juga hi-tech facilitiesnya (lebih maju fasilitas HP di Indonesia secara umum), tapi fasilitas-fasilitas umum dan primer seperti tersedianya air minum (bukan sekedar air buat mandi), sistem drainage, waste & recycling management, dan infrastruktur dasar lainnya (kualitas jalan, pipa gas ke rumah-rumah, dsb.)

Setiap tahun, pemerintah kota mengirimkan laporan ditail kadar mineral, bakteria dan kualitas air minum ini. Bertahun-tahun saya minum air langsung dari ledeng tanpa ada keluhan sakit perut atau apapun (meski terakhir-akhir ini sedikit paranoid dan memasang filter tambahan). Sistem waste nya luar biasa dan tertata rapi. Di kota yg. berpenduduk dibawah 100.000 jiwa spt. di Santa Rosa, gorong2 air tertata dibawah rata-rata jalan-jalan, membawa semua air kotor dari rumah-rumah/apartemen. Setiap minggu mobil sampah datang ke tiap rumah dan mengangkut sampah-sampah (yang diletakkan oleh setiap pemilik rumah di tempat sampah beroda setiap minggu di depan jalan), didekompos dan disimpan di tempat tertentu yang tidak mencemari kali/sungai-sungai atau danau-danau.

Lalu, mungkin ada yg. bertanya, apa hubungannya pembangunan yg. dilakukan swasta dg. hal-hal diatas? Lihatlah Jakarta. Berapa banyak hotel berbintang yang menggunakan sumur dalam untuk menyuplai airnya. Dari majalah Tempo yg. saya baca (beberapa tahun yang lalu!), peresapan air laut ke kota Jakarta makin besar. Belum lagi, karena banyaknya sumur2 ini, bukan saja air laut yg. terhisap, yg. lebih parah lagi adalah air dari 'septitank' (yach...:)

Mengenai infrastruktur yg. disebut Moore "jelek" itu, mungkin bisa ditanya lagi, bagian yg. mana?

Soal pendidikan, ini mungkin yang menjadi salah problem utama di AS terutama dalam bidand-bidang Sains dan Matematik. Tapi ini mungkin bisa dipersempit dalam hal pendidikan dasar, bukan pendidikan di Universitas-universitas (karena dalam hal ini, disana masih bercokol universitas-universitas paling top dunia). Pendidikan dasar (terutama di beberapa state spt. California) sekarang ini memang terbukti lemah dalam hal science-math. Sebagai contoh saja: beberapa anak-anak Indonesia yg. sebelumnya sekolah
di Indonesia dan kemudian pindah ke AS, rata-rata ranking mereka diatas. Lebih parah lagi pendidikan di sekolah menengah dan SMA-nya. Secara umum, sekolah swasta di Amerika lebih tinggi rankingnya karena mereka tidak terlalu mengikuti kurikulum dan lebih mengandalkan kelas-kelas khusus untuk anak-anak unggulan.

Jumlah tahun pengajaran untuk pendidikan dasar sama spt. di Indonesia (12 tahun). Beberapa sekolah memberikan tingkatan 6-2-4 (6 tahun SD, 2 tahun SMP dan 4 tahun SMA), sebagian lagi 5-2-4.

Tidak seperti lulusan SMA di Indonesia yg. nampaknya lebih siap menghadapi pelajaran2 di universitas (meski tidak semuanya), di Amerika kebanyakan lulusan SMAnya kurang siap, sehingga harus masuk ke Junior college (semacam pra-universitas atau TPB-nya ITB).

Satu hal yg. berbeda (dan masih unggul, mungkin) adalah metoda pengajaran berdasarkan 'analisa & sintesa' serta pengungkapan pendapat sejak dini. Sejak TK, mereka diajarkan untuk menganalisa (tentu setarap dg. kemampuam mereka), membuat laporan dan sering mempresentasikannya di depan kelas (ini anak2 SD lho, bukan SMA).

Tapi, secara keseluruhan dan dibandingkan budget untuk hal-hal lain, dana untuk pendidikan di AS relatif rendah (makanya sekarang sering diprotes). Tidak seperti di Indonesia yg. dana pendidikannnya dari pusat, sebagian besar dana pendidikan diberikan oleh negara-negara bagian (terkecuali state2 yg. relatif miskin dibanding lainnya). Kurikulum pun dibuat oleh masing2 state, meski sekarang ada usaha untuk memberikan 'guideline' secara nasional.

Sekarang ini, bukan saja wali murid dan guru yang protes soal rendahnya dana untuk sekolah, tetapi bahkan industriawan-industriawan spt. Bill Gates (Microsoft), Andy Grove atau Craig Berrets (Intel), Palmisano (IBM) dan lain-lain.

Tapi, bisa jadi juga pendapat Michael Moore di bukunya "The Fat White Man" sedikit banyak dipengaruhi dengan pendapat politisnya terhadap administrasi Bush. Maklum, dia khan penduduk partai Demokrat, sementara si Bush Republik.

Kalau menurut saya pribadi, salah satu penyebab utama turunnya pendidikan dasar (terutama sekali Sains dan Matematik) di AS adalah menurunnya jumlah imigran terdidik (akibat aksi-aksi paska 9/11). Menurut statistik terakhir, peningkatan pesat imigran adalah dari negeri Mexico, dimana secara sosio-ekonomi kurang memprioritaskan pendidikan, baik di dalam lingkungan mereka atau pun di sekolah-sekolah.

Brutalnya, sekolah-sekolah di lingkungan warga kulit putih mayoritas beranking tinggi, sehingga menyebabkan lebih banyak warga kulit putih (dan asia) untuk pindah ke distrik sekolah-sekolah tsb. Ini menyebabkan meningkatkan harga-harga rumah di dareah-daerah tsb. naik secara tajam. Jadi, yang miskin (dan tidak terdidik) makin miskin dan terkebelakang, yang kaya makin maju. Ujung-ujungnya, Itulah kapitalisme :-)

Presiden Perusak Negerinya Sendiri

Presiden Bush merupakan satu diantara pemimpin negara yang unik dan kerap digolongkan 'pemimpin bodoh'. Mungkin banyak benarnya juga. Bayangkan, setelah menyerang Afganistan dan Irak dan menghabiskan uang pajak rakyat AS bermilyar-milyar dollar untuk perang, pengetatan dana untuk riset-riset dasar, ekonomi amerika juga tidak menampakkan kecerahan yang jelas.

Sekolah-sekolah dasar, terutama di California, turun kualitasnya. Beberapa kali terdengar bahkan sejumlah sekolah ditutup dikarenakan kekurangan dana. Gubernur Arnold "Terminator" Schawrzenegger memutuskan untuk mengurangi dana untuk pendidikan. Gubernur pendukung Bush ini lebih memilih untuk mengalihkan dana negeri California untuk alokasi-alokasi yang tidak jelas.

Kualitas universitas-universitas di Amerika menurun dikarenakan berkurangnya mahasiswa-mahasiswa asing yang brilliant. Ini diakui oleh sejumlah pemimpin universitas ternama, seperti Princeton, Stanford, Harvard dsb. Bill "Microsoft" Gates, Craig "Intel" Barrets dan beberapa CEO perusahaan-perusahaan hi-tech besar lainnya telah mengeluhkan hal ini ke Kongress/presiden. Bahkan Bill Gates mengeluhkan ketatnya imigrasi Amerika dalam memberikan visa H1 (visa kerja) ke calon-calon pekerja asing yang banyak diantaranya brilliant dan berkreasi.

Lucunya, dengan keadaan seperti ini si Bush masih terpilih dalam putaran kedua kepresidenannya. Ini nampaknya menggambarkan "kebodohan" secara umum rakyat Amerika. Yang pandai tidak peduli dengan politik, yang bodoh "berkuasa". Belum lagi kebijakan-kebijakan "tolol" si Bush Jr. ini.

Muslim Convert

Siang tadi saat setelah sholat jum'at, ketua pengurus komunitas muslim di Santa Rosa mengumumkan bahwa ada satu orang kulit putih amerika yang akan pindah agama ke Islam. Dia adalah anak muda 20-an tahun. Masya Allah, ia telah mendapat hidayah. Terlihat temannya yang telah masuk Islam terlebih dahulu, memakai kafiyeh dan berjenggot.

Sudah beberapa warga asli Amerika yang saya saksikan pindah agama ke Islam. Ini mungkin bisa menjadi bukti bahwa agama Islam maju pesat (atau lebih pas dikatakan, agama yang paling pesat perkembangannya di Amerika serikat).

ENGLISH IS A CRAZY LANGUAGE

Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger, neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

There is no lady or her finger in ladysfinger And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?

If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth bleeth? One goose, two geese. So one moose, two meese? One index, two indices?

Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend. If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

Sometimes I think all English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite a play and play at a recital?

Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on.

English was invented by people and not computers and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all. That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.

P.S. Why doesn't BUICK rhyme with QUICK?
REASONS WHY THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS SO HARD TO LEARN:

1. The bandage was wound around the wound.
2. The farm was used to produce produce.
3. The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4. We must polish the Polish furniture.
5. He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6. The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7. Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8. A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9. When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10. I did not object to the object.
11. The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12. There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13. They were too close to the door to close it.
14. The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15. A seamstress and a sewer fell down into the sewer.
16. To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17. The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18. After a number of injections my jaw got number.
19. Upon seeing the tear in the painting, I shed a tear.
20. I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
21. How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)

www.geocities.com/anarchiebunker/anarchie bunker

Permission is freely granted to copy, print, and distribute this material by any means, so long as the author is given proper credit and so long as this statement is included in any and all copies made for distribution.

----------
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find
something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons.
We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and
fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy

Negeri Penghutang Terbesar

Bulan November lalu, Senat Amerika Serikat melakukan voting untuk menaikkan batas hutang federal sebesar 800 milyar dollar - sebagai tambahan terhadap hutang berjalan sebesar 7,4 trilyun dollar. Kenaikan ini merupakan kenaikan terbesar ketiga pada limit hutang federal sejak presiden Bush menjadi presieden pada 2001. Dengan batas hutang yang baru ini, pemerintah AS akan menambah hutang federal sebesar 2,1 trilyun dollar dalam kurun kurang dari 4 tahun.

Apa artinya hal ini bagi rakyat Amerika?? itu berarti, sebelum kenaikan batas hutang yang baru, setiap pria, wanita dan anak di Amerika Serikat menanggung hutang negara sebesar $25.000. Dengan kenaikan hutang yang baru, itu berarti tanggungan mereka terhadap hutang hutang negara meningkat $2700. Meskipun demikian, yang lebih penting lagi, itu berarti rakyat amerika harus membayar hutang tersebut ditambah bunga bagaimanapun caranya.

Bagi "baby born" saat ini, hutang nasional itu tidak lebih daripada pajak kelahiran. "Selamat datang ke dunia, dan inilah pajak anda. Anda saat ini berhutang $25.000 ditambah bunga dan kami akan tambahkan ke pinjaman pokok". Ini merupakan warisan yang menyedihkan bagi anak-anak amerika.

Pada pemilihan presiden tahun 2000, presiden Bush menjanjikan pada pemilihnya pemerintahan yang bertanggung-jawab secara finansial. Ia mengklaim program pemotongan pajak yang bermanfaat, insentif-insentif pajak bagi pebisnis dan individu, insentif pada investasi yang membuat lapangan kerja, serta pendekatan komprehensif dan efisien untuk mengurangi pengangguran. Alih-alih, pemerintahan ini telah mengantarkan rekor catatan merah dan hutang negara yang harus dilunasi oleh anak keturunan penduduk amerika saat ini.

Lebih menyedihkan lagi, setelah kongres menaikkan batas hutang negara sebesar 800 milyar dollar, para pakar soal budget negara memproyeksan bahwa plafonnya saat mungkin perlu dinaikkan lagi dalam masa satu tahun yang memaksa pemerintah untuk terus berhutang ke program-program federal yang telah mengalami penetatan ikat pinggan, seperti misalnya program jaring pengaman sosial (sosial security).

Kurangnya tanggung-jawab fiskal ini akan dirasakan oleh segenap penduduk amerika. Selain itu, ada hal lain lagi. Kongres segera akan diminta untuk mempertimbangkan sekitar 70 milyar dollar tambahan dana untuk perang Irak tapi belum menemukan sumber dana yang akan menutupi "kebocoran" tersebut.

Menurut perkiraan saya, dalam waktu yang tidak lama, bangsa Amerika tidak jatuh karena perang, tapi ke keterpurukan dan kebangkutan yang dilakukan sejumlah orangnya sendiri. Selamat datang ke dunia baru tanpa amerika di peta perekonomian. Seperti kita lihat, negara-negara Eropa bersatu dalam hal ekonomi, negeri-negeri asia timur melesat dalam hal ekonomi, tetapi di amerika sendiri terlihat betapa bobroknya fundamental ekonominya karena perekonomian mereka berlandaskan hutang dan bunga. Saya dengar negeri Iran malah bersih daripada hutang.

*)Sumber: Senator Barbara Boxer dalam emailnya terhadap saya

Dead-Check in Falluja

by Evan Wright

Embedded with the Marines in Iraq



On April 9, 2003, the day the statue of Saddam Hussein was being toppled in Baghdad, symbolizing the promised liberation of Iraq, I was embedded with a Marine unit engaged in fierce combat about 30 miles north of the city, on the outskirts of Baquba. Late that afternoon, the Humvee I was in was following about 50 feet behind a Marine Light Armored Vehicle when it pulled alongside a Toyota pickup pushed to the side of the road, its doors riddled with bullet holes. The head of at least one occupant was visible in the truck, but I couldn't determine if he was moving or not. Nor did I see any weapons. As our Humvee stopped behind the truck, a Marine in the vehicle ahead of us leapt out, pointed his rifle into the window of the pickup and sprayed it with gunfire. It was a cold-blooded execution.

As we continued forward, passing the truck, I glimpsed at least two corpses sprawled on the seats, the interior spattered with blood. During the brief moment I looked, I was unable to determine whether the dead men possessed weapons. None of the four Marines in our Humvee said anything. We had been awake for more than 30 hours, much of that time under steady mortar, rifle, machine-gun, and rocket-propelled grenade fire from enemy combatants who dressed in civilian clothes and moved around on the battlefield in Toyota pickups. (To make matters even more confusing, during the height of combat farmers were racing into the surrounding fields—where enemy soldiers were shooting at us from dug-in, concealed positions—in order to rescue sheep from the gunfire.)

In the previous few minutes we had already passed more than a dozen corpses strewn by the side of the road. Some had the tops of their heads missing, expertly hit by Marine riflemen. Others were burned—still smoking, actually—having crawled out of other vehicles set ablaze by rockets fired from Marine helicopters. The execution of one or two more men wasn't worth commenting on.

I greeted the sight of dead Iraqis in the pickup with a sense of numb relief. At least they would not be trying to kill us that day. In the preceding two-and-a-half weeks, the unit I was embedded with had come under frequent enemy attack, with three Marines wounded. There were 23 bullet holes in the Humvee I rode in—miraculously, none of the five of us inside had been hit. I had developed a strange relationship with the sight of dead Iraqis. I felt safer when I saw them.

I felt especially comforted when I saw dead men by the road still clutching weapons in their hands, a common sight. Unfortunately, of the hundreds of dead people I saw on the roads leading from the Kuwait border to Baghdad, perhaps 20 percent or more were obviously civilians. I will never forget the three or four women I saw fatally shot and partially burned, still seated in a bus on the road north of Nasiriyah. Or the little girl, about four, lying by the side of the road in a pretty dress, her legs neatly and inexplicably chopped off at the knees. Mercifully, I remember thinking at the time, she was dead like all the others.

Since my return from Iraq, I have continued to watch the horror unfold on television. It's different seeing the violence decontextualized from the battlefield, now playing out in discrete video clips that run between ads for Chevys and the Olive Garden. Videos of militants staging beheadings against dungeon-like backdrops, with the perpetrators wearing masks and the victims in colorful jumpsuits, seem almost like grotesque TV shows.

One of the great ironies of the Bush administration, obsessed as it is with Christian values and the attendant crusade to punish what it deems obscene and lewd in the media (from Janet Jackson's breast to Howard Stern's speech), is that it has given us a war in which the airing of snuff films on national TV has become routine. The conflict in Iraq, as seen through news coverage, has begun to resemble the macabre underground 1980s video series Faces of Death. Throw in the images produced by the U.S. Army at Abu Ghraib, and the administration has put itself in the running to successfully compete with the BDSM side of the porn industry.

Just as I thought I was adjusting to the video carnage, NBC correspondent Kevin Sites, embedded with U.S. forces in Falluja, gave us last week's shocker: the video of a Marine standing over a wounded, apparently unarmed Arab sprawled on the floor of a mosque and executing him with a gunshot to the head.

It brought back memories of the April 9 episode and others I witnessed in Iraq. Yet, watching this on TV, I felt the same outrage many others have expressed. American soldiers, we like to believe, don't shoot unarmed people. Not only is this morally repugnant, but execution of wounded, unarmed combatants violates Article Three of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which states in part that "persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely."

Even to those unfamiliar with the Geneva Conventions, it seems obvious from the mosque video that a war crime was committed. The response from the administration and military officials has been unusually swift. Ambassador to Iraq John Negroponte conveyed his regrets to Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and vowed that "the individual in question will be dealt with." The Marine in the video, whose name has been withheld, was pulled from duty, and his commanders issued a statement promising to investigate what they called "an allegation of the unlawful use of force in the death of an enemy combatant." Lieutenant General John F. Sattler, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq, added in an interview, "We follow the law of armed conflict and hold ourselves to a high standard of accountability."

One thing military officials are not saying is that the behavior of the Marine in the video closely conforms to training that is fairly standard in some units. Marines call executing wounded combatants "dead-checking."

"They teach us to do dead-checking when we're clearing rooms," an enlisted Marine recently returned from Iraq told me. "You put two bullets into the guy's chest and one in the brain. But when you enter a room where guys are wounded you might not know if they're alive or dead. So they teach us to dead-check them by pressing them in the eye with your boot, because generally a person, even if he's faking being dead, will flinch if you poke him there. If he moves, you put a bullet in the brain. You do this to keep the momentum going when you're flowing through a building. You don't want a guy popping up behind you and shooting you."

What I'd seen on that road outside of Baquba on April 9 was a dead-check. The Marine who fired into that Toyota with wounded men inside didn't want anybody shooting at us as we went past. It may have been a war crime, and had I possessed a video camera at the time and filmed it, the Marine who fired into the truck might have faced punishment. As it was, no one questioned the Marine's actions.

In fact, commanders in the Marine Corps during the period I was embedded with them in the spring of 2003 repeatedly emphasized that the men's actions would not be questioned. As one of the officers in the unit I followed used to tell his men, "You will be held accountable for the facts not as they are in hindsight but as they appeared to you at the time. If, in your mind, you fire to protect yourself or your men, you are doing the right thing. It doesn't matter if later on we find out you wiped out a family of unarmed civilians."

Commanders didn't want their men to suffer casualties because they were overly constrained by rules of engagement. At the same time, Marines were constantly drilled in refraining from shooting their weapons, even at certain times when they came under fire. On one afternoon I recall in particular, the unit I was with was ordered to hold a position on the outskirts of a hostile town. For six hours, insurgents fired at the Marines from rooftops and from behind piles of rubble they'd set up in streets as barricades. But the Marines I was with, unable to pinpoint the exact locations of the enemy shooters, refused to fire back for fear of hitting civilians. The 22-year-old radio operator of the team I was with had it within his power to call in an artillery strike on the corner of the town where most of the enemy forces seemed concentrated. At one point, while I was crouched in the dirt, taking cover behind the tire of the Humvee as enemy sniper rounds popped into the dust nearby, I asked him why he didn't call in a strike. He simply laughed at my display of fear.

There were other times when the enlisted men in the unit fell into violent quarrels with others whom they felt were too aggressive and risked civilian lives. In one instance, enlisted men nearly came to blows with an officer whom they accused of firing a weapon into a house that they believed contained civilians. Despite their concern, terrible mistakes were made. I was standing next to a 22-year-old Marine from the Humvee I rode in when he fired his machine gun prematurely at a civilian car approaching a roadblock, striking the driver, an unarmed man, in the eye. The unit was subsequently ordered to drive past the car without rendering aid. I sat next to the gunner as we crept past, listening to the dying man gasp for breath. The gunner didn't talk for the next three days. A few days earlier, the youngest Marine on the team had shot a 12-year-old boy four times in the chest with his machine gun, mistakenly thinking a stick the boy had been carrying was a weapon. When the mother and grandmother of the boy later dragged him to the Marines' lines seeking medical aid, the sergeant who led the team dropped down in front of the mother and cried.

The Marines constantly debated the morality of what they were engaged in. A sergeant in the platoon told me he had consulted with his priest about killing. The priest had told him it was all right to kill for his government so long as he didn't enjoy it. By the time the unit reached the outskirts of Baghdad, this sergeant was certain he had already killed at least four men. When his battalion commander praised the unit for "slaying dragons" on the way to Baghdad, the sergeant later told his men, "If we did half the shit back home we've done here, we'd be in prison." By then, the sergeant told me, he'd reconsidered what his priest had told him about killing. "Where the fuck did Jesus say it's OK to kill people for your government? Any priest who tells me that has got no credibility."

He and several other Marines recently returned from Iraq (many from their second tours) whom I've talked to about the Falluja shooting say they are not sure they would have dead-checked the wounded man in the mosque had they been in the same position. Most say they probably would have, even though the mosque had already been cleared once. "What does the American public think happens when they tell us to assault a city?" one of them said. "Marines don't shoot rainbows out of our asses. We fucking kill people."

Another Marine in the unit I followed—a Democrat's dream, he returned home from fighting in Falluja in time to vote for Kerry—added, "Americans celebrate war in their movies. We like to see visions of evil being defeated by good. When the people at home glimpse the reality of war, that it's a bloodbath, they freak out. We are a subculture they created and programmed to fight their wars. You have to become a psycho to kill like we do. To most Marines that guy in the mosque was just someone who didn't get hit in the right place the first time we shot him. I probably would have put a bullet in his brain if I'd been there. If the American public doesn't like the violence of war, maybe before they start the next war they shouldn't rush so much."

Evan Wright is the author of Generation Kill, about a Marine reconnaissance unit in Iraq.


http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0447/wright.php

Bangsa Penyembah Anjing

Menurut statistik, penduduk Amerika adalah salah satu penduduk yang paling banyak memelihara anjing. Dari data di website http://www.apapets.com/petstats2.htm pada sensus binatan bulan Maret 2003, terdapat 44,874,121 pemilik anjing yang memiliki total 62,965,745 anjing dan 76,688,522 kucing dengan total 139,654,267 kucing dan anjing.

Dari 102.8 juta penduduk Amerika, 33.2 juta paling tidak memelihara kucing. Yang cukup mengejutkan adalah, lebih dari separuh pemilik anjing lebih dekat hubungan dengan binatang peliharaan mereka dibanding manusia. Angka-angka jumlah pemilik binatang peliharaan berikut menyajikan betapa bangsa Amerika lebih sayang binatang dibanding manusia:

A) Sebagai teman dekat: 16,213,555

B) Menganggap anak: 8,321,566

C) Menganggap sebagai pasangannya: 5,421,959

39% dari pemelihara binatang peliharaan di Amerika menampilkan foto binatang peliharaan mereka di rumah.

16% pemilik binatang peliharaan menyimpan satu foto binatang peliharaan mereka di dompet/tas mereka.

Kalau kita melihat sehari-hari di sekitar, banyak sekali orang-orang amerika yang menuntun anjing mereka. Sering kali terkesan, yang mana tuan dan yang mana peliharaan menjadi tidak jelas. Bayangkan, sering tuannya diseret oleh anjing peliharaan mereka. Tuan-tuan mereka menunggu ketika binatang-binatang tersebut membuang hajatnya, dan karena aturan di banyak kota di sana mengharuskan tuannya membersihkan kotoran-kotoran tersebut dari jalanana, sering tuan-tuan mereka membersihkan/mengambil kotoran tersebut ke kantong-kantong plastik yang mereka bawa. Hal seperti itu jauh lebih jarang terjadi kalau mereka mengajak anak mereka.

Dari pagi hingga petang mereka mengajak anjing-anjing mereka bermain, berjalan-jalan. Tidak demikian terhadap anak-anak mereka. Banyak penduduk di sini lebih memilih anjing sebagai "pasangan hidup" mereka dibanding menikah atau berkeluarga.

Tidak heran, sifat penduduk Amerika mirip dengan anjing. Galak, tidak peduli terhadap bangsa lain dan arogan.

Akankah Kerry akan Menang?

Hari ini sedang berlangsung pemilihan presiden. Dua calon utama yang berlaga adalah John Kerry menantang presiden berjalan, George W. Bush Jr.

Akankah Kerry akan menang? Entahlah. Kita tunggu saja perhitungan suara yang akan berlangsung segera. Moga-moga saja dengan terpilihnya presiden baru akan membuat dunia lebih damai dan aman (mesti masih ada batu ganjalan besar, yakni negeri zionis dan teroris: Israel)

Mengalahkan Israel lewat Amerika

Selama ini publik dunia (kecuali penduduk Amerika sendiri) telah mengetahui bahwa bangsa Israel telah mengontrol total kebijakan-kebijakan luar negeri Amerika, terutama yang berkaitan dengan konflik timur-tengah. Hal ini tidak lepas dengan sangat kuatnya lobby politik para pemain ekonomi di Wall-Street, industriawan dan politikus yahudi di Amerika.

Sempatkah kita terpikir bahwa hampir tidak mungkin mengalahkan Israel tanpa memutuskan tali "persaudaraan" Israel-Amerika ini. Tali yang telah dirajut sejak perang dunia II (atau bahkan sebelum PD-II) tersebut membuat negeri Amerika seperti "kerbau jinak" bagi Israel. Besar dan kuat dan dapat diperas tenaganya untuk kepentingan negeri zionis tersebut.

Salah satu ide untuk paling tidak mulai melemahkan ikatan ini adalah memilih wakil-wakil di senat dan kongres yang tidak pro-zionis atau paling tidak netral. Selain itu, perlu juga setiap muslim amerika menempatkan dirinya di posisi-posisi strategis, seperti di kancah dunia politik, industri strategis dan kalau bisa ada satu-dua yang menjadi billionaire tetapi masih tetap beriman.

Cara ini adalah cara yang sama ditempuh oleh para imigran yahudi di saat awal-awal mereka tinggal di negeri paman Sam. Jika lihat protokol Zionis dan sejarah, banyak sekali para pemimpin bangsa pembuat terror dunia menganjurkan warga amerika keturunan yahudi untuk menguasai bisnis, media dan menguasai ekonomi.

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

Somebody forwarded me this article.
Interesting!

A word to the reader from the author: The following paper is so shocking that, after preparing the initial draft, I didn’t want to believe it myself, and resolved to disprove it with more research. However, I only succeeded in turning up more evidence in support of my thesis. And I repeated this cycle of discovery and denial several more times before finally deciding to go with the article. I believe that a serious writer must follow the trail of evidence, no matter where it leads, and report back. So here is my story. Don’t be surprised if it causes you to squirm. Its purpose is not to make predictions –– history makes fools of those who claim to know the future –– but simply to describe the peril that awaits us in the Persian Gulf. By awakening to the extent of that danger, perhaps we can still find a way to save our nation and the world from disaster. If we are very lucky, we might even create an alternative future that holds some promise of resolving the monumental conflicts of our time. Mark Gaffney

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

by Mark Gaffney

10/26/04 "ICH" -- Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to “show the flag” or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power?

The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: “Saber Rattling Unnerves China”, and: “Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese.” But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat –– in the particular case of China, because of Peking’s newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

“Nonsense!” you are probably thinking. That’s impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?”

Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve “an asymmetric advantage” over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons –– probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein’s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy’s largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also “saw” the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.

Implications For US Forces in the Gulf

The US Navy’s only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy’s approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes “see” everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War –– termed “the great Scud hunt” –– and for similar reasons. Saddam Hussein’s mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy –– over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys –– that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scud’s inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

But that was then, and it would be a grave error to allow the Scud’s ineffectiveness to blur the facts concerning this other missile. The Sunburn’s amazing accuracy was demonstrated not long ago in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese –– and observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bull’s eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large “X” mounted on the ship’s bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a cliché, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.

The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf for many months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a new fleet of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently took delivery of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US –– weapons that many observers think are intended for use against Iran.

The arming for war has been matched by threats. Israeli officials have declared repeatedly that they will not allow the Mullahs to develop nuclear power, not even reactors to generate electricity for peaceful use. Their threats are particularly worrisome, because Israel has a long history of pre-emptive war. (See my 1989 book Dimona: the Third Temple? and also my 2003 article Will Iran Be Next? posted at < http://www.InformationClearingHouse...article3288.htm >)

Never mind that such a determination is not Israel’s to make, and belongs instead to the international community, as codified in the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). With regard to Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) recent report (September 2004) is well worth a look, as it repudiates facile claims by the US and Israel that Iran is building bombs. While the report is highly critical of Tehran for its ambiguities and its grudging release of documents, it affirms that IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access, without exception. Last year Iran signed the strengthened IAEA inspection protocol, which until then had been voluntary. And the IAEA has found no hard evidence, to date, either that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: www.GlobalSecurity.org)

In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program", he said, and then repeated himself for emphasis: “Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives.”

( http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/ne...service_id=5051 )

No one disputes that Tehran is pursuing a dangerous path, but with 200 or more Israeli nukes targeted upon them the Iranians’ insistence on keeping their options open is understandable. Clearly, the nuclear nonproliferation regime today hangs by the slenderest of threads. The world has arrived at a fateful crossroads.

A Fearful Symmetry?

If a showdown over Iran develops in the coming months, the man who could hold the outcome in his hands will be thrust upon the world stage. That man, like him or hate him, is Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has been castigated severely in recent months for gathering too much political power to himself. But according to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who was interviewed on US television recently by David Brokaw, Putin has not imposed a tyranny upon Russia –– yet. Gorbachev thinks the jury is still out on Putin.

Perhaps, with this in mind, we should be asking whether Vladimir Putin is a serious student of history. If he is, then he surely recognizes that the deepening crisis in the Persian Gulf presents not only manifold dangers, but also opportunities. Be assured that the Russian leader has not forgotten the humiliating defeat Ronald Reagan inflicted upon the old Soviet state. (Have we Americans forgotten?) By the mid-1980s the Soviets were in Kabul, and had all but defeated the Mujahedeen. The Soviet Union appeared secure in its military occupation of Afghanistan. But then, in 1986, the first US Stinger missiles reached the hands of the Afghani resistance; and, quite suddenly, Soviet helicopter gunships and MiGs began dropping out of the skies like flaming stones. The tide swiftly turned, and by 1989 it was all over but the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth in the Kremlin. Defeated, the Soviets slunk back across the frontier. The whole world cheered the American Stingers, which had carried the day.

This very night, as he sips his cognac, what is Vladimir Putin thinking? Is he perhaps thinking about the perverse symmetries of history? If so, he may also be wondering (and discussing with his closest aides) how a truly great nation like the United States could be so blind and so stupid as to allow another state, i.e., Israel, to control its foreign policy, especially in a region as vital (and volatile) as the Mid-East. One can almost hear the Russians’ animated conversation:

“The Americans! What is the matter with them?”
“They simply cannot help themselves.”
“What idiots!”
“A nation as foolish as this deserves to be taught a lesson…”
“Yes! For their own good.”
“It must be a painful lesson, one they will never forget…”
“Are we agreed, then, comrades?”
“Let us teach our American friends a lesson about the limits of military power!”

Does anyone really believe that Vladimir Putin will hesitate to seize a most rare opportunity to change the course of history and, in the bargain, take his sweet revenge? Surely Putin understands the terrible dimensions of the trap into which the US has blundered, thanks to the Israelis and their neo-con supporters in Washington who lobbied so vociferously for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, against all friendly and expert advice, and who even now beat the drums of war against Iran. Would Putin be wrong to conclude that the US will never leave the region unless it is first defeated militarily? Should we blame him for deciding that Iran is “one bridge too far”? If the US and Israel overreach, and the Iranians close the net with Russian anti-ship missiles, it will be a fearful symmetry, indeed…

Springing the Trap

At the battle of Cannae in 216 BC the great Carthaginian general, Hannibal, tempted a much larger Roman army into a fateful advance, and then enveloped and annihilated it with a smaller force. Out of a Roman army of 70,000 men, no more than a few thousand escaped. It was said that after many hours of dispatching the Romans Hannibal’s soldiers grew so tired that the fight went out of them. In their weariness they granted the last broken and bedraggled Romans their lives…

Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however, because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf’s northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I’ve mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we’ve never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf. Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline? In 2001 Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was “optimized for attacks against carrier task forces.” Apparently its guidance system is “able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts.” The numbers were not disclosed…

The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran’s nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel’s brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm’s way become cannon fodder. In the Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American blood…

From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lake’s only outlet, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become precarious. The occupiers will become the besieged…

With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. But, as always, because of the US veto the world body will be powerless to act.

America will stand alone, completely isolated. Yet, despite the increasingly hostile international mood, elements of the US media will spin the crisis very differently here at home, in a way that is sympathetic to Israel. Members of Congress will rise to speak in the House and Senate, and rally to Israel’s defense, while blaming the victim of the attack, Iran. Fundamentalist Christian talk show hosts will proclaim the historic fulfillment of biblical prophecy in our time, and will call upon the Jews of Israel to accept Jesus into their hearts; meanwhile, urging the president to nuke the evil empire of Islam. From across America will be heard histrionic cries for fresh reinforcements, even a military draft. Patriots will demand victory at any cost. Pundits will scream for an escalation of the conflict.

A war that ostensibly began as an attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons will teeter on the brink of their use…

Conclusion

Friends, we must work together to prevent such a catastrophe. We must stop the next Middle East war before it starts. The US government must turn over to the United Nations the primary responsibility for resolving the deepening crisis in Iraq, and, immediately thereafter, withdraw US forces from the country. We must also prevail upon the Israelis to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and open all of their nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors. Only then can serious talks begin with Iran and other states to establish a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the Mid East –– so essential to the region’s long-term peace and security.

* * *
Mark Gaffney’s first book, Dimona the Third Temple? (1989), was a pioneering study of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Mark’s articles about the Mid-East and proliferation issues have appeared in the Middle East Policy Journal, Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, the Earth Island Journal, The Oregonian, the Daily Californian, and have been posted on numerous web sites, especially Counterpunch.org. Mark’s 2003 paper Will Iran Be Next? can be viewed at < www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran.htm> Mark’s newest book, Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, was released by Inner Traditions Press in May 2003. Email <Mhgaffney@aol.com> For more information go to www.GnosticSecrets.com
__________________

Nomor Induk Penduduk

Selama ini, tidak ada standar nasional penomoran penduduk di Indonesia. KTP, paspor, ijazah, Kartu Keluarga dan sebagainya menggunakan nomor berbeda-beda. Belum lagi di database polisi, rumah sakit dan sebagainya.

Mengapa Indonesia belum mau belajar dari Amerika Serikat dan sejumlah negara maju lainnya? Di AS, setiap warganegara atau penduduk tetap diharuskan memiliki Social Security Number (SSN). Awalnya code ini digunakan oleh pemerintah federal untuk mengidentifikasi warga yang membayar pajak federal dan Social Security Benefit (semacam tabungan jaminan hari tua). Namun, kode identifikasi itu meluas dan digunakan dimana-mana. Setiap bayi yang baru lahir disarankan mendapatkan SSN agar orang tuanya mendapatkan keringanan pajak saat membayar. SSN juga digunakan saat seseorang mendaftar ke DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles - semacam kantor Polantas) untuk mendapatkan DL (Driver's License - Surat Izin Mengemudi).

SSN juga digunakan sebagai kode identifikasi saat memohon kartu kredit, cicilan rumah (mortgage), mendaftar sekolah, ke dokter, membuat paspor, dan segala macam kartu identitas lainnya. SSN ini dikeluarkan oleh SSA (Social Security Administration - badan federal yang mengurusi penduduk, semacam kantor kelurahan tingkat nasional). Nomornya terdiri dari 9 angka, XXX-BB-ZZZZ, dimana 3 angka pertama menyandikan negara bagian seseorangpertama kali memohon dan sisanya kode unik untuk setiap penduduk.

Penggunaan SSN ini juga mengurangi dampak 'fraud' alias pemakaian identitas palsu. Karena dengan memiliki satu kode SSN dapat digunakan untuk melacak transaksi ilegal, mendapatkan kredit secara mudah (karena bank melaporkan sejarah kredit ke sejumlah badan penyimpan data historis kredit seseorang), dsb.

Sejauh ini, sangat mudah bagi seseorang di Indonesia untuk mengganti-ganti paspor, KTP dan sejumlah kartu identitas lain. Juga tidak ada standardisasi untuk melihat 'credit history' seseorang apakah ia layak mendapatkan pinjaman dari bank, apakah dia pembayar pajak yang patuh dan sebagainya.

Di dunia online, Indonesia termasuk negara yang digolongkan di daftar hitam karena banyaknya kejahatan kartu kredit berasal dari negeri ini. Dengan adanya kode induk seperti SSN di Amerika Serikat, diharapkan akan lebih mudah melacak si pemilik kartu kredit dan melaporkannya. Juga untuk melacak pembayar pajak yang 'ngemplang'.

Rencana Susunan Kabinet SBY?

Menurut Harian Republika (http://www.republika.co.id/ASP/koran_detail.asp?id=175372&kat_id=3), gambaran Kabinet Baru diisukan sebagai berikut:

- Secara umum susunannya hampir sama dengan Kabinet Gotong-Royong.
- Jumlah menteri diperkirakan 34 orang atau bertambah dua orang dari Kabinet Gotong-Royong. Tambahannya berasal dari pemisahan menteri perindustrian dan perdagangan, serta adanya menteri kepemudaan.
- Jumlah menteri koordinator (menko) diperkirakan tetap tiga orang. Akan ada menko yang mencakup bidang hukum. Kemungkinan tema hukum ini digabung dengan menko politik, sosial, dan keamanan (polsoskam), menjadi menko hukum dan polsoskam.
- Pariwisata bisa dilebur ke departemen pendidikan, atau tetap seperti sekarang, atau masuk dalam kementerian kepemudaan.
- Setelah 13 Oktober 2004, nama-nama yang akan ditempatkan dalam kabinet mulai dibahas. Saat ini pembahasan masih berkutat pada persoalan struktur.

Opini
Menurut saya, Kepariwisataan mestinya dilebur dengan Seni-Budaya. Departemennya: Parisiwata, Seni dan Budaya. Khan itu saling terkait? Untuk meningkatkan pariwisata, kita harus pintar-pintar memasarkan seni-budaya tanah air ke luar negeri.

Tentang pemisahan Industri dan perdagangan, saya tidak setuju. Keduanya saling terkait. Lagi pula, pemisahan yang tidak perlu ini akan meningkatkan 'overhead' anggaran untuk operasional masing-masing departemen.

Saya setuju Menko PolSolkam dijadikan Menko HuPolSoskam (Hukum, Politik, Sosial dan Keamanan). Keamanan berkaitan dengan penegakan Hukum. Penegakan hukum dapat berjalan baik jika kehidupan sosial masyarakat dijalankan secara adil. Ini tidak lepas dengan citra Politik pemerintah dan aparatnya dalam penegakan hukum dst. Bisa dilihat keterkaitannya?

Menteri Pendidikan harus tetap ada. Menteri Negara Ristek bisa dilebur dengan Pendidikan. Jadi peningkatan ristek akan berkesinambung dengan penguatan bidang pendidikan.

Menurut saya, jabatan menteri perananan wanita sebaiknya dilebur dengan menteri sosial: Kementerian Sosial dan Kewanitaan. Atau, bubarkan saja jabatan tersebut. Kenapa ada urusan kewanitaan, sementara tidak ada urusan kepriaan, atau anak-anak? Toh, menteri wanita khan bisa menjabat di posisi lain, jadi tidak ada diskriminasi. Apa sih hasil kerja menteri ini selama ini?

Menteri Pertahanan dan Keamanan (Menhankam) harus ada. Jabatan "Join Chief of Staff" (Panglima TNI) dipisahkan oleh seorang jenderal yang melapor langsung ke presiden. Menko Hupolsoskam mengkoordinasikan menteri2 dan tugas panglima ini.

Menteri Pos, Informasi dan Telekomunikasi wajib ada. Dibawahnya akan ada 2 jabatan: dirjen Pos dan Dirjen Informasi & Telekomunikasi. Dengan dijadikannya satu menteri ini, akan semakin baik koordinasi antara departemen2 ini.

Jabatan-jabatan strategis lain yang seharusnya tidak diubah: menteri keuangan, menteri luar negeri, menteri dalam negeri, jaksa agung, menteri kehakiman dan HAM, sekretaris negara.

Usulan lain adalah adanya menteri Tenaga Kerja & Imigrasi yang mengurusi soal demografi, imigrasi, emigrasi, dan transmigrasi serta tenaga kerja. Hal2 tersebut saling berkaitan, khususnya dengan banyaknya kasus perlakuan semena-mena terhadap TKI di luar-negeri, juga peningkatan tenaga kerja berdasarkan distribusi penduduk. Siapa tahu ini mungkin akan menolong "outsourcing"?

Menteri Negara Kepemudaan & Olah-raga sebaiknya ada.

Akankah Kerry Menang Terhadap Bush?

Setelah beberapa debat berlangsung, sejumlah poll menunjukkan kemenangan John Kerry terhadap presiden Bush di Amerika Serikat. Kita tunggu saja siapa yang akan menjadi presiden Amerika berikutnya, dan melakukan perbaikan terhadap kebijakan-kebijakan luar-negerinya yang tidak bersahabat, melemahnya ekonomi domestik dan sejumlah masalah-masalah lokal lainnya.

Wajib Militer di Amerika?

Di beberapa mailing list muslim sedang cukup ramai didiskusikan draft untuk melaksanakan wajib militer untuk pemuda-pemudi berusia 18-26 tahun (draft H 163, dapat dilihat di thomas.loc.gov).

Terlepas dari apakah lolos-tidaknya draft tersebut di Kongres (yang bila lolos, akan berlaku tahun 2005), apakah ada 'hole' yang dapat memberikan 'exempt' dengan alasan agama? Beberapa posting di milis yang saya ikuti mengatakan bahwa kecil kemungkinan draft tsb. disetujui kongres, selain karena draft tsb. disarankan oleh beberapa anggota sangat liberal dari partai demokrat, juga momennya sudah tidak tepat.

Tetapi siapa tahu kejadian2 di masa datang akan mengubah pikiran kongres (dan rakyat amerika) sehingga draft tersebut berlaku. Allah yahfadzuna!

Indonesia oh Indonesia!

Senin tanggal 20 September 2004 ini Indonesia akan mengadakan pemilihan umum calon presiden dan wakil presiden. Sangat memprihatinkan kondisi politik di Indonesia yang penuh dengan kampanye liar, politik uang. Selain itu, kedua capres dan cawapres yang maju sangat tidak memuaskan. Satu adalah presiden yg. berjalan dengan suami yg. sangat bermain kotor dengan politik uangnya, sementara yang lain tidak jelas programnya.

Salah siapa?
Ini sepertinya hukuman dari Allah SWT. terhadap segenap bangsa Indonesia.

Negara Amerika: Sombong di luar, bobrok di dalam!

Negara Amerika: Sombong di luar, bobrok di dalam!

Katanya negara Amerika Serikat itu hebat segalanya. Huh, itu sih kata orang dalam ke bangsa lain yang tidak tahu. Coba tengok saja sistem pendidikan dasarnya. Pengajaran Iptek tertinggal dibanding negara lain, ilmu geografi anak-anak sekolahnya rendah, dana buat pendidikan makin berkurang, makin banyak 'homeless' (padahal banyak dari mereka veteran perang Vietnam atau Irak I). Belum lagi harga rumah yang "does not make sense" di beberapa tempat.

Sementara itu, milyaran dollar tumpah ke tempat-tempat yang sia-sia seperti mendanai perang yang ngaco, membantu negeri penjahat (Israel) dan sebagainya.

Yang masih kukagumi adalah sistem transportasinya. Jalan-jalan masih mulus dan menjangkau pelosok pedalaman yang mungkin jauhnya ratusan bahkan ribuan Km.

Kok banyak orang di Indonesia "menyembah" negeri sombong ini yah? Coba lihat saja acara teve spt. AFI, Indonesian Idol, perasaan gengsi dengan produk2 asing dsb.

Dunia makin Kacau. Tanda-tanda Kiamat?

Dunia Makin Kacau. Tanda-tanda Kiamat?

Perang dimana-mana. Ribuan orang mati, terutama anak-anak dan wanita. Yang menyedihkan, mayoritas adalah umat islam. Tanda-tanda kecil kiamat sudah makin tampak bermunculan. Mudah-mudahan saya dan anak saya tidak mengalami hal yang sangat menakutkan ini.