Frack U Mexico from NarcoNewsTV

This is how to popularize and inform the public about an issue! Getting the side of the government is ingenious! There is so much to learn from this video. Thank you, Greg!

Frack U. Mexico

Directed by Greg "Gringoyo" Berger

Screenplay by Al Giordano

Good news! Mexico has the fourth largest shale gas reserves in the world, and the Mexican Congress is about to change the constitution so that private companies can drill for it. That means that U.S. companies will soon be there, fracking for gas. Sure, there may be some complications from the more than 500 chemicals that will be pumped into Mexico's aquifers, but never fear: Joe T. Hodo, President of "Frack U. Mexico!" is here to show you why Mexicans should stop worrying and learn to love fracking...or else.

The Years that were ASEAN, and Indonesian: Collection of Essays

The period between 2008 and 2010 was significant to Southeast Asia. During this period, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Charter came into force. The idea of one economic, political, and socio-cultural community for the 10 Member-States was ever more inching closer to reality. While this was unfolding, I was able to witness this community-building process by being at the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta, Indonesia in 2008 and at the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity in 2009-2010.

This collection of essays (The years that were ASEAN, and Indonesian: Facing the odds towards regional integration and community building) revisits the significant events, burning issues, and memorable times in ASEAN and so in Indonesia in 2008-2010. They attempt to shed light on these events, issues and rekindle the times when nationalistic and regionalistic fervor was at the peak.

There are five topics that organize the essays. The first one is on regional studies. It starts with the banner year, 2008, for ASEAN when the new Secretary-General, Dr. Surin Pitsuwan, took his office and the role of the regional organization in the humanitarian operations and reconstruction projects in Myanmar in the post-Cyclone Nargis. One essay questions the inclusiveness of the regional integration process of the envisioned one ASEAN community when it comes to peoples participation in the process. The last essay on this topic is the security threat posed by North Korea and how ASEAN can address the threat.

The second topic deals with the environmental issues. Two essays focus on both the regional trends that cause problems and the regional capabilities and structures that can buck the trends.

The third topic is on the political developments in Indonesia. The Commission for Truth and Friendship (CTF) report is examined and its contextual usefulness. Then, the second presidential victory by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) is put into a global political perspective by looking at the wave of victories of oppositions in various national politics.

In the fourth topic, national security issues are discussed. In 2008, the streets of Jakarta saw the violence of student protests. At the other side of the violence are the works of the government. The last essay in the national security issues describes the deadly stampede which is a symptom of social injustice and structural violence in the country.

The last topic is on the nationalistic fervor and travel insights. Celebrating Independence Day and winning an Olympic gold generate emotional attachment to the flag and nation. Being in Jakarta, masjids and gerejas are landmarks which offer not only religious symbol, but spiritual refuge as well. Writing Jakarta without any mention of traffic jams and motorcycles is prejudicial to what it really is.

Most of these essays were published in The Jakarta Post in 2008-2010. Get the book here.

Obsession for grand things in one season: Egypt's Arab Spring

Source: http://www.abc.net.au

There is a growing obsession to achieve grand things in one season. The Arab Spring that swept Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya has shown that regime change is possible through popular revolt. In the three regime changes, the long-running authoritarian regimes were toppled. Then we thought that democracy would take root and blossom.

A year after in Egypt, that Spring has returned. As any season, the spring is entitled to have a spot in a year. Millions of Egyptians took hold of the season and brazenly showed its colors on the streets. They reflected on the sky as military helicopters carried red, white, and black.

And so we thought.

After ousting Mubarak from power, democratic election was held to determine who would replace him. It took two rounds of voting which were both very tight races. In the first round, Morsi of Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party topped with 24.78 percent of the total votes. The next candidate, Shafik, who was independent but closely associated with the ousted regime, got 23.66 percent. The top two candidates combined could not even muster majority of the votes cast in the first round. In fact the third placer in the first round, Sabahi, had 20.72 percent of the total votes. Thus, the run-off between Morsi and Shafik was on. It was a proxy fight between anti-Mubarak protesters and Mubarak loyalists. Morsi won the run-off with only 51.73 percent of the votes. It was clear that the country was divided, and the Morsi from the first round was not a popular choice among Egyptians.

After a year in power, Morsi was confronted with mass protests all over the country, calling for his ouster. The protesters were still enamored by the ideals of Arab Spring - one of which is regime change. However, the difference this time was that Morsi was in power because he was democratically elected with a fixed term. Nonetheless, the call for his ouster grew and grew louder until the military stepped in. That sealed Morsi's fate, but not his grip on and appeal to legitimacy of his power.

With all what the military did, it is very difficult to see the regime change and take-over of power as not a coup. First, it was the military who gave the 48-hour ultimatum to Morsi. In the effort to appease the protesters and military, Morsi offered a dialogue towards reconciliation. The offer was rejected by the protesters. Second, it was the military who drew the roadmap of the post-Morsi regime. The military through its Chief of Staff General El-Sisi acted on its ultimatum by ousting Morsi from power and detailing its roadmap to suspend the constitution, dissolve parliament, and form an interim council until a fresh election is held. Third, probably on the side, the military arrested the top leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, including the elected president. Whatever people may call it, coup is looming on its shadow.

Now, the Muslim Brotherhood is threatening mass protests and veiled violence against those who violated the rights of their leaders and to restore and respect democratic institutions. In a democracy, regime change is through election.

Exceptions are welcome for a regime change. In turbulent times and conditions, the tempest of those in power must be tamed. Again, Egypt is under the tempest of Arab Spring. But the power is clearly at the hands of the military. Until now, the military's roadmap coincides with the protesters' will. But the details, and so the devil, reside in the post-Morsi scenario.

Seasons come in full circle, regardless of people's conditions. After spring, the summer heat may be too much. The discontent lingers, and so the obsession for grand things in life.

Terrorism? Invasion? Intrusion? What is it, then? The Sabah Standoff

Source: Malaysia's Ministry of Defence
(http://www.timesunion.com)

This is not to justify the actions of the armed men who sailed to Lahad Datu. This is to understand why Malaysia reacted in such a way, or an attempt in that direction to understand Malaysia's reaction.

We learn in Physics as Newton's third law of motion; for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction.

How could Malaysian government justify its large-scale military operations involving airstrikes and bombardments against hundreds of armed men cordoned in a village in Lahad Datu district in Sabah (North Borneo)?

What about labeling the actions of those several armed men as terrorism!

Ok, what are the actions of those armed men? What did they do?

On 11 February 2013, more than 200 people believed to be followers of the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram III, entered Sabah (North Borneo) by motorboats. They were led by Agbimuddin Kiram (Rajah Muda), a brother of the Sultan.They set foot and assembled in a Tanduo village in Lahad Datu district. Because several of them were armed, many locals fled the area in fear of their security. However, the group of Rajah Muda declared that they were there to reclaim what they rightfully own and live on what they call their homeland. Tracing historical documents, the Sultanate of Sulu claims that North Borneo is never ceded to Malaysia. (See for detailed historical perspective of the claim here).

After 17 days in Tanduo village in Lahad Datu district, no violence committed by those armed men was reported. There is no international binding definition of terrorism, but there are generally accepted elements of terrorism, such as the use of violence and the threat of it to civilians. After 30 days, there were eight (8) casualties from the Malaysian side and 53 from the claimants. All eight (8) casualties from the Malaysian side are policemen. No Malaysian civilian is reported to have died or wounded after 30 days of stand-off. The violence happened on the 18th day when the Malaysian commandos started to move into the village where the armed  claimants are holed up.

Terrorism may not be apt to describe the actions of the claimants, in this case. This is in direct contrast to the 2008 Mumbai incident when armed men shot indiscriminately and killed 164 people in the 4-day rampage. That was plain terrorism, and this? Hmmmmmm...

So let's try calling it invasion.

Well, the reported number of the claimants ranges from more than 200 to less than 300 people. Their small-scale operation enabled them to sneak into Lahad Datu without being noticed by Malaysian authorities. By no measure it can be called invasion on a territory that has tens of thousands of square kilometers in land area. Size, scale, and magnitude are essential elements of an armed action to be considered invasion.

Ok, probably it is intrusion.

You think so? Well, the armed men came uninvited. They claimed that they have the documents to prove their ownership of the property. Malaysian government must contest and refute the claim, otherwise it can not own something which is owned by another. Determining the ownership of the land is crucial in labeling the action of the armed claimants as intrusion. And the determination of ownership can be done by litigation or judicial proceeding in international court, and not by displaying one's superior military force.

Not terrorism, not invasion, not intrusion, what is it then? It is a claim, a historical claim.

For Malaysian government, the followers of the Sultan of Sulu are terrorists, invaders, and intruders. That is why a large-scale military operation is necessary. For those who know a bit better, these armed people are claimants of a land that they are going to defend against the dubious owner. They are, clearly, not against the civilians.