I am fat.

Apart from the growing issue of teenagers slashing themselves, committing suicides over trivial things (and you should very well know what kind of things are they), another one would be teens - especially girls - saying these same words.

Starving themselves at the very thought of this sentence.

Puking their lungs out, at the thought of this sentence.

"I am fat."

And do you know what's the irony here?
I'm one of them too; though of course I do not go through overly drastic measures.

I'm not here to pinpoint them, neither to insult the people who pretend to be under this situation. Rather, I'm here to tell you how the genuine ones feel. From what I've read, from what I feel.

Feeling just "fat" doesn't just include the desire to become thinner, to eat less.

Do you know the torture of looking at food, head filled with either warnings, or filled with calculations to measure the amount of calorie in the food. Do you know the amount of guilt that's left in both our stomach, our hearts, our mind, after we have eaten something?

The urge to vomit everything out. The urge to tear away the huge thing that resides on our body. The urge to sit at the corner and cry...for not being able to look nice in every clothes, for not being able to blend in well with our other beautiful statuesque friends, for being imperfect.

For being fat.

It isn't easy, living in the bodies of such people. It is not as easy as you think, to just eat normally as and when they preferred. It is especially difficult to just hear words of advice, saying "you're not fat! don't do this to yourself! eat normally!" when they are all but just words. Easy to be said.

What do you think these plain words mean to us? Mean to these people who have had themselves convinced over a million times with the complete opposite?

They are all just pleasing to the eyes..but not enough to cure the pain. The hatred we feel for ourselves. Anyway, do you mean what you say, or are you just saying for the sake of saying?

That's my perception of people who're like that, anyway.
Over and out.

Death Penalty for Drug Traffickers

Have you ever once put yourselves in the shoes of a person who is sentenced to death? The shoes of someone who is a drug trafficker for the first time? The death penalty is carried out by hanging the person in question. For murder and drug trafficking in Singapore, the death penalty is mandatory, which means judges have no discretion to apply for a lighter sentence even if the drug offender is a teenager like us, or has mitigating factors.

Imagine a situation, where your friend asks you to carry their bag for them. You, trusting them, not knowing their actual intentions of using you to smuggle the drugs, oblige to it. If a police were to catch you with a bag full of drugs, you are presumed to have been in possession of the drugs, even if somebody put them there without you knowing. You would presume to have been trafficking. The onus is now on you to prove your own innocence.

This can happen to anyone who is naïve. You may not know when you might become another victim of this, and you may be sentenced to death just like that even if you are just 16, even if you are not aware of holding the drugs.

Crimes are all serious, but think about it, do you think that the punishment actually fit the crime? You may think that drugs are a serious social evil, and that drug traffickers should therefore be punished severely, but this does not mean we must necessarily use the most severe punishment available and sentence them to death.

If we really want to impose the death penalty, we must ask if drug trafficking is really such a monstrous crime. Is it as serious as murder? Or, is our response blown out of all proportion?

Drugs do not cause death. Similarly, guns do not cause death. The number one cause of death is human beings. Drugs cannot hurt us if we do not allow them to, unless the cannabis plant suddenly grows arms and slashes you all over with its leaves. Just because the drug trafficker sells the drugs it does not mean that a person would immediately die.

Have you ever thought why a person would want to do drug trafficking? A handful would be for their own gain, but how about the many others? The ones who do it only because of adverse financial situation? The ones who do it because they have been forced to? The ones who are not in the correct state of mind to make any decisions?

Is it fair, that we sentence these people to death, even if it were the first time they were doing it? Are we justified in hanging these people whom do not deserve the punishment?

They are the ones risking life and limb, but it’s the drug lords who really benefit. The drug lords are the ones the authorities should be after. They are the masterminds behind all the unscrupulous drug businesses. Why should they go for the drug traffickers?

Furthermore, despite Singapore having some of the strictest drug laws in the world, did you actually know that drug trafficking is on the rise? In the first nine months of 2008, 46 kilogram of heroin has been seized; nearly three times the total for the year 2007.

Death does nothing to solve the drug problem. The death penalty is not a deterrence.

This act of sentencing death penalty to drug traffickers degrades the value of life. We might have just hung some people for no rhyme or reason. Think about being the parent, or close friend of a person who does drug trafficking. Is it fair? I honestly think not.

We should, however, imprison drug traffickers long-term instead. We can ensure that the drug traffickers would be rehabilitated in prison, and that they would be educated with the consequences. This is a much better alternative. The death penalty is cruel and inhuman, especially if it is inflicted on the innocent.

And hence, the death penalty should not be sentenced to drug traffickers. Don't you think so?

2012

Do take note, that what I have written is PURELY out of my own knowledge, with no reference to any other thing other than myself and the movie, so I might write something inaccurate.

This is just my opinion.

Between the *, would be my argument for whichever part I am trying to talk about. It's numbered in sequence, and according to how the events were laid out.

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

In the beginning, they talked about an eruption on the Sun which is so huge, and devastating, that had a - as I quote exactly from the movie - "Physical Reaction" on the Earth.

From that, I'm sure that the first thing that is understood in your brain is that the outer side of the Earth would be affected, and from the events that followed on in the movie, that isn't the case. It was the core of the Earth that was affected, so badly, that the waters 6,000 ft + 13,000 ft below the surface is boiling.

*

Take a moment to digest that.
If it were to cause a physical reaction, why is it that the core of the earth experiencing the heat first? Thinking logically at the same time, if it were the outer part of the Sun that is experiencing the eruption, and the heat affecting Earth, there isn't any explanation why SHOULDN'T the surface of the Earth receive the heat first, unless you're telling me the atmosphere is blocking the heat ray.

Even if the atmosphere were, why is it that the heat gets to penetrate enough to reach the core of the Earth? It simply doesn't make sense. The talk about Global Warming, and how we should reduce it; WHY?

Because it would deplete the atmosphere, and allow more ray to enter the Earth CAUSING US, to die out of heatstroke, or other heat-related sickness. It doesn't affect the core of the Earth at all yet!

*

As the movie progressed, it showed how the earthquakes became alarmingly more powerful, (up to a magnitude of whopping 10.4!) and how there were many new 'grand canyons' formed around the whole of America. That is believable.

Studying core geography (which I fully appreciate now), it makes sense - if I go along with the plot about the core of the Earth heating up first - that these series of disaster strikes, as where the core of the Earth becomes hot, the convection current movement also speeds up, and this would cause the tectonic plates to collide, diverge or slide past each other, whichever the direction is, a lot faster.

Then, it comes to the theory, the 'Myan' theory.
On the 21st of December, at 2012, all the planets of the solar system (which we reside in) would be aligned to form one straight line. That 'significance' is a sign of the world ending.

**

Tell me from that picture, WHICH PART IN THERE, shows the sign of the world ending?

Yes, it is very significant, that through those hundreds, thousands of years on Earth, we are experiencing a parallel alignment with all the planets!
IT DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER, that just because it is SIGNIFICANT, it means that something BAD will happen.

Think logically.
What do parallel planets mean?
What does 8 people, standing in a row means?

Earth has had such an occurance called an 'eclipse' (no nothing about Twilight), and that is through the Earth being parallel to the Sun and the Moon. Is there anything devastating happening, other than the Sun being blocked for a few minutes? What happens after a few minutes? They move away and revert back to normal!

Exactly what can happen to this 'significant event'!
SO WHAT IF THEY ARE PARALLEL, IN ONE STRAIGHT LINE? Give a few minutes, or a few hours at most, and the planets will move out of the line! Just like normal, just like every revolution they had ever made around Sun.

WHY WILL THE WORLD END BECAUSE OF THAT?
It. Does. Not. Make. Sense! Unless it amuses you, and allow you to make such theories!

What is the worse that can happen? Every planet is blocked off from Sun for a few minutes/hours, and everyone starts freezing to death?
Stay inside a house, and throw loads of wood into a fireplace, or make one for that matter, just like what the chaps did in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, they survived didn't they? The Sun eventually came out didn't it?

It's the exact same thing.
I don't understand why should there be so much of a big fuss out of the parallel planets.

**

I've nothing to say, as it goes, and I'm captivated with the buildings that capsized, the huge enormous cracks, and how lucky the main actors are, and at the same time, there isn't anything else to pin point at (if I were to accept all of those above).

At the same time, the part about the 1958 theory; the rotation of the tectonic plates or something, can't really remember the exact form, where the North Pole became the South Pole, the South China Sea became filled with ice (possibly from some other ice landform) is really very interesting.

Then, (skip skip) it comes to somewhere near the last part, where the big 'ship' was about to hit Mount Everest. Jackson, the author, and the main actor for the whole movie, was struggling to find that disturbance in the machines which causes the main door to not close. When he finally did, and the 'ship' could move out from the Mount Everest, saving everyone's life, everyone heaved a sigh of relief and cheered, and whooped for that matter.

Than.

It stopped.
Not the movie, no, but the disaster.

***

WHY DID THE DISASTER STOP ALONG WITH WHEN THE SHIP WAS SAVED FROM THE MOUNTAIN?
That doesn't make the movie seem very 'believeable' now! It just seemed as though it was destined to have a happy ending - I mean, not being tactless, apart from the other few millions which had died - where is that point that brought us all together in that cinema to watch the movie?

We were there to watch how the world ends! To watch what happens right to the very end, and exactly how mankind was spared, those very lucky few, and this is what happened?
The natural disasters stopped exactly when the ship was saved from a disaster?

IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL - THE END OF THE WORLD..?

***

I came out from the movie feeling both apprehensive, and scared.

My first thinking is that-
2012 IS BETTER THAN NEW MOON AND TWILIGHT MOVIE PUT TOGETHER.

And that, is coming out from a Twilight Saga fan's mouth herself. I am making such a comparison, with something that I love dearly.
I love Twilight, but I'm afraid no matter what the commentators say, about "Move over, Harry Potter", or "is Twilight the next best franchise after Harry Potter, and will it take over?", Harry Potter is still the best, in both the books, and the movie.


source: mugglenet.com I can haz harry pottur Without a doubt in my mind. Secondly, I realized how this whole scene will very well one day happen, and I am really going to try make my time worth. It's amongst other feelings, and thoughts, that had ran through me, but I'm not gonna go into detail :) BUT. But. I do not believe it will happen in 2012, and on 21st december. Something may happen, something may not, but it is not the end of the world. The 2012 theory has been disproven, and I believe it. It's just up to you now.