The 'A' Levels ended on the 24th of Nov for me with the last paper being Literature paper 3 from 8 to 11 a.m....but opps...look at the date....what have I been doing?
But seriously readers..what really matters now is that.....

ITS FINALLY OVER!!!!!!!

Mua hahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahha...*breathe breathe breathe* AHhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahha*pant pant pant* Rahahhahahahahahahhahahwahahahahhahahahah, "Wait a sec.." *puff puff* WAHahahahahhhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha...

What are you sitting there in silence for??? Quick, breathe in and join me! Ready....get set...go!
RAAHAHAHAHHhhHHhhaahahhahahahhahahwahahahahah

Thank you.....*cough cough*

Wah sei! Last 'A' level paper tomorrow! I can't stand it anymore, the antcipation of freedom is too much to take! For all you detractors who say, "Chey, it's only an exam what, got so jia lat meh?" Let me tell you, if you had to go through endless late nights, bad sleep patterns, countless consultation with super-nice or screaming teachers; super-nice-aunty-with-the-so-so-food in the school canteen; 1 whole cold month in Changi airport that the cleaning aunty knows me now; facing dehydration and panda eyes; lost touched with my social life; yet being able to comment on all political, economic and social moves and mores of the world; staring at hypothesis and theories as bizzare and untested as saying that Mars is actually made of ice-cream; and studying playwrights who died super long ago but I must write as if their my next door neighbour, then maybe you can say that.

My friends can, that's why I go out to drink coffee with them cause they share the pain!

At least now I can use the toilet in peace and don't have to pull the toilet paper with an Economics lecture note in my hand!

So yah, mai gong liao, mai gong liao!

Kam Sia!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Nader)

- Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader (born February 27, 1934) is an activist who targets large American corporations on environmental and consumer rights issues. He was an independent candidate in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. He also received the Reform Party endorsement. His running mate was Peter Camejo.
He was also the U.S. presidential candidate of the Green Party in 1996 and 2000. In both runs Winona LaDuke was his vice-presidential running mate. In 2004, however, the Green Party nominated David Cobb.

- Ballot access
On April 5, 2004, Nader failed in an attempt to get on the Oregon ballot. "Unwritten rules" disqualified over 700 valid voter signatures, all of which had already been verified by county elections officers, who themselves signed and dated every sheet with an affidavit of authenticity (often with a county seal as well). This subtraction left Nader 218 short of the 15,306 needed. He vowed to gather the necessary signatures in a petition drive. Secretary of State Bill Bradbury disqualified many of his signatures as fraudulent; the Marion County Circuit Court ruled that this action was unconstitutional as the criteria for Bradbury's disqualifications were based upon "unwritten rules" not found in electoral code, but the state Supreme Court ultimately reversed this ruling. Nader has presently appealed this decision to the US Supreme Court, but a decision did not arrive before the 2004 election.
On September 18, 2004, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that Nader be included on the 2004 ballot in Florida as the Reform Party candidate. The court rejected the arguments that the Reform Party did not meet the requirements of the Florida election code for access to the ballot — that the party must be a "national party" and that it must have nominated its candidate in a "national convention" — and therefore Nader should have attempted to file as an independent candidate. Specifically, the court ruled that the term "national party" must be interpreted as broadly as possible. The Reform Party has a ballot line in only some U.S. states.
In the general election, Nader appeared on the ballot in 34 states and the District of Columbia. Ballot access ultimately became one of the most significant issues of the Nader campaign - in his concessions speech, Nader characterized it as a "civil liberties issue" and noted that Democratic attempts to challenge his ballot access were rejected in the "overwhelming majority" of state courts.

- Results
Nader received many fewer votes than he had in 2000, dropping from about 2.9 million votes (2.74 percent of the popular vote) to just over 400,000 (0.34 percent). He finished only about 20,000 votes ahead of the fourth-place candidate, Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party. Fears that Nader would play a "spoiler" role for the Democrats proved unfounded, however -- Kerry's margins of loss in states won by Bush were all substantially larger than the percentage of votes gathered by Nader.


Note to readers: Which means, Nader garnered less than 1% of the total electoral votes. Which was already speculated very early in the election campaign trail by both Bush and Kerry camps. In about as early as I can remember, both camps had already announced the Green party as a non-threat. Ironically enough, to cut the long story short, Nader and his party allegedly accepted some independent pro-Bush campaign's money to support his own campaign trial, which made anti-Nader people (there actually are people who find it worthwell to go against a nice man like him!) and detractors implicitly suggest that Nader prefers George W. Bush over John Kerry, which helped Bush inturn!

At least this man had a dream and went for it strong! Applause people, applause!!!

The last few days, I spent in Changi Airport studying for the upcoming 'A' level exams. Everything was going on as usual, people were coming and going, departing and meeting with a steady handshake; and once in a while you see really odd people walking up and down with absolutely no sense of direction.

But this was not the airport I saw 4 years ago. Security is definitely tighter these days; you can no longer freely walk up to the check-in counters to speak to the receptionist; ever sector is blocked by security personnel, and occasionally you will get to see Army or Police squads armed to the teeth partroling the paves. The world has changed, to a more un-certain and watchful era. And today, the world will change again.

It has been a really tight race this one, the American Elections. 2 men, with rather similar backgrounds, but very different stand on things, stand to decide.

President George W. Bush, to me, has brought about many new introductions and reforms, which are ambivalent in nature to many. Free trade aggrements were celebrated with increased trade flow, exchang of ideas and greater cooperation among nations of the world. But the war in Iraq and the fight against terror split the world into a new "security-bloc". One camp say its a religious clash, and the other say its a isolated, extremist group that we need to sift out. Either way, it was coming anyway, George Bush or not. In my mind, Saddam Hussien had to go, its just a matter of time. How long can the world exist with a tyrant breathing down your neck, whispering "nuclear, nuclear, AK-47" every few years? Perhaps yes, the timing was wrong, the method could have been refined, but if the ousting of Saddam was inevitable, then better now then never. And if George Bush did it, ok.

Senator John Kerry was relatively unknown to the world early 2004. I'm not saying he's not good, I'm just saying it would be a biase argument with the coffee shop uncle because one has to take an effort to research on the background of the Senator. But thus far, after all the arguments and commercials, I still have an allusive idea of the Senator. People say, that his background as a Vietnam War Veteran, would allow him to assess the war in Iraq and the war in terror. But isn't it a fact that firstly, it's a different war, different circumstances, different ideology. We ain't no hunting communist now, who always declare a home base to work off and wear red. Ask any military analyst, where he thinks the main terrorist threat is, and the answers would range from Southeast Asia to Afganistan. Secondly, is the next 4 years of America going to be focussed on war? I hope not, so why focus it as a pre-set to choosing a leader?

The senator is also suggesting to reduce out-sourcing, bring back the jobs and to increase the domestic work market, reducing un-employment. What would this spell for all the foreign workers in America and those who are not, but employed by American MNCs? This sound some-what like the Chinese Exclusion Act of the 1800s, where asians were refused entry to America and had to fit a quota. Of course, this reform would work in the short run, but in the long run, world un-employment rate may increase and world money may dip. And he is suggesting to reduce taxes, in the face of a 851 million dollar deficit. Where is he going to get the money from?

Personally, I am supporting the President George W. Bush. Not so that his reforms look any better, but I feel that perhaps, he needs another term to show the fruits of the already in motion reforms. The fact is, he set out to oust Saddam and win democracy in Iraq; he achieved that. Even a form of democracy is commendable. The fact is, September 11 happened in his term, so tough for him. The fact is, although many people think so, the President did not cause the arising of Terrorism, the attack of Iraq that not form the word terrorism; terrorism existed even in the 18 century. So to blame the President for increased terrorist presence is like saying Macdonalds caused heart attack.

I agree that the world and America need a change, and George W. Bush may make it worse, maybe. But it just so happen that we only have George Bush, and John Kerry to choose from. And at this present stage, I don't think the world can take a sudden change in climate to the economy, global job-market, and the mass withdrawal of army troops. Not now. Maybe if the Senator ran for President in 2000, or again in 2008, then maybe he would stand a higher chance. I don't think if the Senator does become President, that he would be a more likely target for Terrorism. To the Terrorist, who is the President doesn't really matter, as long as American, as a symbol falls. But the time-lapse for the Senator to draw out and try to reverse many of George Bush's reforms and implementation would create a massive scene of change that the terrorism would be dump not to take advantage of.

This elections is an important one, almost every allied country like Britain, Italy and Japan are holding back reforms so as to see who is the next president. But it is also an election of season; a season of tight political watch and apprehension towards the dealings of terrorism in Muslim countries. I just hope they finish the job, and since George Bush started it, I believe he had end it, somehow.

No matter who wins, the world is going to change, and 4 years down the road when i'm in the University....we can only know then.

And Nader is just really cute.


CNN.com Election 2004 - U.S. President