Epilogos Person of the Year

Time magazine proudly pronounces a Person of the Year award (used to be called the Man of the Year award until they realised that they were missing half of the world) every year. Speculation always swirls around this naming event, and suggestions are often offered, ostensibly, to help Time's editors make up their minds. Well, I would like to contribute my 2 cents' worth. Nominees for the Epilogos Person of the Year 2005 award (EPOY 2005) are (in no specific order of merit/infamy):

1. Terrorist bomb makers (for redefining the use of fertilizers)
(Also up for EIOY - Epilogos Innovation of the Year, maybe even the Nobel Prize for Chemistry next)
2. The Almighty (for all the natural calamities)
3. Charities of the World (for showing very very very big hearts)
4. (Some) Charities in Singapore (for not being charitable with donated money)
5. George W. Bush (for better or worse)
6. Tony Blair (for his unfailing support of the EPOY. Huh?)
7. Ahmadinejad of Iran (for dreaming of pushing Israel into the Mediterranean sea)
8. Bloggers (for using up a record number of bytes to wash their linen in public)
9. Australian drug couriers (who can never shake off the habit)
10. Australian Parliamentarians - sans one (for supporting Australian drug couriers)
11. The Blind Lady of Singapore Justice (for being blind, what else?)
12. The Gordon Geckos of China (for being flushed with capitalist cash)
13. Chelsea Football Coach (for having a motor-mouth)
14. Saddam Hussein (it is a wonder he is still alive)
15. Dot coms (for resurrection from the dead)
16. Multi-functional Cellphone (for no more idleness in the loo. Ploint! Did something drop into the...?)

Well, ok, some of these are stretching the accolade a little, and some would be opposed, vehemently, to being nominated, as well as the reasons for it, and some would be appalled by my expression of levity over very serious issues, but the competition has never been so keen. In this upside down world, anybody/thing can be winners. Lets take a break, shall we?

P.S. I am sure I will not have problems clearing Australian customs now, unlike other countries like Vietnam, rr..rr..rright?

An eye for an eye?

By now, the infamous Iraqi woman whose failed attempt to set off a bomb in a Jordanian wedding party last week is well known. She is alleged to have said that the motive for her action was to avenge the killing of her three brothers and a brother-in-law by US forces stationed in Iraq. Little else, however, is reported about these alleged killings by US forces, but it would not be unreasonable to speculate that those who were killed were probably playing with fire in the first place. We do not know if these brothers were involved in opposing the US forces. Very likely they were.

But even if revenge was the motive, the target of this revenge was not the alleged 'killers', i.e. the US forces. Instead, she intended to kill Jordanians, whose only 'crime' was by association - i.e. Jordan's non-opposition to the US-led occupation of Iraq. Surely this is taking reason beyond reason, and more than an eye is demanded for an eye?

Thus terrorists kill without good reason, and their actions can in no way be defended at all.