Spinning around in a plethora of liberated inhibitions.

Aww, been drinking quite abit these two days. Got tipsy on vodka sprite and 5 or 6 shots of special house mix at East side on Friday. Lucky me! Managed to slip away from Tequila shots.

Saturday was a treat to Ice Wine with YC after watching Alexander. hmm, produced in New Zealand, belonging to the 2002 vintage... I found it pretty smooth and refreshing but YC said that the vintage that he tried the other time was sweeter. It's a great pity that we did not have any desserts to go with the drinks. Im not a great fan of wine (and definitely not a good drinker as well!) and I seriously marvel at how some ppl can finish a full-course wine dinner! But it's definitely something exciting!

Alexander was a great show. I love ancient warriors and the mysterious Greek culture that accompanied the story. More importantly, I love the realistic portrayal of the film. The theme boiled down to one simple argument. Can the leader's actions be justified as doing good for his people or are they the means of achieving his personal ambition? Is a leader for himself or for the people? To be honest, I believe on the former.

In the film, we see his popularity declined as he expanded his terrority east-ward. His soldiers wanted to go home and be with their family. But Alexander's ambitions were strong, like before. Their goals were now incongruent and Alexander was being accused of not being understanding.

I do question his motive of invading other countries. To do good? To liberate them from the rule of the so-called-Babarians? He claimed that they were a civilised nation and the land of good. He wanted to bring his father's ambition further. But is it really for his own glory?

In some sense, I do see it as an allusion to America's very own history of invasion of other countries under the same pretext. I question Alexandra's motives in the same way as ive questioned the political motives of the ascent of communist's power by defeating the KMT in the early days of China.

To be fair, it might be true that invasions could be justified as a good cause for the civilians. However, things would spun out of control if the leader gets too caught up with his own ambitions and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge his mistakes, eventually passing on the catastrophe to many others. What is worse is that they persist in believing that their actions (as a result of their high ambitions) are for the people.

But taking the people to war is the most dreadful thing to do. I agree whole-heartedly with Michel de Montaigne that, "...what cannot be accomplished by reason, and by wisdom and tact, can never be accomplished by force." But I also agree that history do repeat itself.


(I hate to vet my blog entries. Do forgive me if there are tons of grammatical flaws and things that doesnt quite make sense... Im departing just a bit from sanity. No, IM NOT DRUNK! But, it's just the hang ups from the wine.)