General Paper-The Best Paper In The World

2008-08-26T13:52:00.000+08:00

From Reuters

Dutch lawmaker warned over planned film on Koran
Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:43pm GMT

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch far-right politician whose anti-Islam comments have led to death threats says he is making a film for television about the Koran, despite warnings from the Dutch government about making such a film.
Geert Wilders, who lives under constant guard, told Dutch television he wanted his film to open people's eyes.
"It is not my intention to offend people. I just want to illustrate my opinions, which I have expressed as a member of parliament," he told broadcaster NOS. "If people do feel offended that is a shame, but it is not my problem," he added.
A justice ministry spokesman said the Justice and Foreign Ministers met with Geert Wilders to discuss with him the risks of making such a film to himself and Dutch interests abroad while also outlining his right to free speech.
The idea of a film made by a high-profile Islam critic for screening on Dutch television has a disturbing precedent in the Netherlands.
Three years ago an Islamic militant killed filmmaker Theo Van Gogh over his film "Submission," written by former Dutch lawmaker Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, in which she accused Islam of condoning violence against women.
The murder unleashed a violent anti-Muslim backlash and forced Hirsi-Ali into hiding.
Abdelmajid Khairoun of the Dutch Muslim Council told Dutch news agency ANP Wilders was simply trying to provoke, but he feared the worst should the film actually be made, and it could provoke similar reactions abroad to those seen over Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet.
Wilders' Freedom Party won nine seats out of the 150 available in parliament in last November's elections, and latest opinion polls by Peil.nl give him up to 11 seats.
Previously he has warned of a "tsunami of Islamisation" in a country home to 1 million Muslims, and has called for a vote of no-confidence in two Muslim government ministers, questioning their loyalty to the country because of their dual nationality.
In April, Wilders, who has called the Koran a "fascist" book, said he had been warned by the Dutch anti-terrorism chief about the anger caused by his statements in the Middle East.
Last year Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest shrines, withdrew its ambassador to Copenhagen over the Danish cartoons which provoked worldwide protests among Muslims.
(Reporting by Alexandra Hudson and Harro ten Wolde)

2008-07-09T21:37:00.000+08:00

Discuss the challenges faced by the mass media in an era of globalization.

Globalization-

Leads to an increased in cross border relations, results in the world becoming more interlinked.
Leads to effect which can in turn lead to changes which can affect the mass media (both good and bad)

Effects-increased in technology, culture diversion, improved relationships among country, cyber crimes

Increased in technology

1.-creation of new media

-citizen journalism

-efficiency and credibility of old media threatened

2.-Changing the way politics are played eg politicians using blogs for publicity

3. Cyber crimes-

pseudonym-people fake their real identity use the fake identity to harm and threatened others.

Money scams

Culture diversion

4.-media have to be more sensitive to race and religion

eg. Danish cartoon, Fitna movie by geert wilders’

->When intervention by govt is needed and when is it not (censorship)

2008-03-28T12:44:00.002+08:00

SDL and Research on Globalisation (Fri 28th Mar '08)

Hey peeps
Time to go trawl the net for topics on Globalisation and its impact on
Political Relations
Culture
Social Issues
Environment
World Economy

GLOBALISATION:

Political - political globalization is the creation of a world government which regulates the relationships among nations and guarantees the rights arising from social and economic globalization. [11] Politically, the United States has enjoyed a position of power among the world powers; in part because of its strong and wealthy economy. With the influence of Globalization and with the help of The United States’ own economy, the People's Republic of China has experienced some tremendous growth within the past decade. If China continues to grow at the rate projected by the trends, then it is very likely that in the next twenty years, there will be a major reallocation of power among the world leaders. China will have enough wealth, industry, and technology to rival the United States for the position of leading world power. [12] The European Union, Russian Federation and India are among the other already-established world powers which may have the ability to influence future world politics.

Cultural - growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities such as Globalism - which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture"

Social - the achievement of free circulation by people of all nations

Ecological- the advent of global environmental challenges that can not be solved without international cooperation, such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution, over-fishing of the ocean, and the spread of invasive species. Many factories are built in developing countries where they can pollute freely.

Economic - realization of a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange of goods and capital.

2008-03-06T23:48:00.003+08:00

From http://www.americanpolitics.com/030499dictionary.html

How to Tell a Democrat from a Republican?

Abortion

Democrats are generally for abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is -- like addiction to drugs or alcohol, tardiness, and procrastination -- an affliction and therefore needs to be treated by the government.

Republicans are generally opposed to abortion unless of course it is one's own daughter that got knocked up, in which case the decent thing to do is to ship her off to some distant city where private but expensive medical care can be provided and the local community is spared the details.

Animals

Democrats believe that wild animals should have all the rights of humans, protected from any harm and allowed to die slow and agonizing deaths like most of the world's humans do.

Republicans believe that wild animals were put here for the sport of hunting, provide a little expensive but gamy and tough meat, and an occasional fur coat for the missus.
Both think that domestic animals and the raising thereof need massive government support. This often results in an excess of such animals, which are then killed, burnt or buried instead of being shipped off to starving humanity around the world because to do so might upset the local economy.

Capital Punishment

Democrats
Because Democrats are genetically compassionate, they are opposed to capital punishment especially if it is someone who has tortured and molested 27 women and children to death as it is self evident that such a person has had a bad childhood, probably having his pacifier forcibly taken before he was nine years old. However, Democrats do make an exception to this opinion, if the victims were actually a close friend or part of the family. That family includes the family of government employees such as those that were blown up in Oklahoma City. In cases like that, the guy ought to be hung out in the sun by his testicles and left to die a slow death.

Republicans
The Republican's position on this issue is clear and is based upon the Judeo/Christian bible: an eye for an eye. That we are not always completely sure that we have the right dude before we send him on his way to St. Peter is not really all that serious of an issue. "God will sort it out" is their most commonly stated rationale for slaughtering a group of people that from their very looks it is obvious that they are guilty -- of something. Actually God really only gave us a hint as to the real possibilities: how about a lopped head for a mashed finger, for instance? That certainly should work even better. I understand that there are now over 50 offenses for which you can be given a quick dispatch to meet your maker.

The Children!

Democrats love children as a group but find individual children a pain in the butt. "We do it for the children" is an extremely effective slogan for the populace whether the particular program at issue is robbing the tobacco companies or grabbing more land in Colorado. The annoyance of individual children is easily appeased by hiring illegal aliens for house nannies.

Republicans love individual children but find supporting the class of children as not part of God's plan (see Jeremiah 18:21: "So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword.")

Crime

Democrats know that when someone commits a crime, it is society that has failed and should have to pay -- in the form of higher taxes and reduced freedom.

Republicans believe that every person inherently knows right from wrong, whether they were raised by harlot on the mean streets of East St. Louis or by a wealthy Episcopal minister in the ritzy 'burbs of Germantown. They know that the solution to violent crime is to beat the hell out of the perpetrators.

Drugs

Democrats
Democrats have no qualms about about recreational drugs. In fact they think the use of such drugs is cool. However, medicinal drugs are another matter. Since they think of the general populace as children, they want these drugs highly regulated.

Republicans
Recreational drugs are absolutely verboten according to the Republicans. It is rumored that many folks actually have great fun with such drugs, therefore they are opposed, of course, as it is a basic principle of Conservatism that having too much fun is bad for the character.

On the other hand, Republicans would allow you to prescribe and buy medicinal drugs without constraint as the drug industry is quite profitable. If you use the wrong drug or a bit too much, then the subsequent repairs to your body will again raise the national income just a bit.

Republicans support the consumption of vast quantities of alcohol even though it kills more people by a factor of ten than all the "illegal" drugs combined. This makes sense because while it may get you high and out of control, technically it is not a "controlled substance".

The Drug War

Strangely, while Republicans oppose the use of recreational drugs and Democrats are much more tolerant, they both support, with great enthusiasm, the so-called War on Drugs (WOD). That is because the WOD has little to do with drugs but is big business with large profits and incentives as well as an expression of political agendas and control.

Making a distinction between Republicans and Democrats with regard to the WOD is difficult for several reasons that are fundamental to what government is all about. I list a few:

1. The WOD allowed that time-honored tradition of governments -- the seizure of private property -- to be re-instated (amazingly, with citizen approval!). History tells us that in ancient times, governments satisfied their desire for accumulating wealth by simple and honest plunder and property seizure. As governments got smarter, they organized the theft, provided a stable environment for its culture and labeled it "taxation" (See Mancur Olson's essay, "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development", American Political Science Review, Sept. 1993). I quote Olson (discussing the successful evolution of Chinese warlords): "The warlords had no claim to legitimacy and their thefts were distinguished from those of roving bandits only because they took the form of continuing taxation rather than occasional plunder." (In these modern times, the plunder sometimes has even more sophisticated titles such as "surcharge" as used by the recently imposed fee on anyone who has more than one telephone line.)

2.The WOD allows the meddling in the affairs of small defenseless countries at will.

3. The WOD provides another great opportunity to collect and spend great quantities of taxpayer's hard earned cash without any serious opposition. The reason for this is that the Drug problem is very close to being a natural disaster -- which governments love as they can spend freely without complaints.

That said, there are small but helpful differences:

Democrats
The Democrats, as well as the Republicans, support the WOD, if for no other reason, because to do otherwise would result in the loss of votes. However, Democrats also support the concept as it allows the U.S. to act as the world policeman. Socialism is never going to work without one-world government.

Republicans
The Republicans love the WOD because it allows us to build up the military, throw a lot of people in jail that don't come around to the prescribed religious/moral values, and is very profitable.

Education

Democrats are for universal government provided education and to make it fair, all educational institutions must be equally bad. Of course that only applies to the general population -- politicians send their own children to private schools so that when they graduate they might actually be prepared to make a decent living and they will not be biased against the values of public education for the masses.

Republicans support private education but do not see any reason why the institutions shouldn't be government funded. They particularly like the idea of religious or military schools that are better equipped to teach a state of perpetual obedience.

Environment

Democrats see the "environment" as another means to control the masses. Even if "Global Warming" only exists in the heads of some out-of-work pacifists, it is certainly a powerful tool to keep the masses towing the line. Further, it is an unbelievable sink hole for public funds. Have you ever looked at what the asbestos scare cost?

Republicans were a little late in appreciating the merits of environmentalism and have therefore had to live with some bad press. However, someone finally showed them how much money could be made by simply declaring Freon 12 as the main cause of Global Warming from which billions were made developing and selling a new coolant. This brought them around and now they frantically trying to find the next common household product to ban -- like toilets that use too much water.

Government Spending

Democrats
Democrats make no excuses about massive government spending. For the government to provide a happy, healthy, shameless, and even exciting society, for everyone, regardless of their personal means, requires a massive amount of cash from the citizens as well as all you can borrow. Further, to make sure that no citizen gets into trouble and is in bed each night at a reasonable hour, a huge government staff is a necessity. This, in turn, requires every dime the public can spare and just a bit more.

Republicans
Republicans, in their hearts, and especially at campaign time, really would like to cut back on government spending -- especially such luxuries as the social, environmental, and health programs. But there are necessities that it would be irresponsible to avoid. Such things as National Defense, which requires a military budget far greater than any we have had in any major war, can no more be cut back than you can cut back on helping the folks back home that need a superhighway to the new park out in the country. These are essential expenditures unlike the "feel good" stuff of the Democrats. When Iraq threatens our shores by such hostile actions as flying one of their planes over the southern half of their country, we better be ready for action.

Individual Liberty

Democrats
Democrats are great believers in the concept of Liberty for all of humanity. It's just that individual humans need to be restrained -- for their on good of course. It would be irresponsible to let an individual endanger their health by eating greasy theater popcorn or drinking water from a mountain stream that some fish has peed in (and hasn't been tested by a government agency). Sadly, when you face the reality, every aspect of human activity must be controlled by the superior knowledge of the government bureaucrat. That government bureaucrats themselves are sometimes accused of being human is a fallacious argument as their holistic association results in superior knowledge.

Republicans
Republicans would like to give people lots of freedom especially those that are economically active such the officers of large corporations and farmers. However, some aspects of human nature just cannot go unpunished. There must be law and order. Violence must be stopped if we have to kill every one of the sorry bastards. Republicans feel that they have the monstrous responsibility of enforcing God's word. It is not a matter of public vote. People who have unapproved sex, get high on anything (including testosterone) except approved drugs such as alcohol, cigarettes, and caffeine, don't regularly go to an approved church, allow their kids to kiss before they get married, and talk smart to policemen that are dutifully beating the hell out of them, must receive appropriate punishment.

Military

Democrats are very fond of the military as it is a vast receptacle of funds and the defense industry has the reputation of being basically a giant welfare program for mostly engineers and scientists, without which millions of them would have to get a real job.

Republicans also love the military for its capacity to absorb unbelievably large quantities of money. Even more they appreciate the importance of importing American Justice to sometimes unreceptive countries by means of our military.

Privacy

Democrats believe in the sacred right of privacy as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. Unless, of course, it involves money, children, or your conversation on the phone (it is well known that phones are sometimes used by terrorists).

Republicans see no particular reason why you would want privacy. What's the matter: You got something to hide? If you are not doing anything criminal, then privacy should not be a concern, according to them. Too much privacy is a real hindrance to getting every one in jail that ought to be there.

Private Property

Democrats believe that all property should be shared equally among the people and enough to the animals to ensure their welfare (which they can't do for the people as there is just not enough). To insure the proper usage of property, the government, of course, must be the actual custodian of the property. What you think is yours is actually only on loan to you and may be recalled at any time. The whining of property owners that lose up in the millions of dollars when the government declares that a piece of property is needed for R&R for traveling geese is misplaced as it never belonged to these so-called property owners in the first place.

Republicans, on the other hand, definately believe in the right to private property as clearly enunciated by our Founding Fathers. But there is one small catch: The Bible is older than the Constition and trumps it. The bible points out very clearly, "When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox must be stoned; the flesh may not be eaten. The owner of the ox, however, shall go unpunished", Exodus 21:28. That means that if your house or your car or your bank account is in any remote way associated with a crime, then it must be "stoned to death". The modern translation of "stoned to death" is "given to the government".
Surprizingly, an amazing amount of property is in someway related to a crime. For example, let us say that some pot dealer is driving down the street and decides to turn his car around using your driveway. It is obvious that your property has now aided in a crime for if it had not been there, the druggie's auto would have fallen into a bottomless pit. Case closed.

Racial Issues

Democrats believe all "minority" races to be "disadvantaged" and to need government help. An exception is made for the Orientals because they stubbornly insist on doing quite well for themselves and refuse to suck up. They see minorities mainly as large block votes at bargain prices. Classes should not be encouraged to mix as we need to retain each of their cultures.

Republicans have always been fond of the people of color as they have been very well behaved house servants every since Lincoln freed them from slavery. Classes should not be allowed to mix as an inferior offspring will result. Some claim that hybrids in the animal world are usually superior to their parents but this is easily answered as humans obviously are not animals!

Religion

Democrats think religion is cool especially if it is "New Age", ancient Native American superstitions, Far East shamanism, or African witch doctors. What they can't stand are the low class, red neck religions like Church of God and Southern Baptists.

Republicans are in full support of religion and see it as every citizen's duty -- as long as it is "main line". The definition of "main line" is left up to the politicians, of course.

Sex

Democrats are in full support of sexual activity, especially if it is a little kooky. The concept of the old fashioned "male-female" sexual interaction is best left to the lower animals.

Republicans know that the purpose of sex is for procreation and not pleasure. If you must have pleasurable sex, which by definition would be outside of the marriage, then for God's sake have the decency to lie about it!

Smoking

Democrats consider any form of smoking of tobacco that is produced by the large corporations to be evil. The only material acceptable for smoking is marijuana or Native American ritual tobacco. If you are invited to the home of one of your cool friends and are handed a joint, do not think you have to eat it just because there is a sign on the wall that says, "Thank you for not Smoking".

Republicans think smoking is fine as long as it provides the opportunity to ship large quantities of money to the subsidized tobacco farmers and producers. Of course the smoking of any "controlled substance" is not permitted even if tobacco kills far more people. Because, it is the law, you idiot. Republicans are for law and order. Lots of both.

War and other "World Cop" Activities

Democrats, the "Peace Party", are strongly against war and other police actions and will attempt to create legislation to limit presidential powers and to influence public opinion -- during Republican administrations. Of course, if the Democrats happen to be in charge, then such activities are OK because their purpose is to stop violence and to "prevent further suffering and bloodshed".

Republicans, on the other hand, have no hesitation in bombing any recalcitrant country (those that refuse to accept aid in return for submission to U.S. control) "back to the stone age", unless, of course, the Democrats are in power. In that case, they are opposed to such acts because Democrats rarely have a decent "exit strategy". ("Exit Strategy" is a term often used in discussions of sexual activity. It is sort of the opposite to "foreplay".)

Wealth

Democrats believe in the concept of "equal distribution of wealth" even if they happened to be hoarding quite a pile of it. They justify this by the fact that to do their job requires that they live in a certain high class style that allows them to associate with the influential.

Republicans believe that hard work and the economic "invisible hand" will make sure that anyone who deserves it gets it or the reverse as the case may be. By definition, if you are broke and living off the street, you deserve it.

2008-03-06T23:23:00.002+08:00

Democrat vs Republican

Democrats believed the government is there to provide an even playing field for all the people. Republicans believe the government is for the wealthy few, to make and keep money and power.
CRIME
Republicans believe that the first obligation of government is to protect the lives and property of its citizens. We believe that both juveniles and adults must learn that their actions have consequences and that they will be held responsible for their behavior. We support increasing the share of the state budget devoted to the criminal justice system (currently only 6 percent), requiring criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, building more prisons and boot camps for adults and juveniles, giving judges more authority over juveniles, removing the juvenile justice system from HRS; requiring, whenever possible, prisoners to pay for the cost of their incarceration, and streamlining procedures for implementing capital punishment. We also support requiring prisoners to work and in appropriate cases requiring prisoners to receive a high school equivalency education as a condition of their release.

Democrats in the legislature continue to vote to water down most of the rime fighting provisions sup ported by Republicans. They also vote to weaken capital punishment laws. Under our Democrat dominated government Florida leads the nation in violent crime.

EDUCATION
Republicans believe in local control of education, reducing bureaucracy both in Tallahassee and at the district level, removing state mandates wherever possible, dramatically in creasing the share of the education budget allocated to the classroom, taking the politics and special interests out of the state funding formula, allowing local option school choice among all public schools, and implementing pilot programs to let families choose among all accredited schools, public or private. We believe that choice in education should not be limited to those with high incomes. Republicans believe that our children must come first and that all other considerations with respect to the education system are secondary.

Democrats continue to protect the status quo in our failing education system. They mislead the public by promising "cuts" in the education bureaucracy and then engaging in a shell game of transferring employees that does not save money or increase local control of education. They talk about "reforms", but ultimately focus on protecting business as usual and the narrow interests of the leadership of teachers unions, often at the expense of our children. Florida's Cabinet, which serves as the state Board of Education, has never been con trolled by Republicans. Under our Democrat dominated government, Florida currently ranks 44th in the nation in SAT scores and 48th in graduation rates, despite the fact that our per pupil expenditures are equal to the national average.

HEALTH CARE
Republicans believe that the following principles should be emphasized in health care reform: maintaining quality, providing choice, guaranteeing access, reducing costs, preserving jobs, enhancing flexibility, ensuring fairness, and encouraging individual responsibility. Republicans believe that something is wrong in America when those on welfare are provided health insurance through Medicaid, while many hard working individuals and families cannot obtain health insurance. Republicans believe that reforms should be implemented which will allow individuals to keep their insurance if they change or lose their jobs. We believe that insurance should be guaranteed renewable. Republicans believe that the quality of American medical care which is the highest in the world must be preserved. We believe that the right to choose your own doctor and your own health insurance coverage must be maintained. Republicans believe that the federal tax subsidy currently given only to employers should be extended through a tax deduction or credit to individuals to assure tax fairness for those who purchase their health insurance and medical care directly. Republicans believe that Americans should be allowed to establish tax free medical savings ac counts out of which they could pay for routine medical care. We also believe that responsible medical malpractice tort re form will contribute to reducing medical costs.

Democrats support forcing Americans to purchase their health insurance through government alliances. They advocate job killing employer mandates, massive new pay roll taxes, government health entitlements, and government controls which would lead to rationing of medical services, such as already occurs in the Veterans Administration. Their big government solutions, which amount to nothing less than the welfarization of health care, would put at risk the quality of our medical care and the ability of Americans to choose their doctors and their health insurance.

TAXES and SPENDING
Republicans continue to fight for constitutional limits on state taxing and spending. We believe that government should not grow faster than the ability of citizens to pay for it. For too long, family budgets have been shrinking while government budgets have been growing. Republicans believe that state taxing and spending growth should be limited to no more than growth in the personal income of Floridians. The average Floridian already works until May 2just to earn enough to pay total federal, state and local taxes. In Florida, the per capita total tax burden is already over $7,100 annually. Clearly, we aren't taxed too little; government spends too much and wastes too much.

For years, Democrats have fought to raise taxes of all kinds, and against any constitutional limit on state taxing and spending. Recently, under pressure from Republicans and the public, Democrats have paid lip service to the concept of tax and spending limits. However, they continue to push for gaping loopholes which would leave explosive welfare programs unchecked and allow unlimited expansions of government entitlements.

WELFARE
Republicans support requiring able bodied recipients of public assistance to work. We also support putting time limits on welfare assistance. We believe incentives and requirements should be implemented to ensure that welfare recipients and their' children attend school or job training, receive proper immunizations, and remain drug free. We support improving efforts to identify fathers of children born to unmarried mothers and vigorously pursuing child support payments. Republicans also believe that welfare reforms, at a minimum, should not cost more than current programs.

Democrats in the legislature continue to vote against requiring welfare recipients to work and against placing time limits on welfare. Democrat proposals for "reforms" routinely cost more than current programs. Under the current Democrat administration, Florida leads the nation in welfare over payments. Florida gives away hundreds of millions of dollars annually to individuals who are not eligible to receive benefits.

JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
Republicans believe that the best conditions for job opportunity and economic growth come from individual freedom, limited government, low taxes and spending, fewer and more flexible regulations, and a society protected from crime that offers quality educational opportunities for all. Free men and women, engaging in free enterprise, unhampered by restrictive government policies, will provide the greatest opportunities for the creation of wealth and progress for our state and nation.

Democrats seem to believe that government can create jobs. They favor higher taxes and spending, and bigger government which diminishes the private sector and individual freedom. Democrats continue to support heavy regulations and mandates that stifle entrepreneurial spirit and economic growth. As former Democrat Presidential candidate Paul Tsongas noted, "Democrats love employees but hate employers. The problem is you can't have employees without employers." This fundamental truth is lost on most Democrats in office.

2008-02-22T21:44:00.003+08:00

Animal-testing/vivisection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing

The terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, "vivisection" means the "cutting up" of a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live animals. The term is now used to refer to any experiment using living animals; for example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines "vivisection" as: "Operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals."[11] For others, the word has a pejorative connotation, implying torture and suffering.[12] The word "vivisection" is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use the term "animal experimentation."[13][14]

Debate on vivisection
http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4191

Quotes regarding animal testing
http://animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Quotes/SortQuotesVivis.htm

American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS)
http://www.aavs.org/

Cloning
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml

Human Cloning: What’s at Stake
http://www.cbhd.org/resources/cloning/kilner_george_2004-10-08.htm

Ethics of human cloning
http://www.globalchange.com/cloneethics.htm

Human Cloning
http://www.globalchange.com/clone_index.htm

stem cell cloning
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201092.html

stem cell research
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,167245,00.html

singapore view
http://www.littlespeck.com/content/Technology/CTrendsTechno-060817.htm

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/231543.asp

Bioweaponry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioweapon

http://www.geocities.com/area51/Shadowlands/6583/project346.html

Xenotransplantation

Xenotransplantation (xeno- from the Greek meaning "foreign") is the transplantation of living cells, tissues or organs from one species to another such as from pigs to humans (see Medical grafting). Such cells, tissues or organs are called xenografts or xenotransplants. The term allotransplantation refers to a same-species transplant. Human xenotransplantation offers a potential treatment for end-stage organ failure, a significant health problem in parts of the industrialized world. It also raises many novel medical, legal and ethical issues. A continuing concern is that pigs have different lifespans than humans and their tissues age at a different rate. Disease transmission (xenozoonosis) and permanent alteration to the genetic code of animals are also a cause for concern.
Because there is a worldwide shortage of organs for clinical implantation, about 60% of patients awaiting replacement organs die on the waiting list. Recent advances in understanding the mechanisms of transplant organ rejection have brought science to a stage where it is reasonable to consider that organs from other species, probably pigs, may soon be engineered to minimize the risk of serious rejection and used as an alternative to human tissues, possibly ending organ shortages.
Other procedures, some of which are being investigated in early clinical trials, aim to use cells or tissues from other species to treat life-threatening and debilitating illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, liver failure and Parkinson's disease. If vitrification can be perfected it could allow for long-term storage of xenogenic cells, tissues and organs so they would be more readily available for transplant.
There are only a few published successful xenotransplant procedures. Some patients who were in need of liver transplants were able to use pig livers that were on a trolley by their bedside successfully until a proper donor liver was available[1].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotransplantation

http://www.uncaged.co.uk/xeno.htm

The Xenotransplantation Debate
http://biotech.about.com/od/bioethics/i/Xenotransplants.htm

Ethics of Transplanting Organs from Animals to Humans
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_ethbio_xenotrans.htm

designer babies

The colloquial term "designer baby" has been used in popular scientific and bioethics literature to specify a child whose hereditary makeup (genotype) would be, using various reproductive and genetic technologies, purposefully selected ("designed") to be the optimal recombination of their parents' genetic material. The term is usually used pejoratively to signal opposition to such use of human biotechnologies.

http://www.bionetonline.org/English/Content/db_cont1.htm
http://www.bionetonline.org/English/Content/db_eth.htm

britain news
http://www.infowars.com/print/science/uk_designer_babies.htm

an example
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/955928.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/babies_prog_summary.shtml

ethics for DB(catholics stand)
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/102299/102299j.htm

2007-09-08T22:38:00.000+08:00

Blog Task:
Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?

Research
Legislature OKs same-sex marriage bill; governor expected to veto
Same-sex marriages (SSM), civil unions and domestic partnerships
Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
Gay Parents: Less Than Optimal?

From wikipedia, it states that same-sex marriage is a term for a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family. Other terms for this type of relationship include "gay marriage", "gender-neutral marriage," "equal marriage," "lesbian marriage," "homosexual marriage," "single-sex marriage," and "same-gender marriage".

According to dictionary.com, practical means of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals, consideration means careful thought; deliberation, while globalisation is the growth to a global or worldwide scale.

In this age of globalisation, more countries are now more open with homosexuality, and therefore, same-sex marriages are much more accepted in the world. The first legal same-sex marriages was officially allowed in The Netherlands 1 April 2001, the first nation in the world to do and subsequently after that it was allowed in countries Belgium, Canada, Massachusetts, USA, South Africa and Spain.

Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship.

In the age of globalisation, same sex marriages are not a practical consideration as it is a society taboo that gays are placed in the position as normal parents raising a child. To many, it is not normal, rather against nature as a normal family would consist of a daddy, a mummy and a child, rather than two daddys or two mummys and a child, therefore gay parenting is not widely accepted in this age of globalisation. Also, many feel that when a child is being raised in a two-parent gay or lesbian household, he or she will have to bear not only the stigma of being adopted but having gay parents adds more issues, confusion and judgement from outsiders.

Same sex marriages are not a practical consideration as most religions like the christians, Islams do not support same sex-marriages. They believe that God has created male ad female so that they could procreate, therefore same sex marriages is seen as something which is abnormal and going against the will of God. Moreover, marriage is seen as something that is sacred and by allowing gay marriages would increase the number of non-serious marriages on top of the high rates of divorce. According to Balancedpolitics.com, "marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create" Therefore, same sex marriages are not allowed as it would threaten the definition as well as respect for the insitution of marriage.

Also, by tradition, it led to the beliefs of humans that the ideal family unit is one which consists of a father, a mother and children and any straying from this model is something which is dangerous and not normal. According to the news article, "Can mum, mum and kids make a family?" the author states that "no single model of the family has dominated throughout history. The traditional nuclear family just happens yo be a structure that contemporary society finds stabe and workable." shows that same sex marriages is not a practical consideration as it does not follow the nuclear family trend, therefore it is deemed to be unnatural and a taboo to people.

However, according to About.com, it shows that "most children in the United States do not live with two married parents. In fact, according to the 2000 census, only 24% homes were composed of a married mother and father with children living at home. The Florida court argues that children are better off raised in a two-parent heterosexual household. In fact, scientific studies have shown that children who grow up in one or two-parent gay or lesbian households fare just as well emotionally and socially as children whose parents are heterosexual." shows that a homosexuals are fit to raise a child and are no different from a heterosexual household.

Moreover, it is harder for a same sex couple to get a child compared to a heterosexual couple. For the same sex couple, they either bring children from their previous marriages with them, finding children through adoption or undergo artificial insemination which is expensive and costly. Moreover, in countries in Singapore, artificial insemination is only subsidized for heterosexual couples. Compared to a child who is born out of the wedlock, the one cared by a homosexual couple will be more loved and they will have his/her interests placed first in their hearts.

Also according to About.com, it also shows us that there "the United States has many children waiting to be adopted. Older children and those with special needs are especially hard to place. Children who fit this category are in foster homes right now with gay and lesbian parents who want to adopt them. It is unfair to the children to deny them permanent secure homes." shows that the children should be our top priority, rather than seeing who their parents is. Even if their parents are homosexuals, it is better off to know that someone is willing care for this orphans, having their interests at heart, rather than letting them feel unloved and unwanted by society.

If we deny the rights for homosexuals parenting, we also deny the child from growing up in a loving family, a condition far better off than being placed in orphanages. Moreover, there is no harm placing a child in a family who is willing to love him/her with all their heart despite them being homosexuals. Most importantly is that the well-being of the child is being taken care off, and that by letting homosexuals adopt children will help reduce the number of kids being abandoned. Also, it is known that homosexuals is also well known for their pink dollars, which is their high purchasing power in society. These gives them an edge over others as they most likely would not encounter financial problems while raising a child up, therefore being able to provide the needs essential for a child's growth.

Therefore, at this age of globalisation, we should have a more opened society and not discriminating and denying them the rights of adopting children just because they are homosexuals. We should instead thank them for giving such orphans a home to stay and a chance to know what parental love is.

2007-08-13T23:10:00.000+08:00

Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)
From Wikipedia

The Singapore Penal Code, Chapter XVI (Offences Affecting the Human Body), Section 377 (Cap. 224) states that:

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

Section 377A (Outrages on decency) states that:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

2007-08-13T22:54:00.000+08:00

What is PINK DOLLAR??
(from wikipedia)

Pink dollar, also know as the "Dorothy dollar", is a term describing the purchasing power of LGBT( Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) individuals in the United States. (Occasionally, the similarly termed "blue dollar" is used specifically for lesbians.) In the United Kingdom, this spending is known as the Pink pound.

Estimates of the US LGBT market put its value at approximately $641 billion in the year 2006. [1] in addition, many of these households are known by demographers as DINK — double income, no kids — and generally have more disposable income.[1]

Some industries have tried to tap into these markets with specific advertising campaigns; for example, American Airlines saw its earnings from LGBT people rise from $20 million in 1994 to $193.5 million in 1999, after formation of a team devoted to gay and lesbian marketing.[2]

More Pink Dollars articles

The A to Z of the pink dollar
Chasing the pink dollar $
Singapore is Asia's new gay capital
Singapore gay conferences

2007-08-13T22:52:00.000+08:00

Pink Dollar

Singapore - the new mecca for Asia's pink dollar
August 14, 2004

Once staid Singapore seems ready to take over from Bangkok as Asia's gay party town, reports Connie Levett.

It's 1am in Singapore and thousands of glistening bodies in red and white designer jocks, the national colours, are just getting started as Asia's biggest gay festival shakes preconceptions about the straight-laced city state.

"I've never seen anything like this in Singapore. It's got an atmosphere like Ibiza, Spain," says Ravin, a banker who left Singapore for London 13 years ago. "When I left there were a couple of small bars, but it was all kept very quiet."

No longer. Singapore has discovered the pink tourist dollar and, as Asia's traditional gay capital Bangkok suffers from enforced early closing hours, police drug raids and urine tests, the party people are looking elsewhere.

From the dance floor of the Nation04 party - the festival's biggest - John, a flight attendant based in Hong Kong, said: "This is not the Sydney mardi gras - not as wild, not as many outside programs - but I'm glad about what they are doing here."

Even with the techno music and laser shows, the open-air party at the Sentosa musical fountain amphitheatre last weekend was a distinctly Singaporean affair.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Many wore the suggested dress code of red and white, the national colours, to show support for Singapore's national birthday. As one Hong Kong tourist put it: "It's Singapore: tell them to do it and they will."

Homosexual acts are still illegal in Singapore but this new season of tolerance may be driven by pragmatism. The long-weekend festival, with a party on each of the three nights, attracted 8000 revellers and is predicted to bring $S10 million ($A8.2 million) into the local economy. Partygoers were split evenly between locals and visitors.

Independent analysis of last year's event shows gay tourists spent $S1000 a day, four times the tourist average.

Griffith University's associate professor of business, William Case, has followed the shift with interest. "What's important in Singapore is economic success," he said.

"The Government has seen studies that suggest societies that apply tolerance tend to be more creative. There may also be gains to be made from having a vibrant arts community in attracting expats and in getting international companies to base themselves there."

However, Nation04 organiser Stuart Koe said it's not just economic, and points to a change in social attitudes.

"Five years ago when we planned the first party, a lot of people said, 'it won't work, you'll get shut down, the Government won't allow it', there was a lot of self-censorship."

Five years on, "people are feeling more empowered and confident and more willing to take risks," Mr Koe said.

Despite this success and a warmer Government attitude - it has announced it will hire openly gay people in the civil service and the Singapore tourism board has discreetly promoted the event - Nation04 rated no mention in the Government-controlled mainstream press.

Mr Koe was unfazed by the media blackout. "We effect change just by being. Once we get society to accept us we accomplish more than by lobbying to get the law changed," he said.

2007-08-13T22:38:00.000+08:00

Meaning of..

Dialectics

1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of logical argumentation.

2. dialectal.

3. the art or practice of logical discussion as employed in investigating the truth of a theory or opinion.

4. logical argumentation.

5. Often, dialectics.
a. logic or any of its branches.
b. any formal system of reasoning or thought.

6. Hegelian dialectic.

7. dialectics, (often used with a singular verb) the arguments or bases of dialectical materialism, including the elevation of matter over mind and a constantly changing reality with a material basis.

8. (in Kantian epistemology) a fallacious metaphysical system arising from the attribution of objective reality to the perceptions by the mind of external objects. Compare transcendental dialectic.

9. the juxtaposition or interaction of conflicting ideas, forces, etc.

2007-08-12T17:04:00.000+08:00

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle)
Do you agree?

According to dictionary.com, poverty is defined as the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.

Revolution is an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. It is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time and may cause major changes in a culture or economy.
Crime on the otherhand is an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. Both usually take place when the needs of the people are not taken care of.

Crime mainly results when people are not able to sustain their life, when basic livelihood like food and water are not met. In the less devloped country, it is hard for the poor to breakthrough the vicious cycle of poverty. Moreover, the bulk of those uneducated comes from the poor as they are unable to afford an education which would naturally upgrade them and enable them to search for better higher paid jobs which will give them better living conditions and afford the basic necessities needed. As a result of globalisation today, the standard of living of a country becomes higher. Its a common situation, where children often pesters their parents to buy them the newest and expensive toys inorder not to lose to their friends for not being able to afford them. When poverty sinks into the family, it often leads to desperation, inorder to keep up with life's expectation criminal activities therefore takes place.

Revolution on the otherhand can results due to poverty. One such example is the 1917 revolution in Russia where the peasants wanted a fairer social and political order as land was controlled by the landowners. The people were living in poverty and the living conditions was very poor. Taxes were high even though the agricultural productivity was low. The workers on the otherhand had long working hours and often lived in overcrowded housing with deplorable sanitary conditions. Some after living in the cities encountered material goods they never seen in the villages before, moreover the urban industrial life gave them many benefits. Hence, as the people wanted to have a better life and to break through the vicious cycle of poverty, a revolution therefore took place.

However, i feel that even though poverty can lead to both revolution and crime, it is not the mother of them. Revolution can be caused due to a conflict in political views like the chinese civil war where two parties was involved one which wanted democracy and another which wanted communism in china. On the otherhand, poverty does not totally leads to crime. From the article "Unemployment, poverty not sole causes of crime", Prime Minister Honourable Dr. Kenny D. Anthony says that:

"No reasonable person will totally deny that providing job opportunities for the unemployed, reduces the chances of them engaging in criminal activities. But to say that unemployed persons have no choice but to turn to a life of crime is absurd. It is equally absurd to say that people commit crime because they are poor. Some of the poorest people that I know are among the most decent law abiding people in St. Lucia. They resent criminal activities and have never found themselves on the wrong side of the law”

Therefore, i feel that what Aristole says is more of an over-generalising statement. As much as poverty may lead to revolution and crime, but it is unfair to say that poverty is the main causes of both revolution and crime as there are many other factors that leads to them. As far as i believe, people will not create a revolution or commit crimes if their welfare are not challenged. In this world there are many people living in poverty, but i believe many of them strives and works hard to make ends meet. I also believe that many of the people in this world have good morals and upbringing which teaches them not to engage in criminal activities, and only the minority will commit crime and most of the time crime is commit out of greed instead for genuine needs. Therefore, i agree only to a small extent that "the mother of revolution and crime is poverty".

2007-08-06T11:54:00.000+08:00

According to wikipedia,
Lookism is discrimination against or prejudice towards others based on their appearance.

Overweight and underpaid as 'lookism' sweeps the world
Lookism: How It Affects Us
A Crime Most Foul
Lookism - Our tendency to discriminate bad-looking individuals:

Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age.

Ageism Said to Erode Care Given to Elders
Ageism is the most common form of discrimination in UK
Shock as doctors admit to ageism

Disablism is defined as discriminatory, oppressive, or abusive behaviour arising from the belief that disabled people are inferior to others.

diablism blogging
WHERE PREJUDICE, DISABILITY AND "DISABLISM" MEET
Challenging 'disablism' - Mayor speaks out against disability discrimination
Scope Disablism Summit 2006

Discrimination against Foreigners (Xenophobia) is a fear or contempt of foreigners or strangers and is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self.

South Africa takes practical steps to combat xenophobia
European Football to stand united as Action Week kicks-off
“We all wear tinted glasses”

2007-08-03T00:55:00.000+08:00

The South Korean Hostages Crisis

the reports can be found at
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/julyweb-only/130-41.0.html

Issue:
The Talebans demanded that all insurgent prisoners in Ghazni province to be release in exchange for the South Koreans Missionaries.

According to Wikipedia, i found out what is the Code of Pashtunwali (Pakhtunwali) is.

Basically it is an ancient feudal tribal "code of honor" that belongs to the Central Asian landscape, particularly to Afghanistan and western Pakistan. As a set of rules guiding both individual and communal conduct, Pashtunwali is still socially enforced in those areas.

Pashtunwali promotes core tenets including self-respect, independence, justice, hospitality, love, forgiveness, revenge and tolerance toward all (especially to strangers or guests). All these codes of conduct are helpful in maintaining social and moral checks and balances within Pashtun Society. Aside from its core tenets, Pashtunwali is unique to every Pashtun, and it is considered a personal responsibility to discover and rediscover its essence and meaning.

Also, using Wikipedia, i managed to find out more about Talibans. It consists of Sunni Muslims, and ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001 where the 911 attacks occurred. America's forces then removed the Taliban leaders. Even till now The War In Afghanistan continues.

The Taliban Sharia law is very strict, especially for woman. Women were forced to wear the burqa in public. They were allowed neither to work nor to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an. Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught. They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperon, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. They faced public flogging(whipping) in the street, and public execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.

I did not really follow the news on the kidnapped of South Korean's missionaries. However, i feel that the Afghanistan Government should not release those prisoners as more chaos will happen and it will give the Taleban's a weak image of the Afghanistan government. The situation is like a double edged sword. If they were to release the prisoners, there is a likelihood for such cases to happen again and that the government would be overthrowed by the Talibans. Yet if they do not, the Koreans will be killed.

From Associated Press "Earlier this year, the Afghan government freed five Taliban prisoners in exchange for the release of an Italian newspaper reporter abducted by the extremist group. The move was harshly criticized by the United States and some European nations, with critics arguing it would be an incentive for the Taliban to stage more kidnappings." Moreover, there has been previous cases of the negotiation for the release of prisoners in exchange for hostages to be freed. This showed us that the Talibans are using threat to get what they want, putting the Afghanistan Government in a tight situation. By releasing, means more chaos and the country will be even more unstable. By ignoring the threat would mean people dying, just because the demand of the Talibans was not met. What makes it worst is that these people are not even inolved in the conflict, yet they have to suffer and die from the mistakes made other people.

If a compromise cant be made between the Talibans, the Afghanistan Government and the South Koreans, war between countries may occur as a result. Its really an irony. The Talibans are taught to follow Pashtunwali which promotes core tenets including self-respect, independence, justice, hospitality, love, forgiveness, revenge and tolerance toward all (especially to strangers or guests). Yet, they are out there kidnapping the hostages. Are they really practising their faith, or is it just to gain power in the country again?

2007-06-13T14:10:00.000+08:00

ARticle LInk: http://www.freewebs.com/vivloh/juneblogtask.htm

Blogging task
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.

Freedom of speech, according to http://www.en.wikipedia.org/ is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship.

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. According to the article, Singer, a son of Austrian Jews, feels that "we cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust. I believe that we should stand behind freedom of speech. And that means that David Irving should be freed." Everyone should have the freedom to express their point of view, instead of being imprisoned for expressing views that cannot be refuted by evidence and argument alone.

Freedom of speech is needed in order for a country to grow. According to the article, Singer feels that " freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive." Also, "without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.

I feel that, even if people were imprisoned for denying the holocaust, their imprisonment will not change their stand towards the holocaust even after their jail-term. The government should instead repeal laws which permits the holocaust denials, yet at the same time strive to do their best to inform their citizens about the reality of the Holocaust and why the racist ideology that led to it should be rejected. This will therefore helped changed the mindsets of those people as they would then better understand the situation of the particular issue.

On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. According to the article relating to the controversy regarding the Danish press publishing of Prophet Mohammad cartoons, Szilagyi believes that freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy. However, when the newspaper insist on this right, they have to understand that they do not alone create the context and lifespan of their messages. Self-control must be enforced.

In today's networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Compared to last time, traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist. Whether we liked it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one another. Therefore a balance must be strike between individual and collective press freedom rights.

I feel that even though freedom of speech will help build up democracy, responsibility have to be exercised when using it. Just one word of slander can easily cause a turmoil between countries and nations. Just one word of insult can rage war among religions. Therefore even though the press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, it must also focus on responsibility not solely on freedom.

In a multi-racial society like Singapore, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, i feel that Szilagyi's view should be adopted. Like our national pledge, "pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society." Even though there may be issues against other races in the country, the press must exercise self-control. Instead if such situation should arise, i feel that the government should intervene and help solve the problem, promoting peace among the races. Also, as a Singaporean, i feel that we should respect each other and not find fault with each other as in order for a country to grow, there must be mutual respect for each other and also peace among races and religions. If freedom of speech is adopted without exercising social responsibility, a multi-racial country like Singapore will face social unrests and there will be tension among the citizens, like the 1964 race riots that happened due to high tensions between the races.

Therefore i feel that szilagyi's view should be adopted in a multi-racial country like Singapore.

2007-05-23T10:43:00.000+08:00

overview of term 2
-power of mass media, subjective perception, censorhip
-crime and punishment, death penalty, vigilantism, life/death issues

skills learnt
-paraphrashing, summary, inference

holiday assignments
1. research on milestones (deadline: july 3rd 2007)
2. june blog task (deadline: by TErm 3, week1)
more details: http://mdmloh.blogspot.com

Go IVLE GP 8005 to do practise GP comprehension paper..

2007-05-08T21:42:00.000+08:00

"The death penalty is not deterrent, it is murder." Do you agree?

According to www.dictionary.com , death penalty is a sentence of punishment by execution for certain crimes like murder.

Note: In the United States, capital punishment has been an extremely controversial issue on legal, moral, and ethical grounds. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was not, in principle, cruel and unusual punishment(and not, therefore, unconstitutional), but that its implementation through existing state laws was unconstitutional. In 1976, the Supreme Court again ruled that the death penalty was not unconstitutional, though a mandatory death penalty for any crime was. Thirty-nine states now practice the death penalty.

Deterrent is something that deters to prevent or discourage the occurrence of an action, as by means of fear or doubt

According to wikipedia, death penalty or capital punishment is used historically to punish both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent(refers to any expression designed to convey dissatisfaction with or opposition to the policies of a governing body). In the modern world today, capital punishment is still carried out in some countries where death penalty is reserved for punishments such as premeditated murder, espionage (spying), treason, or as part of military justice.

From the article "Crime and Causality: Do killers Deserve to Die?" It states that even if one supposes that the capital punishment is moraly justifiable, there are many good reasons to supposed it. Throughout the years, some people have been wrongly found guilty, some having been executed for offences which they never commit. Discrimination also plays a part in deciding a sentence. Being racial bias, a non-white is likely to get a heavier sentence compared to someone who is a white. Also, due to economic statue, the poor and marginalized are much more prone to execution than the rich.

There are 5 ways of executing a criminal.
1. Electric Chair where the condemmed is strapped to a wooden chair, with electrodes attached and a shock of thirty thousand watts is applied. The prisoner is literally cooked internally, and death may require mulitple shocks.
2. Gas Chamber where death is casued by exposure to cynide gas where victim die from suffocation.
3. Lethal Injection is the most widespread and humane method where poison is injected into the body to kill the criminal.
4. Hanging is the suspension of a person by a ligature, usually a cord wrapped around the neck, causing death.
5. Firing squad where it requires all members of the group to fire simultaneously, with one who will fire the lethal shot. The condemned is typically blindfolded or hooded, as well as being restrained

The principle of capital punishment is that certain murderers deserve nothing less than death as a just, proportionate and effective punishment. It is 100% effective as a deterrent to the criminal being executed; that killer cannot commit any more crimes. By setting a precedent, it act as a deterrent for others who wants to commit such similar crimes. With capital punishment in placed, it also shows that the country is tough on criminals. There will be a decrease in crime rates, having less chaos in the country as others would probably think twice before commiting a crime, thus making a country much more politically stable, presevering national security

Also, with capital punishments, by killing the criminal, it helps to bring justice for the victim and the his family members. The criminal will never ever again fatally harm anyone, thus possing no threat to the public. Moreover, it is more economically sound to execute a prisoner than to keep him in life incarceration, and also better off sentencing death penalties to criminals who are beyond rehabilitation than for him to leave off taxplayers.

However, capital punishment is murder. Execution is the act or instance of putting to death or being put to death as a lawful penalty. It is a state-sanctioned killing, and it devalues the respect we place on human life. Therefore, how can we punish someone for commiting murder, when he/she is punished by means of a death sentence? Isn't there killing of a person happening in both cases?

By sentencing someone to be put to death, it rules out possibility of rehabilitation, that they may repent of their crime, serve a sentence as punishment, and emerge as a reformed and useful member of society. Also, some victims may be wrongly found guilty, with some may have already been executed. Moreover, the methods of death penalty may go wrong, and thus delay the process of executing the criminal

Death penalty acts as a deterent to others, yet it is clear that retaliation to the death is no longer necessary to protect ourselves from murderers, and the deterrent effect of executions is very much open to question. Human should not play God by melting out death penalty. As two wrongs do not make a right, we should not just sentence a criminal for his crime, but analyse and understand what had shaped him and led him to kill others.

Therefore i agree to a large extent that the death penalty is not deterrent, it is murder.

2007-04-28T23:11:00.000+08:00

Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is necessary/unnecessary.

Censorship plays a crucial role in channels of communications like the television today. Typically censorship is undertaken by govement, or by established bodies (religions or the mass media).

According to Britannica, censorship is the act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good. Also, according to the encyclopedia, censorship is the official prohibition or restriction of any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order.

Censorship is undertaken so as to suppress any sensitive issues like race and religion which can threaten the life and welfare of people living in the world. For example, a protest across the muslim world happened after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper on the 2005-09-30 last year. The muslims saw the cartoons as an insult to prophet mohammud and intended to humiliate a Danish minority. This shows that censorship is needed to prevent racial discrimination from happening which will bring about troubles like riots.

Moreover, in a multi-racial country like Singapore, censorship is needed to protect the rights and values of the different races in Singapore. Any mutual direspect towards a particular race will stir up tension amoung the various groups. If censorship is still not exercised, riots will take place, resulting in the country being politically unstable.

Censorship is also needed to protect the young and the weak-minded. Just as certain content should not be even accessed by the society, we also need to recognize that certain content (eg. secual content) is also unsuitable for children. We should pass censorship accordingly so as to prevent the exposure of harmful contents to children who are young and innocent. For example, movies shown in Singapore have a rating each to prevent a certain age group of people from watching a movie which is deemed unsuitable for them. Children are innocent, and they are too young to judge and differentiate what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Therefore, there is a need to control their exposure of things at the same time to protect and to ensure that no negative messages do not get across to them.

From the article "Does Rap Put Teens at Risk?" shows that teens who spend more time watching the sex and violence depicted in the "reel" life of "gangsta" rap music videos are more likely to practice these behaviours in real life. Also in the article "Rap music blamed for teen pregnancy" shows that adolescents who listened alot of music containing "objectifying and limiting characterisations of sexualityy progressed more quickly in their secual behavior" than teenagers who preferred different kinds of music. This two articles shows how a teen can be influenced negatively when he/she is exposed to a media with no censorships. Therefore it shows that censorship is needed so as to prevent the innocent ones like the teens from learning things that are just not suitable for them which will thus harm them.

Censorship is also necessary as there is a need to prtect the government interest. If negative issues relating to the government is unrecovered, it will caused a controversy and people will start to go against the government. Social unrest will occur as a result causing the country to be politically unstable, having no peace and harmony.

However, censorship may not be necessary too. Children nowadays are too comfortable with their comfort zone that they are not exposed fully to the world. The more exposure the child gets, the faster that child will grow. Therefore, without having any censorship, we will be able to know the truth and not be hidden from the face of reality. Moreover, if the information was censored, we are still able to get information from other sources like the internet and piece all the missing informations together at the end of the day making censorship to an extent of being ineffective.

With no censorship in placed, there is a freedom of expression where people are able to express their views freely without being controlled. There is no limit to what a particular medium can show and produce for the public to see. Like in America where freedom of speech is practised, with no formal government censorship of the news media (with the exception of decency standards for radio and television) or creative arts. People can voice their opinion freely unless there is a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent.

Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own book(s), film(s), or other works, out of deference to the sensibilities of others without an authority directly pressuring one to do so. People are old enough to exercise their own responsibility and judgement to judge what is morally right and wrong.

Even though having no censorship may bring about freedom of expression where people can voice out their own opinion, they may not always be aware of what they are saying and therefore, to an extent, may unintentionally offend other people. Therefore i strongly agree that censorship should be carried out even though people are restricted to what they can only read, as it is only with censorship that can help maintain peace and stability around the world.

2007-04-06T10:52:00.000+08:00

From this article "spilling blood with oil in Iraq", what have you learnt here about the media in the way they present what is perceived over what is real?

The media is a powerful tool of influence in the world today. Messages, news are all being conveyed to the people by the media. For example,just viewing a short Television advertisement constantly for a week can just change one's perception about a product. Many often believe the media as the media acts as a medium between the things that happens and the rest of the people. Often as such, we do not see the whole issue of things, but rather only the views of the journalists, so in order to see the full picture, we have to keep an open mind and read news from many sources.

In this article, "spilling blood with oil in iraq" it shows us many creative untruths the media creates for people to believe and support the Iraq war. Quoting from the news article published on the 6th April 2003, "it has always been clear that Iraq today was never a match for a combination of military forces that included the world's mighties war machine." yet the reason for the Iraq war was that they believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the purpose of the war was to find and destroy them all.

Creatives untruths were told, in this article, it states that " Among the bigger lies still current are that the war is somehow lawful, or at least not illegal, and that oil is not a motivating factor." But the irony was that "Yet the US oil industry has been an early and enthusuatic war supporter" Iraq sits upon an area which oil is found. So is this war a war to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or just held as excused to get oil from the country.

From this article, i learnt that with the help of the media, people perspective can be changed and tuned into actually believing the media of the things which are in the first place a bunch of lies. I also learnt that we have to source for more evidence and information before we can believe what is published by the media. In conclusion, the media is a good way to get our information from, but inorder to get the full picture of things, we have to explore different sources which will then help us believe and get to the truth of the matter.

2007-04-02T23:38:00.000+08:00

This blog is delicated for General Paper!!