this pandemic has been talked about so often. it takes up a substantiable amount of our newspapers, with depressing titles depicting nasty increases in global temperatures leading to devastating consequences.
not surprisingly, there's a lot of debates, in the news, media and online about who is really to blame about this issue.
the debates now are split into the three different opinionated groups.
but before i delve into the three proper, let's just take a look at global warming a little more closely. global warming is a process of the earth heating up, hence the term 'global warming'. it is mainly due to the rising emissions of gases that deteriorate and deplete the ozone layer, hence leading to more sun rays entering the earth's atmosphere and are not able to exit into space, leading to the heating and warming effect.
the gases are mainly, methane, carbon monoxide, chlorine and many other gases that i'll learn under organic chemistry next year. laughs.
the first group of self-acclaimed environmentalists claim that the blame should go to industries which produce such great amount of emissions of greenhouse gases. they claim that with the advanced technologies now present, there should be some device used, similar to catalytic converters in cars, to convert those dangerous gases into some compounds which are environmentally friendly.
the second group of mother earth advocates feel that the blame goes to the creator of industrial revolution who revolutionised how we implement technologies into the world around us. they believe that it's with this creation which led to the existence of global warming.
the final group has a more interesting view, both industrial revolution and industries are to blame.
i agree with the final group's point of view. first of all, i don't think that everything has to do with just industries or the creator of industrial revolution independently. that's pretty far-fetched and is not a supported claim.
we have to understand that industrial revolution, it was the use of steam engines to power machinery. the last time i checked, steam, the gaseous form of water was never a villain to the ozone layer.
consequently, i think what opinion was that, with the growing world population and demands for production from every aspect increasing, there was a need to tap on other sources of energy. hence, technology was improved and now, we see the usage of oil, coal and other natural resources. we now even see nuclear energy as the future propellant for energy demands.
it is clear that there is a possibility that the industrial revolution is, or rather was, the main trigger that set off ambitious aims at attaining greater energy production, without taking into consideration the possible effects of what their actions might do to the environment and the earth.
another cause of global warming: inconscientious industries that seek profit but fail to note the long-term effects of their actions.
industries now have become multi-faceted. with the growing affluence of countries, and the booming economy, some have moulded service industries, as opposed to primary and secondary industries.
hence, with the booming economy and an increasing demand for goods and services, industries have to reach out and attain these wants. this, i feel, is good for the growth and development of our countries. but sometimes, i think that we failed to implement measures that ensure that the industries not only contribute positively for now, but for the long-term.
this means that, they should be contributing to the economy actively, yet being stewards to the environment. i have seen reports of how much emissions of gases industries can generate and wonder why technology so advanced cannot do anything to address this issue.
surely there must be some viable inventions that scientists can come up to perhaps destroy chlorine atoms in the atmosphere, to prevent them from destroying ozone layer?
or a wonderful catalytic converter that can convert the major dangerous compounds into something more eco-friendly, or even beneficial to the environment?
i think that while we have successfully tapped on advanced technology to suit our daily life, and make me more comfortable, through use of air conditioners when days get hot, to mobile phones for communication and computers for data proccessing, i'm sure that we can use such technology for our long-term benefit.
furthermore, if we fail to address this issue, our so-called successes in technological advancements might lead to our very downfall if the global warming situation doesnt improve.
we have to do something. everyone, from every walks of life have to come together to generate ideas to create a possible solution to this problem.
it is already too late to continue being ignorant to this issue.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Saturday, April 21, 2007
criminal torture
before i even delve into the issue discussed this week on criminal torture, i must admit that the very vague articles sure demoralises me to a great extent.
okay, criminal torture. an issue that is being debated in the political and social world. the question 'is criminal torture ever justified?' still looms over our heads, seeking an answer and a long explanation.
on one side of the argument, it definitely is not. such torture is never right and hence can never be justified in any situation. in my opinion, it is clear why.
torture is, i believe, a lowly and an act of pure cowardice that is amounted from desperation and a lack of direction to approach a certain matter. an authority may be initially abhor such practices of criminal torture, but in the event that they have a lack of lead and investigations are insubstantiable, one cannot deny that torture seems like the most viable and enticing option. a short-cut.
but it is only prudent that we look at the practicality of such approaches. not only does criminal torture seek to degrade an individual, it shows how authorities do not exercise professionalism in addressing the issue in a more objective and upright manner.
though at times, the criminal might have committed such a heinous crime, why must authorities also stoop to an equally low level of morals showed by the criminal and torture him, assuming that that does justice? it might instead augment the tense situation, as more crimes might occur, with people showing their disapproval of such a scheme of justice.
it is clear that torture is not wise and there are better alternatives. like better investigation, more diplomatic approaches and such.
consequently, at times, in our anger and frustrations as a nation, we wonder whether, maybe, just maybe, is such criminal torture ever justified.
take a look at the september eleventh attack on the world trade centre. the event that not only shattered the global economy but also irrevocably shattered the national pride of a country, in this case, the united states of america.
i mean, if i was an american and i had such authoritative powers and managed to capture the criminal responsible for such malice, i'd love to ensure that every bit of his skin met with a red-hot poker. that would truly lead me to believe, that justice was met.
similarly, in real-life, our emotions sometimes, more often than not, clog our logic, and our ability to reason carefully. we think that it's right, that the severity of the situation is directly proportional to the amount of torture that one might receive in punishment, with hopes that he'd atone for his mistakes. but is that really?
or are we practising a system whereby it breeds people not to be gracious and faithful, but just a creed of people who seek to inflict pain for justice?
we have to really look at this carefully and tease out the facts. as to whether the system is for the greater good, or does it only undermine our values and respect for other human beings, who are made equally to every single one of us. it is just their wrongdoings that somewhat sets us apart from them.
as a student, i'm used to telling my friends in consolation that 'we all make mistakes'. i'm sure that many others also do so. if that's the case, then why is it that we find it so hard when what we're dealing with involves the pride of not an individual alone, but the whole nation's population.
i think that leaves us with a lot to ponder and think about.
till the next entry.
okay, criminal torture. an issue that is being debated in the political and social world. the question 'is criminal torture ever justified?' still looms over our heads, seeking an answer and a long explanation.
on one side of the argument, it definitely is not. such torture is never right and hence can never be justified in any situation. in my opinion, it is clear why.
torture is, i believe, a lowly and an act of pure cowardice that is amounted from desperation and a lack of direction to approach a certain matter. an authority may be initially abhor such practices of criminal torture, but in the event that they have a lack of lead and investigations are insubstantiable, one cannot deny that torture seems like the most viable and enticing option. a short-cut.
but it is only prudent that we look at the practicality of such approaches. not only does criminal torture seek to degrade an individual, it shows how authorities do not exercise professionalism in addressing the issue in a more objective and upright manner.
though at times, the criminal might have committed such a heinous crime, why must authorities also stoop to an equally low level of morals showed by the criminal and torture him, assuming that that does justice? it might instead augment the tense situation, as more crimes might occur, with people showing their disapproval of such a scheme of justice.
it is clear that torture is not wise and there are better alternatives. like better investigation, more diplomatic approaches and such.
consequently, at times, in our anger and frustrations as a nation, we wonder whether, maybe, just maybe, is such criminal torture ever justified.
take a look at the september eleventh attack on the world trade centre. the event that not only shattered the global economy but also irrevocably shattered the national pride of a country, in this case, the united states of america.
i mean, if i was an american and i had such authoritative powers and managed to capture the criminal responsible for such malice, i'd love to ensure that every bit of his skin met with a red-hot poker. that would truly lead me to believe, that justice was met.
similarly, in real-life, our emotions sometimes, more often than not, clog our logic, and our ability to reason carefully. we think that it's right, that the severity of the situation is directly proportional to the amount of torture that one might receive in punishment, with hopes that he'd atone for his mistakes. but is that really?
or are we practising a system whereby it breeds people not to be gracious and faithful, but just a creed of people who seek to inflict pain for justice?
we have to really look at this carefully and tease out the facts. as to whether the system is for the greater good, or does it only undermine our values and respect for other human beings, who are made equally to every single one of us. it is just their wrongdoings that somewhat sets us apart from them.
as a student, i'm used to telling my friends in consolation that 'we all make mistakes'. i'm sure that many others also do so. if that's the case, then why is it that we find it so hard when what we're dealing with involves the pride of not an individual alone, but the whole nation's population.
i think that leaves us with a lot to ponder and think about.
till the next entry.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
new media
new media; power to the people or a threat to stability?
new media has now sprung up as the world faces a huge advancement in technology. we now have e-mail, blogs, blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras, the Internet, mobile phones, talk radio and 24-hour news.
naturally, these inventions have radically reshaped the way that we access our daily news. everything is now more fast paced and information is readily available anywhere on the globe.
that being said, it's clear that sometimes, this 'evolution' of new media has brought forth a worrying thought. as to whether it acts as a positive source of power to the people or does it desecrate political stability.
taking the example that we face right now, involving the military dispute of Iraq and United States. although previously, under Saddam Hussein, one might have his tongue cut out if found with possession of a satellite disc or having accessed the internet, now, everyone has access to the internet and also own a satellite disc.
human curiousity would also urge them to watch news to keep up with the instability that their country is facing. unfortunately, Al-Qaeda and other extremists groups have successfully infiltrated this forum, swaying the Muslims opinions and views of the West. hence, they fall prey to such influence and feel that the US are vile.
this shows how powerful media communications can be. extremists groups have understood that a well-crafted story could be as damaging as a military attack to political stability.
another lucid example would be the false allegations of the desecration of the Quran last year. (as a muslim, i understand the spelling to be as such and not Koran)
although it wasnt' true, the powerful data communication through print media, the Internet, e-mails and the like spread the news like wildfire. it had sparked nasty anti-american riots in afghanistan and pakistan, days before america sought the evidence and responding that the claims were untrue.
consequently, there are benefits that can be tapped on with the growing conglomeration of new media. the global phenomenon of blogs, which have not only risen in numbers, but also in prominence. technorati, an online blog search engine, tracks approximately seventy-five thousand new blogs each day.
mainstream press is now placed in a position whereby they respond to the news generated by bloggers. as a blogger myself, i have a personal blog (and not this anderson junior college general paper blog) and i see the great speed of communication of information.
at times, certain issues become so rampant in the blogging arena, that the print media react to the content raised in prominent blogs. for example, Wendy Cheng of xiangxue.blogspot.com had some harsh statements about the rape case involving a filipino girl and US marine lance danial smith. lime magazine quoted her in march this year.
if technological development and new media is that unheard of, why would lime magazine quote wendy cheng and not vice versa. it shows how mainstream media has got to diversify to keep up with changing times.
following prominent bloggers like Wendy Cheng, political consultant, news services and candidates are also tapping upon the influential power and the immediacy of blogs for outreach and opinion forming.
perhaps we should ponder on the issue as to why blogs are being utilised for such ambitious goals. i personally credit it to the fact that blogs enable free speech to be exercised.
unfortunately, there are many countries that have exercised censorship on blogs. blogs with outspoken and inflammatory content are either shut down or censored by authorities. this repression is being practised in even more countries. what started in 2003 saw only China, Vietnam and the Maldives imprisoning cyber-dissidents. now more countries practice that, claiming that it's a direct challenge to the sovereignty and stability in one country.
the act of repression in many countries is being questioned greatly. for example, i'm somewhat pulled by what an Iranian, now living in Canada had to say.
"censoring (specifically) blogs, the governments are depriving themselves of amazing sources of information about what their population thinking of them and what they're up to."
that is so true! if blogs are allowed to maintain it's flow of free opinions and expressions, irregardless of what the content is inflammatory and seeks to challenge the government, the bottom line is that, the government can take it as a form of constructive feedback to improve themselves. denying the situation of the country might really trigger off a devastating political strife that may prove tough to calm.
hence in all honesty, i feel that it's important for authorities to understand that innate potential of blogging and new media. they can either be in denial as to the potential of it and face dire consequences, or they can tap upon it for the benefit of the country.
i've also realised that i've gone beyond the three hundred word limit for this entry. well, we all were given voluminous amounts of information to tap on in the first place didnt we?
new media has now sprung up as the world faces a huge advancement in technology. we now have e-mail, blogs, blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras, the Internet, mobile phones, talk radio and 24-hour news.
naturally, these inventions have radically reshaped the way that we access our daily news. everything is now more fast paced and information is readily available anywhere on the globe.
that being said, it's clear that sometimes, this 'evolution' of new media has brought forth a worrying thought. as to whether it acts as a positive source of power to the people or does it desecrate political stability.
taking the example that we face right now, involving the military dispute of Iraq and United States. although previously, under Saddam Hussein, one might have his tongue cut out if found with possession of a satellite disc or having accessed the internet, now, everyone has access to the internet and also own a satellite disc.
human curiousity would also urge them to watch news to keep up with the instability that their country is facing. unfortunately, Al-Qaeda and other extremists groups have successfully infiltrated this forum, swaying the Muslims opinions and views of the West. hence, they fall prey to such influence and feel that the US are vile.
this shows how powerful media communications can be. extremists groups have understood that a well-crafted story could be as damaging as a military attack to political stability.
another lucid example would be the false allegations of the desecration of the Quran last year. (as a muslim, i understand the spelling to be as such and not Koran)
although it wasnt' true, the powerful data communication through print media, the Internet, e-mails and the like spread the news like wildfire. it had sparked nasty anti-american riots in afghanistan and pakistan, days before america sought the evidence and responding that the claims were untrue.
consequently, there are benefits that can be tapped on with the growing conglomeration of new media. the global phenomenon of blogs, which have not only risen in numbers, but also in prominence. technorati, an online blog search engine, tracks approximately seventy-five thousand new blogs each day.
mainstream press is now placed in a position whereby they respond to the news generated by bloggers. as a blogger myself, i have a personal blog (and not this anderson junior college general paper blog) and i see the great speed of communication of information.
at times, certain issues become so rampant in the blogging arena, that the print media react to the content raised in prominent blogs. for example, Wendy Cheng of xiangxue.blogspot.com had some harsh statements about the rape case involving a filipino girl and US marine lance danial smith. lime magazine quoted her in march this year.
if technological development and new media is that unheard of, why would lime magazine quote wendy cheng and not vice versa. it shows how mainstream media has got to diversify to keep up with changing times.
following prominent bloggers like Wendy Cheng, political consultant, news services and candidates are also tapping upon the influential power and the immediacy of blogs for outreach and opinion forming.
perhaps we should ponder on the issue as to why blogs are being utilised for such ambitious goals. i personally credit it to the fact that blogs enable free speech to be exercised.
unfortunately, there are many countries that have exercised censorship on blogs. blogs with outspoken and inflammatory content are either shut down or censored by authorities. this repression is being practised in even more countries. what started in 2003 saw only China, Vietnam and the Maldives imprisoning cyber-dissidents. now more countries practice that, claiming that it's a direct challenge to the sovereignty and stability in one country.
the act of repression in many countries is being questioned greatly. for example, i'm somewhat pulled by what an Iranian, now living in Canada had to say.
"censoring (specifically) blogs, the governments are depriving themselves of amazing sources of information about what their population thinking of them and what they're up to."
that is so true! if blogs are allowed to maintain it's flow of free opinions and expressions, irregardless of what the content is inflammatory and seeks to challenge the government, the bottom line is that, the government can take it as a form of constructive feedback to improve themselves. denying the situation of the country might really trigger off a devastating political strife that may prove tough to calm.
hence in all honesty, i feel that it's important for authorities to understand that innate potential of blogging and new media. they can either be in denial as to the potential of it and face dire consequences, or they can tap upon it for the benefit of the country.
i've also realised that i've gone beyond the three hundred word limit for this entry. well, we all were given voluminous amounts of information to tap on in the first place didnt we?
Friday, April 6, 2007
3; blogging activity - media's reliability
can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth?
well, personally, i'd say no. however, this is an issue being discussed by ajc gp students, so it's prudent to take a balanced view on the situation.
firstly, i feel we should take a look at the laws that the government has impressed in different countries. in singapore for example, media censorship is introduced. this is wise, since, given the fact that singaporean society is pretty conservative, disturbing news might lead to utter chaos, panic and disorder in the country.
furthermore, one of the principles that singapore's governance is based on is the practice of pragmatism and practicality. the government controls the press to ensure the media broadcasts news which is reliable, yet ensuring that people are not strung into panic and also are wide aware of what is happening.
then again, i think that this entry should not be heavily confined to the boundaries of singapore.
i once remembered watching oprah winfrey show sometime back, and she was discussing the issue on bird flu, because she felt that the news coverage was lacking and not being blunt about the truth. during the course of her show, she invited guests from the health and sciences department from all across america and brought disturbing light to the severity of the issue and even labelled the bird flu crisis as a 'pandemic'.
though i'm in singapore, i felt the reveberating shockwave of the brutality of that news. but perhaps because oprah was professional and guided the discussion easily, the situation was tense but did not invite anything that seeked to create havoc and disorder. i think the media scene has to use this as a guide to addressing important issues, should they be wary of the consequences, lest we risk the chance of being blinded by the truth.
i am not sure why, but i've never been compelled to even consider that singapore's media might be covering up important issues in place of 'sensationalistc and superficial tripe'. perhaps it's become routine to absorb what i hear. or perhaps it's because, even if the news is highly depressing and somewhat disturbing, we are given the vitals slowly and over time. time heals all. this is one clear example.
consequently, we do hear of stories where media does abuse censorship for profits, or for fears of losing rankings and readers.
this article on 'great lies of american press' does reveal shocking news of what some corporate-controlled media agencies do.
it's quite a shame that sometimes, educational or enlightening stories are being pushed aside to make room for superficial or sensationalistic news. by definition, it is important that media seek to highlight the important issues. entertainment news should be bared to a minimum.
though the article's view whereby it states that some agencies express fears of losing readers, the bottom line is that the truth gets out and not something superficial and based on lies and rumours. in the long run, should the false claims be surfaced, the agency not only have to bear scrutiny of people, but also of the other media agencies and it's reputation will be tarnished permanently.
not so nice, is it?
some media news agencies also seek to block out important issues for fear of criticisms and uproar from the readers alike.
some media seek to only give news so as to be popular and earn profit whilst compromising the truth. this should be changed and also the approach to news should be given a reform. ultimately, on the whole, the news can be relied upon to a great extent.
well, personally, i'd say no. however, this is an issue being discussed by ajc gp students, so it's prudent to take a balanced view on the situation.
firstly, i feel we should take a look at the laws that the government has impressed in different countries. in singapore for example, media censorship is introduced. this is wise, since, given the fact that singaporean society is pretty conservative, disturbing news might lead to utter chaos, panic and disorder in the country.
furthermore, one of the principles that singapore's governance is based on is the practice of pragmatism and practicality. the government controls the press to ensure the media broadcasts news which is reliable, yet ensuring that people are not strung into panic and also are wide aware of what is happening.
then again, i think that this entry should not be heavily confined to the boundaries of singapore.
i once remembered watching oprah winfrey show sometime back, and she was discussing the issue on bird flu, because she felt that the news coverage was lacking and not being blunt about the truth. during the course of her show, she invited guests from the health and sciences department from all across america and brought disturbing light to the severity of the issue and even labelled the bird flu crisis as a 'pandemic'.
though i'm in singapore, i felt the reveberating shockwave of the brutality of that news. but perhaps because oprah was professional and guided the discussion easily, the situation was tense but did not invite anything that seeked to create havoc and disorder. i think the media scene has to use this as a guide to addressing important issues, should they be wary of the consequences, lest we risk the chance of being blinded by the truth.
i am not sure why, but i've never been compelled to even consider that singapore's media might be covering up important issues in place of 'sensationalistc and superficial tripe'. perhaps it's become routine to absorb what i hear. or perhaps it's because, even if the news is highly depressing and somewhat disturbing, we are given the vitals slowly and over time. time heals all. this is one clear example.
consequently, we do hear of stories where media does abuse censorship for profits, or for fears of losing rankings and readers.
this article on 'great lies of american press' does reveal shocking news of what some corporate-controlled media agencies do.
it's quite a shame that sometimes, educational or enlightening stories are being pushed aside to make room for superficial or sensationalistic news. by definition, it is important that media seek to highlight the important issues. entertainment news should be bared to a minimum.
though the article's view whereby it states that some agencies express fears of losing readers, the bottom line is that the truth gets out and not something superficial and based on lies and rumours. in the long run, should the false claims be surfaced, the agency not only have to bear scrutiny of people, but also of the other media agencies and it's reputation will be tarnished permanently.
not so nice, is it?
some media news agencies also seek to block out important issues for fear of criticisms and uproar from the readers alike.
some media seek to only give news so as to be popular and earn profit whilst compromising the truth. this should be changed and also the approach to news should be given a reform. ultimately, on the whole, the news can be relied upon to a great extent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
