AwAkenED SOuls

Environment issues

2008-09-26T14:17:00.001+08:00

Extra practice-essay

2008-07-28T22:13:00.005+08:00

"Violence to end violence". is this the solution to terrorism

Terrorism is a violent action or a set of actions aimed at promoting a political objective. While in the recent years, governments have grouped terrorism as an important objective and aim to remove it at any costs. However, one may look back at the various attacks and contemplate the rashness in the actions governments have undertaken in their plan to exterminate the root cause. But even with the use violence as an effective solution to terrorism and also serving as a form of retribution, it could also proved ineffective compared to other alternatives like peaceful dissuasion and working hand in hand with other countries to come up with better and non-violent solutions.

The terrorists in the future are those rooted strongly to their religions and unaffected by reverse radicalism. Being tenacious in their objectives, they would sacrifice anything to get their points across. Ordinary methods like persuasion or peace talks would not help to stop them. Furthermore, the damage they do to the economic market and political instability created could well justify the use of barbaric yet effective solutions. For instance, the attack on Iraq initiated by Big Sam was an example of uses of violence. Iraq was directly linked to the issue of terrorism due to transfer of funds from Saddam Hussein to the terrorists in Palestine. Hence, President Bush decided to invade Iraq to remove the root cause of terrorism and sending more than 100,000 US troops to fight the war on terror. As a result, terrorists groups were suppressed and Saddam Hussein, a main sponsor and considered a dangerous man was prosecuted and executed. Violence is indeed an effective method to utilize as it has shown.

The world is sanctioned by international laws and everyone is to abide by it. Thus it is correct that when one commits a crime and will have to pay with a punishment which matches the seriousness of the crime. The theory of retributive justice holds at the point where violence also holds is that when it is use to uphold justice. “Let the punishment fit the crime” is the underlying principle that determines the severity of the acts the terrorist commits. Not only will this in turn lead to reverse radicalism; it also leads to a severe and strong deterrent effect. Furthermore, some terrorist groups have secret hideouts and even a plan in future to create devastation. In order to squeeze information out from them to remove the roots, torturous punishments have to be implemented. Hence it is the solution to terrorism.

However, when the mandatory death sentence is ruled on a captured terrorist, there is little chance for him to change the minds of his members from destruction to peace. Some converted terrorists like Nasir Abas, a member of Jemaah Islamiah, have helped the world rid some terrorists. Nasir visits ex-comrades in jail to persuade them to cooperate and speaks critically of Jemaah Islamiah in the media. So far, the program has helped disengage two dozen Jemaah Islamiah members, according to the independent International Crisis Group.

Also, violence is long been used since the ancient times and would often portray a wrong idea of revenge rather than retribution in real life, there is a thin line between revenge and retribution. When using violence as a form of legislation or in conjunction with the law, one might develop the mentality that violence is indeed a quick and efficient way to achieve an aim that is even used by the most righteous organisations. The media of the future also to some extent helps to glorify the idea of using violence thorough movies and variety shows like The Contender. Students and children are the most worrying age groups as they have minds that are easily impressed upon by the violence in the media. For example, there are many recent cases of schools shooting in US and random killings in Japan. This is especially detrimental to a country where there are potential possibilities of emerging terrorism groups. Hence, violence should not be used as there is a probability of fueling terrorism rather than dousing it.

More often than not, violent groups have resorted to using violence because of the hopelessness in their situation. Hence some may not be resistant to carry out diplomatic talks to resolve their problems and maintain peace. Countries mostly were too anxious to protect the rights and the property of their citizens as the survival of their political party in power depends on the citizens. Hence when the citizens feel protected, they will tend to vote for the party that seems to protect their lives and property more over the others. Furthermore, through early education and preventive measures like going through the activities of every religious organisation, much of the devastation might be avoided. For example, there are harsh sets of standard operating procedures that can be carried out on one if there is suspicion of terrorist behaviours. Hence, might implementing a combination of the above measures it might be more efficient in rooting out the evil.

In conclusion, I feel that violence is indeed a good measure to counter terrorism. However in the long run, the use is not as feasible as firstly financial costs, political instability and also leading to dangerous country to reside in. Long term solutions may include persuasion, diplomacy talks, education, frequent checks and balances which might prove to be more effective.

2008-07-21T20:12:00.003+08:00

organ trading is an agreement between buyer and seller and shld not involve government legislation. DYA

With the issue becoming more hot a topic in the modern world, ethics are more often than not a tough knot to undo. However, because of the moral concerns raised by many, the government has no choice but to put a hand into the scalding issue. TBC

MYE Essay Rewrite

2008-07-13T15:56:00.001+08:00

Violence as a means of achieving justice is impractical and immoral. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

The use of violence had been extensive through the years ranging from the ancient times wars to modern day punishments. Violence is used in wars, riots, protests towards various target groups to achieve different means. More than often, the usage of violence is criticized as immoral and even impractical as a mean to right a wrong. Terrorism is an issue that sits on the fence; criminal prosecution may be effective in preventing crimes but also inhumane at times. Violence when used appropriately can be practical but not always moral but could also be used as a tool to invade other nations for unidentified reasons.

Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate and subsequently obtaining the submission of the targets. These acts of violence are normally used by people who have strong urge to change something in their country but has no authority to cause the change. For example, coups or uprising against corrupt governments which control the military are instances where peaceful protests does little impact. Hence they have to resort to unlawful means to “help” those bounded by the corrupted governments. More often than not, these acts result in high death toll and often do not reflect fairly of the cost of their grievances. Also the acts of justice do not have a 100% success rate of achieving their main objectives or persuading the government bodies to give in to their requests. One instance of such is the Tibetan protestors who attack innocent Chinese civilians to protest against the Chinese ruling. Hence the unfair tradeoff and the ineffective violence prove that violence is not a suitable approach of achieving justice while many other approaches could be found without causing massive death tolls.

In contrast, the use of violence to express objection is justified when there is a form of unfairness that could only be solved by violence. Terrorism is often quoted as an effective way of achieving justice as it could instill fear in the organizations involved and push for submission. For e.g., the protection of one’s civil rights, community and property (e.g. natives against their invaders) allows for the use. The Mau Mau independence movement in Kenya was one good example where the acts of terrorism are justified. The Mau Mau Movement began among the Kikuyu who shared the same grievances with all other Kenyan peoples. At the same time, land shortages among the Kikuyu were particularly bad. There were many settler farms in Kikuyu land and a lot of Kikuyu land had been taken for European settlement. The Mau Mau War put an end to the hopes of white settlers for independence under the white minority rule. As a result of Mau Mau, the British government began planning for Kenyan independence under majority rule. Hence the Mau Mau movement proved to be practical and moral as they were willing to fight for their rights without much death toll.

On top of that, the capital punishment is implemented as it serves as a form of deterrence to others due to the disgust and horror of it. Not only that, it also serves as a form of security to the society to remove a threat that might potentially take more victims with them. According to a research done by Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Paul H. Rubin, the results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders with a margin of error of plus or minus 10. The capital punishment is entirely justified as according to the theory of retributive justice which considers that proportionate punishment is a morally acceptable response to crime, regardless of whether the punishment causes any tangible benefits. Furthermore, the ruling of life imprisonment akin to capital punishment costs significantly more, thus wasting the taxpayers’ money. Executing the offender would reduce the burden of the person on the society. Hence anyone that kills another man should use his/her life to pay for the life he/she has taken.

On the contrary, Law is a system of rules which is enforced through a set of institutions. People who go against rules of the legal system are thus punishable by the system. The equality and impartiality of the law has been known to many and are hence respected by the majority. Some countries implement the capital punishment which allows severe crimes to be punishable by death penalty. However, one is unable to full understand the objective of utilizing the death sentence, whether to deter others or to serve as a retributive reflection. For example, a study conducted in US has produced evidence that the use of death penalty as a form of deterrence is adverse and inconclusive.Anti-capital punishment campaigners in the U.S. cite the higher cost of executing someone over life in prison, but this (whilst true for America) has to do with the endless appeals and delays in carrying out death sentences that are allowed under the U.S. legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 11 years. In Britain in the 20th century, the average time in the condemned cell was from 3 to 8 weeks and there was only one appeal.From a moral perspective, the abolitionists believe state executions signal that violence is an acceptable means of resolving conflicts and thus actually contribute to a climate of increased violence.The innocent family and friends of criminals must also go through in the time leading up to and during the execution and which will often cause them serious trauma for years to come. Hence the indirect psychological damage to those related is high and the opposite effect it has on the society shown that is immoral.

Furthermore, the use of violence in prisons is also immoral. The abu ghraib prison is one fine example on how the punishment of Iraq prisoners has been controlled by humans’ emotions, leading to torture. Abuses of the prisoners range from shameful and mentally torturous acts to even life threatening ones like putting a vest of electric live wires. One can never bear to see how a human life is treated below the bare minimal rights of an animal.

In a world where the security of a country could be easily threatened by the existence of weapons of mass destruction, countries can apply for UN’s permission to allow for invasion to remove the threat. However, an exception to the case is US’s invasion into Iraq which was initially based on the threat that Iraq possessed WMDs. Soon there were intelligence reports that there were no WMD in Iraq but still American troops were still stationed there. It soon revealed that the main aim was for the oil supply in Iraq. The estimated amount of deaths and economic cost are 1,033,000 deaths and $501 billion, as of march 2008, as a result of the conflict. Hence the use of violence as an aim of removing WMDs are impractical as it caused many innocent lives and immoral and it was a deceiving act by US. The economic cost can be effectively used to remedy the more pressing climate change or internal problems.

‘Actions speak more than words’ as a proverb states. Hence the use of violence in a protest can amplify the amount of dissatisfaction or hatred the community feels towards the issue involved. Recently the South Korean protests has developed into a more violent protest as the president has not entirely undertake the safety precautions in ensuring the purity of the beef imported from USA. There were bans soon after on the cows that were over a certain age and on parts that were relatively vulnerable to the infection of the disease. Hence in order to protect their community of the deadly mad cow disease entirely, the South Koreans families have taken it to the streets to call for more preventive measures or even a full ban.

As a whole, violence is both a useful mean to achieve justice and there is a thin line which could cause disastrous damage if crossed over. One must be able to think through the practicality and morality of carrying out the actions, hence justifying the cause for violence. Also every problem in the world would definitely have alternatives to it although some may be easy to identify while for cases very rare.

All about terrorism

2008-07-13T15:55:00.001+08:00

Terrorism
Terrorism is also a form of unconventional warfare and psychological warfare.

Terrorism is also often recognizable by a following statement from the perpetrators
Violence--According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and international Studies, the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.".
Psychological impact and fear--The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to.
Perpetrated for a Political Goal-- their perpetration for a political purpose, the change is desired so badly that failure is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.

Types of terrorism

Civil Disorders – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community.
Political Terrorism – Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes.
Non-Political Terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective.”
Quasi-Terrorism – The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-terrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences and reaction. For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite different.
Limited Political Terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to “acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the State.
Official or State Terrorism –"referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions.” It may also be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of their foreign policy.

MY essay

2008-07-07T22:23:00.001+08:00

mdm loh i did it in msword. so heres the download link...
(http://www.2shared.com/file/3558759/467d49f2/Violence_as_a_means_of_achieving_justice_is_impractical_and_immoral1.html)

medical developments-- moral dilemmas

2008-03-19T21:44:00.002+08:00

animal testing

BBC
Pro testing

"The purpose of biomedical research and testing is to understand the living body and what goes wrong in disease, and to develop safe and effective ways of preventing or treating those diseases. "

"Developing new treatments for diseases, or ways of preventing diseases 26%
Fundamental biological and medical research 32% "

Anti animal testing

clones

cloning wow
another cloning site
time article
time article 2

SDL Research on Environmental Issues

2008-02-28T22:14:00.000+08:00

SDL Research on Political Systems (fri 4th jan 08)

2008-02-23T21:12:00.002+08:00

Republic
WIKI-A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, where the people of that state or country (or at least a part of that people)have impact on its government,and that is usually indicated as a republic.
Dict.com-a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
M-W.com-A government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit

EXAMPLES
Indonesia
Singapore
East Timor
Lebanon
Italy
USA
Slovakia
Taiwan
China

wiki republic

Democracy

wiki-In political theory, Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.

Majority rule is a major principle of democracy, though many democratic systems do not adhere to this strictly - representative democracy is more common than direct democracy, and minority rights are often protected from what is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority". Popular sovereignty is common but not universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy.

No universally accepted definition of 'democracy' exists, especially with regard to the elements in a society which are required for it. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy.

MW- government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

dict.com-government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

usinfostate- In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic.

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.

Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to private organizations and other groups. Democracy has its origins in Ancient India, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Europe, and North and South America but modern conceptions are significantly different. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe. Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.

democracy us

wiki democracy
democ watch

Communism

wiki-socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. Opponents say that communism is an ideology, whereas marxist promoters say that it is the only political system without ideology, because it is the consequence of historical materialism and the revolution of the proletariat. Although many forms of communism, such as Leninism, Trotskyism and Luxemburgism, are based on Marxism and Karl Marx is sometimes known as the "father of Communism", non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist.

mw- a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

dict.com-

The Principles of Communism
Leftist parties

Socialism

wiki-Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement. In this period, the term 'socialism' was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.

Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange. Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.

mw-any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

dict.com-a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

wiki socialism
pbs socialism
Why Socialism?

Dictatorship

wiki-A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator. It has three possible meanings:

* Roman dictator was a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.
* In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.
* For some scholars, like Joseph C.W. Chan from the University of Hong Kong, dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed, while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what the government regulates). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) corresponds to liberalism (government emphasizes individual right and liberty). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.

mw-a: a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b: a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c: a despotic state

dict.com-a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.

FActs-In fiction, dictatorship has sometimes been portrayed as the political system of choice for controlling dystopian societies, such as in:

* George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four
* Yevgeny Zamyatin's We
* Fritz Leiber's Ill Met in Lankhmar
* Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451
* J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
* Chancellor Adam Sutler in V For Vendetta

dictatorship wiki
worst dictators

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

2007-09-11T20:37:00.000+08:00

As we rapidly cruise through the age of globalization, everything is replaced by the flow of globalization. Beliefs are slowly being eliminated as we progress towards a society which emphasizes on personal rights. We never seen much commotion about same sex marriages until when globalization steps in. But is it a practical consideration in the age of globalization?

Proponents of same sex marriages says that denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). The main reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that all major religions consider homosexuality a sin; however, the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. Marriage by the state is a secular activity; the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should. What's next, should we make taking the Lord's name in vain a criminal activity because Christians consider it a breaking of a commandment? Should we revisit the laws set before we even exist and change our minds to fit our country's context? As a society moves on, the people in it should follow the pace and change as accordingly. Thus we should start to accept them despite their "shortcomings" and allow them to fit into our society.

However, most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws. Not forgetting these, the position of religion in our lives are eroded gradually and is not considered vital nowadays.

A common reason for same sex marriage is that the thing that matters should in a marriage is love. The number one reason that heterosexuals marry is not to establish legal status, allow joint filing of taxes, or protect each other in medical decision-making. They marry because it is the ultimate expression of a person's love for another. Marriage is a commitment that says "I love you so much that I want to live the rest of my life with you. I want to share the ups and downs, forsake all others, and be together until death do us part." Should it matter that the couple doesn't fit into what society is used to? Some people talk about living wills and other legal contracts that can give homosexuals essentially the same rights as a married couple. If that is the case, why don't all heterosexual couples use these legal maneuvers instead of marriage? Just maybe there's something more to it.

Also, the lacking in biological ability to procreate makes them opt for adoption instead. In African only there are 12.3 million children waiting patiently to be brought to "real life" and in China, there might be approximately the same number as Africa. These children are suffering everyday and the only saviours are the couples of same sex. Like any heterosexual couple relationship, a same-sex marriage may fuel the desire for a family. Since gay couples cannot have kids naturally, this will likely increase the desire to adopt. Since there are so many kids around the country in need of adoption, this is a good thing. However, others believe a child reared in a same-sex marriage do not develop ideally. Evidence at this point is inconclusive since same-sex adoptions have yet to become widespread.

On an international scale, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - completely contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage.

Economic arguments on the impact of same-sex marriage focus on the effects on same-sex couples, businesses, employers, and governments. UCLA Law School economist and policy researcher Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett has studied the impact of same-sex legal marriage on all four of these groups. Same sex couples are affected economically other than socially. They face other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples:

* potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one

* costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of the US for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-US citizen

* higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and children if company is not one of 18% that offer domestic partner benefits

* higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation

* legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage

* higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples

* current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner

* same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower taxes via the marriage bonus

However, allowing such marriages would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. 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.

The decision is rather of a objective one. Each person has their freedom to choice
and a say to what they want to do. If we were to restrict such marriages, our society will be much better off. Higher revenue could be generated from them and even we do not even know that we could benefit from them. As long as people remove the stubborn block that is hindering their ability to think, the world might be a wonderful place to be in.

Globalisation and Culture

2007-09-10T12:10:00.000+08:00

Pros of globalising a country

Bringing you out of the body

2007-08-24T17:10:00.000+08:00

Scientists induce out-of-body sensation using virtual reality
By Sandra Blakeslee

Thursday, August 23, 2007
NEW YORK: Using virtual reality goggles, a camera and a stick, scientists have induced out-of-body experiences in healthy people, according to experiments being published in the journal Science.

When people gaze at an illusory image of themselves through the goggles and are prodded in just the right way with the stick, they feel as if they have left their bodies.

The research reveals that "the sense of having a body, of being in a bodily self," is actually constructed from multiple sensory streams, said Matthew Botvinick, an assistant professor of neuroscience at Princeton University who is an expert on body and mind but was not involved in the experiments.

Usually these sensory streams, which include including vision, touch, balance and the sense of where one's body is positioned in space, work together seamlessly, Botvinick said. But when the information coming from the sensory sources does not match up, when they are thrown out of synch, the sense of being embodied as a whole comes apart.

The brain, which abhors ambiguity, then forces a decision that can, as the new experiments show, involve the sense of being in a different body.

The research provides a physical explanation for phenomena usually ascribed to other-worldly influences, said Peter Brugger, a neurologist at University Hospital in Zurich, Switzerland. After severe and sudden injuries, people often report the sensation of floating over their body, looking down, hearing what is said, and then, just as suddenly, find themselves back inside their body.

The new research is a first step in figuring out exactly how the brain creates this sensation, he said.

The out-of-body experiments were conducted by two research groups using slightly different methods intended to expand the so-called rubber hand illusion.

In that illusion, people hide one hand in their lap and look at a rubber hand set on a table in front of them. As a researcher strokes the real hand and the rubber hand simultaneously with a stick, people have the vivid sense that the rubber hand is their own.

When the rubber hand is whacked with a hammer, people wince and sometimes cry out.

The illusion shows that body parts can be separated from the whole body by manipulating a mismatch between touch and vision. That is, when a person's brain sees the fake hand being stroked and feels the same sensation, the sense of being touched is misattributed to the fake.

The new experiments were designed to create a whole body illusion with similar manipulations.

In Switzerland, Dr. Olaf Blanke, a neuroscientist at the École Polytechnique Fédérale in Lausanne, Switzerland, asked people to don virtual reality goggles while standing in an empty room. A camera projected an image of each person taken from the back and displayed 6 feet, or about 2 meters, away. The subjects thus saw an illusory image of themselves standing in the distance.

Then Dr. Blanke stroked each person's back for one minute with a stick while simultaneously projecting the image of the stick onto the illusory image of the person's body.

When the strokes were synchronous, people reported the sensation of being momentarily within the illusory body. When the strokes were not synchronous, the illusion did not occur.

In another variation, Dr. Blanke projected a "rubber body" - a cheap mannequin bought on eBay and dressed in the same clothes as the subject - into the virtual reality goggles. With synchronous strokes of the stick, people's sense of self drifted into the mannequin.

A separate set of experiments were carried out by Dr. Henrik Ehrsson, an assistant professor of neuroscience at the Karolinska Insitutute in Helsinki.

Last year, when Dr. Ehrsson was, as he says, "a bored medical student at University College London," he wondered, he said, "what would happen if you 'took' your eyes and moved them to a different part of a room? Would you see yourself where you eyes were placed? Or from where your body was placed?"

To find out, Dr. Ehrsson asked people to sit on a chair and wear goggles connected to two video cameras placed 6 feet behind them. The left camera projected to the left eye. The right camera projected to the right eye. As a result, people saw their own backs from the perspective of a virtual person sitting behind them.

Using two sticks, Dr. Ehrsson stroked each person's chest for two minutes with one stick while moving a second stick just under the camera lenses - as if it were touching the virtual body.

Again, when the stroking was synchronous people reported the sense of being outside their own bodies - in this case looking at themselves from a distance where their "eyes" were located.

Then Dr. Ehrsson grabbed a hammer. While people were experiencing the illusion, he pretended to smash the virtual body by waving the hammer just below the cameras. Immediately, the subjects registered a threat response as measured by sensors on their skin. They sweated and their pulses raced.

They also reacted emotionally, as if they were watching themselves get hurt, Dr. Ehrsson said.

People who participated in the experiments said that they felt a sense of drifting out of their bodies but not a strong sense of floating or rotating, as is common in full-blown out of body experiences, the researchers said.

The next set of experiments will involve decoupling not just touch and vision but other aspects of sensory embodiment, including the felt sense of the body position in space and balance, they said.

Such mismatches are likely to occur naturally when multi-sensory regions of the brain are deprived of oxygen after injury or shock. Or they may be induced during sleep paralysis, the exertion of extreme sports or intense meditation practices that alter blood flow to specific brain regions.

Diversity(IHT)

2007-08-24T17:05:00.000+08:00

The downside of diversity
By Michael Jonas
The Boston Globe
Sunday, August 5, 2007
IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools, and it poses challenges to advocates on all sides of the issues. The study is already being cited by some conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to the nation's social fabric. But with demographic trends already pushing the nation inexorably toward greater diversity, the real question may yet lie ahead: how to handle the unsettling social changes that Putnam's research predicts.

"We can't ignore the findings," says Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. "The big question we have to ask ourselves is, what do we do about it; what are the next steps?"

The study is part of a fascinating new portrait of diversity emerging from recent scholarship. Diversity, it shows, makes us uncomfortable -- but discomfort, it turns out, isn't always a bad thing. Unease with differences helps explain why teams of engineers from different cultures may be ideally suited to solve a vexing problem. Culture clashes can produce a dynamic give-and-take, generating a solution that may have eluded a group of people with more similar backgrounds and approaches. At the same time, though, Putnam's work adds to a growing body of research indicating that more diverse populations seem to extend themselves less on behalf of collective needs and goals.

His findings on the downsides of diversity have also posed a challenge for Putnam, a liberal academic whose own values put him squarely in the pro-diversity camp. Suddenly finding himself the bearer of bad news, Putnam has struggled with how to present his work. He gathered the initial raw data in 2000 and issued a press release the following year outlining the results. He then spent several years testing other possible explanations

When he finally published a detailed scholarly analysis in June in the journal Scandinavian Political Studies, he faced criticism for straying from data into advocacy. His paper argues strongly that the negative effects of diversity can be remedied, and says history suggests that ethnic diversity may eventually fade as a sharp line of social demarcation.

"Having aligned himself with the central planners intent on sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the facts with a stern pep talk," wrote conservative commentator Ilana Mercer, in a recent Orange County Register op-ed titled "Greater diversity equals more misery."

Putnam has long staked out ground as both a researcher and a civic player, someone willing to describe social problems and then have a hand in addressing them. He says social science should be "simultaneously rigorous and relevant," meeting high research standards while also "speaking to concerns of our fellow citizens." But on a topic as charged as ethnicity and race, Putnam worries that many people hear only what they want to.

"It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," he writes in the new report. "It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable."

Putnam is the nation's premier guru of civic engagement. After studying civic life in Italy in the 1970s and 1980s, Putnam turned his attention to the US, publishing an influential journal article on civic engagement in 1995 that he expanded five years later into the best-selling "Bowling Alone." The book sounded a national wake-up call on what Putnam called a sharp drop in civic connections among Americans. It won him audiences with presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and made him one of the country's best known social scientists.

Putnam claims the US has experienced a pronounced decline in "social capital," a term he helped popularize. Social capital refers to the social networks -- whether friendships or religious congregations or neighborhood associations -- that he says are key indicators of civic well-being. When social capital is high, says Putnam, communities are better places to live. Neighborhoods are safer; people are healthier; and more citizens vote.

The results of his new study come from a survey Putnam directed among residents in 41 US communities, including Boston. Residents were sorted into the four principal categories used by the US Census: black, white, Hispanic, and Asian. They were asked how much they trusted their neighbors and those of each racial category, and questioned about a long list of civic attitudes and practices, including their views on local government, their involvement in community projects, and their friendships. What emerged in more diverse communities was a bleak picture of civic desolation, affecting everything from political engagement to the state of social ties.

Putnam knew he had provocative findings on his hands. He worried about coming under some of the same liberal attacks that greeted Daniel Patrick Moynihan's landmark 1965 report on the social costs associated with the breakdown of the black family. There is always the risk of being pilloried as the bearer of "an inconvenient truth," says Putnam.

After releasing the initial results in 2001, Putnam says he spent time "kicking the tires really hard" to be sure the study had it right. Putnam realized, for instance, that more diverse communities tended to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents -- all factors that could depress social capital independent of any impact ethnic diversity might have.

"People would say, 'I bet you forgot about X,'" Putnam says of the string of suggestions from colleagues. "There were 20 or 30 X's."

But even after statistically taking them all into account, the connection remained strong: Higher diversity meant lower social capital. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television."

"People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down' -- that is, to pull in like a turtle," Putnam writes.

In documenting that hunkering down, Putnam challenged the two dominant schools of thought on ethnic and racial diversity, the "contact" theory and the "conflict" theory. Under the contact theory, more time spent with those of other backgrounds leads to greater understanding and harmony between groups. Under the conflict theory, that proximity produces tension and discord.

Putnam's findings reject both theories. In more diverse communities, he says, there were neither great bonds formed across group lines nor heightened ethnic tensions, but a general civic malaise. And in perhaps the most surprising result of all, levels of trust were not only lower between groups in more diverse settings, but even among members of the same group.

"Diversity, at least in the short run," he writes, "seems to bring out the turtle in all of us."

The overall findings may be jarring during a time when it's become commonplace to sing the praises of diverse communities, but researchers in the field say they shouldn't be.

"It's an important addition to a growing body of evidence on the challenges created by diversity," says Harvard economist Edward Glaeser

In a recent study, Glaeser and colleague Alberto Alesina demonstrated that roughly half the difference in social welfare spending between the US and Europe -- Europe spends far more -- can be attributed to the greater ethnic diversity of the US population. Glaeser says lower national social welfare spending in the US is a "macro" version of the decreased civic engagement Putnam found in more diverse communities within the country.

Economists Matthew Kahn of UCLA and Dora Costa of MIT reviewed 15 recent studies in a 2003 paper, all of which linked diversity with lower levels of social capital. Greater ethnic diversity was linked, for example, to lower school funding, census response rates, and trust in others. Kahn and Costa's own research documented higher desertion rates in the Civil War among Union Army soldiers serving in companies whose soldiers varied more by age, occupation, and birthplace.

Birds of different feathers may sometimes flock together, but they are also less likely to look out for one another. "Everyone is a little self-conscious that this is not politically correct stuff," says Kahn.

So how to explain New York, London, Rio de Janiero, Los Angeles -- the great melting-pot cities that drive the world's creative and financial economies?

The image of civic lassitude dragging down more diverse communities is at odds with the vigor often associated with urban centers, where ethnic diversity is greatest. It turns out there is a flip side to the discomfort diversity can cause. If ethnic diversity, at least in the short run, is a liability for social connectedness, a parallel line of emerging research suggests it can be a big asset when it comes to driving productivity and innovation. In high-skill workplace settings, says Scott Page, the University of Michigan political scientist, the different ways of thinking among people from different cultures can be a boon.

"Because they see the world and think about the world differently than you, that's challenging," says Page, author of "The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies." "But by hanging out with people different than you, you're likely to get more insights. Diverse teams tend to be more productive."

In other words, those in more diverse communities may do more bowling alone, but the creative tensions unleashed by those differences in the workplace may vault those same places to the cutting edge of the economy and of creative culture.

Page calls it the "diversity paradox." He thinks the contrasting positive and negative effects of diversity can coexist in communities, but "there's got to be a limit." If civic engagement falls off too far, he says, it's easy to imagine the positive effects of diversity beginning to wane as well. "That's what's unsettling about his findings," Page says of Putnam's new work.

Meanwhile, by drawing a portrait of civic engagement in which more homogeneous communities seem much healthier, some of Putnam's worst fears about how his results could be used have been realized. A stream of conservative commentary has begun -- from places like the Manhattan Institute and "The American Conservative" -- highlighting the harm the study suggests will come from large-scale immigration. But Putnam says he's also received hundreds of complimentary emails laced with bigoted language. "It certainly is not pleasant when David Duke's website hails me as the guy who found out racism is good," he says.

In the final quarter of his paper, Putnam puts the diversity challenge in a broader context by describing how social identity can change over time. Experience shows that social divisions can eventually give way to "more encompassing identities" that create a "new, more capacious sense of 'we,'" he writes.

Growing up in the 1950s in small Midwestern town, Putnam knew the religion of virtually every member of his high school graduating class because, he says, such information was crucial to the question of "who was a possible mate or date." The importance of marrying within one's faith, he says, has largely faded since then, at least among many mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.

While acknowledging that racial and ethnic divisions may prove more stubborn, Putnam argues that such examples bode well for the long-term prospects for social capital in a multiethnic America.

In his paper, Putnam cites the work done by Page and others, and uses it to help frame his conclusion that increasing diversity in America is not only inevitable, but ultimately valuable and enriching. As for smoothing over the divisions that hinder civic engagement, Putnam argues that Americans can help that process along through targeted efforts. He suggests expanding support for English-language instruction and investing in community centers and other places that allow for "meaningful interaction across ethnic lines."

Some critics have found his prescriptions underwhelming. And in offering ideas for mitigating his findings, Putnam has drawn scorn for stepping out of the role of dispassionate researcher. "You're just supposed to tell your peers what you found," says John Leo, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. "I don't expect academics to fret about these matters."

But fretting about the state of American civic health is exactly what Putnam has spent more than a decade doing. While continuing to research questions involving social capital, he has directed the Saguaro Seminar, a project he started at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government that promotes efforts throughout the country to increase civic connections in communities.

"Social scientists are both scientists and citizens," says Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, who sees nothing wrong in Putnam's efforts to affect some of the phenomena he studies.

Wolfe says what is unusual is that Putnam has published findings as a social scientist that are not the ones he would have wished for as a civic leader. There are plenty of social scientists, says Wolfe, who never produce research results at odds with their own worldview.

"The problem too often," says Wolfe, "is people are never uncomfortable about their findings."

Michael Jonas is acting editor of CommonWealth magazine, published by MassINC, a nonpartisan public-policy think tank in Boston.

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle)

2007-08-12T23:13:00.000+08:00

Revolution and crime have been on Earth since the olden days.

A revolution (from Late Latin revolutio which means "a turn around") is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time. Variously defined revolutions have been happening throughout human history. They vary in terms of numbers of their participants (revolutionaries), means employed by them, duration, motivating ideology and many other aspects. They may result in a socio-political change in the socio-political institutions, or a major change in a culture or economy.

A normative definition views crime as deviant behaviour that violates prevailing norms, specifically, cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave.

A reason why crime exists is due to poverty. Due to the fact that poverty means that a person being poor and having to starve. In a study by the NC State university in North Carolina, it says that the most well-documented effect of childhood poverty is on educational achievement. The lack of education achievement has a cascade effect on children's life chances because those who grow up poor have lower literacy rates, higher rates of dropping out, and higher delinquency rates. Not only that, it also propels a person to go against his principles if he has to and even the morally upright person will do anything to survive. As it goes the survival of the fittest. Stating an example, a man with a family of say 6 members. The sole breadwinner may not be able to earn enough money given the low education level he has attained. Hence by the day, seeing the family starving, he is forced to a corner of sheer pressure and frustration builds up rapidly. Soon enough, he will be contemplating the route to quick riches, illegal one that is. Poverty manifests itself in a lack of educational opportunities, lack of meaningful employment options, poor housing, lack of hope and the prejudice against persons living in poverty. It is by itself a bottomless pithole where people are trapped in it and never escape the wraith of it. This is mainly because of the little education they receive, which then leads to the people not being able to get a good job. This further results in them receiving low incomes and thus, keeps them stagnant at the bottom of the wealth ladder. Again, with little money, they do not have enough to fund their children's education, and this becomes a poverty cycle of which they have to bear the effects

Also, the fact that

However, it is argued that poverty does not necessarily lead to increasing crime rates. A dysfunctional social environment also plays a part, a rather important one.
Our social structure mirrors to citizens and communities what we value and how we set priorities. Social root causes of crime are: inequality, not sharing power, lack of support to families and neighborhoods, real or perceived inaccessibility to services, lack of leadership in communities, low value placed on children and individual well-being, the overexposure to television as a means of recreation. When living in places like District of Columbia, there is a high tendency of a child going wayward due to the negative exposure of the neighbourhood. Thus poverty is not the main reason for the crime rates.

Freedom is more of reason rather than poverty for the rise of great leaders who detest their current ruler. In the past, rulers in ancient China suffered a great revolution when their empress Ci Xi blocked any reforms to their countries. This has caused anger to those scholars who were educated and supported democracy and meritocracy. Hence they came together to form a politica party to bring down the last dynasty in China. Although the revolution was successful, both poverty and freedom were the main reasons for it to take place. Thus freedom is another reason for a revolution.

In conclusion, poverty can lead to crime and revolution but not to such great extent of mothering both crime and revolution. One must rate the causes in every different context and then make the decisions.

Freedom of Expression vs Social Responsibility

2007-07-19T17:39:00.000+08:00

Why is the Singapore so strict on the enforcement of what people say? Singapore is a small red dot just below Malaysia and through almost 42 years of establishment, she has achieved renowned recognition globally for and education and medical hub. On top of that, she also gained political stability despite the fact that she has a multi racial community. Any politician would find the way how Singapore establish herself an almost difficult task to accomplish. So would the democratic Singapore be better off with freedom of expression or social responsibility?

Both Singer and Szilagyi view have its own firm standing pros and cons.

Since we live in a democratic country, it should have the characteristics of a democratic country like allowing the freedom of speech being the most basic. We have witness the aftermath of the not so long ago blogger who wrote insensitive articles in his blog. This has cause a rather wooha in Singapore. But if we were allowed to express ourself freely and at the same time not resort to violence, we could then discuss the issues peacefully. This might be better as compared to internalising the unhappiness and allow to grow exponentially which may graduate to hatred in the long run.

Another pro is that with the freedom to express oneself, there will not exist a need for a media watchdog. No doubt there is a tiny weeny trace of freedom of expression in the media, several articles that fails the test from the censorship body is discarded immediately. But not taking into the effects or changes it might bring, we Singaporeans are lacking exposure and it might be this that the media has to "modify" the story to suit us. We are the evolved form of our ancestors; more civilised that is. Thus the government should increase our exposure instead of limiting it.

However few might disagree with Singer's view. The Holocaust by the Nazis is a crude example of what might be of Singapore if there was maximum FOE. One cannot deny the craziness of Hitler and if this were to be true, where is Singapore? Non-existent? With FOE a person might infuriate people whose relatives or friends died during the Holocaust just because he has a right to voice his opinions and deny the Holocaust. He was thus jailed to appease the masses but the problem in the first place was tried to be solved by restricting the FOE. This is rather contradicting. And if Singaporeans were to allow such incident to happen, a particular race could even be angered to even initiate a riot. But if this situation puts the government in a very sticky position whether democracy should be upheld or allowing such incidents to happen.

As for Szilagyi's emphasis on social responsibility is a rather potential approach to keeping racial stability in Singapore. In Singapore, 699.3 square kilometres house, as of June 2006, about 4.5 million Singaporeans of four major racial groups. And if, for example, a pessimistic prediction a racial conflict break out due to some immature ass, Singapore will or might be greatly affected. Be it economically or politically. No one is spared from the aftermath of it. Only with the practice of social responsibility will Singapore be able to avoid the conflict and thus maintaining peace among the four races.

Also in the ever moving world, being economically sound is the way to keep up with the pace. But what happen if there were no social responsibility, there will be much dissatisfaction about another race and thus disrupting the economy's operation. Every company with multiracial employment would be facing hostile relations with different races. Consequently, the performance of the company will be affected and leading to resignation of unhappy workers. Thus this may adversely affect the economy.

However, we cannot have the best of both worlds. Restricting one will reduce the other variable which in this case is FOS. Since FOS is essential to democratic countries, not having it will make Singapore a authoritarian democratic country. And also with social responsibility, people will think from the traditional point of view
for every thing.

In conclusion, be it allowing FOS or emphasizing on SR, we must evaluate Singapore's need for each aspect and then wise decision.

Capital Punishment

2007-04-30T12:39:00.000+08:00

What is capital punishment? What is the meaning of capital and what is meant by punishment? Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offenses. Historically, the execution of criminals and political opponents was used by nearly all societies—both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. Among countries around the world, all European (except Belarus) and Latin American (except Guatemala) states, many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste), and Canada have abolished capital punishment, while the United States, Guatemala, and most of the Caribbean as well as some democracies in Asia (e.g. Japan and India) and Africa (e.g. Botswana and Zambia) retain it. Among non-democratic countries, the use of the death penalty is common but not universal.

In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as punishment for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries, sexual crimes, such as adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy, the formal renunciation of one's religion. In many retentionist countries (countries that use the death penalty), drug trafficking is also a capital offense.

To me capital punishment is just a simple case of pure murder. And why? People opposing the death penalty usually argue that it is inhumane, or even that it constitutes a form of torture. Those who make this argument commonly insist that, in addition to violating the right to life, the death penalty is also contrary to the right to be free from torture or inhumane treatment. This right is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other documents.

Some arguments about the humaneness of the death penalty apply only to specific methods of execution. Of methods of execution currently in use the electric chair and the gas chamber are widely seen as producing great pain and suffering in the victim. All U.S. jurisdictions that currently use the gas chamber offer lethal injection as an alternative and in some countries, the same is also true of the electric chair. Lethal injection has become widely used in the United States in an effort to make the death penalty more humane. However there are fears that, because the cocktail of drugs used in many executions paralyzes the victim for a period before ending her or his life, victims may endure suffering not apparent to observers. The suffering caused by a method of execution is also often exacerbated in the case of "botched" executions. Amnesty International has highlighted lethal injection as the most frequently "botched" method of execution, noting practices such as crude "cut-downs" into prisoners' arms when a vein cannot be found. Medical staff, who might have expertise in minimizing suffering, do not normally assist with executions, as this would be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Those who make this argument also insist that the knowledge of one's impending death causes tremendous psychological suffering. This suffering, exacerbated by the long periods often spent by convicts in the United States on death row, have together been described as the death row phenomenon, which is considered by some to be a form of torture.

Not only this, everyone on Earth is fallible. As it goes "To err is human, to forgive is divine". The death penalty is often opposed on the grounds that, because every criminal justice system is fallible, innocent people will inevitably be executed by mistake, and the death penalty is both irreversible and more severe than lesser punishments. The supporters of the death penalty point out that lesser punishments, including life imprisonment, can also be imposed in error and incarceration is also irreversible if the innocent dies in prison. Moreover, whether money is an acceptable compensation for long period of incarceration is a matter of subjective opinion. They also point out that, given significantly large number of people who are incarcerated rather than executed, it is more common for miscarriages of justice to occur in non-death penalty cases, though each individual execution is undoubtedly more severe, except arguably for a case where the innocent were incarcerated for his or her natural life. For supporters of the death penalty, failure for death penalty opponents to oppose life imprisonment (and sometimes incarceration) invalidates their argument.

Opponents of the death penalty often argue that even a single case of an innocent person being executed is unacceptable. Most arguments about wrongful convictions proceed on the basis of empirical evidence and statistics. Opponents of the death penalty in the United States, for example, point to the fact that between 1973 and 2005, 123 people in 25 US states were released from death row when new evidence of their innocence emerged. However, statistics are not necessarily a reliable measure of the actual problem of wrongful convictions. It is possible that many cases of innocent people being executed have gone undiscovered, as once an execution has occurred there is often insufficient motivation and finance to keep a case in the public eye. On the other hand, because in liberal democracies a suspect is considered innocent until proven guilty, the fact that a convict is exonerated and released from death row means merely that there is insufficient evidence to prove their guilt, rather than that they are necessarily innocent.

Some opponents of the death penalty believe that, while it is unacceptable as currently practised, it would be permissible if criminal justice systems could be improved. However more staunch opponents insist that, as far as capital punishment is concerned, criminal justice is irredeemable. The US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, for example, famously wrote that it is futile to "tinker with the machinery of death". In addition to simple human fallibility, there are numerous more specific causes of wrongful convictions; for example:

* Convictions may rely solely on witness statements, which are vulnerable to being countered by forensic evidence. New forensic methods, such as DNA testing, have brought to light previously unavailable evidence and revealed errors in many old convictions, though such technology undoubtedly makes the current conviction more secure and certain.
* Suspects may receive poor legal representation. The ACLU argues that "the quality of legal representation [in the USA] is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime".
* Improper procedure may be followed. For example, Amnesty International argues that, in Singapore, "the Misuse of Drugs Act contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This conflicts with the universally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty". This only refers to those caught with drugs

Hence why should we allow a innocent, harmless civilian to be executed so easily without sufficient evidence.

But to every opposing point, there is a supportive point. The death penalty consequences deters potential murders or other serious crimes such as drug trafficking. In the pre-modern period, when authorities had neither the resources nor the inclination to detain criminals, the death penalty or other punishments such as caning or hand decapitation were probably the only available means of prevention and deterrent. The proponents, in turn, argue that life imprisonment does not prevent murder within prison and that life imprisonment is a less effective deterrent than the death penalty.

The question of whether or not the death penalty deters serious crime acts usually revolves around the statistical analysis. Studies have produced disputed results with disputed significance. Some studies have shown a correlation between the death penalty and murder rates- in other words, they show that where the death penalty applies, murder rates are also high. This correlation can be interpreted in either that the death penalty increases murder rates by brutalizing society or that higher murder rates cause the state to retain or reintroduce the death penalty. However, the statistics arguments are misleading because statistics show that correlation does not equal causation and moreover, statistics do not show that life imprisonment or any other individual form of punishment deter murder.

It is difficult to conclusively demonstrate the existence of a deterrence effect. Although the death penalty is not a very strong deterrent to future offenders, it does have an effect on most of them somehow. Even though they need not be executed, and be incarcerated in the prison, it will not only add to the criminal's mental suffering and also wasting taxpayers' hard-earned money. Many supporters of the death sentence argue that life imprisonment is just a substitute only. In fact, this is the result of a sampling problem, where those who do refrain from committing crimes due to deterrent effect of the death penalty or incarceration automatically rule themselves out from the statistics. This means that it is almost impossible to prove the deterrent effect of the death penalty or incarceration by empirical demonstration.

On the whole, i generally oppose to the usage of the capital punishment. It is just pure brutal murder and nothing less.

Censorship

2007-04-25T16:17:00.000+08:00

Till today, the use of censorship in modern society is still widely debated whether to do with it or not. Conservatives will feel that it is the only way to protect the people from "evil" influence but the Liberals will feel very restricted and will call for a freedom of expression. However censorship has its pros and cons for its existence on Earth.

What is censorship? Censorship is the use of state or group power to control freedom of expression. In a modern sense censorship consists of any attempt to suppress information, points of view, or method of expression such as art, or profanity. Censorship is commonly used by social groups, organized religions, corporations and governments.

Why censor? Firstly, Singapore being a multiracial nation is home to 4 races namely Eurasians, Malays, Chinese and Indians. In importing books from other countries where racial issues are not considered as important, it may contain information that could potentially cause an outbreak of racial riots. thus we have to had censorship to protect our racially vulnerable nation.

Not only that, children have known to have a very malleable mind. So in order to defend the minds of the children, this move has to be done to protect them from the evil clutches of bad influence. Not only children are vulnerable to such things even teenagers also become seriously influenced by music etc. They have more prone to showing attitude to teachers and committed more crimes than others.

Last but not the least, every country's war secrets. In wartime, explicit censorship is carried out with the intent of preventing the release of information that might be useful to an enemy. Typically it involves keeping times or locations secret, or delaying the release of information (e.g., an operational objective) until it is of no possible use to enemy forces. The moral issues here are often seen as somewhat different, as release of tactical information usually presents a greater risk of casualties among one's own forces and could possibly lead to loss of the overall conflict. During World War I letters written by British soldiers would have to go through censorship. This consisted of officers going through letters with a black marker and crossing out anything which might compromise operational secrecy before the letter was sent. The World War II catchphrase "Loose lips sink ships" was used as a common justification to exercise official wartime censorship and encourage individual restraint when sharing potentially sensitive information.

A well-known example of sanitization policies comes from the USSR under Joseph Stalin, where publicly used photographs were often altered to remove people whom Stalin had condemned to execution. Though past photographs may have been remembered or kept, this deliberate and systematic alteration to all of history in the public mind is seen as one of the central themes of Stalinism and totalitarianism. More recently, the official exclusion of television crews from locales where coffins of military dead were in transit has been cited as a form of censorship. This particular example obviously represents an incomplete or failed form of censorship, as numerous photographs of these coffins are often printed in newspapers, magazines, and on the web.

However censorship has an end to its merits.

We Singaporeans have been quoted by outsiders as pure and innocent people. And why is this so? This is because we lacked global exposure, causing us to be trapped in a small nation's view. When only people are exposed to outside world, then they can mature and develop a set of beliefs.

Humans now are protected by human rights and organizations upholding those rights. In a free society, we should have freedom to do things we like, and not to be controlled by censorship.

Thus on the whole, censorship is much more of a pros side rather than a cons side.

GP Homework

2007-04-04T18:25:00.001+08:00

The media manipulates the most interesting unproven facts they could find or concoct. In situations like wars going on between two countries, the media is almost trying to aggravate the war situation as much as they could. A particular scene may be jotted down with details by a journalist but the story being published are edited to such an extent it is totally warped. This might be what the editors might personally feel would happen in the future.
Biased views are published and readers after reading it will develop conflicting thoughts about a particular incident. But this often is done with the mindset to increase their readership in their country. The media also uses some affairs which are related to the population(something threatening their survival) to provoke them.

26th March '07

2007-03-26T17:32:00.000+08:00

There is no difficulty that enough love will not conquer;
no disease that enough love will not heal;
no door that enough love will not open;
no gulf that enough love will not bridge;
no wall that enough love will not throw down;
no sin that enough love will not redeem...
It makes no difference how deeply seated may be the trouble;
how hopeless the outlook; how muddled the tangle; how great the mistake.
A sufficient realization of love will dissolve it all.
If only you could love enough, you would be
the happiest and most powerful being in the world...

25th March '07, The Birth

2007-03-25T11:27:00.000+08:00

This day marks the beginning of a newly created and edited blog. Leave ur blog address so that i can add you...