geepeee

# RESEARCH

2007-09-09T22:56:00.000-07:00

1. Globalisation and Culture

What Impact Globalization has on Cultural Diversity?
http://www.alternativesjournal.net/volume1/number4/sotsh.htm
Globalization of Culture
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/globalization/culture.cfm
Globalization: Impact on culture
http://www.indianpublications.com/%5Ctek9.asp?pg=globalizationandculture

2. Environment & Biodiversity, Sustainable Development

Sustainable Development
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/
Sustainable development (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development
Sustainable Development in Australia (Example)
http://www.environment.gov.au/esd/

3. Terrorism and War

http://www.familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,20-6055,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims.section.html
Munich massacre (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre

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

2007-09-07T23:29:00.000-07:00

At the mention of homosexuality, many would still choose to shun from the topic. Homosexuality, as defined by Wikipedia.com, is the attraction or sexual behavior between two individuals of the same sex. Through the years, though great strides have been made towards equal rights for homosexuals, such as legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada since 1965, many still find it hard to accept homosexuality as a reality. In many countries such as Britain and the United States, homosexuality do not have completely equal rights and status in the eyes of the law. They are not allowed to marry or adopt children. Even back home in Singapore, homosexuality is dubbed as illegal.

But, is same-sex marriages really as 'disastrous' as many would put it? What if same-sex marriages do have their own plus points? In the next paragraphs, i will be discussing the vaarious pros and cons of have same-sex marriages in this age of globalisation that we are living in.

As the world continue to globalise and grow, the mentality of many, especially the youths, are getting more liberal. Thus explaining the increase in homosexuals over the past years.
Historically, the purpose of marriage is not just for the sake of reproducing and having children. People marry mostly out of love for another. Thus, if infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry as well? Clearly, there is a prejudice in place against these homosexuals.

It is also not right to comment that homosexuals parents are unable to give a child the best when it comes to the upbringing of a child. Some parents may be victimised in society for their race, colours etc. but, this does not mean that they should be banned from adopting. Afterall, children need love and nurture. Imagine a child, of heterosexual parents, who has to endure the much bickering and quarreling between his/her parents; the angst that this poor child has to tolerate and live with. Wouldn't it be alot better if this child were to be adopted and living in the loving family of homosexual parents, who dotes and love this poor child? At least, this poor child would be able to grow up in a condusive family environment. Banning homosexuals from adopting children is yet another superficial prejudice against them.

It is also increasingly accepted in the medical field that there is really such a trait as a 'gay gene'. Thus, by disallowing same-sex marriages, it is also indirectly questioning the existence of such a gay-gene in the sexual development of a homosexual.

However, on the flipside of the coin, same-sex marriage should not be allowed because historically and logically, marriage is a heterosexual affair. It is the prelude to the creation of children in a stable family environment. Homosexuals, sadly, are not able to achieve this point.

When a child is being adopted by a homosexual couple, the child might be subjected to teashing, abuse and social exclusion since homosexuality is still not widely accepted in this world that we are living in. Thus, it is not right to subject these children to the pain and misery for the sake of our high-minded liberal adult ideals. After a long period of time living together with these homosexuals, the child may also grow to have a narrow and unacceptably skew view of sex, thinking that homosexuality is what that's ideal. These children may also experience hostility from their 'parents' to their emerging sexuality.

All in all, whether or not same-sex marriage is acceptable and practical in this age of globalization, is it entirely up to each and every individual to evaluate the matter on their individual basis.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/
http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/sex/sexgay.html

RESEARCH

2007-08-05T23:00:00.000-07:00

Lookism

Lookism is discrimination against or prejudice towards others based on their appearance.
http://www.lookism.info/eng/index2.html

ARTICLES:

1. The Ugly Truth About Beauty, http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123853&page=1
2. http://www.naaf.org/kids/story.asp?ID=1

Ageism

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

Ageism, the denial of basic human rights of older persons, is one of the most pervasive prejudices across human society. Although ageism is less acknowledged than racism or sexism, it is a harmful prejudice that negatively affects older Americans, who experience widespread mistreatment, ranging from stereotypic and degrading media images to physical and financial abuse, unequal treatment in the workforce, and denial of appropriate medical care and services.

ARTICLES:

1. http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/ageism_about.asp
2. http://www.apa.org/monitor/may03/fighting.html
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4041713.stm

Disablism

The discrimination against disabled people

ARTICLES:

1. http://www.scope.org.uk/disablism/
2. http://comautworld.blogspot.com/2006/05/blogging-against-ableismdisablism-day.html
3. http://ezinearticles.com/?Disablism-and-Attitudes-Toward-those-with-Disabilities&id=209352

Xenophobia

Xenophobia is a fear or contempt of foreigners or strangers. It comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "foreigner," "stranger," and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self.

ARTICLES:

1. http://www.younggreens.org.uk/Campaigns/CombatXenophobia
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia_in_Showa_Japan
3. http://www.iie.com/publications/opeds/oped.cfm?ResearchID=534

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

2007-08-05T22:57:00.000-07:00

Since the beginnings of civillisation it has always been the unhappiness amongst the commoners that spurred the petty crimes to ensure their survival and when they could not take it anymore, they revolted.

Revolution, as defined by Webster.com, is the radical and sudden change in the socioeconomic situation. A crime, on the other hand, is defined as an unlawful activity that society does not support. So, how exactly does poverty result in the aboved mentioned situations? To better illustrate my opinion, i shall be considering the situtations in which poverty had led to revolution and crime.

Around the world, especially in developing countries where people do not enjoy a high standard of living, poverty is something that persists. While globalization aids developed countries in the booming of economies, very few would take note of the increasing number of poor people who are missing out on this apparent boom.

Sadly, many of these poorer countries get stuck in this vicious-cycle of poverty. In these poorer countries, since many do not receive proper education, it has resulted in a large number of people being illiterate. Some families are also so poor that they cannot afford to send their children to school. Instead, these children are made to work on farms day and night. In some cases, these families even resort to selling their very own flesh and blood for the extra cash to survive.

As a result of poverty, trafficking and smuggling of human beings operated by organized crime networks in countries whose economies are in transition has become of particular concern to national governments and the international community. Asian countries have all long been the primary suppliers of women to the sex trade for decades. However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, former Soviet republics have become major sources of women for prostitution. According to a 1999 report, it is estimated that 500,000 Ukrainian women were trafficked to the West for prostitution. Also, to the horror of many, UNICEF estimates that there are approximately 10 million child prostitutes worldwide.
However, it is also not right to claim that prostitution happens only because of the existence of poverty. Even in developed countries, people turn to prostitution as a way in which they can earn fast money. In such cases, they go into prostitution willingly and not because they are forced to.

As for how poverty has led to a revolution, i would explain it in the context of Karl Marx's ideology. Karl Marx, was one who believed that everyone should be given equal rights and there should not be a class divide amongst the people. Marx realized that one of the main reasons for the on-going chaos is because of people fighting over shelter, food and money. People from the working class and those that are not as well-off. As quoted from a site, Karl Marx mentioned that:

"The capitalist factory owners and bankers had grown fabulously rich by exploiting a new class of industrial workers: the proletariat. The working class had no finished product to sell, no property from which to make a profit. Their only means of making a living was to work for wages." (Proletariat - a term used to describe the lower social class)

It is because of this issue of the class divde amongst the people that spurred Marx to practice the idea of communism - where everyone is given equal treatment and equal wealth. No man is richer than the other. This triggered the 1848 Social Revolution, a movement of repressed peasants, of a rising middle class, and of an exploited urban proletariat.

However, not all revolutions are results from poverty. The industrial revolution, for instance, is a period of rapid growth where manufacturing and machines took over agriculture and manual labour.

All in all, to say that poverty is the cause of crime and revolution is something that is very subjective. Different people will have their different perspective on these issues.

http://www.citymayors.com/society/easteurope_cities.html
http://www.helpsavekids.org/scope2.html
http://www.worldrevolution.org.uk/oldsite/pages/ideas_pages/karl_marx.html

June Hoiliday Blog Task

2007-05-27T22:32:00.000-07:00

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

After reading the article, it is pretty obvious that Singer believes in allowing the people to have a say in everything that is being done. Singer strongly supports the freedom of speech amongst the people. Szilagyi, on the other hand, begs to differ. Szilagyi believes that the media should be socially responsible in whatever they say for they should be the ones who will bear the undesirable consequences that may arise.

If we were to apply either one of their stands in Singapore’s context, I personally feel that Szilagyi’s stand would prove to be more desirable. Being a multi racial and cultural country, it is sometimes a wonder how the different races in Singapore manage to live in perfect harmony. From here, I cannot deny that the media in Singapore plays an important role in maintaining racial harmony amongst the people. By making sure that the Newspapers and magazines do not publish articles or comments that might, in one way or another, offend a particular ethnic group, I do not see why should there be racial disharmony in Singapore. However, if the Media were to make a blatant mistake by publishing articles that may stir displeasure within a particular ethnic group, then, the consequences incurred would be chaotic. Take for example the situation mentioned in the article by Szilagyi - after the Danish and Norwegian newspaper published cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, it resulted in anger amongst the Muslims.
Although the cartoons were published with no ill-intentions, I strongly feel that the media should have at least thought carefully about the consequences that may arise when publishing the cartoons; racial-awareness should have been practiced.

Besides being vigilant when dealing with the different racial groups, I do not deny that it is also good to sometimes hear what the different ethnic groups have got to say. This way, there will be no ‘walls’ between the different groups and people from different racial groups will get to know each other better. Whether is it about their way of life or religious beliefs, at least there will be mutual understanding and compromise between the different racial groups. Now, that will further promote racial harmony amongst the people. As mentioned in the article by Singer, “…freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive… Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” With transparency between the different racial groups, there would be better understanding amongst them.

Being a multi-racial country, it is vital that Singapore practice the right kind of measures and attitude when dealing with racial-sensitive issues. I do not deny that both Singer and Szilagyi have got plus points about their views on the freedom of speech. To prevent any unwanted chaos, we should know what actions to take when different problems arise. This way, racial harmony can be maintained in our racial-harmony Singapore.

"The death penalty is not a deterrent. It is murder." Do you agree?

2007-05-01T20:58:00.000-07:00

Deterrent, as classified by Wikipidia.com, is a theory of justice. The death penalty, also known as the execuetion of convicted criminals, is a practice that is being carried out in nearly all parts of the world. Many would think that carrying out death penalties on the guilty is the right thing to do. But, have we ever thought about that fact that by sentencing these convicts to the gates of hell is the loss of another life?

The death penalty, or capital punishment as some may call it, has been practiced since forever. People get these harsh punishments by carrying out unlawful activities such as murder, arson, treason, drug-trafficking, human trafficking and terrorist activites. To date, some of the more common ways in which people get excecuted these days include the electric chair, hanging, lethal injections and the gas chamber.

With the electric chairs, convicts get electrocuted to death. The electrocution process is usually repeated a few times before the convict dies. In hanging, convicts gets hung by the neck with a cord. During the process of the Lethal injection, the convict is being injected by a dosage of lethal drugs which will eventually cause death. When practicing the Gas Chamber, convicts will be made to stay within a concealed chamber as asphyxiant gas is being released, these poisonous gases are strong enough to kill.

In the past however, execution methods are much more gory. People die through stoning, crucification and decapitation, just to name a few.

Now you may ask, since death penalty involves the loss of a precious life. Why then is dealth penalty not classified as murder?

I suppose different people have got their different views on death penalty. Some may feel that death penalty is not murder. The death penalty is carried out with an aim - the aim to bring all those who are guilty to justice. This way, all 'bad guys' will be banished from the face of the earth and the world will be a safer place to live it. However, some may disagree to it. Some may think that instead of sending these convicts straight to their deaths, they should be give another chance to live for the better. No doubt that some will turn over a new leaf after learning their lessons. But, this does not apply to all as some will still continue with their unlawful acts, harming the society and people like you and me. Instead of using the harsh way - death, couselling can also be introduced and made available for these convicts. I am sure that not all of them commit crimes because they enjoy it. Some do it out of desperation, some do it because they are being forced to. Everyone has got their different reasons for the things that they do. Afterall, everyone should be given a second chance.

To me, i personally feel that the death penalty is not murder. Murder is done with the aim of killing a particular person, a process carried out with much hate for a particular person. The death penalty, on the other hand, is carried out to bring justice to the country, to ensure that convicts are getting the punishments that they deserve after committing a serious offence/crime. In short, the death penalty is carried out with the right idea behind it. This way, convicts can be brought to justice.

So again, is the death penalty a deterrent or is it murder? It is solely up to each inidividual to evaluate their stand on this issue.

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

2007-04-20T07:46:00.001-07:00

After reading the articles - 'Dont look now' and the articles regarding the ban of Leslie Kee's books, i have come to realise that art is something that has no boundaries, something that is up to our own personal interpretion.

A nude painting to one person may be an artistic way in which the artist expresses his rational behind the painting. However, to another, it may be a disturbing sight. Take for example, in 1929, nudes in 20 paintings by D.H. Lawrence were seized from the Warren Galleries and put on trail for obscenity. The reason for doing so was because 'the hair' was 'clearly shown on the private parts' of the nude painting. Similarly, here in singapore, the much-publicised book, SuperStar, by Leslie Lee is banned because it contains nothing more than a few wisps of pubic hair of HongKong actors and the most 'revealing' shot with Aaron Kwok standing with jeans covering his groin.

But people may ask, since nudity in paintings may be classified as an artistic work of art. Why is pornography then not considered a work of art? In general, i perceive art as something that is expressed with a positive intention. As long as a nude shot was not shot for undesirable reasons, i do not see why is there a problem with these paintings being shown in the public. Some people, on the other hand, may beg to differ. They may think that showing nude shots openly is something that is not morally right. How then is it possible to regulate this form of 'artistic' media? Well, censorship is the answer.

With the introduction of censorship, the general audience is somewhat 'protected' from these undesirable and 'not morally upright' images or films. It also prevents young teens from negative influences. Imagine showing all these nudities on television and magazines, how do you think these young teens will think of it? It may result in a high rate of sexual promiscuousity among the teens. Seeing anorexic models catwalk their way through the runways, teens may come to think that it is 'cool' to be thin and thus, subconsiously imitate this models - by going on diets and starving themselves. With the introduction of censorship, it also helps to upload positive values by showing only things that the censorship board thinks is desirable for the general population. In one way or another, it also helps to maintain national stability and political stability in the country. Imagine showing clips and images of biais political speeches freely on air, it may result in unwanted events of racial riots, conflicts, chaos and whats not. In short, censorship 'protects' us.

However, on the flip side of the coin, there are also the things that we will miss out on with the introduction of censorship. Some people may think that censorship should not be introduced at all. With censorship around, many things that we see on the television or hear on the radio may not be the real truth. There'll be a lack of transparency between the media and the general audience. If censorship were to be abolished, we will definitely get to learn more from our surrounding, broadening our horizons about the things around us. Afterall, we have the rights to know of the truth to everything; talk about human rights. With early exposure to the many things around us, it helps us to demystify facts and prevents one from being too sheltered. Come to think of it, being sheltered and pampered since young is not always a good. We have to stand up for our own rights. Ignorance to the things around us may also cause a negative effect on us - for example, fear for a certain thing and ignorance to the things around us.

Thus, in conclusion, censorship does have its own plus points and its minus points. To determine whether censorship is 'good' or 'bad', it depends very much on each and every individual, and how they view censorship.

Mass Media

2007-04-07T05:37:00.000-07:00

The Mass Media is no doubt the most powerful source when it comes to bringing across a message - be it a postive or negative comment, or feeding the public with facts that may or may not be true. Many would take what they read in the newspapers or see on television as the gospel truth. But think again, is this what is really happenening in reality? Well, maybe yes. But, it is always not a good thing to believe totally in whatever that is being reported. What is perceived as the truth may not be the real thing that is happening.

Take for example the United States of America's invasion into Iraq. (Spilling blood with Oil in Iraq) With the US militants in Iraq, instead of maintaing peace and stability in the country, it has led to even more chaos in the country, with Iraqi civilians suffering and living in fear. The imperial expectation that Iraqi citizens would embrace the US militants was based on an untenable fantasy for the US force had lost the political battle even before their military campaign began.

Also, on the fifth day of his bombing campaign, US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, accussed Iraq of planning to use chemical weapons to defend itself. However, this allegation was made with the mere reasoning because Iraq had been accused of doing something similar to this in the 1980s. With no solid evidences to support these allegations, such a statement would be very much be like an assumption and an accusation towards the Iraqis.
Another US official blamed the Iraqis for planning to diguise themselves as US soldiers before attacking civilians and blaming it on the invading forces. But once again, the accusation came to nought. With accusations being shot at the Iraqis, what proof do the invaders have to prove that they are right? What if this wasn't the case in reality?

The mentality that the US troops' responsibility while stationed in Iraq is to main peace and stability in the country may not be true in this case. With the truth being withheld by the media, people only get to see what the media wants them to see which is technically, the positive reasons for the US' invasion into Iraq.

In another scenerio, issues have been raised about the media's credibility in Taiwan after a journalist had been fired for hiding the true source of the video he accquired. The whole controversy started when a shocking video footage was aired on national television, TVBS, in Taiwan, showing a heavily armed gangster making death threats to a rival mob boss. TVBS initailly claimed that the video was received through an annonymous source. However, the truth is, it was filmed by one their journalists.

With such blatant error being made by a television station respected by many, no doubt people will start to question its credibility and realiability. TVBS was also fined for airing improper footage.

All in all, the Media would do almost anything just to make their articles look good and interesting enough for the public. Even if it means hiding the negative facts and covering up facts. Thus, we as readers, would definitely need to learn to read these articles with an open mind and not trust in everything that is being reported. Afterall, what is perceived as the truth may not be the truth in reality.

2007-04-06T05:03:00.001-07:00

My geeeepeeee blog(: