Bleargh

I shall now go and emo and slash myself and drink formaldehyde and mercury. And sleeping tablets. etcetc.

Iranian President's antics in NY score points at home

Iranian President's antics in NY score points at home
September 28th, 2007
World

What struck me first was the statement “So, while he (Mr Ahmadinejad) returns to Teheran feeling satisfied, ordinary Iranians are still likely to pay a heavy price for their President’s antics.” This is certainly a serious judgement, and a heavy responsibility for anyone to bear. Worse still, ordinary Iranians may even be unaware of their plight because of their hurt national feelings, until its full extent hits them. Hard.

It’s quite obvious that Mr Ahmadinejad’s ‘antics’ were either “brazenly provocative” or “astonishingly uneducated”. By letting himself be the subject of other nation’s insults, he has stoked the fires of his people’s national pride. However, his actions will surely have many repercussions on his country. To quote the article, his show of “blinkered bigotry” has surely caused those nations once willing to defend Iran to feel embarrassed. What is important to note, is that while his antics have strengthened his hold on domestic politics, they have, without a doubt, placed his entire nation in bad light. So the question is, was Mr Ahmadinejad’s attendance at the UN general assembly merely to boost his popularity at home? Despite the definite probability of a refusal, he offered to visit the World Trade Centre. Despite the certainty of a hostile reception, he offered to speak at New York’s Columbia University. This can only mean that his purpose of doing such things was only to gain the support of his people, probably in view of the upcoming presidential elections.

A high price, indeed, for public acceptance of his people, seeing how he has effectively distanced his country from the rest of the outside world and caused others to become even more antagonistic towards him and his countrymen. Perhaps when they find out, Iranians will realize that their plight is even worse than before, but for now, their indignation overrides all.

However, not all the criticism goes to Mr Ahmadinejad. Although it is probably true that some of the things he has aid and done are highly condemnable, to call him a “petty criminal and cruel dictator” was unwarranted. This obviously puts forth certain western powers in bad light as well, highlighted by the fact that the Iranian Jewish community criticised the disrespect shown to Mr Ahmadinejad, saying that "The constant disrespect and disturbance demonstrated during Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia prove once more that those claiming to be peace loving people have no real grasp of the concept"

Undoubtedly, Mr Ahmadinejad’s antics will cause further problems on the global stage, but it’s also important for those who claim to be peace loving people, such as certain western nations, to show that they are.

Teach Less, Learn More

Teach Less, Learn More? It works, schools tell PM
August 20th, 2007
Home

This is a topic that has aroused much suspicion amongst the students of Singapore. But finally, it seems to have worked – at least in two neighbourhood schools. The “Teach Less, Learn More” ‘campaign, so to speak, that has been advocated by the government, encourages schools to, quite literally, teach less, and use new, interesting methods to teach students instead of the rote learning of old.

It’s mentioned that PM Lee praised neighbourhood schools in particular, and that leaves the reader to wonder “what about ‘non-neighbourhood’ schools?” What, indeed? Although it seems that the students in Mayflower and Jurong secondary schools certainly have an interesting education, I would like to question the extent of the “Teach Less, Learn More” movement in some of Singapore’s “better”, supposedly, schools.

Without a doubt, education has indeed come far from the days of old. Not only are lessons more interesting than those of our parents, they are also more dynamic, and our premises are certainly much better. However, only part of this movement has been fulfilled - “Learn More”. It is quite definite that we, the students of today, are learning more, but are schools teaching less? And is this a good thing? When PM Lee said to “teach less, learn more”, I surmise what he meant was to teach less traditionally and instead let students go beyond “the four walls of the classroom”. Although this may be, how can students find time to do this when, to make up for the “teach less”, they are piled with homework so that they can “learn more”?

I would like to reference a recent article, a letter in the newspaper written by an expat who moved from Singapore to KL. Amongst other things, what stuck me was the statement by her child – “Why are the children here (KL) happier?” This is certainly something to ponder. Perhaps it is because there is something amiss in the majority of Singapore’s schools and their system of education?

The crux of this post would be the fact that while many other schools, especially neighbourhood schools, are lauded for their efforts to make lessons livelier and more interesting, to encourage students to explore and learn on their own, schools that are supposed to be at the higher end of the education system have mysteriously ghosted away. The point of the “Teach Less, Learn More” movement was to let students enjoy their education, yet the groans and moans of my fellow classmates can be heard whenever it’s time to return to school after the holidays. Surely a “premier school in the Bishan area” can make some efforts to correct this?

Outrage over Virginia Tech game

http://www.smh.com.au/news/games/outrage-over-virginia-tech-game/2007/05/16/1178995212668.html

A thousand dollars for an apology – that’s what a 21-year old Australian, Ryan Lambourn, wants from the global community.

Shocking, indeed, seeing as Lambourn is the creator of an online game, V-Tech Rampage, which is sadistically “modelled on the exploits of South Korean-born Cho Seung-hui”, an incident which requires no further explanation.

The price? $2000 US to remove the game, and with another $1000, the global community gets an apology – internet extortion at its worst. Lambourn made the game “because it’s funny”, and that it was “a joke”, but this is no laughing matter. Although this one-off incident does not say anything about the youths and young adults of today, it certainly raises some worries. The fact that someone could actually do this, and be allowed to do so by a games website, is repulsive. Is this really what society has become?

In some forum threads I checked, it seemed that a few people do feel sympathy for Cho Seung-Hui. From some angles, there’s nothing wrong sympathizing with a bullied, ignored, foreigner, but most people would agree that what Lambourne has done is simply abominable. If humans are supposed to have feelings like sympathy and empathy, then Lambourne is no more than a beast. If he indeed has any “sympathy” for the victims of this incident, he certainly doesn’t show it. Anyone with his head screwed on right would be able to feel for the victims, their families, and even more so those who survived that horrifying afternoon and who are still scarred and mentally traumatized by it.

Lambourne’s flimsy stance, that he feels remorse for the victims, but also for the perpetrator of these crimes, is quite obviously a blatant lie. He clearly feels nothing for those who have suffered, his online game being an obvious encouragement for further violence, letting the victim relive the psychological hell and shattering the pieces they’ve been trying to piece back together.

But the very worst he could have done was to try and extort money from people around the world, demanding two thousand US dollars to remove his piece of work, which should rightfully never have seen the light of day. The very fact that he does so is that he is simply doing this for his own gain, an abominable motive indeed. Could this really be what we have degenerated to? Hopefully not, or our society is lost. The presence of even one such person mars my view of humanity in itself. Even though my understanding is limited, I will not deign to disregard this act of utmost cold-heartedness.

And his defence? The commonly cited excuse of Freedom of Speech. Even though he does have Freedom of Speech, but when this freedom results in the mental trauma of others, does Lambourne still have this right? Surely Lambourne must realize that this is only a technicality, and nothing stands against the power of humanity.

Singapore Muslims in donor ruling

Singapore's Muslims should be treated as willing organ donors when they die, the country's Islamic authority says.

BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6919879.stm

Comments:

As the times progress, so does society, and sometimes the notions of “tradition” and “customs” get thrown out of the window. In the past, Muslims were exempt from the donation law, restricting doctors from curing those with organ failure. But now, all this has changed drastically, with a new ruling by the Fatwa Committee.

This, of course, impacts many in our society. Muslims make out 15% of our community, yet only 16000 out of 300000 pledge their organs for donation, making it even more arduous for those with organ failure to receive organ donations. A major change indeed, seeing as religion and tradition play important roles in every person’s life. This, of course, is a turn for the better – a clear example of humanity at work. For the greater good, The Fatwa Committee has issued such a ruling, thus giving those who are in dire straits another silver lining.

However, we have to see from the point of view of those who have been rudely shaken by such a ruling. In any religion, in any community, there are some who see the changes and disregard for customs and tradition as a sign of ill times, not momentous ones. Their worry and views are not without reason, for undoubtedly some Muslims feel that their bodies should still be buried intact, as I their belief. A route out, is, of course available, as Muslims, like everyone else, have a choice to actively opt out of the donation program.

“…will significantly enhance the access of Muslims with organ failure to donated organs" is one of the advantages of this fatwa, and significant it is. With just over 5% of eligible Muslims currently donating their organs after death, it is clear that people who desperately need these organs are in for good news. This is the crux of organ donation, as it is of this new fatwa. Whether or not we can change tradition, or dispose of it entirely, for the betterment of a universal tradition, humanity. Whether we, as people and not as religion or race can benefit ourselves and our world.

There are many various viewpoints that we can see this from – People in need of new organs, The Fatwa Committee, Muslims staunchly rooted in their beliefs and those not as much so. But one thing that I know, for all my limited understanding about other religions, is that this is a turn for the better. Because this is an issue not so much about Muslims as about humans. Who we are, and what we feel for those who need our help, and how we can help them.

test #3

hello hello test test can i see this? please don't disappear off the page again...
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
testtesttest

News review Omega - Lower ranked JCs, more A-Levels?

Lower-ranked JCs get more O level aces

The Straits Times, Home, March 3rd

As Singapore’s society progresses with increasing speed, the pressure on students to do better mounts. With our very competitive education system, some people succeed, but others do not. This article is a testament to the fact, that, under all that pressure, diamonds have been formed – once diamonds in the rough, but now shining gems. These are none other than student from so-called “lower-ranked” schools, who are becoming more and more prominent as their potential to outstrip their high-ranked counterparts continues to increase. This, clearly, is a marked improvement from before, and it shows the possible effectiveness of our country’s education system.

According to the article, students with more than 12 points in their O-levels are often discouraged to take more than three A-level subjects. This is a point of debate, for some who take four subjects churn out better results than those who only take three subjects. In my opinion, students should be allowed the free choice to choose what they wish – they should, at that age, have the intelligence to choose enough to do well, to know their own limits. If the students feel that they can cope with more, and would thrive under pressure, it is wrong to discourage them from doing so, or label them as people who didn’t make it, or to prejudice them, restrict their choices.

From the government’s perspective, of course, this is a completely different matter. I can only assume, for I do not know much, but perhaps the government feels that experimentation is over, and that it is time for those who do not do so well to build strong foundations on a few subjects rather than building castles in the air. Maybe the government knows that it would be difficult for these students to excel in so many areas, and thus let them concentrate on fewer areas, but more in-depth. Empathy on the students’ part is needed if the education system is to run smoothly.

Still, the jump in numbers of four A students in lower-ranked JCs, such as Pioneer JC, has increased exponentially. For Pioneer JC, it was a jump from 5 such students in 2005 to 23 today. This can be seen as an effort on the schools part to give students as god an education as is possible. Perhaps it is not just the students that are thriving under the pressure, but maybe the school systems as well – the way they are run, their policies, values, goals. Iron sharpens iron, and the results have shown.

(417 words)