AQ question 4: Morally right or wrong??

Harsh methods include torture and capital punishment. And for all the atrocities they have done, i believe it will always be morally right to mete out harsh methods on those criminals. After all, i believe in an eye for an eye.



Many will argue that the benefits derived through capital punishment is meagre and serve no purpose. Anti-capital punishment fools argues that the dead cannot be resurrected even if the culprit pay for his price with his life, so why cost another life? Some argue about the possibility of executing the wrong suspect and most absurdly, human rights organisations fighting for the criminals' rights to live. The commited a henious crime and if the judiciary deem their crime to be punishable only by death, i feel it is only fair. If they jeopardise others' rights to live, why should we spare a thought for these criminals' right to live? I strongly support the use of capital punishment. it will serve as a strong deterrent to discourage people from commiting a particular crime. An example will be drug trafficking. In Singapore, trafficking drugs in or out of Singapore is punishable by the death penalty. There has been a signicant fall in the number of drug trafficking cases in Singapore. Moreover, the value of human life is that of another's huamn life, no less. Thus, i strongly feel that capital punishment is morally right and should be encouraged in all countries.

is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

i feel that whether it can be justified depends on the situation.
in the case when the criminal has very important information that could save many lives but he refuses to say, torture can then be justified.
in the case when the criminal really has no clue about what we want to know, toture would then be unjustified.
however, when would we know whether the criminal has any clue at all?

for example the 9/11 incident. from the article, they mentioned, "but then think of 9/11, of the awful carnage and a nation's broken heart, and as your slide down the slippery slope, their screams(screams from the terrorists) may start to sound more like justice." torture is something that is inhumane, but if it is able to save lives, we may have secound thoughts whether it is really inhumane. another example would be the German case of September 2002, involving the kidnapping and murder of 11-year-old Jakob von Metzler, and the threatening by the police of his kidnapper with torture. (Three days after Metzler's kidnapping, police watched a man collect the ransom and arrested him. The suspect toyed with his interrogators about the location of the boy and the police chief allowed his officers, in a written order, to torture. After he was threatened with pain, it took only 10 minutes for the suspect to reveal the location of the boy, who was already dead.) thus torture can be justifiable in this extreme cases.

according to the article, "it is morally prohibited, and it is also against international laws. when they pull out his fingernail and he doesnt say anything, do they find his child and start torturing the child?" It's very rare when you have this perfect situation where you know that a particular prisoner has information that's immediately useful. Torture turns out to be routinely unproductive. In domestic laws, we forbid confessions under duress in part because they almost never get to the truth. That same knowledge should be applied to our international conflicts. It demonstrates a huge lack of creativity and imagination in our intelligence agencies when they resort to torture. It goes very quickly to the abuse that was seen at Abu Ghraib. The interrogators wanted the prison guards to "soften up" the detainees, whether or not they knew anything. It's a very dangerous process.

thus torture CAN be justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists ONLY in certain cases.

Are You For or Against the Death Penalty

After seeing how crime has been kept under control in Singapore, I personally feel that the death penalty should continue to be implemented here and also around the world.

All 3 articles somewhat support the death penalty and their reason being the death penalty deters other murders from occurring. Countries like Europe have labelled the death penalty as barbaric but Europe has relatively low crime rates as compared to a country like America. How dire would the consequences be if America abolished the death penalty? Different countries have different society structures and require methods of crime management respective to their structures. Europe may think they do not need it but it has been tested and proven in America that the death penalty is indeed effective as a deterrence tool.

As mentioned, I agree with Mr. Gary S. Becker that capital punishment deters other murders but I disagree that it is the only reason. For the various murder cases that occur in many countries, were the families of the victims of murder repaid in any way? Not that I practice the ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ idea but I feel that when the death penalty is imposed on the offender, it’s not only a punishment but it also serves as a certain consolation to the victim’s family.

Furthermore, in countries that do not practice capital punishment, their worse punishment would therefore be life imprisonment. Some agreed that this punishment is better as the offender is forced to live his life in remorse, continuously feeling the guilt of what he has done. However, offenders who are about to commit murder would not consider this thought, as it is not as impactful as the thought of having to face death. It seems rational to think that if potential killers are aware that if they commit serious crimes they could be put to death for it, they are less likely to commit these crimes. Another strong point of this concept is the retribution and justice bestowed to society. The community demands a sense of closure that justice is served.

Suggest how the 5 goals of sentencing should work together in the modern society

Retribution is a call for punishment upon a perpetrator based on a felt need for vengeance.
Incapacitation seeks to protect innocent members of society from offenders who might do them harm.
Deterrence uses punishment to convince people that criminal activity is not worthwhile.
Rehabilitation seeks to bring about fundamental changes in offenders and their behaviour.
Restoration is a sentencing goal that seeks to address this damage by making the victim and the community ‘whole’ again.

These 5 goals of sentencing form the basis of which different judges around the world decide on a suitable sentence for their individual cases. This is because, although each crime has it’s own degree of severity, all 5 sentencing goals can be applied.

Take for example, theft cases. These cases are very common and many are reported everyday. Both adults and youths commit this crime. Retribution would most probably be imprisonment in cells and homes respectively. Incapacitation is more specific about the imprisonment sentence. Some first time offenders might have curfews imposed on them instead of sending them straight to jail Deterrence depends on the age of the criminal. If it is a juvenile delinquent that committed the offence, both Specific and General deterrence could be practiced. He or she could be remorseful and learn from this experience and people in her age group are more aware of the consequences of such unlawful actions. Rehabilitation may include counselling. Restoration can help this people fit into society again like helping the offenders to find a job despite their criminal history.


Extreme cases like murder would of course be handled differently and much more seriously. The death penalty would be a considered by the judge handling this case. The rest would be somewhat similar to the above if the offender manages to escape the death penalty.

As such, it can be seen that the 5 goals of sentencing are linked and are currently reached. The only major difference between the different countries would be the use of capital punishment. Singapore and The US would be a very good contrast. This difference is important as it decides how the rest of the goals regarding this case are sort out. If the offender were to suffer the death penalty, then goals no. 4 and 5 would be unneeded.

The 5 goals are important in modern day society because they act as ‘checks’ on one another. A choice regarding the sentencing would lead to different rehabilitation and restoration methods. Also whether either specific or general deterrence if not both could be met.

With this 5 goals, I hope crime rates would decrease around the world because these 5 goals not only consists of proper punishment it also encompasses hope. Hope for the offenders, as they know that there is still help available in building their lives back up again. Hence, they in turn do not commit crime again. People around can also learn and see that it’s not worth it to commit crime and get into problems with the law.

discuss the effects of delay, uncertainty and ignorance on crime and the perception of justice

Delay, uncertainty and ignorance cause people to commit crime as they give people the false impression that they would be punished lightly or not at all. The perception that the juridical system is inefficient would also encourage people to turn to crime as punishment may not be meted out.In some countries, the jurisdictions may be ineffective and corrupted. Trials for minor offences often drag over a year or two. This delay provides courage for the criminal as they need not face the consequences immediately. Uncertainty is the odds of getting apprehended by the law enforcers, and the odds of getting behind the bars, on average, no more than three felonies out of a hundred results in an imprisonment. Moreover, ignorance of the system of the world often causes us to think that getting caught is difficult and getting acquitted is easier than getting jailed or punished. Delays, uncertainly and ignorance are all false perceptions conjured due to the poor juridical system. Ignorance is derived from the delay and uncertainty as they prove an impression that they could have a higher chance of getting away scot-free. For example, AJC students who play sports without P.E shirt often ignore the rules as they believe that their chances of getting caught by the P.E teachers are slim. This is a phenomenon conjured by the brain- Ignorance.Another reason for the increasing crime rate is due to the public perception of the justice system. If the justice system is weak and inefficient, people would dare to commit crimes as they could easily get away scot-free. On the other hand, a quick and strong system would deter people from committing crimes as their chances of getting is imprisoned is high. Thus we can see that the low rate of imprisonment due to poor justice system causes crime rates to increase. Ironically, high crime rates also causes low rate of imprisonment as the high number of trials may choke the entire jurisdiction, forcing for judges and law enforcers to acquit criminals and some even without a trial.Thus a transparent and effective juridical system is the only way to eliminate delay, uncertainty, ignorance and build a fearful view of justice which will deter people from committing crimes

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

I personally feel that the New Media is more boon than bane.


Free speech is the power bestowed onto the people and that bloggers and citizen journalists are increasingly shaping the global media agenda. An example provided is that during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Baghdad Blogger provided global audiences with a glimpse of what life was like for ordinary Iraqis stuck between an invading army and a brutal dictator. This enabled the world to understand and be able to have a perspective of what is happening.

Unlike the traditional media like newspapers where articles can be rejected to be publish by the editors if he or she deemed it as inappropriate, this new media allows people to have the power to post their opinions online without fear that it would be censor should they opted to posted it on paper. The internet not only makes possible a more engaging form of journalism, it also puts greater control in the hands of the audience as they are allow to draw their own conclusions as to their meaning. For instance, APBnews, which was founded in 1998, is recognised as a reliable source of crime news. Like other credible news source, this site provides a global audience with alternative journalistic voices to contrast the mainstream reporting of multinational commercial organisations.

However, this new power can also be a two-edged sword. The article “Countering the threat of self-radicalisation” stated that violent extremists can also make use of it to influence people and caused the country to be politically unstable. This shows that the new media can also be a threat to stability. For instance, in October 2005, two Singaporeans posted inflammatory racist and vicious remarks about Muslims and Malays on the Internet. With the current terrorism threats, there is a need for especial sensitivity of racial and religious issues in our multi-cultural society. After all, this comments which resulted from the freedom of speech can sparked off social unrest and be a threat to stability.

To conclude:
With great power, come great responsibility.
With freedom of speech, come EVEN GREATER responsibility.

is there always a tendency to confuse punishment with revenge?

i agree with the author. Like the author had mentioned, "we often confuse punishing a criminal with revenge. Although the two are closely related, they have a difference."

"punishment is - or should be- a penalty imposed for violating the law, and is usually handed down by some authority."
"revenge on the other hand, is inflicting punishment, but usually by groups or individuals who do not have the authority to punish; it is generally the result of hatred rather than justice."

The difference would be that punishment is by some authority but revenge is not.
"the problem is that many times, even those allowed by the law to punish, do so out of vengeance." for example, the jury could judge a crime base on their own morals and not base on the law, thus sometimes, making the punishment more severe, turning it into vengeance.

"again, a crime can be so horrid that revenge is on everyone's mind and, as noted, this is understandable." for example, an eye for an eye. "how much effort we pour into hurting somebody else usually depends on how much hurt has been done to us. under such circumstances, we feel justified in saying that the person who had injured us got what he or she deserved." for example, when someone committed murder, we could punish the person by imprisoning the person. However, killing the murderer could be on some people's mind as some would want to exact vengeance.

Thus punishment and revenge can be easily confused as they are almost the same where there is the inflicting of punishment and the only difference would be that revenge is inflicting of punishment without an authority and it is linked more to one's feelings. Since everyone has feelings, punishment and revenge could be easily confused.

Often at times, we have to face this vast space we call home ourselves. Feelings tend to be overwhelming and people become stressed and unable to control their emotions. So, please take time out to care for the people around you, take some time to understand what they are going through. All this will make the world a better place to live in.

(:

New Media- Power to the people or threat to stabilty.

The vital characteristic that differentiates the new media from the traditional media is the censorship of information. The internet provides a forum for the people to voice out their views while providing a certain degree of anonymity. This characteristic proves to be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allows and promotes the freedom of speech. On the other hand, it could serve as a platform for propaganda and extremist remarks, which has the potential to breed anger and hatred in the society. I personally believe the true benefits of the new media is something difficult to harness, as there would propagandists and extremist taking advantage of the freedom to spread their radical ideas. All the ideas would only serve to distort and twist true information, straining the credibility of the new media. Thus in my opinion, the New media is more of a threat to the society than a power to the people.

The Internet often provides a false impression that our identity is anonymous on the web and remains anonymous. Thus, this encourages people to post irresponsible remarks that could fan social tensions. For example, a RJC student once criticized a person for not working hard enough on the web. Even till the extent of telling the person to get out of this genius'(Her) face. This show of elitism invoked a quite a small commotion. This type of remarks would stir dissatisfaction and tension between the elites and the average. Also, the internet allows extremist to spread their radical ideas and even as a function to carry out their attacks. 'The use of the Internet for terror purposes is not a new phenomenon. Even before the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the US, terrorists were exploiting the Internet for fund-raising, training and planning purposes. It is now primarily used for radicalization and recruitment purposes.'' We should be especially wary as the internet is popular with the younger generation, who are more gullible, are easily decepted in accepting these radical ideas. Thus extremist turn to the new media to breed a new generation of terrorist.

I agree with Dionne’s view that the internet could never be abolish due to its popularity. So instead of trying to destroy its existence, we should instead focus on how to modify it to suit our preference. For example, Indonesia has blocked access to pornography websites. We could adopt similar approach and censor inappropriate content on the internet.

In my previous post, I strongly object to freedom of speech due to its backlash. The new media is a form of freedom of speech, where people could simply say whatever they please, without any consequence. However, they fail to realize that whatever they say or post may harm or hurt the stability of the society. Thus I believe that the power of the new media could be enhanced with censorship. Otherwise, it would only be a threat to stability of the society.

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

These 2 articles discussed about issues whether new media was a threat to stability or power to people. With the first article discussing about "the Internet- being the last hope for free press" and the second article about extremists making use of the Internet to "buy over" teens.

I agree with both articles. New media can be both a threat to stability and a kind of power to the people. in article one, it mentioned that the Internet has many different kinds of articles, articles from bloggers, articles from newspapers and also outlets like youtube for teenagers to vent their frustrations about the society. It also mentioned that "mistakes and biases in the MSM are exposed within hours or even minutes of an article’s release." Thus whether the Internet is a kind of power, depends on what kind of article it is. For example, Xiaxue vs. some professional journalist who is writing for the papers. The professional journalist should be able to provide a more fair judgement to a certain extent. Sometimes, the "newspapers repeatedly fail us, sometimes with tragic consequences, such as during the buildup to war in Iraq." We would then have to turn to the Internet to know the truths. Thus, the Internet can actually act as a kind of power during such circumstances like the Iraq war, where the public is denied of the truth.

However, the new media can also be a threat to stability like how article 2 mentioned. "The use of the Internet for terror purposes is not a new phenomenon. Even before the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the US, terrorists were exploiting the Internet for fund-raising, training and planning purposes. It is now primarily used for radicalisation and recruitment purposes." Thus, new media can actually "brainwash" the youths using this outlet( the Internet). Which then, the Internet becomes a threat to stability. "EXTREMISTS have even become adept in crafting their message to suit their target audience. Many terror websites are flashy and well-designed and feature visually arresting graphic content. Many also offer chatrooms, music videos and other features that are obviously targeted at a computer-savvy, media-saturated generation - namely, the young." as youths turn to Internet for entertainment or as an outlet for their frustrations, they stumble upon such materials and gets recruited to join the jihad movement.
For example, pornography, teens usually don't know about such materials, but they stumble upon pornography pop-ups, and they get addicted to pornography. Thus, Internet can actually be a threat to stability.

Whether it is a power or a threat to stability, it is something that cannot be easily measured. As what Dionne has mentioned in the previous post, "there are benefits of the Internet that affect everyone positively but as for now countering the negativities such as people who use the Internet to create chaos is the only thing any government can do". If the Internet is use the correct way, it can be a power to the people. Of course, we cannot ensure that everyone is going to use it the right way, thus maybe an independent community can act as a kind of watchdog to make sure that new media does not become a threat to stability.

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

New media defined by dictionary.com is ‘any interactive media, esp. electronic mass media combined with computers’. In this case, we are looking more closely at the Internet. I agree that the Internet is indeed ‘power to the people’, but it only becomes a ‘threat to stability’ if people act on the various ideas without considering the consequences of their actions. The Internet is able to provide many different portals in which people can express themselves. Examples would include youtube, livejournal and blogger etcetra. Furthermore, there is no need to expose one’s true identity to express what he or she has got to say online. Yes, tracking is possible but it’s not an easy task and it will take a lot of time to track just one person on a global platform. Thus the Internet is indeed a powerful tool to not only to express one’s ideas or opinions but also spread them and attain support.

The two articles given hold different focal points with regards to New Media and Free Press.

In my opinion, both are valid. The first article by Mark Klempner says that the Internet though providing much junk known as cyberslime still has opinions, information or claims that are worth reading and thinking about. The people who post on the Internet can be broken down into several categories. For example, journalists, individuals who just gives criticism and opinions heard (students like us who have to do this for homework fall under this category) and extremists who are serious about making themselves. The major difference between these groups of people is that they express themselves in differing ways. Journalists have to be careful about how and what they are writing and thus they may not be writing what they really feel because their jobs are at stake. Individuals who express themselves using platforms like blogger do not have the intention of letting many people know what they really think. What they write about may be along the lines of passing comments. However, as compared to journalists these comments are true and come from the heart. The extremists from the third category are usually desperate to attain support for they think and thus may distort or exaggerate facts. Furthermore, they may use words of manipulation to convince the readers.

I’m not claiming that only the opinions of the individuals from the second category are reliable but people especially youths who form the most tech savvy generation should learn how to differentiate between truth and biased opinions on the Internet. No one is completely right and some degree of thinking must be done before accepting what he or she has said. If this is exercised then people would not act irrationally on the ideas that are presented on the Internet and cause social problems.

Yes, the Internet is currently used by the various terrorist extremists organizations to gather supporters and members and it falls under the ‘threat to stability’ category. Although this problem may not be solved on a short termed basis but the ideas and solutions the government has come up with to counter the organizations will work on the long run. Youths should be educated that not everything on the Internet is correct and they should also understand that reality and the virtual Internet are two different dimensions altogether.

Arguing or debating whether the Internet benefits or harm the society more is useless as I believe the Internet will always exists and even if the Internet was to be ‘destroyed’ or shut down in the future, there will always be people who have the technology to create another system similar to the internet. There are benefits of the Internet that affect everyone positively but as for now countering the negativities such as people who use the Internet to create chaos is the only thing any government can do.

While you guys are busy with schoolwork or your personal life, I would like you to put down whatever you're doing and focus on this picture and then think of the innocent who are involved in this global war. War against what, you might ask. At this time while you are reading this, many wars are going on around the world. The war against poverty, the war against pollution, the war against terrorism, the war towards independence, to name a few. Think for the innocent people hurt in these wars. May the lord be with them.

(:

10 Ideas That Are Changing the World: #7 Aging Gracefully

As time goes by, it is observed that in almost any developed country there is a trend of low birth rates and death rates. This means that aging populations are forming around the world with more and more people above 50 years old forming the majority of a country’s population.

The usual links a person would make towards an elderly population would be that there would be an increase in a country’s medical expenditure as more money has to be to be set aside for the welfare of its elderly and this leads to a decreases the country’s ability to invest in other aspects beneficial for the country’s future such as education. However, this article suggests otherwise.

This article suggests that the elderly (people over 50 years old by definition) can still contribute positively to the society. The article uses Japan as a case study and has evidence that agree that the elderly do not just exhaust a country’s finances. Examples of having high purchasing power show how they actually continue to contribute to a country’s economic growth. But fact remains that not everyone has the luxury of so much money at their disposal and many still depend on the government for subsidies for various things concerning their welfare. An example would be medical expenses. At this juncture I think that a long term solution would be to promote a healthy lifestyle among a country’s population. Many people in the working sector are usually absorbed in their work and neglect their health, resulting in health problems in the elderly years. Campaigns or advertisements reminding people to exercise or maintaining a balanced diet would help.

I agree and glad that more and more countries are gradually losing the “the elderly are burdens to society” mindset and are starting to see certain advantages of this situation. However, besides only thinking about how their wealth can contribute to the economy on a short term basis, I think that the elderly can contribute with something else, something so valuable that the youth or young people of today lack – experience,

The elderly have lived through more then half their lives and have many experiences unique to every individual that can become lessons for us. Their bodies may be deteriorating with age but I’m sure their mind is still as active as ever. They can provide essential advice to the leaders of today’s world on certain decisions or situations that they have been through themselves. History may not have to repeat itself.

10 Ideas That Are Changing The World: Reverse Radicalism

IN this article, several key issues on terrorism are highlighted; reasons on why people are attracted to join terrorist organisations, the push factors that see more people leaving such organisations and solutions to combat terrorism.

As revealed by former JI head of training unit, Nasir Abas, people join terrorist groups in search of fame, recognition and excitement. But there are some who join in search of a change in their lives. They want to play a part in moulding their futures. Abas was deeply troubled by the sufferings of his fellow Muslims at that point in time, and when given an opportunity to join the JI, he "found it very heroic, a dream come through" as he thought he could help relieve those sufferings.

However, people felt that reality just did not live up to their fantasy. There was no fame or prestige at all. A terrorist’s life, as acknowledged by Abas, was most of the time depressing. This deception fuel the decision to leave.
Another reason why some chose to leave is the practice of terrorist organisations. What they do is felt by the members to be morally and religiously wrong. In Abas’s case, he joined to change the world into a better and more peaceful place with lesser sufferings. He was not radicalized and was clearheaded about his religion’s teachings, and the countless bombings (he was indirectly involved in the 2002 Bali bombing) that took many innocents lives were against his religion. To Abas, it was “against the teachings of the Prophet”. Fed-up when his pleas to spare the innocents were ignored, he decided to call it quits. To him, the JI does not exist to create a better place for Muslims, and he is “tired of the lies”.

Solutions suggested by Abas to help counter terrorism include education, disengagement and counseling. By educating people, especially idealistic young adults, on the difference of their religious ideas and that of the organisation they follow. For example, the teachings of the Prophet bars Muslims from destroying places of worships but the JI bombed numerous churches on Christmas Eve 2000. Also, Abas believe we should try and disengage radicals, instead of trying to deradicalise them. Lastly, convicted terrorists should stand up and condemn terrorism, and send out a strong message to terrorist-wannabe that it is not as good as they think. Ex-terrorists like Abas should also step forward and lend a hand to fight terrorism. Their knowledge on the way terrorist organisations operate will be valuable and instrumental in defeating terrorism.

#Beyond the OIympics

Accroding to the author, the purpose of the sports industry of today no longer serve to solely promote that particular sport, or to promote world harmony and competition such as the Olympics Games, but instead serve as a platform for advertising, broadcasting and commercial opportunities. He cites examples such as the Premier League's proposed 39th game and the new Indian cricket league as moves motivated by individual association's desire for the possible futher revenue dervied from the sport's huge fanbase.

I agree with the author's view that the sports are now largely operational due to the immense revenue gained by commercialising the sports. Popular local sports are no longer confined to the boundaries of it countries, but instead screened on the televisions of the fans all over the world. The reason that the foreign fans are getting their weekly/daily dose of sports entertainment, is not because telecasters wants to promote that particular sports or out of the telecasters' goodwill, but due to the fact that the fans pay for the subscription. Any Leagues or franchises that claims its sole purpose of existance is to promote the sport or competition is outright lying. Reforms such as the 39th Premier League game by the Premier league possesses monetary agenda as they would stand gain income from the broadcasting rights and tickets. Many might argue that the 39th game would serve to promote the sports in foreign countries. However, i believe that the true reason behind the bold reform is to promote the sports in order to increase their fanbase for more revenue. Even the purpose of the promotion of the sports has been corrupted by the desire for wealth. Only sports for leisure, between you and me, has no other motives but for entertainment and competition. That is the true sports. Commercial sports no longer have that innocent purpose.

The pros of commercial sports far outweighs the cons. The purpose of commercial sports is to earn money but the sports do somehow indirectly promote sports due to the global exposure. Also, commercial sports allows another channel of entertainment for people who enjoy sports. Commercial sports do indeed offer coverage of professional games and entertaining sportsman. I do indulge in weekly EPL matches offered by starhub cable television, being a avid soccer fan. Furthermore, Commercial sports allows a platform for business and commercial dealings. Advertisements, transfer market, Broadcastings, Stadium Revenue etc are only some to name.

However, there are negative effects that come in different forms. The opening up of a local sports industry to the foreigners may deprived locals chances to play and thus stunting the growth of local talent. One such example is the English Premier League. Talented English players have been lacking and many attribute it to the influx of foreign talent. Also, the opening of the Indian cricket league may spell the end of the international league as players may place club before nation.

Possible future developments may include opening of several new leagues and franchises This would lead to fierce competition between very similiar leagues. One such example is the American Basketball Association (ABA) that competed with National Basketball Association(NBA), and eventually merged in 1967. However, only with the prescence of competition would lead to creative innovations. ABA invented the 3-point arc and the Slam-Dunk competition to compete with the more conservative NBA. Thus it may be a boon and a bane at the same time.

10 ideas that are changing the world

#1 common wealth
#2 end of customer service
#3 the post-movie star Era
#4 reverse radicalism
#5 kitchen chemistry
#6 geoengineering
#7 aging gracefully
#8 curing the "dutch disease"
#9 women's work
#10 Beyond the olympics


Geo-engineering refers to the deliberate modification of earth's environment on a large scale to suit human needs and promote habitatibility.

is this technology a bane,

or boon to our society?
"For most environmentalists, the answer to that depressing litany is to keep pushing the same message harder: cut carbon and cut it now." Critics of geoengineering argued that it made more sense to avoid global warming than to gamble on risky fixes. They called for reducing energy use, developing alternative sources of power and curbing greenhouse gases.

However, "as the difficulty of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions has become harder to ignore, it is slowly emerging as an option of last resort." International efforts like the Kyoto Protocol — which the United States never ratified, and which China and India as members of the developing world never had to obey, freeing the current and projected leaders in greenhouse gas emissions from its restrictions — have so far failed to diminish the threat. Scientists estimate that the earth's surface temperature this century may rise as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit. If nobody puts in the effort to try to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, we would have to resort to geo-engineering.

Thus, i feel that it is a good idea to start thinking about how to make-use of geo-engineering in case we need it some day. Some technology include "spreading sulfur particles into the atmosphere to compensate for a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." geo-engineering could be the only way to reduce fast rising temperatures, even though there would be many disadvantages if we decide to use this new technology.

In the case of spreading sulfur particles into the atmosphere,
#1it would worsen air pollution where there are already tons of sulfur in the air being released from the coal-fueled plants.
#2this technology requires a massive capital
#3the motivation to reduce greenhouse gases in the environment would be lost

Thus, i agree with the author, "Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." Governments of different countries should start doing something about reducing greenhouse gases. Like for example, setting rules and regulations for factories to only produce this limited amount of greenhouse gases. There could be many other things the government can do and if all governments do so, maybe, we will not need to rely on geo-engineering.

Free Press: Bane or Boon?

After some INTENSIVE and EXTENSIVE research, i feel that FREE PRESS is more good than bad.
According to www.dictionary.com, free press is defined as 'a press not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideology'. Free press can bring alot of benefits to people, but it may also be harmful at times too.

As we all know, knowledge is power. However, every action has a reaction, every force has an opposing force, free press is no different. Although it is very helpful to us, some idiots might misuse this and cause all sort of problems of different scales.Take for example terrorists. They mastermind attention-grabbing attacks that will be featured in any media and through this, they succeed in planting fear in people who have seen the news. One such example is the London bombings. A few people executing the attack can strike fear in a few million people, the media is powerful isn't it? Can governments stop such incidents from being broadcasted to the people? No, because the media has the freedom to comment and release such news. But to me, power has both positive and negative connotations, it depends on how one views it.

Also, the free press has the power to intoxicate one's mind. take for example al-Qaeda and extremist movements. They have used this news channels for many years, poisoning the Muslim public’s view of the West. It's the same as propaganda or brainwashing. If something is always repeated to you,through a medium which you can trust, you will gradually be accustomed to it and believe it's true.The above points which i had raised seem to contradict my stand that the free press is a power rather than a threat. But it is not the case.

Why? Because the pros outweighs the cons tremendously. The blacksheeps can be identified and awareness can be raised on these people misusing free press. Free press is powerful because it can deliver the latest happenings to us, one example is the blogs. Blogs have been around in the 90s but it is not only till recent times where the blogs start to enjoy some popularity. And who says blogs are online diarys where people whine about their lives or post vehement comments on teachers and principals? It has evolved into another medium where people can get the latest and fatest news. Why fastest? Because they do not need editing or censorships, unlike mainstream news. One example is the 2004 tsunami, where news of it surface first on blogs, way earlier than Reuters, CNN or BBC.

Lastly, i want to comment on censorship by the governments. To many, censorship seems to be a bad thing, a breach in freedom of speech and expressions. But i feel that with government censorship, news that may cause uprising or violent reactions can be blocked off, reviewed first before publishing, which is a good thing!Thus, i feel that the free press is more of a power than a threat!