Bob Dylan once said that we need a voice of generation to speak out our real thoughts and for the present generation it seems that the Internet is going to be the " free land of people's voice".
From the Internet, I can see two powers--one is represented by those famous websites who are rich and so-called pro es, the other one is represented by those free writers who do not have finical support and never been trained before.
Who is the saver of our free-right? When you are tired reading those boring articles published on CNN, wondering whether they are telling the truth, guessing why there are so many question marks inside the articles, and keep checking Google for help, you will have the answer-- your savers are those blogger like yourself.
Blogger--"they tend to be mavericks who work for free, and operate far from the sources of power. Feeling no need to ingratiate themselves with the moneys and shakers of industry and government, they simply tell it like it is from where they sit as concerned, informed citizens with diverse areas of expertise."------by Mark Klempner
I think the articles on blog are like the gossips many many years ago-- they are filled up with both truth and nonsense. Hence we need to arm ourselves with the ability of separating the truth from tones of nonsense.
Some old-men can run away from the Internet, but as a growing youth where can you hide from the Net?Arm yourself and face the lies, truth will be with you.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Balance Of Pressing Freedom
I agreed with the ideas of the author of “Publishing those cartoons was a mistake” especially about the collision between the two goals of pressing freedom—the libertarian and the social responsibility theories.
“The press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so but focusing on responsibly, and not solely on freedom.”
I think the “freedom” is just like a “tool” of pressing, and the pressing is expected to use the “freedom” to confirm that the “responsibility” has been achieved successfully.
As the Internet has taken part of our lives more and more nowadays, the media system should be more aware of their pressings because the existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Their responsibility does not only stands for being a good platform to share the ideas freely but also for contributing to the racial harmony as well—and this part is very important for the media system in Singapore!
I have confidence in Singapore media system because I found that the government has given a hand to the media system already and they have done a nice job. I think that’s what CCP should learn and I believe we will benefit a lot from learning from Singapore.
“The press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so but focusing on responsibly, and not solely on freedom.”
I think the “freedom” is just like a “tool” of pressing, and the pressing is expected to use the “freedom” to confirm that the “responsibility” has been achieved successfully.
As the Internet has taken part of our lives more and more nowadays, the media system should be more aware of their pressings because the existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Their responsibility does not only stands for being a good platform to share the ideas freely but also for contributing to the racial harmony as well—and this part is very important for the media system in Singapore!
I have confidence in Singapore media system because I found that the government has given a hand to the media system already and they have done a nice job. I think that’s what CCP should learn and I believe we will benefit a lot from learning from Singapore.
Do Not Be Too Serious
Why Da Vinci Code wont be getting my $9.50
After reading this article, I’m impressed by the author’s open-minded way of thinking.
As a Catholic he kept his belief and refused to watch this movie but on the other hand he clearly noticed that this movie is clearly fictional. There are no collisions between these two ideas. One can both be determined and understandingly at the same time. I think the author has made a nice and clear example for all of us to follow— what exactly we should do when you think you are offended by others’ opinions.
Firstly one should not follow each other blindly, we must come up with our own ideas. And once we have these ideas we should not change them just to “catch up with others”. We must have faith in ourselves.
Secondly people should be understandingly. We need to stand in others’ shoes—we need to think for others, and that’s how people get respect from others. I think understanding is the only way to keep the world peaceful.
“Our public duty as citizen requires us to uphold the virtues of tolerance and acceptance.”
After reading this article, I’m impressed by the author’s open-minded way of thinking.
As a Catholic he kept his belief and refused to watch this movie but on the other hand he clearly noticed that this movie is clearly fictional. There are no collisions between these two ideas. One can both be determined and understandingly at the same time. I think the author has made a nice and clear example for all of us to follow— what exactly we should do when you think you are offended by others’ opinions.
Firstly one should not follow each other blindly, we must come up with our own ideas. And once we have these ideas we should not change them just to “catch up with others”. We must have faith in ourselves.
Secondly people should be understandingly. We need to stand in others’ shoes—we need to think for others, and that’s how people get respect from others. I think understanding is the only way to keep the world peaceful.
“Our public duty as citizen requires us to uphold the virtues of tolerance and acceptance.”
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
"My Teacher Is SoOoOoOooo... ANNOYING!!!"
By Timothy RS
"My Teacher Is SoOoOoOooo... ANNOYING!!!", What a cliche phrase.
However, sometimes students, including myself, couldn't avoid thinking so. Teachers, specifically the hardworking and dedicated ones WILL go for the extra mile by giving extra reading material, excercises, homework, being strictly punctual, and urelentlessly reminding their students to hand over their homework.
From a 'some lazy student' 's perspective, the teacher will be seen as a strict demon who nags and nags, pushes students to the limit and inflict severe inconvenience to them.
For example, when the teacher asks for a certain homework to be handed over which has been due for weeks, the teacher will naturally impose very short time extension (one day or less).
Without much choice, the 'some lazy students' will rush to do it, lie to the teacher with overused excuses such as "I dont have printer at home", "My printer is spoiled", "I cannot use library's computer", and "I have done it, but i did not bring it"(though some may be genuine) or in extreme cases they will not bother to do and just loiter around.
Any extra work are usually seen as burden and not reinforcement, and any punishment made 'some lazy students' feel that the teacher is very unfair.
But, if we, students, really deeply comtemplate what is really happening in an unbiased and objective view, we will realize how much effort has our teacher done for us.
If they were given th chance to choose whether to teach us and do all the extra work for us and teach only as far as needed, they would gladly choose the second one, assuming the teacher is the usual typical normal human being.
But, they (dedicated and hardworking teachers), being an extraordinary human being did not choose to do so. They would rather take the painstaking processes in order to mould us to a better person.
Their paid is relatively lesser than their peers who work in private companies. They are not paid a single cent (most schools, except for some anomalous ones) for every extra hour they spend to give us makeup lesson.
We tend to forget that for every extra homework that we feel burdened, our teacher take the trouble to find or make the questions and some went further by checking your answers.
In each one of those pile of 'behated' extra reading materials, our teacher has spent hours to read it, re-read it, revise it, and tailor it to suit our needs. Usually they went further to make questions out of it.
The hardwork of our teacher is embedded in the lectures that sometimes make us snore. Some of them actually spent their own salary in order to make the lecture more interesting.
When they take the pains of unleashing their tough love to remind us strongly about our mistakes (scolding us), they actually kill their own brain cells.
So, Why? Why do some of us condemn our teacher.
"Oh, my teacher sucks!"
"OMG, 3 extra homeworks, I don't have time."
"He's the embodiment of demon from the hottest hell"
Some of us unjustly condemn them. Think, think again is it fair for them?
I personally feel that they are annoying at times, but i dont feel right to challenge them face to face, curse them inside my mind and condemn them behind their back amongst our peers.
So, I strongly believe that we must respect our teacher and appreciate their efforts. As the saying goes, Teacher are like candles, they burn out to give light to others.
Notes to disclaimers:
I do not side with teachers, nor do i love to do extra work. I do feel tired of them sometimes. But, I feel that it is unfair for them if we condemn them.
Level of tolerance (freedom of expression)
For reading 3 and 4 about the freedom of expression, I am most subscribe to the view of the author in reading article 4 which he says that some of us may have a certain believe or religion, when other people talk about it, as long as it does not cause very distinct and serious harm, people must learn how to tolerate these people’s view.
Personally I am a free thinker. As a result, joke about any religion actually do not cause very serious effects on me. However, putting myself in those religious people’s shoes, I felt that if some of them are a bit more sensitive, they may feel offended by some of the jokes made due to the freedom of expression.
However, on the other hand, most of the time those certain groups of people may be the minority one. If may be sometimes jokes are too much for them, but if someone make some public opinion of thoughts about tem, as long as its does not cause negative impact on those group of people, they should learn to tolerate a bit more.
This is because sometimes public opinions may contain a certain level of criticisms; however it may not always have a negative effect on the group. People always learn from their mistakes sometimes by responding positively to de suggestions make, these groups of people actually can create more public awareness of people on them.
Therefore, I felt that no matter for which group of religion group a certain level of tolerance should be there. Personally I felt that over reactions of very small matter sometimes may not get de best outcome but in fact turns the situation worst. In conclusion, there must be a bit of tolerance of others in every one of us as if not, once a quarrel start it may never end… even some opinions are positive ones. However I am also not referring that we must tolerate everything including those personal attacks or insulations. So best of all have a balance level of tolerance!
Personally I am a free thinker. As a result, joke about any religion actually do not cause very serious effects on me. However, putting myself in those religious people’s shoes, I felt that if some of them are a bit more sensitive, they may feel offended by some of the jokes made due to the freedom of expression.
However, on the other hand, most of the time those certain groups of people may be the minority one. If may be sometimes jokes are too much for them, but if someone make some public opinion of thoughts about tem, as long as its does not cause negative impact on those group of people, they should learn to tolerate a bit more.
This is because sometimes public opinions may contain a certain level of criticisms; however it may not always have a negative effect on the group. People always learn from their mistakes sometimes by responding positively to de suggestions make, these groups of people actually can create more public awareness of people on them.
Therefore, I felt that no matter for which group of religion group a certain level of tolerance should be there. Personally I felt that over reactions of very small matter sometimes may not get de best outcome but in fact turns the situation worst. In conclusion, there must be a bit of tolerance of others in every one of us as if not, once a quarrel start it may never end… even some opinions are positive ones. However I am also not referring that we must tolerate everything including those personal attacks or insulations. So best of all have a balance level of tolerance!
Blasphemy!!!
Freedom of Speech VS Blasphemy
By Timothy RS
When religious issues are concerned, in many cases freedom of speech are intertwined with blasphemy. Many people have been prosecuted for having different prespective upon religious issues. The 'blasphemies' come in many degrees, some are not so outright and others were outright attack against the organized religion.
Here's some example:
The twelve cartoons of prophet Mohammed which was posted by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in september 2005, has led to a state of disturbance in the Muslim world. Some protestors burnt embassies and international tension. In London, protestors carried signs saying, "Behead those who Insult Islam".[1]
In 2008 a punk festival in Linköping, Sweden used marketing posters showing Satan pooing on Jesus on the cross, under the slogan "Punx against christ!" The poster was taken down by the municipality of Linköping.[2] The publication of the poster in the local newspaper Östgöta Correspondenten caused death threats on the editor-in-chief.[3]
This problem rises from the clash between the non-believers / expressive artists and the presence of censorship by existing organized religion . The mainstream religions had prohibited disrespectful speech and act which opposes the basic teachings and defaming their religious icons. Since we cannot contain both needs from the two opposing parties, sacrifices must be made.
Is it wrong? or is it acceptable? I believe this is not acceptable though not always wrong since it lacks of tolerancy and understanding. The 'guilty' is inconsiderate with respect to the 'victims' whose beliefs are attacked. Here, freedom of speech should have its limit. It is good and acceptable as long as it does not interfere and damaging to other people.
The resolution to this problem would depend on the of the non-believers / expressive artists. I believe, they should keep their thought, speech and acts to themselves and not publish it out, or they could just share this amongst those who share the same thought. Public event and direct attacks that could trigger the social unrest must be hampered. This is so as to not attack anyone's beliefs and cause no unrest.
Is it fair for the non-believers / expressive artists to be denied of their right to publish their thoughts? I would argue that it is relatively fair. If we adopt the prespective which wants maximum benefit for maximum number of people, it's best to be so. Let's imagine what if old perverts openly argue that *** with underaged child or even incest should be allowed, wouldn't that be chaotic? Thus, It is similar to what must be done to those who openly argue against the mainstream religion.
Beware! your words can hurt other people. If one think that making joke of another religion or questioning their religion is funny, one should rethink what would one feel if other people laugh at one's.
Blasphemies are punishable in these countries
AlgeriaAustraliaBelarusBhutanBurmaCanadaChinaCubaEast GermanyFranceGermanyHong KongIndiaIranIrelandIsraelJapan
MalaysiaPakistanPortugalRussiaSamoaSaudi ArabiaSingaporeSouth AsiaNorth KoreaSoviet UnionSwedenTaiwanThailandTunisiaTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States.[4]
^ Five arrested over London cartoons protest - Britain - Times Online
^ Colin Seymour-Ure and Jim Schoff, "David Low", Secker and Warburg 1985, p. 63
^ Koenraad Elst. The Rushdie Rules. work. Retrieved on 2006-02-03.
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_organized_religion
If you deem any part of this entry as plagiarising, please notice the author, apology will be sought and credit will be given to the respective sources.
By Timothy RS
When religious issues are concerned, in many cases freedom of speech are intertwined with blasphemy. Many people have been prosecuted for having different prespective upon religious issues. The 'blasphemies' come in many degrees, some are not so outright and others were outright attack against the organized religion.
Here's some example:
The twelve cartoons of prophet Mohammed which was posted by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in september 2005, has led to a state of disturbance in the Muslim world. Some protestors burnt embassies and international tension. In London, protestors carried signs saying, "Behead those who Insult Islam".[1]
In 2008 a punk festival in Linköping, Sweden used marketing posters showing Satan pooing on Jesus on the cross, under the slogan "Punx against christ!" The poster was taken down by the municipality of Linköping.[2] The publication of the poster in the local newspaper Östgöta Correspondenten caused death threats on the editor-in-chief.[3]
This problem rises from the clash between the non-believers / expressive artists and the presence of censorship by existing organized religion . The mainstream religions had prohibited disrespectful speech and act which opposes the basic teachings and defaming their religious icons. Since we cannot contain both needs from the two opposing parties, sacrifices must be made.
Is it wrong? or is it acceptable? I believe this is not acceptable though not always wrong since it lacks of tolerancy and understanding. The 'guilty' is inconsiderate with respect to the 'victims' whose beliefs are attacked. Here, freedom of speech should have its limit. It is good and acceptable as long as it does not interfere and damaging to other people.
The resolution to this problem would depend on the of the non-believers / expressive artists. I believe, they should keep their thought, speech and acts to themselves and not publish it out, or they could just share this amongst those who share the same thought. Public event and direct attacks that could trigger the social unrest must be hampered. This is so as to not attack anyone's beliefs and cause no unrest.
Is it fair for the non-believers / expressive artists to be denied of their right to publish their thoughts? I would argue that it is relatively fair. If we adopt the prespective which wants maximum benefit for maximum number of people, it's best to be so. Let's imagine what if old perverts openly argue that *** with underaged child or even incest should be allowed, wouldn't that be chaotic? Thus, It is similar to what must be done to those who openly argue against the mainstream religion.
Beware! your words can hurt other people. If one think that making joke of another religion or questioning their religion is funny, one should rethink what would one feel if other people laugh at one's.
Blasphemies are punishable in these countries
AlgeriaAustraliaBelarusBhutanBurmaCanadaChinaCubaEast GermanyFranceGermanyHong KongIndiaIranIrelandIsraelJapan
MalaysiaPakistanPortugalRussiaSamoaSaudi ArabiaSingaporeSouth AsiaNorth KoreaSoviet UnionSwedenTaiwanThailandTunisiaTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States.[4]
^ Five arrested over London cartoons protest - Britain - Times Online
^ Colin Seymour-Ure and Jim Schoff, "David Low", Secker and Warburg 1985, p. 63
^ Koenraad Elst. The Rushdie Rules. work. Retrieved on 2006-02-03.
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_organized_religion
If you deem any part of this entry as plagiarising, please notice the author, apology will be sought and credit will be given to the respective sources.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)