"Oh man, not again..." was all i could say as I first heard about the Virginia Tech killings. The massacre was the dealiest mass shooting in modern U.S history. As I sat my couch, and saw the pandemonium that surfaced in the video clips of the shootings, i could not help recall the Columbine massacres that started off this mass debate over the selling of firearms to any tom, dick or harry.
The Columbine high school massacre occurred on 20th June 1999. Though not as deadly as that in Virginia Tech, 12 students were killed while 24 others were injured. The preperators were Eric Harris and Dylan Khebold. Brutal, scary and plain insane is what i would describe the whole thing. Brutal for the two guys who unmercilessily shot plainly anyone who came across their sight of vision. Scary because of the extent of their rage towards society. I mean, they absolutely hated the high school. The extent to this can be seen in them actually making 99 over bombs to destroy the school'd caffeteria. It really scary how they could just plainly get life threatening infomation from the internet just like that. In many reports, people indicated that harris had a blog providing all sorts of wierd infomation he had gathered from the internet on how to cause mischief to people. Lastly, its plain insane how two high school students could get the connections and actually buy pistols and two shotguns. mean, some actually sell them these things without asking questions!!! Where's the logic in that??? Would i be right in saying that they would even sell a pack of cigarettes to a 13-year old. These are certainly things that have to be sorted out in America.
As we look at the Columbine as well as the Virgina Tech massacres, the U.S government has to a extremely firm stance against selling of guns. I am not telling them to stop everyone from buying guns, but at least allow background checks for people wanting to purchase these firearms. We need to ensure that we are entrusting these deadly weaphons to people who are sane and are not going to become potential mass murderers. Hearing me say this has made me think about new issues. Sure, everyone's bound to be a little paranoid about safety from time to time. But guns!!! Its a little bit too extreme to ensure safety, won't you agree??? Why not buzz batons or those electric things that women carry around to shock the life out of naughty men??? Has society itself evolved to such a stage where there is no possible way to ensure that you will always be safe as you walk down the street???
Many believe that society played a huge part in both the massacres. Eric Harris and Dylan Khebold were victims of isolation and possibly bullying as well. AS a school student myself, i do know the emotional struggle one is bound to feel if he or she is felt out by his friends. The inability to fit into society can do a lot of things to a peson psychologically. Having our own cliques and not sparing a thought to allow new friends to come and mingle with us. Is this the new face of school life??? Thus, it is essential for us to not shun anyboby and welcome everybody. Who knows, if Cho and the two guys had gotten warm, welcoming friends, they would nto have ever committed those atrocities. We should not discriminate people no matter what. Painting a cruel portrait of someone whom you don't really know and talk to should not be the way.
Again, i come back to the topic about guns. I would really hope the Congress stamps its authority in the issue. My fear is of this things starting to occur in other countries as well. Lets always remember that in a fit a rage, we are daring enough to virtually do anything. Its only when we are calm again that we realise the stupidity of our actions and regret them. If the sale of guns still exists widely, lets hope that more and more Americans don't wake up in the morning regretting for the life they cruelly took with one mere bullet.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The World of Crime and Justice
It has been debated around the world and yet there has been no answer for it. Yes, can we ever use torture in dealing with criminals and terrorists. Is it really justifiable. If you ask me, i would have to say a firm "NO". There is no way, torturing people can ever be called justice.
In article one, the ineffectiveness of torture in getting the truth out of detainees is clearly shown. To go so low as to start threating that the childen would be killed is really too much. Surely there is a way out of violence. We have been brought up to use our brains and its about time that we start using nore of brain power than muscle power. The FBI seems to believe so and has not employed violence to get the truth out of the the al-Qaeda members. The used the knowledge of religion to sort of persuade them that allah had ensured their survival to ensure that the lives of many others could be saved, giving them a real purpose in life. Not only this, but they even used kindness and promised for an operation to be done to one of the member's child. These methods eventually helped turn the members over to the good side. However, the CIA, being brash and headstrong, decided to use muscle power and would go to the most extreme measures to get the truth out of the members. It was no surprise that Bush and Cheney sided with the way CIA ran their interrogation process.
The CIA were barely successful in getting the "truth" out of the members. The "truth" being stuff that the intelligence had already knwon long before. But, the public was getting wift of these tortures and immediately turned on their President. Bush was clearly being backed to a corner and he could do nothing but lie in their faces. The CIA had gooten large results...The results had lead to the captures of two more high profile terrorists...well done to torture...These were lies only known to the intelligence community. There are even the costs of emplying torture that we all should consider. Say we torture someone, and that person has already given you the infomation that you need. But is that person really going to one day, "Hey you know, i have some additional infomation that you can use..." Fat hope is what i would say. Treat someone with at least a little bit of decency, and the rewards will be far better. Moreover, torturing someone just to get the truth is not legal.
Article 2 gives us the view of someone who is with torture and of course the contrasting opinions of a human rights group. Basically, its the question of whether these actions are ethical. Beating someone to a pulp...Humans beating up humans...Is it really right??? But Mr Faris(pro-torture) mentioned about a psychopatic murderer bruying a teenage girl and the clock running down on you, i sort of started to think that violence would surely have to be used in this circumstance. So, what i am driving at, is there going be a situation where nothing else can be done and the last resort in to use force???
Stangely enough, we should actually think about the people who are the ones who actually torture the people. Just what is going to their head while they brutalise the person??? It has got to be the most traumatising thing to go through. Imagine having vivid dreams about the person who you tortured...Its enough to drive anyone nuts. I thought about this after watching the drama LOST, where there was actually an Iraqi prison torturer among the survivors. In one episode, he confronts one of the victims of his torture(her hands and face were brutally scarred) and actually breaks down crying, saying that he has never spent a day in his life not reflecting on the pain that he has caused.
Overally, torture is a very brutal act and it should never be followed regadless of how desperate the situation is. Else, we can might as well throw away the morals that we work so hard to preserve.
In article one, the ineffectiveness of torture in getting the truth out of detainees is clearly shown. To go so low as to start threating that the childen would be killed is really too much. Surely there is a way out of violence. We have been brought up to use our brains and its about time that we start using nore of brain power than muscle power. The FBI seems to believe so and has not employed violence to get the truth out of the the al-Qaeda members. The used the knowledge of religion to sort of persuade them that allah had ensured their survival to ensure that the lives of many others could be saved, giving them a real purpose in life. Not only this, but they even used kindness and promised for an operation to be done to one of the member's child. These methods eventually helped turn the members over to the good side. However, the CIA, being brash and headstrong, decided to use muscle power and would go to the most extreme measures to get the truth out of the members. It was no surprise that Bush and Cheney sided with the way CIA ran their interrogation process.
The CIA were barely successful in getting the "truth" out of the members. The "truth" being stuff that the intelligence had already knwon long before. But, the public was getting wift of these tortures and immediately turned on their President. Bush was clearly being backed to a corner and he could do nothing but lie in their faces. The CIA had gooten large results...The results had lead to the captures of two more high profile terrorists...well done to torture...These were lies only known to the intelligence community. There are even the costs of emplying torture that we all should consider. Say we torture someone, and that person has already given you the infomation that you need. But is that person really going to one day, "Hey you know, i have some additional infomation that you can use..." Fat hope is what i would say. Treat someone with at least a little bit of decency, and the rewards will be far better. Moreover, torturing someone just to get the truth is not legal.
Article 2 gives us the view of someone who is with torture and of course the contrasting opinions of a human rights group. Basically, its the question of whether these actions are ethical. Beating someone to a pulp...Humans beating up humans...Is it really right??? But Mr Faris(pro-torture) mentioned about a psychopatic murderer bruying a teenage girl and the clock running down on you, i sort of started to think that violence would surely have to be used in this circumstance. So, what i am driving at, is there going be a situation where nothing else can be done and the last resort in to use force???
Stangely enough, we should actually think about the people who are the ones who actually torture the people. Just what is going to their head while they brutalise the person??? It has got to be the most traumatising thing to go through. Imagine having vivid dreams about the person who you tortured...Its enough to drive anyone nuts. I thought about this after watching the drama LOST, where there was actually an Iraqi prison torturer among the survivors. In one episode, he confronts one of the victims of his torture(her hands and face were brutally scarred) and actually breaks down crying, saying that he has never spent a day in his life not reflecting on the pain that he has caused.
Overally, torture is a very brutal act and it should never be followed regadless of how desperate the situation is. Else, we can might as well throw away the morals that we work so hard to preserve.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
New Media
Power to the people or threat to stability??? That is the big question...On one hand, new media is powerful to the people in the sense that, with the abundance of blogs, now everyone has the opportunity to pour their feelings over any issue in the vast internet. Just think about it, whatever you want ot say, it can be said with the touch of a few buttons. Sure, it is bound to chure up some really crude, violent messages, but personally, i would much prefer it to be done in the internet than in riots and strikes, which most of the time escalate into massive fights.
But, however, there surely is the bad part to new media and it takes the form of terrorism. As everyone knows by know, the terrorists are actually using the internet to spread its jihadist views and spread all sorts of propaganda. For instance, the article mentioned about faking the desecration of a Koran. Finding out that your religion's holy book was mocked at is sure to drive everyone mad, and that was just the case. Anti-american riots were up and running not long after that. Thats the problem with media....Any tom, dick or harry in the world could just start up controversy with a few touch of buttons. Its because of these people that the whole censorship thing started off anyway...
I really do understand why censorship started...It would be every government's goal to ensure that its people trust them totally and that their image to the people is a very good one...But is this image coming at the expense of lying straight to the faces of people...Thus, bloggers who know the truth about what really goes on in the government are eager to show it to their fellow countrymen. Its a right of everyone to know whats going on in their government. Take Singapore's policy of openness for example. It has worked out well in the sense that the public is able to know what the governemt is doing and likewise, the government is able to get feedback from the people. I believe that this really helps to reduce any tensions or problems that people have with any policies. This is why the Singapore government does not go around censoring blogs and imprisoning bloggers.
Freedom of speech...A widely debated topic, i mush say...Surely, some governments are really hypocritical...Whats the point of saying freedom of speech one day and the next day, you are censoring blogs and imprisoning bloggers. They, by their own judgement, are saying that the people are not able to voice out their pressing issues and likewise are not able to comment anything bad or controversial about them...The way i see it, if the government has been having a really good relationship with the people and has really been honest and open to them, i don;t see any reason why they should be so afraid of these blogs. "Say what they want but we know that we are right", should be their approach. But whats happening is far form this.
Controlled media is the last thing i would like to touch on. I mean, people watch the news to find out whats REALLY going on..But what they are watching instead is fabricated news, made for a certain party to look really good in the eyes of the viewers...For instace, Micheal Moores Fahrenheit 9/11 showed a scene where the American news would be in full praise of the American army but would quietly shield the public's attention about all the caualites that occured during the war in Iraq.So overall, with he way things have shifted the the media, i think that the media is more of a threat to stability to the world.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Todays' Media
I must say that the article does have its fair share of controversies but I must say that the media has be unreliable to convey the truth. But if you ask me if the media CAN EVER be relied upon to convey the truth, I would say yes. It will once all the money-faced editors and news chairmans are exposed to the whole nation for their fradulent ways.
I really do think that the current media in the U.S are operating on the principles of the 3 Ps: Popularity, Prejudice and Profit. Profit of the three is the main driving force behind the press. I really do like the statement about how the media "markets" and "manufactures" news for profit. It would explain why people would want to edit so much of an interview. Controversy and talking points. These two are what editors look for to gain profit. Take off a few words here and there and cut of some boring parts of a interview, and it will be the talking point among people the next day.
Prejudice is something that is abundant in U.S.A. O.J Simpson is one such victim of this prejudice. When a celebrity black man kills his white wife and eventually is acquitted, the whole country becomes havoc. But switch the black man to a white man and it becomes an everyday piece of news. I could be wrong, but in my opinion, being prejudice would sell in the U.S. Take comedian Dave Chapelle and Russell Peters for instance. Two of my favourite comedians but both comedians have their comedy act based on being prejudice. Moreover, the face that they are very, very popular hints to the fact that it really sells in America. So, its not surprising for the media to slant in this direction.
In the American media, its almost as if anyone who has something to say that may potentially reveal things about the war, will be silenced. The press give people what they want to see and the people blindly have to follow it. They choose what they want people to see. This is what i find is extremely wrong. I mean, who are they to obstruct us from learning the truth. If you have an open media, I would suggest that they start living up to it. Show the casualties of war, the people who have died, and the atrocities committed instead of "happy" rides in tanks with U.S soldiers.
I remember a scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 where Micheal Moore, the director, asked congressmen outside the white house if they would send their children for the war in Iraq. Obviously, none of them answered and its clear what all their answers would have been. The war is wrong, they all know it but the media cannot showcase that stand. They have to stand by the war effort.
I would like to round of this entry with something local. Sure its controversial, but its sort of true. Remember how its always the PAP members mostly on the front papers of the Straits Times...Remember its always the PAP members going door to door shaking peoples' hands that is shown on the news...Remember how the slightest of bad acts by the opposition would instantly be splashed on the front pages...The opposition did lose fair and square but did the PAP receive a little push on the back by our media???
I really do think that the current media in the U.S are operating on the principles of the 3 Ps: Popularity, Prejudice and Profit. Profit of the three is the main driving force behind the press. I really do like the statement about how the media "markets" and "manufactures" news for profit. It would explain why people would want to edit so much of an interview. Controversy and talking points. These two are what editors look for to gain profit. Take off a few words here and there and cut of some boring parts of a interview, and it will be the talking point among people the next day.
Prejudice is something that is abundant in U.S.A. O.J Simpson is one such victim of this prejudice. When a celebrity black man kills his white wife and eventually is acquitted, the whole country becomes havoc. But switch the black man to a white man and it becomes an everyday piece of news. I could be wrong, but in my opinion, being prejudice would sell in the U.S. Take comedian Dave Chapelle and Russell Peters for instance. Two of my favourite comedians but both comedians have their comedy act based on being prejudice. Moreover, the face that they are very, very popular hints to the fact that it really sells in America. So, its not surprising for the media to slant in this direction.
In the American media, its almost as if anyone who has something to say that may potentially reveal things about the war, will be silenced. The press give people what they want to see and the people blindly have to follow it. They choose what they want people to see. This is what i find is extremely wrong. I mean, who are they to obstruct us from learning the truth. If you have an open media, I would suggest that they start living up to it. Show the casualties of war, the people who have died, and the atrocities committed instead of "happy" rides in tanks with U.S soldiers.
I remember a scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 where Micheal Moore, the director, asked congressmen outside the white house if they would send their children for the war in Iraq. Obviously, none of them answered and its clear what all their answers would have been. The war is wrong, they all know it but the media cannot showcase that stand. They have to stand by the war effort.
I would like to round of this entry with something local. Sure its controversial, but its sort of true. Remember how its always the PAP members mostly on the front papers of the Straits Times...Remember its always the PAP members going door to door shaking peoples' hands that is shown on the news...Remember how the slightest of bad acts by the opposition would instantly be splashed on the front pages...The opposition did lose fair and square but did the PAP receive a little push on the back by our media???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)