Monday, October 18, 2004

Vatican sees cultural 'Inquisition' in Europe

It's a very interesting scenario that we have here. On one hand, we do have a person who appears to be unjustly persecuted on the basis of his faith. Rocco Buttiglione while considering homosexuality to be a sin nevertheless promises as the Commissioner for EU's justice, freedom and security to fight for the rights of gays.

But on the other, do we have fundamentally a person who is unsuitable for the job at hand? Even assuming that he can divorce his personal convictions fromis professional ones, is it still fair for him and for the EU to be under a cloud of suspicion and doubt?

Cross reference this entire situation with the strongly worded rebuke of the US Anglican Church by the main one due to their ordination of an openly gay minister.

*Letter to the press*

A response to a letter titled Why the decline in Teen Morality. It's a little insipid due to time constrains and a conscious effort to be less debaterish....

Dear Sir,

I refer to Madam Kay Ben Tse’s letter “Why the decline in teen morality” (181004) and must admit to some sympathy to the position she faces herself. And I must applaud her for a much nuance stance, which does not automatically call for an immediate return to the Nanny State of yore.

But I do wonder, however, whether she has correctly identified the root problem of the so-called ‘decline’ in teen morality (whose morality one might ask?). Assuming first that the upsurge in a sub-segment is not the reason of demographics, that such an increase is not simply due to more effective policing and further assuming that somehow a minority sub segment represents all teens, then we have to decide what the real root cause of the problem is. Helpfully, Madam Kay has identified three. One, dual income families and general societal pressures preventing the necessary time and effort in properly bringing up the ‘next generation of Singaporeans’. Secondly, the portrayal of sex and violence in the media. Thirdly, general societal progress which has become more tolerant, and not just of the human body.

On the first issue, what she seems to imply and to advocate is to acknowledge the problem but to do nothing about it. In essence, she seems to propose abdicating parental responsibility and let the media baby-sit the children of such parents. This is an entirely practical approach, but one wonders if it is too practical.

On the issue of the media, it is already an accepted fact that its portrayal of violence or permissive sexual behavior has a tenuous and still disputed link to its actual effects on wider society. This is not least due to the cathartic effects on the part of the viewers but also to the extent to which the media is nothing more than a reflection of society. As such, it’s too flippant to suggest as she does that when teens ‘see extreme violence on early evening TV, it is not surprising that more teens are caught fighting’. With regards to the blurring of lines between soft porn and mainstream magazines, one finds it very hard to believe that such a situation only occurs in Singapore. To take the examples in France and the United States, there was, after all, a reason why Cosmopolitan did not reach our shores for quite a number of years now. More controversially, one needs to question whether a less puritanical and prudish approach to one’s body is necessary bad. In fact, it would be more logically to argue that shrouding the human body and sexual conduct in mystery and shame has the converse effect of the ‘forbidden fruit’ that the desire for the object or action is precisely because it is barred. Here, we need to take a more pragmatic and responsible approach to issues like sexual education and prevent organisations from hijacking it to use as part of their agenda.

So my humble suggestion is that parents and teenagers take responsibilities for their lives and those around them. We cannot keep blaming extrinsic and exogenous reasons for our own failures. Similarly, education is as always the key. Thinking and knowing how to think rationally is a bulwark against many a personal or societal ill. It is time to take responsibility into our own hands.


Saturday, October 16, 2004

BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | New Zealand's hardy farm spirit

*Tagline for the day*

CAP (Common Agriculture Policy) is BAD (Bad and Dumb)!

Okay...not as catchy as I would have liked it but it still stands. What's the point of having an agricultural plan that helps the big (and already rich) farms, subsidises wasteful (read food mountain) and pollutive measures and best of all, raises cost for your consumers?

But for the flipside, go read EU Food and Agricultural Policy, basically a propergandist piece of White Paper but hey that's just me....

BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | New Zealand's hardy farm spirit

*Tagline for the day*

CAP (Common Agriculture Policy) is BAD (Bad and Dumb)!

Okay...not as catchy as I would have liked it but it still stands. What's the point of having an agricultural plan that helps the big (and already rich) farms, subsidises wasteful (read food mountain) and pollutive measures and best of all, raises cost for your consumers?

But for the flipside, go read EU Food and Agricultural Policy, basically a propergandist piece of White Paper but hey that's just me....

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

BBC NEWS | World | Africa | Darfur misery has complex roots

Useful summation.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

CNN.com - Pro-gay Republicans suing Pentagon - Oct 12, 2004

Good stuff...shall we prep a case for this?

Monday, October 11, 2004

*In honour of the Gadhafi human rights prize*

I was so inspired by the existance of this prize that I was inspired to think up a few more. So here are the top 10 list.

1. Kim Jong IL Nuclear Non-proliferation prize
2. CCP Best Private Enterprise Prize
3. Bush Secular Prize
4. EU Free Trade Prize
5. Mbeki AIDS Drug Prize
6. Al Qaeda Peaceful Discourse Prize (a.k.a. Sharon-Arafat Prize)
7. Kerry Succinct Speech Prize
8. Putin Democracy Prize
9. Mahathir Anti-Racism Prize
10. OPEC Alternative Energy Prize

Cheerios!

CNN.com - Libya?gives human?rights prize to Venezuela's Chavez - Oct 10, 2004

*Jaw Dropping Humour*

Well maybe it's not terribly funny *snigger snigger* but it is on so many levels disturbing.

1. Just putting Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez in the same league as Nelson Mandela
2. The only imperialism I see in Venezuala seems to be that of the President imposing his (the referendum was fair but the question was pro-incumbancy)
3. Human Rights and Gadhafi?
4. Human Rights and Communism?!!!

I think what is sadder is that the Commission on Human Rights include such 'luminaries' as China, Cuba and dear old Sudan...oh oh and Mugabe's Zimbabwe! Gee...

Thursday, October 07, 2004

FactCheck.org - Annenberg Political Fact Check

Good stuff here. Independent and non-partisan, showing where, when and how politicians have mangled their facts.

Anyone interested in helping me do one locally?

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Inspectors conclude no WMD in Iraq

If one reads the article, you would find that a more accurate title would be Inspectors conclude no WMD in Iraq BUT Saddam was planning to do so in defiance of U.N.

I mean granted that no WMD have been found, that simply means that every (okay, maybe not, but at least the French and Germans included) intelligence agency in the world was wrong. In my opinion, it was probably a reaction to both the 1994 revelation of Saddam's nuclear programme that led to a fresh round of bombings and worst still, India and Parkistan going nuclear without anyone realising it in 1996. In the face of such history, it would be too easy to fall pray to hysteria. Of course, if WMD had been found, things would look different.

Were the reasons for the invasion/liberation factually wrong? Yes. Were the methods used in this war wrong? Yes. But was there a need to stop Saddam and his regime? Yes.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Inspectors conclude no WMD in Iraq

If one reads the article, you would find that a more accurate title would be Inspectors conclude no WMD in Iraq BUT Saddam was planning to do so in defiance of U.N.

I mean granted that no WMD have been found, that simply means that every (okay, maybe not, but at least the French and Germans included) intelligence agency in the world was wrong. In my opinion, it was probably a reaction to both the 1994 revelation of Saddam's nuclear programme that led to a fresh round of bombings and worst still, India and Parkistan going nuclear without anyone realising it in 1996. In the face of such history, it would be too easy to fall pray to hysteria. Of course, if WMD had been found, things would look different.

Were the reasons for the invasion/liberation factually wrong? Yes. Were the methods used in this war wrong? Yes. But was there a need to stop Saddam and his regime? Yes.

Sunday, October 03, 2004

IHT: Frank Rich: Bush's crusade for the White House

*Early Morning Humour*

Would be a lot more funny if people didn't actually subscribe to a version of this viewpoint, that Bush is moral person and therefore should be voted in.

I guess voters sometimes just want certainty,

CNN.com - School removes gay marriage from debate - Sep 30, 2004

*Shame*

The whole point of a democracy is free robust debate to exchange viewpoints and ideas and from that exchange decide and/or determine what is most suitable for your personal ideals.

Idealy one should questions one's morality and ethos but one step at a time ya?

Friday, October 01, 2004

*Election Debates*

CNA screened an encore telecast...thank goodness for that. I wonder how many Singaporeans watched it or even cared for that matter...ah well... That's what happens when you depoliticise a nation's Civil (or should that be Civic) Society.

What was interesting was that Kerry finally found a good stance. Say that the war on Iraq was an error because the President misled the nation on four things: 1. It would be carefully planned 2. We would exhaust all remedies in the UN 3. We go to war as a last resort 4. We will build a grand coalition. The subtlety of the argument comes in the second part (adn this was something the President did not get), we know it's a mistake but now that we're stuck in it, let's have a fresh approach by bringing to the table the rest of the world and gaining new credibility.

All Bush kept saying was that Kerry's position on Iraq kept changing and you need to send a consistent message. How exactly sticking to the same course when the facts have changed is beyond me...

John Kerry's rejoinder? That Bush's policy could be summed up in four words, "More of the Same". Heh.