Symbols & ideographs
http://community.livejournal.com/foto_decadent/1595034.html#cutid1
http://community.livejournal.com/foto_decadent/1588298.html#cutid1
http://community.livejournal.com/foto_decadent/1594535.html#cutid1

Blog task:
Is same-sex marriage (SSM) a practical consideration in this age of globalization?

Some argue that globalization can be compared to that of the age-old capitalism. However, it signifies notably, an age of transition. A transition to global integration as our practices, values and technologies diversify and advance. Such integration can be celebrated as a new birth of freedom and should be seen as breaking down barriers in the form of cultural and social homogeneity.

As such, SSM should be considered as assuring them the support they need and ensuring that homosexual relationships are stable would boost the stability of society as a whole, bringing them closer to society’s mainstream.
However, this can be seen from another viewpoint where the basis of marriage is reformed so as to accommodate homosexuals and SSM (This, often resulting in instability rather than, of the previously mentioned.)Thus, let us now reconsider the merits and demerits of SSM.

Firstly, marriage as defined by WordNet is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce marriage) where some believe is a contract between a couple and God and as such, no authorization from a legal body should be required. Civil marriage (the legal concept) is, however, the most frequent occurring form which brings a man and a woman together as husband and wife. Countries such as Canada and Spain have legalized SSM with a status equivalent to that of opposite-sex marriage. In attaining equal rights for homosexuals in sectors such as housing, vocation and government benefits, it is a wonder why there is a jaundiced view of SSM.

Some argue that while homosexuals are at a disadvantage economically, educationally and culturally, they too, fall short behind in their ability to raise children of their own. Furthermore, since they are unable to procreate through natural means, many turn to adoption or other artificial methods of reproduction. This i feel is a reason why SSM might not be practical considering how procreation is an essential cycle that needs to carry on.
According to an article (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-2231.html) there have been bans on overseas adoption for homosexuals, as well as homosexuals being taxed for marriage penalty (in the United States).This perceptibly reflects on the prejudice against homosexuals and the qualm society has of homosexual couples producing healthy families.
Picture this. If a heterosexual couple starts a family only to see it breakdown in the later years, the children raised in the family face not only the emotional toll, but the onset of other problems due to the dejection and such disintegration. Such problems would eventually affect their school performance, learning abilities and behavior…most of which could stay with them for a lifetime.
Considering the possible damage inflicted on the future generation, I think it is with greater reason, more appropriate to allow homosexuals to adopt and start a family of their own.
For much as some would agree, homosexuals are faithful and monogamous partners who value and engage in family life, community services as well as try to be good citizens who abide by the law. Their relationships are mainly based on trust, love and affection. A study by Anton N. Marco shows that “Homosexuals have an average annual individual income of $36,800- $41,000, depending on which study one cites (an estimated 55% of gay individuals earn more than $50,000 per year), versus $12,287 for the general population and $3,041 for disadvantaged African Americans .Thus, gay individuals' average income is at least 300% higher than average Americans' and more than 1,200% higher than that of disadvantaged African Americans.” Thus it would also be more economically viable to trust that children raised by homosexual couples would see to a better livelihood with less difficulty in monetary terms.

In the same vein, homosexuality is also a natural process that can be explained through the principles of evolution and there exist homosexual animals in nature. According to a book “The side effect model of homosexuality can explain many same-sex sexual behaviors, such as male mallard ducks and stickleback fish courting each other when deprived of females (West, 1977, p. 43; Denniston, 1980)” Hence, I think it would be ignorant to dismiss such a fact and deprive homosexuals of legal rights to get married.

Nevertheless, children raised by homosexual couples could be exposed to much bullying and affliction in school, or in public as society has not fully embraced the idea of homosexuality. With that said, children would also have a changing view on how homosexuality is perceived. For example, a child might not accept the idea of heterosexual couples in the long run or they might be inclined to disregard their homosexual parents as society places more stress on them. They could also question their sexual orientation and have a narrow view on how they should act towards the opposite sex. Thus I find that in this aspect, SSM could be more of a bane than boon for societies.

Lastly, human beings should be entitled to create a history of elation and enjoyment for themselves, be it through different forms of procreation and production, heterosexual or homosexual. Where globalization comes into the picture, I think should welcome integration and acknowledge the differences in society in order to progress further.

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle)
Do you agree?

Revolution (as defined by wordnet) is a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving while crime is an act or offense punishable by law and usually considered as an evil act. Poverty, on the other hand, is a situation people want to escape. It causes hunger and fear for the future. This spiral, according to the UN website, causes 25,000 people to die every day, thus it is no wonder how it could lead to revolution and crime, in times when people turn desperate due to lack of financial stability (usually the case). However, there are many other factors that can cause one to commit a crime. Of which, are our social structures like the lack of support from the community/government or natural illness, as well as, our family structures and how parental inadequacy, family violence and lack of communication between members in the family could result in a change in a person’s rationality and mind-set (causing them to commit a crime out of frustration or an absence of self responsibility.). Hence the economic factor, poverty, only plays one part accounting to revolution and crime.

There are many more factors leading to a revolution that we should take into consideration. However, I would agree that revolutionists and people trapped in the poverty cycle see the same need for acceptance, status and belonging. They also share common emotions like anger (perhaps at the government/community for making wrong decisions), relative deprivation and inequality. Thus, this, I feel is enough to trigger a revolution. And as people in poverty live one day at a time, they try to be a voice in their community and hope to command change-a change for the better. Hence, in their own way are revolutionists with an extremely different or radical outlook on how things should be. Since the government body is the only mechanism that can enforce laws and policies to help the less fortunate, many people face difficulty surviving each passing day as poverty exists and the government fails to allocate the country’s resources efficiently. An example can be seen from the article STI. It shows that in Singapore, the median monthly starting pay of cleaners and laborers saw a decrease of 30% between 1996-2006. Furthermore, despite the drop in wages of the lower class, this fiscal has not been addressed and ameliorated, thus could cause the poor to oppose and create a revolution.

Overexposure to the television among children can also cause crime rates to increase. According to an article by Patti Neighmond, 400,000 teenagers every year to start smoking after watching their favorite stars smoke. As television influences an increasing number of people to make heroes out of legendary criminals, the result would be less awareness placed on the individual well-being, thus, causing crime rates to increase. Nevertheless, poverty still exists despite the growing affluence in the economy and this situation not only creates deprivation among the poor, but also desperation and defiance as they seek something that they need in order to live, resulting in much crime. Much as I would like to share the many factors other than poverty that contributes to crime and revolution, there are simply too many. Hence, it would be inaccurate to fully agree that the mother of crime and revolution is poverty.

Point to add: http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/aristotle_bdh.html

june hols blog task

Initiating different viewpoints on what rules our democracy should chase, and to what extent cultural media should be censored; both Singer and Szilagyi have demonstrated and defined the outcomes of having the freedom of speech in various countries.

Singapore, being culturally diverse (a multi racial community with 42.5% being Buddhist, 14.9% Muslim, 8.5%, Taoist, 4%Hindu, 4.8% Catholic and 9.8% Christian) and diminutive, as compared to other countries, would make us liable to disharmony and dispute when religious conflicts arise and are not settled quickly. Thus I feel and do hope that amidst such religious diversity, responsibility should be observed and that it compromises of civilians, practicing the freedom of speech, as well as being conscious of the surrounding religious mores; concordant to Szilagyi’s view on how more focus should be placed on social responsibility instead.

Adopting a sense of social responsibility may very well be the underlying component for any democracy to function. Hence, the media and the press need to be more aware of how they should portray their views such that it does not incite a political war or crowds of rioters. As Szilagyi cited “Freedom of speech has never been a static value, and the responsibilities of the press evolve with every new social and political development around the world - requiring the limits of media output to be subjected to constant review.” I feel that restraint must be practiced in order for a country to achieve the full national support and trust of the civilians. It is during a worldly crisis that one appreciates the value of cohesiveness.

Take for example the existing Danish islamophobia which sparked animosity through offensive Prophet Mohammed cartoons. After which, four months later, led to undesirable death-threats and raging attacks on the Danish embassies. (Rioters razed 18 churches and at least 17 houses were set alight during the protests. Thousands of demonstrators also took part in a rally to protest the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed)

Such chaos can only suggest that Singaporeans should be more receptive and sentient to the people around them-that including the media and press that has the most influential power over civilians.

On the other hand, Singer pointed out that freedom of expression should not be limited as “Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” Singapore being highly-developed and having a successful free-market economy enjoys a substantially corruption-free environment. This almost accomplished society, I fear, could be tainted by, ironically, society itself, if freedom to express oneself is unlimited. The various jurisdiction and infliction of dissatisfied individuals towards civilians (be it the ones in conflict or innocent third parties) would hinder our economic development and not help us progress in the long run; contrary to what Singer believed. Although human progress would occur as society accepts all expressed thoughts of individuals and takes them into consideration to improve the current issues, it is only short term, as there is a limitation to patience.

Take for example-blogs, the current trend that imitatates that of a diary. The catch-anyone can view it if on public mode. In September 2006, three Singaporeans were charged with posting racist remarks on their blogs. (“In Singaporean law, the Sedition Act makes it illegal for a person to “act or conspire with others to act in a way which has a seditious tendency, or reproduce any seditious publication”. First-time offenders can be fined up to S$5000 or jailed for up to 3 years, or both.”) If blogs were online forums where one could post their views on anything under the sun, where does the line separating public issues and personal issues come in? The intention that of a blogger, seems more likely to let another person read his /her post, in the process, influencing the reader. Thus could be harmful on societal level if the reader were to carry out any actions based on the agreeing views of a blog he/she just read.

Thus, in a world where everyone wants his/her interest (be it picayune or prominent) to be received, social responsibility should be accentuated in our multi-racial society so that harmony thrives and acts as a deterrent in times of crisis.

capital punishment: is it a deterrent or murder?


I think that capital punishment is murder, however it serves more as a deterrent.
Murder. the definition is that of to kill or slaughter another human being inhumanly or barbarously under conditions specifically covered in law. Almost similar in its methods is capital punishment.
capital punishment can be seen as a crime deterrent and it is especially suitable as a punishment for the crime of murder. However, during the process of which, in its very own way, can be seen as murdering the convicted; The act of hanging another human being(worse still if the execution involves a wrongfully convicted)

Art- don't look now

i) How is art distinct from pornography?
ii) Is it possible to regulate 'artistic' media?

i)

A fine line seems to separate art and pornography, at least, to a layman who lacks education and/or his own mind to perceive and conceive ideas. I however, am much aware of the differences and shall try my best to acknowledge their differences and inform you of them at the same time.

I think I speak for the world of artists and people in the know, that art is extremely subjective. Yet however, it is a subject with much integrity and intellect that forces an artist to be aware of the blurring rules but also, to discard them sometimes and create new ones seeking to overwhelm the physical senses, the emotions and the relative thought processes of the audience. Art is viewed with much evaluation as it enlightens and gives insight into the artist's mind, be it at that moment he/she was creating the piece, or a statement of the past and for the present or future.

As I have mentioned in the above, art has rules, albeit translucent and looking almost a little like stained glass. These certain 'rules' of art are namely method, technique and motive. An artist, be it an amateur, to a craftsman, to a fine artist, has these as factors to consider when creating works for himself or for an audience to appreciate. A clear message driven across: across race, language and nationality, should be what an artist aims to achieve ultimately through his arts.

Now we shall move on to an evaluation on pornography. Porn (as pornography is affectionately called as it is so frequently used) to me, is a rude, sometimes vulgar interpretation or play of physical bodies, almost totally void of whatever ‘rules’ govern how art is produced and viewed. One obvious sign is that porn is viewed with much (should I say?) discomfort in public. It pales in comparison in taste and message when compared to art.

How many discrepancies between both art and porn can be distinctively listed, yet both can be subjectively viewed. Therefore, a clear bold line, can be imposed in our minds between both themes, but however thick and far reaching this line may draw across, it is not opaque, it is not saturated, it is, as much as we might ‘despise’ it to be, hazy. Art can be termed or viewed as porn, so as porn can be perceived as art in that sense. Personally, I think, one must be matured, exposed and aware enough to tell them apart and to treat each one with its due respect. Most importantly when viewing anything on display, the audience should make a conscious effort to evaluate and at least attempt to recognize the styles, symbols and skills of an artist, terming the work being evaluated, as art.

ii)

Is it possible to regulate ‘artistic’ media? A question so frequently posed that it is almost useless to argue about it as everything that CAN be said has been said, and everything that CAN be done in our own power, has been done. I have written ‘can’ in upper-case to emphasize and exaggerate that whatever we say and do, are already censored in one way or another. Censorship was and is used as an excuse to ‘protect’ the public from various views. This is vastly unfair and it confines people to a narrow mindset or a vastly biased view on a topic at hand.

In my opinion, it is quite impossible to siphon the ‘good’ art from the ‘bad’ art, but to control the content being viewed by an audience is definitely possible and is frequently carried out. My reasons being firstly, that censorship is controlled, not by the masses but by a board, consisting of a small integrated group of people, who are already by the mere fact of numbers (or the lack of it rather), biased in view. To make matters worse, these censorship boards are usually set up by and made up by members of the government, who seek to protect its citizens from negative views or to promote propaganda. This factor in my opinion is the most major one.

Secondly, is the claim that censorship is trying it’s best to be tailor made to the ‘norm’ of the public. I think that this statement is totally irrelevant as the ‘norm’ changes and evolves everyday. With the current rise in education and technological know-how, one can take the factor of ‘change-of-definition-of-norm’ and multiply that by google, which is ironically, a search engine used to facilitate this sudden, almost sickening increase in public awareness of our environment. Therefore benchmarking a certain group of people, or a certain level in a group of people can be difficult and in most cases very broad, resulting in frustration of specific groups.

The result of censorship or control of artistic media can prove to promote the media in some ways. Take for example Christopher Nevison, which I quote from an article from The Observer, ‘…Nevison became an early exponent of the now common, Benetton-style ploy of publishing his work by drawing attention to its censorship.’ Right, many times, people have made use of the censorship to gain publicity for their works even till today, where in local papers, we see works getting mentioned not by how rave their production is but by how their works portray something that compares to forbidden fruit. The forbidden fruit being deliberately mentioned to show how as humans, we have a craving for the prohibited. Therefore this ‘Benetton-style ploy’ thrusts many works into the spotlight for a different reason than the artist’s own, or are they, like Nevison, using it to their advantage.

In conclusion, ‘artistic’ media can be easily regulated. However the extent and reason of regulation will be difficult to list and address. Art being subjective by its very nature can not, and should not be siphoned, as mentioned earlier, into good and bad. We, as educated humans, capable of thought and highly complex thought processes, should be able to decode, for ourselves at least, what we should or should not be seeing. We however, are not uniform and completely identical in that sense and thus I think that regulation boards will have a lot more work to do if they wish to make more sense of their actions.

title: TVBS scandal points to credibility problems in Taiwan's media industry
date: 29th march 07

"Moral responsibility is one of the key dimensions of human existence and behavior and constitutes the cornerstone of our understanding of what makes a life worth living."-Eliot Benítez
Taiwan's media industry did not practice responsibility as well as accuracy. The blunder caused in publishing the "controversial exclusive" only escalated doubts in their reliability, which i feel is blatantly shameful(from a leading television news channel)This footage could also perhaps create a sense of agitation among the viewers, or worst, terrorism;resulting in disorder and raise suspicion among communities who are involved in the footage.The media in any case usually acts as a platform to spread messages across to the audience , in the process, involving authenticity.Due to the lack of authenticity, the station also had a misrepresentation of other reports, (as shown in article)resulting in a sales decrease of duck in taiwan.Moreover, an exertion of the police force to investigate the video was unnecessary if the journalist and superior had only acknowledged the fault.Such "scandalous allegations" should end in order for major business stakeholder groups as well as Taiwanese to accept and consider the news published by the Taiwan media industry.
Shih Chen Kang should have been more meticulous in his technical expertise.