China's elderly care conundrum

China's elderly care conundrum
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6222586.stm

Jie Jie Cai is four months old. He sits in a green chair by the balcony, and gets plenty of attention.

Attention from his mother Jia Rui, his father Wen Kang, grandfather number one Wang Jun, grandmother number one Chun Hong, grandfather number two Zi Jin, and grandmother number two Chun Ping.

They each follow everything that Jie Jie does - which, at the age of four months, is not all that much.

Right now Jie Jie has absolutely no idea how much his family is counting on him.

When he gets older, he will have to support them all. Six adults - and just one child. This is the effect of China's one-child policy.

This isn't the only part of the world where this is happening. Aging population is happening worldwide. The issue of social time bombs ticking to their last was eliminated by effective family planning solutions. However, they seemed to have backfired, at least in this particular case. Having gotten too carried away, now there are too few young people to maintain the older population. Factories are beginning to have difficulty hiring workers.

Nevertheless, there are countries still having too little to feed too much, and likely having this problem exacerbated in the future. The population of Earth is increasing (regardless of aging population), and more people are taking more resources. More people are liable to take up more room on Earth, and no more new land is popping out of the sea (All right, maybe Surtsey did, but the next one off the coast of Hawaii's going to appear in 60,000 years time. There'll likely be more than 10-11 billion people on Earth by then.)

The fact of the matter is, there are more people. It is impossible to prevent people from procreating, and impossible still to prevent people from consuming resources, short of nuclear warfare, which is even worse for the Earth. One solution is to ensure that we all use less resources. "Live Earth" attempted to give us some small suggestions to try this. Campaigns still go on, some to prevent overfishing, some to eat less meat.

Nonetheless, there are still too many people for the Earth to sustain long. We may try to control what we can, but no amount of campaigning will prevent people from eating and from drinking and from switching on the television. Maybe in the future we'll invent some wonderful new technology to prevent us from using so much. Either that, or humanity will destroy itself in one all-damning act. Until then, we will just have to wait and see.

Hurricane Dean strikes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2007/08/070817_deanstrikes.shtml

In St Lucia, Martinique, and Dominica, the authorities are counting the cost of the damage inflicted by Hurricane Dean.

The storm strengthened into a Category 4 Hurricane after roaring through the eastern Caribbean.

Parts of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, which share the island of Hispaniola, were on hurricane watch on Saturday.

A weekend hurricane watch also remains in place for Jamaica and parts of Cuba.

The British Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico were on tropical storm watch. The US National Hurricane Centre expected this to be discontinued later on Saturday.

Several cataclysms have wrought much damage to this Earth, and rather recently too. Hurricane Katrina, the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir, the Leyte landslide and the recent Peruvian earthquake stand as testimony to this. Some of these, in fact, have been affected by human interference, or given slow relief.

For example, the response to Hurricane Katrina was shown to be severely slow, with federal aid only coming 5 days after the incident. Preparation was also shown to be lacking, as the main emphasis was placed on evacuation, a plan which did not account for those who could not leave under their own power, such as the elderly or disabled.

It has been theorized that the impact of Hurricane Katrina was multiplied by global warming generating ideal conditions for hurricanes. Mining activities may have caused the Leyte landslide. To be brief, it is not paranoid to say that human activity is responsible for the growing impact of natural disasters. Unpreparedness and global warming are not the only factors.

In the wake of Hurricane Dean, police were forced to step in to stop looting in Mexico. After a disaster, the opportunists will naturally turn up to get what they can. Why do I raise these points? These are to show that the natural disaster is significant, but the human disaster is never to be overlooked.

In my opinion, whenever people see a new disaster on the horizon, preparation for the disaster is as key as the preparation of the aftermath. When disasters strike and preparation is wanting, we have to learn to better avoid such things. When looting is abound, a police task force is sent promptly. However, this is merely attacking the symptoms of a problem and not the cause.

Areas likely to be hit, or to cause problems must be found, and the problems rectified. If global warming is indeed likely to cause future problems with hurricanes and tornadoes, we should try to avoid this bleak future. While many elements of a natural disaster are out of our control, we should aim to prevent them as par as possible, and to deal with the consequences effectively and quickly.

The Virginia Tech School Shootings

US university shooting kills 33

A US shooting rampage at the Virginia Tech university has left 33 people, including a suspected gunman, dead.

There were two incidents two hours apart, at a student dorm where two were killed and at an engineering building where 30 and the gunman died. Officers said they were working to link the attacks and had a preliminary ID of the gunman but would not release it. After the deadliest shooting rampage in US history, President George W Bush said the US was "shocked and saddened".

Of course, now we know that the identity of the killer is Cho Seung-Hui, an unstable South Korean student studying at the same university. This incident has managed to spark heated debate in many areas, including gun control and in general the tragic trend of school shootings.

Perhaps we should talk about the central figure in this drama: the perpetrator, Cho Seung-Hui. For ease of reading, we shall refer to him a "Cho" from this point on. Cho grew up in a dilapidated apartment in a low-income neighborhood in Korea. From young, he was always considered a bit strange, and his sister's accomplishments were always advertised over his.

Then, his family managed to emigrate to the US in search for better hopes there. In his videos, Cho rants and raves of people with the Mercedes cars, golden necklaces, trust funds, and vodkas and cognacs. Presumably, he must have met such a group of people when he emigrated. He claims that he will be as much of a martyr as Jesus Christ was.

Cho was twice accused of stalking women and in general never spoke to anyone. His current bizzare nature, coupled with this presumed torment, must have caused something to snap in his mind. Thus is the face of a mass murder. However, murder often requires three things: motive, means and opportunity. We have seen the motive, and he had plenty of opportunity.

Then how about the means? How could he so easily have shot and killed 32 other human beings? This is merely one piece of the paradoxical puzzle of gun rights in the United States of America. The Second Amendment clearly states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What does this mean? Anti-gun control advocates state this clearly means that people should have guns, to use whenever necessary. However, the context of this statement should also be made clear. This was written at a time when police forces where uncommon, when people were expected to defend their own country. This amendment was a child of the violent and bloody American Revolution.

Now that the United States is free, how much sense does this make? Does each person have a right to carry an object that can kill? Personally, I advocate further gun control. Means to make violence only ensures it. One simply cannot assume that all those who buy weapons know how to be responsible for it.

I conclude: there are unstable people in this world, and we should at least make the effort to prevent this group, if not others, from getting such weapons.

And we're back into business.

Iranians release British sailors'

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.

He repeated Iran's view that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a "gift" to Britain. They are expected to be handed to the British embassy in Tehran on Thursday morning before flying home.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the news would come as "a profound relief" to the crew and their families. Iranian media said the British crew members "shouted for joy" on hearing the news.

Link goes here.

A month or so ago, 15 British sailors were on a patrol trip when they were picked up by the Iranian Navy and held captive. We may never know whether they ever entered Iranian waters, but we very well can see the aftereffects of these actions. This incident did not help talks with Iran over the legality of its nuclear programme.

By now, the entire incident is over, and the time for judgments is apparently due. Once again this blog has entered the dangerous area of nuclear weapons and their impact on many. Another key issue here is Iran and its sneering attitude upon the Western world, especially its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who continually pushes for a 'peaceful' nuclear programme.

I believe I have expressed my opinions of nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation before: while the power to destroy entire cities, perhaps countries is a bad idea to put in any one nations' hands, it is also a bad idea for those nations that already have this power to judge who should have nuclear weapons and who should not.

However, after some reflection, I have decided to add some other pointers to these beliefs. In the analysis above, I have conveniently forgotten international bodies regulating the proliferation of such destructive power, such as the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). These bodies, since they are run internationally, are less susceptible to the bias of individual nations' interests.

Nevertheless, such organisations are not perfect, and leaving authority in the hands of one organisation is still not the greatest of ideas. Once again, we must try to imagine other nations in the same uneasy position, and try to be objective in our judgment.

There is another key factor in this situation: Iran. From its independence in 1979, it has always held a confrontational foreign policy. Its relations with the United States have been strained since the Iran-Iraq war, where the US directly aided Iraqi invading forces. A pro-Israeli stand by the US government has also ensured continued hostility.

It is perhaps the fact that Iran despises the United States to such an extent so that it will vehemently do anything to irritate the US government. Perhaps that it why, even though faced with such massive pressure to shut down its nuclear programme, it does not yield. Its capture of these 15 British sailors serves to further up the ante, to heighten the tension between Iran and the Western powers.

Regardless of motivations, causes or actions, the crisis is now long over, but the status of Iran's nuclear programme will still be a continuing problem in the Middle East. It shall provide a barrier to peace for years to come, raising the nuclear tension in the region, and shall be a gun ever smoking.

Muslim Council of Britain's recommendations generate backlash.

Was Muslim guidance reasonable?

Muslims demand "Taleban-style" conditions in British schools.

That was the Daily Express' version of new guidelines for schools from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). In fact, there was no reference to the Taleban anywhere in the report. Such are the dangers of polarising this debate by inflated language.

Indeed, the document stressed it was intended as "a source of reference" for schools when reviewing their policies in relation to Muslim pupils. Yet, what presumably upset the Express was the sheer length and detail of the requests that the MCB was making of schools.

Link goes here and a rather related story goes here.

Schools - the centres of learning, the paragons of academic achievement. This is where impressionable children learn the most in their lives, and the environments there are probably the largest influence on their lives at their age. Therefore, radical changes there are likely to beget even larger change in the student population.

Islam and Muslims - a large worldwide ethnic group, infamous for its conservative views on women, fasting, and so on and so forth. While not all terrorists and conservative groups are Muslim, many famous cases, like the aforementioned Taleban, or Fatah, or Hezbollah, all rather well-known to the world, are. To be fair, I have known few Muslims, and the above comments may seem unjustified to some, perhaps many.

When the two collide, it is imaginable that many sparks caused by the friction are likely to fly around, and perhaps even set some figurative fires alight, generating controversy. So it is not too difficult to see that the Muslim council's "recommendations" are likely to generate a generous amount of backlash.

Some of the terms in these suggestions range from amulets with Koranic verses being allowed, to boys being allowed to wear beards, to contact sports being limited to single-gender groups, to banning communal showering, to excusing pupils from swimming during Ramadan for fear that swallowing water would break their fast.

This begs the significant question: How far should institutions go in order to accommodate racial, social or perhaps even political groups? This, surely, is not merely a problem with Muslims, or Islam. This is a global problem, with groups ever seeking acceptance, while others would block such attempts.

However, acceptance can also be taken to extremes, where requests for tolerance can become excessive demands to create a more comfortable existence than others. Therefore, to make a true multiracial society stable, the fine line between the two must be found and drawn. This is especially so in multiracial Singapore, where the government at times struggles to find a balance between ethnicities.

While racism is necessarily a bad thing, exactly how far is out of taste? Racist jokes are abound in many primary and secondary schools, and some members of the minorities vehemently oppose such jokes, others are "fine with it", and take them in their stride.

Therein lies the difficulty in trying to accommodate minorities. Some will say that certain practices must be accepted, while other do not think much of whether these practices are all that necessary. Personally, I believe that while we should try to integrate minorities more, we still can remove practices that only a small amount of minorities believe to be necessary, and friendly jabs are still in taste. Were there no offense in jokes, they would cease being funny.

This brings one back to the issue of schools. I believe that in the end, schools should have the final authority on whether or not a certain policy is logical and should be admitted; after all, they have the most experience on these matters

The first article

BBC NEWS, 9 - 2 - 2007: N Korea talks enter crucial phase

Delegates at six-party talks in Beijing have held a second day of negotiations on North Korea's nuclear programme. They are discussing a draft agreement which reportedly calls on Pyongyang to shut down its nuclear facilities in the next two months, in exchange for aid.

Along with:

BBC NEWS, 7 - 2 -2007: Food aid key to N Korea talks

As six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programme resume in Beijing, the BBC's Penny Spiller considers whether food shortages in the secretive communist state may have an impact on progress.

Links are here and here.

North Korea, which supposedly launched a test nuke four months ago, is now being engaged in six-party talks to bring down its nuclear programme. These will supposedly be "helped" by the starving population of the People's Republic who will require large amounts of suspended food aid in order to keep alive.

While it is correct and justified to take nukes from near-insane dictators of real-life dystopias, one nevertheless has to think about the kind of workings that could even possibly lead up to a scenario as bizarre as this. Going at length about the Korean War of the 1950's, causing the emergence of the DPRK, would be facetious, along with the United States' development and controversial use of the nuclear bomb, which has led to the proliferation of nukes the world over.

However, the key point of this shall be about the presence of autocracies, and the widespread attempts to create and develop a nuclear bomb by so many "rogue states".

Why do dictatorships arise? People who, reeling from the disasters of war or internal conflict often look for strong leaders. However, many strong leaders are often power-hungry, and they reform the nation so that they alone rule the nation: and the people go along with it, believing their Big Brother capable of single-handedly ruling the nation.

Such dictatorships collapse when the dictator passes on, leaving command to an unsuitable follower. In the Protectorate (of England), and the Soviet Union, and North Korea this has happened, and now The People's Republic faces starvation.

So much for autocracies. Nuclear weapons are also another key problem of this modern age, where men seek to destroy each other with bigger and bigger missiles. Apart of the Powers of the Cold War, other nations have developed nuclear technology: India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and North Korea.

Nuclear proliferation began in the Cold War, when Allies collaborated with each other to out0gun the USSR, while the Soviet Union created thousands of nuclear weapons based on stolen technology. When the Cold War collapsed, the age of nuclear weapons did not die with it; it still flourishes, as can be seen.

The technology of nuclear weapons, once made, was not difficult to deduce, and was quickly realized as a fast means to ultimate power by other nations. Which nation does not want power, after all? Nevertheless, those who had nuclear weapons to start off with denounce this kind of behaviour, and attempt to ban other nations developing such technology.

This strikes one as unfair. Is it moral to have nuclear weapons on the basis that one had them first? Is time, then such a damning factor to those who wish to follow in such footsteps? Or is it simply yet another case of big countries bullying smaller ones? Thus when we look upon the current debacle surrounding North Korea's nuclear programme, we may well ask ourselves: Were it another nation in the People's Republic's positions, would we be so quick to impose a damning judgement on it?

And thus it beginneth

Hello, I'm Al, and I'm supposed to do up a blog for an English project. Seriously. Analyses of news articles,. around 300-500 words long, and teo by the end of this term. What is the English Programme coming to these days? Better and warmer were the times of endless tests and exams, of projects that involved written work...oh well. Don't set your hopes up too high; this blog'll probably die at the end of the project.