Sixth Article, not to be Confused with the Fifth

Well, I have another article. The relevant web pages to refer to are given below.

Main article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6955701.stm

Taxpayers' Alliance: http://tpa.typepad.com/waste/ (scroll down a bit)
(note: if this is viewed too late, the post might get replaced. In that case, tell me and I'll send the pdf research file to you)

Universities UK: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/mediareleases/show.asp?MR=502

A Certain Degree for the Degree
An interesting social issue in the papers recently was regarding a report by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, regarding the wastage of tax money in paying for university non-courses. When its report regarding the issue was published, Universities UK came up with a counter statement on its website.

First, a word on the credibility of these two organizations. Taxpayers’ Alliance is part of a “coalition”, with other websites, which frequently posts articles, often government bashing, about how tax money is being wasted. There is no word of its credibility. It is probably an advocacy group.

Universities UK is a top education group based in the UK which is the “essential voice” for universities in the UK. In short, they support and defend all universities in their various endeavours. Which also means they are equally biased when it comes to this matter.

The main criticism the Taxpayers’ Alliance (abbreviated as TPA) issues is that money is wasted on universities courses which have no academic merit and no application to real life. Its cites 5 examples of these courses, which it terms as non-courses:

• Outdoor adventure with philosophy
• Science: fiction and culture
• Equestrian psychology
• Fashion buying
• Golf management

When you first examine this list, you have to admit the TPA is making sense. Equestrian psychology, which is horse psychology, is simply a ‘mickey mouse’ degree. There is no recognizable value in learning about horse psychology. And as the TPA points out, such things could be learnt on the job.

But the Universities UK bites back with accusations that the report is prejudiced and that showcases academic snobbery. It also argues that courses which the TPA had pointed out were actually quite popular among graduates and have high employability rates.

Having no experience in the procedures which universities use to verify course quality, I cannot say anything authoritatively, but I do realize that even when trying not to be academically snobbish, I still find outdoor adventure with philosophy a rather humorous concept. Or fashion buying. Oh the skill you need to do that!

Of course, I should be considered rather snooty to not consider the fore mentioned two proper courses. I do apologize beforehand.

While I do not advocate academic snobbery, I find that labeling any form of criticism against university courses “academic snobbery” an appalling prospect. There should be some line drawn to differentiate the allowance for one to be snobbish. I am unashamed to be snobbish when the course in question is clearly unacademic, like fashion buying.

Of course, we should note as well that some of the courses highlighted by the TPA seem fine, like beauty therapy. There should be some skill to it, shouldn’t it?

Well, at least we should establish some sort of academic respectability without lapsing into academic arrogance. I do find the TPA’s argument with some merit.

And we could save money for that extra pint of beer in the process too.

Fifth Article

Yes!

I finally finished the fifth article, not to be confused with the fourth. Today, I write about Tony Blair. Honestly, I just dug this up from a reflection which I wrote after the news was announced to the world.

It may sound sarcastic at parts, but I am a writer of moods. I follow the writing and often, I have to comment on the issues most relevant to the part of the essay.

Honestly, I find Tony Blair a great man.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1976763.ece

With research from other pages as well.

Mr. Blair has left office just one month and nineteen days earlier. It was reported in the papers widely of course. It has been ten years since Mr. Blair had first stepped into the doorway of 10 Downing Street.
As a result of his removal from office, Mr. Blair has been quite busy these few days. Between sending more soldiers to Iraq, doing farewell tours and being interviewed by pretty much every news station in the market, you would hardly expect him to find much free time.
In my opinion, Blair has had a great time as prime minister. Between garbled and contradictory reports from different news stations and comments from happy and unhappy people around the world, I can still roughly make out a general and somewhat grudging support for Mr. Blair and his policies.
I do not live in the United Kingdom, and thus I have not really been influenced my Mr. Blair’s policies. However, from news reports, comments from around the world , reports and audits, the signs generally point to a better Britain. Better education (somewhat), better health (controversial as NHS is heavily in debt) and brand new foreign policy which combines the idealistic with the gullible to boot!
Mr. Blair is the ideal politician, optimistic and able to stand up for his own views. He is a charismatic orator as well, persuasive and relevant. I would like to applaud him.
On another note, I would like to mourn the official 168 military soldiers from the United Kingdom who died on duty in Iraq. They died defending the idealistic and naïve programme which Mr. Blair insists on.
Sending people to their deaths is not funny.
Blair’s dilemma is a dilemma which is perplexing, as Mr. George Yeo said during the 4th RI lecture, and not easy to make. Theoretically and in the long run, it is better to stamp out dangerous insurgents who would threaten the lives of anyone who isn’t Islamic. These insurgents would not stop until their demands are met, that is (as I quote from an article I have read somewhere), when George Bush turns to Islam and Israel is sank under the sea.
Honestly, these insurgents do have to be stamped out, but probably not in such an ill-conceived and pathetic manner.
It is a pity that Mr. Blair’s career would be summarized as the Iraq war, which is most probable. He did improve Britain. In spite of all his hiccups, he is a really fine man, and an adept politician, the brightest the country has seen in a while. And he did what he thought was right.
Ouch! Your best and they still say not good enough.
Mr. Blair has stepped down one month and nineteen days earlier. It may be too late to toast him now, but I hope his legacy would exceed that of the Iraq War, and the world might recognize him as one of the most remarkable Labour politicians Britain has ever seen. I toast you Tony.

Reflection on the Brit Pack

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16961761/site/newsweek/

That is the link, have a look.

And now, the article...

I would say it is a generation’s worry, passed down through the ages. Every generation seems to have the same grudge against new age popular culture of the young.
I wouldn’t dare suggest that the worries were unpleasant and incessant, quite the contrary. I am very glad and comforted that members of the older generation feel inclined to dedicate time from their live to talk about us.
But, after all, bad girls ‘tainting’ young, innocent girls is certainly no new worry, perhaps, even one which stretches way back to the start of the century.
For the record, bad girls like Betty Page, Betty Grable, Marilyn Monroe and Madonna were hardly turn of the millennium phenomena.
But again, the challenges of keeping young women from ‘oversexed and underdressed celebrities’ grow harder with the progressing technology. The media increases the exposure children have to these sexy images and videos. Even music contains lewd messages to youths. In the earlier days, it was just magazines and the occasional movie, like Fatal Attraction and Basic Instinct.
Now, there is television, youtube, music, movies and cable. And of course, half-time shows at college football games.
And again, it is now fashionable to have idols again. Young children grow to know and love characters who star in kiddy shows, like teenage star Lindsay Lohan, who starred in the Parent Trap, Teenage Drama Queen and Herbie Fully Loaded.
They are said to be bad for girls to have such a questionable idol to look up to. At least, not one who drink drives on a regular basis, go on rehabilitation ever so often and parties late into the night to be late for work the next morning.
It would not be too plausible, as the article says, to place the responsibilities of setting a example for every girl who watches Disney on the young shoulders of 21 year-old Lindsay Lohan. What can you do? Ban Lindsay from doing Disney movies because it would make her an idol to the kids? Surely not.
I would admit this is a cause for some concern.
However, it is a major misconception that the ‘Brit Pack’, as the article named them, is a very popular part of popular culture. I cannot say for girls (for whom the article unfortunately was) but from my correspondence with my male clique of friends, Paris Hilton is not taken very seriously, and certainly is not considered a popular music artiste (despite her first album being released recently). One friend recently summed it up quite effectively: “ Paris Hilton is dumb.”
As part of the progress of society, I feel it is inevitable that a general liberalization would occur. One would not expect a puritan standard of morality to persist in modern day society.
I am not advocating sex in the media, I am just saying it is an inevitable thing in the fast maturity of the nation.
Just, hopefully the maturity of the individual person can match that rapid pace.

This is my fourth article.

An American Tragedy

President George Bush addressed the nation at Virginia Memorial, 17th April 2007, one day after the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech. In his 9 minute speech, he described the sorrow of the nation as a whole for the Virginia Tech shootings. He spoke of sources of strength the affected should draw on to live on and called for God to bless all those who suffer and grieve.
He did not speak of the possibility of the prevention of the tragedy.
The worst peacetime shooting in modern history serves as a painful reminder to a fundamental issue which has been a disturbance to American politics for the drafting of the second amendment into the Constitution. It reminds us painfully of the lack of gun control in the United States.
Gun control is and has always been a sensitive issue in American politics. In 1994, when then-president Bill Clinton passed a bill banning assault weapons, the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994 and the White House in 2000. Many Democrats believe they lost the elections because of the bill.
Due to this, there is a general reluctance in Parliament to pass even some common sense gun regulations.
One very vocal crusader against gun control is the NRA, America’s leading gun association. It constantly lobbies using hard ball tactics whenever Parliament is holding a debate regarding a gun control issue, treats any step towards gun control as a step to total disarmament and subsequently tyranny and publishes books with highly exaggerated attempts of self defense with guns.
Its chairman is also notorious for his conspiracy theory that the UN is trying to disarm the American people.
They have also argued that guns can help in self-defense. If you have a gun, criminals wouldn’t dare to hit on you, they argue. But, a constantly raised and very valid issue is whether guns would encourage more people to wards violence, rather than dissuade them.
It is a worrying trend. Gun homicide and suicide has reached another peak, following its slight decrease in 2005.
Streets are unsafe again.
The Virginia Tech massacre is a painful reminder of the fact. The false security that the Americans lived under cannot be sustained, at least not with guns easily available to anyone. Who would guarantee you that you would not be shot without reason?
Indeed, to the victims at Virginia Tech, no one.
The slant taken by the administration against gun control is probably taken as a result of the majority of rural voters supporting guns, although most urban voters are against guns, accounting for the . The government find it necessary to pull rural votes by taking a pro-gun stand.
The death of many America’s at gunpoint was caused indirectly by the nation’s overly-liberal position towards guns, fuelled by the American government and many American people, in support of guns. The deadly concoction of politics, Constitution and reluctance forms a extremely bitter aftertaste in one’s mouth, it is truly an American tragedy.

OK, here's my third article for grading, please have a look.

I really hate the word limit, I had to cut it by so much.

The article is from the Economist.

a

Posting Again

Talking about Teenage Sex

Hi, I have decided to do my next post on teenage sex. Here it is, in red:

According to a survey done by the New Paper on a group of 1553 students, 27% of teenagers of 13 to 14 years have had sex.
It is a shocking number to be sure. And it is a worrying trend. 23% of all these teens have visited a pornography site before and 12% have been or made someone pregnant.
Now, we should wonder, is it acceptable to be so familiar with sex despite their age?
Some worried parents have come out with all guns blazing, blasting at this trend. Their chief concern is apparently teenage pregnancy. Teenage pregnancy would result in trauma and affect the teenager’s growth.
I hold rather contradictory viewpoints when confronted with this kind of questions. On one hand, I am very hopeful to open up Singapore and prise it away from stolid conservative thinking. On the other hand, I feel strongly for the Confucian morals and the importance of keeping sex away from children.
Obviously, premarital sex and underage sex is derogatory to society and individual. The problem is putting your finger on that wrong. If you are religious, you have an easier time. You shouldn’t do it because the sin of lust is forbidden in the Bible.
For the others, the task is not so straightforward. I have collated some arguments against teenage sex.
Ø Teenage sex distracts the teenagers from studying
o However, you may observe that this applies to only some people.
Ø Teenage sex puts teenagers at risk of pregnancy.
o They can have protected sex.
Ø Teenage pregnancy can be traumatic.
o If they get pregnant, they would be responsible as they would probably have gone through sex education, and made their own decision.
I have probably left out many, but these are the arguments I hear the most from parents. I have mainly found these arguments unconvincing logically, but they are very personal to the teenagers in question.
Recently, MP Ang Mong Seng proposed a radical solution to correct this social trend. Why don’t we, he proposed, form a CCA where guys can meet girls and learn the right way of dating? It can be CCA and we can give points to them.
The first thing you think off when you read this, would be the flood of guys rushing to join the Friendship Club, as Mr. Ang proposed it to be called. On the other hand, girls wouldn’t approach it with a ten-foot barge pole. Girls care about image, and thus, joining this club would effectively brand them as desperate. Guys don’t mind because we all know deep down, every guy is somewhat desperate.
You might also notice that the focus of the debate about friendship clubs is not about pre-marriage, or how to date correctly, it is more likely to be about the social stigma of being ‘desperate’ or otherwise, be about sex.
I cannot offer another good solution, but I do hope the authorities realize sex education is no longer working.

I don't know if this is good? It involves more 'Is' than the previous post.

Please comment, before Ms Kuang's comment is final.

The link is http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,124106,00.html