Thursday, August 23, 2007
-4:51 AM
Leaders
The Riddle of Iran
There are many things in the world that are a bad idea to build. A nuclear weapon is a good example.
Iran's nuclear ambitions have grown from preposterously propagandistic speeches into a worrying reality. While most of the world's attention has been drawn to the raging battle in Afghanistan, Israel and its neighbours, Iran is well into developing nuclear fuel for its first bomb. Such is the situation that experts say Iran could have 'The Bomb' (as it is known) by 2015 (Others say that the project could be in its final stages of completion within a mere 2 years).
Doomsday criers hold your end-of-the-world repertoire, however, for nuclear Armageddon might not be the end of the world. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) psychology aside, Iran's tough exterior might be merely that. Its president, who has infamously threatened to 'bury the West', has given many fiery speeches but has failed to back them up with any real action. And despite what Israel claims about Iran being 'basically a messianic apocalyptic cult', Iran's leaders are far from suicidal. They know about Israel's and the United States' formidable nuclear arsenal, and since its situation is far removed from that of North Korea (crumbling regime with nothing to lose), there are signs that Iran may not be so trigger-happy.
More like than not, its nuclear ambitions are fueled by the need for a bargaining chip, to drive larger countries to the diplomatic table. 'The Bomb' has a way of making normally big players sit up and pay attention, for rather obvious reasons. Yet this is a dangerous game Iran is playing. Faced with such a dire, sudden nuclear player on the block (and perhaps fueled by a desire to appear aggressive in the run for presidency). To quote Senator John McCain, "although attacking Iran would be bad, an Iran with nuclear weapons would be worse."
Iran must play its cards right. To misquote a tired cliche, with the Great Bomb comes great responsibility.
-2:54 AM
International
The Arctic
Drawing lines in melting ice
With the recent discovery of the natural resources the frigid ice caps seclude, no fewer than five countries have each staked their claim to the frozen extremities of the North Pole. Russia, America and Canada are the major players in the new peacetime international contention - and others are set to join the fray.
With all the contending countries being members of the United Nations, there will undoubtedly be a 'peaceful resolution' to the current issue. More like than not, the General Assembly will agree to divide up the Arctic into neat pieces before the velvet glove is removed and the iron fist revealed. Yet, it seems an unsatisfactory resolution to an uncomfortable issue, and as tempers and resources run short, it is improbable that these countries will be content with their share of the pie for long.
If the glare of worldwide drama seems too large to comprehend, envision these countries as individuals rather than superpower entities, and one finds with surprise that the current situation reflects incidents that occur in everyday life. It is almost as if the respectable, dignified heads of state have been reduced to spoilt, purile juveniles that essentially want a new toy all to themselves. When it dawns upon them that none of them can have it all to themselves, they go crying to a higher 'authority' to put muscle behind their complaints. Indeed, this incident reveals much about how simple and selfish the human psyche can be (particularly in the face of great potential benefit) and the great danger it poses when translated to international politics that have untold repercussions on billions of people.
For now, however, the disputes of the Arctic Circle are far from growing too hot. Grand and impressive as they may sound, military bases and mining stations are far from being constructed. A decade could easily pass before all the parties involved are finally appeased, bi-lateral talks could last for years more. Even in the recent expeditions, the competing countries have reluctantly agreed to work with each other; the recent Danish expedition was aboard a Swedish vessel, whose path was in turn paved by a Russian icebreaker.
Still, all involved would do well to tread carefully - for as the world's limelight stokes up a flame in the Arctic, the ice grows thinner by the day.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
-8:13 PM
Hello everybody.
I am back after a very long respite. Which is approximately 6 months.
Spurred on by a recent compulsion, I have decided to convert this EL blog for school into a random collection of my favourite literary pieces. Written by me, of course. Oh, and one more thing before you delve into the vichyssoise of verbiage. My writing is a little, well, different.
Let's start with something a little morbid. Yes, I know the font size is miniscule. Enjoy...
杀。
杀杀杀，杀杀杀杀杀 －
谋杀植物最简单。
花草树 算什么？
一手伸出，一手拔
植物
连
根
灭
亡
刺杀昆虫也不难。
小东西 胡乱窜
一脚踩下，一脚踢
昆虫
难
保
全
尸
砍杀动物也方便。
只要快 不留情
一刀砍下，一刀切
动物
尸
首
无
存
对付人类才棘手。
狠下心 闭上眼
一枪瞄准，一枪射
人们
魂
飞
魄
散
结束自己
最艰辛
上吊
下毒
跳水
跳楼
自溺
枪杀
刀刺
自焚
电击
选择最多
下手最难
人怎能落到这田地？
简单的问题困难的答案
自尽也最可恶
曾经亚当和夏娃
从天堂被贬到地球
如今自己
故意把自己
从
高
楼
把
自
己
抛
下
就等于自愿
再从地球
被贬到
地狱
＊ ＊＊
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
-4:36 AM
Term 2: other readings
*click on pictures to enlarge*
Thursday, March 29, 2007
-7:03 AM
Science and Technology
Malaria
A shift of perspective
Long since has the human race bemoaned its fate of being saddled with pesky, yet deadly, mosquitoes that herald malaria - and possible death. But using the forefront of new research, is it possible to turn this enemy into an ally?
Researchers at the John Hopkins University are experimenting with ways to turn the situation on its head, by harnessing the deadliness of the Anopheles mosquito against itself. Scientists have discovered a gene (termed SM1) that grants the mosquito immunity against the malaria parasite. Their plan is to breed mosquitoes with this gene, and turn them loose into the wild. Through preliminary tests, it has been determined that SM1 is not only protective, it also confers an evolutionary advantage on the mosquito.
But this remains in the realm of uncertainty. There are indeed many pros and cons on both sides of the coin. But after careful consideration, this writer retains the stand of opposing such genetic tampering.
Introducing a different species into the wild has always been a bad idea; tried and (unfortunately) tested too many times. Take for instance the dingo, brought from Britain and allowed to rampage in Australia. Countless native animals died as a result of the sudden presence of a predator, and it was years before a semblance of ecological balance was finally achieved. How, then, are we to be sure that the presence of breeded mosquitoes will not result in just such a form of disequilibrium?
The presence of 'natural selection' exists for an important purpose as well: to weed out certain genes that are detetrimental to the survival of the organism - as well as the survival of the ecosystem. Thus, it logically follows that the SM1 gene is only present in a certain percentage of the population for a reason. By releasing such mosquitoes into the wild without prior experience, is there not a strong possibility that we might have overlooked something, failed to discover something - something that might turn out to have even greater repurcussions?
Another point worthy of note is that such a solution could turn out to be a short-term one. The malarial parasite, threatened by a lack of hosts, may simply turn to another carrier to transmit itself (such as rats, fleas, ticks etc.) Even worse, it may mutate to become immune to the SM1 gene, thus becoming even more virulent. An example is the Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, which mutated after too much contact with penicillin, thus becoming far more difficult to combat. We have no guarantee, then, that the malarial parasite will not evolve to become deadlier - by the result of our human intervention.
The possible rewards of a potentially poweful solution are certainly enticing. But on this occasion, we should contemplate extremely long and carefully before opening this wonderful 'gift' - for we might just be tearing open Pandora's box.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
-12:38 AM
The politics of Climate Change
Gore's war
The Economist: March 24th 2007
Al Gore withdrew from politics ever since his failed attempt at presidency, and began concentrating his efforts on environmental conservation.
Recently, he spoke up in Congress, belaboring the government for dragging its feet on the issue of climate change. Mr Gore insists that America is largely to blame for the pollution that is slowly killing the earth, and is badgering the American population to do something drastic about it.
But someone else has the situation going for him too - and it is none other than Mr Gore himself. He is an extremely influential player, and is breaks the mould of a typical environmentalist. He has has powerful (and rich) friends, his film 'An Inconvenient Truth' was a major hit, even winning an Oscar. But even more than that, he has the sympathy - and support - of many Democrats, and perhaps a considerable number of Republicans as well, bearing in mind his advice not to invade Iraq, and his constant reminders on the issue of global warming.
Perhaps a main reason why Mr Gore has enjoyed much attention is the fact that he has been absent from the political arena, and is thus not perceived as having ulterior motives in demonstrating such environmental concern - unlike, say, a political candidate, who might use the issue of global warming to his advantage during the elections. Should Mr Gore decide to contest once again, his cautions regarding the dire state of the climate could lose their edge.
Another important issue to consider would be Mr Gore's comparative effectiveness as a president and as an environmentalist; his track record hints that he might not gain a huge percentage of votes should he try again. His record as an environmentalist, however, shows a path of much greater potential. His aforementioned characteristics confer him great opportunities that other environmentalists could only dream of.
Monday, February 19, 2007
-7:47 PM
Term 1: Other readings
*click on the pictures to enlarge*
1. Israel 'broke US arms deal'
2. North Korea nuclear talks to resume
3. Lexington: sending more troops to Iraq
