Hello WORLD!

you need censorship, whether you like it or not

link to the article:http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/feature/1596176/more-governments-censoring-internet

The new media is an incredibly powerful article. In this article, the author talks about how powerful the Internet, which is an important part of CMC (Computer Mediated Communication), is and many countries in the world are still depriving their own citizens the rights to access any websites in the world.

I definitely agree with the author about how powerful the Internet has become. The Internet, unlike the mass media, is able to achieve convergence by making voice, video and data into common digital formats and combining two way interactive capability. For instance, now a simple video taken on a camcorder can easily be digitalized and uploaded into the computer and later the Internet. Moreover, two way interactive capability is achieved if you upload the video or data on social networks such as Twitter, Myspace, Facebook and people get to comment and provide feedback. People can access this from everywhere, regardless of their location, as long as they are connected to the web.

This can be a really powerful and completely unstoppable tool. As more and more people view the video, one can be easily influenced by the comments of the others. Moreover, with the easy access of information, information can be transmitted quickly to almost anyone. This is the reason why so many countries are actively censorship contents online, because they do not want people to know information that will be detrimental or undermining to the country's policies.

So regarding this, if you were to ask me if I agree the Internet has to be regulated, I believe it has to be to a certain extent. Websites and news articles that promote racial and religious hatred have to be sieved out from our scope of attention. People's perceptions can be influenced very easily and these websites can alter their values and beliefs. Moreover, the no-boundaries access can potentially allow foreign influence to undermine your country directly. I understand that many people are upset about China censoring many websites but there is always a risk that information that is potential harmful to the country will enter the country and cause conflicts within the country. In the West, many people are sympathetic to the cause independence cause of the Tibetans. There are many websites that are set up dedicating to this. If these websites are allowed to enter the web premises of China, this will stir up more negative feelings towards the government and more positive feelings towards Tibert. The results? More conflicts and disarray in the country. Let's put these into another perspective. What if there are many foreign websites that are dedicated to the Independence of Texas, do you think that the US, which has claimed to be a strong supporter of free speech, will allow these websites into the American cyberspace?

The bottom line is that due to the ability of convergence, the Internet is a powerful tool...too powerful that things have to be done to limit its effects. Censorship needs to be there to protect the interests of the country and to prevent potential conflicts. I am a strong supporter of it. Are you?

Is reading actually believing?

link to this article: http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_499358.html

Once again, these few names will appear in front of you. Tiger Woods, John Terry, Ashley Cole and now Singapore's very own Jack Neo?? Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon of having their affairs exposed by the media. In this article, many Singaporeans have stated their disappointment and some have also decided to boycott his movies.

What surprised me about this is not about Jack Neo, whom many people have stated their perception of him being a upright, caring family man as portrayed in his movies, having this affair but from the overwhelming responses from people around. Recently, there are too many stories about famous celebrities having affairs that Jack Neo's affair seems to me that it is not merely a coincidence that this is exposed at this 'peak period'. It seems to be that the Magic Bullet Theory is at work here. The Magic Bullet Theory states that the mass media is all powerful but the audience is all powerless, so the mass media is able to manipulate a passive and gullible public. People also feel that the mass media is a credible source and believe in it without questioning it. This is why I am surprised that so many people are believing this story from the strong responses I have seen.

Let me illustrate this further. Pro-wrestling is staged. Most people know that. However, two particular incidents stood out. In early 1998, the then-WWF brought in Mike Tyson and he had an in-ring brawl with wrestler Stone Cold Steve Austin. Many media bought the news and it was even the headlines of some, even though this was a completely staged confrontation. Last year, Donald Trump was staged to 'purchase' Monday Night Raw from WWE owner Vince McMahon. Soon after that televised episode of Raw, WWE shares were affected because some investors thought that the news was true.

So this has shown that despite of the rise of technology that the audience has greater access to look for other sources, most people still rely on the mass media for information and believe wholeheartedly. The mass media still has an almighty control on the minds of people.

I am not disputing this affair. I am not saying that this is fabricated. I am just thinking that this affair may be sensationalized to a certain extent to generate interests. I must point out that the mass media has its agenda setting function. The mass media is able to downplay some issues and magnify others. Could this be a publicity stunt? Unlike previous Chinese New Years, Jack Neo did not release any films this year but will be releasing his new film only in March. So, is this trying to generate interests towards his movie? Also remember that in Singapore, the various sources of mass media are tightly linked to each other and controlled by the government. So I will not be surprised if the newspaper is actually aiding the television company to drum up interests in this affair and person, since all of them are linked and aiding each other will help in moving towards a secret agenda.

So, give me your thoughts. Are you going to believe in everything the mass media says?

To break or not to break?

link to this article:http://sg.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20100224/tsp-entertainment-us-cole-e7f0a65.html

Tiger Woods, John Terry and Ashley Cole. These three names may be familiar to you, even though you may not actually be a sports fan. These three famous sports personalities have been found to be cheating on their spouses by having affairs with other women. Unlike the first two, Ashley Cole is not as lucky. His wife, Chery Cole, has announced her decision to separate from him due to his long history of infidelity.

Ashley has not been playing the role of a 'good person' at all in the marriage. He has been cheating his wife constantly by having affairs with many women repeatedly. By doing so, he has not been performing his role as a faithful husband. Deception, actions that will undermine trust and norm violations are some of the reasons on why a relationship can collapse. In order to maintain a relationship, one needs to be extremely frank by letting the other person know information that is confidential. Moreover, there is a need for trust and commitment. By having multiple affairs, Ashley has no fulfilled the above two criteria. Hence this marriage has to end.

It has also been reported in the news that his wife has been enjoying an extremely happy friendship with another man. Cheryl, being really attractive and affluent due to her status of being a pop star, has no difficulties in finding another man that can be as good in status as Ashley, which is why I believe she may be able to let the marriage go easily.

On the other hand, I believe not everyone can be as decisive as Cheryl to let the marriage go. There are many people who go for a relationship so that they can benefit each other in areas that they are lacking. For instance, a poor woman may go for a rich man just that she can improve her status in society. Hence, the woman may not give up her relationship because she will lose out everything in the end.

Quite some time ago, I was browsing a local internet forum when I found this interesting thread. A woman claimed that she knows that her husband is not faithful but he has been extremely frank to her. Her husband claims to be unable to suppress his sexual urges and visits prostitutes frequently. However, she claims that he is very honest about it and understands that these prostitution visits are just 'flings' and is determined not to affect his marriage. She also claims that he is doing his role as a responsible husband and father and brings home the bread without fail.

From the above example, we can see that this is a strange relationship. The man has been visiting prostitutes, so he has been violating the rules and norms that are expected of a faithful husband. However, he is seen to be extremely honest and is committed to the marriage. Do you feel this is the reason why this marriage is maintained? However, do you think that the woman is overly dependent on the husband that she is willing to ignore his flaws but if she were in the financial position of Cheryl, she would have broken from him straightaway? I think it is the latter. What about you?

Is image the most important?

link to this article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/232695

My mother is in charge of my wardrobe ever since I was born. In fact, many women, like my mother, are still the ones controlling what the men in the family wear. In fact, men are often joked as 'poor shoppers' who will buy an item at first sight instead of looking around for a cheaper and better bargain. So, this has encouraged many women to take things into their own hands and do the shopping.

This is no longer the case today.

Luxury brands around the world are now seeing the growth potential in men-only clothes market and are now putting greater emphasis on their stores to attract men. This has led many luxury brands venturing into markets specially dedicated for men.

I believe that men today are looking to make themselves more exclusive. Gone are the days when people were simply contented with a suit for work. As the saying goes, "clothes make the man." With a good business suit readily available and affordable to many people today, men today need to be more fashion savy and exclusive to readily distinguish themselves from others.

How do clothes make the man exactly? Clothes can help to shape the perception of us in front of others. It is one of the types of personal constructs under the cognitive schemata. Everybody knows that it is very important to dress yourself up appropriately. However, to enhance one's image even further, it is even more important to find the best and most exotic brands to do the job. It is sufficient to have a watch for a business man but it would be a lot better if the watch is of a luxury brand. It will even be much better if your watch is one that is endorsed by professional golfers and this will show your clients that you are a golf enthusiast, making a business deal more likely to be successful if your client is also a golf enthusiast.

Another way that clothes can make a man is to enhance the prototypes or role constructs under the cognitive schemata that people already have about you. Many people already know that you are the manager of a particular department. It will be much better if you are holding onto a Gucci handbag and a suit bought from Raoul. The accessories and clothes that you are wearing will further reinforce the image that you are an extremely successful manager, which is why you can afford such luxurious items on yourself. Therefore, this will help to instill a sense of confidence in your clients and business associates.

However, despite all these examples above, will the over emphasis on clothes and appearance make our society a superficial one? There are two pitfalls involving perception, which are distortion and oversimplification. Distortion occurs when we fail to prioritize the important info or select the wrong information and prioritize this particular wrong information. A man that is so extravagantly dressed is immediately perceived to be a successful man, despite the fact that a successful business needs to be equally as skilled in his oral and business abilities. The same goes for oversimplification when our minds immediately jump into the conclusion that he is extremely successful. These two pitfalls will cause us to jump hastily into conclusion and make us overlook some of the person's other traits.

On the other hand, if you are not dressed impressively enough, it may not be good enough in the minds of others even though you possess incredible oral and business abilities.

Therefore, have your say! Is image that important?

Sarkozy's backing to ban the burqa

the link to the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/14/sarkozy-full-veil-ban

French president Nicholas Sarkozy is recently pushing for a ban on Muslim women wearing the Islamic veils, such as the burqa and the niqab, in the public. President Sarkozy explained that he is doing this in accordance to the country's principles and values, as well as supporting women's rights as it is often viewed in the West that women are made to look 'submissive' by wearing the veils. Despite stating his reasons clearly and also defending himself that he is not a racist, this will no doubt still incur the wrath of many Muslims living in France and around the world because religion has always been a thorny issue among people. In fact, I always think when religious issues are being concerned, friction will certainly occur due to the past history of wars occur mainly due to differences in religion.

Why are issues regarding religion always having the potential to cause conflicts among different groups of people? I believe that Francis Bacon's "four idols" can be used to apply in this situation to explain why when religious issues are discussed, it will inevitably upset a particular group of people, even though in some situation the speaker does not have the intention to do so. In "Idols of the Tribe", the emotions and feelings within people can control a person's mind and obstruct their path to logical and clear thinking. In this case, I believe that there will be many people who will easily submit to their own emotions and immediately condemn Sarkozy's intentions. In "Idols of the Cave", the personal background plays a big part in obstructing clear thinking. Many Muslims will feel upset over Sarkozy's backing, no matter how moderate they are, because of the upbringing and culture. Even the "Idols of the Marketplace" can be true here. The press may not have quoted his words exactly and misunderstandings can occur. Moreover, his comments are also translated into many languages to be read by viewers all over the world. Due to careless translations during the process, his comments may end up implying anti-Islamic sentiments in some other versions and will generate resentment.

Even though this scenario depicts a macro level involving a country's politics, various misunderstandings can equally happen as frequently on a micro level involving people that we meet in our everyday lives, especially when the issue being discussed is a particular sensitive one to some people. For instance, once my friends criticized my music playing and I succumbed to the "Idols of the Tribe" when I reacted very badly to their criticisms. Even though they could have been a little harsh in their criticisms, I was too angry to actually think about their criticisms in a clear and calm manner. Hence, I did not talk to them for several weeks before thinking logically and realizing that they were actually right and there were still many areas that I could improve upon in my music playing. On the other hand, "Idols of the Marketplace" can also be a cause here as my friends could have used the wrong words to describe their thoughts, and unintentionally hurt my feelings in the process.

In the article above, I feel that even the most moderate Muslims may feel offended by Sarkozy's backings as we are all human beings and we have emotions and thoughts within us. So, wee are always susceptible to falling into any of the "Idols" proposed by Francis Bacon. The President and the Parliament have much to convince the Muslims of their true intentions and hope that they could see things their way.

Have you ever had your own personal experiences when you succumb to any of Francis Bacons' "Idols" that caused some sort of misunderstandings or breakdown in communication between you and your friends?