At Least the important Khmer Rouge alive leaders stand in a trial!

In many countries the crimes against the humanity were happen. Recently, countries like South Africa created a new style of trial for this crimes, the idea comes from Desmond Tutu Nobel Peace Price a new way to help to heal the wounds of the relatives of the victim. Now a days an important trial was started last Monday.

The most important Khmer Rouge who are still alive stand in a trial last Monday. Three men and one woman “Khieu Samphan, 79, the nominal head of state; Nuon Chea, 84, described as the Khmer Rouge’s ideologue; Ieng Sary, 85, the foreign minister; and his wife, Ieng Thirith, 79, who was minister of social affairs.” They are some of the main Khmer Rouge were responsible for crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, homicide and other offenses between 1975 to 1979. “All have declared their innocence”.

This is an important United Nations trial about the memories of many Cambodians because the Khmer Rouge kills were estimated to 25% of the 1975-1979 population in Cambodia. The cost until now is the 10millions dollars.

However many of the criminal Khmer Rouge are still free in Cambodia and the most important leader Pol Pot, Son Sen, Pol Pot’s right-hand man, and Ta Mok, a top military commander are died before to be judged.

An important challenge for the trial is the defendants are very all, and they have to be mental and physical enough well to be in the trial. The four defendants are sicks. Some doctors are assignment to these important prisoners. But there is not guaranty if they are going to be in good health to be in the trial, and the trial can be for many years. The trial starts in August-September.

Kaing Guek Eav Khmer Rouge know as Duch, responsible of the main prison and torture house, was sentenced to 35 years and reduce to 19 years. “An appeal is pending.”

Do you think is important to judge crimes against humanity when the responsible are all or are not committed any more crime for years? I think it is very important because all the human being we need in the deep of our self to know the true and to have justice.

References

Retreived June 26 2011 from

Ex-Khmer Rouge Leaders Go on Trial in Cambodia

By SETH MYDANS

Published: June 26, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/world/asia/27cambodia.html?_r=1&src=rec

Freedom for every gay and lesbian

Nowadays, more and more people become a lesbian or gay. It is quite common in many countries. Are you a gay or lesbian? A lot of gay or lesbian rights advocates support that same –sex marriages should be allowed by law. Do you agree or disagree with that? Do you think that same –sex marriages means lesbian or gay get equal human rights? When I saw The New York Times, a headline named “Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces” caught my interested.

In “Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces”, the writers said that in the 35th-floor conference room of a Manhattan high-rise, two of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s most trusted advisers held a secret meeting a few weeks ago with a group of super-rich Republican donors. New York’s Democratic governor was determined to legalize same-sex marriage (SSM).

In my opinion, gay or lesbian should be allowed to marry in law. In the past, American adults refuted SSM, except in about ten states and the District of Columbia. Because of most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow SSM, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to infringe their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples. However, the world is changed. More and more people realize that gay and lesbian should be allowed to get marriage. Marriage is hallowed, it conveys stateliness and respect towards a couple that make a lifetime commitment to support each other. It is not only a process of reproduction, but it also is a way that symbolizes a couple love each other, they want to live together. So, same –sex couples deserve this stateliness and respect. Moreover, getting marriage is one of kind human right. Everyone has right to marry the person who you love, no matter they are male or female. We should not forbid same-sex couples marriage. To sum up, gay or lesbian should be allowed to marry. You can disagree with them, but you should respect them.      

__________

References

Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces. (2011, Jun, 25). The New York Times. Retreived June 27, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?ref=nyregion

The faith healers who claim they can cure cancer

Nowsaday, a lot of people get serious illnesses such as cancers, HIV strokes and so on.Especially, cancer,many people get different kind of cancers such as cercivical cancer, chest cancer,testicular cancer, colon cancer and lung cancer. The cause of cancer is, people consume a lot of chemicals and air pollution. They make people easy disease and difficult to cure them. Some people can cure cancer but some people cand not heal, so people try to find alternative medical such as Chinese medicine or Thai medicine of herbs instead of Western medicine. Finally, they use the superstition to cure cancer.

A group of faith healers said that they have a miracle cure for cancer and HIV. They use their techique to focuss on the patients " brain wave cycle" to treat physical and emotion.
"An underover researcher who says she has cervical cancer, visits a faith healer who claims to have cured a baby's cancer over the telephone.
"Theta Healing have about 600 practitioners in the UK who charge up to £100 per session.
"Newnight recorded Warrington-based Theta Headling practitioner Jenny Johnstone who charge 30 Pound for a telephone call or 400 Pound for a course making a number of claims abour the technique, including.
"But the healer's claims have been call "criminal" and " not supported by any kind of evidence" by Edzard Ernst, Professor of Comlementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, whose unit not only carry out their own studies but also assess those done by other researchers."
Professor Ernst think that this is "Irresponsible and "felonious".
Theta Healing says that Ms Stibal organizes seminars and training teachers and practitioners around the world but now there are 14 countries.

I think, I skeptical about this treatment can heal cancer and HIV because it cannot prove the cancer had disappeared. I believe that If patients get suitable treatment and pay attention their meals and exercise .Moreover, you should avoid protien in food such as meat, eggs, some bean and so on. Because they can make cancer seriously. My friend got brain cancer, after she heal by western medicine, she ate curcuma longa everyday and she felt better, like normal.
In my opinion, Theta Healing is a liar.

__________

References

Anna Adams and Meirion Jones BBC Newnight Page last update at 16.05 GMT Wednesday,22June 2011 17.05UK

Is there an online cloak of invisibility?

Since the very beginning of the online era, we’ve all realized that the luring ability of being anyone we’d like to on the internet leads to nasty comments and outrageous online behavior. However, it is likely that when the internet started to intervene into personal life the way it has been lately, things tend to go opposite way. Instead of having fun being an anonymous on the internet, we might get caught doing inappropriate things which ended up online and screw it all for us. The Room for Debate has the discussion on this particular issue heading the section; it’s called “You're Mad! You're on YouTube!”

Recent incident of Anthony Weiner’s inappropriate messages and other similar undisclosed behavior via the internet is threatening the freedom of people to express themselves freely. Now, do we have to behave ourselves more in public, the discussion asks. Daniel J. Solove, a professor at George Washington University Law School, tells the readers that though “anonymity allows people to unleash their id and all the ugliness they conceal beneath their polite facades”, when it is destroyed by technologies, it might not to be a thing to appreciate. (¶1, The Virtues of Anonymity) Being anonymous encourages people to criticize and speak freely. On the contrary, being monitored makes it oppressive for people to speak their minds and discourages a lot of valuable ideas. Finally, he asks for an appropriate balance in taking side on anonymity. Peggy Post from Emily Post Institute, one of the debaters, states an important point which is there is no such thing as “privacy” when it comes to the online world since everything on the internet is permanently recorded and no set of password could disguise the truth that everything is out there, risking to be stolen and hacked. In social network and Youtube era, all the covered behaviors are likely to be caught and posted online. She suggests that we watch what we are doing and take responsibility for our behavior and that “being civil is being self-regulated”. (¶4, Practicing Self-Regulation) While Anita L. Allen, the Professor of Law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, discusses the importance of “the value of old-fashioned decency toward others” which should not be violated. (¶1, This Isn't '1984') She points out though getting caught doing inappropriate behavior can have devastating consequences, involving in uncivil acts is not as worse as judging people from their private business that was revealed online.

When it comes to the internet, the only place I feel that my privacy might be intervened is on social network. On my Facebook page, I block all my information and pictures away from people who are not “friends” and I think carefully before posting anything, especially my whereabouts. But for the discussion this debate is focusing on, it is not the thing you can monitor and decide on anymore. This is more like, your real life is watched and recorded. And everything you do might end up online and stay there forever to humiliate you, to sabotage your life, and for other people to criticize. This is a nightmare even for a nobody, let alone public figures. I agree that to some extent the feeling that we must behave ourselves otherwise we’re screwed has its own benefits. As the idea of being exposed would be a great reminder for us to act more civil, respect others more, and think before we do and speak. But that is not healthy and in the long run, that stops creativity. Also, it has a high risk of violate people’s rights, privacy, and freedom of speech. If we let this sick revelation continue without setting some rules to restrict it, I predict that it would goes further and further. It would do more harm to the society than advantages. I suggest we look carefully on this issue and stop encouraging these revelations.

__________

References

You're mad! You're on Youtube!. (2011, Jun, 22). The New York Times. Retreived June 23, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/06/21/youre-mad-youre-on-youtube

Get more contact for more understanding

How familiar are we to disabilities? If we do not have relatives who have physical challenges, most of us might hardly ever be in touch with those who have disabilities. This thought came to my mind when I first read the article "Learning Empathy by Looking Beyond Disabilities" in New York time. If people with disabilities get more involved in the society, if normal people have more understanding on disabilities, how would it be?

The aritcle is about an effort called the Pearls Project launched in Ridgewood High School, New Jersy. The aim of this project is to promote tolerance and empathy in school. One activity in the program the article presents is that the students are presented, with the photographs of people wiht disorders and asked to write essays about the meaning of beauty. Students are encouraged to contact the subjects of the project to learn about their living and their thought. For example, Tony read the writing of Rebecca, a college student with arthrogryposis multiplex congenita.

I find that this project interesting and helpful. In the past, people with physical challenges were excluded from the society. They had to stay at their home and relied on their families for the whole life. Nowadays, many conditions improve a lot for their lives, they can join school, work, yet, people in society still do not have understanding on them. I have heard a blind person complained that sometimes someones walked him on the street, but they did not know how to do it appropriately and made him more difficult to walk than he did on his own. We still have too less chance to contact with them. Through such kind of activities, I think that they could shorten the gap between ordinary people and people with disabilities. With more connection, we can get more understanding, and thus more empathy and tolerance as the aim of the project is.

__________

References

Learning Empathy by Looking Beyond Disabilities. (2011, Jun, 22). The New York Times. Retreived June 22, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/nyregion/at-nj-school-learning-not-to-look-away-from-the-disabled.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&hpw=&adxnnlx=1308748179-9tq3iT0Sd3mfMGZvI7toBw

Chemical Suicides, Popular in Japan, Are Increasing in the U.S.

When people feel depress and their life full of problems, some of them might decide to solve the problem by suicide, especially in developed country like Japan. Japanese life full of depress and competition, this might be the reason why the suicide rate in Japan is really high. The most famous suicide method in Japan is chemical suicides, and now this trend spread to US.

"Chemical suicides, popular in Japan, Are increasing in the U.S." is an article in The New York Times. Erica Goode said that the number of people who suicide by using chemical suicides are increase, and most of the time it has the result in injuries of polices, neighborhoods, fire fighters and emergency workers, due to the exposed to gas. Even though, most of suicide victims try to warn the police by using the sign, but it still couldn't help. “Suicide is generally intended for one victim, said Richard Perrin, under sheriff of the Lake County Sheriff’s Department, who was at the scene of the suicide in Michigan. Whereas this form of suicide has the potential to affect many, whether it be intended or unintended, and that’s what makes it so dangerous.”(¶16)

Suicide is the worst thing, and it even worst when your suicide effect to others well being. However, I disagree with all method of suicide, because this is not the way to solve your problem. If we talk by using Buddhism, suicide is a sin. You must not do that. I was always wonder , when I saw the suicide news on TV or newspaper, what did they think? Are their problems that serious? When I face with problem, I personally think that there must be the others who face with the problem like me, while the others can solve it, why couldn't I? Or when I feel depress, I always talk with myself that I can pass it, someday it will gone away, no one gonna be happy forever or sorrowful forever, because this is life. This is our life which our parents give to us, so we must take care and keep our life going on, not just give up easily. So all you need to do is be patient and looking for the solution, perhaps the solution might be right there in front of you.

__________

References

Erica Goode.(2011,June 18)Chemical Suicides, Popular in Japan, Are Increasing in the U.S.The New York Times. Retrived June 22,2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/19chemical.html?_r=1

Graphic Images on Cigarette Packages

What are the ways to quit smoking? Or what can we do to help smokers quit? One method could be increasing the public awareness of health issues; for example, health advocacy groups often hold anti-smoking campaigns and provide health educations in schools. There are also therapies to help quitting such as nicotine replacement therapy using a nicotine patch. Adding to these, we often see graphic images are on cigarette packages in Thailand. Like in Thailand, Unites States decided to cover the top half of cigarette packages beginning next year, hoping that these shocking images would discourage smoking.

This Tuesday, despite of the opposition of tobacco manufacturers, the final selection of nine graphic warning labels was done by federal health officials. When the decision was made, tobacco companies argued that these images “would unfairly hurt their property and free speech rights by obscuring their brand names in retail displays.” They also added that “congress should have considered less restrictive warnings in size and placement on the pack.” On the other hand, the majority showed positive attitude towards the government’s decision. Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, praised that these “frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking and they will help encourage smokers to quit, and prevent children from smoking.” According to the campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the new warnings significantly decreased the number of smokers; this suggests that these large, graphic warnings “will be impossible to miss and represent a dramatic advance over existing text warnings.”

When I first came to Thailand and saw people selling cigarettes on the street, I was surprised to see such a graphic images. My first impression of those images was “eww…gross…” which is the reaction that the government wants from young teenagers. I agree that the graphics would be more effective than text warnings in discouraging smoking. Since the article supports the idea with statistical data – “the rate of smoking in America has been cut roughly in half, in about 20 percent, from 42 percent in 1965 (when the first text warning started) – I am convinced that the warnings are actually helping people to quit smoking and stopping non-smokers converting into smokers. However, I also agree with the tobacco industry. Marketing, especially advertising and packaging, is significantly important to for-profit organizations. Since tobacco only harms our body, advertisement and its pretty packages would be the only way to attract customers. It is the firms’ role to advertise and attract customers. They have free-speech rights. So, why restrict them? I am not saying that U.S. government should not put the graphics on cigarette packages. If the government is allowing tobacco companies to sell cigarettes, why not let them have those pretty, trendy packages? And if the government wants people to quit smoking, why not ban smoking? Does the government really cares about the public’s health or does it care more about the economics and the taxes? What does it want exactly?

__________

References

U.S. Releases Graphic Images to Deter Smokers. (2011, Jun, 21). The New York Times. Retreived June 21, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/health/policy/22smoke.html?ref=business

A hammock to sleep a nap please!

What a night! If I can only have a nap this afternoon I can manage to study all the day and memories what I studied. That is a good idea as some researches prove quality nap is a way to reinforce learning and memory. And, what about to improve my nap rocking me? Scientists seem it is a good idea.

Quality nap is a way to reinforce learning and memory when we can not boost them by a full night’s sleep, according with Dr Derk-jan Dijk, from the Sleep Research Centre at the University of Surrey, after study two comparative group of persons during a day and the next morning, one group can not sleep during the day and the other is authorise to sleep one hour or ninety minutes nap, then he applies learning and memories tests. The people who slept naps have better scores. He warns that "We should not conclude that we can do with just a nap”, “Sleep is useful for more things than just these particular tests” but "Other research has suggested that people given six hours of sleep a night over a sustained period find it extremely detrimental."[1].

According to Sophie Schwartz and Michel Mühlethaler of the University of Geneva, Switzerland and their team, rocking helps to sleep profoundly. They studied 10 men having two kinds of naps, 45 minutes nap without rocking in a static bed, and 45 minutes nap in a rocking bed. The men who slept 45 minutes rocking nap, they fall sleep in only 4 minutes faster than the other group that represents about 30 to 40 percent faster than the others. They also had a better quality sleep. They stayed 25 to 30 per cent more in a deep stage of sleep a person can rich in a nap. In this stage a person improves his memory and “insulation from noise disturbance”.[2]

Take a nap is healthy way to be alertness to study, when occasionally you can not sleep at night, and the best way is if we can be rock. Why not in a hammock? What about to have hammocks to rent in the spas close to the place you study or work. Is not a good idea? A good business? And a good public health action?

---

__________

References

[1] Retrieve Monday, 20 June, 2011 from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3012322.stm

Last Updated: Monday, 23 June, 2003, 09:40 GMT 10:40 UK

[2]Retrieve Monday, 20 June, 2011 from

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20586-rock-yourself-to-sleep-for-a-better-nap.html

Updated 17:59 20 June 2011 by Andy Coghlan

Journal reference: Current Biology, DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.012

Far away from radiation

How much do you know about computerised tomography (CT) scanning? Have you ever taken the CT scanning? It is a test which uses X-ray equipment and computer software to create pictures of the inside of your body. It was originally designed to take pictures of the people’s brain. Nowadays, it is much more advanced and is also used for taking pictures of actually any part of the body. This is a modern technology which can help us to study the chest, abdomen and pelvis because it provides detailed, cross- sectional views of all types of tissue. Although CT scanning has plenty of advantages, it also has some advantages. Is it scanning dangerous? When I saw The New York Times, a headline named “Medicare Claims Show Overuse for CT Scanning” caught my interested.

In “Medicare Claims Show Overuse for CT Scanning”, the writer gives the fact that a lot of hospitals exposed patients to radiation by scanning their part of body twice on the same day which is needlessly. He also gives the research shows that double CT scan does of radiation is the same to 25,000 victims received from atom bomb in Japan after the World WarⅡ. The reasons why there are a lot of double CT scan is that medicare doesn’t restrict the use of double scans; also, some smaller hospitals may be doing the double scan just to make sure that there is no wrong diagnosis; hospitals do a great many of them can earn more.

I have been seen many sufferers especially people who got cancers do CT scan. Usually, the doctors suggest them to do it. From my point of view, doctors should base on patient’s condition to diagnose whether they should do CT scan or not. First, it makes patients receive double dose of radiation. It will increase people’s lifetime cancer risk. According to one government study, CT scans done in 2007 alone will cause about 29,000 cancers and kill nearly 15,000 Americans. From a single patient's perspective, however, the risk seems less daunting: It would take 1000 "average" scans to produce one extra case of cancer in 50-year-olds, the National Cancer Institute's Amy Berrington told Reuters Health in November. Actually, the little difference between x-rays beamed at patients in hospitals and the mix of x-rays and gamma radiation produced by a nuclear explosion. Moreover, it is not only can cause cancers, but is also can cause hair loss problems. It makes people unconfident. Seriously, it can cause communication obstacle among people. So, hospital organization should educate doctors that medicare’ s purpose is to serve people for health, not to earn much money. If necessary, doctors should try to use the equipments with lower radiation.       

__________

References

Medicare Claims Show Overuse for CT Scanning. (2011, Jun, 17). The New York Times. Retreived June 21, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/health/18radiation.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=CT scan&st=cse&scp=1

Artificial Insemination - Who Is Responsible for This Mess?

Do babies born through artificial insemination have their rights to know who their donors are? Or should they have it in the first place? This modern technology, an artificial insemination, of inserting sperm directly into a woman’s body makes pregnancy possible for who suffer from certain kinds of infertility. Despite of this benefit of helping infertile couples, however, due to various factors such as ethics or religious beliefs, this artificial insemination is a controversial issue over the world. Furthermore, as the artificial insemination is pursued in some places including United States without solid future plans or even backup plans, the rights of these children who were born through this procedure and the donors of sperms are very serious point which definitely be considered before blindly praising the new science. The New York Times article, “A Father’s Day Plea to Sperm Donors”, is written by a man who was born via artificial insemination arguing that these children, including himself, who were born through the procedure should have the rights to know who their donors are.

Colton Wooten, who just graduated from high school, argues that “babies born of the procedure in the future should have the right to know who their donors are, and even have some contact with them.” (¶ 10) His mother, an unmarried woman who was at her 40s, wanted to have a baby and thought of the artificial insemination. She consulted with the University of North Carolina fertility clinic and picked a sperm from the sperm bank after examining the profiles and comparing the favorable traits and credentials. Though his mother reveals the story, he was too young to understand the process of artificial insemination and had only a vague concept of it. Until he was asked to make a family tree, he did not think much about it. However, as he tries to complete the family tree project and contact UNC fertility clinic, he started to question about the donor as well as himself. Despite his effort, he was disappointed to find that the files for anonymous donors are not saved. As he continues with his writing, he criticizes that there is “too little substantial debate” on the issue of whether these children born from artificial insemination have right to know their donors (¶ 8). He adds that while the benefits of artificial insemination are overlooked, the rights of these children are often ignored. Towards the end of his writing, he cries for the emotional deficit: “I am sometimes at such a petrifying loss for words or emotions that make sense that I can only feel astonished by the fact that he could be anyone.”

This article reminded me of my high school biology class in which students used to argue the ethical considerations related to the artificial insemination. As mentioned in the article, an artificial insemination can be perceived as a “triumph of female self-sufficiency” since it allows a woman to have a baby without a man (¶ 4). Is this ethical? Should it be accepted by the general public? Can this be an offensive action of reversing the nature to someone? One may argue that the artificial insemination should be pursued because it helps couples who suffer from infertility. These couples can be couples who have poor quality of egg/sperm but also they can be homosexuals. Of course, it will somewhat helpful to these couples. However, in order to go through the process, they would have to choose a sperm sample from the sperm banks. Like how it is written in the article, people “choose” their child. They examine the profile of sperm donors, and they compare the favorable traits. Since when did humans have these rights? If humans have rights to choose their own child, then who specifically has it? Is everyone allowed to choose their child? What is the favorable trait? Won’t this bring another discrimination factor? How about the children who were born through the procedure? Do they have the rights to know their donors? Should donors have their rights to make them anonymous? Aren’t they responsible for their children though it was born from their sperm? There are tons of questions and considerations which should be discussed and planned. Nevertheless, the artificial insemination continues to occur without solid future plans. Who is responsible for this mess?

__________

References

Wooton, Colton. "A Father's Day Plea to Sperm Donors." 18 June 2011 The New York Times. Web. 19 June 2011.

Remember Kindergarten?

We are all at the age where Kindergarten is a long gone history. We couldn't careless what they are teaching now in a Kindergarten, at least until you have a child going to one. However, this discussion from the Room of Debate of the New York Times called, "Who's ready for Kindergarten?" caught my eyes, as I just listened to my father discussed something similar just the other day.

In "Who's ready for Kindergarten?”, the ideas seem to have arisen around a question; does age matter when it comes to starting kindergarten? When children are off of preschool and into a real education system that is kindergarten, some of them are 5 years old while some are only 4. At such an early age, some parents fear that it could be difficult for their children to keep up with the older peers. This fear might proved to be wrong, as Robert C. Pianta, the dean of the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education, states in his argument that it is true that children’s readiness and skills can be differ when they start kindergarten but what really matters is not the cut off or entry date. He thinks that, due to the variation of the kids, the effort to narrow the gap of variation in children should be started before Kindergarten, thus, preschool should be more effective. Beth Graue, a professor of early childhood education at the University of Wisconsin Madison, said being the oldest in the group is a temporary advantage since readiness of children is relative. It depends heavily on the class to make every child included and the development kicks off there. While Mary Benson McMullen, a professor of early childhood education at Indiana University-Bloomington, goes beyond that and compares the system in the US with the one in Italy. She thinks the important of Kindergarten is children’s individual needs and not the readiness. In Italy, they keep multi-grades students in the same class in elementary school, the variety of ages is not important when the teacher knows each student individually. This would encourage children to develop their relationships among their groups and also with their teachers and families, which clearly is a chance for them to flourish.

As I was reading this article, I couldn’t help comparing the situation in the US with kindergarten levels near home in Thailand. I was talking to my father about a colleague of his the other day. This corrupted obstetrician has been doing surgeries to help babies born before their moms’ actual deliver dates. My father let me guess when would be the busiest time of the year for this obstetrician. I guessed rightly that it is before May 16 every year because in Thailand, the cut off for kindergarten level entry is May 16 for public schools. Thai parents clearly have a conversed preference with the Americans. They just want their children to be able to go to school as soon as possible. Being the oldest in the class is never a cool thing for a Thai student. They can be teased as repeaters. But which belief is more sensible? I couldn’t make up my mind on that one. As I read Gladwell’s The Outlier, I think at the very early age, age does matter in physical activities. However, for kindergarten, it is not about physical advantages. I agree with Pianta that vulnerable kids would have fewer chances at staying ahead of the class even though they are the oldest in the class. It’s all about the class and not the children. Providing effective early education for them and help reducing the readiness gap as early as possible might be helpful. I don’t think shifting the date of entry would be an effective and practical choice. From my personal experience, I was born on the very late of March and there was only one student younger than me, among 40-something students, back in kindergarten and all the way through elementary school. I never felt left behind in anything, though, except, of course, PE. I think my mom played a big role in helping me cope with older students. After realizing that her daughter would be one of the youngest, she forced me to learn how to read and write when I was barely three years old, thus, I was doing more than fine when kindergarten came. But for children who are less fortunate and don’t have a mom like mine, I do think Pianta’s point is exactly right, the path to equity starts way earlier than kindergarten. Relying on parents is not practical, we need effective preschool, or at least, we need to try and train the parents until they are able to assist their children be prepared.

__________

References

Who's Ready for Kindergarten? (2011, June 12). The New York Times. Retreived June 20, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/06/12/whos-ready-for-kindergarten

It's your move, choose wisely

Every major decisions in one's life requires a lot of consideration. Choosing your university and major to study, investing your lifetime savings, or even choosing your lifetime partner. These moments will decide your future which you will have to live with your decision for a long time. However, who knew whether your every decisions made were the best decisons? Don't you ever doubt yourself in what you are wearing today? Did I make the right decision on taking extra English courses instead of spending my time earning more income? Will this women cheat on me after we get married? It is by our very human nature to wanted to avoid having regrets over decisions made by ourselves and these sensors allow us to always reconsider our decisions step by step. The New York Times has supported this idea by releasing an article concerning several job market experts' suggestions on why and how should one be extra careful when changing their job or ,even bigger, their career.

In "The Big Switch, One Step at a Time", the first suggestions was to assess yourself and the market trends to see whether your skill is becoming obselete or is it just in a cyclical downturn and whether your career is your 'true calling' along with other minor detailed questions. One of the experts, Katy Piotrowski, a career counselor in Front Collins, Co., has provide a reason for importance of assessment was that when making a career switch, one may face a decline in salary because "you're moving away from your core expertise". Apparently, this process is just to determine whether one should be changing one's job or not. Once the result suggests for changes, the experts also sugguest for minor trials as well such as internship or part-time job in order to attain some real-world experience as well as having some strong advanges to add to your resume.

This report has proved to show insight on many aspects of why changing job might leads to a dead end and how should one manage to take a safe route to avoid regreting their decision. They also provide the readers with valid arguments concerning the time and resources that would affect the decision making process because changing job does include some investment. However, the most important part would be that the advices in this article are useful and should be kept in mind when we are placed in a situation where changing job should be considered.

__________

References

The Big Switch, One Step at a Time. (June 18, 2011). The New York Times. Retrieved June 18, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/jobs/19search.html?ref=business

Drain or gain?

As most of us are the students who will go to study abroad, have you ever think about working or immigrating to another country? For me, I had though about that once in my life; I though that would it be great if I could worked abroad because working abroad is well paid. After a while, I stopped that thinking because I though that I must really miss Thailand if I need to work in another country. "Drain or gain?" is an article in the Economist which is writing about the emigration of people from developing countries to developed countries.

In "Drain or gain?", the writer explains that not only the workers, but also people with well-educated from developing countries tend to emigrate. They earn more in developed country which is the main reason for them to move. This situation causes the problems to poor countries because their governments are the person who pay for primarily education of well educated people and after they graduated, they immigrant to another country which causes the home countries to lost their skilled worker. In case of India, "A big survey of Indian households carried out in 2004 asked about family members who had moved abroad. It found that nearly 40% of emigrants had more than a high-school education, compared with around 3.3% of all Indians over the age of 25." (¶ 2) However, homeland of migrants also gain something, the most obvious way is through remittances. "In Lebanon, Lesotho, Nepal, Tajikistan and a few other places, remittances are more than 20% of GDP."(¶ 4)

I have seen many Thai people especially people who graduated from abroad emigrate to other countries. They usually immigrate because of the money, even though it is not much in the eyes of the citizens in that country, if we calculate it to Thai bath, it turns into large amount of money. Good point is you earn a lot of money, but living abroad is not as good as some of you think because we need to face up with unfamiliar culture, unfamiliar people and if you go there alone, you must be very lonely. In my opinion, it is a good idea that we just work there for a while to save money, and then go back to our home country, because there is no where in this world would as good as your home country.

__________

References

(May 26,2011). Drain or Gain?. The Economist. Retrieved June 18, 2011 from http://www.economist.com/node/18741763

Should we persevere?

Have you worried about drug abuse? Are you a drug addict ?Many people do not understand why or how other people become addicted to drugs. Even though I am not a drug addict, When I saw The New York Times , a headline named “Drug Is Harder to Abuse, but Users Persevere” catch my interested. Nowadays, drug abuse is a serious public health problem that affects almost every community and family. Abused drugs include Amphetamines, Anabolic steroids, Club drugs, Cocaine, Heroin, Inhalants, Marijuana and Prescription drugs.

 

The article of Drug Is Harder to Abuse, but Users Persevere on The New York Times said that people had been snorting OxyContin for many years. At that time, a new version of the drug intended to avoid such abuse, hit the market. The reformulated pills are harder to suppress, so people use gummy substance to instead of it which cannot be easily snorted, injected or chewed. 

 

In my opinion, drug abuse can lead to various kinds of side effects and disadvantages. Even if drug can reduce the pain of cancer patients, the cancer patients will so addict to drug that cannot give it up. From many related reports we can know that these forms of drug abuses can have an unfavorable effect on the health and desire of the person and in excessive cases it can also lead to death. Also, if take these drugs, during pregnancy, it can cause birth foible such as physical, mental, social and behavioral problems in future. Drug abuse also plays a role in many major social problems, such as drugged driving, violence, stress, emotional problems and destroying many families. Above of all, people should prevent drug abuse.

__________

References 
Drug Is Harder to Abuse, but Users Persevere. (2011, Jun,15). The New York Time News. Retrieved Jun,18,2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/health/16oxy.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=drug%20is%20harder%20to%20abuse&st=cs

Parents" behaviour" can influence teen drinking

Eventhough, alochol is addicted drinking. Why some parents like to drink it at home or restaurant? It can influenced children to drink alochol. Because they see their parents drink alochol and think that they drink alochol is right and have not healthy problem. In addition,some parents don't ban their children drink it.

From the reserch of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that parents can influence on their teenagers drinking, while The Ipsos MORI survey found the teenagers spend with his friend by drinking habit. In a survey of 5,700 children aged 13 to 16s have been drunk alochol. A statement said"The government needs to concentrate on increasing the price per unit of alochol ans reduce its availability as their main priority, and in addition to increase education ans national campaigns for both young people and their families on the dangers of alochol .

I think, if some parents would like to drink alochol at home, they should avoid their children and should give some information of harmful effects of drinking. Finally, most of drinker may be a cancer or accident. Thai people should change the celebration New Year Day by drinking to other activities. Thai government should increase more tax and punishing teenagers drinking .

__________

References

Hughes, D. (2011, June 16). Parents' behaviour 'can influence teen drinking. BBC News. Retrieved June 18, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13779834 

Now he needs to apologize

Have we now gone too far in worrying about the "rights" of people not to be offended? Although I don't normally pay too much attention to the Entertainment section of the BBC News, a headline in the Most Popular column stood out yesterday, so I emailed it to myself to follow up. Actually, it was the words Crowe and circumcision that jumped out in "Russell Crowe 'sorry' over circumcision Twitter comment". Russell Crowe is one of Australia best known actors of the last couple of decades, having starred in films such as LA Confidential, Gladiator, and A Beautiful Mind. Circumcision is the barbaric and stupid custom of sexually mutilating males, usually when they are babies or still children, and not normally for any good medical reason.

In "Russell Crowe 'sorry' over circumcision Twitter comment", the BBC News reporter briefly relates the story of Crowe tweeting the producer of his next film, who happens to be Jewish, with some bantering comments that could be, and were, construed as mocking Jewish cultural traditions, such as the wearing of the yarmulke by Jewish men. Another custom he explicitly commented on, describing it as "barbaric and stupid" (2011, ¶ 2) was brit milah, in which male Jewish babies are ritually circumcised 8 days after birth. Although Roth was not offended by Crowe's comments, the media apparently highlighted them as being offensive to Jewish custom, leading Crowe to apologise for his comment. The article also notes that San Francisco is going to vote in November on whether to ban the practice of circumcision on those under the age of 18, which move is opposed by some as it "would violate the rights of groups including Jews and Muslims who consider the practice a sacred religious rite" (¶ 13).

_____________________________ 

Should Crowe have apologised for his comments? Since they neither offended the person to whom they were directly addressed, and are a truth that needs to be clearly stated, Crowe should not have apologised.

First, as Roth clearly went to some trouble to make clear, he was not offended or upset by Crowe's comments about circumcision, or anything else, and taken in context, they appear neither to have been made with any deliberate intent to offend or insult, nor did they cause any such offence to Roth, to whom they were directed, albeit on a public forum. Of course, merely having no evil intent, or even a good intent, does not make something right or acceptable; for example, nice old men who still patronisingly refer to women as "pretty girls" deserve to be reprimanded for their sexist attitudes, however noble their misguided intentions might be, that it happens to be a cultural relic of the traditions that existed as normal when they grew up is no excuse for continuing to perpetrate what has long been seen as a form of unjust prejudice.

But of course, Crowe was not indulging any unfounded prejudice. He voiced his joking anti-Jewish remark on solid grounds: sexually mutilating babies and children, male or female, is barbaric and is stupid. That it happens to have been some people's religious tradition for a few thousand years does not, and never could, make it right. Slavery also existed for several thousand years, and is still alarmingly widespread today, even in the highly developed United States of America (Dodson, 2005). It does not follow that there is anything so wonderful about slavery that the modern practise of it should not be roundly condemned as barbaric and evil wherever and whenever it occurs, whether the US, Burma, sub-Saharan Africa, where is continues to be culturally accepted, or anywhere else. Nor it is made right by the fact that slavery has solid religious support from Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and apparently also from Buddhism and Hinduism, which did not oppose it when practised in Thailand and elsewhere for centuries. Religious approval, or disapproval, is generally irrelevant to moral right and wrong, as the example of slavery clearly attests. The fact is that circumcision is arguably a barbaric and stupid custom, and its religious and cultural allies cannot alter that fact, so Crowe was right both to honestly state his opinion to that effect, and in what he stated.

That the media made a typically misleading exaggeration of his remarks is at best a dubious reason for Crowe to have apologised for peacefully making a true statement that needs to be made. He should not have apologised for telling a truth that may, and apparently did, offend some people. However, he should now apologise for having apologised for having spoken an important truth about an ugly cultural tradition of child abuse.

__________

References

Dodson, H. (2005) Slavery in the Twenty-First Century. UN Chronicle. Retreived June 16, 2011 from http://www.smfcdn.com/assets/pubs/un_chronicle.pdf

Russell Crowe 'sorry' over circumcision Twitter comment. (2011, June 14). BBC News. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13761834

Academic Debate: Lust for Truth or Just Lust?

Why are you studying at university? Why do you study anything? I think the notion is increasingly popular that education should be useful, meaning it should serve industry by creating capable employees who will contribute directly to the economy and thereby make a lot of money. And the purpose of a lot of money is of course to compete for sex to breed, which is what human beings are genetically programmed by evolution to do. This view of university and education seems consistent with the proposal of French cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, whose journal paper and debate thereon most unusually made the front page of The New York Times last night as a lead article.

In "Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth", Patricia Cohen explains that contrary to prevailing belief, Mercier and Sperber's argumentative theory argues that reason did not evolve to serve the pursuit of truth but simply as a tool to win arguments, that is, to convince people. As Cohen notes, the idea that human reasoning, our rationality, like everything else about us, is an evolved characteristic is nothing new. What is new in Mercier and Sperber's explanation of human behaviour and psychology is that since bad reasoning often works as well, it has the same evolutionary pressure keeping it hard-wired in human nature: we have not become more rational animals because in debate, in arguments, having better reasons is only one way to win, and it's winning arguments, not being right or getting closer to truths, that matters to evolution. Attempts throughout history to make people more rational and root out unreason have therefore not surprisingly tended to fail simply because human nature, our basic biology, is against them. It was their desire to explain the persistent such human tendencies as confirmation bias and to strongly maintain beliefs that are contrary to all evidence and reason that first led Mercier and Sperber to their theory that reason was about winning debates rather than acquiring truth.

However, Mercier and Sperber also "contend that as people became better at producing and picking apart arguments, their assessment skills evolved as well" (p. 2, ¶ 4), which is how they explain the fact that groups do actually manage to reach agreement and make decisions: the members are better able to pick apart and show the defects in bad arguments, thereby helping their own, better, arguments to win. Reason does often work to lead to truth, but only by accident because truth often makes for more forceful arguments. In summarizing some of the controversy surrounding the argumentative theory or reasoning, Cohen includes both dissenting views, such as that of Darcia Narvaez, who counters that Mercier and Sperber's ideas are just one more instance of the prevailing view that  "everything we do is motivated by selfishness and manipulating others, which is, in my view, crazy" (p. 1, ¶ 11). On the other hand, Cohen also also notes that the theory is claimed to have practical implications for education, such as helping children more effectively learn abstract subjects such as mathematics by letting them work in groups so that argument can give their built in assessment skills a chance to work as they reason to win. Finally, Cohen reports that Mercier argues that in the political realm, the group use of argument and assessment show democracy to be the "the best form of government for evolutionary reasons, regardless of philosophical or moral rationales" (p. 2, ¶ 7).


This report touches on so many issues that new and different responses were popping into mind as I moved from sentence to sentence. The unrelated one first: I realised when doing the first quotation that the breaking up of their articles into pages, which had often struck me as a bother since it entails clicking and loading a new page to get to the next part of the story in the New York Times is actually not such a bad idea. It makes citing quotations much easier since you can give the page number and then counting down the paragraphs is much easier.

A more on topic response as I was reading was, "What's so new?"  And that's all I have time for now.

__________

References

Cohen, P. (2011, June 14). Reason seen more as weapon than path to truth. The New York Times. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Academic Debate: Lust for Truth or Just Lust?

Why are you studying at university? Why do you study anything? I think the notion is increasingly popular that education should be useful, meaning it should serve industry by creating capable employees who will contribute directly to the economy and thereby make a lot of money. And the purpose of a lot of money is of course to compete for sex to breed, which is what human beings are genetically programmed by evolution to do. This view of university and education seems consistent with the proposal of French cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, whose journal paper and debate thereon most unusually made the front page of The New York Times last night as a lead article.

In "Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth", Patricia Cohen explains that contrary to prevailing belief, Mercier and Sperber's argumentative theory argues that reason did not evolve to serve the pursuit of truth but simply as a tool to win arguments, that is, to convince people. As Cohen notes, the idea that human reasoning, our rationality, like everything else about us, is an evolved characteristic is nothing new. What is new in Mercier and Sperber's explanation of human behaviour and psychology is that since bad reasoning often works as well, it has the same evolutionary pressure keeping it hard-wired in human nature: we have not become more rational animals because in debate, in arguments, having better reasons is only one way to win, and it's winning arguments, not being right or getting closer to truths, that matters to evolution. Attempts throughout history to make people more rational and root out unreason have therefore not surprisingly tended to fail simply because human nature, our basic biology, is against them. It was their desire to explain the persistent such human tendencies as confirmation bias and to strongly maintain beliefs that are contrary to all evidence and reason that first led Mercier and Sperber to their theory that reason was about winning debates rather than acquiring truth.

However, Mercier and Sperber also "contend that as people became better at producing and picking apart arguments, their assessment skills evolved as well" (p. 2, ¶ 4), which is how they explain the fact that groups do actually manage to reach agreement and make decisions: the members are better able to pick apart and show the defects in bad arguments, thereby helping their own, better, arguments to win. Reason does often work to lead to truth, but only by accident because truth often makes for more forceful arguments. In summarizing some of the controversy surrounding the argumentative theory or reasoning, Cohen includes both dissenting views, such as that of Darcia Narvaez, who counters that Mercier and Sperber's ideas are just one more instance of the prevailing view that  "everything we do is motivated by selfishness and manipulating others, which is, in my view, crazy" (p. 1, ¶ 11). On the other hand, Cohen also also notes that the theory is claimed to have practical implications for education, such as helping children more effectively learn abstract subjects such as mathematics by letting them work in groups so that argument can give their built in assessment skills a chance to work as they reason to win. Finally, Cohen reports that Mercier argues that in the political realm, the group use of argument and assessment show democracy to be the "the best form of government for evolutionary reasons, regardless of philosophical or moral rationales" (p. 2, ¶ 7).


This report touches on so many issues that new and different responses were popping into mind as I moved from sentence to sentence. The unrelated one first: I realised when doing the first quotation that the breaking up of their articles into pages, which had often struck me as a bother since it entails clicking and loading a new page to get to the next part of the story in the New York Times is actually not such a bad idea. It makes citing quotations much easier since you can give the page number and then counting down the paragraphs is much easier.

A more on topic response as I was reading was, "What's so new?"  And that's all I have time for now.

__________

References

Cohen, P. (2011, June 14). Reason seen more as weapon than path to truth. The New York Times. Retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Classical literature, take it or leave it.

When I first studied the AEP writing class for the first time, I was assigned to read a classical literature which is a timeless classic of English literature, wrote by a very famous English novelist. I had no doubt whatsoever with the assignment and I honestly enjoyed the book, regardless of how difficult and old the language is. However, class after class, I started to wonder, what's the point of classical literature reading? I know that literature always finds a place in every language class and I must say that I always appreciate the chances to study Thai literature, but should classical English literature own a place in an AEP class? These are the reasons why I have a second thought.

First of all, classical literature generally takes a lot of time to read. A book consists of hundreds of pages, like literature, for me would be considered as a key to improve my fluency in reading and writing. They should also be books I want to read for pleasure, otherwise, I wouldn't be able to finish the whole pile of paper. Unfortunately, Classical literature, though some of them are relatively pleasurable, couldn't help improving my fluency in English since they were written in archaic language that I barely understand. I don't think Classical literature is a good example of academic writing also. We can't use the style of writing and vocabularies in Classic literature in our further study. Then why should it be in an AEP class?

Secondly, while high school students in the States should be encouraged to appreciate the artistic Classical literature, it's unnecessary for us. The level of language in Classical literature is beyond our level of precise understanding, let alone appreciating the beautiful language. We also have lesser cultural background information and references. Instead of introducing and preparing us to the unfamiliar western culture, wouldn't it simply be .. confusing?

Moreover, as far as I'm concerned, when the class found the book boring, they stop reading and it would come down to pointless discussions where everyone sit blankly, avoiding eye contact. (And in my case, keep saying "P'Liu can you help?" since he is clearly the only student who reads everything!!!)

However, as I said to Peter earlier after class, I am more than ready to be convinced that we should read 1984 in the class this term. I, personally, don't want the class to be full of non-fictions. Something lighter would be a good change (Clearly 1984 wouldn't be a good fit then). I suggest that we go ahead and try to figure out what exactly the point of literature reading. When we go to the bottom of this, maybe we can find a way to make it oh-so-boring no more.

Fags, Flags, Jews - What to protect and respect?

"Thank God for Dead Soldiers," ran a colourful poster held aloft by a devout Christian member of the gay hating Westboro Baptist Church in the US on April 11, 2006 (Alvarez, 2006, ¶ 2). Not surprisingly, this peculiar display of religiously inspired values by a very small and very nasty Christian group deeply upset and offended not only the parents of the young man killed on active duty in Iraq, who was being buried in the cemetery at the time, but the larger community; indeed, it is hard to imagine that any decent person would not be shocked at such ugly behaviour at such a time and place. But should it be banned, or was John Stewart Mill right to argue on his strictly practical grounds in On Liberty that even such awful expressions of honestly held opinion must be protected  for the protection of any and every healthy democracy (2002, p. 1 - 119)?  In the debate over the scope, necessity and limits of citizens' rights to freedom of speech, the United States stands apart from almost every other nation in the consistency, sincerity and seriousness of its commitment to respecting and protecting this basic human right.

Shortly after their appearance at this funeral, the Westboro Baptist Church, who believe that the Christian god of the Holy Bible is killing American soldiers to punish the US for tolerating homosexuality, repeated their offensive anti-gay protest with the same colourful pickets at the funeral service of Matthew Snyder, also a US Marine who had been killed whilst serving his country in Iraq. This time, the outraged dead man's father decided to take legal action. Initially, the district court of Maryland found in favour of Albert Snyder and in 2008 awarded damages against Phelps and his church in excess of US 10 million dollars, although this was reduced to 5 million on appeal to the same court (Snyder v. Phelps, 2011). However, Phelps subsequently appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, which decided on First Amendment grounds guaranteeing free speech to American citizens that Phelps's protest was protected by the Constitution of the United States, and all damages against him and his church were therefore annulled.

This led Snyder to appeal the case to the US Supreme Court, who heard arguments in 2010 and gave their decision on March 11 this year in favour of the Court of Appeals and Phelps (Snyder v. Phelps, 2011). As Chief Justice Roberts makes clear in writing the opinion of the 8 - 1 majority decision, they decided it on the free speech protection provisions of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which says that "Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech". With only a single opposing vote, the Supreme Court of the US is unusually unified in its belief that the free speech of American citizens is very strongly protected under and by US law, probably far more so than for any other nation.

The same Supreme Court, although not the same justices, had also consistently struck down popular state laws that ban the burning or other desecration of the US flag (Texas v. Johnson, 1989), again, on First Amendment free speech grounds. Interestingly, in the opinion of the bare majority, Justice Brennan notes that someone who through laziness or indifference treated the US flag in way that he knew would cause offence with "no thought of expressing any idea" might be subject to prosecution without First Amendment protection (Part II, note 3). In response to this decision, there have been repeated attempts by the federal government to amend the US Constitution to explicitly exempt flag desecration from free speech protection under the First Amendment, the most nearly successful to date being George Bush's attempt in 2006, where the amendment stating that "the Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States" was passed by the House of Representatives and almost passed in the Senate (Hulse & Holusha, 2006).

The rest of the world, including most democracies, stand in marked contrast to the United States with its robust Constitution. Germany, for example, is very different even in its respect for academic freedom of speech. In 2007, the Holocaust denying Ernst Zuendel was given a 5 year jail sentence by a German court for peacefully expressing his opinion that entailed "denying that the Nazis killed six million Jews during World War II" (Jail for German, 2007, ¶ 2). More famously, and controversially, British historian David Irving was arrested in Austria, which closely follows its more powerful neighbour, and sentenced "to three years in prison for denying Nazi genocide" (Suellentrop, 2007, ¶ 1). A couple of months later, in April, the European Union (EU) passed legislation that provides jail terms for such speech in all EU member countries, albeit with the proviso that each nation's domestic laws take precedence over the EU law, which would also outlaw speech offensive to religion, such as the cartoons caricaturing Islam and Mohammed which were published in Denmark under the free speech protections of that nation's legal code.

As the violent or repressive  legal and illegal reactions and responses to many peaceful expressions of honestly held belief show, symbols and beliefs that might seem trivial or to be mere superstition are also things that people will die for, as Quest 3 reminds us in "Symbolic Systems and Meanings" (Hartmann & Blass, 2007, p. 16), and in many cases kill for; far more people in the US and elsewhere are certainly convinced that it is right and necessary to suppress  free and open speech concerning such beliefs and symbols.

__________

References

Alvarez, L. (2006, April 17). Outrage at funeral protests pushes lawmakers to act. The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/us/17picket.html?emc=eta1

Bilefsky, D. (2007, April 19). EU adopts measure outlawing Holocaust denial. The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/world/europe/19iht-eu.4.5359640.html

Hartmann, P. & Blass, L. (2007). Quest 3 Reading and Writing, (2^nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hulse, C. & Holusha, J. (2006, June 27). Amendment on flag burning fails by one vote in Senate. The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/washington/27cnd-flag.html

Jail for German Holocaust denier. (2007, February 15). BBC News. Retrieved June 10 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6364951.stm

Mill, J. (2002). The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill. New York: Modern Library.

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011). Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Suellentrop, C. (2006, February 22). Free David Irving.  The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/free-david-irving/

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZO.html

Zeller, T. (2007, February 15). Holocaust Denial — Crime or Free Speech? The New York Times. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/holocaust-denial-crime-or-free-speech/