What say you?

The lead story on the BBC News this morning follows on neatly from what I wrote in my discussion of global warming after dinner last night.

"French genocide law: President Sarkozy orders new draft" reports that after the rejection of a law which had made it a criminal offence to say that a "mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks during World War I" had not occurred, a new law will be written for consideration by the French parliament (2012). France's Constitutional Court has struck down the original law passed on January 23, which had greatly upset Turkey, on the grounds that it was "an unconstitutional attack on freedom of expression" (¶ 8) to make it a crime punishable by a prison sentence or fine to deny that the historical reality of the genocide, which Armenians believe to mark the start of event of their modern history.

I was pleased to read that the French Constitutional Court has annulled this law, and saddened that Sarkozy is immediately going to try to replace it with another law. Did the Turks really kill a million or more Armenians in 1915 - 1916? I am sure that they did. It's the sort of bloody thing that dying empires do, especially despotic, authoritarian empires such as the Ottoman Empire. It reminds me of the very similar situation in Germany, where it is a crime punishable by a prison sentence to say that the Nazis under Hitler did not murder millions of Jews during World War II. I strongly disagree with this law, too, because it also violates the right to free speech of German citizens. I am certain that the Nazis legally committed all the murders and other vile acts that they are generally accused of, but again, that is not a good enough reason to punish people who disagree and peacefully want to state their different opinion.

As I suggested in my blog post last night, every law for censorship, every law which restricts free speech, must also impose ignorance about the censored topic, so that laws against free speech must make worthless the opinion of people on the topic protected by such laws (Peter, 2012). While I am sure that millions of Jews were indeed killed by the Nazis, and that the Ottoman Turks legally murdered a million or more Armenians, it can only be possible to know such things if the opposing views can be stated and supported so that they can be taken into account, the evidence and arguments assessed, and then rebutted. It the opposite opinions cannot legally be stated, then it is impossible for any errors to be corrected, and whatever I or anyone believes about the censored topic is nothing but an unfounded, unbalanced belief: a worthless, ignorant opinion.

But there is also another reason why I greatly dislike such laws against free speech: they are deeply undemocratic. They deny the basic democratic principle that all people are equally human and that all people must be respected as human beings with the same basic dignity and worth. I think that the US does much better than Germany, and perhaps France, because under its excellent constitution, the US Supreme Court regularly knocks down government laws that would interfere with the free speech of American citizens; for example: Americans can burn their flag in protest; vile, stupid, ugly Christian groups can say gay people are sick and that God hates fags (gays); the US Supreme Court and constitution even protect the right of such evil  religious groups to go and protest at the funeral services of American soldiers killed fighting for their country; and just last year, the US Supreme Court rejected laws restricting the sale of violent video games to children for similar free speech reasons. Now, I don't like the violent video games, and I obviously dislike Christian groups spewing religiously inspired hate and deliberately offending people, but I am even more certain that a healthy democracy must protect the treat as equal the basic human rights of such people. In fact, I don't much like flag burning either, but again, such deeply offensive forms of speech must still be protected.

__________

References

French genocide law: President Sarkozy orders new draft. (2012, February 28). BBC New Retrieved February 29, 2012 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17196119

Peter. (2012, February 28). Why warmer means colder. Class Blog - AEP at AUA. Retrieved February 29, 2012 from http://peteraep.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-warmer-means-colder.html

Why warmer means colder.

Global warming has been a "hot" topic for some years now, and is regularly in the papers with people arguing about almost everything: Is it real? Is it caused by humans? How much is caused by humans? One of my American friends is sure that it's all a hoax, and he delights in asking why, if our planet is warming, so many places are having more severely cold winters than usual. And this certainly seems in need of an explanation. The BBC News report "Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters" might have some answers (Black, 2012).

In this article, Richard Black reports that recent research has shown a correlation between less ice covering a warming Arctic Ocean and such unusually cold weather as "persistent above-normal snow cover" (2012, ¶ 10) in much of Europe, North America and East Asia. The most recent study, by a Chinese and US team of scientists, both establishes the link between global warming at the Arctic, and the severe European winters in recent years, which have even seen snow falling as far south as Greece. The scientists explain that the correlation is in fact causal. They argue that the warming Arctic area reduces the usual flow of warmer weather from the south because the temperature difference is smaller than it used to be, so all the cold air remains over the northern areas, along with increased water vapour from the warmer sea, which in turn result in much colder winters for the northern countries, along with higher snowfall. However, Black also cites another report to confirm that climate change is a very complex issue, with multiple interacting factors.

I've been thinking about climate change and global warming for some time now, and wondering about many of the questions that people do argue about. Unfortunately, it is a very complex issue, and that is the main reason I now think that global warming is both real and probably human caused, at least in part. One of my American friends is sure that global warming is not real, that in fact the world is getting colder, as, for example, the much more severe recent winters suggest. And to be honest, that does, prima facie, seem like good evidence. But I think such arguments are seriously flawed for a couple of reasons. First, there is no good reason to think that scientists are all telling lies as my American friend seems to believe. The consensus of scientific opinion is that global warming is real and that at least in part is caused by humans. Could most scientists be lying or fudging data to get more money for more research? I don't think so. Science and academic journals respect free speech, so any such lies or mistakes, whether deliberate or accidental, would be quickly uncovered and revealed by the peers of people making such erroneous statements. Second, even if we had some reason to wonder about the motives of scientists and others who believe in global warming, that is not a good reason to think that they are wrong: just because someone has a motive to lie, doesn't mean that they are actually lying. In order to prove that the scientific consensus on global warming is wrong, it is necessary to analyse the data to show the mistakes. And I certainly can't do that, so I think the sensible option is to have faith that the current majority opinion of the competent specialists is correct. Of course, they might all be wrong, and scientists often are, but unless we can actually do the analysis at least as well as them, we can't have any good reason to doubt them, unless their free speech was being interfered with.

And that last point is very important. Knowledge always requires free speech. We can be 100% sure that on every topic where there is censorship, that the people whose access to sharing ideas, opinions and information is censored are ignorant. They cannot have knowledge about the topic protected by censorship from free speech. For example, in Soviet Russia, biologists were not allowed to freely publish material about evolution, but were only allowed to publish praise for a false theory by a Russian scientist, Lysenko, for political reasons ("Trofim Lysenko", 2012). The result was that Russian people were largely ignorant of the most important theory underlying biology, so of course all of their opinions on that topic were worthless. Because of the censorship that did not allow any criticism, the frauds, errors and lies could never be corrected. We see exactly the same thing in North Korea today: the press and citizens are not allowed to say anything critical or negative about their weird leaders, so the ordinary people are ignorant and, I guess very sincerely, belief a lot of lies about their leaders, but the censorship means they cannot have any knowledge about those leaders and that their opinions about them must be worthless because their countries strict laws enforce such ignorant and worthless opinions. Violating the right to free speech isn't just immoral, it's seriously irrational.

Thankfully, the academic press in most Western countries zealously guards its freedom to publish without any political interference or forced censorship, even if governments often hate what gets published or when it offends many people. And this free speech is absolutely essential to all honest academic work. And it is also the reason I am now prepared to believe that global warming is both real and to some extent caused by human beings.

__________

References

Black, R. (2012, February 27). Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters. BBC News. Retrieved February 28, 2012 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17143269

Trofim Lysenko. (2012, February 24). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:15, February 28, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trofim_Lysenko&oldid=478595502

Artistic Wealth - Political Poverty

We've all just been studying the painting on page 165 of Quest 2 (Hartmann, 2007), and when I was browsing the BBC News after class yesterday, I saw another story about art; again, it's a painting, this time by Manet.

In "Ashmolean Museum heads campaign to save Manet painting", the writer says that Oxford's Ashmolean Museum is trying to buy a famous portrait by Manet to keep it in England (2012). The descendants of painter John Singer Sargent have already agreed to sell  the painting of Fanny Claus to an unknown person outside of the UK, but the Ashmolean has won a special deal from the British Government, which will not collect the usual tax, to reduce the price by more than £20 million pounds to make it easier for the museum to collect enough to buy the painting for its impressionist collection.

The first thing that I thought was that this painting is, like the one in Quest, in an impressionist style. It might be a bit more detailed, but it's hard to say from such a small copy, and I couldn't quickly find a larger version. But what most caught my attention was the appalling government interference. First, the state imposes an absurdly high tax on the sale of paintings.  Out of a total sale price of more than £28m, the British government would steal more than £20m. How can this interference in private matters of citizens possibly be just?

But worse, after imposing this unjust policy on the sale of art, the state then breaks the law to give special help to a private organization. Now, I think it's very good that the Ashmolean Museum wants to buy the painting for public display, but why should the government be making special conditions to help them do that? It seems to me dishonest and unjust. Some British tax payers probably do want the painting to stay in England, but others likely don't care. Why should those citizens who don't care be forced to help others to buy a very expensive painting? The proper and just way to proceed is for the government to abolish its unjustly high taxes and then let private citizens donate to the museum or not so that those who want the painting to stay in the UK will freely support that, and those who don't care will not be forced to help them.

In fact, I think it's a serious mistake for governments to either ban or support painting and other cultural activities. If some element of culture is important to people, say the traditional Thai dress, then the people will save it, and if they don't care, it should be allowed to die, as many traditional customs in every culture do die. It is unjust for governments to force people to live some way and not to change just because a few old fashioned dinosaurs want to force everyone to live the way they like. The British government should abolish it's absurdly high taxes which harm the art world, and let citizens decide freely for themselves whether they want to support some arts or not, without using tax money. And the Thai government should get rid of the awful Ministry of Culture, which does nothing to help Thai culture, but instead interferes in people's lives to tell them not to dress in a certain way, not to speak in a certain way, or, really silly of the Ministry, not to plank on YouTube because it's against Thai tradition. This reminds me of the related fuss about a couple of recent ONet exam questions, but I'll leave my comments on the Ministry of Education for a later post.

I almost forgot to mention that I like both paintings, but I don't think I'll ever be able to afford either. I don't know which is the more expensive, but my personal preference is for the Manet, although I'm pretty sure the painting on page 165 of Quest is the more famous. Both artists are also very famous, but again, I think the painter of the Quest image probably wins over Manet.

__________

References

Ashmolean Museum heads campaign to save Manet painting. (2012, February 25). BBC News. Retrieved February 28, 2012 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17156588

Hartmann, P. (2007). Quest 2 Reading and Writing (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Welcome to AEP Reading and Writing 4, Term 2, 2012.

Thank you for registering for the Reading and Writing level 4 class in AUA's Academic English Program (AEP).

Over the next six weeks we will be working through two or three chapters in Hartmann's Quest 2 Reading and Writing [Quest] (2007), which is probably already familiar to some of you from level 3 last term. As usual, we will be doing both a a bit more writing than Quest asks for and a bit more reading.

And this being 2011, we will be using the tools that are normal in modern academic institutions: email, the internet and so on; academics and students no longer submit their written work on scraps of paper, and we won't be doing that either.

I hope that you find the class both enjoyable and challenging so that our six weeks together will be productive and pleasant.

And if you ever have any question about anything, please feel welcome to ask us in class, email me, or write it up here on our class blog (Peter, 2011b). 

Have Your Say

I have some overall plans for the term, and more specific class plans for the coming week and for each day, but since we can also be flexible, I have a couple of suggestions for discussion.

The first follow up the two polls: 

• on how many hours students in this class should reasonably expect to do every day outside of class;
  and 
• how we should use our time in class. 

After you cast your vote in the polls, please feel welcome to add a comment below supporting your answer, and if necessary, explaining why your classmates who favour a different number should change their minds. 
You might like to follow up by reading "AEP, Academic English and TOEFL: common threads" (Peter, 2011a), skimming through TOEFL iBT Tips: How to Prepare for the TOEFL iBT (Educational Testing Services, 2008), and then adding another comment or two to share your ideas on what we should and should not do in this class, both in class and out of class.

__________
References
Educational Testing Services. (2008). TOEFL iBT Tips: How to Prepare for the TOEFL iBT. Retrieved February 26, 2012 from http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/TOEFL_Tips.pdf 

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

Peter. (2011a, February). AEP, Academic English and TOEFL: common threads.Class Blog - AEP at AUA.  February 26, 2012  from http://peteraep.blogspot.com/p/aep-academic-english-and-toefl-some.html

Peter. (2011b, February). AEP, Blogging our class. Class Blog - AEP at AUA.  February 26, 2012  from http://peteraep.blogspot.com/p/blogging-our-class.html

The Beast is Growing

As Golding's story unfolds, the character introduced in chapter 2, where it already gobbles up one boy for a snack, becomes increasingly important. In chapter 8, "Gift for the Darkness", which is the second longest chapter in the novel, it finally appears in person and speaks for itself.

What is the last thing that the beast says in this chapter? What does it do in it's speech on page 144? What are the important details here?
As usual, Golding uses the final comment in this chapter to prepare us for his next chapter. In this case, how does the preparation work?

__________

References

Golding, W. & Epstein, E. (1954). Lord of the Flies. New York: Perigee.

What are they looking for?

On page 56, Golding tells us that Simon "looked over his shoulder as Jack had done at the close ways behind him and glanced swiftly round to confirm that he was utterly alone" (Golding & Epstein, 1954).

• Do Jack and Simon have the same feelings and motivations for this similar behaviour, or different? 
• What is each looking for over his shoulder? 

This question arose out of something that came up in one of your essays, and I think it's important enough to discuss. So, what do you think? What can we make of the comparison that Golding makes here between Jack and Simon? 

__________

References

Golding, W. & Epstein, E. (1954). Lord of the Flies. New York: Perigee.

Goodbye Kodak

I think technology is important, and I always make use of advancing devices to make my life convenience. However, technology sometime changes faster than I expect. And it makes me feel a bit surprised when I read this piece of news.

According to Merced in “Eastman Kodak Files for Bankruptcy”, Kodak, the first manufacture of photographic films and paper, has faced the financial problem so severely that it has declared the bankruptcy for a few weeks ago. The company has claimed its state of being bankrupt has resulted from the changing trend of technology, especially the onset of the digital photo. Consequently, since 2004, the company has reported only one year of profit and has been running into the shortage of cash. Kodak has tired to resolve the crisis by using several strategies: asking financial support from Citygroup, which helps operate the company during bankruptcy; downsizing its organization, which reduces spending; seeking to sell its digital image patents. Unfortunately, these efforts shave not yet borne fruits; therefore, on Tuesday two weeks ago, Kodak filed for bankruptcy protection.

Nothing can exist everlasting. No matter how popular it is, one day in the future, that trend must turn old-fashioned. If someone has predicted that Kodak would be in debt crisis fifteen years ago, he would have been viewed as a crazy man. In my hometown at that time, most families liked to possess at least one film camera to talk beautiful photos in ceremonies, such a marriage ceremony, a graduation ceremony, or even a cremation ceremony. Undoubtedly, each event required dozens of films. And taking a family portrait was a fad among my mother’s gang. They would bring their family member, wearing dresses as formal as possible, to a photography parlor and hire a skillful photographer to talk a family image. After waiting for a week, a very big film photo would be filled in an expensive frame and brought back to hang on a wall of their houses at which guests most easily look. My mother’s gang liked to show how warm and successful their families are, so a roll of film was considered a necessary thing in their live. As I have said, no one at that time thought the demand of films would reduce so quickly that the manufacture now becomes broke. 

Of course, in the future, digital pictures will be replaced. What will be a newcomer in the photography society? Is it possible that people will talk a picture by their eyes and collect it in their brain instead of a photo album or facebook?


__________


References
De La Merced, M. (2012, January 19). Eastman Kodak Files for Bankruptcy. The New York Times. Retrieved February 3,2012 from http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/eastman-kodak-files-for-bankruptcy/?scp=2&sq=Kodak&st=cse