Commentary 2 for Blog Submission 3: Term 3

Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=466775&in_page_id=1879

Commentary on Article:
Live Earth---- Eco-Friendly or Environmental Disaster? Even though Live Earth is over now, but the controversy continues. Did the Live Earth concert really make a difference in saving the environment, or was it just one big hype for nothing? Can carbon-offsetting really be used as an excuse for holding a global concert that will surely amount to lots of carbon emissions, burning of fossil fuels and the enormous amount of trash produced? What about the electricity that will be used when millions of people all over the world watch the live telecast of this 24-hour event? How will Al Gore, and the producers account for that? My opinion is that this whole concert is not actually helping the environment at all, it's actually ruining it. How so? Well, even though I know that millions of people will watch it, but who will actually care more about the environment through this series of concerts? I, for one, will not. Most people will just watch the concerts because of their favourite artistes and celebrities, but will then forget all about the real purpose of these concerts. Who will remember to conserve electricity after all the entertaining performances on stage? In my opinion, Live Earth will achieve as much hype as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", but it will not actually motivate people to act. Also, another important issue the article has raised is the topic of carbon-offsetting. Do planting of trees make carbon emissions acceptable? Basically, the Live Earth planning committee's justification for emitting 74,500 tonnes of carbon and generating 1025 tonnes of trash is that they are funding a reforestation project? These are two different issues, Al Gore, you can't just lump them together such that they cancel each other out! I personally think that this is a very weak excuse and it's just a way of shifting the blame away from them. If carbon-offsetting is allowed, then what about electricity-offsetting? Trash-offsetting? These are huge factors involved in this concert, and I worry that the damage done to the environment through this concert is more than the awareness raised about the environment. Also, isn't this whole concert a bit ironic in the sense that they are inviting artistes that are not environmentally friendly themselves? The private jets these artistes travel in EVERY DAY burn up so much fossil fuel already. Shouldn't these singers set a role model for their fans to follow? Why are they not even trying to conserve on fossil fuel by travelling commercially? At least the Arctic Monkeys have the guts to say that they do not save the environment, thus they will not be playing for the concert, but the other artistes? Do they have a right to sing on that stage, promoting environmental awareness?

In conclusion, this whole concert should be labelled a fiasco, and a hypercritical act by Al Gore. Unless he finds a way to answer those questions above, I'd rather support NTUC's policy to deduct 10 cents off for every plastic bag unused. At least I know it actually helps.

Word Count: 507 words

Commentary 1 for Blog Submission 3: Term 3

Article: http://www.iwpr.net/?p=arr&s=f&o=337991&apc_state=henh

Commentary on Article:
Is the Taleban bad, or just misunderstood? This article has provided a fresh perspective on a very controversial issue--- mainly, the Taleban's strict regime. From this article, we can see that after the Taleban had captured Musa Qala, their regime had changed quite a bit. For example, the citizens were allowed to watch television or listen to music. They were allowed to shave their beards. Children are given adequate education. Does this imply that the Taleban is a better government than the current one? Not necessary. Firstly, the article has failed to address whether these changes were out of respect for the government, or fear. The Taleban has garnered some notoriety after their previous brutal regime and especially holding 23 South Koreans hostage. Were these people obeying the Taleban out of fear? As quoted from the article, "People give them food, and other kinds of help, not because they are forced to but because they don’t want to upset the Taleban", and we are left wondering whether this softer regime is actually a strategy to garner more support for their regime. The article has failed to elaborate on these points and only briefly talk about these loopholes in their regime. Also, this new regime may not have brought much change at all. An example would be the Taleban law. If a person steals, his hand is cut off. Even though education is encouraged, girls are still not allowed to go to school. Many schools are burnt, and no repairs have been made thus far. The curriculum is kept on a tight leash, and even though the Taleban claims that there is freedom in religion, "we like schools that teach ‘A is for Allah". Whatever happened to "A is for apple"? Furthermore, the government is allowing poppy growth, such that opium can be produced? Are drugs supposed to be produced? Is it right for drugs to be produced?

We cannot deny that there are major changes in the regime, and some are actually quite positive, but we must also look at both sides of the coin. What is the purpose of this change of regime? Is there a motive? Are people actually happy after this change? There are conflicting statements from both the citizens and the Taleban officials. The officials claim that the citizens are happy with the regime, yet a resident says that "Who knows how much they have changed? We can’t watch television, we can’t watch the news, and there are other restrictions that upset us." Who is right in the end? These are the important questions that are still waiting to be answered.

In conclusion, the whole issue is very controversial, and there are many points of view to the whole topic, but the thing we know for sure is that this regime definitely has a huge impact, whether positive or negative, on Musa Qala.

Word Count: 477 words