Zeitgeist 2010: Year in Review

Julian Assange on the Afghanistan war logs: 'They show the true nature o...

Future of Food.

Below is an educational video from Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. It’s remarkable for making very complex, interconnected issues — i.e., food security, public health, global trade, energy and geography — easily understandable with the subtitles.

Best video ever made for GP.

Ensuring the Future of Food

www.thegptutor.com

Hi All.

Check out www.thegptutor.com Downloads section for files and more.

Leave some feedback, it'll be appreciated.

GOOD: Vampire Energy

GOOD: Oil Addiction

GOOD: Nuclear Weapons

Why isn't the whole world developed

Listen and critique.

Why isn't the whole world developed.mp3

Audio-Why do People believe in Weird Things?

Listen and Critique.

Why people believe in Weird Things.mp3

Model Essay - Does Global Warming Pose A Threat?

Download, read and critique.

Then improve, write and submit.

GP_Model_Essay_3_Does Global Warming Pose a Threat.pdf

Model Essay - Is Ecological Conservation bad?

Download, read and critique.

Then improve, write and submit.

GP_Model_Essay_2_Is ecological conservation bad.pdf

Model Essay - Can Terrorism be Justified?

Download, read and critique.

Then improve, write and submit.

GP_Model_Essay_1_Can Terrorism Be Justified.pdf

Compre Practice

Practice 7

Answer key available on request.

GP_COMPREHENSION PRACTICE 7.pdf

Compre Practice

Practice 6

Answer key available on request.

GP_COMPREHENSION PRACTICE_6.pdf

Working the Application Question. A working template.

Part 1 Topic sentence. (for relevance)	In Passage A/B , lines (x to xx), (writer's name) raised the point that / stated that / asserted that .. (write the writer's point you have chosen to discuss in your own words; you can quote " ---- "). Or According to (writer's name) / Passage A/B, …
Part 2 Your view (to meet the requirements)	In my opinion/ My view on this is that/ I am inclined to think that … (State whether you agree or disagree with the writer and: how far you agree/disagree with the view in sentence 1).   NB: A view can be (in)valid, (un)true, (in)applicable, (ir)relevant, (in) correct, (in)appropriate depending on v/hen and where it is ' said/applied and who said/applied it …
Part 3 Reasons (explanation)	This is because... One reason for this is My justification for this is that ... One evident reason/explanation is ...
Part 4 Evidence (explanation)	For example,... This can be seen in Singapore when... From my observation of Singapore society,... From my own experience, I One evidence of this is ... One evidence I can cite is ... You may cite current evidence or /past evidence as long as it meets the question requirements. If the question require you to discuss the FUTURE, state the current situation and predict from this current situation, what will happen in the future. Use the following: Considering the current situation, a future scenario that can , be projected is ... In light of the present situation, a likely , consequence/ effect/ scenario/ situation is … We can hypothesize that in the future,
Part 5 Evaluation (Opposing View)	Do not disagree/agree totally; i.e. Do not take an extreme stand. : Agree to some extent with the opposite view. State when the opposing view may be right wrong.   On the other hand, ... However, some people may agree/disagree with the writer the view mentioned, in that they think ... Otherwise, a contrasting opinion is that In contrast, it can be said that An alternative opinion is
Part 6 Consolidate (Reasons why your original stand, Use expressions like: you adhere to your own view)	Explain why despite the alternative or opposing view, you still stick by your original stand. Use expressions like:   However, I still hold that (repeat original stand) because it holds greater truth/ we see more evidence of it today/ it is a more likely scenario considering the current situation/ … Despite this, I still think that (repeat original stand) because I maintain my opinion that (repeat original stand) as In my view...

 

THE APPLICATION QUESTION

 

What do examiners look for in an answer? Is, 2s, 3s and 4s.

 

1. A systematic reference to the basic requirements of the question.

 

2. A strong EXPLANATION which demonstrates good understanding of tenns and issues, including elaboration and support through personal insight and appropriate examples.

 

3. A convincing EVALUATION (logical judgements and decisions).

 

4. Good COHERENCE and organisation. (ideas are well-connected)

 

Note: Good answers would also be BALANCED (which can be interpreted in two ways:

a) Both sides of an argument are explored;

b) All parts of the question are given sufficient attention.

 

1. A Template (What a paragraph should look like)
   

 

1. Requirements	a. Main Sentence/ Idea (identified from the passage). b. Your view.
2. Explanation	c. Reasons to support your view. d. Evidence from our count or personal experience.
Balance	e. Looking from another perspective/ Opposing View come (Why' some people might disagree with your view.) f. Reasons and evidence for the opposing view
3. Evaluation	g. Putting it together -reasons why you stick to your original view rather than the opposing view.

 

Toothless Copenhagen Accord

China and the United States have both been blamed for the lackluster contents of the United Nation’s Copenhagen Accord on climate change. While the meeting, which involved 193 nations and 110 heads of state, widely recognized a definition of ‘dangerous climate change’—a global temperature rise of 2C from pre-industrial times—it contained no reference to a legally binding agreement, said the BBC. The United States is blamed for ignoring the critical needs of developing nations and striking a deal behind their back with ‘significant economies’, China, Brazil, India and South Africa. Others blame China for removing key climate change targets from the text which campaigners said would have given the accord ‘teeth’ and even made it legally binding. According to the Guardian, in a late night heads-of-state meeting it was the Chinese delegation who did not want to include industrialized country targets—as high as 80 percent by 2050 for the European Union—even though these had been previously agreed. The peaking year of 2020 for CO2 global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures of 2C, was also taken out upon Chinese demand, as was the maximum global temperature rise of 1.5C, so coveted by developing nations and small island states. One hundred and two nations poor nations represented at the conference called for a 1.5C cap said the Guardian. In its place the text shows that a rise of 2C is not a formal target but a recognized scientific view that the temperature should be held below that figure, said the BBC. The long-term target of a cut in global CO2 emissions of 50 percent by 2050 was also taken out upon Chinese recommendations. It is widely thought that China did not want legally binding targets that would impede its economic development. However China’s announcement prior to Copenhagen of a target of a 40-45 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of the Chinese economy by 2020 shows that regardless of a non-binding treaty, China’s current domestic policy to embrace a low carbon future will not change, said China Review. The Accord also promised $30 billion of aid for development nations over the next year to help deal with the effects of climate change and promises of rich nations jointly mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020.

The final Copenhagen Accord, including all previous amendments and proposed changes are listed on the website of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, http://unfccc.int/2860.php

Exciting world of ISMs

Refresh and update your list of ISMs.

Incorporate it in your writing.

GP_THE EXCITING WORLD OF ISM.pdf

Verbal Aptitude Test

Try out this aptitude test and see how well you score.

GP_Verbal_AptitudeTest.pdf

http://www.box.net/thegptutor

MP3 files motherload.

84 Special Report - Opportunity gently knocks.mp3

Podcasts on Various Issues

No time to read? Listen to these podcasts to come up to speed with some aspects of current affairs.

87 Special Report - From great to good.mp3

Compre Practice

Keep Practicing

GP_Compre_TIME_School Daze.pdf

Compre Practice

Extract from TIME magazine

GP_Compre_TIME_Dining with the Devil.pdf

Compre Practice

Practice Practice Practice

GP_Compre_TIME_Base Instincts.pdf

Economic Indicators of Countries in 2010

valuable information.

COUNTRIES_2010.pdf

Economist Magazine Special Report

The Revolution Within

85 Special Report - The revolution within.mp3

Freakanomics

Read and apply.

StudentFREAKONOMICS.pdf

Applying Critical Thinking

Good overview on effective reading using critical thinking.

GP_APPLYING CRITICAL THINKING TO READING.pdf

Essential Reading#1

All rights reserved by Economist Magazine.

Arab_Special Report_The Economist July 25th - 31th 2009.pdf

GP_Virtual_Self_Study Series#2

Self study for Global Politics

GP_Virtual_Self_Study Series 1

Aging and Society
Examine the changing needs of an aging society.
Will there be enough retirement savings?
Health care? Mobility issues? Insurance?

Self-Study - Compre Papers

Compre Practice 1 - Challenges for Society

Compre Practice 2 - Individual in Society

Compre Practice 3 - Change and Progress

Compre Practice 4 - Global Society and Politics

Please practice this in a group. Discuss, collaborate and learn.

Self-Study - Learning Inference from History

Here is a first of hopefully many self-study series for GP students.

Learning inference is not easy, but hopefully this lesson on

Learning Inference from History

will place things in perspective.

Download - work on it and comment for any improvements.

Haiti in Asia

The lessons of Haiti apply to Asia as well. We have several earthquake faults close to several important cities. Japan aside, Istanbul and Mandalay are very close to fault lines. One fault line that has not been broken; Naypyidaw, Myanmar's new capital (I personally prefer the name Burma) straddles a section of the Saigiang fault. Padang is just 40 kilometers from the Sumatran fault line. Wellington has a fault line running through it, and so does Manila.

Unless we embrace a new man-Nature paradigm, we are in for an endless litany of what happened in Haiti.

It will NOT get cooler

The Copenhagen global warming conference involved 193 nations getting together to discuss the threat that global warming poses to our planet and what can be done about it. The goal was to create a global agreement that extended and expanded the Kyoto Protocol so that a global organization could influence and monitor all nations' efforts to reduce their CO2 emissions.

Global warming believers did not get their way, either in extending the Kyoto agreement or in forming any global organization to tell all of the world's people how to lead their lives. But developing nations did get something:

• A promise of support for $30 billion over the first three years and a goal of growing it to $100 billion annually by 2020.
• The developing nations saw climate change as an enormous financial bonanza if, under the banner of the environment, they could get wealthy nations to transfer wealth to them.
• The wealthy nations of course saw this as a trap: Why would they want to depress their economic growth by giving money to developing nations?
• The truth of the Copenhagen agreement is that developing countries want cash from other countries with few strings attached.

So the final Copenhagen deal did not establish greenhouse gas emission targets or specifically address how nations must limit temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, but it did agree that CO2 emissions could be measured, reported and verified by . . . well, someone. That, in China's terms, means "developed countries must take the lead" in making emission cuts and providing financial and technical support for developing countries.

In truth, the world dodged a bullet in Copenhagen. There could have been significant damage to many nations' economies if the warming alarmists' full agenda had been adopted. But of course the game has not ended. President Obama, Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency all seem committed to regulating our behavior and consumption under the guise of addressing a crisis that is not a crisis. They will do so in a way that will not meaningfully reduce global temperatures, but will substantially hurt the economies and opportunities of the world's people.

Global warming - does anyone care?

Free Trade in 2010

As the United States dithers, East Asia has moved forward on market liberalization with a vengeance, creating the biggest free trade zones seen in years.

Largely ignored, the arrival of the world's third-biggest free trade area has been formed.

• China and Asia's Tigers -- the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, scrapped 7,000 different tariffs to form a $200 billion open market for about 2 billion consumers, one-third of the world's population.
• Jan. 1 also heralded another ASEAN free-trade pact with mighty India, ending tariffs on 4,000 products staggered through 2016; this deal will expand a $50 billion market for 1.5 billion consumers into something even bigger.
• ASEAN also signed off on free trade with Australia and New Zealand, tacking on another $50 billion market to expand for their 600 million consumers.
• It follows ASEAN's Dec. 1 agreement with Japan, which created a $240 billion market for 670 million.
• In addition, Thailand and South Korea completed the last step of 2007's ASEAN-Korea pact, finalizing expansion of the zone to a $72 billion market for 600 million.

ASEAN's six freest members, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei , even enacted a free-trade deal among themselves on Jan. 1, ending tariffs on goods sold to each other, freeing a $60 billion market for 500 million consumers.

All this points to something major: While the Obama administration has put its energy into trade wars with China, enacting punitive tariffs on steel, tires, nylon, paper, and other goods and has signed no new pacts in 2009, free trade is marching on without the United States

Crime

The recession of 2008-09 has undercut one of the most destructive social theories that came out of the 1960s: the idea that the root cause of crime lies in income inequality and social injustice. As economies started shedding jobs in 2008, criminologists and pundits predicted that crime would shoot up, since poverty, as the "root causes" theory holds, begets criminals. Instead, the opposite happened. Over millions of lost jobs later, crime has plummeted to its lowest level since the early 1960s. The consequences of this drop for how we think about social order are significant, says Heather Mac Donald, a contributing editor at the Manhattan Institute's City Journal.

In late 2008, the New York Times urged President Barack Obama to crank up federal spending on after-school programs, social workers, and summer jobs. "The economic crisis," the paper's editorialists wrote, "has clearly created the conditions for more crime and more gangs -- among hopeless, jobless young men in the inner cities."

Even then crime patterns were defying expectations. And by the end of 2009, the purported association between economic hardship and crime was in shambles, says Mac Donald. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports:

• Homicide dropped 10 percent nationwide in the first six months of 2009.
• Violent crime dropped 4.4 percent and property crime dropped 6.1 percent.
• Car thefts are down nearly 19 percent.

The crime plunge is sharpest in many areas that have been hit the hardest by the housing collapse, says Mac Donald:

• Unemployment in California is 12.3 percent, but homicides in Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Times reported recently, dropped 25 percent over the course of 2009.
• Car thefts there are down nearly 20 percent.

The recession crime free fall continues a trend of declining national crime rates that began in the 1990s, during a very different economy. The causes of that long-term drop are hotly disputed, says Mac Donald:

• An increase in the number of people incarcerated had a large effect on crime in the last decade and continues to affect crime rates today.
• The number of state and federal prisoners grew fivefold between 1977 and 2008, from 300,000 to 1.6 million.

Source: Heather Mac Donald, "A Crime Theory Demolished," Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2010.

Time Flies

My last post was April 30, 2009. Talk about time flying. It was a busy and productive year and I suspect this year will be no different.