Categories
Environment Liberty Science & technology

[844] Of major evidence against global warming is down

Previously, skeptics of global warming pointed to a study that showed Antarctica is cooling down as a proof that global warming is a hoax . They asked, if the Earth is really warming up, then why Antarctica is cooling down?

That’s a legit concern and throughout my experience, that question was one of the hardest points to counter. I had never managed to rise up above that. Until today, that is.

In the New York Times today, the lead author of the study comes up and put this concern to rest:

Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?

Global warming is real. The connection between the warming and human activities is real. The threat is real.

And yeah, just like the Brown’s Da Vinci Code, Crichton’s State of Fear is a work of fiction. If you really want to find out about global warming, you should read academic papers, not fiction.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s – erosion of free speech in apparent in Malaysia. With the Prime Minister’s “advice” to stop discussion concerning freedom of religion and a government plan to gag free speech on the internet, I’d like to take back my opinion that under Badawi administration, there’s more freedom.

That’s bull. Completely bull.

The Badawi administration is starting to look like the previous one.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

pp/s – I was browsing an article on the Constitution of Malaysia and this. Does Zaid Ibrahim edit Wikipedia?

Categories
Liberty

[840] Of critique of opposition to free will II

See also [839] Of critique of opposition to free will.

Imagine slaves and a master. The master owns the slaves and the slaves have no hope of gaining freedom. The slaves are traded like common chickens at a typical wet market; many are bought into the lowest class while many others are born into it. Suffice to say, the slaves are properties of the master, just like cattle to ranchers.

The relationship between the slaves and the master is essentially a bond; a contract. A slave and the master agree to come into a bond and take their appropriate roles willingly, given rational possibilities. Any breach of bond will bring in repercussion. Perhaps death is the best incentive to discourage any side from breaking away from the contract.

Regardless, the presence of free will alone makes the relationship between the master and the slave palatable; however despicable slavery is, no matter how disproportionate the punishment is .

What’s not palatable is when a person enters a bond without him knowing it. One of such instances is being born into slavery. For a newborn, how is it possible to the newborn to enter a slave-master relationship without knowing it?

In this case, the newborn isn’t given a chance to choose. It seems that the fate of the newborn has been predetermined and is doomed to be a slave all his life. As he grows up, he is bounded by an agreement that he didn’t choose to get into in the first place. How is that fair?

He isn’t free to determine his own path. He’s a prisoner. He’s a slave. He’s a victim of an unfair arrangement; an arrangement that he had no say. How is that fair?

Categories
Liberty

[839] Of critique of opposition to free will

See also [840] Of critique of opposition to free will II.

Imagine there are countless of clubs out there. Let’s make it simple and say that these clubs are soccer clubs. Many players are born into it while many others choose to join in through free will . And it was all happy and well until one day, somebody from one club decides that he doesn’t believe in that one club anymore. He wants to move on and join another club. He was born into the club but it doesn’t matter if he was born into it or joined it by free will because all he wants to do now is to leave his current club. So, he comes up to the club management and say, “I want to move on. I want to leave.”

Unfortunately, his the management doesn’t allow him to leave. The club has a policy that states a person may join but the person can never leave. If a person leaves the club, then the person is punishable by death. So, his club tells him, “You will die if you leave”, says the club.

For leaving a soccer club, death sounds extremely harsh but hey, Andres Escobar was shot because he scored an own goal in 1994 World Cup. He died. So, maybe it isn’t too outlandish after all.

Anyway, he gave it a second thought and said, “Maybe this isn’t worth it. I don’t want to die.”

So, he stays. Unwillingly.

Previously, he had been performing well for the top. He was the top scorers and the most precious player within the team. He was even called to the national squad for his performance. After being prevented to leave however, his performance started to plummet. He doesn’t give his best anymore for team. He doesn’t love the team and so, why should he work for the team?

He has even lost his spot in the national team and is sliding into oblivion.

The motivation is lost. He hates the club and he wants to leave but he can’t. Why should he fights for the club that he no longer believes in?

No later, he even loses his spot in the top eleven. In the end, both the player and the club make losses. It would have been beneficial for both sides if the player had left. The club didn’t have to pay him and the player would continue to grow.

Yet, the club won’t let him go and continue to make a loss.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Politics & government

[836] Of catch-22 and democracy in the Mideast

I’m extremely disappointed with the US support for Israel in the current crisis in Lebanon though such support is expected . My disappointment originates from the Bush administration penchant to talk about democracy in the Mideast while their actions substantially differ from their words.

In the previous Palestinian election, Hamas won fair and square but the United States and Israel – and even the European Union – refused to accept the decision of the Palestinians. In the US and Israel’s mind, democracy is only democracy if the winner is the one favorable to them. We know however that that is not democracy but rather, hypocrisy instead.

In Lebanon, while the country is trying to build a working democracy, there comes Israel to wreck everything into pieces. How do we expect a fledging nation that just got out of a civil war to build a working democracy while its neighbor illegally exercises military might on Lebanese soil?

The situation is even more hypocritical considering how the US acted during the Rafik Hariri case. When the initial clues implicated Syria, the US was fast to criticize Syria and sided with Lebanon, citing democracy was under threat. However, when Israel clearly violated Lebanese ground, the US lends support to Israel instead, citing Israel has a right to exist while in fact, it’s Lebanon that is being threatened, not the former. Israel is threatening Lebanon’s right to security and thus, Israel is threatening a “startup” democracy. It’s awfully clear that the US is uninterested in nurturing democratic principles in the Middle East.

In the end, the situation in the Mideast is a catch-22 scenario. The US keeps pounding on its chest, yelling the only way is democracy but at the same time, it prevents democracy from prevailing. Every time a country in the Middle East makes progress in democracy, here comes the US and Israel to undo it.

If this illegal Israeli incursion into Lebanon does not stop soon, pure nationalistic thoughts will appeal to the oppressed masses. This might lead to fascism later, especially so when natural democratic progresses – not forced democracy as the one in Iraq – are being curtailed. This Israeli actions and US support will only encourage nominally democratic nations in the Mideast to regress back to autocracy.

If the regression to autocracy does occur, then Israel could declare to the world that it’s the only democracy in the region. Israel will of course ignore the fact that it contributed to containment of democratic thoughts and progresses in the Mideast in the first place.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s – in the New York Times today:

Is this the price we pay for aspiring to build our democratic institutions?

Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora.

Categories
Liberty Photography Travels

[834] Of snail race in Bangkok

Within Southeast Asia, I get the feeling that Bangkok, Jakarta and Manila have notorious traffic congestion. I know Kuala Lumpur experiences very bad jams during rush hours despite the fact that compared to the three regional giants, Kuala Lumpur has only about two million people living in the city proper; approximately four million within metropolitan area. Well, just last week, I had the opportunity to compare Bangkok with Kuala Lumpur and all other cities that I’ve been to . If you think Kuala Lumpur has terrible traffic jams, wait till you see how it is like in Bangkok, the city of more than eight million (as of 1990):

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

I saw this between Skytrain stations at Siam and the National Stadium. Be mindful that this was not taken during rush hour.

One of the many things why I like Bangkok is the fact that they have seemingly extensive elevated walkways for pedestarians, at least around the city center. Those utilizing the walkways are partially protected from the elements and that makes the city a little bit more pedestarians-friendly compared to Kuala Lumpur:

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

But then, Bangkok has limited real sidewalks unlike Kuala Lumpur. And no thanks to Bangkok’s traffic, crossing the road amounts to suicide, especially for first timers like me.

Given the congestion, if there were a race between a driver trapped in Bangkok and this one snail…

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

…I’d bet the snail would win. Unless of course if the snail got distracted by angels.

The snail was seen wandering at the steps of Golden Mount, a huge temple on top of an artificial hill constructed in the 19th century.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s – Some liberty-conscious people will attend a court case here in Kuala Lumpur:

*No to Moral Policing : Call for Support*

The All Women’s Action Society (AWAM) calls for a show of support from NGOs and concerned individuals for the hearing of the “moral policing” case concerning Ooi Kean Thong and Siow Ai Wei, who will face charges of indecent behaviour for holding hands at KLCC Park. Please attend the hearing — details are as below:

*Date*: Tuesday and Wednesday, 18-19 July 2006
*Time*: 9:00am
*Venue*: Kuala Lumpur Municipal Court

Background

This case first came to media attention in 2003 when Ooi Kean Thong and Siow Ai Wei were issued a summons by two City Hall assistant enforcement officers for alleged “indecent behaviour” – kissing and hugging – at KLCC Park. Ooi and Siow both alleged that they were given a summons because they refused to bribe the officers, and maintained they were only holding hands. The officers concerned pleaded not guilty to corruption charges in the Sessions Court in January 2005 and their case is pending.

In April 2006, the Federal Court ruled that local authorities had the power to enact by-laws to prosecute anyone for “disorderly behaviour” in public; and that Section 8 (1) of the Park By-Laws, the section invoked by the Datuk Bandar to punish persons caught behaving indecently in public, was constitutional.

Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim then made comments as to whether kissing and hugging were “acceptable to Malaysian citizens” and conformed to the “to the morality of the Asian people”, for which he was much criticised. However, the Federal Court itself “did not make any finding of fact on the merit or the demerit of the allegations”, as asserted by Justice Richard Malanjum, only on the validity of Section 8 (1) of the Park By-Laws.

Ooi Kean Thong and Siow Ai Wei will now have to defend themselves against charges of “indecent behaviour” at the KL Municipal Court. Both have pleaded not guilty.

I wish I could be there to lend moral support.