Thursday, July 9, 2009
Forum on groups in Nazi Germany : for 3/5
Post your summaries and comments as comments on this topic. Feel free to include links or vids.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Link
If you do any kind of comparison question first find the issue. There will be two large issues, one that both sources agree on and another that they disagree on. Find both. In fact look along the lines of things like causes,effects,extent or degree of impact and perspective. It is usually along those lines.
If you are really lost,then look at what is the overall topic first then ask yourselves this question.
Are they saying the same thing?
Are they saying anything in slightly different ways of making different points on the issue?
Look there first and establish the issues before you proceed. It will help structure your answer.
Also,
Don't forget the linking words such as similarly,also,supports and however,whereas, in contrast, contradicts. Using these words give the examiner the fact that u know and can spot the similarities and differences. NEVER use words like saying about or one says this, the other says that. Be clear and use the linkages.
If you are really lost,then look at what is the overall topic first then ask yourselves this question.
Are they saying the same thing?
Are they saying anything in slightly different ways of making different points on the issue?
Look there first and establish the issues before you proceed. It will help structure your answer.
Also,
Don't forget the linking words such as similarly,also,supports and however,whereas, in contrast, contradicts. Using these words give the examiner the fact that u know and can spot the similarities and differences. NEVER use words like saying about or one says this, the other says that. Be clear and use the linkages.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Civilisation Time Bomb
I was watching History Channel's Digging for the Truth on Ang Kor Wat and found it absolutely fascinating. CAn you imagine that one of the most advanced civilisations to exist actually is three hours away from Singapore?
I visited Ang Kor a couple of years back and now, I'm wishing I watched the documentary first before going. It made a point that any civilisation with large building projects have been to build and move rocks without having a rope beneath it. There are holes in the rocks around the temples and they were used to slot in wooden poles to move the rocks. It is amazing to see that the whole of the main templ was stacked and then carved on the spot. Won't want to be the sculptor that makes a mistake. Furthermore, the rocks all fitted perfectly together because the surfaces were round smooth.
The thing about the civilisation was that it was a victim of its own success. Over planting and deforstation led to the clogging of their intricate water canals and led to limited water supplies in the cities. This let them have less crops, wealth and more vulnerable to enemie's attacks.
Over the weekend, I also went for a climate change conference and it got me thinking about in built destruction mechanisms to civilisations. For example, a reason cited for pollution is consumption and sometimes over consumption and waste production. But consumption is part parcel of the capitalist system. Our markets and societies thrive on needs and buying.It drives prosperity and the economy. If we consumed less, we would generate less wealth and the economy suffers. Hence, there is limited level of reduction of consumption that countries undertake in order to help climate change because all of us want to be wealthy.
Does that mean we are doomed?
One prof mentioned that perphaps we are not meant to halt climate change. We can only slow it down and more importantly perphaps, we are meant to survive it so that the next civilisation can do better. Who knows...........
I visited Ang Kor a couple of years back and now, I'm wishing I watched the documentary first before going. It made a point that any civilisation with large building projects have been to build and move rocks without having a rope beneath it. There are holes in the rocks around the temples and they were used to slot in wooden poles to move the rocks. It is amazing to see that the whole of the main templ was stacked and then carved on the spot. Won't want to be the sculptor that makes a mistake. Furthermore, the rocks all fitted perfectly together because the surfaces were round smooth.
The thing about the civilisation was that it was a victim of its own success. Over planting and deforstation led to the clogging of their intricate water canals and led to limited water supplies in the cities. This let them have less crops, wealth and more vulnerable to enemie's attacks.
Over the weekend, I also went for a climate change conference and it got me thinking about in built destruction mechanisms to civilisations. For example, a reason cited for pollution is consumption and sometimes over consumption and waste production. But consumption is part parcel of the capitalist system. Our markets and societies thrive on needs and buying.It drives prosperity and the economy. If we consumed less, we would generate less wealth and the economy suffers. Hence, there is limited level of reduction of consumption that countries undertake in order to help climate change because all of us want to be wealthy.
Does that mean we are doomed?
One prof mentioned that perphaps we are not meant to halt climate change. We can only slow it down and more importantly perphaps, we are meant to survive it so that the next civilisation can do better. Who knows...........
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Writing SBQ
In SBQ, structuring the writing is as important as writing the answer itself. I've seen answers whose points have been accurate and spot on but because of the phrasing, word choice or sequence of exmplaining, results in an answer that does not make as much of an impact.
For example in a Usefulness type question:
Negative
This source says that Iraq was using a smokescreen to cover their ambitious intentions. They wanted 200 miles of Persian Gulf. It is useful to a great extent in telling me about Saddam Hussein's reasons for war.
When you write something like this, it appears very disjointed and it seems not to be answering the question even though the points are there. Instead, when answering always always use the SEE or PEE style to explain
Positive
This source tells me about Saddam Hussein's reasons for invasion to a great extent. This is because it does state that the Rumaila claims are just "smokescreen" to cover their "ambitious Intentions". This evidence suggests and informs me that Iraq is attacking to gain more selfish and expansionist aims. Furthermore, the source states that Saddam wanted "200 miles of Persian Gulf coat line" suggesting that he is going to invade for land by the coast. These pieces of information do help me understand why he invaded Kuwait.
See the difference? By structuring the answer with Point, Evidence and then explaining the evidence, it answeras the SBQ more completely and helps make the answer clearer.
Please follow this type of PEE structure when tackling other SBQ questions
For example in a Usefulness type question:
Negative
This source says that Iraq was using a smokescreen to cover their ambitious intentions. They wanted 200 miles of Persian Gulf. It is useful to a great extent in telling me about Saddam Hussein's reasons for war.
When you write something like this, it appears very disjointed and it seems not to be answering the question even though the points are there. Instead, when answering always always use the SEE or PEE style to explain
Positive
This source tells me about Saddam Hussein's reasons for invasion to a great extent. This is because it does state that the Rumaila claims are just "smokescreen" to cover their "ambitious Intentions". This evidence suggests and informs me that Iraq is attacking to gain more selfish and expansionist aims. Furthermore, the source states that Saddam wanted "200 miles of Persian Gulf coat line" suggesting that he is going to invade for land by the coast. These pieces of information do help me understand why he invaded Kuwait.
See the difference? By structuring the answer with Point, Evidence and then explaining the evidence, it answeras the SBQ more completely and helps make the answer clearer.
Please follow this type of PEE structure when tackling other SBQ questions
Friday, January 23, 2009
Baby Gloom
By now , people should be aware that Singapore has a rapidly aging population. This Will lead to more money need to be spent on health care services and more importantly initiatives to keep seniors active and contributing to society. But why in the first place do we have a baby problem.
The problem lies in perhaps in my generation and people like me. I mean some people want to have families but it is a quite expensive to bring up a kid in Singapore. The cost of education is also quite high. But I would like to argue that it goes way beyond money. Of course the government has alot of monetary incentives for people to have children but that alone is never enough.
I think about myself and my friends and how tired we all seem to be when we meet up. Its like the pace of work in Singapore is very fast. We work hard and we work really long hours. I try to imagine what it would be like to go home after work and despite all the fatigue from work, still have to spend time nurturing a child, and I realise it is something that is really really hard to do.
The government does encourage a work life balance but at the end of the day, it is up to employers to put schemes in place to help their employees spend more time with their families.
Then there is the nature of our competitive education system and country in general, Everything is like a giant rat race from the moment a child enters school. In fact the whole country seems to be in a race, to get on the bus, the train to get to the food. We are not a friendly and gracious society and it sometimes feels as if everyone is only out for him or herself. Would anyone want to bring a child up in such a selfish society? What would the child learn from the adults around him?
Complain when you're unhappy, rush for seats, push people aside on the train, hesitate to help others. It is quite a bleak picture when I think about it.
And our transport system is so family unfriendly. I can sometimes barely get on the train and I can't imagine what mothers with strollers feel like.
Can this country become truly, a conducive place to bring up and nurture a child like? OF course! But that takes time. It takes society to be more kind, for parents to spend more time nurturing their children to be respectful and well-mannered, for employers to understand. But will it happen? probably not. Although the government will try their best, they are fighting a losing battle and society has to shift first before we become a great place to raise a child. And that, is the most difficult thing to achieve.
The problem lies in perhaps in my generation and people like me. I mean some people want to have families but it is a quite expensive to bring up a kid in Singapore. The cost of education is also quite high. But I would like to argue that it goes way beyond money. Of course the government has alot of monetary incentives for people to have children but that alone is never enough.
I think about myself and my friends and how tired we all seem to be when we meet up. Its like the pace of work in Singapore is very fast. We work hard and we work really long hours. I try to imagine what it would be like to go home after work and despite all the fatigue from work, still have to spend time nurturing a child, and I realise it is something that is really really hard to do.
The government does encourage a work life balance but at the end of the day, it is up to employers to put schemes in place to help their employees spend more time with their families.
Then there is the nature of our competitive education system and country in general, Everything is like a giant rat race from the moment a child enters school. In fact the whole country seems to be in a race, to get on the bus, the train to get to the food. We are not a friendly and gracious society and it sometimes feels as if everyone is only out for him or herself. Would anyone want to bring a child up in such a selfish society? What would the child learn from the adults around him?
Complain when you're unhappy, rush for seats, push people aside on the train, hesitate to help others. It is quite a bleak picture when I think about it.
And our transport system is so family unfriendly. I can sometimes barely get on the train and I can't imagine what mothers with strollers feel like.
Can this country become truly, a conducive place to bring up and nurture a child like? OF course! But that takes time. It takes society to be more kind, for parents to spend more time nurturing their children to be respectful and well-mannered, for employers to understand. But will it happen? probably not. Although the government will try their best, they are fighting a losing battle and society has to shift first before we become a great place to raise a child. And that, is the most difficult thing to achieve.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Blame Game
Who stole the cookie from the cookie jar......
If one cookie goes missing then can there only be one culprit? Its never really just one who...unless its cookie monster. HE definately stole the cookies. But maybe he had friends, maybe, Some others want the cookie to be stolen. Who made cookie monster, a MONSTER in the first place? So are the monster makers the one that stole the cookies?
Blaming someone for something is never easy and trust me on this words can make all the difference. For example: Who was to blame for the Cuban Missile Crisis
Best answer: almost everyone involved had a part to play.
The trick is to be able to classify and make clear if the blame could fall more heavily on one or two parties. adjectives can make all the difference in an explanation words like:
Aggressive action, Provoke, Instigate, inaction, irk, irritate, anger
Explaining the blame is a tricky business. It is very easy to fall into the trap of describing what happened instead. Be clear and take about the nature of the blame and only about one party at a time. Here's an example of how it can go.
At the end of the day, both America and and USSR were responsible for the crisis where it seemed as if both might go to war. This is because both took deliberate and provacative action that made the other worry and fear for his country's safety. America is to blame for setting the stage that could allow the crisis to take place in the first place. By planning the bay of pigs incident where they tried to invade Cuba and by putting missiles that can reach moscow in turkey in 1959, it made both Cuba and Russia fearful and wary of them and more likely to take counter measures to off set their threat. Russia was at perphaps less at fault as their provocative action of putting missiles on Cuba was in defense of a communist state, Cuba. However, their Krushchev's defiant and attitude towards Kennedy's demands for their removal and the very act of putting the missiles there would provoke the USA to feel threatened and react to put in place aggressive measure like a naval blockade to protect themselves. At the end, it is the tensions, paranoid fear of the arms threat caused by both countries in this cold war that resulted in the crisis. If they had to try to diffuse tensions earlier and found a way to communicate, this entire affair could have been prevented.
Hope this helped
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Potsdam conference
I was actually wrong about the Potsdam Conference and the view of Stalin during it. It is an opinion that he didn't trust the USA already because of the atomic bomb that they only told him on the spot but had been developing for years. He knew about it from his spies but he didn't betray anything... Got this from the Manhattan project website:
"Truman approached Stalin without an interpreter and, as casually as he could, told him that the United States had a "new weapon of unusual destructive force." Stalin showed little interest, replying only that he hoped the United States would make "good use of it against the Japanese." The reason for Stalin's composure became clear later: Soviet intelligence had been receiving information about the atomic bomb program since fall 1941. "
The Manhattan Project is the name they gave to the research and development of the atomic bomb. This website is worth to check out: http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/potsdam_decision.htm
It has detailed stuff about what was happening just before the dropping of the bombs. Cool sources too!
Many people have pointed to Potsdam as the start of the Cold War. Yalta in 1945 was where they set the tone for the future of Europe and Russia agreed to war against Japan but it was at Potsdam when these discussions continued that fissures emerged. Truman was more suspicious then Roosevelt and things they clashed with Russia was the future of Poland and the eastern European states as well as how to treat Germany. Russia wen on to instill communist leaders in Russia hence gaining distrust over their true intentions.
I think that Russia did want to spread their influence but also did so to ensure a buffer and allies in the face of America aggressively recruiting allies through the Marshall Plan, Nato and other schemes. The way America acted, it seemed they openly distrusted Russia and was building might against them. Russia acted like wise. Hence : The Cold War.
Oh and there's an interesting and great comic out there called The WatchMen. Must read if you can get your hands on it.
"Truman approached Stalin without an interpreter and, as casually as he could, told him that the United States had a "new weapon of unusual destructive force." Stalin showed little interest, replying only that he hoped the United States would make "good use of it against the Japanese." The reason for Stalin's composure became clear later: Soviet intelligence had been receiving information about the atomic bomb program since fall 1941. "
The Manhattan Project is the name they gave to the research and development of the atomic bomb. This website is worth to check out: http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/potsdam_decision.htm
It has detailed stuff about what was happening just before the dropping of the bombs. Cool sources too!
Many people have pointed to Potsdam as the start of the Cold War. Yalta in 1945 was where they set the tone for the future of Europe and Russia agreed to war against Japan but it was at Potsdam when these discussions continued that fissures emerged. Truman was more suspicious then Roosevelt and things they clashed with Russia was the future of Poland and the eastern European states as well as how to treat Germany. Russia wen on to instill communist leaders in Russia hence gaining distrust over their true intentions.
I think that Russia did want to spread their influence but also did so to ensure a buffer and allies in the face of America aggressively recruiting allies through the Marshall Plan, Nato and other schemes. The way America acted, it seemed they openly distrusted Russia and was building might against them. Russia acted like wise. Hence : The Cold War.
Oh and there's an interesting and great comic out there called The WatchMen. Must read if you can get your hands on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
