Is it acceptable to publish images of the Muslim prophet Muhammad?

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship.


Danish Muslim organizations, who objected to the depictions, responded by holding public protests attempting to raise awareness of Jyllands-Posten's publication. The controversy deepened when further examples of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries.

This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in more than 100 deaths, altogether), including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza City. While a number of Muslim leaders called for protesters to remain peaceful, other Muslim leaders across the globe, including Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas, issued death threats. Various groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II.

The debate surrounding this controversy is oriented around a number of questions. Were these 12 cartoons Xenophic, Islamophobic, or racists in intent? Were they blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith and intended to humiliate and harm a Danish minority? If so, does this make them illegal in Danish law and elsewhere in the world? Were the cartoons an appropriate exercise in free speech? Are such exercises worth it even if they are costly to trust between groups and in terms of lives? What is the value of free speech? Have these cartoons stimulated an important and valuable debate and dialogue about the relationship between Islam and the West, and particularly Muslim minorities living in the West? Has it increased understanding and tolerance, or has it decreased it? Is criticism of the cartoons based on a double standard? Are similarly denigrating cartoons made about the Christian, Jewish, and other faiths, making it unfair for Muslims to complain? Should Muslims or any group be offered distinct and unique protections under the law that help combat the specific vulnerabilities of a group.


See Wikipedia: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for more background.

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.

RoZSsA said

Contra:

Jyllands-posten bitch, Fuck you.....###

sent on: 2008 Juli 30 06:07

Should we have baby hatch?

A baby hatch is a place where mothers can bring their babies, usually newborn, and leave them anonymously in a safe place to be found and cared for. This kind of arrangement was common in mediaeval times and in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the device was known as a foundling wheel. Foundling wheels were taken out of use in the late 1800s but a modern form, the baby hatch, began to be introduced again from 1952and since 2000 has come into use in many countries, notably in Germany where there are around 80 hatches and in Pakistan where there are over 300 today.

The hatches are usually in hospitals or social centres and consist of a door or flap in an outside wall which opens to reveal a soft bed, heated or at least insulated. Sensors in the bed alert carers when a baby has been put in it so that they can come and take care of the child. In Germany, babies are first cared for for eight weeks during which the mother can return and claim her child without any legal repercussions. If this does not happen, after eight weeks the child is put up for adoption.

Reasons for using baby hatches
One reason many babies were abandoned in the past was that they were born out of wedlock. Today, baby hatches are intended to be used by mothers who are unable to cope with looking after their own child and do not wish to divulge their identity. In some countries, such as Germany, it is not legal for mothers to give birth anonymously in a hospital, and the baby hatch is the only way they can safely and secretly leave their child to be cared for by others. In India and Pakistan[1], the purpose of baby hatches is mainly to provide an alternative to female foeticide, which occurs due to the high cost of dowries.

Legal aspects
Some legal problems with baby hatches are connected to children's right to know their own identity, as guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child's Article 8. Baby hatches also deprive the father of his right to find out what has happened to his child.


Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.

We shouldn't let Oscar Pistorius Join Olympic

Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius (born 22 November 1986) is a South African Paralympic runner. Known as the "Blade Runner" and "the fastest man on no legs", Pistorius is the double amputee world record holder in the 100, 200 and 400 metres events and runs with the aid of Cheetah Flex-Foot carbon fibre transtibial artificial limbs by Ossur. In 2007 Pistorius took part in his first international able-bodied competitions. However, his artificial lower legs, while enabling him to compete, generated claims that he has an unfair advantage over able-bodied runners. The same year, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) amended its competition rules to ban the use of "any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides a user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device". It claimed that the amendment was not specifically aimed at Pistorius. After monitoring his track performances and carrying out tests, scientists took the view that Pistorius enjoyed considerable advantages over athletes without prosthetic limbs. On the strength of these findings, on 14 January 2008 the IAAF ruled him ineligible for competitions conducted under its rules, including the 2008 Summer Olympics. This decision was reversed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 16 May 2008, the Court ruling that the IAAF had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that Pistorius's prostheses give him an advantage over able-bodied athletes.

Although eligible to compete in the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, Pistorius did not qualify for the South African team. Despite achieving third place and a personal best time of 46.25 seconds in the 400 metres in Lucerne, Switzerland, on 16 July 2008, this was short of the Olympic qualification time of 45.55 seconds. He was also not selected by the South African Olympic Committee for the 4 x 400 metres relay team as there were four other runners who had achieved better times.

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.



JoVie said
Not clear (pro or con):

keren abisss...
(translation: totally awesome...)
sent on: 2008 Juni 22 02:19


RoZSsA said
Pro:

Go...go..go..Oscar...always run...

sent on: 2008 Juli 27 21:33

IRAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran's intentions are peaceful

Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction, and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them, including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Over 100,000 Iranian troops and civilians were victims to chemical weapons during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War. On ideological grounds, a public and categorical religious decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons has been issued by the leader of the Islamic Republic.

The November 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judged that Iran halted an active nuclear weapons program in fall 2003 and that it remained halted as of mid-2007. The estimate further judged that US intelligence did not know whether Iran intended "to develop nuclear weapons," but that "Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame" if it chose to do so. Iran states its nuclear program is peaceful. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said he has seen no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has stated that he has seen "maybe some studies about possible weaponization", but "no evidence" of "nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon" or "an active weaponization program" as of October 2007.

After the IAEA reported Iran's non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement, the UN Security Council demanded that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities, and imposed sanctions against Iran three times when Iran refused to do so.Iran's representative to the UN argued that Iran categorically rejected the development of nuclear weapons and that the sanctions compelled Iran to abandon its rights under the NPT to peaceful nuclear technology. The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, but not the absence of undeclared activities, and has reached an agreement with Iran on the timeline for resolution of all the remaining verification issues specified in an August 2007 workplan.The Non-Aligned Movement has called on both sides to work through the IAEA for a solution.

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.



Boim Lebon said
PRO:

why not, every country justifiably float this technology, with this technology note is for kindness and peace. .

sent on: 2008 Juni 8 10:01



treen said
PRO:

nuclear for peace...

sent on: 2008 Juni 23 17:36

WE SHOULD BETTER BE PREPARED FOR GLOBAL COOLING THAN GLOBAL WARMING

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.


Should we be prepared for global cooling instead for global warming?



Boim Lebon said
Not clear (pro or Con):

"WE SHOULD BETTER BE PREPARED FOR GLOBAL COOLING THAN GLOBAL WARMING" .both ot them must we are anticipation early on, because this matter concerns human life future
sent on: 2008 Juni 8 10:04

WE SHOULD LEAVE MYANMAR ALONE

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.

Should we do something or just leave them alone?

The War in Iraq has made U.S saver

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.



Has Iraq War made U.S saver?


Ngupil itu Indah said
Pro:

Yes, the intense attacks on some cities in all corner of Iraq and the intense chasing of some terrorist groups that hiding or involving themselves to do jihad in Iraq will surely make these terrorist groups busy and do not have time to plan or conduct any attack to U.S soil. They will exhaust all of the resource that they have just to survive from the attack and the chasing itself.
Meanwhile U.S soldier doing their job out there, U.S government also launching some security regulations to ensure the national security of U.S, a security regulations that even most of visitor (businessman, students, or tourists) from other countries (that want to visit U.S) found as something that very irritating and intimidating (it even makes most of them canceling their visit to U.S). Even though it is so, yet, so far it is perfectly succeeded in ensuring the security of U.S citizen from any other attacks from outside or from inside (by infiltrating U.S security system).
So yes, the War in Iraq, even though exhaust many of U.S resource (like military equipment expenses, soldiers dead, financial budget) but it has made the national security in U.S saver now.
sent on: 2008 Mei 26 23:34

Putri Ayu Islamiati said
Contra:

You've gotta be kidding me. From the very first place, the reason of Bush Gov to attack Iraq which is to find weapon of mass destruction development in Iraq has had proven wrong. There's no such weapon development found in Iraq.

Second. Bush Gov said that the other reason is because Iraq had been being the sponsor of terrorism and by destroying Saddam gov, Bush gov expects to stop or at least reduce the sponsor activity on terrorism. and this reason also has proven to be wrong also. because the Saddam gov never supplied weapon to terrorist organizations,Saddam Gov just show its moral support for every organization or nation that proclaiming a war against U.S. And as we can see that until now, with or without Saddam gov support anymore,terrorist organizations still exist and quietly preparing themselves for the next attack on nation that only God know (one thing for sure it is must either Israel,U.S,Australia,or Europe). So until now,U.S soil is not save yet.

Third. Everybody knows that Bush's hidden motive is actually Iraq's oil which ironically can not help much U.S economical problem on the raising of oil's price (well it is actually all non oil exporter nations' problem)and not to try to make U.S saver

Fourth.Every jihadists will keep continue coming to Iraq as long as U.S army is still there while at the same time trying to figure out the weakness of U.S security system, so that in the future they can conduct an attack to U.S sil again.U.S existence in the middle east is just like their hatred motivator to make U.S as their jihad target. so you see here, the loger U.S army occupied Iraq, the more middle eastern motivated to make U.S soil as their target,if not now,maybe in the future.

so basically saying, the war in Iraq has never made U.S saver. It will make U.S soil as target for current jihadist or little children that could be future jihadist
sent on: 2008 Juni 6 06:07


Boim Lebon said
Contra:

actually what got us in action iraq? ? ? there is no follow me, us only get negative opinion from the wisdom for iraq invasion. try us see, what thousands civil member that be this war victim, then siapakah suitable imputed? ? ? we certain can answer it. . . try to conceive when somebody foreign steps into our house, and mess up our house. . . what shall we do. . . certain it we angry not? ? ?

sent on: 2008 Juni 8 10:12

WE SHOULD NOT BLAME GLOBAL WARMING ON HUMAN AND THUS SHOULD NOT DO KYOTO PROTOCOL AGREEMENT FOR IT IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH GLOBAL WARMING

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.



Is this mainly human cause or nature?


Ngupil itu Indah said
Pro:

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ASPECTS:

For all this time we only know that carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas that has been being the major cause of global warming. But do you know that actually there are several kinds of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere other than carbon dioxide, well they are namely; methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), CFC, and water vapor that produced by both human and nature.

Now, do you know that among those greenhouse gasses, the percentage of water vapor that produced by nature in our atmosphere is 95%, meanwhile the percentage of other greenhouse gasses that produced by man and nature is only 5%, it is include carbon dioxide and other gases that produced by man,

now the question is, from that 5%, how big is actually the percentage of greenhouse gasses that originally produced by man?! Well, surprisingly, different to what most people believe for all this time, actually the percentage of greenhouse gasses including carbon dioxide that originally produced by man is only, 0, 28%.

A very small percentage that almost undetectable to the contribution of global warming, it is like adding a grain of salt into the ocean, it is like nothing.

But what make we have bigger percentage of water vapor in our atmosphere today than the percentage of water vapor in the past?
well,based on the website of NASA we found that it is actually the increasing of sunspot activity that heating up the ocean and increasing the percentage of water vapor in our atmosphere.

The other evidence that proof that actually today global warming is caused by nature-in this case is the increasing of sunspot activity-is, even now on several planets like Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, even Pluto, global warming is also happening, it can be seen from the decreasing of ice cap volume on both pole of Mars, the only similarity on the cause of global warming on those planets and earth is only one, it is the sun. All of planets in our solar system are now experiencing global warming, and it is because of the increasing of sunspot activity, not because of human, you can’t say that the cause of the decreasing of ice cap volume on Mars is human, you can’t say that the cause of the increasing temperature on Pluto is also because of human emission, that would be so ridiculous.

The effect of this makes us like sitting in the sauna, where the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere is simultaneously added by the extreme evaporation of ocean water that being heated up by the increasing of sunspot activity. So, it would be very ridiculous if we blame the cause of global warming on human emission which its percentage is very small, only 0, 28% and almost undetectable compared to the water vapor percentage that is very big , 95%.

So once again, global warming is caused by nature, caused by the increasing of sunspot activity that heating up the entire ocean and causing an extreme evaporation and accumulating our atmosphere with water vapor greenhouse gas.

So now do you still think that the implementation of Kyoto protocol which just want to reduce human emission that only 0, 28% is able to make our world colder in the future, the contra side has to proof that by implementing Kyoto protocol that not even try to reduce the 95 % of water vapor could make world temperature colder in the future.

The last thing is the contra side has to proof that Kyoto protocol would able to reduce the main effect of global warming, which is the sun. they have to proof that Kyoto protocol would able to reduce the increasing of sunspot activity that also heating up not just earth but also the entire planets in our solar system today, because the main cause of global warming is the sun. It is what the Kyoto protocol want, isn’t it, to reduce the main cause of global warming?!
sent on: 2008 Mei 25 05:59


Putri Ayu Islamiati said
Contra:

Rebuttal for teguh:
Water vapors do not have a "forcing" effect on climate change like human greenhouse gases:
While water is the most prominent greenhouse gas, it does not have a "forcing" effect on climate change. Because water vapor is actually natural substance in our atmosphere, so it is ridiculous to blame on global warming on water vapor, if we try to reduce water vapor, the cycle of weather on earth will not exist. Because water vapor is the main substance that create weather cycle on our earth, that’s is why we can’t reduce it because we need it, different to carbon dioxide or other human emission.

Solar effects:
Does the sun have no role in global warming or is it small compared to human-causes? Yes, the role of sun is actually very small compared to human cause.
• Sun-spot variation has a "negligible impact" on global climate change:
• "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says". National Geographic. September 13, 2006 - "But sunspot-driven changes to the sun's power are simply too small to account for the climatic changes observed in historical data from the 17th century to the present, research suggests. The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output. "If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate"'...according to Solar astronomer Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc.
• In 2006, Peter Foukal and other researchers from the United States, Germany, and Switzerland found no net increase of solar brightness over the last thousand years. Solar cycles lead to a small increase of 0.07% in brightness over the last 30 years. This effect is far too small to contribute significantly to global warming.
• A paper by Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich found no relation between global warming and solar radiation since 1985.
• National Center for Atmospheric Research (2006-09-14). Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming.
• Warming on mars may not be due to the sun
• Any warming on mars does not prove that the sun is driving Earth's climate change

Natural warming cycle:
Even if we were in a natural warming cycle, the rate of warming currently is many times faster than any rate of warming in the historical record. Even if humans are not actually the "chief" cause of global warming, there is little dispute that we play some role, due to our emissions of greenhouse gases, which contribute to the warming of the globe. As such, the Kyoto Protocol is an important tool in the fight against human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

Are human-greenhouse gas emissions capable of causing global warming? Yes
• Human greenhouse gas emissions have a clear "greenhouse" warming effect: Greenhouse gases are named as such because they have a "greenhouse effect" in the atmosphere, allowing sunlight to enter the earth's atmosphere but trapping a percentage of the radiation that would otherwise be reflected back into space. The trapped radiation emits added heat into the Earth's atmosphere with the result being "global warming". The "greenhouse effect" is not disputed.
• Humans have increased significantly the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, adding substantially to the "greenhouse effect" Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased substantially through the industrial revolution. Sources cite that humans have contributed roughly 10 to 30 percent of the greenhouse gases that are currently in the atmosphere since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago. This substantial increase due to humans is certainly capable of producing the global warming effects we are seeing today. One of the reasons that the Earth's atmosphere is so vulnerable to such a substantial increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases is that it is so thin.

Is there a clear warming trend that shows human cause?
The correlation in the acceleration of greenhouse gas emissions and the acceleration of global warming outlines the causal relationship between humans and climate change. This is not to say that humans are necessarily wholly responsible for global warming, and this position acknowledges (typically) some natural causes of global warming. But, it is argued that humans have added dramatically to the acceleration of global warming far beyond what would have occurred naturally.

Do on-the-ground effects demonstrate today's warming is mainly human-caused?
• Ocean layers have warmed in a manner that indicates human-causes of global warming
• atmosphere that getting thinner show human cause on global warming
• Glacier melting globally demonstrates human-causes of global warming
• The melting of the arctic ice caps has increased dramatically with human emissions
• Greenland ice-caps are melting at an accelerating rate
• Natural catastrophic events, such as hurricanes, have increased substantially with human greenhouse gases
• Increase in atmospheric moisture is tied to human emissions
• The atmosphere has responded as expected to human-induced global warming – Satellite temperature measurements show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with "rates similar to those of the surface temperature," leading the IPCC to conclude that this discrepancy is reconciled.
• Spatial patterns of heat-trappings are concentrated around populated areas, indicating human causes

Kyoto protocol mechanism:
In short, Kyoto protocol is implementing the system of carbon tax, which means every nation, people, or factories that emit green house gases should pay tax which called carbon tax.
Carbon tax is implemented for air plane travel, vehicle, factories, etc. The limitation of the tax is discussed and decided through meeting with all of nations that have signed the Kyoto protocol.
The fund from the tax will be used and organized by United nations and all bodies under UN that related to Kyoto protocol project to develop environmental friendly technologies to reduce human emission gradually. Technology like; sun panel, bio fuel, wind power plant, hydro power plant, geo-thermal power plant.
By implementing this system, it is expected that within 50 years ahead, the emission of human greenhouse gases would have been reduced significantly.

sent on: 2008 Mei 26 23:46

Ngupil Itu indah said

PRO:

Rebuttal for Putri:

1st Putri said that it is ridiculous to blame global warming on water vapor and if we try to reduce water vapor, the cycle of weather on earth will not exist. Because water vapor is the main substance that create weather cycle on our earth, that’s is why we can’t reduce it because we need it.

One thing that i'd like to ask to Putri,did i say anything about trying to reduce water vapor as the best solution that i believe able to reduce global warming? i was saying that just to remind you that this whole reducing global warming thing is can't be implemented,especially when you start it with the wrong move,like trying to reduce human emition that only 0,28%. it won't do any good to solve this problem. And let me emphasize one more time to Putri,I was not saying that the main cause of global warming is water vapor,i said that the main cause of this problem is, the sun.so what kyoto protocol can do about that?!

2nd Putri also said that Warming on mars may not be due to the sun and any warming on mars does not prove that the sun is driving Earth's climate change.

we'll you know what putri?!if it was not the sun that cause the warming on Mars and on several planets in our solar system at the same time,then what?human emition? you can not even explain the clear reason of why such warming could also happen on those planets. let me make this clear again.the only similar factor that could cause the warming on earth and on those planets at the same time is only sun.that's the only logical explanation.I challenge you if you have any better explanation of the cause of these things (which i believe you don't).

3rd Putri said again that Even if we were in a natural warming cycle, the rate of warming currently is many times faster than any rate of warming in the historical record. Even if humans are not actually the "chief" cause of global warming, there is little dispute that we play some role, due to our emissions of greenhouse gases, which contribute to the warming of the globe. As such, the Kyoto Protocol is an important tool in the fight against human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

Putri,it seems you didn't catch my explanation well,the contribution of human to global warming is very small,only 0,28%, it is nothing compared to greenhouse gases that produced by nature (which is 97% water vapor that caused by sun increasing activity).and ow..only for your knowledge,the percentage of carbon dioxide that produced by volcano in one day is way bigger than the percentage of CO2 that produced by all human in one year.could you grab the picture?hope so,human greenhouse gases production is very tiny compared to nature greenhouse gases production.that's why every effort that kyoto protocol do to reduce human emition in hope it would be able reduce global warming is very miss calculated and would just such a big waste of every nation financial and other valuable resources that actually could be directed to support other solution mechanism that better than kyoto protocol,which i'm going to explain here.

4th Putri said that these are the evidences of human green house gases effect on earth:

- Ocean layers have warmed in a manner that indicates human-causes of global warming

- atmosphere that getting thinner show human cause on global warming

- Glacier melting globally demonstrates human-causes of global warming

- The melting of the arctic ice caps has increased dramatically with human emissions

- Greenland ice-caps are melting at an accelerating rate

- Natural catastrophic events, such as hurricanes, have increased substantially with human greenhouse gases

-Increase in atmospheric moisture is tied to human emissions

Now, don't you think that i could use Putri's evidence here to prove that actually those are the effect of global warming that caused by the increasing of sun activity?!what i see here is Putri is only trying to connect human increase of CO2 (which means nothing to the contribution of global warming) with those effect of global warming (which actually caused by nature,by sun!)

5th Putri said that The fund from the tax of kyoto protocol implementation will be used and organized by United nations and all bodies under UN that related to Kyoto protocol project to develop environmental friendly technologies to reduce human emission gradually. Technology like; sun panel, bio fuel, wind power plant, hydro power plant, geo-thermal power plant. By implementing this system, it is expected that within 50 years ahead, the emission of human greenhouse gases would have been reduced significantly.

This is one more time that i say a very useless effort in the hope of trying to reduce global warming.

Now,if kyoto protocol is not the best way to deal with global warming,then what is the best way to deal with it?this is what i'm going to explain here.

1st the solution mechanism to deal with global warming and why this solution is feasible to be conducted. and 2nd the future implication of this solution:

Back to the question, how we are going to deal with it. Can we stop it? can we reduce it? The answer is no, we can’t. There’s no way we can stop it. There’s no way we can stop the sun from keep increasing its activity. Our technology is not that advance, we are not alien. The idea of fighting or even stopping global warming is the most ridiculous and irresponsible idea ever in the history of human life.

Once again, like I said before, the cycle of global warming and ice age happens every 10.000 years, and the main cause is the increasing or the decreasing of sunspot activity. The changing of climate from ice age to warming period or from warming period to ice age, is very natural, it is just the same like the changing of season from winter to summer or summer to fall or from fall to winter again. It is very natural and it is unstoppable. You can’t stop winter or summer from coming, the only thing that you can do is to prepare yourself to adapt with the changing itself, example by preparing warm jacket if you are going to have winter or preparing air conditioner in your house if you are going to have summer. But how about the changing of climate itself, especially in this global warming period, what can we do to prepare our self to adapt with it, since there’s no way we can make a technology to stop the increasing of sunspot activity.

The answer is to adapt with the changing of this climate itself, just the same like we adapt with the changing of season. Once again, we are not saying that we do not want to do anything to survive from global warming, we do, want to survive from global warming, and the only way is to prepare all of our knowledge and technology to make a preparation to face the extreme change of global warming in the future, because once again, we can’t stop global warming, because the main cause of global warming is the sun, there’s no way we block the sun to make global warming stop. We have to prepare ourselves to adapt with it.

Now the question is, how to adapt with it, we have to certainly develop all requirements of our daily basic necessity to fit with the condition of extreme hot temperature in the future:

1st starting from now we have to conduct a research to develop a new variety of all plants that we have now, a new variety of plant that able to live the extreme condition where there is lack of water and able to live in hot temperature weather. Especially for plants that we consume in our daily life like; corn, wheat, paddy, and of course fruit and vegetable. We have to conduct a research to develop these kinds of plants that able to grow well in the future where the global temperature will be hotter than the temperature that we have now. We have succeeded in developing a better variety of plants like paddy or corn which its quality is better than the corn or paddy that we have 10 years ago. That is why it would be also feasible to develop a new variety of plants that can grow in the situation of lack of water and in the hotter temperature.

2nd starting from now we have to collect the best seeds of plants from all over the world and save them in the seed bank in the Norway, a country that closest to the North Pole. In fact United Nation has been doing this since several years ago, to save the seeds of all of the best plants in all over the world. Because in 30 to 50 years from now the earth temperature will be much hotter than the temperature that we have now. UN afraid that it will make many of species of plants on earth will face extinction, that’s why, before that happen, UN have to save all of these seeds, so that in the future, when most of plants will face extinction, UN still have these seeds to be planted again in highly controlled environment, so that in the future, human won’t face hunger because of the lacking of plants, vegetable, or fruit to be eaten. We got this information from united nation website

3rd starting from now we have to develop a better water storage, irrigation, and drainage system, that can give a maximum supply of water for us in the future where the hotter temperature normally will evaporate most of natural water supply in all over the world. By doing this, it is expected in the future we won’t face extreme lack of water.

4th starting from now, every nation have to increase their cooperation to make the whole nations in the world ready to face the extreme temperature in the future. Example we can learn a lot from countries in the middle east, like Saudi Arabia, on how to grow plants in an extreme condition where there’s lack of water and where the temperature is very hot, we know that in the middle east the temperature is very hot around 40 to 50 degree Celcius, but Saudi Arabia able to grow plants in its country, it means Saudi Arabia already has a sophisticated water storage and water irrigation system and also has developed a better variety of plants that able to make Saudi Arabia grows plants in there.

Feasibility

now please consider,those solution mechanisms of adaptation are actually more make sense and more rational to deal with the effect of extreme heat of global warming in the future and would save more financial budget of every nation in the world than trying to do the agreement of Kyoto protocol that want to reduce the effect of global warming by trying to reduce only human emission, which we have already explained to you, is actually would be useless, because the main cause of global warming is not human, but it is nature, it is the sun, the main cause of global warming, and since we can’t stop or block the sun, that’s why the only rational way to deal with it, is to make our best preparation to deal with it, to adapt with the changing itself that we are going to face in the future.

Now let's talk about the Bad future implication if we don’t start preparing ourselves to adapt and keep on doing Kyoto protocol

all of this mechanism of adaptation is more feasible and more rational to be conducted compared to Kyoto protocol proposal, it is better than wasting our money and effort to uselessly trying to stop the increasing of earth temperature that actually caused by sun activity, if the contra side seriously want to stop it, then the contra side has to stop the current increasing activity of sun, which every normal people will say impossible.

That is why the most rational way to deal with global warming in the future is by adaptation like I’ve already explained to you. If you insist to do this Kyoto protocol, every country, especially countries with higher emission will have to spend most of their national budget just to pay carbon taxes, how about the budget purposed for their citizen if these countries have to spend most of their budget just to support the agreement of Kyoto protocol which has already proven to be useless?! And for what? For nothing! Remember the purpose of Kyoto protocol is just want to reduce all of human greenhouse gases emission, which actually only 0, 28%. But after succeeded reducing these emissions in the future then what? Will this make the temperature in the future colder? Hell, no! because the 95% of water vapor is still there, Kyoto protocol never even care about this 95% water vapor, Kyoto protocol never even care about the sun that heating up the entire ocean and make the percentage of water vapor increased, Kyoto protocol never even care about the evidence that ice cap on mars is also decreasing which is a very strong evidence that proof that actually, global warming is caused by nature. Not by human.! So, from the beginning until the end i still stand to my belief that global warming that caused by human is just a myth. A widely held but false belief that is being exaggerated.

sent on: 2008 Juni 10 02:42

WE SHOULD NOT TOO PARANOID OF ISLAM

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.



For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.

Boim Lebon said
Pro:

i agree with this statement. . islam not something that at daunt or paranoid. islam teaches peacefulness not battle, but why in this time islam image always equated with terrorist? ? follow me this matter is caused because frame society formed moment tragedy wtc or balinese bomb, where is rumors that bloom at international society islam = terrorist. . . . and islam prefers violence road in the efforts opposes western nations hegemony. pattern thinks formed at society hits islam in this time wrong.
sent on: 2008 Mei 26 19:18

Ngupil itu Indah said
Contra:
I don’t agree with Boim Lebon’s statement. We indeed should have this paranoid toward Islam. Why? This is why..!!

Rebuttal:
Of all religion followers in this world, which one do you think that has the most frequent history of violence during (just) this century?

Of all religion followers in this world, which one do you think that would cut your head just because you draw a picture of a prophet?

Of all religion followers in this world, which one do you think that would explode a high explosive bomb in the middle of civilian crowd? Just because the idealistic governmental system that they demand (which is Chaleefaa) is not applied in that country?

The list of these questions could continue to no end. And I’m sure you know which religion that I mean here.

From these facts alone, it is so unavoidable that most of people in the world will have this paranoid toward Islam. Every time they have a meeting with a moslem or a particular group of moslem, every time they have this conversation with a moslem or a particular group of Moslem, they will have this fear of saying something or do something that could offend and trigger the anger of Moslem, which could spark a more violence riot of Moslem in the whole world.
In fact just by being an American or a European alone, even though you are just an innocent civilian, would be more than enough to create a prejudice in the Moslem mindset and thus could easily make everything that said or done by you could be indicated by Moslem as something that insulting their religion.

I’m not saying that all of Moslems are preferring violence way in solving something that they consider as an insult toward their religion. But I’m afraid I have to say that, some of them DO prefer violence way in solving such case. We know such Moslem group as a radical one. Even though the percentage of number of such groups is not much compared to the whole number of Moslem in the world, but their action are never small and without mercy. Even though we make a good relationship with the rest of Moslem in the world which (thanks God) choose a non-violence way, but still, we all well know that these radical groups won’t surely let anybody that based on their criteria as someone/some groups/some governments worth punished to have their daily life in peace.

The very fundamental reason of why we can not avoid to have this paranoid toward Islam:
It is true that western governments, especially U.S, its allies and Israel often conduct some provoking actions in the middle east that stimulates and increases the collective hatred of middle east people toward western countries. Action like some military attacks to some cities and countries in the middle east that killed a lot of military personnels and civilians in those cities or countries, it should be admitted that it is those military actions that actually make most of middle east Moslem hate western countries so much.

But still, revenge is not the way out, revenge like killing western civilians who are not even involved in the western military actions in the middle east (usually by exploding a bomb). Even though western military actions also killed a lot of innocent civilians in the middle east, but if you kill innocent western civilians also, it makes you no different to that western military personnel who killed innocent civilians in the middle east.

There are still other way (like truce or diplomatic agreement) to create peace on both sides, and not by violence also that inevitably will create a never ending circle of killing and revenge.

So, yes, in the conclusion, as long as western governments still doing their provoking actions in the middle east that inevitably will planted a sickened hatred in the heart of every Moslem in the middle east toward western governments, we will still have to live our life (a little bit longer than we expected) in a paranoid toward Islam, especially to the radical one.

Thanks to the western governments, especially to U.S, its allies and Israel.
Now, we should have live our life with this paranoid toward Islam
sent on: 2008 Mei 26 23:31

Boim Lebon said

PRO:

difference that opinion is usually, depending perception each in receive a phenomenon. but not all islams is radical. we thank you for his opinion

sent on: 2008 Juni 8 09:59

P`cunk`s said
Contra:

The biggest mistake we could catch from the proposition side is their idea that "it`s ok if only half people is not radical" actualy I have an analogy here: Indonesian Airlines is less of maintenance which means will make more accidents than the other airlines.
yes, we know that not all planes in Indonesia i each flights is crashed. But, when a person is being offered, which one do you choose? Indonesian airlines (that is famous of the accidents) or Singaporian airlines (which never get any accidents since 1988), of course he will choose the singaporians!! B`coz of what? he saw which one is more reliable.
The thing is, if not all moslem is radical, doesn`t mean that all moslem is not radical, there is STILL many radical moslem that makes paranoid

2nd, we are not talking that Islam was really holy or just said really fine, YES, we already know it as we live in Indonesia that have bunch of Moslem faith. But It`s about how people all-around the world see moslem, just say that "What do you heard is what you get". People around the world have seen the moslem in the "radical side" which makes a paradigm that "Islam is Bad" (even it doesn`t mean that Islam is really bad) and this paradigm will takes apart in people`s mind that that what we called paranoid
I raise my case
sent on: 2008 Juni 12 02:09