picess

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

I spent my childhood bedtimes waiting for war. As the fading evening light turned the roses on my pink curtains into sinister faces, I would wonder why my father had not dug us an underground bunker in the garden. Because one day, I reasoned, someone was going to push the red button, and a mushroom cloud would billow over the horizon and suffocate us in its deadly, iconic grip; and thanks to my stupidly optimistic parents we’d be the only unbunkered family on the street.

Children of the Seventies were defined by a dread of being nuked. It permeated our collective subconscious through television, books and newspapers. Our morbid fears were stoked by When the Wind Blows, the bleak Raymond Briggs tale about a couple who retreat into a shelter after a nuclear attack, and Protect and Survive, a public information leaflet that would have been distributed if nuclear war was a serious possibility, complete with instructions on how to build a fall-out shelter.

So pervasive was the fear that in 1978 the American Psychiatric Association set up a task force to study it. Researchers found that 44 per cent of schoolchildren lived in permanent fear of nuclear war; one 11-year-old girl said that her biggest worry was not having the time to commit suicide if it came to pass.

Today, it is not the mushroom cloud that threatens to suffocate children psychologically but carbon emissions. The new bogeyman is climate change: submerger of nations, polluter of skies, slayer of polar bears.

This week the Advertising Standards Authority issued a ruling on the Government’s £6 million climate-awareness advertising campaign, which has attracted nearly 1,000 complaints. While most focused on whether the evidence for climate change was strong enough, a notable proportion thought that the ads were unnecessarily frightening and distressing.

The television advert, which escaped ASA censure, features a father and daughter reading a bedtime book about what happens as the world warms; and includes pictures of a cartoon dog drowning. There can be no doubt that children are feeling the fear: last year Habitat Heroes, an Australian social-networking site for environmentally aware children, commissioned a telephone poll of 500 children aged between 6 and 11, which found that one in three thought the planet would not be around when they reached adulthood.

“More and more parents are telling me that they are worried about how their children are dealing with the climate issue,” says Dr Angharad Rudkin, a clinical child psychologist based in Hampshire. “The difference between today’s generation and previous ones is that there’s too much information. Our generation [Rudkin is 35] watched Newsround and possibly News at Ten if we were up late enough, and that was it. But today, we have rolling news and government advertising to convey socially responsible messages.

“A lot of children just can’t deal with that level of information, and it creates anxiety. I also wonder whether today’s kids are being asked to shoulder a lot of responsibility. It’s seen as a good thing to make children green as early as possible, because it is their generation that will make the difference. But I wonder if that hasn’t become a burden on them,” says Dr Rudkin.

Children aged 7 or 8, who are beginning to appreciate that there is a world beyond their own lives, can become particularly concerned; at this age, it is common to fear natural disasters. But, Dr Rudkin says, parents shouldn’t fret too much: if it were not climate change, children would find other issues to fixate on: “My personal opinion is that we all need something to worry about.”

Teaching children about man-made climate change — which is very real and threatens our wellbeing — and persuading them to adopt green habits is essential, but it can be done without scaring them witless. Dr Rudkin advises that children should not be allowed to watch television beyond the watershed, and that parents should not leave children alone while they are using computers.

The Australian Psychological Society provides useful tips on how information should be couched to raise awareness but not alarm (psychology.org.au). It points out that “young children tend to think that the world revolves around them (e.g., ‘Will a cyclone come and destroy our house too?’). Small details can quickly turn into large generalisations (e.g., ‘If the planet is getting hotter, will we all get burnt?’).”

For primary-school children, it advises: “One result of trying to teach children too early about abstract concepts, like rainforest destruction, ozone holes and whale hunting, can be dissociation. When we ask children to deal with problems beyond their cognitive abilities, they can become anxious, and tune out of the issues.”

Raphael Rossiter,10, North London

If I was to rate my worry on a scale of one to ten, I’d put myself at six or seven. A politician came to my school and told us how climate change threatened countries with floods. He said the North Pole will melt. I just gasped. I hadn’t thought about it until then. The politician also said we should have less meat and fish on our school menu, because that was more sustainable.

When I think about climate change, I imagine floods and no blue sky. My friend told me that if floods came in the winter, it could create an ice age and you’d have to be as high as a church to be safe. Mum always has BBC News on in the car, and there’s always scientists talking about some update on climate science. I think there’s a 50-50 chance we’ll be OK in the future. People are starting to do something. My family uses as little electricity as possible and recycles everything.

Abigail Burden, 8, Middlesex

I think it’s all to do with the Sun getting warmer and all the ice melting. It doesn’t worry me and I don’t usually talk about it with my friends. The teachers don’t really mention it. Nothing scares me. But I do think about the polar bears. They are dying out because they don’t have enough food and that makes me sad.

I walk to school every day and turn the tap off when I brush my teeth. I turn the lights off when I leave a room and I recycle. I try not to waste anything.

Parker Liautaud, 15, London

The Eton College student will spend his Easter holiday skiing 70 miles (110km) from the Barneo Ice Station, in the Arctic, to the North Pole, to raise awareness of climate change.

Climate change is a big part of my life. I think about it all the time, as much as I think about GCSEs, which are less than two months away. I started getting really concerned last March when I went on an expedition to Antarctica. We saw dead penguins because there was not enough food, and collapsing icebergs. We went to a summer feeding frenzy for humpback whales; instead of dozens, we only saw a few.

I do wonder what the world will be like in 50 years’ time. A lot of people are sceptical but I’m optimistic at the positive steps people are taking. We have to keep going down the right path, because if governments lose interest there could be a serious problem. The effects of climate change will be mostly felt by my generation, and we need to be informed and interested in it.

Finn Dawson, 9, Stirlingshire

My mum told me that the sea level is rising and I know that loads of oxygen is being wasted. I used to watch the TV programme Axemen and think it was cool how the trees fell down but now I don’t think it’s good. The other thing about cutting down trees is that loads of animals are losing their homes. But I’m not too worried, it’ll be OK if everyone does their bit. At school, we pick up litter and save water and energy. I tell my parents to turn off taps and switch off lights. And we should stop going on so many trips with planes.

Angus Carnie, 14, Wiltshire

We talked about global warming in geography, mainly about what people can do to stop it and how we are running out of natural resources like oil and stuff. I haven’t really thought about how it might affect me. I’m more worried about the polar bears than what is going to happen here. They won’t have anywhere to live if the ice melts. I suppose it is happening here too, but it isn’t that obvious as you can’t see it in the same way. I think it will affect us all in the end because most people are not really helping a lot.

Iona Haig, 15, Edinburgh

Throughout my school life we have had talks on climate change, and what we can do to prevent it. People my age are terrified of what might happen to our planet; it has been drilled into our brains at school, home and even on TV. We watch the news and see earthquakes, flooding, tsunamis, and we hope that by the time we are our parents’ ages we will not be having to cope with these routinely. It is fair to say that adults “terrorise” us into recycling and switching off lights, but we care too. It’s got to the stage that every time I throw away a piece of paper, I frantically search for a recycling bin.”

Interviews by Melanie Reid, Simon de Bruxelles and Anjana Ahuja

prics

that is expected to be out of office just one month into the new financial year? Normally, the answer would be none at all. But next week’s Budget will be a pivotal political event, not because of anything Alistair Darling may or may not say, but because of the response he will elicit from the Tory frontbench.

If the Tories play their cards wisely, next Wednesday could act as a launch pad for a breakthrough in the opinion polls, leading to an outright victory in the general election. But if David Cameron and George Osborne misjudge the mood of the nation, they could scupper their hopes in the same way that John Smith ruined Labour’s prospects with his misconceived response to the Tory pre-election Budget of 1992.

The similarities between the 1992 and 2010 elections are quite striking. In both cases the Opposition seemed to be playing into an open goal — an unpopular and uncharismatic Prime Minister, foisted on the nation without the benefit of an electoral mandate; a governing party that appeared exhausted and bereft of ideas; a severe recession that inflicted damage on middle-class voters. Then as now, the task of defending the Government’s dismal record seemed hopeless. Yet against all these odds, John Major won in 1992. Could the same thing happen for Gordon Brown?

It may be impossible to imagine Mr Brown winning, but if we look back at what happened in 1992, we find that John Major did not win the election that year. It was Neil Kinnock and John Smith who lost it. The standard line is that “oppositions don’t win elections; governments lose them”. But the 1992 election shows that this adage is sometimes wrong — and the Tory response to next week’s Budget will tell us whether this year could be another case in point.

While the Budget won’t change voters’ perceptions about Labour, it will give the Tories a final opportunity to clarify their economic policies and show where the differences between the two main parties really lie. The Tories seem to hope that denouncing Labour’s fiscal plans and warning of national bankruptcy will be sufficient, but this strategy will not work.

The Tories made three closely related mistakes in devising their economic and electoral strategy at the nadir of the financial crisis in the winter of 2008-09.

First they assumed that the economy would continue to deteriorate despite the enormous stimulus administered by the Government. Then they therefore reasoned that Labour’s Keynesian policies of expanding public borrowing would be perceived as a dismal failure by the time of the election. And that in turn convinced the Tories that fomenting public panic about a government debt crisis would be sufficient to win the economic debate.

All three of these assumptions have gone wrong. The public mood is surprisingly upbeat because although economic conditions have remained fairly weak they are much better than expected at the depth of the crisis. This rebound has vindicated the policies of fiscal stimulus in the post-Lehman mini-Budget, including the temporary VAT cut the Tories vehemently opposed. And while all this extra borrowing has produced huge government deficits, dire prophecies of rising interest rates and credit downgrades have proved wrong.

It is possible, of course, that the “day of reckoning” so eagerly anticipated in Tory pronouncements has merely been postponed and that conditions will drastically deteriorate after the election. But predicting national bankruptcy does not make an attractive manifesto. And from a strictly economic standpoint, Tory attacks on Labour Budget numbers make even less sense.

In the “battle of economists”, the 20 economics professors and EU officials who seem to back the Tory demands for faster deficit reductions have been trumped by 60 other professors, plus the OECD and IMF, who have endorsed the Labour and Liberal Democrat positions that further deficit consolidation should wait until growth gains strength in 2011 and beyond. In any case, the Tory promises to announce a few billion pounds’ worth of extra spending cuts immediately after the election are arithmetically trivial in comparison with the £90 billion long-term deficit reduction that Labour has already announced.

Assuming that the new Budget confirms these Labour plans for long-term fiscal consolidation, how should the Tories react? The answer is simple. Instead of quibbling about Alistair Darling’s figures and forecasts, the Tories should endorse his budgetary numbers and promise to carry out essentially the same macroeconomic programme.

They could then point out the real objection to the Government’s fiscal plans: while the deficit reduction targets announced in Mr Darling’s successive Budget statements would, in theory, be quite sufficient to stabilise Britain’s public finances, Labour has refused to explain how these targets would be achieved.

This lack of information on public spending will be the true “black hole” in the Budget. It is the Government’s refusal to discuss specific cuts in public spending that the Tories should be attacking, instead of challenging Mr Darling on abstract macroeconomic assumptions or fiscal forecasts that mean nothing to the public and are not worth the paper they are written on.

The Tories should also be presenting the electorate with their own agenda for cutting the cost of the public sector and setting proper priorities for public spending — health or education, nursery schools or universities, pensions or policing and so on. The Tories should also be identifying specific cuts in wasteful public spending, ranging from fraudulent or overly generous benefit payments to unnecessary weapons programmes. And they should be spelling out their plans to improve the productivity of the public sector by changing working practices, cutting pay and pensions, privatising social services and so on.

The loss of control over public spending is the issue on which the Tories should be fighting the general election, but to do this they would have to identify specific Labour policies that they would reverse. The Tory high command believes that such specificity would frighten the voters, Their hope is simply to stand back and watch Labour lose the election, goaded on by bogus hysteria about bankruptcy and personal attacks on Gordon Brown. We, therefore, face an election in which the Opposition will try to distract attention from the very issues on which the Government is most vulnerable. How lucky for Labour — and how unfortunate for Britain.

nice photo


Oh My God!!!! These photo comics are absolutely fantastic.
Basically what you get is quite a thick book, printed on high quality glossy paper (no cheap stuff here), that is full of photo stills from the series that tell the wonderful story of Go Min Nam’s cross dressing antics! The text, which is like a typical comic in bubbles and boxes, is in Korean but I don’t think this matters. If you are buying this you most probably have already seen the series so you know what’s going on. The text therefore isn’t necessary for us English speakers. I simply love these comics, you can flick through and relive your favourite scenes, on the bus, in the classroom or like me at work :D. On nearly every page there is some picture that makes you burst out laughing as you remember that part in the series. There are three volumes in total and they are completely worth the money, you even get printed signatures of all the cast in the front of the book!!!

kamal


The "You're Beautiful Photo Comic Book" was actually the book that I didn't want to get at first due to the previews showing that the comic is all in Korean. However, there was a double-deal thing going on so I ended buying both this book and the "Photobook" (see my other review). To my surprise, the comic book is such a better book than the "novel/photobook," because for one thing, it is filled with pictures! Yes, there are bubbles where MiNam, TaeKyung, Shin Woo, Jeremy, etc. will be talking in and you would be wondering what the heck they are talking about (if you don't understand Korean) but at least you still get to stare at them from page 1 to 187! These are full-colored images on every page which is so much worth it than the novel.

I guess the down-side to this comic book is that it contains only pictures from the drama and not behind-the-scenes images. Oh, and also the fact that it is written only in Korean. However, I highly recommend this to all YB fans because this is just a beautiful image-book!

playalist


You're Beautiful has been turned into a comic book! The 2009 SBS idol drama You're Beautiful attracted a dedicated fan following with its behind-the-scenes story about the fame, friendship, and romance of superstar pop band A.N.JELL. You can revisit all the backstage trials, dorm drama, cute adventures, and angsty romance of bristly lead singer Tae Kyung (Jang Geun Suk), "towel guy" Shin Woo (Jung Yong Hwa), happy-go-lucky drummer Jeremy (Lee Hong Gi), and gender-bending Mi Nam (Park Shin Hye) in this special comic book which retells the story using drama stills and bubble text based on the drama script.
© 2009-2010 YesAsia.com Ltd. All rights reserved. This original content has been created by or licensed to YesAsia.com, and cannot be copied or republished in any medium without the express written permission of YesAsia.com.

airport



I don't know either, so from Wiki apparently he's a half-breed, and
funny how custody went to the father got stuck rather than the mother,
since it's usually the father who leaves (e.g. Obama; besides what's the
most confusing day in Harlem? Father's Day!). Maybe this is one example
of paternal investment of Asians? (and in this case, the half-breed is
not up to no-good, and maybe the father is not quite the sucker?)

Quote: "Ohno was born in Federal Way, Washington, to a Japanese-born
father, Yuki Ohno (大野 幸, Ōno Yuki?) and a Caucasian-American mother,
Jerrie Lee.[10] Ohno's parents divorced when he was an infant, and he
was raised in Seattle by his father.[11] He has had little contact with
his biological mother and as of 2002, has expressed no interest in
knowing her or his older half-brother.[10][11][12] Ohno's father, a
hair stylist and owner of the salon Yuki's Diffusion, often worked
12-hour shifts, and with no family in the United States, found it hard
to balance career and family.[12] His father chose to name his son
Apolo after the Greek words "Ap," which means to "steer away from" and
"lo," which means "look out; here he comes."[4]"

And btw Ohno is not "Korean Pride", OP is a joke.