Eating kangaroos could help fight global warming: scientist

SYDNEY (AFP) - - An offbeat suggestion that Australians should eat kangaroos instead of cattle and sheep has been given a scientific stamp of approval by the government's top climate change adviser.

The belching and farting of millions of farm animals is a major contributor to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, Professor Ross Garnaut noted in a major report to the government on global warming.

Kangaroos, on the other hand, emit negligible amounts of methane gas.

If farmers were included in a system requiring industry to buy permits for the gas they produce, the cost of meat would rise and could lead to a change in eating habits, Garnaut said in the 600 page report released Wednesday.

"For most of Australia's human history -- around 60,000 years -- kangaroo was the main source of meat," he said.

"It could again become important. However, there are some significant barriers to this change, including livestock and farm management issues, consumer resistance and the gradual nature of change in food tastes."

Garnaut cited a study looking at the potential for kangaroos to replace sheep and cattle for meat production in Australia's rangelands, where kangaroos are already harvested.

The study concludes that by 2020, beef cattle and sheep numbers could be reduced by seven million and 36 million respectively, allowing for an increase in kangaroo numbers from 34 million now to 240 million by 2020.

This would be more than enough to replace the lost lamb and beef production, and kangaroo meat would become more profitable than cattle and sheep as the price of emissions permits increased.

Garnaut's report said livestock, mainly cattle and sheep, are responsible for some 67 percent of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite being the national animal and appearing on the Australian coat of arms, millions of kangaroos are slaughtered in the wild each year to control their numbers and much of the meat is used for pet food.

The idea of farming them for human consumption is controversial, but many health-conscious Australians already eat kangaroo meat.

"It's low in fat, it's got high protein levels, it's very clean in the sense that basically it's the ultimate free range animal," says Peter Ampt of the University of New South Wales's institute of environmental studies.
taken from: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20081001/tap-australia-climate-food-kangaroos-off-5a1703c.html

Pretty funny huh! So Charles Wright identifies four media functions that affect receivers and I’m going to try to fit them all into this pretty.. STRANGE news article.

There is the Surveillance (information) the gathering and disseminating of information. Giving them the instrumental information they need to get through a day. So yes, from this online news article, we now know and important fact to get through the day! Eat the kangaroo meat, save the world! ( I can’t decide if I’m more amazed that people are receptive to the idea, or that scientists have actually thought of that idea in the first place.)

Then comes Correlation (analysis and evaluation) reporting facts, interpret news events and by analyzing social problems. This article has more or less given us a brief analysis of one of the reasons for global warming. I now know that cattle and sheep contribute to “67 percent of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.”

Next, Cultural transmission (education and socialization of receivers) which reinforces social ideals and passes on cultural understandings from one generation to the next. The one and only connection I made was that I can’t imagine anyone of us, or you for that matter, eating kangaroo meat as a staple food! THINK OF baby ROO! AND mama KANGA! (if any of you remember pooh’s friends..)

Last but not least, Entertainment (enjoyment and gratification) which arouses our emotions.

I don’t know about you, but when I read this for the first time I definitely went from amusement to disgust and back to amusement and then to amazement and then to disgust… and I can keep on typing but I’m sure you get the circle of emotions I felt.

This piece of news would be what I call really offbeat news. I mean it probably sounds normal to aussies, but for me... still kinda queasy thinking about it.

anyway, after some time I got again to thinking, if we can eat chickens and cows and think of it as perfectly normal, what’s to stop us from eating kangaroos! Cows aren’t any less cute than kangaroos, and I think both animals have a mean kick.

But that’s beside the point.

My point would be that, I foresee a permanent fixture on our menus soon. Think roo and chips! Yum…

art and culture

Hey look! A mega (literally) sweet palace!
If you don’t recognize this, it’s actually an exhibition part of the Singapore Biennale ’08 which is on from now till the 16th of November. I read an article about a week ago that briefly mentioned how this pretty awesome structure was being invaded by army of ants, swarms of bees and what not. I really wanted to go take a look, but then I changed my mind because I was just too darn lazy. It got me thinking though, “how many people actually feel the same way I do about such artsy stuff?”

I did go for the 2006 one, went to explore around a bit, but I didn’t come away from it with a WOW feeling. It wasn’t that I didn’t admire the creativity and diligence of the artists, but it was more of an inability to fully appreciate their artwork.

Is it merely in our culture to ignore such events and their meaning? Of course I’m generalizing here, but how many people know that the Biennale is going on now? And out of that number, how many are actually intending on attending one or more exhibitions?

I was never brought for such things when I was younger, probably because Singapore then didn’t have as many such shows as they do now. Or perhaps, thinking of spending money on a show or exhibition was just too much.

How much can we blame our culture for our ignorance of such events?

In school, emphasis is placed on good grades for academic subjects, and art just isn’t one of them. I remember in Sec one, art and literature weren’t examinable subjects! I wasn’t horrified then because that means 2 less subjects to study, but now… WHOA, art is I suppose… understandable. But literature?

But on the bright side, we’re evolving! Schools are beginning to include more art programmes, art classes, teachers that actually specialize in art… lit is made compulsory for a lot of secondary schools etc etc.

Maybe the future generation will have more genuine interest in art events.
The idea of being hard working and career driven has been passed down the generations. Maybe it’s time to add so much more to our lives! (I’m not saying everyone is ignorant and fixated on their future wealth, but I’m GERNERALIZING. Meaning, there’s a lot of people out there who think in such a way that I would like to presume sim ub students don’t :D )

So, grab your little siblings or cousins or nieces, or nephews or just go kidnap some kids from kindergarten and let them experience the wonders of the world of art.

Let them grow into people who can be curious and who can question, and who can look at anything strange and foreign and just marvel at their beauty and realize how important such things are in our world.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Dear all, I watched a movie a couple of days ago.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Directed by the legendary Woody Allen, who brought to us shows such as Husbands and Wives and Match Point. It got rave reviews in Cannes, but a couple of mixed ones here and there. Woody Allen, I’m sure you realize by now, does make pretty great movies! Strange… but good all the same.

Let’s just put it simply that this show, is pretty much the anti-thesis of whatever we’ve learnt in our interpersonal relationships chapter. Ok, maybe not so drastic, but it jumps here, there, everywhere, and sometimes it’s so unconventional, there’s nothing to explain it.

So just to give a background to this film, Vicky (she’s about to be married, little bit boring) and Cristina (young, free, wild and happy) were asked by Juan Antonio (a rather hot artist) to spend the weekend with him, where the days would be filled with… debauchery. So the 2 girls accept, and off they go to Juan Antonio’s paradise island. Initially, Cristina was very willing to sleep with Juan Antonio, but a sickness allowed him to seduce Vicky instead. And by the weekend, Vicky succumbs to his charms. Feeling extremely guilty, she throws herself into her work, which inadvertently drives a wedge between the friendship between her and Cristina. Pretty… European if I may say. (Not that Europeans indulge in sex with strangers they just meet and offer them a threesome... I’m just stereotyping here. So…)

Anyway, Knapp’s model of relational development which, to quote our notes “[is] one of the most influential models of relationship”, is strangely relevant, but yet not so in this film. Woody Allen has absolutely created a film that has no intention of keeping its characters monogamous nor does it portray a future of a long term relationship. What this film does however, is emphasize on passion, lust, love (?), and sex. And all without drugs=)

Let’s see, in Knapp’s model, we have the initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating and bonding stages, which make up the coming together portion.

In this movie, we have the initiating between Vicky Cristina and Juan Antonio, but WAIT. So much for being cautious and safe. He just offered them his company for the weekend where he hopes to get all 3 of them together in bed. There goes the experimenting stage following that…. And the intensifying.. And the integrating… and the bonding…. And basically I’m not so sure how to classify the relationship between the 3 characters.

But hang on, in this film, the coming apart does pose even more difficult to compare. From Knapp, we have the differentiating, circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding and terminating stages. In this movie, we just basically have Juan Antonio’s CRAZY ex-wife Maria Elena, (played by Penelope Cruz, who in my opinion, is nuts in the first place for dating Tom Cruise).

I think Knapp’s model just takes away the nice dreamlike quality of developing a relationship. I mean, words words words. It even reduces a nice sacred ritual of joining 2 people together to 3 simple words. “Stage 5: Bonding”. Robotic much?

But I digress again... I did have a point there but it got mixed up in the words. So anyway, Cristina and Juan Antonio end up growing close together (while Vicky goes off to get married), and they even move in together! But crazy ex-wife comes back into the picture, and though initially disliking Cristina, they end up developing a liking for each other!

And here comes the more confusing part, Maria Elena (ex-wife), and Juan Antonio is still in love, but decides that Cristina was their missing link!
SO, instead of instead of the “coming apart” stages that most people would expect when the ex wife returns, we see an even better “coming together” between all 3 characters. Still with me?

Now however, while the 3 enjoy a summer of… getting along, Cristina soon realizes that she’s bored with the relationship between them and decides to skip all coming apart stages and just leave. Of course she didn’t think that Maria Elena would go crazy again with their link gone…

Meanwhile, Vicky, getting bored with her life, decides to let herself be seduced by Juan Antonio once again. But this time, the devastated Maria Elena intrudes upon them and starts firing her gun around. Vicky takes a wild shot to her hand, and suddenly decides that gun wielding ex wives are too much as compared to a relative stranger bedding her and her best friend and his ex wife all about the same time. Strange how some people think isn’t it?

Eventually, as said in Knapp’s model under terminating, the relationship ceased to exist and the parties all move on from it. Vicky goes back to her married life (never telling her husband about the events that have transpired), and Cristina remains, free and wild. Essentially, all the characters remain the same as how they started out in the movie...

(I have this sudden urge to start singing the circle of life)

But just to perk your interest, if I haven’t already, here’s a trailer for the movie. It’s open in cinemas!

Group Communication

SO, what do you think of this group dynamics?

The size of it seems pretty ok, large enough for different ideas yet small enough for equal participation. They also seem extremely comfortable with the person in charge; in fact, they don’t even listen to her. However, with the source of distraction removed, they revert back into getting down to work.

For people out there who actually watch 30 rock, you will know that OCCASIONALLY, such meetings are actually productive! They have in Liz Lemon (Tina Fey), a good, quirky leader, who is more or less able to bring her group of producers and writers together to produce a comedy show. Although it is not obvious in the clip, her gang of people are actually able to handle both task and maintenance roles very well! Of course there are occasional slip ups here and there, but it is to be expected, with it being a comedy and all.

WELL, let’s just jump forward to an article I read in the straits times on the 27th of September. I was attracted to the article because of the big picture of President Bush in a meeting with congressional leaders- basically, a big powerful group of people sitting down to discuss what to do with their country. BUT from what we’ve learnt, about optimal sizes for groups, the roles that people in the group must take on etc etc, it is no wonder that politicians never seem to get their work done in peace. Under the façade of wanting to implement a bailout plan for the financial crisis, I do believe that most of them do have hidden agendas or simply, a conflicting perspective as to what needs to be done. I don’t claim to be very knowledgeable about this particular issue, but my opinions do stem from what I’ve read about in newspapers and such.

NOW, let’s jump back a couple of days, to September 23rd where (I’m so sorry I’m using him again) President Bush addressed the 63rd UN General Assembly in New York. This article spoke about how the West was losing its dominance in this organization. The UN functions as an organization made up of 192 member states to facilitate cooperation in several areas. If I may, I’d like to think of the UN as a REALLY humongous group.

There is a saying that “too many cooks spoil the broth”. But in this case, the broth is so overcooked; it probably leaves a pretty disgusting taste in your mouth. The UN hasn’t had the best policies despite its good intentions. With members that have conflicting interests and ideals, the UN has been more or less inefficient and redundant at worst. I could probably write another 1000 or more words on the UN’s extremely negative involvement in the 3rd world debt crisis and the arab-israeli war, but I’m probably boring you enough as it is.

MY point is, I’ve described 3 different types of groups. The small and not so significant one, the medium and not very effective one, and the really large and controversy filled one. The communication within the groups differ a lot, but yet at the end of the day, the individuals that come together become more or less interdependent, and they try to fight for a common goal despite differences they may have. The larger the group, the more complex the dynamics become, and more so for the case of the UN where the members are countries that have to protect the interest of their own people too. Nevertheless, there are instances where such groups communicate well and function at their best, and those are what we should be trying to achieve. You think so?

I have no other title except this

As I think most of you all know, the California Supreme Court recently struck down a ban on gay marriage by ruling it unconstitutional. This resulted in quite a numbers of gays and lesbians tying the knot legally.

Today however, I’d like to focus on the marriage of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi. I want to point out to those who are against the ruling, that the GLBT community has come a long way to where they are standing at the moment. Although they are still not accepted by many, and ignored by even more, we can’t disregard the fact that they are still humans. They, like any heterosexual, have feelings too. They come from all walks of life, and they are a significant part of the human race. For those of you who think that who they are, is an abomination, well, who are you to judge?

But getting back to my point, the media has recently published some photos and a video of Ellen and Portia’s wedding. When I viewed them, I was pretty overwhelmed by the emotions that seemed to emanate from the pictures and the video. [Just for learning sake, think nonverbal communication! Nonverbal communication!]

Anyway, take a look at the couple of pictures. Look at their facial expressions, their saccharine smiles at each other. Look at their dreamy gazes at each other! It just screams “I’m so in love with you right now I wish we could just be alone”.

I don’t know about you, but it did make me feel kinda happy and smiley when I saw them! Haha ok, I’m a girl, I can’t help but like sappy romantic stuff.



As you can see, their body language and postures do speak a lot about their love for each other! They give each other hugs, and light touches, conveying their love and support for each other as they go through a rather hectic and big day for them. And as for proxemics - their need for “personal space”- I think I can safely say that if they could they would’ve just been happier sitting on each other’s laps.



I guess I’ll leave you guys with a video of what they did on their wedding day. Take a look at how they interact with each other and with those around them (Especially their nonverbal communication). If you can still say that their marriage is wrong, and that it’s probably a publicity stunt or something…. All I gotta say is just OPEN YOUR EYES AND YOUR MIND.




Just for fun though- not that I’m trying to turn everyone pro-gay- I found this on the internet awhile back and thought it was really funny.

10 reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


Pictures and video taken from http://ellen.warnerbros.com/

we are animals

Watch this video. What do you think it's about? I don't wanna sound like a gameshow host, but the answer may shock you.

Wrangler: Humans
by dropkickmonkey

Any thoughts? well...

Every now and then, brilliant people in the advertising community come up with some new way to attract viewers to patronize their goods...




But every now and then, the very same people also come up with advertisements that do the very opposite...





Are you confused yet? Thinking "Why is there a corpse?! Was she part of the video? Is it the same girl?? did she die? commit suicide? she looks like she was raped and murdered!"

Depending on you past experiences, your culture and how you interpret what you perceive, you may find that the video and pictures above have either grossed you out completely, intrigued you a lot, or just plainly confused you.

So for your enlightenment, this is the new Wrangler "we are animals" campaign for their jeans.
This was what they said in their press release for this particular campaign:

"In today’s society, our animal instincts are smothered by daily modern life, city-living and constant technological developments. Man is an animal, but he no longer knows it.

Wrangler’s new strategic and creative platform seeks to re-awaken our bottled-up instincts and to encourage who and what we fundamentally are, by putting all that is pure, natural and instinctive back into Man."

I'm not so sure if i go along with how they have chosen to create this campaign based on man's natural instinct and raw emotion. After all, do the above few pictures elicit the urge from you to go buy a pair of their jeans? Maybe protective camping gear, or shampoo, and soap, and maybe a nice top. But jeans? REALLY?

I say this ad is dark, it's edgy, it's animalistic. It's interesting, unique, it certainly captured my attention (more bad than good). But just one question. Have you seen a lion wear jeans?!

I understand the predator and prey vibe that the advertisers have created. But do i "UNDERSTAND" the advertisement as a whole? No i don't.

In my opinion, this ad confuses me. On one hand, we are "animals", we are alive, strong, we are hunters. But on the other, we are... dead? murdered? We look like extras on the set of CSI.

Are the jeans supposed to have caused the animalistic feelings? Turned the people who wear them into wild beings and therefore create a cheap horror show like atmosphere of a camping trip gone wrong? OR are the jeans so darn great we ought to get murdered in them?

Nevertheless, those are just some of my feelings, and perhaps, i have perceived the ads in a totally wrong light. Afterall, I can't help being prejudiced against ads that make females look like they have been sexually assaulted and then dumped face down in water.

This ad wont stop me from buying their jeans, but neither will it make me WANT to buy one.

To kill or not to kill...

(From Wikipedia: Euthanasia (literally "good death" in Ancient Greek) refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless manner)

I read an article today about euthanasia. It wasn’t one of those typical debates about whether countries should legalize euthanasia, or whether someone wanted euthanasia desperately but was flatly refused. No, this article, based on the diary of Marc Weide, is a poignant recollection of the final days of his mom who had chosen to terminate her own life.

In 2008, while most of us were still enjoying the many months of rest before a new school year started, a woman, having been diagnosed with “secondary cancer in her lungs”, was preparing her own funeral and cremation in the Netherlands, where assisted suicide had already been legalized in 2002.

What struck me the most about this article was how the newspaper (The Guardian) had decided to publish excerpts from the diary of Marc Weide. I presume such was done to communicate to the masses, that choosing euthanasia affects both the, the person who chooses it and also her friends and family. On one hand, Weide’s mother did not want to prolong her life with chemotherapy as she would lose all her “beautiful hair”, and on top of that, go through bouts of unbearable pain and sickness. However, on the other hand, she snapped at her family constantly, tried to fill up her days with as many things to do as possible to stave off thinking about her end. After all, who wants to die early when they have a good life and a comforting family?

This collection of diary entries can be said to be, I suppose, full of pathos. It brings the reader into the life of the Weide household as they banded together to support their mother through her darkest days. The reader, along with the family, experiences the emotional and psychological ramifications wrought because of Mrs. Weide’s choice. Such would include the pain, the frustration, the irritation, the rare moment of humor, and the worry and care they feel, all because of their mother. Upon finishing the article, one can only wonder if euthanasia is actually something that should be legalized throughout the world.

At the end of the day, this article can only give us an insight to one of the many cases of euthanasia that has been performed. In my opinion, although the author’s mother had chosen euthanasia as her way out of her sickness, ultimately, she never did come to terms with the fact that she was to die so abruptly. Even though her nerves did not get the best of her, her hesitation showed to us that even by spending so much time planning her death; she still could not truly accept it.

My interpretation of what the author thinks of euthanasia however, would be based mainly on the last entry that he wrote. I think that Weide regrets that perhaps, if his mother had prolonged her life with chemotherapy instead, both of them would have been able to settle the “ clashes between [ him and his mother] “ that had amassed because of her impending death.

Murderous or merciful? You decide.


Article mentioned taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/23/euthanasia.cancer