Teenage Talent

Teenage hacker unlocks the iPhone

A New Jersey teenager has unlocked the iPhone, opening the way to Apple's iconic mobile telephone being used by non-US networks.

The Associated Press news agency confirmed George Hotz, 17, had unlocked the iPhone and used it on T-Mobile, a rival to its sole US operator, AT&T.

The hacker says the unlocking takes about two hours and involves some soldering and skill with software.

AT&T and Apple have not yet commented on the news.

Hackers and security researchers have been poring over Apple's much-coveted phone since its launch in the US in June in an effort to discover vulnerabilities in the handset.

Top of their list has been cracking the code that ties the phone to AT&T, the iPhone's exclusive network.

Before George Hotz's announcement on his blog, the iPhone was made to work on overseas networks using another method, which involves copying information from the Sim (Subscriber Identity Module) card.

However, special equipment was needed and the actual phone was not unlocked, with each Sim card having to be reprogrammed for use on a particular iPhone.

Analysts believe Apple may still have time to modify the iPhone production line to make new phones invulnerable to the hacks before the iPhone's expected European launch later this year.

Collaboration

The young hacker says he hopes phone-owners can eventually unlock their phones by themselves, and that he hopes his discovery will not be exploited for commercial gain.

"That's exactly, like, what I don't want... people making money off this," he told AP.

The next step, he said, would be a non-solder solution: a way to unlock the phone using software alone.

Technology blog Engadget said on Friday that it had successfully unlocked an iPhone using a different method that required no tinkering with the hardware. The software was supplied by an anonymous group of hackers that apparently plans to charge for it, AP reports.

The agency notes that both the Hotz and Sim techniques leave the iPhone's many functions intact apart from its "visual voicemail" feature, which shows voice messages as if they are incoming e-mail.

The New Jersey hacker says he collaborated online with four other people, two of them in Russia, to develop the unlocking process.

He spent about 500 hours on the project since the launch on 29 June.

"Some of my friends think I wasted my summer but I think it was worth it," he told US newspaper The Record of Bergen County.

___

I was surprised to read that a seventeen year old teenager managed to get past the safety locks of a major technology company. He is a mere seventeen year old individual against an entire established company otherwise known by many as Apple. Yet, he managed to get past the codes that prevented the iPhone from using any other service provider but AT&T.

This work is no doubt the work of a genius. George Hotz may not be a “genius”, in the absolute sense of the word, but still it needed a fair amount of skill, ability and talent to get past the codes set by a major company. Credit goes to him. Teenagers like him are living prove of how much talent there is in our next generation today. In Singapore’s context the picture is not too different. Though there are not such bold attempts by individuals to pit their skills against an entire company, the talent pool and fields are increasing.

Yet what strikes me the most is this teenager’s guts and courage to dare to unlock the codes of Apple’s iPhone and go public about it. For one, I am sure George Hotz knows fully that this act could bring lawsuits against him, especially since it is against a major company. This is because such an act – of having a seventeen year old unlock the codes of Apple – undermines the ability of Apple. It makes a mockery of and is damaging to its public image. These factors were surely taken into account when he decided to go public with his work. Yet, he still did so and this shows the guts that these teenagers have today. The last question then would be who were to pay for any financial costs incurred from the lawsuits that are sure to follow? Surely, it would be his parents. Had he not considered this before doing such a seemingly brave act or even deciding to go public about it? Is he rich enough to handle the financial costs?

The problem with teenagers are that they do not think before they act. They do not stop and consider whether what they are doing is a right or not. Many often follow their friends in the blind believe that it is “cool” to do such things. Without this maturity to control oneself, it becomes dangerous. All the talent we see in our youths today can be blown away in act of folly, an act that they did not stop to think about. In Singapore, we may not see such daring attempts, but quietly we do know similar acts can and do land teenagers in hot soup. One example is the illegal downloading of music.

While we see the talent that our youths hold today, the older generation must not celebrate too early. Guidance is still needed to ensure that youths understand the risk of acting without thinking. Only then, can we ensure that the talents in youths are properly made use of.

(498 words)

Human ethics .vs. Religious ethics

Organ Act change to save 10 lives a year

Salma Khalik, Health Correspondent Sun, Aug 26, 2007
The Straits Times

BRINGING Muslims under the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota) can lead to as many as 10 lives saved a year, said the Ministry of Health (MOH) yesterday.

The legislative process to amend the Act will start in November and is expected to be wrapped up by early next year.

This means that Muslims, like other Singaporeans, will be considered as having consented to having their organs harvested when they die - unless they opt out.

Muslims are now not covered by Hota, introduced in 1987, as it was deemed contrary to their beliefs. They had to opt in if they wanted to be donors.

An edict from Muslim leaders in July changed all that, as it declared organ donation a life-saving gesture in line with Islamic teachings.

MOH expects to get five Muslim cadaveric donors a year, giving up five hearts and five livers to people who need them. It also means that 10 more kidneys and 10 more corneas would be available.

Last year, 15 people were taken off the liver waiting list and four off the heart list because they could not get the organs in time and had either died, become too old or too sick for a transplant.

'Every life saved is important,' said Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, speaking to reporters yesterday at the WaterFest by the Bay.

For the 555 people whose kidneys have failed, the change will mean a shorter wait than the nine years facing them today.

It will have a bigger impact on Muslims, now that the effects of the opt-in process have become clear for all to see. Of the 300,000 eligible Muslims, only 16,000 have pledged their organs.

As priority for organs is given to those who agreed to be donors, the backlog of Muslims awaiting transplants started growing longer. Those who signed on when their organs started failing had to sit out two years before getting on the wait list.

Last year, Muslims made up 21 per cent of patients waiting for a kidney, but only 16 per cent of those who received one. Madam Halimah Yacob, head of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Health, called the move a 'logical development and a necessity'.

'Judging by the long queue of those seeking donors, our experience with the opting-in route has failed,' she said.

She will be holding forums to explain Hota to Muslims who want to know, for example, the definition of 'brain dead''. MOH defines this as someone who 'will never wake up nor regain consciousness' and whose heart will stop once he is taken off artificial support.

Mr Khaw wants six weeks of public consultation to get support for Hota. He also wants feedback on proposals to give more power to MOH to investigate possible organ trading, which is illegal here. Now, only the police can do so.

The Sunday Times understands that someone had tried to sell a kidney on the Net in 2004. The person was identified and issued a letter of warning.

Mr Khaw also indicated that he might make changes to rules regarding living wills or Advance Medical Directive next year, to make it easier for people to declare that they do not want their lives prolonged by artificial means if they fall terminally ill.

The Straits Times reported yesterday that so far, more than 6,000 people have signed living wills, with 3,486 in the last two years alone - a figure which 'pleasantly surprised'' Mr Khaw.

'It's better to let your family know your preference, instead of letting them decide and maybe getting into a quarrel,' he said.

__

This issue on whether Muslims should donate their organs by law has been debated on many times. Previously, Muslims were allowed to follow their religious beliefs and they were not required by law to donate their organs. However, the Ministry of Health recently changed the system, to automatically require all Muslims to donate their organs, unless they opt out of it. It is now said to be in line with the teachings of Islam.

The question is how does one decide whether it is ethical to pass a law if it coincides with a religious belief or practice. The first problem arises because there are “universal” ethics that basically apply to all mankind and there are religious ethics. While the believers in a religion say it is unethical to perform a certain act because it goes against their beliefs, others feel it is unethical to not save a person’s life. The act of saving a person’s life is a humanitarian issue. It is an ethical issue that many say is a basic human right. As for the believers in a religion, they have their own set of rules and ethics. The difference between the religious ethics and the human ethics is that these religious ethics only apply to the believers of a religion.

From this, the second problem arises. Which ethic, the basic human ethics or religious ethics, should the government follow? On one hand, the government should follow the basic human ethics because the government should not believe in a single religion. On the other hand, however, it cannot discount the rights of its people, in this case the religious ethics that its people choose to follow.

Fortunately for the government, religious groups are willing to re-look their take on an issue. As the government today has more power over the religious groups, they are willing to accept that their religious ethics come second to basic human ethics. This is further made possible because the line between human ethics and religious ethics have begun to fade. For one, these so called basic human ethics are partly decided by religious beliefs. In the past, people look to religion for moral support and they realize that such a teaching is in fact a basic right as a human. Hence, religious followers believe that these basic human ethics are actually in line with their religion’s ethics. It helps that the religious writings are open for interpretation. Hence, it allows religious leaders to interpret their teachings in a different way. Where previously, something was thought to be against their teachings, from a different angle, it may not be so. They can hence have a different take on their religious ethics.

With these factors, religious groups have begun to first follow the basic human ethics and then their personal religious believes. This is the case when Muslim leaders agreed that donating their organs would be a life-saving act that is in line with their teachings.

(491 words)

Changing Climate Opinions

Big-city mayors meet over climate change

Summit brings together officials and business leaders to cut greenhouse gases

May 16, 2007
The Straits Times

NEW YORK - MAYORS and business leaders from more than 40 of the world's biggest cities gathered in New York on Monday for a summit devoted to combating climate change and cleaning up the environment.

They joined former US president Bill Clinton and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit, billed as helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop energy-efficient infrastructure.

The summit is expected to include several joint initiatives that harness the combined purchasing power of the cities.The event is being organised in conjunction with the Clinton Climate Initiative, part of the foundation set up by the former US president, who is due to address the summit today.

The first such summit was held in London in 2005 and had brought together environmental officials from around 20 cities. This year's meeting brings in business leaders for the first time.

Ms Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a non-governmental business leadership group organising the gathering, said that by bringing together the city authorities, companies with technological solutions and banks to finance new initiatives, the summit was more than just a talk shop.

'You have had lots of people that are abstractly talking about global warming and advocating policy change, but these are people who actually write cheques,' she said.

Other topics up for discussion include beating traffic congestion, making water systems more efficient, adopting renewable energy sources, increasing recycling levels, reducing waste and improving mass transit.

The theory behind the conference is that cities must play a major role in reversing climate change because they contribute 80 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions even though they cover less than 1 per cent of the Earth's surface.

'If one city by itself implements a policy to reduce its carbon emissions, I do not think it is going to convince anyone that that is going to change the world,' she said.

'But if the larger cities across five continents commit to do something, that could change the world, it could have a real impact,' she added, particularly welcoming the role of cities in developing countries.

Among the cities represented are Bangkok, Berlin, Sydney, Tokyo, Copenhagen, Delhi, Johannesburg, Karachi, Mexico City and Seoul.

The event, due to end tomorrow, coincided with Mr Bloomberg's visit to the state Capitol on Monday to pitch his 23-year environmental plan for New York, including the controversial congestion pricing scheme, to the state's lawmakers.

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, ASSOCIATED PRESS, REUTERS

__

Global warming and climate change has always been a persistent problem. However, only recently has the global population started realising just how important it is to set up measures against climate change. Man is the only one to be blamed for all unnatural problems. If we want to properly eradicate this problems, perhaps we should get to the root of it and examine the relationship between ourselves and the rest of nature.

Nature exists in an equilibrium state. It is an endless cycle because everything that happens in nature is there to help some other specie. In this way, nature is always equalised by something else. One animal helps feed another and another. The animal’s faeces returns back to the soil to become fertiliser for plants and the plants in turn provide the animals for food. Everything in nature is there for to help keep it balanced. But humans do not. Humans today are the only animals on this planet that has disrupted this cycle.

The problem is that humans are born with far superior intellectual capabilities than any other animal or plant in nature. This has resulted in us being able to outsmart any animal that becomes a threat to us. When tigers are rampant, we have guns to kill them all. We seem always have a solution for any problems that nature presents to us. It is perhaps because of this that we humans think that we are the king of the animal kingdom. We think that because everything is under our control and therefore planet Earth belongs to us. We think that everything on this planet is there to serve us. But that is not true.

During a talk, I was introduced to this Latin phrase, Natura Artis Magistra. The direct translation of it is “nature is the mother of art”. “Art” is used here to refer to man’s creation. It was this connection between man and nature that I found to be very true. Man and our creations would one day be extinct, but nature would forever be there. Even man depends on other animals and plants for support. If we were to kill all the other animals and plants before they can reproduce, then man would inevitably be extinct as well. That is what is precisely happening today. However, since nature exists in equilibrium, it would forever be supported by the different species of animals and plants.

Nature does not need man. All the other animals and plants can still survive, without us. Yet, we, the most intelligent being on this planet, depend on the rest of nature to survive. All other animals on this planet is there to serve nature, not us. We are just one of the many species of animal in nature. Like all other animals, we are there to nature, not the other way round. If we all can just change the way we view nature, then perhaps we would be more environmentally conscious.

(493 words)

The Blairing Critiques

How will history judge him?

May 10th 2007
From The Economist print edition

For all the disappointments, posterity will look more kindly on Tony Blair than Britons do today.

FEW Britons, it seems, will shed a tear when Tony Blair leaves the stage on June 27th after a decade as prime minister, as he finally announced this week he would do. Opinion polls have long suggested that he is unpopular. On May 3rd local and regional elections gave voters a last chance to give Mr Blair a good kicking. They took it with both feet, handing power to Conservatives, Scottish Nationalists, Welsh nationalists, anybody but distrusted Labour. Most wish he had gone last year—an opinion shared by his likely heir, Gordon Brown, who now faces a mighty struggle against David Cameron's Tories.

Either Britons are an ungrateful lot, or Mr Blair deserves his shabby send-off for having delivered too little and disappointed too much. The truth, as usual, is more complicated.

You used to love me...

On most measures, Mr Blair has left Britain a better place than it was in 1997 (see article). Uninterrupted economic growth has made the average Briton substantially better off, even if the tax burden has risen. There are fewer tatty schools and run-down hospitals. Although many exams lack rigour, more children are getting respectable grades and going on to universities. Thanks to the minimum wage and tax credits for poor working families, the forces relentlessly pushing up income inequality under Margaret Thatcher have been blunted.

These things are measurable; less easy to prove, but just as valuable, are the ways in which Mr Blair has helped make Britain a more tolerant, more cosmopolitan place. There is a human-rights act now; civil partnerships for homosexuals are recognised. Self-government for Scotland, Wales and now even Northern Ireland has extended democracy: peace in Ulster must rank among Mr Blair's greatest successes (see article). Class matters less: the fact that the Tories are gaining popularity led by an Old Etonian is, strangely, a sign of progress.

Under Mr Blair, fusty old Britain has become an international exemplar of openness. Large-scale immigration, especially from the former communist countries of eastern Europe, has boosted the economy without triggering a serious backlash of resentment. Embracing globalisation, London has become one of the most dynamic cities in the world. Mr Blair has changed the debate in Europe (Nicolas Sarkozy is another right-winger in his debt—see article) and he has also done more than any other Western leader to force people to pay attention to climate change and poverty in Africa.

You can go through this list, adding asterisks and footnotes: on the economy, not enough credit goes to the Tories who came before Mr Blair; on immigration, for every happy Czech waitress in Covent Garden there are several angry Muslims in Leeds; on civil liberties, he helped gays but not prisoners or young louts. Still, Mr Blair has improved Britain, on balance, and he has usually stood on the side of liberal progress. This newspaper, for one, has no regrets in having supported him.

Why then does Mr Blair leave a sour taste in Britain—and not only in the mouths of the old socialist left and the xenophobic right? For millions of people, only one word is necessary: Iraq. But the disappointments go further back than that.

This, after all, was the most gifted politician of his generation—certainly in Europe and (depending on your opinion of the foxier but less disciplined Bill Clinton) perhaps wider than that. Before coming to power Mr Blair already had one enormous achievement to his name: dragging the Labour Party to the electable centre. In 1997 he had not just a big parliamentary majority but a country that wanted what he wanted—an economy that combined the hard-won gains of Thatcherism with a greater emphasis on social justice and modernised public services. How could he fail?

By being astonishingly ill-prepared. In retrospect, it is hard to exaggerate the waste of Mr Blair's first term. Under the visionary rhetoric, the new government had little notion of how to improve public services, other than by dismantling its predecessor's successful attempts to raise their quality by injecting more competition. With one or two exceptions (among them primary schools), more harm than good was done to health and education. Unable to show solid progress, Mr Blair fell back on the techniques of opposition, spinning the news to convey an impression of activity and progress. His popularity continued to defy gravity, but authority was squandered, and public cynicism grew.

In his second term Mr Blair did eventually work out a model for public sector reform—one that involved refining the internal-market policies pioneered by the Tories, but with far more money from the state. But by then September 11th and soon Iraq were upon him. From the invasion in 2003, with his party squabbling and Mr Brown all too often sniping from the sidelines, public-service reform lost momentum. To his credit, Mr Blair tried to push ahead, risking his job over variable university tuition fees, for instance. But the fact is that, although services have got better, they are still worse than they should be; and a lot of cash has been thrown away. Britons will rue those wasted years as much as Mr Blair now does.

The Bagdad blues

By contrast, on Iraq, the source of so much misfortune, history may be a little kinder to Mr Blair than his countrymen currently are. Nobody denies the manifest disaster of the past four years. It would be convenient for supporters of the war, such as this newspaper, to claim we were tricked into it by Mr Blair; convenient, but unfair. He did indeed put more weight on the scanty intelligence evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction than it could bear. But there is little doubt that he (and many others) believed in it at the time. Nor was it a bad thing to want to rid the world of a brutal tyrant. After all, Mr Blair had built the American-led coalition that ended the genocidal career of Slobodan Milosevic; and the invasion of Afghanistan had at first been a success.

As for the catastrophic mismanagement thereafter, Mr Blair should have insisted on far more in terms of post-war planning. And, yes, a bolder friend of America might have publicly pushed for Donald Rumsfeld to have been removed, for the nightmarish Guantánamo Bay to be closed, for George Bush to have tried harder to create a Palestinian state. But the greater fault lies with Mr Bush for refusing to listen to somebody who plainly knew more about the Arab world and indeed terrorism than he did. Given that obstinacy, Mr Blair had two real choices: to leave Iraq and America to a still-worse fate; or to stay in, hoping to repair some of the damage Britain had helped cause. On balance he did the right thing.

Perhaps the greatest tribute to Mr Blair is that neither Mr Brown nor Mr Cameron wishes to change fundamentally the course he has set. Both will stay in Iraq, for a while, and Afghanistan. Despite his initial scepticism, Mr Brown is unlikely to unpick Mr Blair's public-service reforms. Mr Cameron's popularity is based on occupying the Blairite centre ground.

If Margaret Thatcher, in much more testing times, gave the country what it needed, Mr Blair can at least claim to have given it much of what it wanted. It is unlikely that he will ever be thought of as the great prime minister he could have been. It is almost certain, however, that Mr Blair will come to be seen as a better one than he is today.

___

Mr Tony Blair will step down after 10 years as prime minister of Britain. There are speculations that few Britons will be disappointed at his resignation. Many have criticised the efforts spent on Iraq, the over-enthusiastic help given to America and the lack of fulfilling his potential throughout the 10 years in office, amongst other things. However they have only seen the down sides of Mr Blair’s term in office. Few have bothered to realise the contributions that Mr Blair has done for Britain. Why is this so?

It is like viewing an art piece in an art gallery. There are many angles to view the painting from, but because it is right ahead of us, we look at it straight on. Perhaps, the painting is best viewed from the sides, but most people do not know that. And so one after another, looks at the painting straight on, finds it rather disappointing and dismisses it. How many people would have actually bothered to look at the painting from another angle after getting a disappointing first impression? Would you? This is what is happening in Briton. The most apparent thing people have noticed is the faults of Mr Blair. And therefore, without considering his contributions, they have criticised his faults. It is the same for most scenarios, even if we are criticised for the most minute things by our friends, teachers, parents or anyone. We never seem to be praised for our contributions but always criticised for our faults. While, from our own angle, we often blame the other party for criticising you without due justification, perhaps we should just look at it from yet another angle.

Instead of insisting that your painting looks perfect, if you were to edit your painting such that it looks equally beautiful straight on, as it does from the side, then how many more people would enjoy your painting? It is not just for the sake of others enjoyment, but that others actually appreciate your work and that gives you a sense of self-satisfaction. Mr Blair has done the same as well. Instead of always rejecting his people’s criticisms, he has made that effort to improve on them. It is this attitude that Mr Blair has that has allowed Briton to progress.

Sometimes, you may feel that the other party is not justified in criticising you. Yet, if you would to just bow down and accept their arguments, not for the sake of ending that argument, but because you agree with them, then it would give you that determination to prove to them that you have changed from your mistakes. Ultimately, if you can change your mistakes, even though it to you it may not be there, only you, yourself, would stand to benefit from it and become even better. The issue here is not whether you agree or not with other people’s arguments, but to accept it and change from it, whether it is true or not.

(494 words)

From the Procrastinator

Dear Examiner-In-Question,

Mass production comes with choosy choosing.
Take your pick, but there are only two options--the first two.
I can't decide which of the two, so please, i need your help.

Regards,
Cannot-make-up-his-mind Procrastinator

(For the clueless: please mark the first 2 entries)

Toying With Family Gaming

Violent video games don't make killers: study

Fri Mar 2, 2007 8:15AM EST

By Lisa Baertlein

LOS ANGELES (Reuters Life!) - Do video games kill? The jury is still out on whether violent video games lead to violent behavior in children, but a new study asserts that killer games do not make killer kids.

University of Southern California sociologist Karen Sternheimer, who has been researching the topic since 1999, said blaming video games for youth violence fails to take into account other major factors.

"A symphony of events controls violence," said Sternheimer, who began her research after some experts blamed the video game "Doom" for the gun rampage at Columbine High School in Colorado in which two students killed 13 people and then themselves.

It was a tragic and, very fortunately, rare event and it was discouraging to see that the conversation often started and stopped at video games."

Sternheimer's article, "Do Video Games Kill?," will appear in the American Sociological Association's Contexts magazine as the European Union weighs outlawing certain violent games and harmonizing national penalties for retailers caught such products to under-age children.

Her research, which involved analyzing newspaper coverage and FBI statistics detailing trends on youth crime, found that in the 10 years after the release of "Doom" -- and many other brutal-sounding titles -- juvenile homicide arrest rates in the United States fell 77 percent.

Students have less than a 7 in 10 million chance of being killed at school, Sternheimer found.

"If we want to understand why young people become homicidal, we need to look beyond the games they play ... (or) we miss some of the biggest pieces of the puzzle," she said, listing community and family violence, suburban alienation and less parental involvement as other possible factors.

Sternheimer said violent video games have come to carry the baggage of social anxieties over youth violence as the industry has grown into a $10 billion-plus behemoth that rivals Hollywood box office sales.

This also provides a quick fix for when the public demands an explanation for why middle-class children become murderers.

In the United States, the video game industry is self-regulated and retailers deciding whether or not to sell M-rated games for mature audiences to minors. These games carry content deemed appropriate for people aged 17 and older.

Sternheimer said putting the blame on video games exonerated the environment in which the child was raised and also removed the culpability of the criminals.

"It's a complicated problem that merits more than a simple solution," she said

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.

__

While the writer in this particular article says that such toys and games do not breed violence among youths, I feel otherwise. Though science and research has not proved it, I believe that it has some psychological bearing. Through the daily violent gaming, they unconsciously form an illusion as to how to escape from their problems. Such games opens a door way as to which field one should look at in order to solve their problems. In this case, it is violence. It stimulates the creativity in each and every youth to think along these lines and harbor such ideas. That is why in times of desperation youths turn to such problem-solving methods as these daily activities has form an impression in them.

In a short story written by Saki, entitled the Toys of Peace, he writes of how this couple comes across an article in a London morning paper. The article is about how giving young boys guns and armies to play with only encourages their primitive instincts for fighting. Parents should instead give their children “peace toys”. Instead of miniature soldiers, give them miniature civilians. Instead of guns, give them ploughs and tools of industry. It is hoped that this would change a boy’s love for fighting. As Saki has pointed out, it is what the little toys that children play with in their infant years that decide what big toys they still play with in their adulthood.

However, I do agree with both Saki and the writer of this article in one point. The key deciding factor as to how youths find solutions to their problems are their parents and families. As I strongly belief, the teaching methods of parents defines how their children grows. A broken up family usually ends in having an equally broken-up child. As the writer mentioned in the article, violent gaming should not be used as an excuse to shield the parents from irresponsible upbringing. It is the parents who decide what their children do. It is the parents who bear the responsibility of bringing the child upright. The lack of responsibility among the parents should not be undermined. A key understanding that Saki had in his story was that what is important are the infant years of a child. Those are the years that shape the character of the child. Responsible and good parents should swarm their children in these years with moral values. If they have been properly influenced by their parents, then no matter what artificial forces they meet later in life, the roots of these moral values will keep them standing straight up. But if the opposite occurs, then it would be difficult to replant the already tall but crooked tree.

Of course at my childhood years I have yet to experience the responsibilities that come with age. Many things I have said in this review are mere assumptions, but these two stories have taught me how important it is to properly raise a child up.

(498 words)

International Uncle Sam

___

White House Warns Against Iraq Pullout

By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Brushing aside criticism from the White House, Senate Democrats said Friday their next challenge to President Bush's Iraq war policy would require the gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat troops beginning within 120 days.

The draft legislation also declares the war "requires principally a political solution" rather than a military one.

The provisions are included in a measure that would repeal the authority that lawmakers gave Bush in 2002, months before the invasion of Iraq, and replace it with a far more limited mission.

Democrats have said they are likely to seek a vote on the proposal within two weeks. The odds against it ever becoming law are high, and the White House and Senate Republicans were quick to denounce it.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the administration "of course" would oppose an attempt to alter the existing authorization, and he warned that a pullout of U.S. troops could bring chaos to Iraq. "We're operating under a mandate," he said.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky dismissed the proposal as an attempt by Democrats to produce "what could best be described as a Goldilocks resolution: one that is hot enough for the radical left wing, but cool enough for party leaders to claim that they are for the troops.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the White House is not only confused, but in denial.

"They can spin all they want, but the fact is that President Bush is ignoring a bipartisan majority of Congress, his own military commanders, and the American public in escalating the war," said Jim Manley. "The American people have demanded a change of course in Iraq and Democrats are committed to holding President Bush accountable."

As currently drafted, the Democratic legislation says the military "shall commence phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq not later than 120 days" after the bill's enactment. The goal is to complete the withdrawal by March 31, 2008.

In the interim, the military would be required to transition to a new mission involving "targeted anti-terrorism operations," as well as providing training and logistical support for the Iraqis and helping them protect their own borders.

The measure also pledges that Congress will "continue to support and protect" the armed forces, renewing a commitment that was included in an earlier nonbinding measure that also criticized Bush's plans to deploy an additional 21,500 troops.

Republicans blocked action on the measure last week, demanding that Democrats allow a vote on an alternative that would rule out cutting off funds for the troops.

At the White House, Fratto said that changes in the existing authority for use of military force were unnecessary even though it dates from the days when Saddam Hussein was in power and there was an assumption - later proved false - that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The White House said that Democrats were in a state of confusion about Iraq but left room for compromise.

"There's a lot of ... shifting sands in the Democrats' position right now," Fratto said. "We'll see what Democrats decide to do."

He said the president would judge anything that comes out of Congress by whether it gives him "the flexibility and resources" necessary to proceed with Bush's decision to send 21,500 additional combat troops to Iraq to secure Baghdad and Anbar Province.

"It's clear that if there are efforts to remove troops out of Baghdad, there are consequences for Baghdad," Fratto said. "The only credible analysis that we've seen - the (National Intelligence Estimate) report and others - are pretty clear on this, that it would bring chaos to Baghdad."

Senate Republicans recently thwarted two Democratic attempts to pass a nonbinding measure critical of Bush's troop-increase plan. Asked if Bush would oppose any effort to revoke his war authorization, Fratto said, "Of course we would."

In the House, a nonbinding anti-war measure was approved last week. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she expects the next challenge to Bush's war policies to be a requirement that the Pentagon adhere to strict training and readiness standards for troops heading for the war zone.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the leading advocate of that approach, has said it would effectively deny Bush the ability to proceed with the troop buildup.

But Bush's Republican allies on Capitol Hill have fought that as denying reinforcements to troops already in the war zone, leading to the alternative approach in the Senate.

The measure Bush won from Congress in 2002 authorized the president to use the armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate ... to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

At the time, the world body had passed resolutions regarding Iraq's presumed effort to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo contributed to this report.

___

When America first invaded Iraq, many Iraqis supported it. After a decade of cruelty handed down by Saddam, many Iraqis found America as the tool to pry open Saddam's evil grasp. Since 2003, however, opinions have changed. Articles about bomb blasts, gunfire and deaths in Iraq have become a daily occurrence in the news. However, this time the story does not just have a single protagonist, but many groups of them.

Many say that America themselves are causing this violence. The insurgents are doing so in a bid to drive America out of their homeland. They feel that America has no business staying in Iraq except to tap on their oil. They are also using this opportunity to continue their religious war on the largely Christian America. But while the Iraqis want America out of the country to stop the violence, there is a larger picture to look at.

There are hints that America wants to pull out of Iraq with the daily increasing and ever rising death figures. They are already doing so. They are also training the Iraqis to manage their own country. Yet, while Americans and Iraqis want a pull-out, it is easier said than done. If America were to leave Iraq as it is today, under the hail of bullets and bombs that are occurring daily, then they themselves would be under a hail of criticism. The Iraq today cannot be left to its own defences—they do not have one. They cannot manage the violence that is happening in Iraq, much less about the “violence” they would face outside Iraq.

While many Iraqis do not see it, they need America to stay. At least, America with their wealth of experience can provide some support. The self-proclaimed policemen of today continue to have responsibilities in Iraq. While we criticise America for sparking these problems in the first place, we cannot just ask them to leave Iraq. That would be to say, running away from the problems. Right now, America can only find a way out—that is to calm the violence in Iraq so that an Iraqi government can run it, without the Americans sticking their big nose in. But that does not happen overnight. America have put themselves, not Iraq, into a hole.

However, do not mistake me. Though Singapore is heavily influenced by the western mindset, I am not fully supportive of the international policing work done by the self-declared international police. I am only looking at the Iraqi situation from a practical aspect. Of course there are assumptions in my argument, such as the fact that America do really intend to pull out of Iraq. After all, their reasons for invading Iraq, because of the weapons of mass destruction, had been deemed void as they eventually did not find such weapons. Hence, many speculate about the underlying intentions of invading Iraq. Therefore, I am merely posing another problem that many do not realize may occur as a result of an American pull-out.

(499 words)