ERP Assignment 1

I was ten when it happened: Father was diagnosed with cancer. The disease was in its third stage, with half a chance of abating. It was proverbially a bolt from the blue. Our family was leading a happy life, with no experience of any form of dearth and no shortages of small luxuries. Life was like a bed of roses for us, but when the sole breadwinner of the family became ill, this was to change.

Father's medical bills were initially taken care of without much hassle as he was a scrupulous planner and had saved a quarter of whatever he earned ever since he started working, all for a rainy day. However, this was not for long. Three months and various palliative treatments later, his condition did not improve. To add insult to injury, he would be on no-pay leave from then on until he came back for work, as he was absent for so long.

The ill-effects hit home when no car came to pick me up from school. My doting and jovial father always picked me up, ever-smiling while asking, "How was your day?" All this ended when the car had to be sold to meet expenses. More such instances were to come. I started seeing a lot less of Mother, after she took up a job. Piano and tennis lessons were stopped. Small luxuries, such as sweets and gifts, began to get rare. Mother had explained the gravity of the situation before, but I could not adjust with the sudden depravation. Every evening after Mother came home, I used to rant about the difficulties I encountered, and all she could do was smile sadly.

The list of complaints was also repeated during the daily visits to the hospital. Father's hair had disappeared, and his haggard face looked at me intently whenever I spoke. He never let me see the pain he was going through; he was always smiling and trying to look normal while asking the usual question. But it pained me to see him in such a condition. We always stayed by his bedside until he slept, and we always returned home teary-eyed.

It was a relief when he got well enough to come home. Despite his weak state, he made it is point to go to work at least thrice a week to make life comfortable once again. Mother tried pointlessly to stop him, often resorting to screaming- after all, Father winced whenever he walked and incessantly coughed. Although the tough times were still not over, he kept surprising me with small treats that had become non-existent when he was in hospital. I realized that he was trying to give me back whatever I had missed during the nine months. This was clear one resplendent afternoon, when I saw a car coming to pick me up from school. Father had rented a car right after I mentioned that grievance, and the look of accomplishment on his face as he asked "How was your day?" became indelible in my memory. That incident pulled both of us closer than ever before.

The tough times eventually disappeared with all its effects, but only one effect remained in the family- we became closer to each other in a way we would never have been without experiencing the adversity.

Avishek Mondal (2)

3I

IPL- To move, or not to move?

The Indian Premier League (IPL) has now made a habit to come up with a series of 'firsts'- first domestic Twenty20 tournament, first tournament in cricket to replicate the glamour of the English Premier League, and now, the first service to be outsourced out of India. The hit cricket series that dominated TV channels in the subcontinent is being shipped out of the country to South Africa. This has led to an outcry from millions of Indians who have rallied around this matter in far greater numbers difficult to replicate in the upcoming elections. While the organizers have set about making the public see reason in their decision, only one thing reverberates in every Indian's mind- what is Indian should stay Indian.

Envisioned by the Board of Cricket Control India (BCCI), the IPL is tailored to equal the greatness of the English Premier League (EPL). In its inaugural season in 2008, it put US$1 billion into the BCCI's coffers. However, this year, this tournament is being moved to South Africa and this has incensed many Indians. I myself am enraged with this decision, especially after realizing the reason given by the tournament organizers is fallacious and the potential negative consequences.

The only reason given by the organizers for this almost heretical move is the lack of security that can be provided to the players and spectators of this tournament. The IPL coincides with the general elections of the world's largest democracy, and policing this mammoth exercise will be hundreds of thousands of police and paramilitary forces from all states. This leaves precious few armed forces for safeguarding the tournament. Security of cricket cannot be taken for granted anymore, not after what happened to the Sri Lankan players in Lahore, Pakistan. Gunmen open fired on the team bus carrying the players, something unprecedented in the history of cricket. With little security forces present to stop any armed psychopaths from coming to the matches, the organizers have reasoned, the IPL could be a killing ground if it is hosted in India, and shatter India's global image, as compared to a mere smear with the IPL moving out. However, this is a sophistic subterfuge, and in my opinion, shows the unwillingness of the organizers to go the extra step for the IPL. The lack of state-sponsored security can be compensated by installing private security arrangements. The IPL funds will definitely allow this to happen, but it is not the easier way out for them. The delusional excuse of the dearth of security arrangements is an attempt by the incompetent organizers to mask their apathy.

There are several arguments why this tournament should not have moved out of the country.

The main argument for not moving the IPL out is that, by moving the IPL out of the country because of the fear of terrorist attacks simply sends the message that the inhumane tactics of terrorists are working. The main aim of terrorism is to create terror in people's minds, by blowing bombs and killing people in front of them, so that they cannot carry on with their lives normally. Their success lies in the failure of people to carry on with their daily tasks. The IPL was what all Indians followed, because it is a home-grown tournament made by Indians for Indians and it was a gem of India. They took great pains and pride to follow this tournament, and this was part of almost every Indian's daily routine. This failure in carrying out a part of the daily routine occurred because of the actions of terrorists, and this is where the schizoids can claim their success. So, in effect as it can be seen, by moving IPL out of the country because of terrorism will disrupt something that was done regularly by Indians, and send the message that terrorism actually works in the country.

The second argument is something more pragmatic and something more down-earth. By moving the IPL to South Africa, the tournament will make less profit. This is because of two reasons. Firstly, there would be a loss in revenues. To South Africans, cricket is simply a pastime, and to Indians, it is religion. Therefore, South Africans are much less inclined to spend their money on watching matches live in the stadiums. So, ticket sales in South Africa can be called to a drop in the ocean of money Indians would have been willing to spend on ticket sales. In addition to this, money made from broadcasting this tournament will also be much lesser compared what it would have been had the IPL been hosted in India. This is once again because South Africans will be unwilling to spend money subscribing to channels that show the IPL. Besides this, TV viewership from India will also fall, as a result of the time difference the two countries have. Because of these two collective causes, the IPL will get less revenue. The second reason to a smaller profit would be the increased expenses. The causes of this are many, ranging from increased tax and broadcasting rights rates to moving the entire competition, its players etc, to another continent altogether. Thus, as it can be seen, downsized revenues and inflated expenses will reduce the profits the tournament makes, and this will be detrimental to the future of the competition.

Although for now Indians will have to say alvida to the IPL for now, this should not have happened. The reason given by the organizers is ridiculous; what is claimed to be problem is evidence of dispassion on their part. When the IPL moves, it will bring along with it many problems, and leave behind some benefits. This move is detrimental not only to itself, but also to India. It is a score for enemies of the state, by successfully disrupting one aspect of almost every Indian's daily routine. All in all, the tournament should have stayed in India.

The 40 million dollar question

The Singapore Tourism Board spent 40 million dollars on the premier shopping street in the country, and 40 million dollars later, Orchard road is… still the same. Apart from a colony of glass panels, more flower totems and more bushes children pluck orchids from, yes, Orchard Road is still quite the same. In what is most probably the worst decision taken the tourism board, millions have been spent on the physical change almost no one have noticed. I think indeed, this money was quite grossly mismanaged for the reasons I will state below.

The reason given by the STB for spending this mammoth sum of money is that the money has been spent to 'beautify the area'. This would apparently woo tourists to splurge their money in the various shops in the street. This is a great idea, because tourists would indeed come to beautiful places in bigger crowds to splurge their money and give the country's economy much needed revenue. But there is a problem with that reason. Very few people noticed the beautification results. 40% of the people Straits time polled did not notice the final result. Comments such as "I hardly even noticed the difference" were as common as the dead leaves in Orchard road in that survey. STB's rationale for going ahead and spending the money was a good one, but unfortunately, this process has evidently not yielded results that have made any visible results.

There are several reasons why such a huge sum of money should not have been spent the way it was by the STB, and several problems it caused to Orchard Road instead of boosting and beautifying the street.

The first reason is that in the light of the current economic crisis, the number of tourists coming to the country has taken a nosedive. Spending 40million dollars on Orchard road to woo people who would are not even in the country is simply illogical. Instead, the money could have been spent in other areas of tourism, such as advertising Singapore to countries where most of the tourists come from. 40 million dollars would be more than enough to promote Singapore to people in foreign countries and entice them to visit the country. When we have the statistics that tourists are coming to the country, then we can think about beautifying the premier shopping district to woo them to encourage them to spend their money.

The second reason is that the implementation process of this mammoth makeover did more harm than good to the premier district. Because of the construction works in the street, works that installed flower totems and the co-ordinated street furniture, many customers were peeved. One visitor, Mrs Jackie Stevens, said "We thought Orchard Road would be prettier and nicer, because we saw it in the travel books. I didn't know there was going to be so much noise and construction." In times were every single tourist is important, it seems as if the facelift has already done more harm than good. In addition to being the greatest source of irritation to shoppers, the construction had decimated several businesses. Hoardings, put up because of the road works, blinded potential customers to many small businesses ranging from ice-cream to newspaper vendors. As one owner put it, "There used to be a queue of people at my stall. But now, people at Tangs cannot see my stall, and there doesn't seem to be many people coming." If this facelift has to net in profits and benefits, it will first have to reverse these nearly-irreversible losses.

The biggest reason would be that 40 million dollars in making changes to things shopping crowds hardly ever notice is a completely asinine way of spending money. The only result people did notice in the Straits Times survey was the mushrooming of glass panels with lamps that change colour attached underneath. No one noticed the more 'co-ordinated' furniture. No one did as much as cast a glance at the new flower totems. And the newly planted orchid bushes? Children continued plucking the flowers. This money should have instead been spent on more noticeable and helpful things. For example, something about the traffic could have been done, something that is a nagging problem not only to the STB, but to everyone who frequents Orchard Road, and that includes the all important tourists. In addition to that, shoppers cannot get from one side of the road to the other malls, as traffic lights, underpasses and overhead bridges are few and widely spaced apart. Bridges could have been built at closer intervals to help these shopaholics get to the other side. If beautification was indeed the primary goal, the money could have been spent devising a more comprehensive cleaning strategy that would get rid of the biggest appearance problem- the brown dead leaves strewn across the footpaths and roads. The changes listed above are noticeable and would actually help the current bunch of shoppers and improve their shopping experience, and that is what will make them come back. Flower totems and co-ordinated street furniture would not.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research- to fund, or not to fund?

Imagine a world, where no one, not a single human being has to live like the living dead, where not a single person has to suffer from the effects of mutilating diseases such as diabetes. Such a world may seem other-worldly, yet such a world is at our doorstep. The key to this world is the future of embryonic stem cell research.

Stem cells are actually undifferentiated cells that can be turned into nearly any kind of cell. This is particularly useful, because they can be made into certain cells that don’t replicate, such as nerve cells. Embryonic stem cells are stem cells from the embryo, and what makes them the most prized is the fact that these stem cells are the most available of the lot.

There is dissatisfaction among people about the research into this area. The main reason is because people think that the green signal for this research would mean destroying thousands of otherwise perfect waiting-to-be-babies, by killing frozen embryos in laboratories worldwide. This is morally wrong, they say. But isn’t the golden-goal of morals geared towards the betterment of humankind? So would not impeding such betterment be simply ungodly? Would it be better having a cure for the presently incurables, or to introduce more souls into the world who can be afflicted by the deadly diseases? Embryonic stem cells hold so much potential for the cure of incurable diseases, that would be beneficial both to the future and the present, and hence, such a research would be more ‘correct’ than ‘wrong’.

There are many arguments that support the research. The first reason is that compared to other stem cells, such as adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells can be ‘coaxed’ into many more body cells. Researches from various institutions have supported this, and in fact, because of this versatility, embryonic stem cells have garnered so much attention from the media and the scientific community. So, instead of funding multiple researches that look into solutions that cater to individual body cells, funding embryonic stem cell research would ensure that all everything is catered to in a single go.

Another reason to support funding into this discipline is that compared to current methods, embryonic stem cells would eliminate the need for transplants in the future. This is because, for example, if the heart starts failing, doctors currently would have to take out the failing heart and put in a new one. With embryonic stem cells, the doctor can simply inject ESCs into the failing heart, from where the cells would replicate and replace the failing heart cells, in effect revive the heart. This would in effect make “organ-transplant-lists’ a thing for museums, and deaths due to waiting for an organ something for history books.

Perhaps the biggest reason to support embryonic stem cell research is the promise and potential it holds for millions of people worldwide. There would be no more heart-breaking newspaper articles describing a family divided on whether to keep a brain-dead loved one on life-support or not. No more teary tales of a child-prodigy wasting away in bed because of a degenerative disease. This is because ESCs can morph into both nerve and muscle cells, both body cells which hardly replicate. When a large number of these cells die, the patient is reduced to a vegetable state. ESC can also cure mutilating maladies such as diabetes, by morphing into cells in the liver that had failed and led to the disease. All these miracles can be achieved if the current ESC research proceeds on.

We have the key to step into a better world. Now all what that depends is whether we are willing enough to pour money in to turn the key.

What is exposition?

So, the task at hand is trying to explain what is exposition.

The handout we received says that an exposition is a rhetorical discourse that provides information about or an explanation to difficult material.
It also mentions that the purpose of an exposition is to do one of the following, to inform, explain, argue, analyse or define.

Well, to put it all together, what it means is that a exposition is a discourse that either informs, explains, analyses or defines a difficult material so that it is more understandable to the reader. If the writer wants to bring across his point of view to the reader, he will argue for a point in the exposition that shows his view about the material.

Expositions are quite literally, all around us. A politician giving a speech on his party's policies is delivering a verbal exposition. A forum article, say on some war happening, is also an exposition. Even something as simple as "Clean your room before I come home" can be considered an exposition. This is because this defines what you have to do to your room (clean it) and explains when it has to be done by (before I come home). There can also be a possible implication from this, for example, if the room is not cleaned, there will be trouble, or if the room is cleaned, there will be treat.

Non-examples of a exposition includes personal anecdotes etc. This is because on its own, an anecdote does not have a difficult material within it.

There are 5 different types of non-fiction exposition:

1. Sequence: Writing lists, events or steps in chronological order
2. Descriptive essays: Use the senses of sight smell, touch, hearing and taste to provide the reader with a mental image or feeling about the subject
3. Classification: Writing uses an organisatinal strategy to arrange groups of objects or ideas according to a common theme
4. Comparison: Writing shows the similarities and differences between two or more subjects
5. Cause and effect: Writing, also known as analysis, identifies the reasons for an event or situation
   
   That, to me, is what exposition is.

Sources: www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/exposition

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_(literary_technique)

Handout

PS: For the weird name of the blog, 'pedagogy' actually means lesson. I got a bit carried away in dictionary.com. But a little alliteration helps in a blog dedicated to English lessons.