Do you agree that Brutus had a noble motive when murdering his adopted father, Julius Caesar? Discuss.

         Julius Caesar was killed in 15^th March 44 BC by 60 of Roman senators that led by Gaius Cassius Longinus and his adopted son, Marcus Junius Brutus. They stabbed Caesar about 23 times until death in the Theatre of Pompey. Brutus claimed in his speech that the reason he killed Caesar was because he loved Rome than Caesar and it shows that he wanted to save Rome from Caesar domination. In my opinion, I do not think that Brutus had a noble motive in murdering Caesar because of some reasons.

            First, he did not precise his motive well as he only claimed that he loved Rome more and Caesar was an ambitious man. He did not tell that the reasons the led to his conviction. He afraid that Julius Caesar would turn Rome into a chaos after he had been titled as a King, however he could not guarantee and did not have any evidence that this would happen. In addition, he was the one who turned Rome into chaos as there was a battle between him and Mark Anthony after the tragedy. He also ran away to Asia with Cassius since the Romans were looking for them and it shows that the Romans still wanted Caesar as their dictator.

            Besides, he had no intention to kill Caesar since he had been pressured by Cassius who seduced him to murder his own forefather. Cassius used Brutus for his innocence attitude to succeed his personal revenge towards Caesar as he wanted to be as powerful as Caesar. It is also shown when Brutus hesitated in stabbing Caesar like what other senators did and he murdered himself after the tragedy. It is believed that he felt guilty in killing his adopted father for unsure reason.

          In conclusion, Brutus did not have a noble motive because he just made it to confuse the Romans and murdering is not the way for freedom and the act itself is brutal.

Based on the documentary A.B.B, do you think all the vices committed by Julius Caesar were necessary in order to safeguard the superiority of Rome as the greatest civilization in the ancient world?

           

           Julius Caesar was one of the greatest leader ever existed in ancient time and it is supported by many historians who believe that the superiority of Rome was because of Julius Caesar. However, Julius Caesar behaviour in order to protect Rome was unnecessary and can be classified as cruel.

          All Julius Caesar’ vices were against the morality and humanity which are qualities that supposed to have in a good leader. Julius Caesar watched 20,000 of women and children died in starvation just because he did not let the people passed the circumvallation to protect his army. It seems that he was willing to do anything to protect his army and Rome nevertheless by sacrifying other people and have no intention to help them was unacceptable behaviour. It shows that he was conscious his power than people’s life. Besides, he also ordered his army to cut off all survivors’ hands as a warning for those who were trying to against him. This act shows that he used a brutal way to scare the people off without thinking the consequences and the circumstances that should be faced by the people who had lost their hands for no reason. 

          In addition, he always tried to dominate many countries by having bloody battles. The example is when he approached to Avaricum where a battle had held and about 39,000 of men, women and children had been slaughtered by his soldiers. There are many other ways that can be applied to dominate a country and by killing innocence people, this cannot be described as a victory but as a lost. Other than that, Caesar had slept with women including his friends’ wives and it shows that he had lost his mind for power. He did so to show his dominance over the women and automatically over the husbands.

        In conclusion, based on the reasons I has given below, it shows that Julius Caesar’s vices were unnecessary in order to protect Rome because it against the morality and humanity that should be had in a great leader.

There were many suspects in the Jack the Ripper murders over the years. What are the evidences that support the claim that James Kelly was Jack the Ripper? If you are rival detective, how do you eliminate all the evidence that you’re identified in the documentary?

              Finding Jack the Ripper is not easy even the suspects for this serial murder were over a hundred. In a documentary named Jack the Ripper in America, a retired detective, Ed Norris claimed that James Kelly was Jack the Ripper and he was responsible to other murders of prostitutes in United States of America (USA). Ed Norris found some evidences of the case that lead to his conviction about James Kelly was the Ripper.

           The first evidence is James Kelly killed his wife by stabbing her in the neck after he accused his wife had another man. This evidence shows that Kelly had an experienced in murdering however, he was doing it when he was angry towards his wife unfaithfulness. When people are angry, they may lose control and do anything that can release their angriness and this is different with the other Ripper’s victims where they were killed randomly.

            Second, James Kelly was escaped from Broadmoor Asylum by using a key that he made by himself in early 1888 exactly the year when the killing happened. On the contrary, there is no evidence show that James Kelly was in Whitechapel at the time of the murder happened because police could not find him until 40 years after he escaped.

              Third, other evidence that Ed Norris found is he worked as a furniture upholsterer that had ability in using a knife. Nevertheless, the method of Jack the Ripper killing is he cut the victims’ throat and took out the organs of the victims. It shows that the Ripper had knowledge about human body or anatomical knowledge as he knew the location of human’s organs and James Kelly did not have that.

           Fourth, the next evidence is James Kelly’s psychological result matched with the Ripper’s attitude as a doctor decided that Kelly was insane that could lead to murdering. Granted that, insane people cannot murder their victim without leaving any proof and cannot plan the place and time of the murder strategically since most of them are doing it spontaneously. It is different with Jack the Ripper’s method of killing.

                  Last but not least, the fifth evidence is James Kelly’s photo is the same with Jack the Ripper’s sketch when he was 40 years old younger than the age when the photo was taken. Conversely, this evidence is an assumption made by Ed Norris as it is not strong enough to proof that Kelly is the Ripper. No one can convince and had witnessed that the Ripper’s sketch is 100% correct or the young face of James Kelly is accurate.

              As conclusion, Jack the Ripper remains unknown until today no matter how hard people trying to find him by using technology or personal detectives. It is because Jack the Ripper was an intelligent murderer who could do his work without leaving any evidence on his victims’ body.

Distinguish between facts and fictions that are portrayed in the movie and which aspect of the plot that is accurate to the historical fact in the Jack the Ripper murders and which aspect of the plot that is based on the filmmaker’s own imagination.

               Jack the Ripper has been a legend until today as the case and the culprit had not been solved over the years. The influential of the murder can be seen as a movie has been made to portray the incident that happened on 19^th century. However, From Hell has been criticized by many people as it is believed that some of the movie plots are based on the historical facts and some of them are based on the filmmaker’s imagination.

              First, the plot in the movie that is based on historical facts of Jack the Ripper is the way how some victims were murdered and the bodies’ position. The second victims in the movie who is believed as Mary Ann Nichols was killed by two cuts on her throat and her lower part abdomen was ripped open as in 22:28. The third victim who was Annie Chapman also was killed with the same way as the historical facts and the same as Mary Ann Nichols. The fourth victims who is Elizabeth Stride was killed by one clear-cut incision and this movie shows that Jack the Ripper did not finish his work as someone was coming and it is based on the historical facts in 01:20:18. The last victim who is Mary Kelly also had been murdered the same way as the historical facts because her heart was missing and this movie shows that Jack the Ripper has taken out her heart in 01:40:13.

             Second, the aspect of plot that is the same as the historical facts is in 01:19:35 where someone walked on the street and saw Elizabeth Stride with two men and one of the men shouted at the witness “What are you looking at?” The next plot is an officer described Mary Kelly’s body as “She’s in pieces” in 01:41:49.

              The other plot that is based on the historical facts is From Hell letter where the letter came with small box that contained a preserved kidney. The writer claimed that he fried and ate half of the kidney in 01:12:00. The next plot that is based on historical facts is in 1:24:58 when Sir Charles Warren ordered Inspector Fred Abberline to wash away some writings on the wall about Jews that might write by the murder. The order by Sir Charles Warren was because he afraid that the writings on the wall could cause a riot among the citizen.

             The last plot that is based on historical facts is the place and the time where the victims’ bodies had been found and the example is in 01:23:40 where Kate Eddowes’s body had been found in Mitre Square.

             However, there are some plots in the movie that is made by the filmmaker’s imagination and the first is the way how Martha Tabram had been killed. The historical facts shows that Martha Tabram had been killed by 39 stab wounds and in the movie claimed that her throat had been cut as well as the other victims in 14:39. In addition, another different plot with the historical facts is all the five victims were friends and they knew each other. It is contrary with the facts which is they had no connection at all except there were all prostitutes.

           Furthermore, grapes that had been found near some victims’ bodies also one of the imaginations of the filmmaker as historical facts never exist so. Moreover, this movie also shows that Inspector Fred Abberline and Mary Kelly had an affair between them and the last victim was not Marry Kelly but her new roommate who was Ada in 01:44:05.

             Other than that, in the movie shows that Inspector Abberline was addicted to Opium and died just after Mary Kelly’s death. However, based on historical facts, Inspector Abberline had no records in taking any drug and he did not died after the murder of Marry Kelly because he died at the age of 86 in his house.

             In conclusion, there are some plots in this movie that do not based on the historical facts and this can confuse people who are interested with this crime.

State several evidence which support the ancient astronaut theory. Discuss whether you agree or disagree to the evidence that you have identified.

              The existence of alien has been an issue for a long time by most scientists in this world. In Ancient Aliens: The Evidence shows that the scientists and researchers have found several evidences that support ancient astronaut theory.

                The evidences that have been found in the Ancient Alien are related to aircraft, space ship and the gigantic building. The first evidence is at duration 02:25 where they have found a small wooden model that seems to be a bird and has the description there which is “I want to fly” in Egypt. The second evidence is at duration 09:27 where there are a dozen out of 100 are gold figuring like an insect and fish found at Colombia. Both of these evidences seem to be represented the aircraft and fire jet.

                The third evidence is occurred in Indian Sanskrit in duration 15:21 where there is an object named Vimana and the description of the object is same goes to a spaceship. Besides, at 23:46 they believed that ancient people were connected to each other as they believed that there is a Vimana airport at Mexico. Other than that, Joseph Bluemerk concludes at 30:40 that the flying carpet that had been said by King Solomon is a spaceship in The Kebra Nagast.

                The fourth evidence is where they do not have any idea how the ancient people managed to build gigantic building without living any sign of the machine that they used. Research has found that even by doing modern technology they still cannot replicate the gigantic buildings as what the ancient people did. The next evidence is in 1:05:48 is about the Manna machine which is a food source. Research found that the machine is radiation poisoning and very dangerous and it had to be cleaned once a week.

                Furthermore, the other evidence is when pyramid in Egypt actually provides energy to satellite or to other source in 1:17:30 and they also had wireless electricity in 1:21:42. In all the evidences found, some believe that Alien had come from the past and the miracle that had happened from the past was from them.

                In my opinion, I do not agree with all the evidences that lead to the existence of Alien and ancient astronaut theory. The answer is because alien is not the one who shaped our culture but the intelligence people in the past as there are many examples that we have already known. Gravity has been found, revealed and discovered by Aristotle, Galileo, Newton and Einstein without any help from alien and it is because they were intelligence. Alien never exist in the past, present and even in the future.

Based on the facts presented in this documentary are you convinced that fast food is the main cause of obesity in United States and around the world?

           

               United States of America (USA) becomes the fattest nation in the world. Nearly 100 million of Americans today are overweight or obese and that make over 60% of all USA adult. Obesity are currently the second leading preventable cause of death in the United States after overtake tobacco as the leading cause of death. Based on the evidences in Super Size Me, I think fast food is not the main cause of obesity because obesity is caused by the laziness and the mentality of people nowadays and the limited responsibilities of society.

               People today tend to have an easy lifestyle and depend too much on technology. The examples that we can see in this movie is when even in hypermarket, they are using a machine to move around rather than walking. As a result of this technology dependency behaviour, people attempt food that can be served immediately without any preparation and that is fast food. This is the main cause of obesity because they eat a lot of food that is unhealthy and using the technology instead of their own energy in doing daily activities.

               Other than that, the mentality of people nowadays is easy to be influenced by others. The example that we can see in this movie is when people easily are influenced by McDonald advertisement and approaching. People can make a choice whether to go to fast food restaurant or order for Big Size no matter how hard the fast food company trying to influence them therefore, it is not the fault of fast food regarding obesity problem. The problem occurs because of people choice since they are the one who choose to live with technology and unhealthy lifestyle.

               Besides, the other induce of obesity is the limited responsibility of USA government in diminishing the obesity problem. There is no precaution seems to be taken by the government or society as can be seen in the documentary where even in the hospital they have the fast food restaurant. It shows that the government does not intend to minimize the development of fast food and encourage the citizens to live healthily. This is also happened in school as can be seen in this documentary where most students are served with unhealthy food and it encourages them to live unhealthily. The society should consistent the menu in school with healthy and energetic food than can enhance the brain not the fat.

               As conclusion, fast food is not the main cause of obesity because the problem comes from the people themselves and the unawareness of society and government to this problem. Fast food companies are making money by selling the unhealthy food but it is the person's responsibility to choose to live healthily and the society responsibility to decrease the unhealthy lifestyle approaching. 

Choose one of the three guests featured on the talk show 101 East. Then apply discourse analysis. State whether you agree or disagree towards the proposition, premises and arguments that you have identified.

             New Economic Policy (NEP) has been applied to Malaysian for over than three decades and it becomes a big issue day by day by all races. In Al Jazeera 101 East : Malaysian Affirmative Action the guest that I choose is Chow Kon Yeow who is a senior Democratic Action Party (DAP) member than the other guest as he is the one who against the NEP policies.

Discourse Analysis

Conclusion

Most Malaysians are unhappy about the approaches of NEP and the power of UMNOputras.

Proposition

NEP is not a bad policy as the implementation is the one that is unsuitable to Malaysian.

Premise 1

NEP has many abuses and corruption is one of it in terms of giving the speciality.

 Argument

NEP mostly is given to politically connected people rather than the other Malays and Bumiputras.

Premise 2

Keadilan will set Malaysian Economic Agenda (MEA) to replace NEP.

Argument

Make new policies by comparing to NEP performance in the past two or three decades.

             In his statements, his proposition that I have identified is he said that NEP is not a bad policies but the way how it has been implemented to Malaysians is the wrong one. In my opinion, I disagree with his statement because NEP has been implemented for three decades to Malaysians and if it is because of the implementation, then Malaysians would protest it in the past ten years.

             Furthermore, he has come out with three premises and the first is the implementation is wrong because the corruption that has occurred in NEP. I disagree with his premise because corruption is a minor problem that cannot be avoided in every institution and the government has strongly tried to decrease the problem. In addition, the problem is nothing to compare with the benefits that Malays and Bumiputras gain.

             In his argument he explained that the corruption than he meant is when most Malays and Bumiputras that benefited by NEP is the one who have politic influence than the other people. I disagree with his statement because there are many examples that we can see today that NEP also help people who have no politic influence or people who are from the opposition party. This is a propaganda makes by people who are fanatic to their opposition party to influence the voters and most of them are not Malays and Bumiputras.

             Besides, the second premise is he told that there is another alternative by the opposition which is Malaysian Economic Agenda (MEA) that is going to replace NEP. I agree with this statement because it shows that they have an effort in order to make a better change to the community however his argument has given another perspective about the new policy.

             He said that the policy is different to NEP because they will structure MEA by referring and comparing to NEP performance and I disagree with his argument. It is because his statement cannot convince the community that MEA is going to be different and a better policy as there is no strong example given. It is also looks like the policy is not serious and just another politics plan to attract the voters.

             As conclusion, I mostly disagree with Chow Kon Yeow’s statements because some of the statement is based on his own view and hearsay because there is no fact given. Moreover, his premise does not related to his proposition because if he really thinks that NEP is not a bad policy but only the implementation, then Keadilan should change the implementation not replace the policy.

Discuss whether or not Tun Abdul Razak's son, our current prime minister, Datuk Seri Najib is continuing his father's legacy primarily in affirmative action.

             

             Affirmative action is policies that consider people gender, race, colour, religion, sexual orientation or national origin in order to benefit them in government institutions. New Economic Policy (NEP) is an example of affirmative action in Malaysia which is introduced by Malaysia second Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Razak after the worst riot tragedy on 13^th May 1969. The main objective of NEP is to restructure the economics of all races which Malays and Bumiputras get the biggest quota in government opportunities as they were the races that left behind in economic.

             In A Leader’s Legacy Tun Abdul Razak shows that Tun Abdul Razak biggest legacy is reuniting all races in Malaysia after the 13^th May 1969 tragedy and minimized the gap between low class people and high class people by applying NEP to the community. The question is, does Datuk Seri Najib is continuing his father’s legacy primarily in affirmative action nowadays and the answer is no.

             In 32:38 shows that Tun Abdul Razak hoped that NEP would improve poor people economic and most of the poor people were Malays which lead to misunderstood from other races. However, in today affirmative action shows that it not gives quota to poor people but mostly to high class people who have big position in government and influence in politics.  Some of the high class people will also do the same thing by giving any opportunities in entering the government institutions to their relatives and friends.  The poor people fate nowadays is neglected by Datuk Seri Najib as he focus on 1Malaysia which means all races are treated as the same and the quota to Malays and Bumiputras also decreases day by day.

             Other than that, NEP also had united Malaysian no matter what their race and religion are as in 46:57 and 47:49 after 13^th May 1969 with success. It is contrary from nowadays affirmative action as these policies are the one that set Malaysian apart and the proof is when many opposition parties and Malaysian questioning the relevant of affirmative action in Malaysia. Affirmative action nowadays not only affects the other races relationship but also among the Malays and Bumiputras as there are three major politic parties in Malaysia and none of the parties has the same thought about affirmative action even though most of the politicians are Malays and Bumiputras.

             As conclusion, based on the points given show that Datuk Najib Abdul Razak is not continuing his father’s legacy in affirmative action as the policies benefiting the high class people than the poor one and it becomes the main source of disunity in Malaysia.

Do you think Gandhi is responsible for the tragic end of his eldest son, Harilal?

            

             Harilal Gandhi is Mahatma Gandhi’s oldest son who went to South Africa to be a barrister just like his father. He had the opportunity to further his study to England twice but his father chose other people to go there by using personal scholarship as at 36:18 and 39:29. This decision hurt Harilal and worsened the relationship with his father as the conflict first occurred when his father unpleasant with Harilal’s marriage. 

          Mahatma Gandhi is not responsible to the tragic end of Harilal as he sacrificed his family for India freedom. He considered and treated Indian as his own family and gave the personal scholarship to someone who really deserved it because he believed that formal education is not important as hard work, self control, compassion and selfless service as he said at 07:42. He also wanted Harilal to be fired after his son had done a crime by cheating. It showed that he did not use his name and position to give personal benefit to his own family.

              Other than that, this movie showed how caring Mahatma is as a father at 00:34 where he concerned to Harilal’s small injury. He also tried to understand his son feeling and mind at 00:44 even though it is an obvious thing where Harilal did not do the same thing. Harilal rebelled on his father’s decision because of his own benefit without noticing that the sacrifice that had made by his father for his nation. It is a shame on Harilal when a father who tried hardly to free India sought for forgiveness from him for his own fault. The evidence is at 00:48 where Mahatma said that if he ever did wrong to his son, then, he begged to be forgiven.

             Besides, Mahatma Gandhi thought positively and calm with his son’s behaviour in 1:02:29. Mahatma also tried to make his relationship with Harilal better and proud of him no matter what his son had done to him as in 1:22:11.

             As conclusion, Harilal could already live peacefully even without being a barrister. It is because his father always tried to help him but he often refused it because of a disappointment towards his father and one of it is at 1:18:18. It was himself who made his life became worse and he tried to stand on his feet with wrong ways. Mahatma Gandhi had tried his best to take care of his son with his way, however his son did not see the sacrifice that his father made for his own good and India. Harilal own ego that led him to a tragic death.

In your opinion, do you think Gandhi has failed in his life work which is to promote non-violence and reuniting the people of India?

                In my opinion, Gandhi was never failed in promoting non-violence and reuniting the people in India but succeed it amazingly. Gandhi or his full name, Mohandas Karamchan Gandhi has been known when he started to against the British law towards Indian right in South Africa. He realized the injustice law when he was being thrown out of a train. 

                From that moment, he launched a non-violence campaign and it influenced many Indians even he had been imprisoned so many times. The evidence of Gandhi non-violence campaign is at duration 28:58 where he said to all Indians who were Hindu, Muslim and Sikhs that he wanted the Indians to fight against their anger not provoke it. In his speech, he also told that no matter what the British did to them but, they would never attack them back. Besides that, he also taught his friends to not to fight back if soldiers had beaten them in duration 02:12:51. 

                Furthermore, the proof that Gandhi has reunited the people of India is as the end of the movie where Hindu and Muslim finally had found a consideration to stop the war in India. It is because they noticed the importance of their father who was fasting to stop the riot. The evidence is at 02.57:37 where Mirabehn told him that the war had already stopped. In addition, during the previous night in the movie showed that some Indians gave their weapons to Gandhi as a sign of they had resigned from the war at 02:54:45. Mahatma Gandhi’s dream to see Hindu-Muslim unity came true before he had been assassinated during his walking to evening prayer. 

                As conclusion, the reasons and the evidences that have been given has shown that Gandhi has not failed in his life work as his sacrifice had led India to independent and peaceful country than before.

In your view, do you think Sherlock is an empathic character?

              Last Wednesday, I watched Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Pink for Critical Literacy and I found that it is an interesting movie. This movie is full of suspicious and humor although “lame” is the first word that crossed my mind when I heard about the title. Empathic can be defined as "I can feel it too" or an understanding on others' feeling and in my opinion, Sherlock Holmes is an empathic character as he has the ability to read people life by putting himself in their shoes. At the first time, Sherlock seems to be a left-brain person as he does not care about people around him and for instance is when he is more excited to solve the mysterious crime than helping the last victim who is the pink woman. However, there are some parts where he puts himself in the victims’ place to find the right clue for the cases.

               First, the empathy moment can be shown when Sherlock asks Dr. John H. Watson to text the victim’s phone number as he said that if other people who find the phone will ignore it but if the murderer has the phone then the murderer will panic. He knows all of these things as he imagines that it was him who is the murderer.

               Second, in this movie it shows that Sherlock has helped some people who used to be criminals to others but not for him. For example is Mrs Hudson’s husband who he had been helped by Sherlock from not to be sentenced to death three years ago. It is because Sherlock put himself to Mrs Hudson’s husband position and believed that he is innocent. Other than that is he cleared Angelo’s name as a murder by proving that Angelo at different part of town at the time of a particularly vicious triple murder about three years ago.

               Third, Sherlock asked Dr. Watson “if you were dying, if you’d been murdered, in your very last few seconds, what would you say?” From this we can see that Sherlock is trying to be in the victim’s place to figure out the meaning of “Rache” that he believes as “Rachel”.

The other questions that he asked to himself are “who do we trust, even if we don’t know them?”,  “who passes unnoticed wherever they go?” and “who hunts in the middle of a crowd?” that show he is trying to be in the victims’ mind and feeling before they have been murdered.

               Fourth, Sherlock tries to figure out who shots the murderer by examining the ways of the shooter. He describes every angel and side of the shot incident as he is the one who be in that place at that time and finally he finds out that it was Dr. John Watson.

               In conclusion, Sherlock Holmes is an empathic character as he can read others’ mind, feeling and life by being in the others’ place. He even uses his speciality in solving the crimes which is his addiction.

Several Eureka moments that you have experienced throughout the documentary.

            
On 30^th July 2012, I watched a documentary, Test Your Brain Part 1 of 3 (Pay Attention) for my Critical Literacy. From this documentary I have learned many things especially on how our brains work and our ability in paying attention. I have been cheated easily by unexpected situations or we called as Eureka moment. Eureka moment is a moment when you find out something that is unexpected or sudden realization that make you say "i got it". In this journal, I would like to share some of my Eureka moments when I am watching this documentary.

              First, in the first game the magician shows some money to us and he seems to count the notes which are five notes. At this moment, I am using my left brain by assuming that he is going to make one of the notes gone just like others musician did. After he finishes the trick, I kind of weird as none of the notes is missing and my Eureka moment appeared just after the real trick has been revealed. The real trick is there are some changes during the game which are the hat, the table and the new handkerchief. The biggest changes are the background while he was showing us the money. I did not realize it at all as I had been focusing on the money.

               Second, the fourth game is handled by Apollo Robbins who is a hand sleight expert. He shows the safest place to keep our value stuffs but at the end the value stuffs turn to a refreshing juice. I assumed that he is going to show us the changes of the value stuffs just like the first trick. However, my Eureka moment appeared when the real trick is when three people in animal costume were walking behind him. I do not notice it as I am focusing on the other important thing.

              Third, my last Eureka moment in this documentary is in the ninth game. The host wants the audience to track the number of times the Blue Jabawaki Dance Crews step into the spotlight. I had been counting too and I got about seventeen times and I assumed that the game wanted to test our attention by finding the correct times. However, I had been fooled again as I did not notice a penguin who was walking behind the Blue Jabawaki Dance Crews.

               As a conclusion, I realize that I am lack of attention ability as I fall so many times in attention tricks. Besides, this documentary is an enjoying one not like documentary always be and the Eureka moments that I have experienced in it is something that cannot be forgotten.