MRT!

My hometown, Taichung, populated over a million people, is the third largest city in Taiwan. The city government has improved the bus service; however, the residents of Taichung, including me, still expect more changes to the transportation system.

Unlike Taipei, Taichung has no MRT or subway system. Citizens' one and only option of the public transportation in Taichung is bus. We have many bus lines to choose, but because of the increasing oil prices, it takes more money. The expensive fare has always been a major complaint. Numerous students, me as well, depend on the buses to go to school every single day, we surely think it would be better if we have a more convenient and economical system.

Over the years, MRT has been a topic discussed in the city council and central government. Some officials said that the plan requires careful consideration. Take Kaohsiung for example. Many districts suffer from land subsidence because of the underground construction. Of course, such consequence is not what we would like to see in our own county. We want a complete and perfect system to better the situation.

If we had MRT system, the air pollution may be less. Buses are accelerated by petroleum, it contains one of the greenhouse gases－carbon dioxide. Even though it produces less pollution than the motorcycles buzzing around in the city; still, it is also the source of bad atmosphere. Once we had MRT, we longer need to worry about problems like air pollution or heavy traffic. In Taichung, buses are a constant threat to the motorcyclists. We don’t have bus lanes like Taipei, so the buses are always behind, next to, or in front of lots of motorcycles on the road. This creates many car accidents. When passengers are going to get off, some bus drivers will pull over in a reckless way. They don’t care if there are motorcyclists. This behaviour put both bus driver and the motorcyclist in danger. If we can commute by MRT, the potential problem may disappear.



Hey Now from Augustana
I think it's a pretty good song:)

bowling for columbine

Years ago, my English teacher had my class watch a film called Bowing for Columbine, directed by Michael Moore. This film talks about the massacre happened in Columbine High School. The tragedy was caused by two teenagers killing several students with their guns, legally purchased guns. The film is actually a documentary product. Michael Moore, the director and the actor as well, interviewed lots of people in it, hoping to show the viewer clearly how people feel about the problems of gun control and many other crimes in America. I found it vividly presents some possible factors that result in such tragic incidents. Most of all, I kind of learn what America is like.
Unlike Taiwan’s law, American’s allow citizens to have their own guns. In some states, one can even have a free gun by opening an account in bank, like a bonus. Well, the bank will have some background check before they give out the gun, but still, it’s not a very strict one. In other words, one can find it very easy to have a gun, teenagers are no exception. However, the NRA (National Rifle Association), doesn’t think that they should take action to have more serious gun control system. One of the reasons that America has such a massacre like Columbine is because of the problem of overabundant of guns. Anyone can purchase guns at anywhere, anytime. Some people think it a responsibility to be armed, for they need to protect their family, their property. They need weapons to defend themselves from the bad guys. In the movie, one man even said that he had a M16 at his home. They think if the burglars or rapist came into their house, they need not to call the police, since they’ve got guns to scare away, to fight against those criminals. Owning gun has become top priority for some people. They feel much safer if they had one gun place on the table in their bedroom, so that when something emergent happen, they can grab their guns and protect themselves from harming.

Here's the new single from Coldplay
Viva La Vida

Shoud Death Penalty be Abolished?

Over the years, the controversial issue, whether death penalty should be abolished or not, has been extensively discussed in Taiwan. The supporters have their grounds for defending death penalty. They firmly believe that it is an absolute necessity, couldn’t be replaced by imprisonment or other punishments. Still, on the other side, the opponents said that it shouldn’t exist anymore, for it is violating human rights, against humanity, and it is an out-of-date punishment. Nevertheless, I side with the proponents of death penalty. In my opinion, even though many countries had abolished capital punishment out of the above-mentioned reasons, it doesn’t mean that Taiwan should follow their steps. Capital punishment has its importance that shouldn’t be ignored or abolished.
Some Christians and humanists think that under no circumstances should one take others’ life, only God has the power to put an end to one’s life. That is, they think law enforcement does not have the right to execute the criminals. Judges playing God, deciding who’s to kill has aroused widespread condemnation among these strongly-opposed-of-death-penalty people. They consider “all human life is sacred and untouchable, the criminal does not lose his/her fundamental right to life, no matter how heinous the crime is.”
Do criminals still have “the fundamental right to life” after they committed crimes? Before answering this question, we should consider how serious the crime is. Indeed, executing a thief is too much for a punishment, but what about the murderers? Do we really have to protect their living rights even if they destroy others’? Asking for rights to life after taking one’s life, it makes no sense at all. The contradictory is pretty obvious—judges cannot play God, but these murderers can? Why can the killers “touch” their victims’ precious life but claiming that “all human life” is untouchable at the same time? Some Christians hold the view that no matter how hideous crimes the criminals commit, they still have the right to continue to live. What about the innocent victims then? Without committing any crimes or doing anything wrong, the victims unwillingly lost their right to life. Who is there to defend the victims’ own right? Christianity’s spirit is to have sympathy for others, so why don’t they show some sympathy for the victims?
Life imprisonment is being considered as a substitution for the opponents of death penalty. They think the purpose of punishment is to educate the criminals, to repent and start anew. Capital punishment is just a merciless and meaningless way of taking revenge on the criminals for their wrongdoing, depriving many criminals’ right to repent. They assume that if the criminals are too malicious that must be segregated from the society, life imprisonment is one practicable measure, and is quite enough for a punishment. Death penalty is unnecessary and should be abolished as soon as possible in their view.
Giving person who made mistakes a second chance is natural and to be expected; criminals are no exception. “Once a sinner, always a sinner.” may not apply to all cases, but that doesn’t mean all the criminals should be given a second chance. Think this, if twenty years of family and school education still couldn’t effectively guide them to do the “right” thing, how can we expect jail could make any differences? And if the criminals were all sentenced to life imprisonment, soon the jail will become seriously overcrowding. What’s more, criminals’ daily expenses are paid by tax revenues from people; I don’t know whether life imprisonment is punishing the citizens or the criminals? I see no points in giving our money away just for the sake of “educating” these criminals. Before they committed crimes, they had already have education, the fundamental moralities of life somehow. Such as “What is righteousness?” “What is viciousness?” “What is good, and what is wrong?” If one doesn’t know that murder is incorrect, finding a teacher will be a vain attempt. Besides, I think people can distinguish wrong from right, surely they know that killing is wrong. The thing is, they kill because of their impulsive not because they don’t know it was wrong to do so. What I am trying to say is, can anyone guarantee that their impulsive, their rush had been successfully “educated” after imprisonment? Can anyone assure us that the criminals did repent for what they did while in jail?
Another problem of life imprisonment is parole. If criminals behave well during their imprisonment, they have the chance to apply for parole. However, statistics indicates that many parolees cannot find a job to make their living for they had criminal records, so they are likely to resume their old business again. Should we put ourselves in danger in order to give them a second chance?
In my opinion, death penalty still has its necessity to exist. Most of all, justice needs to take action, to stand up for the victims. I think the opponents are ignoring victims and their suffering family. They think execution as a tragedy, but shouldn’t they ask themselves first: the court will not sentence the criminals to death if the criminals didn’t do anything wrong in the first place. People should care more about the victims’ loss and their grief, instead of just focusing on those lawbreakers.

i want a dog!

Oh, how I wish that I can keep a dog! The other day I dreamt that I was playing with a cute little puppy, and after having that sweet dream, I just can’t stop thinking about that dog! I can even remember the feeling of touching his fluffy fur now. Unfortunately, it is impossible for me to keep a dog, since my mom is kind of “allergic” to dogs. She hates the smell of dogs, the noisy barking, and, of course, the constantly flying around fur. My mom is very fussy about cleanness. For example, after I dry my hair, I have to crouch on the floor to pick all my hairs, otherwise she’ll get insanely angry about the whole “mess”. I always complain to her, “It’s only a few hairs, why are you so irritated?” She just said that she likes floor to be spotless, with “nothing” on it, if there’s any tiny little dirt, she’ll feel uncomfortable and will want to sweep the floor again and again and again. What more can I say? Tine dirt can annoy her that much, let alone my long, long, long hairs. Anyway, when I asked her if I can have a dog as pet, she coldly responded this to me: “Having your hairs all over the house is enough, I cannot stand another creature that walks around and leaves his fur everywhere he goes.” Well, as you can see, my mom is quite firm about it, I can never keep a dog, if I still live with her. Guess I’ll just have to wait a few years, when I got my own house, I can keep as many dogs or cats that I like. For now, the only pet that I can keep is probably fish. After all, fish doesn’t have any hairs to freak my mom out.

* The song is from Oasis(one of my favourite bands), it’s called Songbird.
Enjoy it : )

my favourite band

I remember when I first saw this video on TV, I was nearly bored to death. Just a man keep walking on the beach, what’s that all about? Though the music is exactly what I enjoy the most, this song still didn’t give me any impressive feelings back then. However, after a year or so, I saw this on TV, and I fell for this band soon after the song finished. Well, you’d probably say that this music video is like the first one, nothing to write home about. Yeah, true. I guess that somehow time would just change a person’s taste of something:) Besides, unlike last time, this time I get to see the whole band playing, that’s definitely better than just seeing a man walking all the time, isn’t it? Since then, I became a huge fan of Coldplay. I have listened to their music for about four or five years and I got to say I couldn’t love their music more! I "need" to listen to their music every single day, otherwise I’d feel strange, like I’m a puzzle and couldn’t find my missing piece. Perhaps you’d say “you’ve gotta be kidding!” it's only a band! But that’s exactly what I feel, my day is not complete without listening to their music. Rumour has it that they’re coming to Taiwan this August to hold a concert. I’m in ecstasy at the thought of being in the crowd, having goosebumps and waving hands high in the air to their magic melodies. Hoping this rumour will become a real thing sooner or later, I can’t wait to watch their performance! Plus, I’d say it’s a pity if you haven’t heard any of their songs, I recommend you to take a listen to these songs (Warning Sign, Fix You, See You Soon, Trouble, Amsterdam), and you won’t regret doing so!

journal

This week was filled with ups and downs. Sometimes I felt so depressed that I just want to lie down and do nothing. I was tired of reading a novel, newspapers, or a magazine and underlining new vocabularies in order to look it up in the dictionary afterwards. Day after day, doing the same thing over and over again, how boring is that! How I wish I can do some extraordinary things instead of stucking in the same old routine each day. Well, things can't always go my way, right?
Yesterday was my 20th birthday, so I was feeling better. I got all my friends' text messages, phone calls, and cards; all wishing me to have a happy birthday, and I DID! My dad came back from mainland China just yesterday, so luckily, he can celebrate this big day with me. What's more important: he got me an iPod as my birthday present! He also gave me a speech, teaching me how to be a responsible grownup. I had a very wonderful and meaningful birthday.

Tibet's Protest

Tibet’s protest has been a big issue now. International media also put their attention on this serious event. Many people blame China’s violent action in coping this problem; however, I think the person who caused all these dispute is Dalai Lama instead of China government. In a way, Dalai hammered the idea that Tibetan should be independent, should have a leader of their own in the future, and that leader has got to be Dalai himself. So he kind of gave wrong, incorrect ideas to those Tibetan monks that they should stand up and fight for their right. Nevertheless, these monks are not fighting for themselves, but for Dalai. I condemned China’s fierce action like everyone else does. But, Dalai can put an end to this protest anytime he wants, only he wouldn’t want to. He just watched more and more monks died in the protest of fighting for his political power. Also, the timing of this protest thing is quite sensitive. The focus has already been in China these days, for China is hosting 2008 Olympics. So those monks believed that they can make a use of it, capturing everyone’s attention, and maybe will succeed if more and more people notice this protest.

No matter what, I think if they want their opinions to be heard, they should take a more peaceful action to let others hear what they really not; instead of acting like some anti-social rioters. It may seem cruel and inappropriate for China to bring army to settle this protest, yet, I reckon that, sometimes, the best way to show government’s ability to control this kind of serious situation is to act fierce and strong against the rioters.