Tuesday, February 7, 2012
film why did i get married too? - janet jackson
film dead like me - ellen muth, callum blue
film see you in september - justin kirk
film the switch - jennifer aniston
film back up plan - jennifer lopez
selasa 7 2 12
senen 6 2 12
minggu 5 2 12
sabtu 4 2 12
jumat 3 2 12
kamis 2 2 12
rabu 1 2 12
selasa 31 1 12
senen 30 1 12
minggu 29 1 12
United Nations: It's Okay to Kill the Gay
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thor-halvorssen/united-nations-its-okay-t_b_787024.html
Posted: 11/23/10 05:16 PM ET
React
Important
Fascinating
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Infuriating
Beautiful
Follow
United Nations , Gay , Uganda , Video , Oslo Freedom Forum , Execution , Homosexuality , Lesbian , World News
share this story
2,279
695
15
Get World Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this story
digg reddit stumble
NEW YORK, NY -- Last week, the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted on a special resolution addressing extrajudicial, arbitrary and summary executions. The resolution affirms the duties of member countries to protect the right to life of all people with a special emphasis on a call to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. The resolution highlights particular groups historically subject to executions including street children, human rights defenders, members of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minority communities, and, for the past 10 years, the resolution has included sexual orientation as a basis on which some individuals are targeted for death.
Execution of Gays in Iran
These two teenagers, suspected of being gay, were executed in Iran in 2005.
The tiny West African nation of Benin (on behalf of the UN's African Group) proposed an amendment to strike sexual minorities from the resolution. The amendment was adopted with 79 votes in favor, 70 against, 17 abstentions and 26 absent.
A collection of notorious human rights violators voted for the amendment including Afghanistan, Algeria, China, Congo, Cuba, Eritrea, North Korea, Iran (didn't Ahmadinejad tell the world there were no gays in Iran?), Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Sudan, Uganda, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.
Add to this Bahamas, Belize (where you get 10 years for being gay), Jamaica (10 years of hard labor), Grenada (10 years), Guyana (life sentence), Saint Kitts and Nevis (10 years), Saint Lucia (10 years), Saint Vincent (10 years), South Africa (Apartheid? What apartheid?), and Morocco (ruled by a gay monarch!). They are all on the list of nations that do not think execution of gays and lesbians is worthy of condemnation or investigation. (The full vote tally is published beneath this column.)
To its shame, Colombia was among the 16 nations who abstained.
Those against the amendment include every European nation present, all Scandinavian countries, India, Korea, most of Latin America, all of North America, and only one Middle Eastern nation: Israel. In most countries in the Middle East, it is a crime to be gay--in some, like Saudi Arabia, it is punishable by beheading and in others, like Iran, by hanging.
The UN has a remarkable track record of doing virtually nothing when presented with mass killings or genocide. "Never again!" was the cry after the holocaust. Since then, the world has witnessed a dozen more never agains with strong condemnation from the UN coming after the corpses pile up. A resolution of the sort that was voted on in the General Assembly is significant for its clarity of message: "It's okay to kill the gays."
The British government had pleaded: "The subject of this amendment--the need for prompt and thorough investigations of all killing, including those committed for ... sexual orientation--exists in this resolution simply because it is a continuing cause for concern."
Not a single African nation voted against the amendment. This is not surprising. Homosexuality is illegal in most of Africa. So acceptable is the notion of extra-judicial killings of gay men and women for their consensual private conduct that one of these countries, Uganda, is considering legislation making homosexuality (not the behavior, just being gay) punishable with death. The proposer of the bill, David Bahati, and the Ugandan "Minister for Ethics and Integrity," Nsaba Buturo, have vowed the bill will pass before parliament dissolves on May 12, 2011.
Uganda is not a Muslim nation. It is a Christian country. And it was American evangelical preachers in Uganda who fanned the flames of what could turn into mass executions in a continent that has seen genocidal murder occur numerous times in the last two decades on the basis of religious belief, ethnicity, and membership in a linguistic minority (Burundi, Darfur, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia, Zimbabwe...).
I had the opportunity to meet one of the courageous individuals in the struggle against this potential mass killing in Uganda. Her name is Kasha Jacqueline and she was one of the presenters at this year's Oslo Freedom Forum. Jacqueline was concerned for her safety when she made her way to Oslo given that she could have been the subject of retaliation upon her return.
Upon arriving in Norway, she was approached by several members of one of Oslo's gay and lesbian organizations who urged her not to speak at the Oslo Freedom Forum because they disagreed with our inclusion of several speakers who were outspoken critics of left-wing dictatorships. Sadly, some people in Oslo believe that only those on the left can call themselves human rights defenders -- their double standard usually will manifest itself when they ignore the crimes of the governments they favor.
Kasha Jacqueline was quick to tell them that she was using us, and not the other way around. Her speech was so powerful that she was invited to stay an extra day and give the same speech at an event open to the public. She kindly accepted.
Just days later, the inclusion of Kasha Jacqueline in the program of the Oslo Freedom Forum was one of the subjects of public condemnation by an American pro-life activist. The irony was excruciating. Here was a man who devotes his life to what he describes as stopping the mass killings of babies chastising an event for including someone in our program who wants to stop the mass killings of gays and lesbians. My response to his jeremiad, which was never published, concluded: "There is nothing to discuss in a circumstance like the one faced by Ms. Jacqueline and those affected by this legislation other than to offer: 'Ms. Jacqueline, how can we help you and your organization prevent what could become a horrific massacre?'"
Thus the left, dear reader, thus the right. They deserve each other.
Thor Halvorssen is president of the Human Rights Foundation and founder of the Oslo Freedom Forum. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.
A Map of the Vote.
Red governments voted for the amendment; yellow govt's abstained; grey govt's were not present; green govt's are the only ones to vote against the amendment which endangers gays.
In favor of the amendment to remove sexual orientation from the UN resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (79 nations):
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Opposed to the UN amendment to remove sexual orientation from the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (70 nations):
Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia (FS), Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela
Abstain (17 nations):
Antigua-Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Colombia, Fiji, Mauritius, Mongolia, Papau New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu
Absent (26 nations):
Albania, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Marshall Island, Mauritania, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Sao Tome Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan
Theories of reading
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/theories-reading
Submitted by TE Editor on 23 March, 2006 - 12:00
This article is in two parts. The first part will look at some of the shifts and trends in theories relating to reading. The second part will examine tips and guidelines for implementing a theory of reading which will help to develop our learners' abilities.
* The traditional view
* The cognitive view
* The metacognitive view
* Conclusion
Just like teaching methodology, reading theories have had their shifts and transitions. Starting from the traditional view which focused on the printed form of a text and moving to the cognitive view that enhanced the role of background knowledge in addition to what appeared on the printed page, they ultimately culminated in the metacognitive view which is now in vogue. It is based on the control and manipulation that a reader can have on the act of comprehending a text.
The traditional view
According to Dole et al. (1991), in the traditional view of reading, novice readers acquire a set of hierarchically ordered sub-skills that sequentially build toward comprehension ability. Having mastered these skills, readers are viewed as experts who comprehend what they read.
* Readers are passive recipients of information in the text. Meaning resides in the text and the reader has to reproduce meaning.
* According to Nunan (1991), reading in this view is basically a matter of decoding a series of written symbols into their aural equivalents in the quest for making sense of the text. He referred to this process as the 'bottom-up' view of reading.
* McCarthy (1999) has called this view 'outside-in' processing, referring to the idea that meaning exists in the printed page and is interpreted by the reader then taken in.
* This model of reading has almost always been under attack as being insufficient and defective for the main reason that it relies on the formal features of the language, mainly words and structure.
Although it is possible to accept this rejection for the fact that there is over-reliance on structure in this view, it must be confessed that knowledge of linguistic features is also necessary for comprehension to take place. To counteract over-reliance on form in the traditional view of reading, the cognitive view was introduced.
The cognitive view
The 'top-down' model is in direct opposition to the 'bottom-up' model. According to Nunan (1991) and Dubin and Bycina (1991), the psycholinguistic model of reading and the top-down model are in exact concordance.
* Goodman (1967; cited in Paran, 1996) presented reading as a psycholinguistic guessing game, a process in which readers sample the text, make hypotheses, confirm or reject them, make new hypotheses, and so forth. Here, the reader rather than the text is at the heart of the reading process.
* The schema theory of reading also fits within the cognitively based view of reading. Rumelhart (1977) has described schemata as "building blocks of cognition" which are used in the process of interpreting sensory data, in retrieving information from memory, in organising goals and subgoals, in allocating resources, and in guiding the flow of the processing system.
* Rumelhart (1977) has also stated that if our schemata are incomplete and do not provide an understanding of the incoming data from the text we will have problems processing and understanding the text.
Cognitively based views of reading comprehension emphasize the interactive nature of reading and the constructive nature of comprehension. Dole et al. (1991) have stated that, besides knowledge brought to bear on the reading process, a set of flexible, adaptable strategies are used to make sense of a text and to monitor ongoing understanding.
The metacognitive view
According to Block (1992), there is now no more debate on "whether reading is a bottom-up, language-based process or a top-down, knowledge-based process." It is also no more problematic to accept the influence of background knowledge on both L1 and L2 readers. Research has gone even further to define the control readers execute on their ability to understand a text. This control, Block (1992) has referred to as metacognition.
Metacognition involves thinking about what one is doing while reading. Klein et al. (1991) stated that strategic readers attempt the following while reading:
* Identifying the purpose of the reading before reading
* Identifying the form or type of the text before reading
* Thinking about the general character and features of the form or type of the text. For instance, they try to locate a topic sentence and follow supporting details toward a conclusion
* Projecting the author's purpose for writing the text (while reading it),
* Choosing, scanning, or reading in detail
* Making continuous predictions about what will occur next, based on information obtained earlier, prior knowledge, and conclusions obtained within the previous stages.
Moreover, they attempt to form a summary of what was read. Carrying out the previous steps requires the reader to be able to classify, sequence, establish whole-part relationships, compare and contrast, determine cause-effect, summarise, hypothesise and predict, infer, and conclude.
Conclusion
In the second part of this article I will look at the guidelines which can also be used as general ideas to aid students in reading and comprehending materials. These tips can be viewed in three consecutive stages: before reading, during reading, and after reading. For instance, before starting to read a text it is natural to think of the purpose of reading the text. As an example of the during-reading techniques, re-reading for better comprehension can be mentioned. And filling out forms and charts can be referred to as an after-reading activity. These tasks and ideas can be used to enhance reading comprehension.
This article published: 23rd March, 2006 was first published in Iranian Language Institute Language Teaching Journal Volume 1, No.1 Spring 2005.
Further reading
Barnett, M. A. (1988). Teaching reading in a foreign language. ERIC Digest
Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly 26(2)
Dole, J. A. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., and Pearson, D. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research 61
Dubin, F., and Bycina, D. (1991). Models of the process of reading. In Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston, Mass.: Heinle and Heinle.
Duke, N. K., and Pearson, D. P. (n.d.). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. Available at //effective reading.com/ (Oct. 15, 2001).
Estes T. H. (1999). Strategies for reading to learn. Available at www.reading strategies.
Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners' cognitive reading processes: a review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research 65
Klein, M. L., Peterson, S., and Simington, L. (1991). Teaching Reading in the Elementary Grades. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.
Lebauer, R. (1998). Lessons from the rock on the role of reading. Available at // langue.Hyper.Chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/t/t/98/lebauer.html
McCarthy, C. P. (n. d.) Reading theory as a microcosm of the four skills. Applied Linguistics Series.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International.
Paran, A. (1996). Reading in EFL: facts and fiction. ELT Journal 50
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (ed.), Attention and Performance IV. New York, NY: AcademicPress.
Steinhofer, H. (1996). How to read nonfictional English texts faster and more effectively. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. II, No. 6, June 1996
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Vaezi, S. (2001). Metacognitive reading strategies across language and techniques. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Allameh Tabataba'iUniversity, Tehran, Iran.
Van Duzer, C. (1999). Reading and the Adult English Language Learner. Washington, D.C.: Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education
Shahin Vaezi Ph.D. Assistant professor, University of Science and Technology, Iran
HARRY POTTER - SEQUENCES
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
