The optimist sees the doughnut, the pessimist sees the hole

"The optimist sees the doughnut, the pessimist sees the hole". All too often, we hear such quotes regarding optimism and pessimism. It is interesting to note that optimism is often praised and extolled as a virtue whereas pessimism is seen as something to be avoided. This suggests that one should be as optimistic as they possibly could and this is in itself a good thing. I find this view rather one sided and ignores the fact that optimism and pessimism sits on either end of a single spectrum. Optimism should not be seen as a virtue in itself because in actual fact it is not. Pure optimism is recklessness and in psychiatry this can be termed mania. The world is not a fairy tale and though we very much like it to, it is not full of good. There is evil everywhere and one cannot be too careful. Applying the same reasoning, pure pessimism ignores the good that potentially exist and hinders appreciation of the beauty the world has to offer.
Thus, saying that the optimist seeing the doughnut and the pessimist seeing the hole is not entirely accurate. One must realize that a doughnut without the centre hole is just a circular bun whereas a hole without the surrounding pastry, is just empty space. It is only through a measure of both qualities shall we be capable of seeing a doughnut for what it is. Optimism is not a virtue, it is a characteristic which needs to be balanced by some measure of pessimism. To pursue one without the other is unbalanced.
It is said that one needs to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I agree. This concept mixes optimism with pessimism. We cannot thrive without having both. Ultimately, half full, half empty, doughnut or hole, one cannot exist without the other. It is only with both that one can be complete. So next time, when someone asks if you are an optimist or pessimist, the answer should be neither. For all of us should be a pessimistic optimist or an optimistic pessimist, with the former replacing what we know as a pessimist and the latter the optimist. To be the extreme is to be insane.

Torture

The history of torture goes back to a long time ago. It can be considered one of the most effective ways in extracting information from anyone. As time progresses, torture is considered a cruel and uncivilized way to acquire information, even in the context of terrorists and criminals. But when the situation demands it, is it justifiable to perform it?

The issue of torture becomes apparent in the interrogation of al-Qaeda operatives. Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002. Among some notable techniques authorised are the ‘cold cell’ where prisoners are doused with cold water in a cell kept at 50 degrees and the infamous ‘water boarding’ where prisoners are tied head down on an inclined board and poured with water. Fear of drowning soon kicks in followed with instant pleas for the treatment to stop. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. There is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. Torture is considered bad interrogation, if it is bad enough, you can make people confess to anything at all. As is the case of Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, where he made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say that he did not intentionally misinform investigators, but instead wanted to please them.

However, in such conditions, there is one argument in favour of their use: time. In the early days of al-Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion. Knowledge could save many more lives when used and applied properly and as such, can be considered morally right.

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

The age of globalization also brings about the period of mass media where everyone is a click away. With the advent of the internet and introduction of web log or better known as “blog”, people have been given great abilities to express themselves but is this power too much to handle?

Blogging has truly been a major phenomenon in the last few years. Number of bloggers are staggering and still rising. However blogging is not limited to only authoring blogs and maintaining it but also to simultaneously transcribe events on television. Bloggers are free to express their opinions in their own personal space any way they wish with no interference. Comments given can be used constructively. But with their increasing numbers, who is to stop them from posting illegal, sensitive or propaganda through the net. Even with government censorship, it would be a logistical nightmare to sift through loads of e-mails, blogs and websites brought about by this new media.
Furthermore with the presence of forces trying to fight back censorship of online materials, the very essence of stability is made more prone. Mindless propaganda, riots inducing sensitive messages can be circulated in the web for ages before officials can detect it. Through this perspective, new media is indeed a threat.

On the flip side, one can argue that people should have freedom of speech; however there are limitations to what we can say. New media has given great power to people of today but too much of it would be a big threat to stability. The situation now is constantly viewed from a one-sided perspective resulting in imbalance. Over censorship would defeat the purpose of blogging in the first place while having non-existent censorship would mean that bloggers have no limit to what they can write. Therefore there is a need for greater censorshipto come after efforts are done to improve freedom of speech to remove them. . Proportionate amounts of freedom and censorship would guarantee some equilibrium.

The media has always been tasked with bringing in news and information to the masses but can they truly be trusted in conveying the truth and only the truth?

The accuracy and reliability of the media is greatly influenced by many factors and the biggest among them would have to be profit. In the world of media, where possible contenders are many, companies tend to attempt in getting an edge or advantage over competitors. This in turn leads to news being altered or manufactured in order to make them potentially more interesting. Interviews and news clips are often edited before being aired in an effort to raise ratings and profit. This in turn seriously compromises the truth of news that the public will eventually come to view.

Prejudice over certain matters can severely alter the outcome of news regarding a certain matter. The media can certainly be seen as a prejudiced group as news is often reported in a one-sided matter where the other side has no say in the matter. In the recent Iraq war, pro-war events and interviews were seen to flood the American media while news regarding fallen soldiers and dying civilians were nowhere to be seen. How is the public expected to understand the true scale of the war when they are given such information? The masses may believe the war has ended well when they are viewing the celebration of President Bush on an aircraft carrier but will they still if they viewed rows of coffin draped in American flags being sent back?

Trust in media has apparently gone up in a recent poll by BBC but hopefully the trust is well placed and carefully considered.