Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
How does education need to keep pace with our changing world?
Here are 3 thought-provoking videos on the subject.
Pay attention
A vision of students today
Did you know?
Pay attention
A vision of students today
Did you know?
Using Vokis to practise contrastive emphasis and intonation
Log in to Voki with the login I'll give you and in pairs, create statements, questions and answers following this model.
Statement
Question 1
Answer 1
Question 2
Answer 2
Statement
Question 1
Answer 1
Question 2
Answer 2
Using voicethread for speaking practice
Look at the examples of how voicethread can be used on my blog posting
- Log in with the login I'll give you
- Choose 2 (or more) photos from FlickrStorm and talk about them
- Use the instructions on the posting to help you
- Create your voicethread and embed it on this blog
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Environmentalists?
As a new reader of your magazine,I'd like to denounce the attitude of some hard-core, self-appointed environmentalists who, with their permanent finger-wagging, patronising views and absurd actions, not only make fools of themselves at times but, which is much worse, do a greaty deal of damage to the otherwise beneficial and necessary green movement.
I'll mention but two revealing examples to illustrate my view. In the first place, most readers will recall the release of dozens of minks from farms, carried out by some so-called ecologists to protest against the fur industry, as the magazine itself featured recently. It's common knowledge-apparently not to the protesters though-that minks are voracious predators, so their wandering free in the woods will result in environmental imbalance: the cure is worse than the disease.
Another, more fundamental issue is raised in my second argument: I'm fed up with some green groups saying no to everything, including wind power stations, every time the authorities intend to set up one on a mountain crest; even if that may be the most suitable site, they will only regard the well-being of certain birds or claim that it is an eyesore. Even admitting all that, we must think realistically, not dogmatically: we need energy because we can't go back to the caves, so we should promote clean, renewable power sources instead of dangerous or polluting energies. As a result, we can't oppose everything systematically: we can't help but choose the lesser evil.
I'm aware that my views may seem anti-green at first sight; nothing could be further from my mind. Though not a radical myself, I try to apply some basic measures to my everyday life: use public transport whenever possible, reuse and recycle, save energy and consume less... I'm convinced that is the way to help our ailing planet. We also need sharp, clear minds who can argue successfully in favour of sustainable growth, because there is too much at stake-and it might be too late.However irresponsible, bombastic demonstrations only have an adverse effect on the movement to save a planet in distress.
I'll mention but two revealing examples to illustrate my view. In the first place, most readers will recall the release of dozens of minks from farms, carried out by some so-called ecologists to protest against the fur industry, as the magazine itself featured recently. It's common knowledge-apparently not to the protesters though-that minks are voracious predators, so their wandering free in the woods will result in environmental imbalance: the cure is worse than the disease.
Another, more fundamental issue is raised in my second argument: I'm fed up with some green groups saying no to everything, including wind power stations, every time the authorities intend to set up one on a mountain crest; even if that may be the most suitable site, they will only regard the well-being of certain birds or claim that it is an eyesore. Even admitting all that, we must think realistically, not dogmatically: we need energy because we can't go back to the caves, so we should promote clean, renewable power sources instead of dangerous or polluting energies. As a result, we can't oppose everything systematically: we can't help but choose the lesser evil.
I'm aware that my views may seem anti-green at first sight; nothing could be further from my mind. Though not a radical myself, I try to apply some basic measures to my everyday life: use public transport whenever possible, reuse and recycle, save energy and consume less... I'm convinced that is the way to help our ailing planet. We also need sharp, clear minds who can argue successfully in favour of sustainable growth, because there is too much at stake-and it might be too late.However irresponsible, bombastic demonstrations only have an adverse effect on the movement to save a planet in distress.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The animals are not to blame
The first thing that I want to state before I go on with my complain is the fact that I neither hate dogs nor am I against having them as pets. It's undeniable that dogs and humans have been best friends for long and so it's amazing to see what close bonds are developed between some owners and their pets. However, what owners easily forget is that they have an animal, which implies they are responsible for their proper care, that is not only food and water but also shelter, safety, regular veterinary care, exercise and so on.
Why am I complaining then? Above all because I'm fed up with the owners' irresponsibility about their pets. A valid-license and a rabies and ID tag doesn't mean that you can let the dog roam freely everywhere. Once it is your property, the dog must be on leash, because they can scare children and other adults who are unable to tell if the dog is friendly or aggressive. Besides, walking your dog in public might requiere a cage-type muzzle depending on the animal's breed.
Finally, what makes matters worse is having to put up with dog mess anywhere. Don't owners realize how disgusting it is to step in a dog poo -pardon me- or smell it or just see it clearly in the path? Why don't they pick it up and dispose it properly?
The majority of readers will agree with me that perhaps not only the animals should be trained but the owners should also be taught to take rsponsibility for the animal they have chosen to have.
Why am I complaining then? Above all because I'm fed up with the owners' irresponsibility about their pets. A valid-license and a rabies and ID tag doesn't mean that you can let the dog roam freely everywhere. Once it is your property, the dog must be on leash, because they can scare children and other adults who are unable to tell if the dog is friendly or aggressive. Besides, walking your dog in public might requiere a cage-type muzzle depending on the animal's breed.
Finally, what makes matters worse is having to put up with dog mess anywhere. Don't owners realize how disgusting it is to step in a dog poo -pardon me- or smell it or just see it clearly in the path? Why don't they pick it up and dispose it properly?
The majority of readers will agree with me that perhaps not only the animals should be trained but the owners should also be taught to take rsponsibility for the animal they have chosen to have.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Whale Hunting
Happy New Year to all of you!!
I am sending my Letter (sorry for being so late!) and I must apologise for not being able to attend lessons these next three weeks (I sprained my knee on the mountains)
Keep weel and see you soon. marifé
Dear Sir
I am writing to your magazine to support the UK's opposition to the resumption of commercial whaling on the grounds that this killing is cruel and no longer necessary.
The pro-whaling High North Alliance, insisting on the fact that there is no humane method of killing whales, thus justifying the use of explosive harpoons among other techniques, pointed to apparent inconsistencies in the policies of some anti-whaling nations. They drew comparisons between commercial whaling and recreational hunting, saying that the United Kingdom allowed the commercial shooting of deer without these shoots following the standards of British slaughterhouses, but said that whalers should meet these standards as a pre-condition before they support whaling.
The countries in this Alliance also stated that whaling is an essential condition for the successful operation of commercial fisheries and that whales put a heavy predatory pressure on commercial species of fish, which should be available for humans.
Recently the Chilean government promised to seek support from other countries to obtain a worldwide prohibition against whale hunting, and popular protests have taken place in front of the Japanese embassy in Chile against Japan's planned whale hunting in the Antarctic region.
Even though today some international organizations try to protect the whales, making reports to explain how important and endangered they are and trying to stop ships that hunt them to give them a chance to escape, it is obvious there is still a lot of work to reach this goal.
Yours sincerely,
I am sending my Letter (sorry for being so late!) and I must apologise for not being able to attend lessons these next three weeks (I sprained my knee on the mountains)
Keep weel and see you soon. marifé
Dear Sir
I am writing to your magazine to support the UK's opposition to the resumption of commercial whaling on the grounds that this killing is cruel and no longer necessary.
The pro-whaling High North Alliance, insisting on the fact that there is no humane method of killing whales, thus justifying the use of explosive harpoons among other techniques, pointed to apparent inconsistencies in the policies of some anti-whaling nations. They drew comparisons between commercial whaling and recreational hunting, saying that the United Kingdom allowed the commercial shooting of deer without these shoots following the standards of British slaughterhouses, but said that whalers should meet these standards as a pre-condition before they support whaling.
The countries in this Alliance also stated that whaling is an essential condition for the successful operation of commercial fisheries and that whales put a heavy predatory pressure on commercial species of fish, which should be available for humans.
Recently the Chilean government promised to seek support from other countries to obtain a worldwide prohibition against whale hunting, and popular protests have taken place in front of the Japanese embassy in Chile against Japan's planned whale hunting in the Antarctic region.
Even though today some international organizations try to protect the whales, making reports to explain how important and endangered they are and trying to stop ships that hunt them to give them a chance to escape, it is obvious there is still a lot of work to reach this goal.
Yours sincerely,
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Humans first
I read with interest Ben leather's comments (Nature, May) but was surprised to note that, while he linked human development with the destruction of animal species, the impact of this development
on the third world human species was largely overlooked.
Elsewhere in the magazine you referred to the influence of unrestricted travel and abusive land farming on the natural habitat of endangered species, but you failed to mention that every minute
thirty children die from starvation and other associated diseases in the human -and animal-world.
Do people not recognise the irony in this and do they not realise where we should place priorities?
I have been to Africa twice and much though I admire the animal world, I cannot help but focus my
interest on the most urgent human needs, and of children in particular, in such countries.
Surely it is time that everyone starts to question whether public money should be spent on saving
animals until there are humans needing to be saved.
on the third world human species was largely overlooked.
Elsewhere in the magazine you referred to the influence of unrestricted travel and abusive land farming on the natural habitat of endangered species, but you failed to mention that every minute
thirty children die from starvation and other associated diseases in the human -and animal-world.
Do people not recognise the irony in this and do they not realise where we should place priorities?
I have been to Africa twice and much though I admire the animal world, I cannot help but focus my
interest on the most urgent human needs, and of children in particular, in such countries.
Surely it is time that everyone starts to question whether public money should be spent on saving
animals until there are humans needing to be saved.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
seagulls:a pest
I would like to complain about the problems we have nowadays with seagulls in our city.They have become the new and noisy pest in our coastal residences. I say "new" because seagulls are on our roofs, and we can see them at any time. Some roofs are infested with them and people have started having problems with slates. "Noisy" because they don´t stop croaking day and night, disturbing our sleep. I know that they have lost their natural habitats because of the excess of buildings in some towns, but, do we really have to suffer them ? Some times it is almost impossible to get near the rubbish bins just because they are there, waiting for the supermarkets to throw away the left overs of the day. Could it be possible to find a solution to this problem? Cannot the Council do something? I don´t think the solution can be just stealing their eggs or breaking them, as some people propose. We need something done, something radical or they will become a real pest like rats.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Christmas Lighting
Christmas Lighting
Two letters published in your magazine on December 10th and 12th raised the issue of street lighting at Christmas. The first letter celebrated the decision taken by the City Council of Bilbao of lighting up the streets one week earlier this year, that is to say, on December 1st. The second complained about it and regarded it as an excessive consumption of energy.
It is undeniably true that due to this Christmas tradition of decorating the streets with lights the city changes its look for a time and seems to join in the celebrations. But aren’t we overdoing it a little? In these times of worlwide campaigning against global warming and institutional support of carbon footprint, what kind of values are we teaching our children?
Surely, rather than wasting all that energy for as long as five weeks, hadn’t we better limit the lighting to the Christmas period itself and this way save money and energy at the same time?
Two letters published in your magazine on December 10th and 12th raised the issue of street lighting at Christmas. The first letter celebrated the decision taken by the City Council of Bilbao of lighting up the streets one week earlier this year, that is to say, on December 1st. The second complained about it and regarded it as an excessive consumption of energy.
It is undeniably true that due to this Christmas tradition of decorating the streets with lights the city changes its look for a time and seems to join in the celebrations. But aren’t we overdoing it a little? In these times of worlwide campaigning against global warming and institutional support of carbon footprint, what kind of values are we teaching our children?
Surely, rather than wasting all that energy for as long as five weeks, hadn’t we better limit the lighting to the Christmas period itself and this way save money and energy at the same time?
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Letter to Ms Lennox
The Big Thaw
I have to disagree with Ms. Lennox’s letter about the Global Climate (December 12). She claims that “Global Warming is a natural change and, thus, Earth will continue to change no matter what we may or may not do”. I am fed up with people that link global warming and natural change. To deny that we are influencing that “natural cycle” and foolishly speeding up the process of melting of the ice masses is, simply, ignorance.
Ms Lennox quotes Darwin to say that “It is not the strongest of species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most adaptable to change”. Now, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than a third since the industrial revolution. Changes this large have historically taken thousands of years, but are now happening over the course of decades. This, in terms of geologic time, is unbearable. The rapid rise in greenhouse gases is a problem because it is changing the climate faster than some living things may be able to adapt –mankind amongst them?. Also, a new and more unpredictable climate poses unique challenges to all life. Ms. Lennox, it is crystal clear that those who deny that global warming is caused by mankind have an obvious ulterior motive: to carry on comfortable and profit-motivated lifestyles.
In my view, it is not persisting deniers like Ms Lennox that are to fear; after all, I am sure there are some harmless folks out there who still believe evolution played no role in shaping us and that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." (Are they really harmless?) But it is apathy and disbelief about climate change that are far from harmless, for they affect governmental policy (what about the Bali Summit?) and our ability to take action. The real challenge is to make people aware: What sacrifices am I ready to make?
I have to disagree with Ms. Lennox’s letter about the Global Climate (December 12). She claims that “Global Warming is a natural change and, thus, Earth will continue to change no matter what we may or may not do”. I am fed up with people that link global warming and natural change. To deny that we are influencing that “natural cycle” and foolishly speeding up the process of melting of the ice masses is, simply, ignorance.
Ms Lennox quotes Darwin to say that “It is not the strongest of species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most adaptable to change”. Now, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than a third since the industrial revolution. Changes this large have historically taken thousands of years, but are now happening over the course of decades. This, in terms of geologic time, is unbearable. The rapid rise in greenhouse gases is a problem because it is changing the climate faster than some living things may be able to adapt –mankind amongst them?. Also, a new and more unpredictable climate poses unique challenges to all life. Ms. Lennox, it is crystal clear that those who deny that global warming is caused by mankind have an obvious ulterior motive: to carry on comfortable and profit-motivated lifestyles.
In my view, it is not persisting deniers like Ms Lennox that are to fear; after all, I am sure there are some harmless folks out there who still believe evolution played no role in shaping us and that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." (Are they really harmless?) But it is apathy and disbelief about climate change that are far from harmless, for they affect governmental policy (what about the Bali Summit?) and our ability to take action. The real challenge is to make people aware: What sacrifices am I ready to make?
Thursday, December 13, 2007
wanna play?
Crazy about poetry and computers?
Ok, check this out!
http://www.bbcbasic.co.uk/bbcbasic/birthday/poem.exe
Take it easy,
Angel
Ok, check this out!
http://www.bbcbasic.co.uk/bbcbasic/birthday/poem.exe
Take it easy,
Angel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)