Review [For T2W9 Use]

Does Facebook Replace Face Time or Enhance It?

By Lisa Selin Davis Sunday, Jan. 18, 2009

Jenny has not returned my calls in roughly a year. She has, however, sent me a poinsettia, poked me and placed a gift beneath my Christmas tree. She's done all this virtually, courtesy of Facebook, the social-networking site on which users create profiles, gather "friends" and join common-interest groups, not to mention send digital gifts. Although Jenny has three children, ages 4 to 14, and rarely finds time for visits, phone calls or even e-mail, the full-time mom in upstate New York regularly updates her status on Facebook ("Jenny is fixing a birthday dinner," "Jenny took the kids sledding") and uploads photos (her son in the school play). After 24 years, our friendship is now relegated to the online world, filtered through Facebook. Call it Facebook Recluse Syndrome — and Jenny is far from the site's only social hermit.

Although Facebook started as an online hub for college students, its fastest-growing demographic is the over-25 crowd, which now accounts for more than half of the site's 140 million active members. Why is Facebook catching on among harried parents and professionals? "It makes me feel like I have a grip on my world," says Emily Neill, a 39-year-old single mother of two. Neill isn't a techie, per se — "I'll never have a phone that does anything but make calls," says the fashion consultant in Watertown, Mass. — but she stays logged on to Facebook all day at work and then spends an hour or two — or lately three — at night checking in with old acquaintances, swapping photos with close friends and instant-messaging those who fall somewhere in between. "It makes you feel like you're part of something even if you're neglecting people in the flesh," she says.

Retreating behind a digital veil started long before the Internet existed, with the advent of answering machines. "People would call a phone when they knew the other person wasn't available to pick up," says Charles Steinfield, a professor at Michigan State University who co-authored a peer-reviewed study called "The Benefits of Facebook 'Friends.' " "It enabled them to convey information without forcing them to interact."

Enter Facebook, which provides a constant flow of information via short updates from everyone a user knows: a distant cousin is glad he skipped the cheeseburger chowder; a colleague has a new book on sale; a close friend is engaged or newly single. Jenny and I, along with three of our childhood pals from Saratoga Springs, N.Y., learned that a dear old friend had ended her seven-year relationship through a Facebook status change. We expressed dismay, albeit through Facebook's IM feature, that we had to learn such potent information in this impersonal way.

Yet for many users, Facebook somehow remains distinctly personal. Although social-networking sites typically encourage connections among strangers — like on MySpace, where people converge through common interests, or online dating, where the whole point is to greet new faces — Facebook is geared toward helping people maintain existing connections. The site serves as a self-updating address book, keeping users connected no matter their geographical shifts. "There are people from my past life that I never would have tracked through 10 job changes and 20 e-mail changes," says Nicole Ellison, an assistant professor at Michigan State and lead author of the Facebook "Friends" study, which focused on undergraduate usage of the site. Facebook offers what she describes as a "seamless way of keeping in touch that doesn't involve all this work."

Perhaps this is the key. Jenny's online sociability and offline silence probably has less to do with digital retreating than time management. Facebook offers e-mail, IM and photo sharing in what Neill calls the "one-stop shopping" of online interaction. "It's not surprising to me that it's replacing other forms of communication," says Steinfield.

It's still surprising to me, however, this combination of Orwell and WALL-E that has humans watching one another through computer screens and socializing in quasi-isolation. Neill says Facebook has brought her closer to her already close friends, whom she has little time to see because of kids and work. "I know more about them now than I did when I was in regular contact with them," she says.

I believe her. But I can't help wondering: If for some reason Facebook suddenly ceased to exist, would people like Jenny revert to phone calls or visits, or would they lose touch altogether?

I probably won't find out. Instead, I gave in. Last week I sent Jenny a note — through Facebook, naturally — requesting a get-together. She accepted. When we met up, it seemed like we were closer than I had thought. I knew about Jenny's son's part in the school play, her sledding expedition and what she'd cooked for that big birthday dinner — information we would have shared if we still lived in the same neighborhood and talked regularly, the inane and intimate details that add up to life. The constant stream of data is a digital form of closeness. "A beautiful blossoming garden of information about your friends," as Neill puts it, adding, "I don't see how that can be a bad thing."

URL: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1871627,00.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review

As mentioned by the writer, facebook has brought people very much closer in the digital world and concluded that facebook is not a bad thing afterall. I disagree to her stand to a large extent as this close virtual connection has inevitably widened the gap between people in the real world.

Facebook have totally revoluntionised the way people socialize and interact with one another. In the past, when such online socializing networks were not yet available, people spend real quality time with their friends and engage in conversations that clearly depict their emotions. All these, cannot be achieved via online social networking sites, hence making such sites a very superficial platform only for people to proudly present the best parts of their lives and hide the ugly moments. It seems that the more photos, more friends and more connections one have online shows the popularity of that person. We know of many friends who are addicted to facebook, constantly updating their profiles and uploading pictures and beautifying them. The time spent on all these have resulted in lost time catching up with close friends, engaging in leisure activities and spending time with family. Facebook has created a culture of people who rather spend time online than be out mingling in the real world.

One very detrimental effect is the gradual disability to communicate effectively with people as they may not be confident to speak face-to-face with another person after being unexposed and being behind comforts of the computer screen for a long time.

Yet, we cannot totally put the blame on facebook. This globalised world is charactized by speed and efficiency. Online socializing networks allow one to keep in touch with more than hundreds of people at one go. This flexible system of socializing definately save a lot of time for the many busy college students and working population. Moreover, people also make use of facebook to embark on online businesses to sell their products, enabling them earn money from the comforts of their own homes.

Review [For T2W8's Use]

Wesley K. Clark: Still the Essential Alliance
There was an overmilitarization of U.S. foreign policy and too much focus just on areas with an imminent threat.

Adam B. Kushner
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated May 18, 2009

Today former presidential candidate Wesley Clark is a Democratic graybeard, but not so long ago, he was a military wunderkind. West Point, Rhodes scholarship, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. In that post, he helped Bill Clinton define a novel new doctrine—humanitarian intervention. By bombing Belgrade, they ushered Slobodan Milosevic from power and halted the Serb attack on Kosovo. Clark spoke to NEWSWEEK's Adam B. Kushner about NATO's changing role in Europe, the Middle East and the war on terror. Excerpts:

Kushner: Why does NATO still matter?
Clark: NATO is an organization in which nations pledge themselves together with the strongest pledge one nation can make to another, which is that an attack on one represents an attack on all. That's still the most powerful relationship between states. Among all other international organizations, there are none stronger than the relationships of NATO.

But attacks on nations don't happen the way they used to.
No, but they still face security threats, and NATO has a consultative mechanism and a set of standing relationships that help harmonize national security policies. It's like a consensus machine. It's also a major force for stabilizing Eastern Europe, which is still dominated by fears—some founded, some unfounded—of inappropriate influence by Russia.

Consensus is all well and good, but is that a first-order priority in fighting terrorism?
You've got to share information and coordinate action. Though there are also bilateral relationships, which are preferred by the intelligence community. There are some NATO partners who don't get the same level of candor and detail as others.

Is there any multilateral body that does intelligence-sharing well?
NATO is as good as it gets. Even against terrorism, the advantages are clear, because terrorists aren't located only in countries outside NATO—there are internal security threats. So the internal security of one country is a matter of external security for another.

Is Eastern European security still a worry of NATO's? Is its mission outdated?
I hosted the Russian chief of defense in Bosnia in 1997, and talks were candid. Those exchanges were shut down by the resurgence of the traditional power ministries and men like Yevgeny Primakov, who reestablished the grip of the intelligence services on the military. It became impossible for me to call my Russian counterpart. Since then we've seen threats to Eastern Europe and the action in Georgia. In the Czech Republic, our allies are very worried about what it might mean to "reset" relations with Russia. I heard from Condi Rice in 2000 that the Clinton administration had somehow destroyed relations with Russia and that the new team would make things better. Now we're [talking about "resetting"] relations again.

Was President Bush's membership push for Georgia and Ukraine productive?
The idea that you bring these countries into NATO and then there's no problem doesn't make sense. … One of the problems we saw [in the Bush years] was the overmilitarization of U.S. foreign policy and too much focus on just the areas where there was an imminent national security threat.

What does NATO do now that the U.S. has stepped up ownership in Afghanistan?
When the U.S. gave this mission to NATO, it didn't deliver a success strategy. It was more like, "Take the mission. We'll leave a few forces there just in case, and good luck!" In terms of development, you can't simply corral villagers when they don't have a livelihood. You can't limit yourself to poppies just because the Taliban makes money from poppies. So do villagers! … NATO is not really able to deal with economic developments.

If the U.S. resets relations with Russia, does it still need a missile shield in Poland?
It's really about Iran. If there's a way to assure Russia of our intent, we should.

They don't seem to want to be assured.
It's something they use; it's an asymmetrical issue. For them it's about Europe, for us it's about Iran.

So it shouldn't be halted.
Well, I'd like to see it work. But barring a breakthrough with Iran, it's an essential ingredient of Western security.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/195701

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEW

This article has mainly focused on the topic whether NATO is still of relevance in today’s world where the slightest feuds can spark war and fighting among countries, and also questions its effectiveness against terrorism. General Wesley K. Clark says that NATO is an organization in which nations pledge themselves together with the strongest pledge one nation can make to another, which is that an attack on one represents an attack on all. I personally believe that this works to a large extent as a deterrant to other countries, causing them to think twice before engaging in armed conflict. However on the other hand this will not help out much with multi-lateral relations and it sends out an unwelcoming threat to the other countries, thus not allowing strong ties to be forged. However one major flaw of NATO is their evidently severe lack of planning especially in the case of Afghanistan where they failed to attack the problem at its roots where what they were doing was only curing the symptoms. Therefore for NATO to be successful in every aspect they have to first start off with good organisation and to have the right objectives in mind. (sry everyone I am doing in like 10pm plus and my brain’s not working).

Review [For T2W6's Use]

Despite Wins for Gay Marriage, Obstacles Remain
By Michael A. Lindenberger Wednesday, Apr. 08, 2009

Gay couples arriving at the White House with their children ready for the Easter Egg Roll on April 13 should be easy enough to spot. They'll be the ones wearing enormous smiles — and not just because the Obama Administration has put out an inclusive welcome sign for the annual romp on the South Lawn. The couples will likely still be celebrating the past week's major victories in the war over marriage rights.

April is shaping up to be a real watershed for the gay-marriage issue. First came the heartland win on April 3 from the Iowa Supreme Court. Then on Tuesday, Vermont's lawmakers defied Governor Jim Douglas with a veto override heard round the world, making their state the nation's first to establish gay marriage by a vote rather than by judicial decree. That same day in Washington, D.C., the city council chose to give legal recognition to gay and lesbian residents who have been married elsewhere.

The sense that something big is happening has been felt by the other side of the battle too. "The momentum seems to be now on the side of those pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage," the Rev. Albert Mohler told TIME on Wednesday. "The Vermont and Iowa developments seem to signal the fact that, as many of us have sensed for some time, the legalization of same-sex marriage is taking on a sense of inevitability." Mohler is president of the nation's flagship Southern Baptist seminary in Louisville, Ky., and one of America's most respected Evangelical thinkers. (See pictures of the Knot's co-founders.)

The implications for society are enormous. "We are watching the moral and social landscape of the nation be transformed before our eyes," Mohler said. "The institution of marriage is so central to human society and, at the same time, so central to Christian theology that it is almost impossible to calculate the magnitude of this challenge. This is a deeply troubling and sobering moment." (See pictures of the busiest wedding day in history.)

But while the battle lines are shifting and new fronts are opening, the war over marriage is anything but over. For one thing, there is the obstacle of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law that makes it illegal for the U.S. government — as opposed to individual states — to recognize gay couples as married. Even talk of federally recognized civil unions is meaningless until DOMA is repealed, since the act also prohibits the appearance of marriage, no matter what the relationship is called. It's why gays can't enjoy the tax benefits that straight couples do, for instance, and why spouses of gay federal employees cannot be covered by government health plans. (See a radical solution to the gay-marriage controversy.)

Repealing DOMA, however, will require a presidential push or an unusual amount of energy from congressional Democrats. But like nearly every nationally prominent Democrat — from Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden — Obama has favored civil unions while opposing gay marriage. Although he has promised to work for the repeal of DOMA and to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military, these are not priorities in the Obama White House. As a result, any momentum gay-rights activists may be enjoying now is unlikely to be sustained.

Even if the issue finally gets to the top of Obama's agenda, his position on gay marriage is still troubling to many gay-rights activists, who argue that accepting civil unions is equivalent to kowtowing to separate-but-equal schools for black and white children. Yet what will matter most in the immediate future is whether legislatures in other states will follow the example of Vermont. New Hampshire lawmakers may be the next to decide the fate of gay marriage, with a vote scheduled soon. The issue is on the calendar in other statehouses, too, including New York, New Jersey and Maine.

The outcome of those votes — if they even occur — is uncertain. And there is plenty of reason for gay-marriage hopefuls to temper their expectations. Despite the big steps of the past week, gay marriage remains unpopular in nearly every state (California's Prop. 8 vote being one example). Even in Iowa, last week's unanimous state supreme court decision would likely be overturned were it possible to put the issue to voters anytime soon. And with a federal judiciary — and especially the Supreme Court — dominated by conservative judges appointed by President George W. Bush, a national victory for marriage-equality advocates seems remote at best.

For now, the pressure has been raised for Obama to make good on his promise to support gay rights in a meaningful way. The battle has broken, at least temporarily, in favor of gay marriage. The smiles on the faces of gay-rights supporters have been matched by a somber mood among Evangelicals and others opposed to expanding the definition of marriage. "I am not giving up on this issue, nor assuming that the debate is over," Mohler told TIME. "Clearly, it is not. Yet I do sense that the ground is moving under our feet."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1890115,00.html?loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.12279:b23802224&xid=Loomia

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review

Firstly, in the article, Rev. Albert Mohler said that the momentum is turning towards people pushing for legalising gay marriages. This is true to a large extent as today, people tend to be more educated. Due to this, people tend to get a better picture of their basic rights. Thus some people may feel that their rights is being taken away when they are not allowed to marry a person of the same sex as they deserve a freedom to marriage. Thus, they start to push for their rights for legalising same sex marriages. Even in Singapore, when the government decided not to repeal the penal code 377A, many gays openly fought for their rights. Thus, I may infer that there are more people who are pushing for legalising gay marriages.

Mohler also states that the moral and and social landscape is changing right before our eyes. This is also true to a large extent. In the past, it was mandatory to marry someone of a different sex and thus who indulge in same-sex relationship are shunned and separated from the community. It was seen to be morally wrong to marry someone of the same sex. Today, due to globalisation, the tides have changed and people are seeing no harm in indulging in same-sex relationship. Today we can see that even in conservative societies, people are indulging in same-sex relationship. This change could be noticed even in Singapore where, people have openly fought for the right of the gays, most dominantly seen during the times when the government decided not to repeal the penal code 377A. Thus, i may infer that it may be true that moral and social landscape have changed, and still changing before our eyes.

Personally, i feel that gay marriages should not be allowed in Singapore. This is because I feel that gay marriages tend to degrade the social and moral values of a society. Gay marriages tend to change the way we love, in my opinion. Gay marriages tend to change the idea of marriage, which is a very important aspect of someone's lives. If gay marriage is allowed, eventually people may be allowed to marry an immediate relative such as a sibling, marry multiple partners, marry a child, or even marry a pet. Obviously some of these examples sound ridiculous but are they realistic? Will allowing gay marriage lead to such unorthodox unions? It may become true on day. Singapore, being a Asian country, should uphold Asian cultures. Gay marriages may not be one of such cultures as gay marriages have more of a western origin. Thus, in order to uphold the Asian cultures and values, i may infer that Singapore should not legalise gay marriages.

Review [For T2W5's Use]

Waterboarding : The mental and physical torture

In Chile, they called it submarino, a form of simulated drowning that has much the same effect as what we call waterboarding. During Augusto Pinochet's 17-year-long dictatorship, thousands of Chileans were detained by the military and subjected to torture. During the submarino, they were forcibly submerged in a tank of water, over and over again, until they were on the edge of drowning. (The Chilean military liked to foul the water with urine, feces or worse, something that—so far—hasn't been known to be a part of U.S. waterboarding of terrorism suspects.) Submarino became a popular tool for military interrogators, in part because it left relatively few permanent physical marks.

But the impact on the torture victim's mind was lasting. After Pinochet's fall in 1990, the new civilian government in Chile investigated incidents of alleged torture, and found deep scars. Years after they were tortured, submarino victims were still haunted. A 2007 study in the International Review of the Red Cross found that "the acute suffering produced during the immediate infliction of the submarino is superseded by the often unbearable fear of repeating the experience. In the aftermath, it may lead to horrific memories that persist in the form of recurrent 'drowning nightmares.'" As one Chilean who was tortured by submarino under Pinochet put it: "Even today I wake up because of having nightmares of dying from drowning." (Read "Obama: No Prosecution for Waterboarding.")

The news that the U.S. waterboarded one al-Qaeda prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, at least 83 times, and another, the confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 183 times, has given new energy to the debate over whether U.S. interrogation methods amounted to torture. Defenders of waterboarding say that the procedure, while awful for the prisoner, is relatively safe and has few long-term effects. But doctors and psychologists who work with torture victims disagree strongly. They say that victims of American waterboarding—like the Chileans submitted to the submarino under Pinochet—are likely to be psychologically damaged for life.
"This is an utterly terrifying event," says Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/New York University School of Medicine Program for Survivors of Torture. "Psychologically this can result in significant long-term post traumatic stress, and produce anxiety and depression."

Defenders of the procedure have pointed to the fact that American soldiers are put through a form of waterboarding during the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape program, as training for the possibility of capture. But Keller points out that being waterboarded during training, as scary as it might be, bears little resemblance to what a detainee would endure. "The trainees know that they are not going to be hurt," he says. "When someone's being tortured there are no such guarantees. There is no reason to believe they aren't going to be drowned."
If a prisoner is waterboarded repeatedly, as Zubaydah and Mohammed were, it's tempting to believe that the effect would lessen over time; that the victim would no longer fear drowning, knowing that his interrogator would stop the process in time. But waterboarding can be so intense—and the fear of drowning so primal—that each time would be a fresh trauma. Worse, being waterboarded repeatedly raises the possibility that something could go wrong and the detainee could, in fact, drown. (Read "Torture Memos Released.")

"Done 183 times on a single person, each flood of water, each subsequent near-death experience, increases the possibility of debilitating and irreparable harm," says Brad Olson, a research professor of psychology at Northwestern University. "The cumulative impact of this waterboarding is tremendous. It's going to produce permanent psychological damage even in the most resilient human."

Keller, who treats victims at Bellevue, agrees that psychological effects of asphyxiation torture like waterboarding can be insidiously long-lived. One patient whose head was repeatedly submerged during torture has constant flashbacks. "Every time he has a shower, he panics," says Keller. One victim panics every time he becomes the least bit short of breath, even during exercise. And in most cases, it is the helplessness the victims endured under torture that renders the experience ineradicable. "They fear that loss of control," says Keller. "That's what is so terrifying."

It can take years for psychological scars to show, and to truly gauge the long-term psychological impact of torture, psychologists need to follow up with victims well after they are released. That may never happen with detainees like Zubaydah and Mohammed—meaning we may never know the final wages of what CIA agents did in dark rooms under our name. But there should be no doubt now that we tortured. "That we would still be having a discussion about whether or not waterboarding is torture is so disingenuous," says Keller. "They should come out and say what it is."



Review!

Interrogation is a type of social encounter in which the normal rules of communicating, of relating, of intimacy are manipulated.

Submarino is similar to Water boarding. They are both forms of controversial interrogation technique usually adopted by the military. During the submarine, their heads were forcefully pushed into a tank of water repeatedly, stimulating drowning closely. The tank of water used may be fouled by the military personnel. Water boarding involves tying up the victim’s hands and legs and his face, covered with a cloth, disallowing and movement. With waves of water poured onto his face, his reflexes kick in and he believes he is drowning. These interrogation techniques have become popular tools and are used by many forces worldwide. However, they amount to torture and are considered inhumane by many. The debate is whether these forms of interrogation should still be practised in this developing age of ours where torture of another living being is somewhat illegal.

The defenders of these torturous forms of interrogation argue that the treatment is relatively safe, leaves behind few physical scars and carries few long term effects and most of the time, successfully makes the victim admit to his crime. They also state that the soldiers undergo these treatments as part of their survival training so as to prepare them for the possibility of undergoing these tortures when captured. It is also a belief that the effect would reduce over time; that the victim becomes used to the pain inflicted upon him and the confidence he will start to possess that his interrogator will stop the process on time. However, others may think adversely. The military training that soldiers undergo do not carry the same mental torture produced upon detainees. The soldiers know they will not be harmed till death during their physical training of water boarding or submarine. In the case of detainees and criminals who experience the terrifying stimulation, there is no guarantee that they will survive the repeated treatment thrust upon them. The aggressor will not know when the breaking point (drowning point) of the victim will be.

As mentioned in the article, one Al-Qaeda militant, Abu Zubaydah was water-boarded over 80 times and the mastermind of the merciless 9/11 attack underwent the same treatment about 183 times. Experiencing the near death stimulation so many times and building up the fear with each subsequent infliction can hardly be considered a form of fair interrogation as the victim is amounted to great suffering and pain. It then becomes a source of retribution, vengeance and torture given by the military soldiers. The treatment is so severe and intense with the fear of drowning so primeval, each water-boarding or submarino attack brings about fresh trauma, anguish and agony. According to research and studies, the magnifying effect of the process is incredibly massive that perpetual emotional scarring and haunting will be created within the victim who is put through the suffering on these interrogation forms, even if they may be the toughest and strongest beings.

Experts like doctors and psychologists also disagree with the defendants strongly. Victims are likely to be psychologically scarred for life. As stated, studies have shown the sharp pain and suffering created during the forced and aggressive stimulation is superseded by the great unbearable fear of going through the experience over and over again together with the near-death feelings each time. Each near-death experience creates endless harm. This is because the victims become so helpless and weak that the process is rendered ingrained. The aftermath includes horrific memories, nightmares and can result in long lived post traumatic stress, anxiety, depression and haunting. In certain cases, hydrophobia arises.

Victims of this terrifying experience should be constantly monitored and counseled by psychologists following their release so as to receive help to cope with their post trauma and damage. Even with superior powers and authority, the soldiers, the people who use these treatment methods do not have the right and the power of God to inflict unconditional pain, suffering and fear onto other human beings. These intensely painful and freak forms of interrogation should be fought to be abolished and more humane forms or investigations and interrogations should be sought after. Singapore would clearly make a good example where interrogation involves mostly communication and minimal infliction of physical pain. In conclusion, torture should not be legalized.



preeti.

Review [For T2W4's Use]

ARTICLE
For Japanese Students, Boring Careers Are Looking Pretty Good

By Coco Masters / Tokyo
Tuesday, Apr. 14, 2009

Heading en masse to new positions in Japan's major corporations, fresh university graduates in black suits have become as common a sight in Tokyo as April's cherry blossoms. But this year, things are different. According to a closely watched annual survey, the companies that were once synonymous with Japan Inc. — Toyota, Sony, Sharp and Canon — have lost their luster as potential employers. For those seeking secure jobs-for-life, students are instead looking to relatively low-risk industries such as railroads and public utilities.

The survey, a poll of nearly 6,000 university seniors conducted by Recruit Co., a Tokyo-based research and human resources company, revealed that Japan's flailing, export-driven economy has had a profound impact on the outlook of those on the brink of entering the workforce. Toyota's ranking as a preferred employer plummeted from 6th place last year to 96th place this year. Sony fell from 8th to 29th place; Sharp from 14th to 55th place; Canon from 20th to 77th place. (See pictures of the global financial crisis.)

And which companies are the top five dream employers? Central Japan Railway and East Japan Railway Co. rose to first and second place (up from 4th and 9th place last year). Japan Post — formerly the public office that the government began to privatize in 2007 — jumped 357 spots to rank 30th. Chubu Electric Power and Kansai Electric Power both gained more than 50 places each to rank in the top 50.

It's not surprising that automakers and electronic companies are no longer as appealing as they once were. Toyota Motor, which has typically ranked in the survey's top 10, will likely post its second straight operating loss in its 2010 fiscal year — right when the students polled by Recruit will be entering the workplace. The company is expected to report a loss of $4.9 billion when it announces its 2009 results on May 8. Last week, Sharp Corp., too, slashed its outlook for its fiscal year ending March 31, to a net loss of $1.29 billion. (Read "Sony's Woes: Japan's Iconic Brands Under Fire.")

Recruit collected the data between Jan. 30 and Feb. 16, as a series of dire economic indicators painted a dismal economic outlook for Japan and major companies were laying off workers in waves. "News reports about worsened business and manpower conditions came out one after another," says Recruit spokeswoman Yuri Ito. "This survey is done around the time companies announce their recruitment plan for the following year. So some students might vote for those that plan to hire aggressively." Export-driven companies, out. Instead, "Students consider companies in industries like infrastructure and food, which are robust in a recession... companies that are stable and don't go away," says Ito. "Their parents think the same."

Grad students in engineering fields, of whom 1,860 were polled, still chose Panasonic as their ideal employer (followed by Sony), but automotive-related companies dropped in rank, and household products (including cosmetics) and pharmaceutical companies grew in popularity. The largest gains were seen by cosmetics companies Kao and Kose, food company Meiji, and three pharmaceutical companies: Shionogi & Co., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., and Astellas.

Kevin Gibson, managing director of headhunting firm Robert Walters Japan, says he, too, is witnessing a flight to risk-free industries. "We see a gravitation away from banking and, oddly enough, manufacturing is perceived as insecure now," Gibson says. Robert Walters is placing a large number of executive and management talent into health care and the pharmaceutical industry. "It's getting fantastic people from I.T. and banking — people that [those industries] wouldn't normally be able to employ." But Gibson says the brain drain from old-guard companies may not last. "Media spent so much time beating up on these companies," he says. "They will bounce back."

—With reporting by Yuki Oda / Tokyo

URL: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1891139,00.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review

The author states that It's not surprising that automakers and electronic companies are no longer as appealing as they once were as a student will want to seek for a more stable job so as to obtain a stable income. Especially in this economy downturn, electronic industries are facing a low demand for their product resulting in low revenue earn. It is not surprising that many of those electronic companies have ended up bankrupt. With this in mind, many student will inevitably avoid to work in that industry so that they will not be unemployed. Instead industries that have a better survival in this economy crisis will be appealing to more graduated students.

In the article, it is says that a survey is done around the time companies announce their recruitment plan for the following year. So some students might vote for those that plan to hire aggressively. However, this kind of survey may not be fair as those graduating student may choose the more stable jobs as their choice but their true intended job might not be the on they choose where their interest lies. By working in the job just with the sake of money may not be as efficient as that if they have the passion. i presume that once the economy are stable again they may perhaps try to switch to jobs that they prefer.

This article just target at Japan industries alone. But in other countries the situation may be the opposite. For instance, China or India electronic industries might be better than the situation in japan. China and India products are much cheaper than japan goods. This attracts more people who want to save more will now opt for these cheaper product which serve the same function. In the long run, China and India electronic industries may flourish.

Review [For T2W3's Use]

ARTICLE

All Form, No People
Why the architectural icons Beijing built for the Olympic Games stand empty.

Melinda Liu
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Apr 6, 2009

China is a command economy run by engineers, a fact that served the nation well during the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Leaders cleaned up pollution in the city prior to the event by shutting down factories and ordering more than half of Beijing's vehicles off the road. Even better, visitors were wowed by a host of stunning new buildings—including the "Bird's Nest" National Stadium, the gravity-defying China Central Television (CCTV) headquarters complex and the surrealistic National Performing Arts Center—that NEWSWEEK feted as the most exciting and complete architectural transformation of a city since the 1865-1887 redesign of Paris by Baron Haussmann.

But Haussmann didn't produce an empty shell. Now Beijing's new icons are highlighting not so much a national genius for design and construction, but the country's utter lack of marketing savvy. The Bird's Nest, CCTV tower and arts center, which together cost more than $1.5 billion to build, have become commercial disasters, suffering from money and image problems thanks to a calamitous fire and a lack of forward planning on how to generate cash post-Games. Unlike cities such as Sydney, which used Olympic structures and publicity to create a longer-term flow of tourists and business traffic, Chinese leaders adopted a "build it and they will come" attitude, not giving much thought to exactly which folks might come to see what events after the Games. "As always in China, the software lags behind the hardware," says Beijing-based consultant James MacGregor, author of "One Billion Customers."

Consider the National Stadium, which alone took $450 million to build, and now requires $15 million in yearly maintenance. Yet the only steady revenue is from tourists who pay $9 a pop to take happy snaps of an empty bowl. The number of tourists visiting the stadium has declined from 80,000 daily in October to just 10,000 last week. At this rate, it's impossible for Beijing authorities to meet their eventual target of $30 million in annual revenue at the Nest.

Originally, there had been talk of making the stadium home to Beijing's football franchise. But leaders decided that because the team is less than stellar, it might "hurt the feelings of the Chinese people" to house it there. Unfortunately, the ideas being floated now seem even more humiliating—plans are afoot to build a theme park next to the stadium, and possibly even turn it into what managers call a "tourist products venue" (they deny rumors that this means a shopping mall).

Still, such headaches are nothing compared with the Feb. 9 calamity at the yet-unopened CCTV headquarters (construction price tag: more than $731 million). Illegal fireworks set off near the tower ignited an inferno that killed one firefighter and destroyed a 158-meter-high building in which a Mandarin Oriental hotel was due to open in May. To celebrate the Lantern Festival, CCTV's construction boss had ordered up heavy-duty pyrotechnics of the sort used during the Olympic opening ceremonies—but he didn't bother getting the required permit. Recently the Chinese media announced the formal arrests of a dozen people for violating controls on handling dangerous goods. The tower itself, which Beijing residents call "the giant underpants" because it resembles upright long johns, remains standing—and empty, as CCTV ponders what to do with the gutted hulk beside it.

The futuristic titanium-and-glass-domed National Center for the Performing Arts, designed by French architect Paul Andreu and nicknamed the "Duck's Egg," also languishes, having failed to attract many world-class performances. Meanwhile, routine upkeep requires a "huge amount of money," admits a spokesperson; in fact, the building recently closed for a month of maintenance. Prospects for recouping the center's $400 million building costs are slim.

The worry now is that Shanghai is about to repeat the folly of Beijing. The city is preparing to host the 2010 World Expo (formerly known as the World's Fair) designed to highlight global progress in business, culture and technology. Officials have great expectations, estimating the extravaganza will be the biggest in the event's 158-year history, drawing 70 million visitors over a six-month period. But the U.S. has yet to commit in writing to attend the event, due largely to a U.S. law requiring that the planned $61 million American pavilion be built entirely with private funds, which have dried up as a result of the global financial crisis. Shanghai authorities blithely assumed Washington would pressure U.S. businesses to foot the bill (after all, that's what would happen if it were China's pavilion). But that's not happening, and now America may pull a no-show, something municipal authorities privately say would be an unforgettable snub.

Instead of accepting financial reality or working harder to sell the event, Chinese officials have resorted to strong-arming U.S. firms to try to get them to cough up. Not long ago one of the expo's organizers, Hong Hao, told a U.S. business group that "American companies that help will be remembered." "And those that don't will sleep with the fishes," quips Briton Paul French, a Shanghai-based business consultant.

Even so, French says, the show must go on—and he predicts that it will, even if Shanghai has to "help" some participants over their cash-flow difficulties in order to get all the pavilions built. The problem is, by the time the expo kicks off in May 2010, Shanghai is slated to spend at least $4.2 billion for infrastructure and operations; most overseas participants will have dropped tens of millions more. Yet the national pavilions are required by law to be dismantled once the six-month event is finished.

Recently expo organizers have suggested less wasteful options, such as relocating the biggest expo buildings to nearby Dongtan. Once hailed as China's showcase low-carbon city, Dongtan was supposed to have 50,000 green homes finished in time for the expo. That project stalled after its godfather, a former Shanghai party secretary, was jailed for corruption. Not a single green home was built. Dongtan, laid out without a viable plan for environmental protection or marketing, was an "ecofraud," as French puts it. That it stands empty makes Dongtan an appropriate home for Shanghai's expo leftovers. But if China is serious about creating cities that rival Paris, it has to learn how to fill its gorgeous new buildings.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/191492

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEW

In the article, the author compared the 1865-1887 redesign of Paris by Baron Haussmann with the Beijing’s new icons, which was built in view of the 2008 Beijing Olympics Games where he placed the focus on China’s utter lack of marketing savvy. These icons caused billions of dollars to build and takes a large sum of money to maintain. Despite the case, these icons were not rather put to good use such as making the stadium home to Beijing's football franchise so as to generate some income. Just by collecting entrance fees as the only source of income, it is definitely not sufficient. As a result, these icons would suffer losses and large amount of money would have gone to waste. Especially when the world economy is undergoing a global financial crisis, such wastage of money, which could be used to help stimulate the economy instead, would ought to receive criticism.

After realising the mistake Beijing had made in building these Olympic icons, we should now prevent Shanghai from repeating the same mistake when organising the 2010 World Expo. This is where planning plays an important role where long term consideration needs to be taken into account. In the recent time when the economy is bad, there is definitely a need to cut down on cost which might in turn means cutting down the scale of event. Not only had the cost be cut down, a source of income has to be generated to ensure that the cost is covered by the profits and not the other way round. By doing so, extensive planning and management of finance is required in order to ensure that all the money is properly managed.

This lead us into thinking if the upcoming projects on building the new national stadium and two integrated resorts in Singapore would be successful and not run into debt years later. In the case of integrated resorts, although it could ensure a source of income for Singapore’s economy, it not necessary would be enough to cover the cost in building and maintaining the buildings especially when the future outlook of the economy is not good. Whereas that of the new national stadium, though activities have been lined out to ensure that the sports faculties will be made use of, no one could ever be sure that all these plans can be successfully be put into actions. However, it is too early to say to judge if a project will fail now. At least one thing that could be done is to ensure the necessary precautions is taken so as to prevent repeating the same mistakes as what Beijing had made.