Friday, November 9, 2012

According to BBC Shakespeare Animated Tales-Julius Caesar, Brutus supposed to not kill Julius Caesar because it only makes Romans rebel especially Mark Antony. Brutus should think about the murdering deeply and do not follow on Cassius advice.

Julius Caesar is the most influence people in Rome, Brutus should know that. By killing Rome dictator, it only put himself in trouble. Even though Caesar was not a good person but he still loves Brutus. He provides the best education for Brutus and Brutus have to think wisely before make the decision to kill his adopted father.

Brutus should realize without Caesar he is nothing. By killing Caesar is not a noble motive but it is more to revenge because the idea derives from Cassius not him. Cassius seems like to hate on Caesar because he had all the title and respect from Romans even though he is a bad person.

Caesar is an old man and he would not protect himself if all the 12 persons attack him. The consequences of the murder also not been thought by Brutus, because of Cassius words he does not think the results on his action.

In conclusion, Brutus has no reason to kill his adopted father because Caesar is an old man. Brutus actually did not respect him as a father although Caesar had killed thousands of people but he still cares on Brutus.

Ancient Behaving Badly; Julius Caesar

Due to the documentary, Caesar is a psychopath. He has no mercy towards children and women. He is a bisexual and enjoys his sex life with aristocrats’ wives and believes he can dominate all people around him. He is actually was a great dictator, he manage to guide Rome in a supreme place before century. He knows how to handle the politics and armies.

At the first, when he is a captive to the pirates, he shows his credibility by promising to kill the pirates soon after the ransom; he fulfilled the promises and crucifies all of them. This is ridiculous because he did this to others who are innocent. He loves revenge and he loves to torture people he also did not care on others feeling. However it is good to maintain the peaceful of Rome. But sadly, it only makes him feel like he is the perfect dictator.

But then, he became more powerful after he is appointed as governor even though he is in big debt. To solve the issue, he tries to conquer the unconquered Gaul. He also using hi-technology weapon which is a designed arrow with space for them to put in something such as ball of fire to defeat the enemy. This is good because he wanted to defend the Rome Empire. However he is over the boundaries where he does not allowed women, children, old citizens’ fugitive to enter the Rome because Rome is only for Romans.

The desperation of war fugitives do not make him changed his mind. He shows the anger by let them die in starvation. He has no humanity. Therefore, his action is not necessary in order to safeguard the superiority of Rome. He enjoys himself by seen them being tortured. 

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Jack the Ripper in America..

There were many suspects in the JTR murders over the years. What are the evidences that support the claim that James Kelly was JTR? If you are a rival detective, how do you eliminate all the evidence that you've identified in the documentary?

Jack the Ripper was mainly known in London. After a few years, he pops up in New York, America and killed another whore. It is true the vicious evidence was made by him? Based from the information that been stated in the documentary.  An investigator Ed Norris, open up the cold case file after a century. He wanted to solve all the cases and he believes there’s someone who can be a prime suspect. He suspected James Kelly.


The first victim of Jack the Ripper in America was Carrie Brown 56 year old prostitute. She was killed with the same method as London Jack the Ripper. Because of that, the authorities assume the evidence is made by him. There are three major suspects, but, from time to time, Ed Noris eliminate the other two suspects; Seweryn Klosowski and Francis Tumblety.


The rival detective will disagree on this statement. It can be argued because how furnisher upholster can remove all the organs and mutilate all his victims. A person without any knowledge of human anatomy cannot cut a body very fine just like Jack the Ripper done on his prey. Next, James Kelly only cut his wife throat but he does not cut his wife organs. Basically, the London serial killer took some part of the organ, so that, someone cannot simply accuse James Kelly is the serial killer. Another thing, other man can easily imitate Jack the Ripper style of killing to fright people in America. 


The documentary also makes the viewer believe a London serial killer is James Kelly. But, he never had been prosecuted because the truth is not there. The documentary only makes an assumption but not a fact.



FROM HELL: Johnny Depp ^_^

1.    question:

           Distinguish between facts and fictions that are portrayed in the movie @ Which aspect of the plot that is accurate to the historical fact in the JTR murders and which aspect of the plot that is based on the filmmakers' own imagination.

             After spending two hours to examine ‘From Hell’ I can conclude the murderer was a notorious in that era. In 1888, there is a person who likes to kill a prostitute in Whitechapel known as ‘Jack the Ripper’. He kills and mutilates his victims meanly. The news of it is extremely disseminated around London; many of Londoners assume the killer is a Jewish because they do not like them manipulate the economy in that time. 


        According on the film, the names of victims are accurate; the filmmakers did not exaggerate on it. The condition of the victims dies also followed the facts. Next, the chronology of the victims killed also the same with the fact given.




             Jack the Ripper is a surgeon. Before inspector Abberline; an investigator in charged, found the exactly killer, he named several of suspect. One of the suspect names is Benjamin Kidney but his name does not even stated in the book. Then, the second lady (Annie Chapman) was killed at Hanover Street but she had been killed at Hanbury Street according to the fact. For the last case, in the film, the heart of the victim is taken out and the killer put it in the kettle. Meanwhile, the fact is the victim heart is gone. Furthermore, in film, inspector Abberline is a heavily opium addict. Lastly, Marry Jean Kelly was not murdered in the film instead, the one who killed is her friend named Ada a girl from France. In the text, it does not happen.


Sunday, September 9, 2012


State several evidence which support the ancient astronaut theory. Discuss whether you agree or disagree to the evidence that you have identified.

Based on the documentary, millions of people trust that we have been visited by alien in the past, due to the artefact that had been inheritance to us. For example, French archaeology found a small wooden like a bird artefact in the oldest burial ground at Sakkara, Egypt. Second, in a dense jungle lives Colombian civilisation known as a Tolima, restrain an archaeology artefact just like a modern jet. Next, spaceship called ‘Rukma Vimana’ found in Indian subcontinent ancient. Vimana’s is like a space ship using a jet engine or using spinning bright light called gyroscope in modern to find its velocity. Other evidence is a flying machine in utopian civilization. In book of ‘Eziekel’, there is a spaceship called Eziekel spaceship exist and supported by Joseph Bloomerg from NASA.


By study the documentary, I dispute to the evidence. It is because if ancient truly invented a space craft or space ship, it must be prove on each artefact, for instance, a piece of it. People in ancient has a huge of fantasy, they can imagine so many things. They also believe in magic, by using their imagination and spell, they easily create a new thing. Everything that has been made by them is coincidence to a modern life. There is a fact, if we look at the moon and we want to see smiling face, it will appear because our brain interpreted on what we wanted to see. So, I strongly agree that ancient ancestor had has invented a flying transportation and has been visited by an alien.




      Based on the facts presented in this documentary are you convinced that fast food is the main cause of obesity in United States and around the world?




             Burgers, fries, sodas, bagel, and all fast food make us craving. We love to consume all those foods because we are enthusiast into it. Even though most of us an impact of taking fast food in frequent but we do not take any precaution. In Malaysia, Nowadays, diabetes, heart diseases and stroke have been shot up compared to 1980’s. Cancer also derives from food intake. 

        It is not a sin to consume fast food as long we know the limit. We can take once a week if we are drooling into it. We cannot simply fulfill our desire to have fast food as a daily meal. Although we are too busy in handling our career but we have to take care our digestive system because all those health problems comes from the food that we take.

       Based on the documentary, fast food companies should be blame because they are providing a silly huge size of portion by only added up around $0.30-$1.00, this encourage people to go for ‘Super Size’ because they think it is an economical price with a big plate of a meal. Something develops a wonderful taste on each of the hamburgers or a soda is a food drugs that derives from chemical change in those food substances. These makes people addicted and want it over and over again. 


Therefore, I strongly agree that fast food drives people around the world into obesity. As we can see the ingredients in the fast food did not make any sense, for instance, a bottle of fine sugar only for a week of sodas. This is ridiculous why we consuming something bad to our health. Health is wealth!


Saturday, August 25, 2012


      Choose one of the three guests featured on the talk show 101 East. Then apply discourse analysis in order to understand of his argument. State whether you agree or disagree towards the proposition, premises and arguments that you have identified.

1.           Malaysia is a democratic country. Everything that has been made is considered from people’s voice. In this cross sword I will choose Chaw Kon Yew from democratic action party.

Discourse Analysis

Affirmative action is not a way out of poverty.

Affirmative action is a bias and has a political issue on it.

Premise 1
Government tenders are gave to people who are influences in politic.

Argument 1
If opposition hold Malaysia it will be change.

I will say that is Chaw Kon Yew argument is tentative truth because he is not telling a fact. How can he ensures that the opposition party will surge and help all the races if he does not have any prove?  He does not provide a fact to cradle his speech. So that, I strongly disagree on what his indicate. A fact should not be argued but in this situation, Chaw Kon Yew notion was not retain. He supposed to give an accurate issue to grab the statement.




1.             Discuss whether or not Tun Abdul Razak's son, our current prime minister, Datuk Seri Najib is continuing his father's legacy primarily in affirmative action policy.

     From time to time, Malaysia had been a very peaceful country in Asia. But in May 13th 1969, riots between races are ruined our country. Because of that, Malaysia has to find a way out to cool down the fire of politics.  Malaysia Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman hired Tun Abdul Razak to manage the chaos. Eventually, he successfully embraced the races trust and be a saviour towards our country.


no preview

     After a few years, in 1971, Malaysia came out with a new strategy to overcome poverty among Malays by prevail New Economic Policy (NEP). New Economic Policy has been through all over the district and state, soon after it attains its mission. The mission is to drag Malay’s people from cocoon of deprivation.


     From my view, Datuk Seri Najib is continuing his father legacy by raise up the Malays economy standard in affirmative action Policy. Until now, Malay’s race is able to stand in the same level as Chinese and Indian. As a current Prime Minister, he has to be a good listener towards his people so that, he manages to unite all races. If he does not hold on with his father’s idea he will not achieve what had been accomplished by his father. He also make an adjustment of his father’s notion by existed a New Economic Model to drive an equality economy status and finally sustain the social harmony.

no preview



Sunday, August 19, 2012

Gandhi my father...


Gandhi My father is the most fantastic film because the director put a notable reminiscence about family bond. This story is based on Mahatma Gandhi real life, he unable to guide his own son but he manages to unite all the Indian by non-violence act. Mohandas K. Gandhi is a good father but he does not know how to reflect his love towards his son because he is a father. Basically, a father will always not to show their care on his children but we can see from the way he treats and talks to his youngsters. 


Harilal is an insurgent person. He always opposes his father’s fights.
Even though he does not show his rebel on his father but we can see from the way his act. For instance, when the time Gandhi’s prevail the Indian material but he had been lured to his wife that British cotton is the best and they will be rich by then.


Harilal death is not because of his father fault. Why should we put blame on someone whose care about us?
Harilal only judge his father because Mahatma Gandhi’s are not giving an opportunity for him to have a better education. He does not think about his father sacrifices towards him. Gandhi supported his family when he continues his study, albeit his repeat the same test for several times but he will always sees a bad side of his father and blames him on what he does not do. 



Ghandhi is a failure?


Since he lives in South Africa, he implies non-violence fight for Indian who had been patronized as a collie. Even though British Empire makes a very strict rules but he manages to ruin their company and be a fighter.
One of the dialogues of what Mahatma’s Gandhi said

“Whatever they do to us, we will attack no one, kill no one but we will not give our fingerprints, not one of us”.

This is an example due to what his fight for. He will never encourage his supporters to pro-violence. 


In other words, he is the most outspoken person because of his voice, British Empire slow down replace tyranny movement to an independence country. Nevertheless, he fights for his right, he will never ask for non-violence or brutal ways because he believes in peace and he believes violence is not a halt.


In addition, British Empire is started war among the Indians. Misunderstood towards Muslims and Hindus triggered the racist problem in India. All these problems are not because of Gandhi himself, all these occurred because Indian wants to have their own country; they wanted to have their own identity.


Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is not a failure due to release his country from British grasp. British are supposed to be blame because of the brutality, people of India stand up and several of them make some chaos to express their feeling.