Tenuous at best.

It's funny when people look at terrible tragedies and try to boil it all down to one single cause. These people are most often the naysayers, the prophets of doom and the panicked masses that try to find cause for insanity. I'm all for finding solutions and when we try to find causes for abhorrent behaviour, that's all well and good, until said people try to find the anomaly, the one thing that's different that we can attribute these acts to. Here's the reality of it: More often than not, it is a confluence of factors. People tend to ignore that and instead try to find that one variable that causes the house of cards to fall.

In the 80s, it was rock and roll. Heck, rock and roll was attributed to behaviour in the 60s and 70s too. With the 90s came movies and subsequently, when the computer went mainstream, video games. Today, we're still playing the same blame game, except that we've got more things to blame. Let's see. We have the internet. TV's still rampant. That rock music's still around. MTV still exists despite our better efforts. Everywhere we look, we can place blame.

Unfortunately, the powers that be tend to place said blame for all this on peripherals, never questioning if a machinery that has been modified and tweaked in a myriad of ways itself needs to be overhauled to take on said modifications. We take it as a given that it's all supposed to work because it always has. Therefore, if something goes wrong, it must be something that we did to it since that must be the problem.

Here's the thing, what if what we have done to the machine since isn't reversible and the actual issue is that the machinery underneath really can't handle the weight of all its necessary "enhancements"?

Let me explain:

Traditionally, roles were simpler. Work was more straightforward. Life was easier. Add to that a whole slew of productivity enhancements such as the PC, the cellphone and the PDA. Suddenly, you're a whole lot more aware of work at all times. Let's throw in the internet. Now you're connected to a world that "doesn't sleep". Shake in a handful of interconnectedness and the fact that you are no longer competing locally but globally and you're interconnected to a world that has raised expectations phenomenally and exponentially and boom! you have your end product. Can we remove any of these new enhancements? Try living in today's world without a cellphone. Try getting a job without any experience with the internet.

We've never stopped to question if the added stresses of a society that has undergone such radical changes over a short span of 10 years is perhaps a cause of the mayhem that we're witnessing today. We don't question the machine. Instead, we start by questioning the leisure activities of people who crack. What kind of video games did they play? What music did they listen to? Which celebrities do they idolise? It's all to do with what they do in their "spare time" (as if that phrase actually means anything today) rather than the society that they grow up in. Because that is surely what can help us, taking away more of what we consider to be fun. What we consider our escapes without actually dealing with the elephant in the room that nobody sees, the thing that we're trying to escape from.

Reality sucks. That's a fact. We're surrounded with news of more killings, stock market crashes and corruption and there's nothing that we can really do about it. Some people run away. Some run too far into their sanctuaries. There's no denying that. But if one is to find a root cause for all that, shouldn't we be looking at the thing that they are running from rather than trying to deny them their sanctuaries? Should we really be ready to point our fingers towards the things that actually give some people comfort in this world?

Interestingly enough, the Straits Times seems absolutely willing to do so. In fact, on Sunday, they decided to lead the charge. However, much like the emperor of old, said broadsheet decided to do so without any clothes on.

Let's dissect this shall we?

In trying to prove that video games causes violent behaviour, the Straits Times, being a bastion of good reportage and all that, gives us three examples of exceptional young men who went completely apeshit crazy and committed acts of violence...waitaminute...No...not all three did.

In fact, only one of the three actually committed an act of violence. The other two merely displayed some anti-social behaviour. waitaminute...actually, only the second one did. The third one showed an inability to conform to what was socially appropriate.

So what is the Straits Times' hypothesis then? Is it merely that video games promote a range of behaviours that are socially abnormal? But that's not what the article was about. So now I'm confused.

Actually, if you really wanted to dissect this, we can replace the term video games with a whole lot of arbitrary terms right? We could for instance replace it with "university education" or "studying". (After all, at least two of these "victims were students.)

In fact, here's a little game at Empty-Vessels, try replacing all the words in italics with an arbitrary term of your own and let's see if you can come up with some creative hypotheses as to why people are going completely apeshit. I think that this thought experiment could surprise you.

(Otherwise known as "you too can write your own Straits Times article!")

Begin here.

March 8, 2009

A link between gaming and violence?

Experts say there is no direct link but in extreme cases, multiple risk factors are involved

By Jamie Ee Wen Wei , Mavis Toh , Huang Huifen

Three gamers were in the news last week for the wrong reasons. Two are dead and a third is in jail after they hurt themselves or others.

Is there a link between gaming and their aggressive or violent behaviour?

Studies by Iowa State University's Distinguished Professor Craig Anderson, one of the world's foremost scholars on media violence, show that playing violent video games causes people to think and act more aggressively, but he does not believe playing video games will turn 'normal 12-year-olds into school shooters'.

Social psychologist Angeline Khoo, said that the link between violent computer games and aggressive behaviour is co-relational rather than direct.

Dr Khoo, who is the National Institute of Education's associate professor of the psychological studies academic group, explained: 'When people read sensational news like this, they tend to think, it must be the evil game. But there are many people who play violent games and are perfectly normal.'

What most people fail to understand is that physical violence, like stabbing, is only an extreme form of aggression. It rarely happens, she said.

More common manifestations of aggression are verbal, like raising voices or spurting vulgarities, she said. 'The aggressive tendencies tend to be short-term. They can dissipate. For example, if you listen to soothing music after playing a violent game, you will calm down.'

Experts agree that in extremely violent cases, there will usually be a convergence of multiple risk factors. These include gang involvement, anti-social parents and peers, substance abuse, poverty and media violence. Males are more at risk.

On the ground, psychiatrists and social workers are reporting more gaming-related problems among youths. At Touch Cyber Wellness and Sports, counsellors have seen more than 140 cyber- related cases in the past three years.

Dr Brian Yeo, a consultant psychiatrist at Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, said he sees at least one patient daily who has gaming or Internet related issues.

'Some of them have avatars, and when their avatar dies or gets killed, they can become very angry, and in extreme cases, they may throw things or scream at their parents, or threaten to commit suicide.'

Gamers are, however, upset that violent games have been fingered for the recent incidents.

Referring to the stabbing incident at Nanyang Technological University last week, Mr Nicolas Khoo, 31, co-founder of the Cybersports and Online Gaming Association, said: 'Such incidents happen to a minority of gamers...In this incident, there could have been other reasons that led him to do it, so why was gaming blamed?'

Those interviewed also said they have not experienced any violent behaviour, although they said their relationships may have suffered.

Ms Sabrina Ong, 25, a blogger and avid gamer, said: 'I don't become violent, but I tend to be more engrossed when I'm killing a character in shooting games like Left 4 Dead. I will shoo people away when they come and talk to me.'

Technician Eddy Zhang, 28, said: 'I became a bit reclusive. My girlfriend also broke up with me as she felt that I was spending more time playing games than with her.'

Dr Khoo said studies have shown that parental involvement is vital in managing the violent effects of gaming.

'For instance, if someone utters a profanity in the game, the parent can tell the kid, we are not going to imitate this person's behaviour. There will at least be some guidance.'

AsiaSoft, publisher of games like Maple Story, has created pop-up messages to remind gamers to take breaks. By the fourth hour, the gamers are asked to quit the game. Its spokesman said: 'It's all about moderation.'

End here.

David Hartanto Widjaja, 21

Online activities: A fan of the computer game World of Warcraft, the Indonesian student from Nanyang Technological University (NTU) spent as much as six hours a day in front of his PC.

What he did: He stabbed his lecturer, Associate Professor Chan Kap Luk, 45, in the lecturer's office last Monday.

What happened to him: Shortly after the attack, Mr Widjaja fell four floors to his death at the NTU campus.

Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi, 27

Online activities: The Singapore Armed Forces doctor was an avid Warcraft player who became one of the top 10 Warcraft players in Singapore, and was among the top 100 in the world.

What he did: He had been absent without official leave since last October, reportedly cutting off all contact with people close to him.

What happened to him: He was found dead in Melbourne last Tuesday.

Xia Yun, 19

Online activities: He played games from the multi-player online gaming site, AuditionSea.

What he did: Two years ago, he met a 10-year-old girl at the gaming site, and eight months later, they had sex.

What happened to him: He was charged with two counts of carnal connection. If he is not granted probation, he faces jail of up to five years and a fine of up to $10,000 for each charge.

This is just funny...

I wonder if the Straits Times has come up with a new-fangled definition of "Critical Thinking" that we haven't quite grasped yet in school. Here I was, deluded into thinking that critical thinking meant thinking for yourself instead of depending on others to form an opinion. And our newspaper has stepped up to "help" us think critically?

What has our local broadsheet been aside from the government bitch mouthpiece for for the all-knowing pharisees from on high? (Clad in white to preserve their purity) Have they given us any hope for critical thinking? Or maybe we are meant to teach critical thinking by questioning the credibility of a media source that is meant to deceive "we the people", to keep us thinking that everything is as it should be when it is not? I'd prefer the second option, which makes the Straits Times' claim that newspapers are the means of teaching critical thinking kind of a paradox.

Sep 1, 2008

Newspaper way to boost critical thinking

By Malini Nathan

A GROUP of 189 primary and secondary school teachers attended a Straits Times (ST) forum on media literacy and how to use newspapers as learning tools on Saturday. Then, as a treat for Teachers' Day today, and as a gesture of appreciation for their continued use of the newspaper in the classroom, they were given a ride on the Singapore Flyer. The forum, held on the Flyer's premises, was the fourth ST has held for teachers. Copies of the paper going out to primary schools subscribing to it are bundled with Little Red Dot on Tuesdays, while those for secondary schools are packaged with IN on Mondays. Forum participant Chee Bee Phaik of Loyang Secondary School said: 'The forum was very helpful and I learnt a lot about critical thinking.' Panellist Soo Kim Bee of the Education Ministry's Gifted Education Branch said Little Red Dot and IN sharpen students' critical thinking and creativity. She also urged teachers to develop a newspaper-reading habit among their charges. In the forum for primary school teachers, three teachers - Da Qiao Primary's Ms Ng Sai Choo, and East View Primary's Madam Kamalnoorzaman Osman and Mrs Monica Berger - discussed how they used Little Red Dot in English lessons. Ms Ng showed how her pupils used the newspaper for writing reflections and role-playing; Madam Kamalnoorzaman showed how issues raised in the news could be used in problem-based learning. At the session for secondary school teachers, IN journalist and former teacher Lim Pow Hong said newspapers could be used to teach media literacy and to raise awareness of current affairs. ST's associate editor Bertha Henson said that with such skills, 'students can discern the 'con job' from real content on the various media platforms they go to, especially now that they are bombarded with information and views from all directions'.

I find the last line particularly hilarious.

On other news, the discrediting of the Internet has taken a new turn...I don't really know what to make of this one except that while I see the attack on the internet as a source of information somewhat disconcerting, I also agree that youths today are the morons that are portrayed in this particular article.

Octopi in trees(!) Next kids will be believing that ministerial pay increases are totally justified in today's economic climate....waitaminute.

Nah...

Sep 1, 2008

Teen surfers prey to 'Web of deception'

Over-reliance on Net has students floundering in media literacy test

By Lim Pow Hong

A CERTAIN species of octopus in the Pacific north-west lives in a tree. Sounds ridiculous? Well, 34 out of 35 Singapore students who read the bogus website http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ believed such a creature actually exists. The students, aged 13 to 19, were unable to distinguish fact from fiction in a Straits Times test of media literacy among youth. The spoof site, set up as an online hoax in 1998 but now used by institutions to test Internet literacy, fooled nearly all the 35 local students into thinking the tree octopus story was 'well-supported by scientific research' and 'factual'. The website yielded similar results among youngsters in Connecticut, in the United States, when it was used by University of Connecticut's Neag School of Education to test levels of online literacy. There, all the 25 seventh-graders - 12 to 13 years old - tested in one study rated the website as 'very credible'. An over-reliance on the Internet as a source of information could explain why teens are weak at judging whether information is trustworthy. The ST survey found that half of the teens tested were fooled by the expert opinions cited on the site and 15 were taken in by the factual way in which information on the site was written. Commenting on these findings, SIM University's Dr Brian Lee highlighted that it takes experience to tell when scientific research is fake as 'even adults get taken in by Internet scams supported by fake scientific findings'. Dr Lee, who has spent more than 10 years studying Internet usage and popular culture, said: 'Students are conditioned to rely on the Internet as schools encourage them to use it in their schoolwork.' In fact, he has noticed that even among tertiary students, between 80 and 90 per cent of them would cite Wikipedia as a source in their reports. However, most older students use other sources to back up information from Wikipedia. It seems that those who are younger lack the skills to differentiate fact from fiction. Sarah Sim, 15, a Secondary 3 student at St Nicholas Girls' School, was convinced by the 'facts and pictures' posted on the site and the scientific name the octopus had. 'The website is very professionally done with good pictures and facts and the language used is formal. That's why I believed it,' she said. It was the same for Jurong Secondary's Bryan Lee, 15. 'The physical description of the octopus is very real and I can't tell it's fake because of the photos.' Teens also tend to rely too heavily on group-think when it comes to assessing credibility, going with the majority to determine a site's trustworthiness. Dr Lee said: 'If friends endorse the information, it is likely that teens will believe it too.' But all is not lost for these teens as he believes they will become more media literate when they mature. Students will learn how to critically evaluate information when they enter tertiary institutions as they have to learn these skills to write their research papers. However, for parents, it is a matter of concern now. Madam Lim Geok Choo, 50, and a mother of two, worries about her 11-year-old son. 'He just takes everything he reads on the Internet as correct and real. There's no filtering of information and it can get worrying for parents.' For students to become more media literate, Dr Lee advocates media literacy education from a young age, beginning as early as primary school or before they start using the Internet. 'Students should also learn to double- check information by asking their parents and teachers,' he said. 'When they read things on the Internet that make them uncomfortable, they should check with someone they know.' Another way is to verify information with other sources, such as the print media, which is more credible as the editing process is more rigorous. The only teen who was not fooled by the octopus was tipped off by the suspicious hyperlinks on the site. Bernice Leong, 15, doubted the octopus existed when she realised the hyperlinks were leading her to sites featuring unsubstantiated creatures like Bigfoot. The Secondary 4 student from Chung Cheng High said: 'I read widely online and I have never come across this particular animal before. It really made me question the existence of this creature.' phlim@sph.com.sg

Moronism Part 132456565477976876..................

Could we BE more full of ourselves? To hate someone, one has to care enough to do so. Singapore certainly disturbs "Westerners" due to the (perceived) lack of freedoms here, certainly. They tend to tut-tut the continual use of the death penalty. They admonish us for the ridiculous political process here that is constantly skewed toward keeping the incumbents in power. All that is true. But HATE?

Seriously?!

One has to assume that the author is trying to cash in on the fact that Singaporeans will be at their most patriotic and ride the waves of fervour to carry her argument. It does. Perhaps. In her creation of an imaginary "us" versus "them" divide, she really does make us seem a whole lot more than a mere blip on the radar of the world. But only barely.

Singapore has had questionable practices. But the world has never hated Singapore as a whole. In fact, that illusion of unity really is illusory. There is no unity in the Singapore that Chua seems to imagine exists. The "Singapore" that the world (read: Western world) has been uncomfortable with is "the Singapore Government" (otherwise known as the neo-colonists). They are the ones that the Western media targets (if they feel bothered to actually think about writing a piece on it) not us. And to lump us all together to try to get us to feel defensive towards (or possibly even enraged by) these accusations really is ridiculous.

These Westerners are amazed the same way I would be amazed by a person who has come out of North Korea who has a semblance of articulation within him/her. A person who could speak about ideas of freedom or rights despite the fact that he/she has grown up under the tyranny of a dictatorship. Similarly, I'd be as amazed at a three headed monkey but it's not the same as saying that I hate the place it's from. It's curiousity not about the product, but the very fact that the product exists despite the assumption that it shouldn't.

Chua tars us all with the same brush and Singaporeans should really think twice about accepting what she's saying. We are not one. We are two. Or three. Or a hundred. We are multi-faceted and we are diverse. And the West really doesn't have a problem with that. What Singaporeans should start scrutinising is the the one thing that they DO have a problem with and ask ourselves if we do too.

Aug 9, 2008

Why they hate Singapore

Western detractors are getting the jitters as others copy our model

By Chua Lee Hoong

SINGAPORE is small enough to be a suburb in Beijing, but it has something in common with the mammoth People's Republic. The little red dot and Red China are both countries the West loves to hate. There are those who wish bad things to happen to the Beijing Olympics. Likewise, there are those who have had it in for the Lion City for years. What's eating them? The easy answer is that both China and Singapore are authoritarian states. The freedoms taken for granted in the West - freedom of speech and assembly - come with more caveats in these two places. But things are not so simple. There are plenty of authoritarian states around, but most do not attract as much attention as Singapore and China. The real sin: Singapore and China are examples of countries which are taking a different route to development, and look to be succeeding. Success grates, especially when it cocks a snook at much-cherished liberal values. As Madam Yeong Yoon Ying, press secretary to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, said last month: 'Singapore is an example to other countries of how the free market plus the rule of law, and stable macro-economic policies, can lead to progress and success, but without Western-style 'liberal' democracy.' Don't believe her words? Read these lines from British journalist John Kampfner, writing in The Guardian last month, lamenting the spread of what he calls the Singapore model. 'Why is it that a growing number of highly-educated and well-travelled people are willing to hand over several of their freedoms in return for prosperity or security? This question has been exercising me for months as I work on a book about what I call the 'pact'. 'The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective. It is confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the authorities. If you do not, you enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as you wish, and - perhaps most important - to make money. Under Lee Kuan Yew, this city-state built on a swamp has flourished economically. 'I was born in Singapore and have over the years been fascinated by my Chinese Singaporean friends. Doctors, financiers and lawyers, they have studied in London, Oxford, Harvard and Sydney. They have travelled across all continents; they are well-versed in international politics, but are perfectly content with the situation back home. I used to reassure myself with the old certainty that this model was not applicable to larger, more diverse states. I now believe this to be incorrect. 'Provincial governments in China send their brightest officials to Singapore to learn the secrets of its 'success'. For Russian politicians it too provides a useful model. These countries, and others in Asia and the Middle East are proving that the free market does not require a free society in which to thrive, and that in any battle between politics and economics, it is the latter that will win out.' Mr Kampfner seems in a genuine intellectual funk. He cannot quite understand why otherwise normal, intelligent Singaporeans would trade certain freedoms for economic progress, and accept the Singapore political system for what it is. But perhaps he has got the wrong end of the stick. The problem lies not in the Singaporeans, but in his own assumptions. Namely: If you speak English, if you are well-educated and well-travelled, you must also believe in Western-style democracy. They are a package. I was on the receiving end of similar assumptions when I was in the United States in 1991-1992. When Americans asked me, 'Why is your English so good?', often it was not out of admiration but bewilderment. Their next question revealed all: 'Why then do you (i.e. your Government) ban chewing gum?' Another telling indicator of Western assumptions about Singapore comes from a remark by Singapore's Ambassador to Washington, Professor Chan Heng Chee, who went to the US at the tail end of the Michael Fay saga. One year into her posting there, in 1997, she arranged for a retrospective of the late choreographer Goh Choo San's works. Her Washington audience was awed. 'People suddenly remembered Choo San was a Singaporean. They may have known about Goh Choo San, but to connect him with Singapore was not so obvious for them,' she said. Sub-text: World-class choreography does not fit their image of a country with corporal punishment. So the real difficulty for the West is this: We are so like them, and yet so not like them. We speak, dress, do business and do up our homes very much the same way as them. Yet when it comes to political values, we settle - apparently - for much less. One observer draws an analogy with Pavlovian behavioural conditioning. So conditioned have Westerners become to associating cosmopolitan progress with certain political parameters, they do not know how to react when they encounter a creature - Singapore - that has one but not the other. So they chide and berate us, as if we have betrayed a sacred covenant. Adding to the iniquity is the fact that countries - rich and powerful ones too, like Russia and the Gulf states - are looking to the Singaporean way of doing things to pick up a tip or two. I can imagine the shudders of Singapore's Western detractors should they read about a suggestion made by Mr Kenichi Ohmae this week. In an interview with Business Times, the Japanese management consultant who first became famous as author of The Borderless World, said Singapore should 'replicate' itself in other parts of the world. What he meant was that Singapore should use its IQ, and IT prowess, to help organise effective economies in other regions, as its own had succeeded so well. To be sure, his reasoning was economic, not political. But for those who hate Singapore, a Pax Singaporeana would be something to work against and head off. leehoong@sph.com.sg

That escape: Crucial Issues aplenty, so let's move on...

Reading Straits Times articles often makes my blood boil.

Especially recent ones on the Mas Selamat Kastari incident and the Committee of Inquiry findings disclosed by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng in Parliament this week.

Too many Straits Times Journalists:

• Obviously have no ability to think beyond what the PAP tells them to think, yet they think that they are in a position to pass judgment.
  
• Seem to feed on what the government feeds them, and try to outdo themselves in sakah-ing the powers that be; and
• Have no sense of perspective, seeming to think the escape of one detainee is an insignificant incident that does not affect Singapore's reputation on the world stage.
  

How many of those writing for the Straits Times really mean it, I wonder?

Or will they be like Mr Lee Hsien Loong who will readily defend the country's ministers whether they seem competent or not?

How many of them set up straw men or hurled red herrings and other fallacies to defend the government when the hint of governmental responsibility was suggested? How many pushed the party agenda instead of holding the ruling party accountable to Singapore's people even when the people cried out for aid in times of recession?

If a government official failed in his duty, will the press not rise up to defend the incompetence while pushing the blame onto others?

In both cases, there has been negligence - And the press in Singapore has readily risen to the challenge to quash all inquiries of the public that dare to challenge the omnipotent wisdom of the PAP.

Common sense will tell you that it will only be a matter of time before the public will figure out the lies that the broadsheet is spreading, or there will be no accountability left in no time.

This is not to say that the press will change. Even when a block of flats is found to be unsafe, for instance, due to shoddy workmanship, writers like Chua Lee Hoong will still find a way to divert responsibility away from those in power and push the blame to complacent Singaporeans, even if we tried to call attention to it.

If a hospital was found to have been awarding tenders to its CEO's family and friends, and if the Health Minister knew but did nothing, the press would still be able to spin the story so that we have a new governmental policy to reward the elites in society.

And the Mas Selamat escape? Singapore is now the laughing stock of the world security wise and face? Well...What does Singapore have besides its reputation?

If he were a homicidal maniac, he would have been shot in Outram Road MRT station. But since he's only the leader of one of the major terrorist cells that's active in Asia means that according to Chua, we're as safe as we were before we let the homicidal terrorist, probably pissed as hell about being imprisoned for 2 years, escape.

The escape has been a big stain on the reputation of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). But it has really placed Singapore on the world map for the SNAFU of epic proportions for letting what is now known as a limping man without pants on escape the long, efficient arm of the law. If you talk to people on the internet, the escape has been no more than a long line of screw ups that our lucratively paid ministers have witnessed under their watch.

But this does not mean nothing more has to be done. After such a high signature event, there can be closure only if there are two things: a new press with the actual gumption to be responsible to the people that it claims to serve, and heads seen to roll. Such is the way that human nature is wired.

To Chua - a PAP stooge who only serves as a tripod for the genitalia of the government that she so obviously seems to love, as those who have followed her writings closely over the years will know - there has been unprecedented transparency in the way that the MHA disclosed misinformation (What was he wearing? Pants. Yellow. Chicken suit. Limping only when he runs) over these two months.

Yes, there was moments of absolute clarity, such as when we were informed that a terrorist had escaped. MHA will no doubt have learned from this experience not to actually say anything at all.

Watch as the Straits Times then pulls a red herring comparison between a country that's over 2000 times bigger than Singapore and ourselves.

Word is that there will be a shirking of ministerial responsibility and a round of scapegoating by the next parliament sitting.

Meanwhile, there really are many other things that I would rather focus my mind on.

Like the next general election.

The Times They Are a-changin'.

Come gather 'round people

Wherever you roam

And admit that the waters

Around you have grown

And accept it that soon

You'll be drenched to the bone.

If your time to you

Is worth savin'

Then you better start swimmin'

Or you'll sink like a stone

For the times they are a-changin'.



Come writers and critics

Who prophesize with your pen

And keep your eyes wide

The chance won't come again

And don't speak too soon

For the wheel's still in spin

And there's no tellin' who

That it's namin'.

For the loser now

Will be later to win

For the times they are a-changin'.



Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call

Don't stand in the doorway

Don't block up the hall

For he that gets hurt

Will be he who has stalled

There's a battle outside

And it is ragin'.

It'll soon shake your windows

And rattle your walls

For the times they are a-changin'.



Come mothers and fathers

Throughout the land

And don't criticize

What you can't understand

Your sons and your daughters

Are beyond your command

Your old road is

Rapidly agin'.

Please get out of the new one

If you can't lend your hand

For the times they are a-changin'.


The line it is drawn

The curse it is cast

The slow one now

Will later be fast

As the present now

Will later be past

The order is

Rapidly fadin'.

And the first one now

Will later be last

For the times they are a-changin'.

Bob Dylan

One wonders if the government has heard as the whispers of dissent grew into a rumble as more and more repeated them.