Blogging seems to be the new trend today. I think its actually therapeutic for most people because they are expressing their thoughts and feelings. However, I think blogging should be done in real life by talking to real people. Its much easier for people to talk over the internet and you don't learn everything that you normally would by having a conversation in real life. Even if you were to filibuster you would still observe and sense different vibes that people give off.
Blogging can be good or bad, depending on what the person is talking about and how the person talks about it. If you just talk about your everyday daily activities it will not have a productive impact on you or the readers. Although if you blog about topics that can relate to the readers and show that you really care about those topics, it will induce a positive impact on both the writer and the readers. The best thing about blogging is that it directly connects the readers with the writer. Many people today get their news via blogs because they don't trust mainstream media anymore. Blogs seem to be more real and upfront which is what the information seekers are looking for.
Showing posts with label Hassan Amin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hassan Amin. Show all posts
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
The Role of Politics
Politics has played a very important role in the world throughout history. Most of the wars that took place in the 21st Century is because of conflicts been nations and nation-states. Although politics does help resolve most of the issues, it can end up being negative also. A key question confronting world politics in the 21st Century is how the world should be governed: through the traditional nation-state or through international organizations (IGOs). Nation-states have a rough time deciding whether to go with the anarchical world structure or the hierarchical world structure. Anarchical world structure is made up of 193 equal countries with no superior collective power. It supports the realist approach. The hierarchical world structure is also made up of 193 equal countries but it supports the idea of superior collective power (IGOs) and represents the idealist approach. Diplomacy also plays an important role in world politics today. Nation-states employ diplomacy to advance their national interests and because of this IGOs today are attempting to restrain the power based pursuit of self-interest by nation-states.
Nation-states had a very rough time absorbing the idea of superior collective authority IGOs at the beginning of the 21st Century, but as time has passed and the world has seen very hurtful events which had led many nation-states to give up a degree of their sovereignty in order to protect themselves, and the world itself. Nation-states don’t really abide by international law today, but under such situations such as Apartheid, the whole world will help out the superior collective power to make the world a better place to live in.
Nation-states had a very rough time absorbing the idea of superior collective authority IGOs at the beginning of the 21st Century, but as time has passed and the world has seen very hurtful events which had led many nation-states to give up a degree of their sovereignty in order to protect themselves, and the world itself. Nation-states don’t really abide by international law today, but under such situations such as Apartheid, the whole world will help out the superior collective power to make the world a better place to live in.
Writing Skills
Writing is an important skill that is essential for any person to succeed in life. Most people can read correctly, but only a few can write properly. People make writing the hardest thing in the world, when it really is not. A person does not need to use big words to write well. The key to acquiring good writing kills is to use simple language effectively so that everyone can understand easily. The writer should have good communication with the reader. This can be done through many different ways, for example: using deep details, relating experiences with the context, etc. This creates an interest in the reader’s mind. Therefore, it is very important to understand the importance of writing skills.
Recently, a big debate sparked some attention across the country, that whether teachers in high schools today are teaching enough writing skills to students to prosper in life, or even survive in college. My experience in high school was fairly odd. I didn't learn good writing skills until the 12th grade. During ninth, tenth, and eleventh grades, my English teachers barely taught any writing skills. All we did was read books and write a few essays about them. The essay would be graded, and if there were any mistakes on the essay, they would be never pointed out by the teacher. As long as the essay met the requirements (correct topic, length, etc) the teachers would be happy with it. However, the grades were in fact reflected upon how well the essay was written.
Google makes it really easy to look up word definitions. You just type "define: word" and it will display all the different definitions. Its much better than looking up a word in 500 page heavy dictionary that probably just collects dust wherever it is.
Recently, a big debate sparked some attention across the country, that whether teachers in high schools today are teaching enough writing skills to students to prosper in life, or even survive in college. My experience in high school was fairly odd. I didn't learn good writing skills until the 12th grade. During ninth, tenth, and eleventh grades, my English teachers barely taught any writing skills. All we did was read books and write a few essays about them. The essay would be graded, and if there were any mistakes on the essay, they would be never pointed out by the teacher. As long as the essay met the requirements (correct topic, length, etc) the teachers would be happy with it. However, the grades were in fact reflected upon how well the essay was written.
Google makes it really easy to look up word definitions. You just type "define: word" and it will display all the different definitions. Its much better than looking up a word in 500 page heavy dictionary that probably just collects dust wherever it is.
Spunk
The short story "Spunk" (1927) written by Zora Neale Hurston is a brilliant work of literature that embarks topics that can be related to today's society. The story takes place in an all-black Southern town in the late 1800's, possibly in Eatonville, Florida, and starts off with a bunch of men talking about each other, sharing stories of other people, and so on. These men notice a couple walking away. They start gossiping about Spunk Banks, who is quoted in the story as a "giant of a brown-skinned man." He is known as the strongest and most bravely man in the town. Spunk is a saw-mill worker who is good at getting women and carries a gun with him all the time. The girl who is walking with him is Lena Kanty, who is Joe Kanty's wife. These men begin to tease Joe by talking about his wife and Spunk. This event ignites fire in Joe and so he declares in front of the men that he is going to confront Spunk and get his wife back. No one believes him, mainly because of the size difference between Joe and Spunk. And the fact that Joe had never been in a fight before.
Joe proves everyone wrong. He grabs his razor and attempts to kill Spunk in front of Lena, but he fails. Instead, the worst happens when Spunk takes out his gun and shoots him dead. Spunk proudly tells everyone about the shooting, and no one has the courage to ask him about this particular incident. He explains the situation to everyone by saying "Joe come out there wid a meat axe an' made me kill him." He claims Joe was a coward because he tried to sneak-attack him from behind.
Soon after Joe's death, word gets around that Spunk and Lena are about to marry. One night, as Spunk and Lena are getting ready for bed, a black bobcat circles the house. Spunk goes out with his gun to kill the cat, but the cat looks right into his eyes and frightens him so much that he is unable to shoot. Spunk, who is supposed to be the bravest man of the town, is convinced that the black bobcat is Joe. He believes that because no one has ever seen a black bobcat in this town before. He thinks Joe has come back to take revenge so that Lena doesn't marry him.
Finally, the unthinkable happens. Spunk falls from a log into the saw and fatally injures himself that leads to his death. Before dieing, he accuses Joe of having pushed him into the blade from the back, like a coward. At Spunk's funeral, the whole town comes to see him. The narrator describes Lena's emotions by saying "Lena wept in a frightened manner." The 'frightened manner' in this statement indicates that Lena's cry was totally fake, which proves that she didn't love Spunk either. She is the one who is responsible for both men's' death. She pretended to be in love with both men for one reason only – to get their property and acquire all their wealth.
"Spunk" is a story that opens the readers' eyes and shows them how love can lead to betrayal. Love requires both persons to have positive feelings amongst each other. If there's any negative feeling, the two person's will eventually have a conflict with each other.
Joe proves everyone wrong. He grabs his razor and attempts to kill Spunk in front of Lena, but he fails. Instead, the worst happens when Spunk takes out his gun and shoots him dead. Spunk proudly tells everyone about the shooting, and no one has the courage to ask him about this particular incident. He explains the situation to everyone by saying "Joe come out there wid a meat axe an' made me kill him." He claims Joe was a coward because he tried to sneak-attack him from behind.
Soon after Joe's death, word gets around that Spunk and Lena are about to marry. One night, as Spunk and Lena are getting ready for bed, a black bobcat circles the house. Spunk goes out with his gun to kill the cat, but the cat looks right into his eyes and frightens him so much that he is unable to shoot. Spunk, who is supposed to be the bravest man of the town, is convinced that the black bobcat is Joe. He believes that because no one has ever seen a black bobcat in this town before. He thinks Joe has come back to take revenge so that Lena doesn't marry him.
Finally, the unthinkable happens. Spunk falls from a log into the saw and fatally injures himself that leads to his death. Before dieing, he accuses Joe of having pushed him into the blade from the back, like a coward. At Spunk's funeral, the whole town comes to see him. The narrator describes Lena's emotions by saying "Lena wept in a frightened manner." The 'frightened manner' in this statement indicates that Lena's cry was totally fake, which proves that she didn't love Spunk either. She is the one who is responsible for both men's' death. She pretended to be in love with both men for one reason only – to get their property and acquire all their wealth.
"Spunk" is a story that opens the readers' eyes and shows them how love can lead to betrayal. Love requires both persons to have positive feelings amongst each other. If there's any negative feeling, the two person's will eventually have a conflict with each other.
Hardvard's Admission Policies
Harvard's admission policies have changed from decade to decade. In 1905, Harvard adopted the college entrance examination board tests. This policy basically allowed any student with good grades to attend Harvard. This seems to be a fair policy, but the policies Harvard implemented later on may seem questionable. For example, now Harvard has a policy that requires every student who applies for admission to send their picture along with everything else. Why would they require such a thing? My guess is because they care about the student's physical appearance.
Many ivy-league colleges are famous for being more supportive to legacy students. Legacy students are the students whose parents already attended that specific college. So if John's father went to Harvard and graduated, then John would not have a hard time getting into Harvard even though he might have lacked some requirements. This might seem unfair to other students but these are Harvard's policies. They only admit the students who they 'think' will be successful in future. John's father went to Harvard and graduated, therefore they make an assumption that John will graduate as well just like his father and be successful.
It is fair to criticize Harvard's admission policies because I don't believe they are justified. If a student has the academic level that Harvard requires and is willing to pay huge sums of money to get an education, then he or she should get an equal opportunity to do just that. Harvard is like any other business company, but it does not treat all its 'customers' equally. Harvard should be concerned about a person's talents, not his/her physical appearance. A person can always learn and discover a talent that he or she has, but physical appearance is something that a person is born with due to nature and genetics.
Many ivy-league colleges are famous for being more supportive to legacy students. Legacy students are the students whose parents already attended that specific college. So if John's father went to Harvard and graduated, then John would not have a hard time getting into Harvard even though he might have lacked some requirements. This might seem unfair to other students but these are Harvard's policies. They only admit the students who they 'think' will be successful in future. John's father went to Harvard and graduated, therefore they make an assumption that John will graduate as well just like his father and be successful.
It is fair to criticize Harvard's admission policies because I don't believe they are justified. If a student has the academic level that Harvard requires and is willing to pay huge sums of money to get an education, then he or she should get an equal opportunity to do just that. Harvard is like any other business company, but it does not treat all its 'customers' equally. Harvard should be concerned about a person's talents, not his/her physical appearance. A person can always learn and discover a talent that he or she has, but physical appearance is something that a person is born with due to nature and genetics.
The North-South Gap
The North-South gap is causing an enormous amount of instability in the world today. The North represents all the northern economically developed countries (EDC's). Most of these EDC's have similar political characteristics. They are democratic and stable, and they have a competent government structure and a good fit between nation and nation-state. The South, which represents the lesser developed countries (LDC's), are quite the opposite. Majority of the LDC's are run by authoritarian rulers. The instability of these countries is very high, they have a poor government structure, and they have the worst fit between nation and nation-states. The North also shares common economic characteristics. These include: diversity of economy, free marker or quasi-free market capitalism, agriculture and manufacturer industry, and per-capita income of $25,000/year. Not surprisingly, the South is the total opposite. However they do have a raw material/agriculture industry, the LDC's have no diversity in economy, a low level of free market, and per-capita income of $1260/year. The most astonishing fact about the North-South gap is that the North accounts for only fifteen percent of the world population and yet seventy-nine percent of the world's wealth, whereas in the South, about 1.1 billion people live on one dollar per day. I guess its true when they say "Life ain't fair."
The effects of War
The world faces many challenges today. One of these challenges is the armed conflict that exists between nation-states. Wars have been, and still are a desirable instrument used by nation-states to further their self-interests.
Wars have left the world with some horrific facts. Just in the twentieth century, almost three-hundred million people died because of wars. Although the human cost of wars is much more saddening, the economic cost of wars has its own sway. The military budget for all the nation-states in the world is about $1 trillion/year. The United States alone spends $over 500 billion$ per year. The United States spends all this money not only for defense purposes, but also economic purposes. United States is the largest exporter of military weapons in the world. The revenue generated by this industry is astronomical. Nation-states also have a political motive when exporting/importing weapons. Military represents a country's image. For example, if Country A has fifty times more weapons as Country B does, it is most likely to be true that Country A will have more influence in the world then will Country B. Some even say that the amount United States spends annually on arms is the cost of unipolarity in the world today. The cost of conduct for wars also includes the damages it causes, such as destruction of a nation-states national infrastructure. These damages are just incalculable. Some nation-states are still recovering from the aftermaths of World War I and World War II. The Iraq War caused so many deaths and almost put U.S. in depression. It had such a negative impact on the economy. Its 2011 now and the job market is still on a low.
Wars have left the world with some horrific facts. Just in the twentieth century, almost three-hundred million people died because of wars. Although the human cost of wars is much more saddening, the economic cost of wars has its own sway. The military budget for all the nation-states in the world is about $1 trillion/year. The United States alone spends $over 500 billion$ per year. The United States spends all this money not only for defense purposes, but also economic purposes. United States is the largest exporter of military weapons in the world. The revenue generated by this industry is astronomical. Nation-states also have a political motive when exporting/importing weapons. Military represents a country's image. For example, if Country A has fifty times more weapons as Country B does, it is most likely to be true that Country A will have more influence in the world then will Country B. Some even say that the amount United States spends annually on arms is the cost of unipolarity in the world today. The cost of conduct for wars also includes the damages it causes, such as destruction of a nation-states national infrastructure. These damages are just incalculable. Some nation-states are still recovering from the aftermaths of World War I and World War II. The Iraq War caused so many deaths and almost put U.S. in depression. It had such a negative impact on the economy. Its 2011 now and the job market is still on a low.
Realism vs Idealism
The world is not a perfect place. Much of the conflict in the world today is because of two contradicting ideas: realism and idealism. The realist approach is the oldest and most dominant approach in the world. It was founded by an English philosopher by the name of Thomas Hobbes. His book Leviathan (1651) set the agenda for nearly all subsequent Western political philosophy. The idealist approach was founded by another English philosopher named John Locke. Locke's ideas were greatly influential to the world and many nation-states, including the United States, as reflected in the Constitution of the United States and the Deceleration of Independence (1776). For a very long time, the conflicts around the world evolved primarily because of the two contradicting approaches: realism and idealism.
The realist approach stresses that the primary characteristics of a man's human nature are pessimistic, selfish, competitive, and evil. According to the realist approach, the world is divided into nation-states, and each nation-state wants to advance and protect its interests. The realist approach focuses on Charles Darwin's theory of "Survival of the Fittest." This theory applies to the realist approach because every nation-state wants to pursue its own goals and gain power, which introduces the idea of sovereignty. Sovereignty basically means that each nation-state is self-governing and recognized by every other nation-state in the world. If a nation-state is sovereign, the nation-state has total control of itself within its borders, and no one has more power than the people and the government of that nation-state.
The idealist approach is quite the opposite of the realist approach. According to the idealist approach, the primary characteristics of a man's human nature are optimistic, selfless, cooperative, and good. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, John Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. The idealist approach rejects the view that nation-states have to compete in order to succeed. It disagrees with the idea of zero-sum politics, where there is always one winner and one looser. The idealist school's principal ideology is transnationalism. It is an ideology in which one's primary political loyalty is not to the nation or nation-state, but to the whole world. Transnationalism tends to undermine nationalism, and by extension the state. For example, citizens of France who are also citizens of the European Union might identify themselves as Europeans, instead of French.
I think one should be neither pure realist or pure idealist. You have to find the perfect balance between these two ideologies that represents you in a way that makes you feel more connected with your inner-self and the society.
The realist approach stresses that the primary characteristics of a man's human nature are pessimistic, selfish, competitive, and evil. According to the realist approach, the world is divided into nation-states, and each nation-state wants to advance and protect its interests. The realist approach focuses on Charles Darwin's theory of "Survival of the Fittest." This theory applies to the realist approach because every nation-state wants to pursue its own goals and gain power, which introduces the idea of sovereignty. Sovereignty basically means that each nation-state is self-governing and recognized by every other nation-state in the world. If a nation-state is sovereign, the nation-state has total control of itself within its borders, and no one has more power than the people and the government of that nation-state.
The idealist approach is quite the opposite of the realist approach. According to the idealist approach, the primary characteristics of a man's human nature are optimistic, selfless, cooperative, and good. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, John Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. The idealist approach rejects the view that nation-states have to compete in order to succeed. It disagrees with the idea of zero-sum politics, where there is always one winner and one looser. The idealist school's principal ideology is transnationalism. It is an ideology in which one's primary political loyalty is not to the nation or nation-state, but to the whole world. Transnationalism tends to undermine nationalism, and by extension the state. For example, citizens of France who are also citizens of the European Union might identify themselves as Europeans, instead of French.
I think one should be neither pure realist or pure idealist. You have to find the perfect balance between these two ideologies that represents you in a way that makes you feel more connected with your inner-self and the society.
Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology, the future identity cards. But these I.D. cards are a little different. They will not be on you, but will be inside of you. It is a size of a grain of rice, which is implanted inside your body. Is that a good thing to have? Technology wise it is a great advancement. But if you look at it from Privacy's point of view, then i believe many people, or atleast i will not agree with this technology to be made manditory. The reason is why i don't want to have this nano device implanted inside my body is because i can be tracked all the time. For security reasons, it's an amazing invention, but honestly speaking, who needs security all the time? We are, nowadays worried about or personal information being up on the internet and are being watched all the time or can be tracked at any time.
Drug use in Ancient Civilizations
Although most societies in the world today inhibit in any sort of drug use, especially for recreational purposes, many ancient civilizations such as the Romans and the Greeks were fond drug users.
Hillman's new book, The Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Western Civilization, takes a closer look at the use of drugs by the ancient Greeks and Romans. "The early Greek philosophers who inspired the mental revolution that influenced the birth of democracy were the biggest drug-using lunatics of them all," attests Hillman. "Seriously, they were much more like medicine men than philosophers. So not only did democracy spring up in a drug-using culture, but its roots lie in a drug-using, shamanistic, intellectual movement. I think it's perfectly safe to say: 'No drugs, no democracy.'"
Hillman also says this tradition of drug use has largely been written out of history by scholars and historians, who have brought their own moral perspectives to the texts. He says it parallels what happened with language. Why is drug use such taboo if it actually helped these ancient civilizations in betterment of their society? The Greeks would send opium and honey to the wounded Spartan soldiers. Now we have pills for that, which are manufactured by billion dollar corporations that are affiliated with the corrupted gov't sector - lobbyists. After all, its the chemicals that effect us. The food we intake, the air we breath, and almost everything that effects us is because of the chemicals that it contains. So how is in-taking of multiple anti-depressant pills any better than natural drugs that these ancient civilizations used? Perhaps, money is the root too all evil.
Hillman's new book, The Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Western Civilization, takes a closer look at the use of drugs by the ancient Greeks and Romans. "The early Greek philosophers who inspired the mental revolution that influenced the birth of democracy were the biggest drug-using lunatics of them all," attests Hillman. "Seriously, they were much more like medicine men than philosophers. So not only did democracy spring up in a drug-using culture, but its roots lie in a drug-using, shamanistic, intellectual movement. I think it's perfectly safe to say: 'No drugs, no democracy.'"
Hillman also says this tradition of drug use has largely been written out of history by scholars and historians, who have brought their own moral perspectives to the texts. He says it parallels what happened with language. Why is drug use such taboo if it actually helped these ancient civilizations in betterment of their society? The Greeks would send opium and honey to the wounded Spartan soldiers. Now we have pills for that, which are manufactured by billion dollar corporations that are affiliated with the corrupted gov't sector - lobbyists. After all, its the chemicals that effect us. The food we intake, the air we breath, and almost everything that effects us is because of the chemicals that it contains. So how is in-taking of multiple anti-depressant pills any better than natural drugs that these ancient civilizations used? Perhaps, money is the root too all evil.
Is 3d the future, or the future headache?
Many major technology companies have incorporated 3d technology into their televisions. You can attach the kit to your tv set, wear 3d glasses, and bam! You are in 3d world. Cable company Verizon Fios has already started broadcasting content in 3d. Is this the future trend?
Its hard to predict because many consumers have advised against using any 3d product. Viewing a television in 3d for long periods of time can induce headaches, which it did for most consumers who tried it. Its just too much information for your eyes to process as an everyday task. How clear can televisions possibly get? With current high definition technologies, we can already see the impurities and imperfections of the actors and scenes. The new "LED" technology displays a crisp picture and seamless motion, but is it good or bad? In my opinion it is horrendous. Watching a movie on a LED tv is like watching a raw camcorder-recorded video. It doesn't represent the scenes in the way they were meant to be presented. Everything just seems too cartoonish. You are not able to appreciate the art behind the sets on this sort of television. 3d technology just makes it worse. Watching regular tv shows in 3d is just going to kill the 3d experience overall. They have already come out with cell phones that support 3d technology. Do we really need to see a tiny little video screen in 3d? I think we should only watch 3d movies that were meant to be seen in 3d, such as Avatar.
Its hard to predict because many consumers have advised against using any 3d product. Viewing a television in 3d for long periods of time can induce headaches, which it did for most consumers who tried it. Its just too much information for your eyes to process as an everyday task. How clear can televisions possibly get? With current high definition technologies, we can already see the impurities and imperfections of the actors and scenes. The new "LED" technology displays a crisp picture and seamless motion, but is it good or bad? In my opinion it is horrendous. Watching a movie on a LED tv is like watching a raw camcorder-recorded video. It doesn't represent the scenes in the way they were meant to be presented. Everything just seems too cartoonish. You are not able to appreciate the art behind the sets on this sort of television. 3d technology just makes it worse. Watching regular tv shows in 3d is just going to kill the 3d experience overall. They have already come out with cell phones that support 3d technology. Do we really need to see a tiny little video screen in 3d? I think we should only watch 3d movies that were meant to be seen in 3d, such as Avatar.
HAARP
HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is an ionospheric research program jointly funded by the US Air Force, the US Navy, the University of Alaska and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Its purpose is to analyze the ionosphere and investigate the potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance purposes. The HAARP program operates a major Arctic facility, known as the HAARP Research Station, on an Air Force owned site near Gakona, Alaska.
According to Jesse Ventura, the former Governor of Minnesota, the HAARP program is secretly conducting experiments that no one is aware of. He mentioned such experiment in an interview stating that they attached few cords to his brain and he was able to hear through his brain, not ears. He also claimed that they can shoot particles in the air to influence the climate. And lastly, he said they have a device with which they can read people's brainwaves and possibly control their thoughts. All this might seem very fictional but HAARP is a real program that focuses on ultra high-technology secretively. After all, it is referred to as "The Military's Pandora Box."
According to Jesse Ventura, the former Governor of Minnesota, the HAARP program is secretly conducting experiments that no one is aware of. He mentioned such experiment in an interview stating that they attached few cords to his brain and he was able to hear through his brain, not ears. He also claimed that they can shoot particles in the air to influence the climate. And lastly, he said they have a device with which they can read people's brainwaves and possibly control their thoughts. All this might seem very fictional but HAARP is a real program that focuses on ultra high-technology secretively. After all, it is referred to as "The Military's Pandora Box."
Is marriage outdated?
As divorce rates go higher and higher, one comes to think that marriage might be outdated in current society. But why are divorce rates going up every year?
I think its because of women getting equal rights as men. Dont get me wrong, I believe they are entitled for equal rights, but it is also a cause for the escalating divorce rates. Women today can get the same jobs men can. Money is an instant ego boost for any specie, no matter what form it is in. This leads to women having larger egos then men. How can they raise children if they hate the idea of being a housewife. Back in the day, man went to work, came home with money and provided food on the table. This was a perfect balance of egos in the marriage. If a woman makes more money than her husband, the husband will probably have low self-esteem even if he doesn't show it publicly. This might not be a problem in the beginning but will lead to emotional turmoil in the future. Why is that throughout history women have not been granted equal rights as men? There has to be some sort of reasoning behind this. On an individual basis, womens' rights are obviously impacting them in a positive way, but for marriage, I think not so much. The numbers are there to prove it.
I think its because of women getting equal rights as men. Dont get me wrong, I believe they are entitled for equal rights, but it is also a cause for the escalating divorce rates. Women today can get the same jobs men can. Money is an instant ego boost for any specie, no matter what form it is in. This leads to women having larger egos then men. How can they raise children if they hate the idea of being a housewife. Back in the day, man went to work, came home with money and provided food on the table. This was a perfect balance of egos in the marriage. If a woman makes more money than her husband, the husband will probably have low self-esteem even if he doesn't show it publicly. This might not be a problem in the beginning but will lead to emotional turmoil in the future. Why is that throughout history women have not been granted equal rights as men? There has to be some sort of reasoning behind this. On an individual basis, womens' rights are obviously impacting them in a positive way, but for marriage, I think not so much. The numbers are there to prove it.
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Medical Industry
The medical industry today is corrupted in ways never imagined before. Doctors prescribe heavy doses of dangerous medication to patients even though they have numerous side effects. So many people rely on pills to function everyday in life. Some people actually need them but most are just "sold" by their doctors because the more pills they sell the more money they make. More than half of the commercials you see on TV are about side effects of a certain medication leading to a possible law suit against the medical company. Lawyers are making their money, medical companies are making theirs, its the patient that gets the worst. People who take these dangerous drugs start building tolerance and require higher dosage - even more pills. When they try to get off them they cant because their body and mind is so used to them. You would think the government is supposed to help the people and regulate the industry, but the gov't is even more corrupted because it's affiliated with all the big corporations, be it oil company or a medical company. I think if more people were aware of their emotions and consciousness they could make better decisions than doctors could for them.
Technological advancement stuck in a loop?
Throughout history, many great minds have discovered the tricks and equations to unlock the secrets of nature. All they used to do that was a pen and paper. What are the great minds doing today?
They are relying on super computers to do the equations for them. Man built a computer, which is based on 0's and 1's. Granted, computers can do math that maybe no human being can ever do in his whole lifetime, but they are still following the same blue print. Because of this they will never be able to invent or discover something entirely new, therefore they are stuck in a loop. Einstein didn't use any fancy computers to do discover what he discovered. He just used his brain to the capacity most human-beings dont ever bother to do so. All he did was observe nature with his very own senses to figure out the most prized equations that help us understand nature today. I believe any human being who has motivation and perseverance is capable of producing amazing outcomes. We rely on computers today to do our math. We might still learn it in schools but to apply those concepts in the real world is what makes you push your brain to the next level. These guys were there sitting for hours just observing natural phenomenon. They are already saying our current Physics is outdated. I think our technological advancement is capped at the moment. Every new technology that has come out in the last century is based on 0's and 1's. Surely there has to be someone who can discover maybe another dimension in space or something entirely new. We have to approach matter from all different angles in order to fully understand and learn.
They are relying on super computers to do the equations for them. Man built a computer, which is based on 0's and 1's. Granted, computers can do math that maybe no human being can ever do in his whole lifetime, but they are still following the same blue print. Because of this they will never be able to invent or discover something entirely new, therefore they are stuck in a loop. Einstein didn't use any fancy computers to do discover what he discovered. He just used his brain to the capacity most human-beings dont ever bother to do so. All he did was observe nature with his very own senses to figure out the most prized equations that help us understand nature today. I believe any human being who has motivation and perseverance is capable of producing amazing outcomes. We rely on computers today to do our math. We might still learn it in schools but to apply those concepts in the real world is what makes you push your brain to the next level. These guys were there sitting for hours just observing natural phenomenon. They are already saying our current Physics is outdated. I think our technological advancement is capped at the moment. Every new technology that has come out in the last century is based on 0's and 1's. Surely there has to be someone who can discover maybe another dimension in space or something entirely new. We have to approach matter from all different angles in order to fully understand and learn.
Social networks - good or bad?
The internet is filled with a plethora of social networking websites, such as Facebook, Myspace, Friendster, Twitter, and the list goes on. Are they good for the society?
This is a very complicated question. These websites allow people to socialize over the internet in a way that was never possible before. They provide with hassle-free communication from anywhere in the world as long as you have internet access. However what are the side effects of using such communication technologies?
I think these websites are turning our society into robots. All people do now is go on their friends profile and stalk them to see what they are upto. People just blog about their stupid daily activities on Facebook as if anyone actually cares. If its a hot chick doing that, you see so many comments on their posts. If you want to go out with someone, the person would add you as a friend on Facebook and stalk the hell out of your profile to see who you are friends with, who you talk to, etc. These websites do provide great services but they are turning us into robots. There is no face to face human interaction going on at all. Smartphones make this matter even worse. Everyone you see outside walking, in class, or doing anything, they will be using their smart phone to either go on facebook or text message someone. No one even talks on the phone anymore. This is really bad as a societal point of view because if people are not practicing human interaction they will just be like computers in the future. We have to stop relying on these technologies and go old school. This is why so many people lack communication skills these days. Communication skills are mandatory for any type of job. If we start looking at each other as robots and judge each other based on their Facebook profile, it just shows how stupid our society is becoming. A medicine might cure you temporarily, but in the long run it certainly has side effects that are not that easy to reverse.
This is a very complicated question. These websites allow people to socialize over the internet in a way that was never possible before. They provide with hassle-free communication from anywhere in the world as long as you have internet access. However what are the side effects of using such communication technologies?
I think these websites are turning our society into robots. All people do now is go on their friends profile and stalk them to see what they are upto. People just blog about their stupid daily activities on Facebook as if anyone actually cares. If its a hot chick doing that, you see so many comments on their posts. If you want to go out with someone, the person would add you as a friend on Facebook and stalk the hell out of your profile to see who you are friends with, who you talk to, etc. These websites do provide great services but they are turning us into robots. There is no face to face human interaction going on at all. Smartphones make this matter even worse. Everyone you see outside walking, in class, or doing anything, they will be using their smart phone to either go on facebook or text message someone. No one even talks on the phone anymore. This is really bad as a societal point of view because if people are not practicing human interaction they will just be like computers in the future. We have to stop relying on these technologies and go old school. This is why so many people lack communication skills these days. Communication skills are mandatory for any type of job. If we start looking at each other as robots and judge each other based on their Facebook profile, it just shows how stupid our society is becoming. A medicine might cure you temporarily, but in the long run it certainly has side effects that are not that easy to reverse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)