Sunday, January 18, 2009
Whenever I am wandering in my own thoughts in the future, I plan to return to my quest, that is, this blog.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
That being said, I turn now to my utter disdain for Bill Maher and his new movie, "Religulous." I had the displeasure of viewing a clip/preview of this movie online (not my choice, I was sitting with someone who wanted to see the preview). I have to say that within the first twenty seconds or so, I was utterly disgusted and offended by what I saw. I think it is interesting to study different cultures, religions, societies, and examine the differences, even if you do not agree with the teachings or practices of such. And if a filmmaker, performer, or writer wants to raise valid points about aspects of a particular faith that he/she finds outrageous or extreme, that would be his/her right. However, this film is not so much a study of religions, as it is a complete mockery of them. Just as it is Maher's right to be an Atheist and not be shown disrespect for his lack of belief, it is each person's right to believe in what he/she chooses and not be shown disrespect because of it. Bill Maher apparently does not feel this way. His handling of this film is revolting. He blatantly shows a complete lack of respect for anyone who practices any form of religion. Well, according to a Gallup International Millennium Survey, eighty-seven percent (87%) of the world's population believes in some form of religion or god.
So Maher, you have now offended at least 87% of the world. And actually, since those of us who do not practice religion but do practice respect and tolerance may also be offended by your movie, you have actually alienated a much higher percentage of the population. I daresay your film is offensive and disrespectful to everyone (except for people like yourself who may think that it is okay to treat others with complete disregard).
It is kind of funny in general, how marriage, which is supposed to be a spiritual (or religious, if one is religious) bond between two people, became this legal institution, at least in many modern societies. A few months ago, I saw a story on National Geographic about a culture that handles its relationships a little bit differently. I especially admired the bond among the females of the society. Here is the link to the story: China's "Kingdom of Women."
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Personally, I do not believe that marriage and how two people feel about each other should have anything to do with the law. Why should the government have to sanction any marriage, either heterosexual or homosexual? But as long as marriage is an issue of legality, I believe that the government should not interfere in the decision of two homosexual people to marry.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
I have been exploring the topic of poverty in recent days. The result is the following post.
What is poverty? According to the World Bank, poverty is characterized by lack of food and/or shelter, lack of education, lack of healthcare, but it is also “powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom.”
A large percentage of Americans are in debt. Which leads me to a question: is poverty the state in which one lives, or is it the amount of money and/or debt which one amasses?
I agree that extreme poverty is characterized by a lack of the very basics: food, shelter, medical care. But I also agree with the statement above that poverty is “powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom.” Obviously, there is a difference between being poor, i.e. trapped in one’s current situation but able to afford the basics, and poverty, which can be considered a lack of access to the basic needs of human beings in order to survive.
Poverty and Social Responsibility
What can we do about poverty, or should we do anything about poverty? Is each person responsible for him/herself, or do we have an obligation, if we are better equipped financially, to assist others? And along those lines, is it better to give or to teach?
There are many social welfare programs in the United States, but how many of them are bettering the needy? Should these programs be focused more on teaching and less on giving?
Is there a difference between living in poverty in a country like the U.S. and living in poverty elsewhere, such as in a developing nation? Are the poor in the U.S. richer (i.e. in social welfare programs available to them) than the poor in less financially stable countries?
Poverty and Homelessness in the U.S.
Poverty in the U.S. is very closely associated with homelessness.
According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Coalition, 3.5 million people in the U.S. experience homelessness in a given year, and one-fifth of those are chronically mentally ill. I would like to further explore the topic of mental illness and homelessness at a later date.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
I noticed during the presidential debate that there was a great difference in the way the two candidates presented themselves. Particularly, I perceived a great variation in the body language of each. One stood tall, with arms wide, shoulders high. He seemed at ease. He looked directly at his opponent when the opponent spoke, and even addressed him directly at times. He smiled, but not too widely, he looked serious at times, but never did he appear cross or upset. He seemed relaxed and confident when answering questions. In other words, he kept his composure - inner poise.
The other candidate's body language was quite different. He did not look at his opponent when the opponent spoke; he mostly looked either down or straight ahead. To me, this projected either a lack of confidence or a lack of respect toward the opponent. Thinking about this person meeting with foreign leaders, one wonders if he would have a problem making eye contact with them if he disagreed with their policies. This candidate did not turn his body toward his opponent at any time. He frequently made reference to his opponent in the third person, as if he was not in the same room. It seemed a bit odd to me. This candidate's body language was more "closed," that is, his posture seemed more rigid and his facial expressions indicated a bit of tension.
Perhaps some would say that body language and poise are not important when choosing a candidate for president, nor important in any respect for that matter. However, I completely disagree. For example, what is the point of a job interview, if not to judge you by your body language and composure? The potential employer already has your resume and list of qualifications.
As a former student of Psychology and Sociology, I definitely feel that body language plays an important role in the way that we judge others. In addition, a person's body language can put us at ease or make us feel uncomfortable; it is that powerful.
Body language and poise go beyond an election. It affects the way others see us each day, and the way we view others as well, especially upon a first meeting. How important do you believe body language is in making an impression? Do you feel that it has an effect on the way others see you, or on how you perceive others?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
What is poverty? On October 15, 2008, bloggers who sign up for Blog Action Day are supposed to discuss the issue of poverty. The guidelines are fairly simple.
If you'd like to participate, you can go to Blog Action Day and sign up, then post an entry on your blog forewarning of the coming day (such as I am doing now), and include a link back to the blog where you learned about Blog Action Day. I first read about it on: Jack Mandora.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
I think that most of us have layers of innocence, and as we grow older and experience more, these layers get stripped away. Each person's life is different; at the end, some are left with a few layers, some are stripped bare, and then there are those who seem impermeable to life's tragedies, those who appear unaffected or are perhaps unaware. You may call these people oblivious, you may call them lucky.
When we are young, we may have grandparents, pets, or neighbors who pass away. For most of us, this is our first encounter with death; this is the first time we experience a loss.
As we become teens, we develop a sense of invincibility; we can do whatever we want, we will never die, and nothing can hurt us (at least not physically, though our egos are quite easily bruised).
As we enter young adulthood, we have perhaps become slightly less invincible and slightly more human, but are ready to take on life nonetheless. We have things to prove and goals to achieve. We may have suffered mildly, maybe a broken heart or two, but perhaps having experienced these small tragedies has actually given us a false sense of wisdom.
As we attempt to conquer the world, we begin to face new challenges, such as work, dealing bosses and co-workers, fitting in, paying bills and having real relationships, we often find that life is not how we imagined it would be. It's harder. It does not look like the scenes we painted in our minds several years before. Maybe we begin to see that life, can at times, be cruel.
And another layer falls away.
As I ponder these things, I am reminded of the book Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger. In high school, I had to read this book. I remember my English teacher saying that Holden was trying to recapture his innocence, or was at least mourning the loss of it. At my young age, I did not understand exactly what she meant; how could I?
Lately, I have been thinking about censorship and what protecting the young really means (my thoughts were actually prompted by another blog I have recently begun to read).
Do we seek to preserve the innocence of our children (or children in general, i.e. the younger generation) in a futile attempt to recapture something which is impossible, that is, our own lost sense of innocence and naivety?
Monday, August 18, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
What other uses could Olympic funds be put toward?
References (articles that discuss Olympic spending): GOP Spat Began with Olympics; McCain Backs Olympic Bid, but Watch Spending
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
These are the reasons that I hate Wikipedia:
Ø Grammatical errors
Ø Explanations that lack thoroughness and simply do not make sense
Ø The false sense that there is some authority behind these explanations
Ø Lack of adequate references
Ø Inaccurate information (coupled with the false sense of authority)
Ø The fact that it is often the first search result to appear
Ø The fact that it claims to be an encyclopedia
I can even back up my hatred with an example: “All current methods involve heating a working fluid such as water, which is then converted into mechanical work for the purpose of generating electricity or propulsion.” So, according to this entry in Wiki, water is converted into mechanical work for generating electricity. I have several problems with this explanation. The first is that I’m not sure what the author means by “water … is then converted into mechanical work.” This does not make sense. Secondly, I believe the use of water to generate electricity is deemed hydroelectric power, and certainly does not produce radioactive side effects. (Now water is used in nuclear power plants, but certainly not in the way that the Wiki article implies. There is a much more thorough explanation here, and there is also a specific author attached to this article.)
Who can write for Wikipedia? According to Wiki itself, “Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge.” What is existing knowledge? Do they mean common knowledge? If so, why would anyone need to look up something if it is common knowledge? And I daresay, that there are many topics which are covered on Wikipedia which are not common knowledge and are in fact specialized. In addition, “Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link.” So even if there is accurate information displayed on a given topic, someone else can come along and change it to make it inaccurate. Brilliant!
Why do you hate Wikipedia? (If you like Wikipedia, why???!!!)
Saturday, June 28, 2008
In 2002, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recommended Yucca as the disposal site for "the nation's most lethal nuclear waste." President Bush promptly approved the recommendation. Originally the repository was due to be complete by 1998, but forseeing an inability to meet that dealine, the government moved the completion date to 2010. Recently, even the 2010 deadline has been deemed unlikely to happen, as the license to build the facility has not been approved yet. At this point, the Energy Department has just submitted their application for a license to physically build the Yucca facility.
Prior to 2001, the Dept. of Energy had to prove that Yucca Mountain itself could safely contain radioactive waste; in 2001, they were given permission to use storage containers to contain the waste. There has been additional controversy over the issue of the containers themselves, such as their durability and how likely they are to corrode, what might happen in the event of an earthquake, etc. Needless to say, severe doubt has been cast upon the adequacy of these containers to prevent radioactive leakage. (The very idea that at any point, the government was going to consider storing the waste directly in the mountain without the use of sealed containers seems absurd to me.)
If the waste is not stored properly, there could be serious environmental implications and negative impacts on the people who live in the surrounding area. There are additional implications with regard to the transport of this waste to the site, and the risks posed to anyone within a certain distance of the transportation routes, which would run throughout the entire U.S. (I will be following up on the potential environmental and health effects as well as the transport issue in a later post.)
What is your position on Yucca; is this an issue of which you were previously aware?
Friday, June 20, 2008
"Uncontacted" Amazon Tribe: Will they remain uncontacted, or will the world (and media) worm its way into these people's lives?
In the June 3rd article, it states that the group Survival International "takes the position that uncontacted tribes should be allowed to live in their own way on their own land, as recognized by international law. " One of National Geographic's explorers/authors, Wade Davis, later states that contact with the tribes should only be made if necessary, i.e. they are in danger, and not solely out of curiosity.
What do you think will happen? Have the wheels already been set in motion for this tribe's way of living to change because this story has been much publicized? Or was the tribe's culture and lifestyle already doomed to change due to the possibility of deforestation and infringement by oil companies in the Amazon? Will the publicity actually serve to protect them from habitat destruction?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
Discussion is a key element in learning and sharing. However, all too often, discussion, be it online, in person amongst two people, or in a group setting such as a classroom, turns into heated and sometimes angry debate when one party tries to dominate the other by speaking loudly (i.e. talking over the other person), using domineering body language, being nasty or insulting, or putting the other party down and being disrepectful.
I do not feel that such behavior is necessary. It is possible to express one's opinion without trying to dominate those who oppose it. I am wondering if gender plays a role in the outcome of such discussions. Do you feel, or have you experienced situations where, either men or women specifically try to dominate the discussion? Do you feel that gender does play a role in the turn these discussions take? How do you get your point across; are you guilty of these negative behaviors? Or do you avoid talking with co-workers and friends about sensitive issues, for fear the conversation may take an ugly turn?
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
In any case, needless to say, I was quite angry after this "conversation." But anger does not solve problems, resolve differences, or bridge knowledge gaps. In fact, it usually causes problems (when not channelled properly). So, I am trying to be the "bigger person" in this situation, and rise above my momentary anger to ask what it is I can do to combat such attitudes and ignorance. This attitude is one I have been subjected to many times during my two year stint in Florida (which I hope will be coming to an end soon). I have encountered a great deal of sexism and culturally-backward attitudes on many occasions. This situation has made me feel oppressed, sad, angry and powerless at times. But I am wondering if there is a way that I can turn all of these things into something positive. Here is my feeble attempt to do just that.
Previously, I was ignorant that so much sexism, racism and cultural bias still existed in the United States. I had thought this was a thing of the past. My eyes have now been opened to this ugliness. Now that I am aware of it, I have the opportunity to do something about it. You cannot attempt to make a change where you do not know that one is needed.
I have learned, or perhaps am learning, that the best way to combat ignorance is through knowledge, education and sympathy (certainly not with aggression or anger). At least, this is what I think.
What do you think?