Posts
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Video Accounts of Reflection
Below, I have posted two videos which are part of a series I am creating, looking at the economic climate and current cases which are being followed in the media. I will attempt to create some humour and provide people with a chance to see the satirical side of politics.
Consideration of the Future [Article]
There is much to be said for the current economic climate and the present state of the nation. People continue to act in disdain, opposing the Labour Government's approach to the 'crisis' and there is little sign of salvation. Few people are willing to state the Conservatives would do much better.
I believe that there is a rising sense of anger amongst the general public in regards to politics at the moment. Few can distinguish between the policies of each group and we are reminded of the consistent battles that have now become known as 'party politics'.
Members of Parliament are no longer concerned with the affairs and interest of the general public. Jack Straw refused to publicize documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Gordon Brown and David Cameron continue to battle to their wit's end.
It is a frustrating time, especially for those people who have been cast into difficult circumstances as a result. Once more, we see that the Government has not acted upon the demands of the public, rather their actions suggest a theatrical 'gesture approach' which is nothing more than a scandal, a web of lies.
Tony Blair was, essentially, the master of 'gesture politics'. He threw incentive after incentive into the public forum and soon became overwhelmed by the policies which he created, including the controversial Terrorism Act and the dubious 'twenty-eight day detention'.
What can be said for a government that is presenting itself as mere puppets on a stage?
Nothing.
Their actions cannot be defended.
Gordon Brown's promise to help people with mortgage repayments was nothing more than a gesture, a peace offering that helped the few. Much rather than defer the payments for a few months, the interest would be deferred. How is that going to help people?
They still have to pay the mortgage!
Listen closely, Mr. Brown!
He claimed that jobs would be created. On a news programme relating to the jobs market in the current economic climate, the jobs he created were based on seven hours per week at minimum wage. People could still claim benefits and so create a state dependent upon the welfare state.
Buck up your ideas!
The public is not impressed.
This is not the future I, or anyone else, I would hope, wishes to see. I want to see a future that is promising, a future that promises help to families, a future that offers a strong market and a good economy. So far, I've seen nothing more than a state falling into disrepair.
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
On Liberties and Freedom [Article]
What has become of our nation?
Civil liberties have become nothing more than simple luxuries that can be stolen at the whim of those at the wheel. What was once a crucial feature of a political manifesto has become a mere inconvenience. Taxation, crime and global influence has become the focus of all.
It seems that, for much of the nation, there is little to be said of civil liberties. These were ideas that were considered in the past tense. It is argued that we must 'sacrifice our liberties in order to protect the majority', as was once seen in the publication of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Government is violating our liberties and manipulating the English judicial system to make it fit values which are hidden behind closed doors. A prime example of this is seen in the House of Lords, unelected representatives of a deceptive government. Lords are nothing more than items to be sold at auction at the expense of the British public.
Members of Parliament, and indeed the Governing body of the United Kingdom, continues to steal our freedom from beneath our feet. It no longer acts in the interests of the British public. It acts in the interests of the European Union, an organisation that is set to dissolve national identities.
We are heading in the direction of a 'One World Government'.
It seems that the British Government is creating a manifestation of George Orwell's 'Big Brother world' seen in 1984. One man, Ian Parker-Joseph, leader of the Libertarian Party United Kingdom (who can also be found on Twitter), has seen this become a reality and took action against it. Read all about it here: Libertarian Party UK 1984 Campaign
Some might argue that these are the words of a conspirator, that he is much the same as all other politicians, manipulating the truth for personal gain. Although it is possible, I prefer to liken him to a modern George Orwell.
His ideas and words are attempts at the subversion of the accepted political structure of the nation and observes problems through comic wit and satire, an example is seen here. He discusses a recent advertisement campaign and satirises much of the article.
He is a voice of change in his own right.
Ian Parker-Joseph has coined the term 'regionalisation', an idea that relates to the members of the European Union as being 'regions without identities' and he sees that much of the United Kingdom has become 'regionalised', particularly in Wales (See here).
One can imagine that there can be few surprises as to the intentions of the European Union but it is more frightening to consider that this is a global campaign. There are intentions to create an 'Asian-Australian Union', an African Union exists at the moment. There is no stopping the global campaign for a united world government, global economy and global surveillance society.
Recent examples of the influence of the British government and their intentions can be seen in the continued fight against 'internet pirates', essentially undermining privacy law through legal loopholes and strategic prosecutions. The Freedom of Information Act continues to be undermined. The prime example is that of the postponement of the Northern Ireland local elections, explained here.
It is frightening to imagine the implications of the current intentions by the government. What we must remember is that the government is elected by the people, for the people.
They represent our views.
'We should not be afraid of our governments. Governments should be afraid of their people'.
References:
Liberal Democrats call for elective House of Lords
Lords Fiasco: Lords reported for alleged 'cash for amendments' scandal
The Idiot's Guide to the New World Order
Twitter
Abolition of Freedom Act 2009
Civil liberties have become nothing more than simple luxuries that can be stolen at the whim of those at the wheel. What was once a crucial feature of a political manifesto has become a mere inconvenience. Taxation, crime and global influence has become the focus of all.
It seems that, for much of the nation, there is little to be said of civil liberties. These were ideas that were considered in the past tense. It is argued that we must 'sacrifice our liberties in order to protect the majority', as was once seen in the publication of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Government is violating our liberties and manipulating the English judicial system to make it fit values which are hidden behind closed doors. A prime example of this is seen in the House of Lords, unelected representatives of a deceptive government. Lords are nothing more than items to be sold at auction at the expense of the British public.
Members of Parliament, and indeed the Governing body of the United Kingdom, continues to steal our freedom from beneath our feet. It no longer acts in the interests of the British public. It acts in the interests of the European Union, an organisation that is set to dissolve national identities.
We are heading in the direction of a 'One World Government'.
It seems that the British Government is creating a manifestation of George Orwell's 'Big Brother world' seen in 1984. One man, Ian Parker-Joseph, leader of the Libertarian Party United Kingdom (who can also be found on Twitter), has seen this become a reality and took action against it. Read all about it here: Libertarian Party UK 1984 Campaign
Some might argue that these are the words of a conspirator, that he is much the same as all other politicians, manipulating the truth for personal gain. Although it is possible, I prefer to liken him to a modern George Orwell.
His ideas and words are attempts at the subversion of the accepted political structure of the nation and observes problems through comic wit and satire, an example is seen here. He discusses a recent advertisement campaign and satirises much of the article.
He is a voice of change in his own right.
Ian Parker-Joseph has coined the term 'regionalisation', an idea that relates to the members of the European Union as being 'regions without identities' and he sees that much of the United Kingdom has become 'regionalised', particularly in Wales (See here).
One can imagine that there can be few surprises as to the intentions of the European Union but it is more frightening to consider that this is a global campaign. There are intentions to create an 'Asian-Australian Union', an African Union exists at the moment. There is no stopping the global campaign for a united world government, global economy and global surveillance society.
Recent examples of the influence of the British government and their intentions can be seen in the continued fight against 'internet pirates', essentially undermining privacy law through legal loopholes and strategic prosecutions. The Freedom of Information Act continues to be undermined. The prime example is that of the postponement of the Northern Ireland local elections, explained here.
It is frightening to imagine the implications of the current intentions by the government. What we must remember is that the government is elected by the people, for the people.
They represent our views.
'We should not be afraid of our governments. Governments should be afraid of their people'.
References:
Liberal Democrats call for elective House of Lords
Lords Fiasco: Lords reported for alleged 'cash for amendments' scandal
The Idiot's Guide to the New World Order
Abolition of Freedom Act 2009
Economics of the Crisis [Debate]
It is difficult to comprehend the true nature of the economic downturn, as it has been so phrased by my many of the large media corporations. There are those who state that it is nothing more than a 'bump in the road', so to speak. Others have argued that it is a representation of the consequence of corporate greed and an international ambition to develop a constantly developing economy.
For the most part, I agree with both statements, although for different reasons. I have often noted that, when suffering troubled times, communities fall together as though to stand united in the fight against that which is opposed to them. In both world wars, communities stood together to fight against the tyranny of another nation. Indeed, I would hope that, in times of economic difficulty, communities will come together to support one another as a good neighbour should.
Alas, onto the matters of economic failure. For all that it is worth, I am not one to state that I have a wealth of information in regards to the economic climate but the sheer visual nature of the downturn represents a problem within this nation, and indeed in many other nations.
I have seen crowds standing in JobCentre Plus, constantly seeking labour in a time when the government is claiming to create tens of thousands of jobs for those who have been made redundant. Prices continue to fluctuate in most supermarkets and it has become a battle of the brands to become 'top dog' in a market where people are constantly seeking the lowest price.
It's a sad sight, knowing that there are those who could have prevented this consequence. The Times, a respected newspaper, published a list of those responsible for the economic downturn and I must admit that I agree with most, if not all.
It's of little surprise that Gordon Brown was listed, following the economic ideals of a man who, in later years, agreed that the end result of his economic approach would be a 'boom and bust' economy. In a world where phrases are being thrown around with such great ease and the finger is being pointed, it seems that things will only get worse.
Predictably, government initiatives have done little to resolve the problem, especially some of the more controversial policies which were introduced. The 2.5% VAT reduction, for example, has done little to motivate spending and most people would agree that it is not worthwhile. What use is a reduction that, when spending £400, the consumer saves £10.
Having said that, we cannot expect the government to wave a wand and the world will be right once more. Sadly, neither the government nor Gordon Brown has the power to do that. It is within our power to change the state of our nation from one that seems to be growing to represent 1984 (George Orwell) to a nation that represents communities, freedom and liberty.
I cannot imagine that the economic climate will return to normality in the next year. In the legal profession, where 2,200 redundancies have been made so far, claims of a return to normality have been predicted for 2011/2012. We must wait for the time when we can stand again and be proud of our nation.
The question is; how long will we have to wait?
For the most part, I agree with both statements, although for different reasons. I have often noted that, when suffering troubled times, communities fall together as though to stand united in the fight against that which is opposed to them. In both world wars, communities stood together to fight against the tyranny of another nation. Indeed, I would hope that, in times of economic difficulty, communities will come together to support one another as a good neighbour should.
Alas, onto the matters of economic failure. For all that it is worth, I am not one to state that I have a wealth of information in regards to the economic climate but the sheer visual nature of the downturn represents a problem within this nation, and indeed in many other nations.
I have seen crowds standing in JobCentre Plus, constantly seeking labour in a time when the government is claiming to create tens of thousands of jobs for those who have been made redundant. Prices continue to fluctuate in most supermarkets and it has become a battle of the brands to become 'top dog' in a market where people are constantly seeking the lowest price.
It's a sad sight, knowing that there are those who could have prevented this consequence. The Times, a respected newspaper, published a list of those responsible for the economic downturn and I must admit that I agree with most, if not all.
It's of little surprise that Gordon Brown was listed, following the economic ideals of a man who, in later years, agreed that the end result of his economic approach would be a 'boom and bust' economy. In a world where phrases are being thrown around with such great ease and the finger is being pointed, it seems that things will only get worse.
Predictably, government initiatives have done little to resolve the problem, especially some of the more controversial policies which were introduced. The 2.5% VAT reduction, for example, has done little to motivate spending and most people would agree that it is not worthwhile. What use is a reduction that, when spending £400, the consumer saves £10.
Having said that, we cannot expect the government to wave a wand and the world will be right once more. Sadly, neither the government nor Gordon Brown has the power to do that. It is within our power to change the state of our nation from one that seems to be growing to represent 1984 (George Orwell) to a nation that represents communities, freedom and liberty.
I cannot imagine that the economic climate will return to normality in the next year. In the legal profession, where 2,200 redundancies have been made so far, claims of a return to normality have been predicted for 2011/2012. We must wait for the time when we can stand again and be proud of our nation.
The question is; how long will we have to wait?
Understanding the Fear of Control [Article]
One of the problems of this world is that it is so focused upon the search of fulfilment that we find ourselves in the conflict with the flow of the world's direction.
It has often been said that 'Nature is blind' and I am an advocate of such a view. Nature shows no path in her continued determination. She follows a path which she sets.
For most people, life is quite the opposite of Nature's intention. We all decide that we require targets, goals and aims. There is no greater satisfaction than the knowledge that we are 'in control'.
There is one problem.
How 'in control' are we?
Nature often throws obstacles in the path. We cannot expect those obstacles. These are random occurrences. Much of our life is a random occurrence.
Natural disasters.
Financial problems.
Death.
Can we predict these events? Can we expect these events?
No.
We cannot expect to suffer a natural disaster. We cannot predict that we will struggle one month and have a fruitful one the next. Life is not quite so simple as we hope to make it.
Death is one of our greatest fears.
It is because we cannot control it that we fear.
We do not fear what we can control.
It has often been said that 'Nature is blind' and I am an advocate of such a view. Nature shows no path in her continued determination. She follows a path which she sets.
For most people, life is quite the opposite of Nature's intention. We all decide that we require targets, goals and aims. There is no greater satisfaction than the knowledge that we are 'in control'.
There is one problem.
How 'in control' are we?
Nature often throws obstacles in the path. We cannot expect those obstacles. These are random occurrences. Much of our life is a random occurrence.
Natural disasters.
Financial problems.
Death.
Can we predict these events? Can we expect these events?
No.
We cannot expect to suffer a natural disaster. We cannot predict that we will struggle one month and have a fruitful one the next. Life is not quite so simple as we hope to make it.
Death is one of our greatest fears.
It is because we cannot control it that we fear.
We do not fear what we can control.
Review of 'The Shack' [Article]
I would not state that this is set to become the theologian's first port of call in attempting to understand the nature of God. Instead, it seems to portray itself as an introduction into theology, by way of a novelistic style. It has its roots in orthodox Christianity and I was generally satisfied with the approach, though was in no way swayed by its line of thought to convert myself to Christianity.
Alas, it's very difficult to understand some of the profound concepts that it discusses and there are some who might find the book to be pretentious. As one reviewer stated 'This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for him'. Of course, few appreciate that the Pilgrim's Progress was nothing more than the solidification of orthodox Christian views in John Bunyan's generation. I find it rather amusing that the comparison would be made.
As a novel, however, it ticks all the boxes. I was impressed with the development of the main character and the plot was both thrilling and interesting. In a generation that has become fascinated with crime, horror and thrillers, this was a pleasant change from the norms.
It's not aimed at those people who are 'Christian' in nature. In truth, it doesn't even describe itself as a 'religious text', rather it has religious themes which border upon the lines between theology and human psychology. Most of the book is concerned with questions most people would have - it provides ample opportunity for empathy for the main character, something that was evoked early in the book.
If someone were to ask me if it were aimed at the agnostic or the atheist, I would have to agree with a friend that it is aimed at the agnostic. The declaration of atheism is an absolute statement and this book requires some element of 'openness' in regards to belief. There is no room for scepticism (save for the part of the main character!). It has that element of subjectivity and conditional views that appeals to me.
What would I describe the book as? I'd describe it as a tragic tale of a man's search within himself for answers to questions he never asked. It has a Christian foreground but it does not impose those beliefs. Rather, it provides a chance for the reader to interchange 'God' for their personal beliefs. It's a beautiful and sad story that is written rather well. Its main feature is its simplicity in style.
In regards to a recommendation, I'd offer it to all who have an open mind and are interested in something that might challenge their belief system. For those who empathise this characters, it is a must. I thoroughly enjoyed the book and I suspect that another million have too.
Become the next one!
Buy 'The Shack'.
Alas, it's very difficult to understand some of the profound concepts that it discusses and there are some who might find the book to be pretentious. As one reviewer stated 'This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for him'. Of course, few appreciate that the Pilgrim's Progress was nothing more than the solidification of orthodox Christian views in John Bunyan's generation. I find it rather amusing that the comparison would be made.
As a novel, however, it ticks all the boxes. I was impressed with the development of the main character and the plot was both thrilling and interesting. In a generation that has become fascinated with crime, horror and thrillers, this was a pleasant change from the norms.
It's not aimed at those people who are 'Christian' in nature. In truth, it doesn't even describe itself as a 'religious text', rather it has religious themes which border upon the lines between theology and human psychology. Most of the book is concerned with questions most people would have - it provides ample opportunity for empathy for the main character, something that was evoked early in the book.
If someone were to ask me if it were aimed at the agnostic or the atheist, I would have to agree with a friend that it is aimed at the agnostic. The declaration of atheism is an absolute statement and this book requires some element of 'openness' in regards to belief. There is no room for scepticism (save for the part of the main character!). It has that element of subjectivity and conditional views that appeals to me.
What would I describe the book as? I'd describe it as a tragic tale of a man's search within himself for answers to questions he never asked. It has a Christian foreground but it does not impose those beliefs. Rather, it provides a chance for the reader to interchange 'God' for their personal beliefs. It's a beautiful and sad story that is written rather well. Its main feature is its simplicity in style.
In regards to a recommendation, I'd offer it to all who have an open mind and are interested in something that might challenge their belief system. For those who empathise this characters, it is a must. I thoroughly enjoyed the book and I suspect that another million have too.
Become the next one!
Buy 'The Shack'.
Understanding Time and Life [Article]
One of the problems with the concept of life is that it is so broad. What is life to another person is nothing more than an idea. People often attempt to define life according to particular frames. Imagine that a foetus were defined as being life according to the parameters of time. It is a logical solution, providing that time is linear. What if time is relative? The development of a child is defined according to personal characteristics, not time.
We must define our concepts according to characteristics, not the parameters of time. Planets should be defined according to their features, not according to a pre-determined set of regulations which it must meet. The world is defined according to predestination. It is expected that we will meet particular stages in life; birth, adolescence, adulthood, etc. The list continues. What happens, however, when the pre-determined features of life are shed in a different light?
Imagine that a child has the mind of an adult, a child genius. Imagine that a child understands concepts that no adult has done understood. Is the child still defined as a child? What happens if the child then decides to achieve a Bsc? What happens when the child succeeds the adult in tasks which determine the stage between childhood and adulthood? Imagine that a child then decides to take a job, to have a car, to have a house.
Is it wrong that we continue to define the child according to the parameters of time? Time is too restricting. It limits the possibilities. The world should, instead, be defined according to preconceived ideas. For example, a child should be seen as an adult when one acts in such a manner as to be appreciated and understood as an adult.
Maturity is a concept, a misunderstood concept.
The fact that such a concept exists provides us with the chance to change the world. We have the change to determine our lives according to our own parameters. We should not be bound to the definitions of time. We should be bound only by our own limitations. Our life should not be a challenge against time. It should be a challenge against limits. We should continue to fight against the improbable, against the impossible.
This is life. Define it.
Therapies of the Human Mind [Article]
There were times when I once considered writing as a great therapeutic aid. I once considered writing a safe haven which would protect me from the troubles of the world. I was creating a world which was perfect (for me) even if it was flawed. I had no image of perfection and therefore I created an imperfect world. It helped me. It gave me the chance to explore feelings, desires and questions. When I was in despair, I found that the power of poetry and its flowing rhythm would calm my senses and wash me of my pain. When I was enraged with the world, I found that the flow of a novella would bring me joy and happiness. It gave me something I cannot explain, something that is beyond understanding.
For some people, reading is their aid. For others, meditation is the key (although I practise this concept alongside writing). For each person, there is something that aids them when nothing else works. I cannot explain it. It seems that human nature has produced something that we cannot explain but we must all be thankful for. Without the beauty of yoga, people would find themselves in stressful situations without something to fall back on. Without the power of karma, people would act without act. There are so many things in this world that we cannot explain. There are things in this world that are just so...empowering.
To say the least, this post does not have the happiest of ending. I find that writing no longer offers me that aid. It has become nothing more than a chore upon my time. Once, I had very little to do and I required something to occupy my time. Now, I have something to occupy my time. I have a social life. What does that mean for my writing? Now, I feel I am writing out of necessity. In the first few months of my 'new' life, I could handle writing because it was pleasurable. It was a relaxant. It had some effect but it seems that effect is slowly diminishing.
I do not blame the writers themselves, though I am to blame in some respects. In truth, I wish that I could do more. I find that there is no time to resolve those issues which are at the heart of my misery. There are something in this world that are inevitable. Of course, nothing is unchangeable. I do not believe that we are destined to become a certain person, live a certain life, etc. Of course, this is an entirely separate issue and I will raise it elsewhere. What I believe is that our choices affect our life but we only have particular choices. I believe in Karma.
I want to be able to impact the writing process. I want people to return to their former glories. I want people to have that choice, to have a place to write, a place to read, a place to meditate. Everything is slowly diminishing. The world is in a transition period and we are at the pinnacle of it - human beings. We have the choice, here and now, to take it in one direction or the other. That choice is ours to make. We can watch the world slide into disrepair or we can make it a better place. It is your choice.
Understanding the Nature of Thought
One of the problems that all men have is that of the concept of the conscience. We are designed, and indeed programmed, to contemplate the deep meanings of those things which have the greatest importance in our lives. We are taught, throughout our childhood, that the greatest tool man possesses is his mind, the power of the thought. In fact, it was a seventeenth century judge who declared us as being 'reasonable creatures in being'. As far as one can understand the term 'reasonable', this judge was, in fact, referring to the concept of the power of reason, to understand the difference between right and wrong. It was the power of thought that made us reasonable.
Throughout the centuries and more so in recent decades we have come to argue as to what the concept of thought is, how it is that we induce thought and stimulate thought. Are our thoughts all the same? Are our values and attitudes similar to one another, ingrained in us by societal standards? For one sociologist, this was the case. Durkheim stipulated that our thoughts and processes related to a 'collective conscience' which was expressed through a number of different functions within society. For example, our values on the sanctity of life, the value of property and so forth were dictated through a common set of values known as laws, enforced by the function of the judiciary. He argued that our values and beliefs on children and childhood were reinforced through the education system, by a commonly held system of beliefs that was shown through different functions.
According to Durkheim, this collective conscience stimulated the concept of reason and therefore allowed us to create a harmonious society that was indeed based on consensus values. Of course, this does not answer the question 'where does thought come from?', it merely postulates as to what thought is, or at least, a form of thought. For the formation of thought, we must look towards religious scripture. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian religion believes that thought, the knowledge of good and evil, comes not from ourselves but as a gift from God. It is stated in the Bible, more accurately the Old Testament, or the Torah for the Jewish, that thought was a creation of man's curiosity, a desire to be 'better' than perfection. Religious believers hold that evil thoughts come from the devil and that he is to blame for the error of our ways.
For many psychologists, and for the growing number of atheists, this is an inadequate explanation. Scientists continued to be baffled by the neuro-processes of the brain. Psychologists explain that thought is merely a phenomenon of the human body, of the brain. For the far and few who have tried to define thought, there has been little success. What do people truly believe is thought? What do you hold to be 'thought'? Do you hold religious convictions and therefore hold that thought is a gift from God? Are you an atheist and continue to seek an explanation for those small processes which make up the matter of the mind?
Economies of Political Struggle [Article]
As the consortium of world powers meet once more in the hopes that their influence upon world banking will deter the crises of economic disaster, we must once more consider several questions, all of which are of crucial importance. First, we must consider who is to blame for this sudden shift in economics when, mere months ago, we were at an economic high. In the United Kingdom, it is stated that the regulations and rules of the 'economic genius' Gordon Brown are held to blame, considering the fact that it was during his period of rule that we were granted economic stardom, however, his shift from one position to the other has meant that guidelines which were once considered the framework of economic growth are now considered the foundation of our downfall. Others look towards the banks with high-risk investments and the attainment of power being to blame. According to some, the banks invested in some of the riskier loan agreements and mortgages which therefore influences the downfall of the world's economy. In truth, both responses are correct, however, we failed to point the finger at one other person to blame - ourselves.
One of the problems that we have is that we continue to desire short-term prospects and discard the long-term disadvantages. In fact, it is this statement which was our downfall. As the economic crises fell upon us, we deemed it appropriate to blame Gordon Brown when, in fact, we are to blame. We desired low-rate bank loans which resulted in inflation. As the cost of food rose, we found it appropriate to blame the banks because their refusal to raise interest rates meant that investments were not reaping the rewards. As the commercial cost of oil rose to its highest recorded figure, we could not help but blame the world. In fact, all these problems are rooted in our demands. We demanded low taxes and as a result, the concept of universal benefits was reconsidered. Investment in failing state responsibilities such as education and hospitals meant that the budget could not allow for interest increases. The cost of living rose because we have become a commercial society.
That being said, it is not the only question to ask. We must also ask what it means for us. The nationalisation of three banks in England has a huge impact in terms of our finances and the economic status of this country. It is quite frightening to learn that Lloyds TSB are purchasing HBOS - bank takeovers are not a promising sign for the economy. What we must understand is that we are all shareholders in the nationalised banks. Gordon Brown declared that he desired that banks to return to their '2007 state', which is the root of the problem. He desires to implement low-rate mortgages in order to protect the public and also increase the turnover of their investment in housing. As the property market crashed in the early months of 2008, Gordon Brown desires to see first-time buyers and investors making their voices heard in the property market.
In terms of the long term impact, there is little that can be said, except that our budget is now focused upon the ownership and control of the English banking system. We have invested approximately £20 billion into the economy, at the cost of other important industries. The Royal Mail, for example, continues to fail to meet its targets and is a nationalised corporation, although there has been talk of privatisation. The NHS, the English health-care system, is in billions of pounds of debt and yet the government has failed to invest the same amount of money which it has invested in the economy. Of course, the investment in the economy may delay the shift from recession to depression but there is clear evidence that this investment will cost us in the future. There will be the prospect of an increase in taxation, disproportionate budgeting and the concept of a 'one world bank' once more being raised and considered.
Having said that, the investment does have its advantages. Gordon Brown is now said to be improving in his character, due to being in his 'element' during the economic crises, which helps to promote national morale. Gordon Brown has also declared that the decrease in the cost of oil should be reflected in the commercial price. The investment is set to decrease the cost of living, however, the prospect of unsecured loans remains uncertain and the approach to banking and housing will never be same. Repossession and increased rates does seem a possibility but only time will tell.
One of the problems that we have is that we continue to desire short-term prospects and discard the long-term disadvantages. In fact, it is this statement which was our downfall. As the economic crises fell upon us, we deemed it appropriate to blame Gordon Brown when, in fact, we are to blame. We desired low-rate bank loans which resulted in inflation. As the cost of food rose, we found it appropriate to blame the banks because their refusal to raise interest rates meant that investments were not reaping the rewards. As the commercial cost of oil rose to its highest recorded figure, we could not help but blame the world. In fact, all these problems are rooted in our demands. We demanded low taxes and as a result, the concept of universal benefits was reconsidered. Investment in failing state responsibilities such as education and hospitals meant that the budget could not allow for interest increases. The cost of living rose because we have become a commercial society.
That being said, it is not the only question to ask. We must also ask what it means for us. The nationalisation of three banks in England has a huge impact in terms of our finances and the economic status of this country. It is quite frightening to learn that Lloyds TSB are purchasing HBOS - bank takeovers are not a promising sign for the economy. What we must understand is that we are all shareholders in the nationalised banks. Gordon Brown declared that he desired that banks to return to their '2007 state', which is the root of the problem. He desires to implement low-rate mortgages in order to protect the public and also increase the turnover of their investment in housing. As the property market crashed in the early months of 2008, Gordon Brown desires to see first-time buyers and investors making their voices heard in the property market.
In terms of the long term impact, there is little that can be said, except that our budget is now focused upon the ownership and control of the English banking system. We have invested approximately £20 billion into the economy, at the cost of other important industries. The Royal Mail, for example, continues to fail to meet its targets and is a nationalised corporation, although there has been talk of privatisation. The NHS, the English health-care system, is in billions of pounds of debt and yet the government has failed to invest the same amount of money which it has invested in the economy. Of course, the investment in the economy may delay the shift from recession to depression but there is clear evidence that this investment will cost us in the future. There will be the prospect of an increase in taxation, disproportionate budgeting and the concept of a 'one world bank' once more being raised and considered.
Having said that, the investment does have its advantages. Gordon Brown is now said to be improving in his character, due to being in his 'element' during the economic crises, which helps to promote national morale. Gordon Brown has also declared that the decrease in the cost of oil should be reflected in the commercial price. The investment is set to decrease the cost of living, however, the prospect of unsecured loans remains uncertain and the approach to banking and housing will never be same. Repossession and increased rates does seem a possibility but only time will tell.
Reflections on Existence and Fortune [Article]
There are particular questions within this life that are often raised but there are few answers which are offered in return. For example, man often questions his purpose and directs it towards those whom are expected to have answers. Religious leaders postulate that man's purpose is to 'steward and dominate the Earth for it is his'. Philosophers argue that the meaning of life is 'personal' to one's achievements and desires. What does this mean? For the common man, what relevance does it have? Little - if any.
What can a man do with such an elusive response as 'personal to one's desires'. How can a man know what he desires if he does not know his purpose? Is it expected that once a jigsaw piece falls into place, the others will follow suit. Life is not quite so simple. Life is a dictation of continuous paths, choices and motifs. It beckons us to question all that is within it. It beckons us to 'live it'. What is a life that is not lived?
Socrates, for example, argued that the unexamined life was not worth living. He postulated that one must understand the inner depths of the soul. It is nothing more than a continuous quest upon which man must find himself in the darkness, in the forests that surround him. Socrates was a man whom believed in 'personal reflection'. To understand one's soul is to understand the world. There is no greater pleasure than the pleasure of understanding.
This is the purpose of life - understanding. It is not a question of meaning. It is a question of knowledge. You must know the boundaries. You must know yourself. You must know your society. The boundaries do not require meaning. You do not require meaning. Society does not require meaning. It requires understanding. Like all things, understanding is the pinnacle of man's creation.
What can a man do with such an elusive response as 'personal to one's desires'. How can a man know what he desires if he does not know his purpose? Is it expected that once a jigsaw piece falls into place, the others will follow suit. Life is not quite so simple. Life is a dictation of continuous paths, choices and motifs. It beckons us to question all that is within it. It beckons us to 'live it'. What is a life that is not lived?
Socrates, for example, argued that the unexamined life was not worth living. He postulated that one must understand the inner depths of the soul. It is nothing more than a continuous quest upon which man must find himself in the darkness, in the forests that surround him. Socrates was a man whom believed in 'personal reflection'. To understand one's soul is to understand the world. There is no greater pleasure than the pleasure of understanding.
This is the purpose of life - understanding. It is not a question of meaning. It is a question of knowledge. You must know the boundaries. You must know yourself. You must know your society. The boundaries do not require meaning. You do not require meaning. Society does not require meaning. It requires understanding. Like all things, understanding is the pinnacle of man's creation.
Dreams and their Nature [Article]
The beautiful illusion of the imagination, entwined with the conscience to bring forth a delight of ideas and places that the world no longer holds within its palm. Life and all its problems no longer exist, replaced with pleasure and happiness within the world which our mind creates, to leave us free and unburdened with the troubles of the mind, allowing us to ignore the constant processes that echo in the deepest realms of our mind. Alas, this is but one side of the coin where the other is far more sinister and cruel that one could ever imagine, a place where the darkness envelopes us with a vice-like grip and our single escape is to delve into the reality of life where the darkness could be far worse, the contrast between the darkness of life and the darkness of dreams.
Dreams, the ironic form of escapism that millions across the world are often blessed with as their conscious state falls, replaced with illusions and majestic creations that the imagination has created. Nightmares, the cold and bitter troubles that are brought forth from the deepest realms of our heart and mind, where the pain and the suffering was once thought forgotten, instead to be revived in the mind and the greatest fears within our heart are brought to life in the twisted illusion of escapism; the question is, are the nightmares an escape from life or an escape from the true pain of life?
The frightening contrast between the two, the blissful wonder of dreams and the bitter revelations of the nightmares which we cannot escape; one night, we shall awaken, feeling refreshed and relaxed as our dreams were of our greatest pleasures and another night, the darkness shall surround us and our feeble figure will awaken in a feverish state, immersed in the darkness of light as our true escape was from the twisted tales of our mind that were once forgotten. Why is it that we dream if we are to suffer chaos in the midst of sleep? Is this another cruel form of torture, burdened upon us through the will of a greater being?
I ask myself this, are we blessed to have such an imagination that can create such illusions, the bitter winds of the landscape, tainted with crimson blood, soldiers dead upon the battlefield as explosions echo in the distance. Are we blessed to bear witness to the delights of our sweet love in our dreams, the radiant glow of their face and the comfort and emotion that such a person brings to our lives. Are we, in fact, even dreaming at all?
The Existence of Truth [Article]
I often find that an opinion can change with a simple sentence because our mind is fragile, feeble even. It is based upon circumstantial opinions and evidence, our principles are formed based upon our location, our environment and our upbringing which can often cause chaos when two of different basis' come together in a meeting for their opinions clash, causing conflict which is far from beneficial.
The fact that our mind is that weak to change because we are influenced through words seems almost frightening, to imagine that words can change our lifestyle is a daunting prospect. Some people attempt to battle against the words, arguing and debating but it often comes to no avail except that a person is now perceived as argumentative and refuses to accept the truth.
The question is...what is truth? Is truth what we perceive as a fact? How can one person state that something is fact, imagine this; someone speaks of several memories which are perceived to be fact, if that person then tells the word of their memories, will everyone believe they are facts? Unlikely. Truth. It's a word that has no true meaning in the world except in our minds, we focus upon that word but we can never state that truth is fact because often, fact is nothing more than a foundational opinion.
Imagine that. Fact is opinion. Truth is false.
Understanding the Philosophies of Love [Article]
The nature of love is a complex and confusion principle, one that has led philosophers to consider love with great thought and thus should be considered one of the true mysteries of life itself. It is a philosophical matter that transcends a number of disciplines including that of epistemology, metaphysics, religion, human nature, politics and ethics but still the matter is often argued amongst philosophers. Love, and the nature of, often draws upon central theories of philosophy and is often compared with the philosophies of sex and gender. The philosophy of love itself has the task of present appropriate issues in a cogent manner, considering the relevant theories of human nature, desire and ethics. The matter at hand, however, remains questionable; does love have a nature?
Those that propose that love is conceptually irrational, in the meaning that it cannot be described in rational or meaningful propositions often present a metaphysical and epistemological argument which would insinuate that love is the ejection of emotions which defy rational examination. Some critics also imply the principle of language such as Papuan, which does not admit the concept of love and thus negates the possibility of philosophical examination. In English, however, the word love is broadly defined and hence imprecise, which leads to problems of definition and meaning, resolved to some extent in the reference to the Greek Terms, Eros, philia and agape.
Implying that love has a nature in itself, it should be considered that, even in Greek times, few philosophers could fixate themselves upon a definition of the term love. Plato, in his writings, defines Eros as a common desire that seeks transcendental beauty whilst is also referred to as constituting a passionate, intense desire for something, commonly defined as a sexual desire which leads to the modern notion of erotic. Aristotle, however, implied the notion that love entails a fondness and appreciation of the other, incorporating not only loyalties to friendship, but to family and one's political community, job, or discipline, commonly known as philia. To further confuse the matter amongst Greek philosophers, a final meaning was implied in the reference to the paternal love of God for man and for man for God, known in the Greek language as agape.
Accepting that love has a nature, despite the confusion between philosophers, it should be, to some extent, describable within the concepts of language. Love, to some, may be knowable and comprehensible to others, as understood in phrases such as I am in love with you' or I love you', but it still remains a mysterious concept in itself. It still remains clouded in confusion, deriving from Greek language itself to that of English language but few can define love with such a simple basis. In definition, love is not a nature that is describable except in basic language but the true meaning, both of the emotion and the nature, must be further considered to understand such concepts, including that of romantic love and the ethics of such love.
In a final consideration, the definition of love itself is confused as the ethical aspects are included. The subject raises questions as to whether it is ethically acceptable to love an object, or to love oneself or whether love, in principle, should be considered a duty. Love, to some, can be considered as an instantiation of social dominance in which the structure of language and etiquette of love is designed to empower men and disempower women. If the language and notions of love were discarded from social dominance, women too would be empowered and thus it further confuses the nature; should love be considered dominant to a single group?
Understanding Intellect and Emotions [Article]
Intellect and Emotion are two of the diverse subjects that are often upon the mind of philosophers across the world, some stating that Intellect and Emotion cannot be united in their focus because of the differences of each one and the contradictions between the two whilst others state that such perceptions are biased and that Intellect and Emotion must coexist with one another for a person to survive. However, the question still remains, who is right in this matter? Should we believe that we are expected to follow one or the other, should we believe that the coexistence of Intellect and Emotion will lead to our salvation in life?
It is a complex question to answer, one that might have a thousand different answers for each person but it is one that we must all answer for ourselves, for our soul and mind. Intellect is something that most possess, whether it be in art, in science or in general knowledge, we have a form of Intellect within us and thus it is evident that, because we depend upon our mind to offer us answers to questions that we ask, Intellect is the more important of the two but what is it that makes Emotion so important in life?
Emotion, as it stands, is something that we cannot understand. Describe happiness; it's impossible, for each person, it is different, similar to how the focus of our Intellect depends upon the person and their interests. If our Intellect offers us answers to questions, our Emotion must, to follow suit that Intellect and Emotion cannot coexist, contradict the statement. As an example, consider the nature of Love, Intellect would have it described as an emotion, a single word used to describe an emotion but our soul describes it as so much more; love is beautiful, harmonious and peaceful, love is the light in the darkness, etc. A contradiction in statements, is it not?
Look deeper into the meaning, Emotion, in my opinion, is an extension of Intellect that helps us to better define our lives. When we are in school, we depend upon our Intellect to help us pass exams but it is our Emotion that guides us through, telling us how we should feel, should we be nervous, frightened or happy. Without Emotion, we are no more than robots with a large capacity for knowledge but with Emotion, we become human and thus, in my opinion, Emotion and Intellect must coexist for us to exist as humans.
Personal Challenges in Politics
As the elections once more captivate the masses in a delightful turn of events, I should wonder what it is that brought millions of people to decide that we are better left under the control of the Conservatives. After all, do people not know what the Conservatives represent? I should believe that most believe dire reform is required within Parliament. Who wouldn't? We have gone to war with a country that, whilst tormented by disease and poverty, shows little sign of being the bountiful settlement that both Britain and America hoped it would. After all, the intelligent amongst us would know that the Iraq War was not an attempt to restore peace to the Middle East. Far from it, in fact. The Iraq War was, how shall I put this, a political movement. This was all about economics.
Consider the fact that the Middle East prospers. How? The Middle East is ravaged by war. Politics is cast aside, replaced by a theological government that opposes (male) homosexuality and the possibility of a second religion entering the state. How can the Middle East prosper under such considerations? How - because it works. The Middle East is, in essence, a theocracy. People respect religion - people worship religion and, because religion rules, there is no need for taxation and foreign affairs that Western civilisation seems so obsessed with. This isn't the main reason that the Middle East prospers. Of course not, that's ridiculous.
There is one reason - oil. The Middle East accounts for a high percentage of oil. The economics of the Middle East are based, on the majority, of oil sales to Western civilisations because our scientists have failed to discover some alternative source of fuel that will save us all from eternal damnation when, heaven forbid, climate change kicks in. The Middle East sells oil relatively cheap. In fact, if you research the price of oil in different countries, you'd see the surprising difference between Western and Eastern countries.
Rising prices within the US - $100 p/barrel
Rising prices within Asia - $130 p/barrel
This is all due to politics. Consider the images which have been added. Prices shot up at the beginning of the Iraq war because it has a surplus of oil. As the world progresses from crisis to crisis, the oil price skyrockets. Investors continue to argue that oil prices in the US may reach $200 p/barrel within the next few years. If I were you, I'd be afraid. We all depend on oil. We need to consider a back-up plan. In fact, we need a plan! That's where politics comes into it all, that lovely word 'politics'.
British citizens voted in the local elections that Conservatives should have power within Parliament. For the first time in ten or so years, Conservatives have beaten Labour. I wonder, do people honestly believe that a new party will help solve all our problems? I certainly hope not. I'd be afraid if that were so. We need to pull our finger out of our ears and do something drastic. Why not pull out of Iraq? I think it's caused us enough grief as it is. Let them solve their own problems. Why not stop waiting months to decide something and do it in a day? MPs (Members of Parliament) have so much time on their hands, it's frightening. Normal people work so hard and they don't get half the publicity these imposters do.
I say we make a stand and let Parliament know what we want!
Consider the fact that the Middle East prospers. How? The Middle East is ravaged by war. Politics is cast aside, replaced by a theological government that opposes (male) homosexuality and the possibility of a second religion entering the state. How can the Middle East prosper under such considerations? How - because it works. The Middle East is, in essence, a theocracy. People respect religion - people worship religion and, because religion rules, there is no need for taxation and foreign affairs that Western civilisation seems so obsessed with. This isn't the main reason that the Middle East prospers. Of course not, that's ridiculous.
There is one reason - oil. The Middle East accounts for a high percentage of oil. The economics of the Middle East are based, on the majority, of oil sales to Western civilisations because our scientists have failed to discover some alternative source of fuel that will save us all from eternal damnation when, heaven forbid, climate change kicks in. The Middle East sells oil relatively cheap. In fact, if you research the price of oil in different countries, you'd see the surprising difference between Western and Eastern countries.
Rising prices within the US - $100 p/barrel
Rising prices within Asia - $130 p/barrel
This is all due to politics. Consider the images which have been added. Prices shot up at the beginning of the Iraq war because it has a surplus of oil. As the world progresses from crisis to crisis, the oil price skyrockets. Investors continue to argue that oil prices in the US may reach $200 p/barrel within the next few years. If I were you, I'd be afraid. We all depend on oil. We need to consider a back-up plan. In fact, we need a plan! That's where politics comes into it all, that lovely word 'politics'.
British citizens voted in the local elections that Conservatives should have power within Parliament. For the first time in ten or so years, Conservatives have beaten Labour. I wonder, do people honestly believe that a new party will help solve all our problems? I certainly hope not. I'd be afraid if that were so. We need to pull our finger out of our ears and do something drastic. Why not pull out of Iraq? I think it's caused us enough grief as it is. Let them solve their own problems. Why not stop waiting months to decide something and do it in a day? MPs (Members of Parliament) have so much time on their hands, it's frightening. Normal people work so hard and they don't get half the publicity these imposters do.
I say we make a stand and let Parliament know what we want!
Conception of Ideas [Article]
I find it quite amusing that people continue to believe that their life is the exact reality which they have shaped over numerous years, placing their greatest efforts in the prospect of success, wealth and (wo)men. I find it ironic that people continue to believe themselves absorbed in the reality which is life, only to later have the veil swept from their eyes. Their reaction? They simply grasp at the wool and pull it over their eyes once more. They cannot bear to see the reality, the reality which has been downgraded by the force and the impact of the Media upon our lives. Do you not find it distressing that there is an external reality which you are yet to see? Do you prefer to live in ignorance, your life being dictated and perpetuated by the ignorance of your own mind and the delight that is the media?
What you live in, as sociologists have coined it, is known as a hyperreality. This is the reality of images and illusions. In other words, this is the virtual reality for humans. A hyperrealty is created by the media. How, you may ask, can I prove this? Take a look around. The world is nothing but a mass of images. Images of perfection and imperfection. Images of war and peace. Images of life and death. This is the world of images and we are dictated by it. Models are dictated by the hyperreality of fashion. Intellects are dictated by the hyperreality of computers and art. There are none who escape this hyperreality. It is the inevitable fate of life yet, there is a loophole. We cannot escape the media nor can we escape the images which continue to control and dictate our lives with frightening accuracy but we can realise its true intention. We can become our own person.
We are like the lost sheep, seeking a leader in this world of chaos. We found one in the media. What were their intentions? Were these intentions good or evil? Once, they may have been good. This intention has been lost to time. Instead, the media has become a grotesque, realistic image of the devil himself, a spawn of evil that seeks only to promote the chaos of life so that they might continue their existence and bathe in the misery of the masses. This is not poetry. This is reality. War is a reality and yet it is perpetuated by the media. It is an illusion. It was not a campaign for world peace. It was a campaign for control. Why not realise this and become who you are meant to be.
The Political Realities of Anarchy [Article]
I have often pondered upon the subject of anarchists because of the lack of media focus which is received in comparison to other political organisations. I also conclude that, when anarchists do receive the attention of the media, it is solely to return to the fact that democracy and capitalism remain 'the way forward'. In all honesty, has anyone ever truly considered anarchy as a possibility? I doubt it. People continue to have this postulation that anarchy is the abandonment of democracy and law in favour of chaos and dissension into moral and intellectual degeneracy. Could you be wrong? In fact, anarchy is far from the negative publicity which it received. Anarchy seeks to escape the chains of capitalism, to unite the world under a flag of freedom. It does not seek chaos. It seeks unity. It does not seek imbalance. It seeks harmony. To gain these ideals, however, anarchists must act in violence. How else did the countries we now live in manage to control the rebellious? They used violence. When Britain was an imperial state, how did it conquered two thirds of the world? They used violence. This is not a new method. This is the reiteration of everything that has once been done.
How can we actually define anarchy? Is it possible? Here are a few definitions:
How can we actually define anarchy? Is it possible? Here are a few definitions:
- a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Anarchy, in its broadest sense, refers to the situation in which a human society exists without Government. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy - Anarchy is the condition resulting from an absence of governing forces. Often synonymous with chaos or disorder. Anarchism is the political philosophy that holds that the destruction of government authority will yield justice and equality in society. See discussion.
www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1451.html
It seems that, of those three definitions, only one actually refers to anarchy in a negative fashion; a state of lawlessness and disorder. This is the exact definition by which the media portrays anarchists. Why, you may ask, do they do this? Do they not have the same validity as a political organisation as other groups do? Of course not. They oppose the government. Why enter the game of politics when ultimately you wish to destroy it? There is no sense in it. That's not the reason why they do it. The reason that anarchists are portrayed negatively is because the media is a direct influence on capitalism and the economy. When war breaks out, the media profits. The media manipulates the economy. If a political organisation directly points to the media as a source of social injustice, how do they respond? They broadcast a message of idiocy and terrorism.
I'm not suggesting that this is the sole source of negative publicity for anarchy. In fact, there are numerous sources. The government, as is expected, uses propaganda to influence the ideals and the belief system of the society. Consider Hitler and his use of propaganda; people believed him. He used images. He used the newspapers. In fact, he published children's books which ordered the complete annihilation of the Jewish community. Of course, we advanced societies have other methods of propaganda. We use films. Look at V for Vendetta; this film was originally intended to influence the ideas of society on the possibility of anarchy. What did it become? A film filled with big explosions and annuciation to the dot. It was intended as a political film and it came out as an action film. Why? Because the government was afraid.
How then do we respond to this? I propose that you look to yourself, much rather than your televisions. Stop believing everything you hear. When your government tells you that you are going to war, ask yourself why. Always ask that question. Why? Why? Why? Soon enough, you'll realise nothing is intended at face value. You have to look deep between the lines. Why not look at the Iraq war as a basis? Didn't they say they believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It's funny, I've not seen one mention of those weapons since we went to war. Of course, Saddam was a dictator and needed to be removed but this was a secondary objective. Their first objective; occupation and control. Control the oil supply, gain a footing in the Middle East. Ask yourself why.
How then do we respond to this? I propose that you look to yourself, much rather than your televisions. Stop believing everything you hear. When your government tells you that you are going to war, ask yourself why. Always ask that question. Why? Why? Why? Soon enough, you'll realise nothing is intended at face value. You have to look deep between the lines. Why not look at the Iraq war as a basis? Didn't they say they believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It's funny, I've not seen one mention of those weapons since we went to war. Of course, Saddam was a dictator and needed to be removed but this was a secondary objective. Their first objective; occupation and control. Control the oil supply, gain a footing in the Middle East. Ask yourself why.
Capitalism and the Changing World [Article]
There are often questions of the world. What is it that drives us to the finite objects this world has made, soon to be murdered under the capitalist control of a few men. What is it that drives men to seek infinite power as Hitler did, what is it that makes people seek wealth and fortune when there is nothing to be found but bitterness, greed and sadness where wealth is found. I wonder what it is that makes people ignorant to the virtues of life; when we look outside of our windows, we saw the same old picture, over and over again but have we ever looked? Look again, what if there is a man screaming at his wife and you've never noticed it before? What if there is a woman who smiles at you, yet you've never actually looked at her before? What if there is a world to be discovered but we are too ignorant to look beyond our pitiful lives. It frightens me that ignorance has become as dominant as corruption has. Soon, the world will change and we will be cast into the realities of the world.
Has our own ignorance brought the fall of modern man upon us? For too long, we have heard the world is crumbling beneath pollution, heat radiating from factories and toxic waste spewed into rivers, oceans and lakes that were once beautiful places to sit beside. In our lifetime, we have heard that the oil will run out and our children will suffer an economic crisis as the price of fuel skyrockets, once more seeing a rise in capitalist values where we are exploited in the workplace, only to buy the products which we have been exploited to make. What of our children, our education system, health care even that has become nothing but a mockery of government policies. Our future is destined to be filled with fear of war, death, disease and droughts but is it enough to make us change? It seems it is not.
What are we to do to remove the wool from our eyes? How can we make the people see that this world is run by a few men whom think they have achieved a global balance, blind to the genocide, the corruption seen in the Third World countries. It is their ignorance that must make us see. These men are but a few men, we are a population of six billion. I should wonder how it is that we have not achieved global people when the world grows smaller every day. It is the nature of man that troubles us, greed and sin boiling within us like cruel temptations that we will soon succumb to. How are we to change the world? Can we even change the world?
Will political setbacks for stem cell advocates destroy medical research efforts? [Debate]
Like all controversial issues which involve the dark forces of politics, there is the implication of hindrance and political intervention. Abortion was an issue across the globe as political and religious activists attempted to challenge the legislation that was being passed to help women and support the developments in medicine and research. In the United Kingdom, legislation was passed in light of a crucial vote that was decided through a scarce numbers of MPs (Members of Parliament) and there were implications that the MPs had been 'bribed' for their votes. This is one mere example of political intervention in medical research and the progression of medicine in light of changes in this world.
Stem cell research is a concept which is opposed by religious advocates on the grounds that it is not within 'God's plans' and religious advocates often have an influence on American and British politics. For example, the 'New Christian Right' which is a Protestant denomination, often supports the decisions of the 'rich and powerful' and, although their influence on American politics is quite small, their influence still exists. If the case remains that religious advocates have an influence on politics, there is no question that controversial issues such as stem cell research will often meet challenges and be burdened with politicial activism such as open debate, protests and, in the extreme of cases, violence.
What one must understand is that political activism often hinders the progression of that particular subject because the government is unwilling to support a cause which is opposed in an 'open fashion'. Abortion, for example, was opposed for quite some time until news of 'back-street' abortions came to light and the government argued that it was in the interest of the public to legalise abortions under a doctor's supervision. In a number of respects, funding for such research projects as stem cell research is often stiffled in the light of public conflict and a tension between political views.
GM crops were first opposed due to the criticisms of farmers and the public being hesitant to eat foods which had been modified in order to make them 'last longer' or 'resistant to pesticides.' Abortion was opposed because it was deemed wrong to 'kill a life'. Throughout time, there have been countless examples of controversial issues being pushed aside. When the government should be casting light on a subject, instead it is left in the dark until the public has 'settled down'.
Stem cell research is a vital part of government research and medical advances within this field can help to save thousands of life, with the potential to find cures for cancer and other known diseases being unlimited. Stem cell research has helped experts in the field of medicine to understand the cause of disease and illness. Genetics has progressed ten-fold in the last few decades as a result of government funding but political activism forces the government to withdraw their support in order to 'appease the public.'
For the common man, he must ask himself this: what is it worth? Stem cell research could save the child dying of leukemia. Stem cell research could save the woman dying of cervical cancer. Stem cell research could save the frail man dying of pneumonia. There are endless possibilities. What political activism does is to damage the reputation of notable figures and questions the purpose of such a task, falsifying the evidence in order to sway the public in their favour. Does political activism hinder the advance of society? Yes. Does political activism damage the prospect of a better world? Yes. Should people remain silent? No. Stand up and be counted. There is no room for violence. There is no room for anger. In a world where millions are dying of poverty and disease, people have to begin to think, is this what is right for the world? In a world where people are being told that 'crime is on the rise' and 'financial crises are upon us', there is nothing worse than politicians sitting in a room quarrelling over a good cause. Stand up and be counted. Stand up and change the world.
Google claims that internet censorship is the same as international trade barriers. [Debate]
International trade barriers are the creation of political disputes and the failure to accept that the world is united in its purpose. International trade barriers are caused through the political divisions between the rich and the poor, which can also be noted as one of the economical aims of the United Kingdom; to close the gap between the rich and the poor. However, international trade barriers, some of which are the cause of the likes of the United Kingdom, prevent such aims from being met and thus should be considered a disadvantage to society and technology's advances into the modern era, also leading to third world countries becoming disheartened at the lack of support.
Internet censorship, on the other hand, should be considered a necessity to protect the world's children, some of whom do not understand the meaning of such graphic images which are found on some websites. Without Internet censorship, child pornography would be on the rise due to the lack of statements, one of which is known as the US 2257 statement which states all models have agreed to such photographs and films and are of legal age to perform as such. Internet censorship is protecting the views and beliefs of others, which without it, would lead to racial hatred, gender discrimination and an anarchistic use of the Internet.
The two are quite different, as Internet censorship is used to protect others whilst international trade barriers are a disadvantage to society. Internet censorship leads others to feel safe, both for their children and themselves whilst international trade barriers lead to a further gap between the rich and the poor, used quite often to show the power that a country has above another and could be perceived as a form of dictatorship in the control of goods, money and people themselves.
This, however, is but one side of the argument. Internet censorship, as used in some countries, leads to a totalitarian society where free thought and free speech are abandoned in place of a dictatorship. Internet censorship can lead others to be at a disadvantage because their opinions are being disregarded because of the implied meaning and also prevents a lack of development in the mind because of blocked images and texts. In strict Muslim countries, Internet censorship could be used to prevent members of the public viewing Christian texts and thus leads to a form of dictatorship, as seen in previous years under the reign of Saddam Hussein.
A similar argument remains with international trade barriers. Without such barriers, both arms and people could be transported from one country to the next without question, leading to an increase in slavery and terrorism. Countries such as North Korea would have access to radioactive material, which some would argue, would be considered immoral as would trading arms with a known terrorist country. Trade barriers also mean that there is a decrease in wars because of lack of arms dealerships and a decrease in slavery, which continues to happen in some countries.
I, however, believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of Internet censorship and that the implied meaning of Internet censorship is to protect others, whether that is with the censorship of pornographic material or simple forms such as the US 2257 form. It should be noted that international trade barriers have an economic effect upon the world which far outweighs the social effects of Internet censorship and as such, it is not the same.
The Universe [Reflections]
The Universe, a concept that has been under examination across the world for centuries, there is no true definition of this mass which we all live within. Scientists continue to study the universe, probing into the darkness of the skies, examining stars and planets in a search for an answer to a question which has not been asked whilst philosophers continue to discuss the plausibility of an infinite universe, the existence of extra-terrestrial lifeforms and whether the universe truly exists or if it is a concept of our minds.
What concept of the Universe that is in question; the size of the Universe is said to be greater than that which we could comprehend and it is said that it is expanding and thus a figure could not be created, the Universe is said to hold millions upon millions of stars which have little relevance except to offer light and guidance during the night but the stars seem to have a far greater meaning to some; the stars are a symbol of hope to Christian, the north star is a sign of guidance and protection whilst others believe it is no more than the decoration upon the black canvas of life.
There is little understanding of the questions that philosophers continue to ask, in truth, the question has long since been forgotten and arguments continue to fall upon deaf ears as society advances and becomes ignorant to the facts of life that scientists are studying. One question that has continued to linger in the air between scientists and philosophers is whether the Universe is infinite or if the Universe will implode upon itself and fall into in-existence. What arguments could each present that would have some meaning to those who wander the streets, blissfully unaware of the study and research that continues in laboratories and rooms?
Scientists have continued to remind us that the sun is expanding in its size, we have been told that the sun will expand to such a size that it will consume the Earth in its quest for energy for its short life but does that mean that the Universe is finite? We are but one small piece of the jigsaw puzzle and scientists have provided no answers to this question. Perhaps it is philosophers that we should look towards for answers, the ones who question reality and discuss what would be seen as impossible.
One man once discussed that we must first understand whether the past is infinite; the past is the choice which we are presented, the present in the choice we make and the future is the reaction to that choice and thus, if we consider that if the choice no longer exists, life can no longer exist, it seems evident that the Universe must be infinite for the past to remain infinite. Still, philosophers have continued to state that the Universe might be infinite, perhaps it is not and thus we still remained clueless.
Is that what the Universe is? Unexplainable and having no meaning in our lives except for the continuation of our existence? If we do not understand it, how is it that we can continue to argue the finer details. The Universe, as I see it, is indescribable and will remain so until we learn the answers to the questions we impose upon scientists and philosophers.
Is Euthanasia Ethical or Unethical? [Debate]
The word euthanasia has often been described as a merciful killing to better relieve a person of the pain and anguish forced upon them from illness, therefore leading one's family to grieve with the knowledge that the said person is no longer in pain. Often, people question the mercy of the death, perceiving that anaesthetics are far from merciful and prevent a person from offering last words of comfort to their families, whether that is due to a state of unconsciousness or the mind being numb to the point where it no longer has the capabilities to speak with true meaning. For most people, it is not a question of the method that is used but a question as to what man has a right above another human life?
The definition of euthanasia, as stated by one website, is the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that produces rapid unconsciousness and subsequent death without evidence of pain. In truth, there are a number of forms of pain that fail to be recognized; physical pan is the one which seems to be said to not exist, however, emotional and spiritual pain can form to, therefore, dishearten a man. One of the words used to describe euthanasia is destruction and thus it should be perceived that it is wrong due to the sociological perception of culture that, destruction, as a word, has a negative meaning in its connotation. As a reference and as evidence, it is often described that terrorist bombings are destructive, meaning that it has detrimental effects, as does murder, which is often described as a destructive act of mankind upon another.
Perceiving that murder is wrong because it is destructive, should it not also be perceived as true that euthanasia is wrong because it is the termination of a life which no man except the said person has control over? Murder, in its definition, is the premeditated act of killing with intention. Euthanasia, in its definition, is premeditated because a doctor deems it appropriate that the decision is final and it is not a sudden decision, similarly, it has the intention of relieving pain, which despite the good morals within it, should not be considered a reason to terminate a life. If euthanasia were to be considered moral because it relieves pain, could a murderer also state that he was relieving pain from the one he killed? The principle remains the same.
As seen in the past, doctors have often misused their positions, as have care workers and the likes of, and thus it could be considered an immoral act if a doctor were to be given the right of euthanasia above another life. Doctors are, as we are, humans and can often make mistakes or abuse the position which has been bestowed upon them and euthanasia could be a method of doing so which would have detrimental effects, not only upon the doctor and the terminated life, but also on families and the social structure of life. Laws would be applied to prevent the misuse of such a method but, as often seen, laws are but guides and it is free will that controls life. Laws cannot guide a doctor into making the decision as to whether to terminate a life or not; what regulations would be applied or which specifications would be needed to end a life? Could a doctor not state that all said specifications were met to help meet a hospital's targets?
Analyzing the religious aspects of euthanasia, some would perceive that it is an act of God to terminate a life, as He himself as a plan for each life upon the Earth and thus, if euthanasia were to be legalized, it would be considered an attempt at playing God' because it is ignoring the will of God. Whilst, to some, it would be of little relevance, those of a religious nature would perceive it as offensive and would also consider it to be the abandonment of God in hospitals. Some would believe that God would heal' those people and thus euthanasia would be a lack of faith and have no true benefits to the person or the family. If a doctor were to begin playing God', what other matters of life could a person have an effect within and therefore unbalance the nature and society of life?
Some would believe that it could be a tantamount to other crimes. Some would perceive it as immoral. For the most part, however, it is considered wrong because no defined specification would help a doctor to make such a decision and, as each person's case is different, the specification would change accordingly. Most would state that none have a right above another life and that there is no true mercy in it as the person has not made the decision themselves. The question, if one were to be perceive euthanasia as ethical is, when does it stop becoming merciful and start becoming murder?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)