- Education and Science»
James Dubreze Historical Posts on Facebook
We don't just look at the colors of the marbles, but also how they are displayed on the floor. If we see only the colors, than we can only judge the marbles from that perception.
Any hateful stigma that is left to our imagination to categorize others by can also be used against anyone who's not part of that category for the sake of promoting hate.
The reason being, what we classify as a stigma is at most time relative and not consistent. Therefore, every hateful stigma is an injustice to humanity regardless of our fate & classification.
A denied access to preventive care in the sense it is talked about here is one of a common case when the wife depends on the abusive husband medical coverage while she's unemployed.
The next denial of preventive care is one in which a young woman lives with her boyfriend who's mistreating her while at the same time wanting her to carry his baby, and out of fear she uses a contraceptive without him knowing to protect herself.
Now, what about the couple who is trying desperately to have a baby. What if the woman is experiencing difficulties getting pregnant, could we say having access to contraception, such as ‘Fertility Awareness’ which can help her noticed when she's most fertile, and more likely to get pregnant so that this couple is well informed on when to have sex to increase the chance of pregnancy, could we say not allowing access to this form of contraception is the same as denying a couple's right to give birth?
It is an honest way of looking at this issue because if by having access to ‘Fertility Awareness’ increases the chance of a woman getting pregnant not being able to afford this method of detection decreases her chance to pregnancy which resulted into a denial of option to birth. Which can arguably debated under Article three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
The violation from the above example is on of life. We view the 'Fertility Awareness' contraception as an advantage to life and by denying this coverage to women we have at the same time reduces their chances to give life.
Next, how about the Emergency Contraceptive Pill (ECP) which prevents pregnancy within 72 hours after having unprotected sexual intercourse. In the case of rape, could we say having access to a contraceptive as such helpful or would we rather the woman carry a baby which she did not ask for. What if she never wanted a baby to begin with, by preventing women access to these options are we imposing our will to women's right to preventive pregnancy?
Not allowing a woman access to ECP can be argued as a violation of her liberty because if she can’t afford to pay for this contraception out of her pocket because she has too much responsibility or she is interdependent on a man she does not intend to stay with because of abuse while at the same time she has no opportunity to do anything about it, than by denying her coverage to access that contraception we have in turn impose our will on her which restrict her liberty because her only source of access is her husband medical coverage. That makes it a violation of Article three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
What do you guys think about the Vaginal Contraceptive Film (VCF) a form of birth control which has a high percentage of protecting women from unwanted pregnancy? Let suppose a woman was in an abusive relationship, did not want to have a child for this man but couldn't leave the relationship that easy, could we say having access to a contraceptive like the VCF would be meaningful for this occasion?
As for the Vaginal Contraceptive Film, any denial to that contraception violate her security under an abusive relationship that may not be easy for her to get out of. It may be possible to look at women insurance coverage as some sort of assurance which she can use to purchase reasonable contraception under a certain condition which may not be obvious to even her closest friends.
I concur that if we could use that clause from Article three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to defend Israel & Palestinian Human's Rights which I happen to agree with totally, we can then definitely use that clause to defend women’s rights anywhere. We approve these contraceptives not because of what it could otherwise be used for, since this is the reason why we deny, but more so a matter of worse case scenario considering the possibilities that could exist under an abusive relationship.
I think if men could get pregnant we would have a different vision of the possibilities that exist under an abusive relationship.
Self confidence is always a positive outlook, but when too much of it is manifested in us we become careless on how we formulate our thoughts. It is not that we do not know, we're simply temporarily not conscious of the things we know due to this confidence that has taken our ability to think first before given a response.
Truthfulness is the only ladder that can be used to ascend knowledge. With every step we are climbing the awareness that leads us to wisdom. Those who tell the “truth” for the promotion of a better view of societal values have helped prepared the ground for a healthier environment to flourish.
Although the person who has made the mistake may very well knows the truth, not everyone in society is conscious of this information. Thus, a need to clarify is greatly necessary because it help educate the others who may not have realized the importance of this issue.
A hidden history is very much like denying our grand mothers because of what others may think of her. If we fail to talk abut her enough no one will ever know of her nor will they care to know. But if we do talk her name long enough, she will become part of the world history. Thus, our ancient black history is not hidden because whites refuse to discuss it in the classrooms, it is hidden because we have fail to pass the story to the younger ones.
One President Day:
It is only when a man is faced with temptation can you truly know his faith. We can all be the face of criticism who criticize those in power, but until we have held the same position we cannot say with the most certainty that our decision would have been any different.
In that sense, it is a good advice to place ourselves in the shoes of those we criticize before placing judgment, for criticisms are valid only when they can instruct a better path of action. To criticize people's task without providing to them how they could have gone about their jobs differently makes our critique less credible.
Some have said that history is relative, and that it really depends on who’s telling the story. Although it's true, history tends to lean on the side of those telling the story, there are still some important consideration that are universally accepted because of the nature of the evidences that were left behind. For example: The first evidence of written examples were artifacts discovered in Egypt. These artifacts had enabled historians to trace the Egyptian civilization back to three thousand years ago. With evidences as such history can only lean to one side, the side of a universal referendum that is based on the acceptance of one criteria - the artifact, a written form of communication left as evidence for all of us to point to.
Critical thinking skill is necessary for all trades without it we cannot build on prior knowledge nor can we derive to a new understand. With critical thinking skill we can refute prior knowledge by rationalizing the validity of new information to arrive at a different understanding that is more promising. Those who think critically do not rely on the title of the speaker for the validity of the information. They evaluate the information for validity. Debates are very important for those who think critically.
It offers them new information they may not have thought about before, and from there these individuals reevaluate their thoughts to compensate for the new information added. There are no winners or losers in a debate so long that the debate is about constructive criticism. All constructive criticism must follow the rules of logic which mean that an apple is not an orange, but there are both the fruits of a tree where the tree is the logical point of reference that shares the understanding. Where logic is the % or the + reason are the variables used to formulate the conclusion.
The online education has grown, and soon will become one of the best way of attending college without the hustle of transportation. But what are the risk associated with online education? When it comes to political studies such as political science or policy issues. When discussed in the forums of these classes, are they viewable to those who are not a participant of the class. If the topics discussed by these students are shared by others, than can we say that it could effect their career, especially when they views are expressed at the heated season of the election. If these views were to exposed a new way of looking at an issue that may appear not to be in favor of a particular party, could we say then the institution has exposed the student to an existing threat.
As a political science student it is within reason that they engage in debates among each other for the purpose of a better understanding. If it come to a point where no real discussion on politic is permissible, could we actually be convinced that the institution is teaching. It may already be possible that a real education is a threat to all interest. Perhaps it may be a good idea that online political science courses are not held during the election season.
Social partisanship is a term we've invented to classify a consensus for an issue where the unfairness for opposing the issue is not quite the cause for being against it, but instead because of the position taken by a particular candidate on other issues that are of importance to those who value the least likeable issue due to social partisanship. The concept of “Social Partisanship” implies that within society there is a dividing group of people where among which are for or against an issue just because their party is against it, and not necessarily because they understand the rational of the opposing group.
Love is powerful and those who have the capacity to love will forever remain happy. Love is not a metaphor it’s a feeling – thus, it cannot be denote to be misrepresented by nothing else but pure emotions. Love is a positive energy, love is that which dissolves all mental barriers in thought between people; therefore, those who carry hatred in their harts can’t never fully experienced love. Every men and women wants to be love, love is a sentiment of joy which cannot be held by bias ideas, love is sexy, and the sexiest attributes of people is their ability to love without regrets.
Inspired Thought - Maya Angelou
The real freedom to me is not one of financial security; although being financially secured is an advantage that gives rise to elevated thoughts, freedom of the mind however is the only true freedom there is. It provides us with the ability to realize the best rational option without having to take sides of any particular interest for financial benefits. There can be no clear vision that is in the best interest of everyone if there is no universal principle to agree on. Our identity is derived from the accumulative thoughts we have accepted in our minds as true, and it is from these thoughts we form our decisions. We are influenced by our culture or the Church not solely because of what they represent, but also because of the history we share.
Yesterday & Tomorrow is separated by events that are distinct from the past. From a grand spectrum if all the events were similar it would be hard to differentiate yesterday from tomorrow because today would not have made any difference. These events that differentiate yesterday from tomorrow starts from the individual level and filtered out to become the grand scale of things.
If our consciousness of yesterday & today are the same than there is no value of reference we can use to differentiate between the two, from this point on our recollection of what we did yesterday is linked from what took place the day before. Thus, the relationship between the individual & time is one of consciousness where any growth in consciousness will equates to a change in time.
We can only contribute to a positive change in time by creating events that are distinct from the past such as building a new structure, giving birth to a new life or creating a new thought that changes people’s perception on things. If the powers could change the future, they would only change the events that conflict with certain interest not necessarily the events that are destructive nor can we say all destructive events will result to a negative change in time.
When it comes to injustice it's not so much a matter of which side it falls on, but rather which side it hasn't reached yet because as reminded by Dr. King "an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Behind the veil of ignorance we can only analyze the truth by weighting interest with opportunities. If the net value is more consequential than the benefit it provides than that interest bears a negative externality cost that disadvantages society. Thus, if a decision disadvantages society, but benefit just a few that decision is also a disadvantage to those behind the veil of ignorance (division) for the reason being that some of us might end up on the wrong side of the rope. However, if that interest can do more good in the long run, than it’s a question of accepting the short term disadvantages for a greater good if indeed that interest can serve us justice.
It could be said that there are two façades to the idea of being behind the veil of ignorance. The first façade is that those behind the veil of ignorance have a different perception of life than those outside; therefore they are ignorant of their society’s ignorance. The second façade is that outside the veil of ignorance they are faced with a mirage of social barrier beyond their faculty of reason for the simple fact that they are trying to reason that which is not reasonable.
Giants all the way.. If we all have faith that the Giants will win, together we would have created a positive energy around the players that would elevate their confidence to actually win the game. But if we have doubt for every accumulative doubt we would have decreased the players level of confidence. What we believe will happen as fans is directly related to the energy field that surround the Giants. In that sense, if we all sincerely believe that the Giants will win than as fans we would have increased the Giants potential to actually win the game, so lets hope for the best. If the human body is roughly 75% water by keeping a positive mindset about the game as fans together we can transform their hydrogen molecules to form a powerful field of energy that the Patriots can't hold back. As they put in the physical work all we do is intensify the possibility of their result by keeping a positive mindset without doubt. Likewise, as fans of Giants we can decrease the energy field of the Patriots by creating doubt for every play their players seek to attempt. Just remember that the Patriots fans can do the same to Giants therefore the battle on the field is not the only one happening, there's also a psychological battle between the fans happing within the invisible field of energy that surround the players.
The Existence of God Concepts:
Although the argument for the existence of God cannot be proven from the cosmological explanation, a great deal of skepticism rest within the nature of the initial cause. The atheist argued that just because the initial cause which created the universe is different from the limited causes does not make the initial cause an outcome of a creator, it could just be another cause. From this analogy we understand the atheist rational for not believing in a creator.
However, at the same time we cannot say for certain that just because the Christian, Muslim, the Jewish & the Voodoo person believe in a creator means that they’re delusional. It should be equally accepted that if the atheist believe that the first cause is just another cause rather than a cause initiated by a creator than there is no reason why the religious person should not believe that the first cause was initiated by a creator. After all, we are both clueless as to what initiated the first cause.
Now, is it possible to prove on planet earth an initial cause that is different than other causes which we could not have explained rationally. As an example if we were to consider the Dinosaur Extinction caused by the Meteorite impact we can although the initial cause started in space after careful studies of the impact no scientific evidence have yet to prove the event that might have caused such a world- wide wipeout. Knowing very well that we do not know anything about the initial cause of the Meteorite could we say it was God's work or simply another cause we do not understand.
Another example is that some of us saw the movie ‘The Devil Inside’ which may have triggered the atheist to ask does spirit exists, and if it does how come he never seen one? These are all rational questions to ask, but keep in mind that just because we do not understand something doesn’t make it untrue. We do not understand the initial cause of the universe nor do we understand what caused the Meteorite, all we know is that something must have caused them because they have created an impact.
Likewise, the Muslim, Christian, Jewish and the Voodoo person may not be able to explain how the spirit manifest itself on them, but they do experience the affect, and the evidence are sometimes noticeable by others. An essence, this is just like the domino example where we understand the effects experienced by the limiting properties of the dominos, but we cannot comprehend the initial cause of things that have unlimited properties. This happen simply because we ourselves are limited agents, and thus we cannot comprehend anything with infinite characteristic.
We do not know for sure that the spirit has infinite characteristic and being that it can be manifested in a person we have concluded that the spirit must be limited within its realm of existence just like we are. We do not know how the universe started, all we know is the effect that occurred within our limited space. We presumed that the characteristic of the naked spirit also has limited properties for the reason being that it can be manifested on a person, but we do not know anything about the characteristic of the naked spirit when it's not being manifested on a person.
Therefore, the spiritual nature of a manifestation is comprehensible because it has been transmitted into a limiting agent with limited properties, the person but once depart it is no longer understood because of it naked characteristic which cannot be determined without an agent.
We can also come to the conclusion that every cause that is understood by the human mind as being scientific. Whereas other causes that are not understood by the human mind as being spiritual. From this understanding, the human mind is the limited agent, and that the more knowledge it acquires the easier it is for the mind to understand the difference between a scientific event vs. a spiritual event.
We can conclude that if everything is scientific than anything that the mind cannot comprehend from the rational sense become known as spirituality. Thus, the initial cause which created the universe can very well be a scientific event, but since the mind cannot understand it - it is the right of every spiritual person to acknowledge that event as being the work of a creator if the religious person wishes to address it as such.
There's a difference between 'One Love' & 'OneLove'. One Love written as in the former example is a broken love. Whereas, OneLove written as one denotes the meaning of a true love. However, in due time the broken love can heal itself to become once again 'OneLove.' We are two people sharing 'OneLove' and when we've broken each others heart while still together it becomes 'One Love'.
Since we exist within the realm of our consciousness the ideas we choose to believe in can either be accepted by way of its validity or an unconscious relation between our environment, and the subconscious mind. With that understanding, the fourteen year old can be more conscious than the 28 year old about certain aspect of life depending on the consciousness of the surrounding minds which forms the fourteen year old environment. Therefore, the concept that we exist within the realm of our consciousness is not elevated only by age, but rather knowledge that are either transparent or hidden for reason of association.
“Socrates holds that one must be able to see things as a whole in order to benefit from the use of dialectic.” This statement is as true as it get, and to see things as a whole requires of us to study the behavior of interests as they relate to the people. That aspect of inquiry is a principe of dialectic conception found mostly in the political institutions. To those of us who believe that truth is relative, that concept is not one of dialectic reasoning without a presupposed condition. Since anything that is relative to something else is subjective to the person who has drown the relationship, therefore any form of relativity without a set measurement cannot be a qualitative value used to measure any level of truthfulness.
Descartes famous quote “I think therefore I am.” He believed that just because he thought then he must exist. Although this concept is attractive, we think it is undoubtably true that we exist within the realm of our consciousness. The person and the constructive thought shares different identity. The way in which the thought is manifested in the mind depends greatly on how the mind is wired. The way our minds are wired rest on our experiences as well as every constructive thought we’ve accepted as truth. The fourteen year old think therefore he or she must exist within the realm of their consciousness. That consciousness however must be different from a 28 year old whose existence is channeled into an elevated set of consciousness. Thus, we don’t exist just because we think, we exist within the realm of our consciousness because our reality may not be the next man reality although our circumstances might be similar.
What is the right action, & if there is a right action can it be universally accepted? I think by looking at this question we can split it into two groups, Kant v. Mill. Where Kant would argued that some actions fall under the principle of Categorical Imperative while Mill would dispute it from a Utilitarian perspective that the right action is one in which that produces the greatest good consequences.
But how does these principles apply to our everyday lives. We are a society that shares different values. What’s good for one group is not good for another. We can apply Kant’s categorical imperative to moral conduct such as rape & murder, but I’m not sure its applicable anywhere else.
As for the utilitarian principle the right action produces the greatest good, placing the moral value on teleological ethic which says that the end result is more important than what we did to get the result so long that we’re happy with the means. In essence, as long as the utilitarian principle doesn’t conflict with Kant Categorical Imperative specifically murder & rape the right action is subjective.
Knowledge is not a derivative of language; no literacy work is valued because it is written in English. Languages are written programs by which knowledge is communicated on, but they’re by no way a reliable source of communication by which the knowledge conveyed should be judge. It is true that languages can make the knowledge easy to understand, but they don’t always add any value to the information that is communicated. In that respect, when the language is the strength of knowledge such as English Literature, the effectiveness of the knowledge will rely on English. In that instant we can say that the language is the essential element that gives value to knowledge. In most instances the knowledge gain its strength through a universal language that is always recognize by all educated class of society regardless of their language. That universal language can be referred to as reason and logic which equates mathematic.
A vote is not a vote if it’s not an educated vote, it may be counted but not directly allocate. Whether the issue that is being discussed is an agreement with the voter doesn’t matter much if he picked a candidate without knowing how he values the issue. In this particular case, the vote was not meant for the candidate, but for the classification that the candidate falls under.
We have two types of voters, the analytic and the simplistic. The simplistic voter believes what he hears & contest that the message has probability without having questioned the rationality. The simplistic voter hold firm to a predisposition account which he thinks could have been reversible when in fact it’s a matter of a given circumstance. The simplistic voter is cheerful of unconstructive criticism without asking for the alternative feedback. The analytic voter is the opposite, he doesn’t believe in what any of the candidates are saying until they have provided a game plan for him to analyze for credibility. He believes that criticisms are valid only when an alternative is available.
To criticize people’s task without suggesting to them how they could have done their job differently makes our critique less credible. The analytic voter is less likely to play side without having listened to both sides. To him it is never really about the candidates, but more about the issues, and until the contestants can provide a different alternative under the same conditions, the analytic voter has no concrete value for an educated vote.
Whatever it is that makes our thoughts uncomfortable to others are not necessarily directed at any one. But if those thoughts are reasonably argued, and reveal a concept that is universally true, than the interest group might take it personal, but nevertheless our thoughts have nothing do with interest groups, but everything to do with our learning experience. This happens because the dilemma of our environmental circumstances feed information to those who are observant.
Universally true for all society:
Anyone who has been intentionally misinformed has not acted out of freewill. Freewill can only be proven true when the person action has not been compromised. In that sense, if miseducation compromises our options either by direct or indirect intent, than it would have ended up guiding us towards a favorable means to an end “interest” which may not be for our best request. Miseducation is therefore that pair of wheels which carries the “freewill” to its designated point of preference where not all profit may be the result of good intent.
Being a good patriot does not come from opposing the government in power that we disapprove of & hope that they fail so that our wish can come true.
Being a good patriot means that we’re in love with our country not the government in power. In that respect we provide guidance and financial help to fix our country regardless the party that assume power.
To play opposition can only worsen our conditions until the country means nothing to any of us. That’s the Universal Law of a good patriot, he does not see partisanship, he sees only the well being of his country, and its respective citizens.
Many of us cannot work in a place that has been left to rubbish, simply because it gives us a sense of being overwhelmed. Many members of the Haitian government might very well feel the same way, but when it comes to investors they’ll have no desire to invest until the place is clean up.
There are two conditions holding up Haiti from moving forward, first the tent city has to go and second the rubbles. We are asking for a helping hand of tractors, bulldozers, skilled Trainers & funds to create jobs as an incentive to clean up the place. With $4.50 an hr we can create a massive labor force in Haiti to help clean up the place.
Those who wish to help and have the means can start an international fund for that purpose, no money is given to government - a pay check from abroad to the labor force responsible for cleaning up the place.
We have to concentrate in passing the stage of cleaning up so that we move forward into attracting tourism, and investors. We need money to clean up the place without passing that stage tourism is not even a thought.
Many of us would like to visit Haiti, foreigners and natives, but no one wants to visit a place of rubbles. That's the first thing the tourist sees before visiting any other places in Haiti, not a good look. Haiti is beautiful but the rubbles hide that beauty. The most important thing is to promote asking for help to clean up Haiti before promoting for tourism.
I guest there are times when we can say using the word “black people” is not formal, the appropriate term is African American, with the exception that many Black people were already in the Americas before European settlers. But I wonder when we should not use the word “white people” since the appropriate term is Caucasian or European American. I also wonder when we used the term “African American” does it include every black person who is part of the system. If we have Aliens who are contributing to our economic system, when we use the term “African American” to refer to a situation that involve all black people are we being bias toward legal immigrants of African descendants who are so often naturalized to become part of that group we call African American. It would seems to me that the appropriate word to use is AFRICANS when referring to all black people.
The theory of lies: There are no good lies without some truth in it.
Which means in order for a lie to have properly been orchestrated that lie must have been led by some truth. The truth and the lie can converge to hide the interest by creating a diversion or the lie can precede by a partial truth to create a false perception of the truth. In some cases, it is the lie that is prelude with some partial truth, disguising the truth as a means to confuse the mind. Therefore, we must conclude that the lie is the protector of the truth which if reviled can expose the interest.
The theory of Interests: Since interests are not always reveal until the lie has been exposed, interest must be analyzed with facts in order for all lies to have been eliminated.
In that regard, we say since interests are not always revealed until the lie has been exposed, interest must be analyzed with facts in order for all lies to have been eliminated. However, we should also remember that our judgment tends to depend on our ability to think and feel. We prefer to look for details rather than facts. Sometimes what one perceives as being factual may not necessarily be fact. In this case the person's judgment is offset by his or her perception.
The theory of motive: Truths and interest are companions, in cases where the interest is protected by the lie the motive is undetectable.
Truths and interest are companions, in cases where the interest is protected by the lie the motive is undetectable. To reveal the motive the interest must be revealed because as we acquire new information on an object our perception of the object changes and subsequently changes how we judge the object. For example, as a black man I'm more likely to be look upon as being under educated by some writes, and that's not a racial statement. But one that is based on probabilities that are based on social grouping, and environmental circumstances. This is why it’s always important to associate the interest with facts so that we get a more accurate result, because if the interest is not rightfully detected our judgments will be offset.
If a product sold at $175 from the supply houses of the plumbing industry which are the small businesses while that same product is sold at 20% less in big home supply businesses trading on the stock market, how do we keep Joe plumbing supply from being swallowed by big local home suppliers if they sale similar products as Joe?
Since the big home supplies have a competitive advantage over Joe’s plumbing supply they’re able to buy similar products in larger quantities at the exchange for a reduction in price. Therefore, they can afford to sale similar Items at 20% off and still make a profit. Since Joe cannot do the same he is faced with a competitive disadvantage. How than can we ensure that small businesses survive under economies of scale in a free market system?
We can say that if the items that are found in Joe’s plumbing supply were sold at the same price as the items found at the home supply houses than Joe’s small business would have had a chance to survive, but under a free market economy this practice is very unlikely.
If in a free market system big businesses are under no obligation to increase their prices so that smaller business gets to sale their items than each time a big business move to an area of high concentration of people they can use their price advantage strategy to starve small business out of the completion? How do we secure the middle class if that class is composed of small business owners facing difficulties staying competitive in the global economy?
Is it satisfactory to say that under our current economic system we are more likely to end up with more large businesses, and less small ones? In another word can small business without a focus strategy continue to survive in a free market economy where the price elasticity of demand is global?
We know that these small businesses can exist if their focus strategy is narrow – or the customers are loyal due to product confidence, but all of that depends on marketing gimmick which bears no certainty.
However, we know that the ability to increase sales by expanding an organization’s activities or operations to a different region is the outcome of a growth strategy which is guaranteed by globalization.
In that sense, if a businessman in Saudi wishes to expand his organization in the US he should be welcomed to do as he wish. But what if through the process of expansion 250 US small businesses of the same industry had to close their doors due to Saudi’s price advantage strategy - how than can we secure the middle class under our current economic system? Please understand this is just an example it could have been any other country.
Can we say that all the new Job opportunities that the Saudis are creating by expanding their business into the US will be middle class wage jobs? If not than how do we secure small businesses from being swallowed?
It would seems to me that under a global market system there is no social economic boundaries, wealth is globally redistributed, and the advantage seekers are more likely to be the investors who are the citizen of the world.
In all form of government if a man is to lead he must first admit to himself that not all change that the members of the society seek is accessible if there is division among the people. At which point if what is unbearable to that society is also the life source of the others livelihood, than we have created a divided society. Change is proportional to our value system; therefore as our values continue to change so will our leaders. We can only change the value system by changing the thought process; the next way by which change is attainable is through the sword, the least favourite.
Validating the above statement – If what is unbearable to society is also the life source of the others livelihood, than we have created a divided society. To unveil the truth that would validate this statement will consider the history that existed between slavery v. slave owners, where the “unbearable situation” was the slaves and those who wanted them freed. Meanwhile, the slaves were the livelihood of the slave masters who utilized them in their plantation.
Once the slavery abolition act of 1833 was past free citizens from the northern states, among which were many whites begin to change the value system by protesting in the interest of slaves. As this movement grew momentum the slave masters had no choice but to let go of their slave which their livelihood depended on. Therefore, change is proportional to our value system and as our values continue to change so will our leaders. Those blacks & whites who organize the abolition movement to protest against injustice changed the value system by changing the thought process. This is a universal principle that has proven to work throughout history of mankind.
We can have direct and indirect change. Direct change is one in which where the conflict between society and the interest group share a direct relationship. At which point members of society can change their condition without having to go through government to have policies change or regulate interest groups. We say this change share a direct relationship with the public because through unity the public can choose to take a particular action that forces the interest group to act immediately without government intervention. In that sense we say change is the united force of our action.
Nonetheless, we the people can decide to unite to change a circumstance that shares no direct relationship with us. This type of change is said to be indirect, one because we the people have separate view on the issue which therefore causes our forces to weaken. Second, the issue may be one of foreign policy where in order for any change to arrive at the surface; new policy has to be enacted.
This type of change is said to be inversely proportional because in order to have change that the people want the policy set by government official must change first. It is inversely proportional in the sense that we the people want change that is not yet possible while what we want change continues to incline against our interest.
As for change that occurred through the sword is a result of two powers wanting to impose or reject a will that they did not approved of. We have seen tension between the public v. the government in Egypt, Syria & Libya. These are all changes that have gone through the sword due to resistance.
You are what you eat, as stated by Anthelme Brillat-Savarin in his work Physiologie du Gout "Dis-moi ce que tu manges je te dirai ce que tu es." You are what you eat is simply my translation of the preceding quote. As they say "you are as young as you look." Time cannot be used to determine how one has aged; it can only tell how long one has been on this earth. - You are what you eat was stated more than three years ago. My first translation of the quote was on NYC Transit forum. Since than I've proceeded to flip the phrase "you are what you eat" in the reverse order by implying that if we are what we eat than what we not is what we don't eat.
This explanation is to clear the view that it was not copied from anyone else but instead a translation from a french writer.
"Professor Shaffer has written numerous books and articles on social theory, business and labor law, and has spoken on these topics before a variety of academic and special interest forums. In his book, Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival, he explores the theory that "institutions are the principle means by which conflict is produced and managed in society." He considers how leaders of industry influenced the creation of the New Deal's National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 in his book, In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition."
It is important to understand that one critique of a professor or a public speaker does not devalue his or her credentials. Every leader, every professor will at one point make a faulty statement. As students of philosophy, it is our jobs to see through it that they don't get alway with it or else we'll carry the mistake into the future. Like Anderson Cooper always say "we keeping them honest." We learn from our mistakes, and the informations that fuel our reasons are sometimes based on our life experiences as well as our educational background. Please check out professor Shaffer's book Calculated Chaos.
What we would have liked to come out of the G 20 meeting in Cannes.
What we would have liked to see come out from this G 20 meeting in Cannes is a complete reformatting of the global economic system. Globalization provides more leverages for the richest corporations in the sense that it dealt out a greater access to resources as smaller businesses loses their advantages in the global market. There are many factors that contribute to this effect. The first observation is drawn by this tremendous lack of equilibrium that exists among countries in terms of human capital. This happen because globalization provides the corporation with the economic advantage to shift the economic interest to the places where profit can be maximize, otherwise they can’t compete.
Corporations take the advantages that are available under the global market, they are under no obligation to limit their expansion and they see no point in being patriotic when profit is globomatic (new word). If corporations contribute 70% of the world income than we can say that they are a great stake to any government since they can be a good contributor to tax collection. The question becomes how we allocate more resources to local business without corporation taking a big bite out of it? They has to be room for small businesses to grow, without this opportunity it is money creating money and everyone else becomes a subservient to those with the most money.
The existing problem that we are experiencing now is largely the cause of an imbalance in economic powers. We have a situation where a very small percentage of the rich own close to 90% of the wealth. As this percentage increase the foundation of building blocks that have helped it grow all these years will begin to weaken due to a lack of reinforcement and thereby claps on the rich if something good doesn’t come out of the G 20 meeting.
This large increase in wealth concentration is not so much a matter of “greed” but rather a matter of global competition and the quest for control. It is a very difficult task that the corporate leaders are engage in for the reason being that it’s not feasible to control a population in despair, they has to be hope for the growing middle class and the poor, otherwise you’ll a growing underclass that will develop into an outrage.
We would have liked to see all public services that make the country works function under a social capitalist platform. Which imply that all jobs that are control by the government should be left secured by government employees without any attempt to outsource or privatized public sector jobs? Since those jobs are the support beams of our economic system therefore they should be control and operated by government employees which are the citizens of the country.
All services that dealt with import and export on the other hand by no means should function under the capitalist platform. The government and corporate interest can make good use of this system by exporting their goods and services to other countries as a form of revenue which minimize on capital flight. We would have liked to see the government function as a big corporation (which is what a government is by principle) so that it can compete in the global market under the capitalist system while securing all public service jobs with the socialist system.
Philosophy is to be studied critically, not every concept of philosophy will be accredited by everyone. If philosophy encourages one to think critically it also encourages one to refute any ideas that they alleged as being invalid, for there is always a question mark at the end of every concepts that is plausible.
Immanuel Kant “only when we act from duty does our action have moral worth. When we act only out of feeling, inclination, or self – interest, our actions – although they may be otherwise identical with ones that spring from the sense of duty – have not true moral worth.”
Happiness starts within; it is initiated by the human thought and kept alive by the human heart. We do not chase happiness only for our own sake, but also for a better environment. However, the environment can be the heart breaks of happiness if the mind miscalculated the circumstances that have been preconditioned to stimulate the mind.
English Literature & Concepts:
What we see in a person is not always what we get if what we see can be influence by our own experience. We do not see with our eyes but with our minds because ninety percent of what we see is influence by our minds. Therefore, our minds are the tunnel that leads our eyes to clarity.
Justice is always a two way street, what we don’t want for ourselves we shouldn’t want for others. The right to choose our love ones cannot be compromise, in that sense when we fight for the rights of others to have the freedom to choose; we are indirectly fighting for the same right which in return has created a bridge that we can cross at our own free will.
Very often when someone broadcast a You Tube Video, some of us associate the message that is broadcast with the personal view of that person when in actuality he or she has different opinion on the issue that is discussed in the video. Well, this in theory is call guilty by association, but in reality what the person is doing is showing different views of the same issue as an attempt to broaden the perception of the viewers. However, this process normally backfire on the person who transmit the video as a retaliation to the idea that is being broadcast without given a second thought as to how the individual who relay the message feel about the issue.
“Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred”. Martin Luther King, Jr
As they say “you don’t fight fire with fire” because by doing that we can cause more damage. Therefore, we can only fight fire with water when the pressure behind the water has been pressurized strong enough to overcome the fire, otherwise it’s a waste of time and we just exciting the fire. At the same time keep in mind that Dr. King was not insinuating revenge but instead love.
The election seasons are always difficult times for journalist, especially those who wishes to report the facts. The reason being is that their job requires that they don’t take sides, but instead provide the public with both sides of the story for them to decide for themselves. In that sense If the information which was obtained had not been manipulated by the journalist, than whomever it may be, he or she is not in the wrong. Therefore the negative or positive effect of that information can only be the byproduct of those who have initially made the statement. In that sense to have held the journalist or anyone who have passed that information around accountable, can be considered a violation of their first amendment right under the United States Constitution.
According to a last year court decision under the first amendment rights, this upcoming election of 2012 will be the first election in the history of America that will incorporate the participation of all global investors to be a direct campaign financier to their candidate of preference. This will be the most expensive campaign in the history of the United States.
There is nothing that a man is wordy of that should demand his sacrifice, if that was the case than whatever it is mankind thinks that man deserve would not have been for him for by implying the word "deserve" we have removed all obligation from the promise.
Truth is a conceptual idea that is based on facts that are relative to prior knowledge. Since prior knowledge can be questionable thus, any truth that is associated with it becomes uncertain as well. Absolute truths on the other hand suggest that the idea must be reasonably true without any doubt. In order for one to have 'absolute truth' that one has to remove 'doubt' from absolute to get absolute truth. Example: we can never be absolutely sure that there is absolute truth for the simple fact that if we were our answer would have been absolutely true. Then again since we're not sure why then do we say that there is no absolute truth? We know that there is absolute truth because of the potential reality between cause and effect.
In Memory of Dr. King:
“I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
August 6, 2011
“Angels and Demons can't cross over into our plane. So, instead we get what I call half-breeds. The influence peddlers, they can only whisper in our ears. A single word can give you courage, or turn your favorite pleasure into your worst nightmare, those with the demon's touch and those part angels, living alongside us. They call it the balance. I call it hypocritical bullshit.”
If the Great Constantine was around today he would have been referred to as a preacher or perhaps he could have been told that there is no significant in his writing, but he would not have been told why so many bather if his words didn’t matter. History has written the future, there is nothing that has occurred that the past has not warned us about.