Net Neutrality On The Hill

The internet has always been a source of confusion and angst on Capitol Hill. It has also been one of the more glamorous issues among the lawmakers, because the impact it has had on the way Americans communicate, seek entertainment and do business.

As the speed of the internet has grown, as its "bandwidth" has allowed it to carry large amounts of content at high speed, the internet highway has become an enormously lucrative commercial highway. It has also become much like a utility, in that its services are delivered primarily by cable operators and telephone companies, each industry operating in most markets as a de facto monopoly.

Now, those cable and telephone companies that are the internet service providers, or ISPs, are looking for additional revenue services beyond the subscription fees that they charge consumers each month. They are considering charging major content providers on the web a fee for massive use of their networks. Large websites such as Amazon, Google and Yahoo would be charged a fee for the amount of traffic they put into the web
pipelines.

Keep in mind, these providers already pay for their bandwidth. They pay for their connections to the Internet through various datacenters and connections to various backbone networks. Some don't do much to dispel the confusion their claims may cause, allowing people to think Google somehow isn't paying for their bandwidth usage already. All major content providers do pay, the issue at the heart of this debate is whether they will have to pay more due to their size, or suffer less-than equal treatment when an ISP's customers attempt to reach their sites.

Net Neutrality Comes to Center Stage

What has brought this issue to a head is the pending ability of broadband cable networks to deliver movies and other first run video programming over the internet. But the success of Google and Yahoo with their advertising revenue model and Amazon with its enormous retail presence has convinced the cable system operators that they are entitled to some of the revenue these companies are deriving from services delivered and transactions concluded over their networks - at no cost.

Thus "net neutrality" has become a buzzword on Capitol Hill and the focus of more than one proposed piece of legislation in the past eighteen months. One of the problems facing the lawmakers is that no one is exactly sure what net neutrality means. For the big content providers, it means no additional fees for their presence and availability on the internet. For the ISPs, it is a veiled term for regulated rates - or more accurately, the inability to create a rate structure for major websites.

The National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) has fought cable regulation for years, and sees net neutrality as another governmental threat. Says a spokesman, "For instance, does network neutrality mean that network operators can't block spam? Should network operators be allowed to stop viruses from spreading? Should large users of peer-to-peer software be allowed unlimited bandwidth so service for other users is slower?"

The major internet search engines and retail sites are active in their support for net neutrality, and they are joined by some likely allies including internet freedom of speech advocates, liberal organizations such as MoveOn and some libertarian organizations.

The legislative concern is that the monopolistic service providers would be in a position to favor some websites over others - and that providing unlimited high speed delivery capability to major sites will push other websites into slower lanes on the internet highway. There is also the possibility of ISPs denying some websites access to their networks altogether. These scenarios are viewed as an inherently unfair model subject to antitrust consideration, at least by some Democrats.

Google recently threatened to use antitrust lawsuits should net neutrality initiatives fail and they detect any signs of discrimination against their traffic.

Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Profit?

The philosophical issues are interesting. But more important in this issue are the potential business opportunities for both content providers and network operators. The telephone companies that have large numbers of high speed internet subscribers intend to get into the television business via the internet.

Yahoo and Google see opportunities in online video, and alliances between such websites and movie companies are a real possibility. The cable companies that provide internet service are also interested in proprietary pay-per-view services delivered via the internet. The service providers would like to see a "tiered" structure wherein they can charge large websites (with large revenue streams) a fee. In addition, they would like to get into the
content business themselves.

The ISPs argue that additional revenues are necessary in order for them to continue to invest billions in high speed networks to better serve their customers. They are finding some allies among hardware manufacturers, who see the implementation of a fee structure online as requiring additional in-home equipment. Some conservative Republicans are opposed to net neutrality as well, agreeing that the ISPs would be denied the ability to expand their networks without the additional revenue.

A Regulatory Conundrum

The FCC has left the issue alone. At one point, they dismissed the issue when raised by Amazon and other major web content providers, saying that regulation was unnecessary for activities that had yet to occur. Then Madison River, a telecommunications company in North Carolina, blocked internet telephone service over their telephone network which they used to deliver both internet access and telephone service. The FCC is no longer in a position to ignore the matter, as they will be the enforcement body for whatever rules emerge from the current debate

A bill addressing net neutrality that was proposed by Democrats failed in the House in April. However attitudes are shifting. In May, a seemingly bipartisan bill came out of the House Judiciary Committee that would add specific language to existing antitrust law guaranteeing net neutrality. The Judiciary bill would make it illegal under antitrust law for network operators to impose fees or to fail to provide their services on "reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms."

Further, the bill would bar ISPs from blocking or impairing internet sites. The house has two other pending bills as well, both emanating from Democrats. One of the proposals is from Congressman Ed Markey, a longtime expert on cable and telecommunications issues. He proposes to amend a telecommunications bill slated for consideration by both houses later this year.

On the Senate side, there is a major rewrite of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 underway and debate over this issue has made its way into the process. At the moment, the proposed bill includes language that charges the FCC with watching for potential violations of net neutrality and reporting its findings to Congress. This "when in doubt, commission a study" approach suits the NCTA perfectly. It's a good-government approach to continued non-regulation, and as the NCTA president told a Senate committee "This is the kind of issue that is most appropriately studied a lot more."



(sources from Internet)

What Do You Know About Richard M. Nixon?

Depending on who we are, how old we are, and where we come from, associations with Richard M. Nixon vary greatly. The best is the SEINFELD episode wherein Elaine tricked into dating a guy because he has the perfect come-on.

He makes bets with total strangers (women he is attracted to) about trivia topics and names that he intentionally gets wrong. In Elaine's case, upon meeting her, he bets with her that Dustin Hoffman was in STAR WARS�then by the end of the show has moved on to Jerry's girlfriend, Nikki (though the freak doesn't know she's Jerry's girlfriend as he hits on her) what the M stands for in Richard M. Nixon.

There is also the brilliant, campy STRIPTEASE performance of Burt Reynolds playing Congressman David Dilbeck, who greases himself up with Vaseline to have his way with a token piece of fresh lint from his fantasy girl, Erin Grant (played by Demi Moore), then is cleaned up and hastened to a stage to speak to a huge group of Christians: as he enters to a standing O he holds both politician hand up in the sign of the V for victory but more looking like the Richard M. Nixon signs of peace. Such are the implications, anyway.

This is the silliest of associations I have with that name, Richard M. Nixon, as I was in high school when the 37th U. S. president was waving his phony peace signs and mumbling as if he had marbles in his mouth that he was "not a crook"�both becoming signature marks for the fallen president of the United States.

I recall actual silent periods in Latin class, for instance, when we would de-rail from our declensions and go into grave, oppressive quiet time once the overhead speakers piped the latest news on the infamous Richard M. Nixon, interrupting our "normal" class periods.

Yes, he has been made fun of, has been villanized and glorified equally by left and by right�. He was an iconic president, for numerous reasons, that is. Richard M. Nixon was responsible for issuing policy that brought price control and established SSI (Supplemental Security Income). Richard M. Nixon made electronic spying of the Big Brother of George Orwell's 1984 a reality by spying and bugging (Democrats and others, including his own people) and bringing about his impeachment.

And Richard M. Nixon is, conversely, known as the president who�in a detente with the then USSR and China, ended the miserable Vietnam War. So whatever your associations are with Richard M. Nixon, may they be more accurate than mine were when I was a pot-smoking, Latinate language-struggling, anti-authoritarianistic teen.

(sources from Internet)

North Korea: Yes, You Have Our Attention

North Korea has tested a low yield nuclear device with 4% of the destructive power of the bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan at the end of World War II.

Some believe that the device was much larger but may have failed for technical reasons.

We don't know the truth, because the United States has not devoted the resources to know what is really going on. If you are surprised, don't be. Intelligence collection is a tricky business.

When Richard Nixon was President, you may remember that one of our ships, the USS Pueblo was brazenly attacked and hijacked in international waters in 1968, off the coast of North Korea. The 82 member crew was taken prisoner and tortured over an 11 month period before their release was negotiated.

There is such a thing as institutional memory. The senior members of the military remember the Pueblo incident well, and it still influences our behavior towards North Korea. As an aside, President Nixon gave the order to attack North Korea in retribution for the Pueblo incident. At the time the President believed a show of force was absolutely necessary to dissuade the Koreans from further provocative acts. Nixon's Secretary of Defense at the time did not carry out the Presidential directive. To the end of his life, Nixon felt the biggest foreign policy error of his administration was the failure to carry out a retaliatory raid against North Korea for the Pueblo capture. The Pueblo incident has emboldened the North Koreans ever since.

Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations were aware of the Pueblo incident and its aftermath, when attempting to configure a new US policy towards North Korea's nuclear program. We have 37,000 American soldiers stationed in South Korea protecting our alliance and interests with South Korea. There is a phased troop withdrawal from the South Korea Peninsula taking place.

You have to wonder why we are willing to withdraw troops from South Korea during a time when they wish to pursue a nuclear development process. The answer is that this area of the world is loaded with dynamite, and if it blows up, you don't want to have 37,000 American troops sitting in the middle of it. North Korea has one of the largest stockpiles of artillery weapons of any army in the world. They are capable of striking Seoul, South Korea's capital from across the border.

It was recently reported that Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States had a private conversation with President Bush. In the conversation the Prince told the President that the United States should withdraw US troops from South Korea. Bandar felt it was too dangerous to leave our soldiers in the middle of a possible confrontation where our OPTIONS would be limited. As Bandar put it, without troops on the border, if there's problem, it's a REGIONAL PROBLEM. With troops, you could have thousands of American lives at risk, and it becomes a major WAR instantly.

So what do we do about the North Koreans announcing the ACTUAL testing of a nuclear weapon? We have to realize that words have power. We have to be careful what we say. President Bush announced the "axis of evil" speech several years ago. He named North Korea and Iraq as two of the three countries. It would seem that he started his anti-terrorism campaign in the wrong end of the world.

Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD), while North Korea has gone live with them. Now we are in a bind. Our defense policy has been altered whereby we can only fight one war in one country at a time, while fighting a holding action in a second country. Prior to the Bush Administration holding power, we were postured to fight two simultaneous wars on two fronts.

The bad guys know our new policy and will take advantage of us being pinned down in Iraq to expand their own power bases. Since we have a fear of losing pilots or better yet, having a pilot shot down, we are not doing the reconnaissance flights that we would normally do over North Korea.

The best thing to do right now is to realize that if North Korea is a problem for the United States, it is a much bigger problem for Japan, China, Philippines, and South Korea. This is a regional problem in spite of our alliances, and treaty involvements. Its one thing to build and detonate a nuclear weapon, it's quite another to have a long range missile delivery system. North Korea could fairly easily develop a delivery system capable of hitting the countries in its immediate vicinity.

Hitting the United States from a 9,000 mile plus distance is another story, not so easy really. Since the countries bordering North Korea have the most to lose, they should be the ones bearing the brunt of the responsibility for multi-lateral talks among the powers involved.

The real deal is that North Korea is a dictatorship that routinely starves its own people for the benefit of the small leadership that has basically enslaved the country. This leadership wants to play the cards that it can. What it now has is nuclear weapons. They will use this card to maximize whatever concessions they can from the United States and the immediate surrounding neighbors.

Are we going to cave, and make concessions to the North Koreans? Of course we are, because that's what superpowers do. It's not about appeasement, it's about business, and what makes good business sense. Churchill said that "People have friends, nations have interests".

It is in our interest to not divert ourselves from the issue of extricating ourselves from a tortuous situation in Iraq. It is costing us treasure, and beginning to eat at the social fabric our country as Viet Nam did a generation ago. We must put a good face on Iraq and get out. The President may not be aware of it, but he is on a short leash in Iraq. The American people are very intolerant of wars without objectives that last too long, and that's precisely where George Bush finds himself. It is highly questionable that his party will survive the mid-term elections intact. The country will embrace CHANGE, even from a Democratic party that is devoid of ideas.



(sources from Internet)

The Boss Endorses Barack Obama

Folk rock legend Bruce Springsteen endorses Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. The musician recently posted a letter on his official website that stated his support for the Illinois Senator. The endorsement was posted before a debate between Hillary Clinton and Obama in Philadelphia.

In Springsteen's letter to fans, he said he supported Obama because he reached out to the same demographic of the USA that the folk rocker's songs reached out to. The musician believes that Obama's ideals and dreams for the country reflect his own. He even criticized the detractors of the presidential hopeful for taking attention away from important issues to distract voters.

Bruce Springsteen is only the most recent celebrity to jump on the Obama train. Since the beginning of the caucuses and primaries, all presidential hopefuls have received both financial and vocal support from various celebrities. While some celebrities are content to host fund-raising events or send in checks, others accompany their candidate to public outings and debates and speak out about why they chose a candidate.

The musician is known for his eloquent lyrics and soulful music that deal mostly with the problems of America. His songs have been tied to progressive politics as his lyrics express the concerns of ordinary middle class men and women to make ends meet. Known as "The Boss", Springsteen is recognized as an icon for the blue collar demographic and it is believed that this will help Obama connect more with those voters. Springsteen also endorsed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in the 2004 elections.

Senator Obama has had a lucky string of celebrity endorsers who passionately speak for him and draw attention to his causes and ideals. Most notable among Obama supporters is the talk show host, media mogul, entrepreneur and philanthropist Oprah Winfrey. The internationally known "Queen of TV" publicly spoke about her reasons for endorsing Obama. She sincerely expressed her belief that Obama should be the next president.

However, Obama is not the only one with big names backing his campaign. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York also has star power enlisted in her campaign. Some prominent Clinton endorsers are Madonna, Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg, poet Maya Angelou, the novelists Anne Rice and John Grisham, Quincy Jones, America Ferrera of Ugly Betty fame and musicians 50 Cent, John Mayer and Jon Bon Jovi.

It has been a bit more difficult for Republican candidate John McCain to get endorsements from the predominantly Democratic world of show business. However, he did manage to garner some support from celebrities. Action stars Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone, actor Tim Selleck and Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling are some of the names that support the Arizona senator.

Other celebrities who have endorsed Obama are George Clooney, Will Smith, Halle Berry, Matt Damon, Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas, Scarlett Johannsen, Morgan Freeman, Usher, Stevie Wonder, Sharon Stone, Ben Affleck and former basketball player Charles Barkley.

(sources from Internet)

Six Thought Provoking Questions

Thought provoking questions usually put forth a certain viewpoint, if only because they inherently challenge the accepted one. However, they don't require you to agree with that viewpoint, and a question is just a question. We'll each have different answers to the following, despite their provocative intent.

Thought Provoking Questions - Politics

1. When several million want a given person or party in power, but can never elect them because only Democrats and Republicans will be elected by the other 90 million voters, can they believe that this is a representative government? Would a system that allowed them to send their own representatives to congress be more fair? Is there a way to devise a system which allows any million voters that agree on a candidate to have representation? (There are a couple million libertarians, for example, who never get represented.)

2. It is considered immoral for me to steal from my neighbor Joe in order to send my kids to school, or to paint a picture, or to subsidize my tobacco crop, so how can it be right for me to do it using the government as my agent? Is it moral just because enough of us vote to take Joe's money for something we want to do? Is this "mob rule" okay for any purpose, or only if it is a "good" purpose? If so, who decides what a "good" purpose is?

3. Hitler was elected to parliament, and the ancient Greek parliament, which was more representative than what we have today, voted to kill Socrates for teaching young men to think, so is Democracy the best we can do? If people vote to violate their own rights or those of others, is it okay, just because the majority wants it that way? (Another question: Why did we start calling our constitutional republic a democracy just because it votes for it's leaders?)

More Thought Provoking Questions

4. Since a moral rule like, "don't steal," can lead to immorality, as in not stealing to feed your child when that's the only option, is it possible we need a new way to define morality? Can morality be permanently codified in words, or should we use words only to point at what is beyond the definitions, and alter the definitions as often as we come to understand new things about the world and our role in it?

5. If the laws are recognizing more and more that animals shouldn't be treated cruelly, do animals have "rights," as children do? Children are dependent but with basic rights. If animals are the same, are their "owners" obligated to give them them proper food and medical care, and should they be prosecuted if they fail to provide it? Should they be forced to care for pets for life, with no option to have them killed when they become inconvenient?

6. Holy books instruct us to kill people for working on the wrong day (Exodus 31:15), or saying the wrong words (Leviticus 24:17) or because they're homosexual (Leviticus 20:13), and millions believe these are the words of God, so is it possible that religions inherently breed violence, or is it just some religions, or do they only do so if people really take their religions seriously? Most people would condemn a person who said these things, so why do they worship gods who say them? Religion gives us some of the most thought provoking questions.

(sources from Internet)

Simple Solutions to Global Problems? � Tai Chi and Qigong

Copyright 2006 Bill Douglas

According to modern medical research between 70 and 85% of all illness leading people to doctors is caused by stress (Kaiser Permenente twenty year study). The United States annual health care costs exceed one-trillion dollars each year. This means that effective stress management techniques, if provided to people en masse through education, business, healthcare, etc. in an aggressive national campaign to train our citizens in such techniques, could save our nation alone hundreds of billions in health care costs year after year.

Tai Chi and Qigong have been proven over many centuries, including in emerging modern medical research to be powerful stress reduction technologies. The results of this are found in studies like the one at UCLA indicating that Tai Chi practitioners doubled their immune resistance to viral infection. Many studies also show Tai Chi can provide cardiovascular benefit, lowering high blood pressure, and providing an effective gentle rehabilitation therapy for those with heart disease.

So bottom line, we know stress costs us hundreds of billions annually in health care costs. We know that Tai Chi and Qigong can help millions lower stress levels and the deleterious health effects of that stress. Yet, there is to date no aggressive national effort to spread the knowledge of these health tools to the mass population through public education etc.

This is a tragedy, not only because of the unnecessary health problems people suffer, but for other important reasons as well. If the world employed these tools on a massive scale and began to save the trillions of dollars they could be saving, major global social and environmental problems could be addressed with that money.

It is estimated that for a mere $20 billion annually, we could end starvation on the planet, which could lessen the pressure on societies that spurs instability and violence. If we saved trillions worldwide each year on saved health care costs, $20 billion would be hardly missed. We'd still easily be able to afford clean water programs and global education programs that could also help stabilize the world, making us all safer and healthier. Global health is affected by poverty, as nations in extreme poverty pay little attention to environmental laws, and may hunt extinct animals or decimate rain forests in order to earn money to eat and live on.

A few billion dollars could pay for the one hundred square miles of solar cells in the Mohave desert that experts say could supply "ALL" of the electrical needs of the United States, and perhaps create technology that could be exported worldwide. Also, by supplying all the electrical needs with cheap renewable solar, we could explore more efficient and effective electric cars that could be fueled by electricity supplied from solar collection, creating an absolutely non-polluting economy eventually. In a world where oil production has peaked and will only dwindle and become more and more expensive, this is an exciting possibility for all of us to have cheaply fueled personal transportation that will never run out.

Global health and personal health are more closely related than one might think at first glance. Holistic solutions are simple and make a great deal of sense, once we look into the heart of possibility, unclouded by cynicism that tells us we are victims of "what is." We are not victims. By allowing our minds to explore possibility we imagine, "image-in" a new more expansive reality that could make our lives not only healthier, but more exciting and profound. Einstein wrote, "imagination is more important than knowledge," and those words were never more true than they are today. Dare to imagine what is possible, and the veil separating reality from that vision becomes thinner with every new person willing to step beyond the walls of limitation.

(sources from Internet)

Scare tactics and the art of war

Fear and anxiety have been crucial elements in any general's strategy since the dawn of time. The Assyrian empire was reputedly formed through the use of generous amounts of terror and brutality. The Spartans struck such terror in their enemies that their forces often won their wars with other Greek city states simply by arriving on the battlefield. Gaius Marius, a Senator of the ancient Roman Republic, once quelled the threat of rebellion in a client kingdom by imposing upon his rival the might of a single Roman legion. The Mongol hordes claimed entire kingdoms as they swept through Europe through the use of scare tactics. The fact is, even before scorched earth strategies, fear and anxiety have long been in the arsenal of military commanders.
Fear and anxiety are immensely helpful in keeping enemy forces from not only fighting effectively, but in some cases, it might inspire them to leave your territory entirely. This was the case when Vlad III Dracula (yes, the name is in that format), more commonly referred to in history as Vlad the Impaler, faced against an overwhelming Turkish and Ottoman force. According to historical accounts, when the Shah-in Shah's forces encountered the massive field of impaled soldiers captured from previous encounters with Vlad's army, he turned back. He was greeted with an image that inspired fear and anxiety even in his supposedly invincible army: the sight of thousands of impaled Turkish and Ottoman troops. Most military historians acknowledge Vlad's tactic as one of the most effective uses of psychological warfare and terror in history.
The use of fear and anxiety, however, is not merely limited to enemy forces. During the Second World War, in the infamous Battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets employed fear and anxiety on their own forces. Soviet conscripts troops, forcibly taken for their homes and barely even armed properly for combat, were informed that to retreat would mean death. Faced with a choice of either German bullets or Russian bullets, the Red Army was reported to have charged repeatedly into German lines, seemingly showing little regard for their own safety.
History also has several examples of fear and anxiety having effects on the maneuvering of troops. One example occurred again during World War II. German troops of the time were notoriously effective, such that the Allied commanders felt it was a tactical mistake to send their troops to face Hitler's blitzkrieg army. The front lines also experienced fear and anxiety, particularly when faced with sizable German infantry and panzer divisions. As a remedy, American and British commanders took a cue from the Soviet Red Army on the Eastern front and ordered their forces to engage the less well-trained Romanian and Italian armies, which lacked the discipline and equipment of their German counterparts.

The tank was initially developed as a weapon of intimidation, designed to scare infantry into breaking rank as the approaching mass of steel and gunfire came closer to them. The tanks were maneuvered straight into enemy infantry lines, regardless of how much damage the machines would have taken, simply to use the tank's intimidating effect to the fullest.
The fact is, scare tactics were, are, and will always be part of warfare for as long as there are human beings fighting on the front lines. Terrorizing your own troops as a substitute for morale and horrifying your opponents as a means of demoralizing them will inevitably be considered part and parcel of any comprehensive guide to warfare.

(sources from Internet)

Keeping Warm on the Slopes

Here is a list to make sure you have all the proper gear for going skiing.


Tune Up:
Before your skis are going to be ready for this ski season you need to blow the dust off your skis and get them back into shape. During a day of skiing you can get scratches and gouges in the bottom of your skis. These scratches and gouges cause surface friction and will actually reduce your speeds and your control over the skis. It won't affect you that much unless you are a professional racer, but by taking care of your skis they will last you longer. Skis come with sharp metal edges and every year if not every week during ski season these edges need to be sharpened with a file. This edge is for cutting into the ice incase you hit a slick spot on the slope during a turn. A sharp edge will help keep you in control.

Footwear:
Special hard shell boots are used in skiing. The boots snap into the bindings that are mounted to the skis. These boots have foam inserts to provide great comfort to the skier to prevent things like blisters from destroying your ski trip. The hard outer shell keeps you from twisting your ankle if you should fall by keeping your foot and ankle totally immobilized in the boot.


Your polls:
The ski polls you need depend on the type of skiing that you are going to be doing. Straight polls are for downhill recreational skiing and bent polls are for racing so that they can be tucked in behind your body to make your body more aerodynamic. Just like the edges of the skis need to be sharp the tip of the ski polls need to be regularly sharpened for the same reasons. Ski polls also provide balance for beginner level skiers. Ski polls have to be the right height for their user. When the poll is planted in the snow you want your hand to be on the grips and your arm should be bent at 90 degree angle.


Hand Protection:
Just keeping your hands in your pockets when you are on the lift is not enough to keep your hands warm. When you are skiing it is a must to have a good pair of gloves. The gloves must be insulated to keep your hands warm and be water resistant, to keep your hands dry.


Long Johns:
Long Johns are insulated tops and bottoms designed to keep your body heat close to your body and the cold winds out, and are not only good for skiing but any activity that puts you out in the cold for several hours.



Pants and Jacket:
Ski pants and jackets are designed to keep the wind out and will stop water from penetrating in case you should fall and get covered in snow.

(sources from Internet)

Political Ideologies: Pacifism

For pacifism one agrees tipologia of opinion, in ideological kind, founded on the conviction that the conflicts between various be communities(, etnie, etc.) or between various factions to the inside of the same community, they must be resolved without to resort to the military crash.

Therefore, the refusal, for most categorical, expressed from the supporters of the pacifism regards the war, that is that organized litigation between etnie or states or cultures, lead with the force, for economic reasons, acquisition of territory, obtaining of superiority or dominion, or other reasons, and that it comes fought from various individuals from those who decide it, and - for the great part - endured from still various persons. On all the other shapes of violence it would have to stop case for case, with the risk to generalize and therefore to banalize the concept. In so far as, it is well to avoid to carry out an any parallel between the interpersonal situations of war and conflicts, aspect, this, rather misleading within the arguments on the opportunities of the several strategies of conflict resolution. The only found likeness between a war conflict and an interpersonal one resides in the ascertainment that - as in international politics - the greater part of the interpersonal conflicts is not resolved at all with the violence, but in pacific ways (to pact to accept to consider the threats pacific means).

In other words, not only the pacifist thinks that the peace is a better option from the point of view moral: egli/ella he thinks that it he is also functional, that is - banally - that convene more, if the objective is to resolve a conflict.

An other element important to consider is the variety and the degree of effectiveness of the pacifist strategies of fight: it is not rare opinion that, to part celebre the example of Gandhi, not is important examples of efficient pacifism. In truth, the picture is very different, and touches circumstances and contexts many several for times and ways (some scattered examples:

During II the World war, to the next day of the German occupation of Norway, the schools opposed not violent resistance to the nazis. The Germans imposed they didactic charter in 1941: teaching struck, supports to you from parents, pupils and from the churches. More than thousands teaching they were it arrests and it sendes to you to you in the concentration camps, in the north of the country. Hundreds were tortured, but least they will yield. In the 1942 it arrests to it to you came rilasciati and that same autumn the schools reopened without the nazi programs.
In Denmark, always during nazism, when the racial laws were proclamate, all the people it was opposed. When the order was given to write "Jude" on the display windows of the Hebrew storees, all the traders - also the not Hebrew ones - wrote. When it was sets up the yellow star to the Hebrew, all the population, to begin from the king, made equally. To the end, Denmark can boast the percentage and the number of Hebrew deports to you in the lower concentration camps of II the world war.


During XIX the century, inHungary dominated fromAustria, the churches protestants endured a hard repression. To the processes against bishops and shepherds it arrests, the students made solidarity manifestations to you, in total Hush and dressed of black. The entire people made nonviolent resistance for independence of the country. They were boycotts the products to you Austrians; nobody paid the taxes. In 1866, the emperor Francisco Giuseppe introduced the military conscription for the war against the Prussia: nobody was introduced. In 1867, Hungary obtained independence.
Always in XIX the century, Norway obtained independence from Sweden with exclusively not violent means, above all for the fundamental mediation of subsequently the Prize Nobel Fridtjof Nansen.
The cited examples belong to situations substantially already hasty, that the not ago justice to the pacifism idea therefore as would go understanding, that it adds, to the attempt to resolve conflicts already starts to you, two main contexts:

Those in which not violent means (diplomacy, manifestations, deal and quant' other to you) have avoided ' in via preventiva' that a situation fell. This portion of events goes considered the greater force of the pacifism, even if less eclatante;
those in which the use of the war the example Israel - Palestine has been demonstrated incapable to resolve the conflict( are sin too much paradigmatico), putting more than other to knot the complex net of economic interests that wheel around the war industry.

The tension between supporters of the peace and supporters of the armed conflict today is replaced from a shape of apparently more tenuous contrast, but in truth much similar one. To prettamente dialectic level, the old figure of ' guerrafondaio' is probably passing to the end of the Second World war, replaced from that thinnest one of the supporter of the badly necessary one, that is of who it thinks that determined situations they catch up a such state of deterioration from painfully being able to be resolved () only with an armed conflict. The contesa intellectual it today seems to carry out itself on this land.

(sources from Internet)

Is Safety in South Africa Really suc a big Issue?

In 1986 my parents moved us to a farm just outside of a small little God forsaken town, about 60 kilometers outside of Johannesburg called, Delmas.
As a young child, I had grown up with the apartheid era, and being white in those days had put you automatically in the "good' side of the fence.
Now, as you can imagine, as a child of 10, rasicm and apartheid had no meaning to me. I had no idea what was going on, things were as they were, and have always been. We had a good life. We had enough money to live. We had not been rich, but at least we had food on the table, and a good sized house to live in.
We could play outside until late, sometimes our parents didn't even know what we were up to, or where we were doing it. As long as we were home by the time it got dark, they were not worried about us.
The maid who worked in the house, had looked after us during the day, because my parents had to work. The gardener was also semi- in charge of us kids, because we were a bunch of hooligans, o say the least!
My parents had brought us up to be strong people, and to back up what we believe in, and in that had tought us that no human being is greater than another.
The house we moved into was a huge old farm house. It had no security, no burglar bars, and certainly no alarm system. We had dogs, but that was it, and everybody had a dog or two, especially when you had the space to keep them. So it turned out that we grew up with Rottweilers and ducks in the back yard.
All the time we had black people in and around our house. Either working in the house, garden or for the business my parents had started there. Al-in-all we employed more than 60 people at one time.
Some of the people that works for my parents to this day, had moved with us when we decided to start a new life. Those people are like family and have been around much longer than most of my parents friends.
As the years progressed, the house received somewhat of a make-over. Bare windows were closed up with burglar bars, because of an attempted break in of what we had concluded to be a bunch of kids fooling around.
Then came 1993-1994. The big revolution had been flung into action. As a Child, I didn't even know about the riots and the bombings, until my mother and brother narrowly escaped death at a restaurant bombing in Benoni, a town much closer to Johannesburg.
They had been into the "Wimpy" a fast food restaurant. My mom had bought them some lunch, and they had just sat down, when my mom caught a glimpse of a black man, sitting very uneasy at a table in the middle of the restaurant. He had no food with him, and he was clearly on edge. Thank God, my mother had the sense to listn to her instincts, and grabbed my brother up, and left. As they got to the car, they heard the big BANG! The restaurant had gone up in flames, and people all around, black and white were yelling and screaming.
I guess that would be the day I realized that things aren't just as nice as they seem. People aren't always nice, and does not always care for the children in a certain situation. I could probable refer to Germany, in the time of Holocaust, not even children, who had no say in things, or even knew what the problem was, could escape punishment.
As the years grew on, apartheid became a thing of the past. I can still remember watching Mr. Mandela getting out of jail, the inauguration and his first day in parliament. We were all stuck to the television, waiting for the end of the world to strike at any moment.
Suddenly, all that was a white person had become the anti-Christ! Even little children, who didn't even know how to tie their shoe laces were blamed for the horrible things our so called "leaders" of the day had implemented.

Luckily for us, Mr. Mandela is a wonderful person. He had not once taken the stance of tyrant, and had treated each and every person as an equal individual. Black, white, coloreds and Indians alike. We were all just people to him, and I'm sure to this day.
Back on the farm, things have changed even more. Electrical gates were put up, and the stringy little fence that stood there for years had been replaced by a six foot monster of a fence. People were cutting up the fences to get into the yard, so they could steal the electrical wiring we used inside the greenhouses for lighting.
So, later, up cam the electrical fence! But before that, a real break in. Money stolen, straight out of the vault, with no effort, no cutting machines, they knew exactly where the keys were, and the safe. No TV's were taken, no radio's, nothing but the money, not even my mother's jewelry. That same day the maid had wanted to know from my mother if I would be home that night, or if I would be going out with my friends.
It turned out the maid was the culprit, and her boyfriend, who had masterminded the whole thing was in the Police Service, he even "investigated the case". So there goes your trust in humanity, right out the window!
The maid was fire, a security system was put in, and everything was now locked at night, from the bathroom door, to the door of every room that was not in use! My parents had also put a slide security gate in the house, to section off the house from the bedrooms, and that was locked too.
So here we are in our Huge old farmhouse, trapped like rats in a cage! Lovely!
The simple truth is, that no one is safe any more in South Africa. I don't are what our safety minister tells the world. No one is safe. Black people are being discriminated on by black people, whites by whites. It's an endless vicious circle, and all the while the word rasicm is swung around like a toy in the air.
Friends have been hi-jacked, assaulted, stolen from, shot and killed. Not just because someone else is hungry and needs the money, but because they are white, they owe the world. One farmer in the community had been terrorized by the people living in the town ships, because he refused to sell his land to the municipality for more housing. He was tortured, his children tortured beaten. He had been shot in the face and left to die, and with the grace of god still lives.
For the people living in the townships the story is the same, except, they don't have police protection. The police rarely venture into a township, and justice is left up to the people. They cannot go out of their houses when the sun goes down. Their children are being raped and abused by "Tsotsi's" while they are at work.
So you cannot say that there is a difference in treatment for white or black people.
In my conclusion. No, South Africa is not safe. It is not a place where you want to live. People are scared to set foot outside their houses. People don't want to employ any more houseworkers, because they get stolen from. People are scared for their children, who in my opinion, does not deserve the rap their getting

(sources from Internet)

How cults create an artificial personality in their followers (and how you can do it too)

The title seems ominous because it mentions that cults make an effort to change ones personality but in a sense we create artificial personalities all the time. We use one when we are shopping, another when we are dating and one when we are buying a car. They are all a different and useful form or "I/me".

Cults may do this in the most dramatic way with an end result that even Jack's family members agree "This isn't the Jack I know."

The methods that cults use can be used by anyone in any group setting and can be thought of as a "Management system" or a technique of motivation. Thus there is a benefit to applying this knowledge in other areas.

ISOLATION
An obvious way a cult does this is through isolation from other social networks. The extreme of a cult does not have to be applied. If this is applied to a work setting then the stated rule is "This is work. Leave the other parts of life at the door." Likewise the person can go home and leave work at work. The result is a "work personality" and a "home personality".

ENLIST THEM IN A CAUSE
Nothing is quite so motivating than to be involved in a glorious cause. To do this make the success of the group linked to the individuals success. Make the cause lofty and ideal and progressive always on the wave of the future.

DESCRIBE FOR THEM THE QUALITIES OF A "GOOD SOLDIER"
Once you've enlisted them in a cause you can now tell them how best to serve the cause. By describing the qualities of "good soldier" you create an ideal of behavior. On the one hand it's important to point out qualities that they already have to affirm their part in the cause. But it's also important to describe qualities that they will have to work to develop. These qualities can be actual behaviors or they can values that you wish to impose on them. Either way you are holding them to an ideal and letting them know that they play a vital role in the cause.

DRILL THE "GOOD SOLDIER" INTO EXISTENCE
A cult may do this process with intense drills and exercises that emphasize the qualities and values of a good soldier. They will create scenarios and situations where these qualities can be tested and followed up with feedback and correction when needed. You can do this in a management setting much the same way. The goal is to make them WANT to bring on this new personality and do it without prompting. This is done mostly by creating a high standard and through a subtle application of rewards and punishment.

CREATE A GROUP MYTH
Nothing will solidify the new personality than getting a group of "good soldiers" together and having them work with some great purpose in mind. By getting your employee, staff, cult member involved in a group and putting them into action as a group you help create an "esprit de corp" that unifies them and helps solidify the newly created personality. Thus, find tasks that your group can do together. It could be a project, a field trip or anything where they have to work together as a group.

Every one of these tactics can be used and applied in your business and social settings.

If your response to this is to recoil at the idea of using cult strategies then stop it. These strategies are used all the time in many different setting and situations. A good manager is a person who would make a good cult leader if they choose to do it.

The benefits of this strategy include highly motivated people who support the team and, when needed, can put work on hold to develop a personal life.

(sources from Internet)