Thursday, June 30, 2011

World Alert - Global Warming is Changing the World??


Despite the development in technology and lifestyle, why is it that the dilemma with global warming is so far a big concern? And with the severe climate conditions and varying environmental patterns, why are the exact specifics on global warming still being undecided? Three decades back, global warming was deemed as a joke. However nowadays, the side has enormously changed. Global warming is no more considered as a funny story. As we realize how the various global warming realities impact on our survival, we should stop squabbling and just think of our individual roles in preventing additional destruction from going on and impede the vicious climatic change!


Yes its genuine that Global Warming; a very ruthless environmental catastrophe, is changing the world as scientists and professionals observed a continuing increase in the earth and oceanic warmth due to the increase of certain gases which enmesh heat in the atmosphere. These heat-catching gases are termed as greenhouse gases. Over 60% of global warming is attributable to CO2, various substances integrating chlorofluoro compounds and nitrous oxides build up global warming excessively. Human activities are another prime reason which influences it. All of the obvious indications like cyclones, blizzards, melting glaciers, scarceness can no longer be overlooked as these signs are deeply alarming.


Global warming will have noticeable impacts on the surroundings and on humanity. Higher temperatures will liquefies ice in oceans. This will speed up the rise of sea altitude and bring about massive devastation as storms will take place repeatedly and with more intensity. Global warming may lead to food deficiency as new crops will be able to cultivate in regions that are presently too cold to maintain them. But if reservoirs become dry and there is a decline in rainfall as well, plant species will suffer and possibly destroyed. Furthermore, with shifts in typical weather bring about by global warming, health concerns and threats may amplify. There might be likelihood of more heat-associated infections in hot summers, and increased inhalation issues with raise in air inactivity.


Global warming is disturbingly miserable. Every one of us gets united in making attempts to lessen injurious and often unnecessary secretions. Growing forests is a beneficial replacement to solve this crisis. Tree-plantation helps in dropping off greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide noticeably. We can all minimized the noxious wastes emitted everyday by changing our transportation pickings, using energy efficient devices, re-cycling tin cans, plastic containers and paper goods. A bit conservation of water, fuel, electricity, etc at personal level can make a huge difference and cut back global warming.

Monday, June 27, 2011

Childhood development Overview




During childhood development, one type of conduct which is characteristically seen is op positional behavior. Op positional behavior is expressed through disobedient, markedly defiant language, tendency to argue with the parents, or simply ignores the parents' word. It is most frequently seen in children below the age of ten years old. This kind of behavior is acceptable until it gets too extreme. The behavior would be classified as abnormal if it fits into the following criteria. "Behavior is unusual", e.g. the child likes to spend time purposefully annoying the parents. "Behavior is socially unacceptable or violates social norm", e.g. the child does not obey the teacher and throws book at her. (Cabrera et al 5-30)
If the shows the above conduct very often, this behavior might be considering abnormal or could be classify as a disorder. 



Overview
There are many paradigms which we can use to explain this oppositional behavior; the most common two are behavioral paradigm and family systems paradigm. Behavioral paradigm focuses on behaviors and learning process, whether the oppositional behavior has been reinforced or punished. Family systems paradigm focuses on the parents-child roles, parenting styles and the purpose of the oppositional behavior. Behavioral paradigm explains the oppositional behavior by learning and shaping process, which means that oppositional behavior can be accidentally reinforced, or the child might learn the oppositional from a role model. (Tamis-LeMonda 1806-20) Consider the following example; Michael's mother ask him to make his bed, he said "No.", mother say "But you have to.", then Michael begins to cry and yell "But I don't want to." mother can not stand the noise and finally give in. By given in, mother has give Michael a wrong positive reinforcement, because when Michael does not want to do something his mother ask him to do, he just have to say no and stick with it. His mother may not be aware of this reinforcement, and by occasionally gives in, this become a variable ratio reinforcement which gives the highest response rate (Michael saying no) and makes the oppositional behavior relatively difficult to extinguish. (Amato & Rivera 375-84)


Psychological Development
The early childhood education should be based on a sensory-motor type of learning for the pre-school age student. They simply are too young to sit still for extended periods of time and have information drilled and recited to them. This does nothing to expand their level of intelligence or develop their ability to problem-solve. At this age, the child is naturally curious and craves knowledge and they will be highly motivated when it comes to seeking out information independently. Piaget believed there are four periods of development. The first period is the Sensory-Motor Phase; this takes place from birth to about 1-1/2 years of age. This is when actions that are reflexive initially become a learned action ((Ryan et al 211-28)). In other words, a spontaneous action such as thumb-sucking will become a habit because the child finds it satisfies a desire. This is one of the first conditioned responses that a child learns. As the child gets a little older they begin to problem solve in a very rudimentary manner. For example if there is an object they want, they will find a way to get the object to them if they can’t physically move to it themselves. (Cabrera et al 5-30)


Emotional and social development
Attachment is a very important factor in childhood development many psychologists argue that, a child born into a loving and caring family home with both parents forms loving attachments and has a greater chance of being a well adjusted and happy adult, whereas some infants born into a dysfunctional family and who through no fault of their own find themselves due to their parents inability to look after them for whatever reason, e.g. drug addiction ill health etc in care this could result in these children having emotional problems and have difficulty forming a loving caring relationship in their own adult life. (Amato & Rivera 375-84) However there are always exceptions to the rule and many children overcome there emotional difficulties and earlier adversities and against all odds become well adjusted and successful adults even although they had such an unhappy start in life. Infants raised in isolation suffer in both their social and emotional development. Some of the evidence comes from children who were reared in orphanages that supplied adequate nutrition and bodily care but provided rather little in the way of sensory and social stimulation. (Tamis-LeMonda 1806-20) In
one such institution the infants were kept in cubicles for the first eight months or so as a precaution against infectious disease. Their brief contact with adults was restricted to the times when they were fed or changed. Feeding took place in the crib with a propped up bottle. There was little social give and take, little talk little play and little chance that the busy attendant would respond to any one baby's cry. When these infants were compared to others who were raised normally there were no differences for the first three or four months. Thereafter the groups diverged markedly. The under-stimulated infants showed serious impairments in their social and emotional development. (Cabrera et al 5-30)
The other paradigm we can use to analysis the oppositional behavior is family systems paradigm. This paradigm emphasis more on the parenting styles, how is the role between the parents and the child, and what is the purpose of the child having the oppositional behavior? For example; Kelly likes to spend her time purposefully irritating her mother, she always demand and yell at her mother when she wants something, and will not stop until she gets it, e.g. play dough, Kelly knows that her mother must spend time to make it first, and Kelly will play the dough for about ten minutes, then start to ask for something else. From the family system paradigm point of view, Kelly must have her reason for continuously annoy her mother; maybe her mother will not pay attention to her except when she demands for something. (Ryan et al 211-28) Family systems paradigm attributes the oppositional behavior mainly to the communication between the parents and the child; there might be lack of communication, lack of care and attention, and poor parenting style, children grow up in such poor parenting style may have a greater chance to develop more serious conduct disorders which is characterized by aggressive and more violent behaviors, such behaviors might include; being cruel to animals, deliberately try to aggravate others, or even criminal behaviors lighting fires, or stealing. (Ryan et al 211-28)
Oppositional behavior is when child refuse of defy parents' rules and requests, this might be passive or active, e.g. verbally saying "no" or finding ways to annoy others. But this behavior is more likely to be seen in the house with parents, not so common in public areas such as school and with other adults. If the behavior gets too extreme, it might become abnormal, such as oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder. (Cabrera et al 1190-1207)


Conclusion
From the behavior paradigm point of view, reinforcement of correct behavior is the most important factor in the development of normal child behavior. If the wrong behavior is reinforced, the child is more likely to be engaged in oppositional behavior. The family system paradigm emphasis on the quality of parenting style, when the child has been treaded by poor parenting style, there is a greater chance the child would develop a more abnormal behavior. The treatment options for the oppositional behavior includes parenting style training, family therapy which helps to improve the communication between family members, and consistency care of child which ensure the child has been look after in a healthy way. (Amato & Rivera 375-84)

Friday, June 24, 2011

Femininity



Basically, what I am going to do is present a very simple idea really with no solution as to whether it is correct and virtuous or incorrect and vicious; however, it is something that should be seriously addressed, which just is not addressed in the current trend of gender neutralization while also remaining politically correct.
First, I want to specify gender neutralization. The term does not refer to males and females holding the same careers, enjoying the same natural rights which they are both equally entitled to, equally receiving judgment on their character and not physical qualities, etc. Gender neutralization refers to males trying to be like females and/or females trying to be like males. In turn, though there are certain physical features that classify males and females, the genders are essentially exactly the same in all other facets.
Secondly, I want to say that I believe that everyone regardless of gender may choose how they want to appear or behave in anyway as long as their actions do not violate another's natural rights. If a male wants to behave or appear as a female, or a female wants to behave or appear as a male, that is their right to choose it, and I do not necessarily consider it vicious. For example, some male homosexuals behave and appear more like females because that is their character, their self, and what makes them happy. Perfectly virtuous. This also applies to some females who are homosexuals and behave and appear more like males.

Thirdly, the problem I really have (and I am not sure if it is a legitimate problem or not) is males who want to make themselves as females or females who want to make themselves as males even though they are not homosexual. I find this difficult to describe and that previous statement certainly did not capture it, but I think it is some of the closest material I am going to get. From personal observation I find this far more prevalent among females, but I think I could be wrong because I do not regularly observe people while I am out, I also do not go out often, and I also do not associate with many people. So the possibility that I am wrong is very high. However, I think what I am trying to illustrate is clearest is some feminists movements. Some variations of feminism do not appear to be concerned with convincing people to judge females on the content of their character and not on their physical qualities. Instead, some aspects of feminism are interested in making females equal to males in almost every aspect. The difference is that the former wants both genders to be judged on the content of their character not on their gender. The latter appears to want females to be males.

The first issue is that philosophy, if that is indeed what some feminist movements are aiming form, implicitly classifies male gender as superior to female gender, when that is certainly not the case. It is as if the philosophy is stating, "the male gender sets the standard, and females must achieve that standard." Instead, the philosophy should be, "this is the standard, all genders must achieve that standard."The second issue with that philosophy is that a male is a male and a female is a female, and it appears some females are not acting more masculine because that is their self and what makes them happy, but because that is how they believe they must achieve the "standard." Essentially, the idea, which I think is false, is "in order for equality between the genders, meaning equal judgment of character, I, a female, must be more masculine. " That is certainly not the case, and I believe this is what that student was trying to address, for at one point he said, and his entire argument focused on this, "there are some things that make a woman a woman." I think there is some merit to this, but I think those unique female qualities are not determined by her job, social status, etc. I believe a female can hold any job, social status, etc. and still maintain femininity. I think it may actually come down to physical and behavioral characteristics, but I am not sure. The best analogy I can think of is that an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange. They are both fruits, like males and females are both humans. Furthermore, an apple is not better than an orange, and an orange is not better than an apply. Like a male is not better than a female, and a female is not better than a male. However, an orange cannot be an apple, and an apple cannot be an orange. There are unique qualities that make an orange and orange, and unique qualities that make an apple an apple.

My final issue with gender neutralization is that I believe it may contradict one's nature, which is a vice. Obviously, it does not contradict the nature of some homosexuals because their selves' have qualities that are closer to the opposite gender. I am specifically referring to the people I previously mentioned who believe they achieve equality by acting like the opposite gender. The problem is that each person has unique characteristics which make them an individual. Including in these characteristics are also physical ones. Some are far more shallow than others, such as hair color and eye color. I do not think that gender is as shallow as those two; however, it is also certainly not as deep as one's character. This is why I think it deserves some level of acceptance. One should not contradict one's gender out of spite or the attempt to achieve equality. The former is a dependent life, one driven by the positions of others and contradicting them. The former is just the incorrect route to equal judgment of character.However, once again I admit I could be completely wrong. I have not fully explored this topic.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Collective Punishment


This statement immediately reminded me of collective punishments. Through my experience I find that they are most prevalent where children are involved like elementary schools or youth organizations like the Boy Scouts. These bullshit punishments penalize an entire group for the prohibited actions of specific individuals. Simply, individuals who have not violated any rules are disciplined because someone they are next to did. This does not teach individuals to stop committing certain acts. The only thing individuals learn from these punishments is that they are not individuals; that their lives have been forcibly tied to other men.


Thus, they also learn that since all lives are tied to one another any individual can force another individual to stop committing an act for the sake of preserving the virtue of a human knot. Of course, this is completely false, and is just another source of the prevalence of warped morality.


These false teachings were indeed the root of the student's comment. He was acting like an individual who had been punished this way numerous times. He now assumes all human lives are latched; thus, it is his responsibility, as one of the shackled, to punish all the shackled for some of them are having too many children. First, I am not sure if this is even a vice, and it certainly does not violate any individuals' natural rights; therefore, there can be no government regulation of the act. However, that individual is not thinking like this. He is thinking like the child punished with collectivism, punished for the vices and rule breaking of individuals next to him. Thus, he now acts and thinks as if that system of punishment is just. Clearly, it is not for it punishes those who have done nothing wrong. It punishes those who happen to be similar to others or near others at the time of the prohibited act. Subsequently, he now propagates that thinking. He is a teacher of this warped philosophy through his punishment of others. He is now a fountain of moral corruption.


Additionally, collective punishment is also somewhat like racism. In fact, racism is a form of collective punishment. In my post on racism I pointed out that it identifying an individual negatively based on the actions of his ancestors. That is partially it. There is also negative identification based on arbitrary physical factors shared by a group of individuals. In any event, they are both very similar because it judging all similar individuals based on the actions of a few individuals. However, since men are independent individuals, using this collective judgment is irrational. Man's liberty separates him from other men. Therefore, if he is disconnected from a particular action, he cannot be associated with it, for his liberty allowed him to choose not to participate in the acts of other men.


This also holds true for attaching positive qualities to similar individuals based on the actions of some of them, or having pride in positive actions based on the fact that one is similar to the actual actors. Specifically, one should not have pride in his culture. He may admire the actions of particular individuals; however, he cannot say he has personal pride in them as if he participated in some collective act. In fact, there was no collective act. In fact, the individual is just riding on the coattails of another individual who happens to be similar to him in some way. One must be proud of his own accomplishments, not partake is a false collective pride that he earned only because he was born with similar physical characteristics as the actors. Once again, the fact that he has liberty, the fact that his mind is disconnected from the actor, the fact that he may have the choice to participate with the actor or not, indicates that he cannot seek merit for actions he did not commit. Essentially, collective punishment, judgment, merit, any form of collectivism is impossible without a collective mind; liberty, meaning independent minds protect individuals from collective punishment or judgment and bar individuals from stealing the merits of other actors.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Hulk Review


This reboot of the Hulk gets two stars. Though I did not see either of the two films in the previous Hulk series directed by Ang Lee, I would like to see it now. The reason being, while watching this Hulk a man sitting one seat over from me leaned over with excitement remarking, "This has way more action than the last one." As I just stated, I have not seen Ang Lee's Hulk, but this film did have lots of action. There were three battles between the Hulk and the U.S. Military. The first two were well filmed, and somewhat believable. Except the first one had special operations soldiers perusing the streets of Rio, Brazil looking for the Hulk like police officers. However, the lead up to the chase was well filmed. The third battle, however, was a ridiculous and generic street fight in Harlem between the Hulk and the Abomination. I realize this was added to the movie to show Emile Blonsky (Tim Roth's) increasing desire for power and destruction, but there are innovative ways to show this. Unfortunately, this was all there really was to the movie. Just action sequence building up to the next action sequence. After reading Ebert's review of the film he explained that Ang Lee's Hulk had more dialog that explored the themes of the character. As I have stated in previous posts the themes surrounding a super hero character are the essence of the story. As I see it theme is always necessary in a story. It constitutes the story's purpose. However, it is even more important with super heroes. Batman is distinctly different from Superman; Iron Man is distinctly different from the Hulk. Films and comics are meant to explore these differences. For example, when I reviewed Iron Man I explained that the main theme was that humans do not need natural genetic abilities to be super. One does not need to mutate or be born to have super abilities. Man has the knowledge and skill to create himself as a superhero. Hence the excellent tag line for the movie, "Heroes aren't born. They're made."

The Hulk, obviously, explores different themes. The most important is man's reliance on violence and aggression to be happy, and that animal violence is present in each human. The gamma ray that makes the Hulk actually does not make the Hulk, it is supposed to release the Hulk inside Bruce Banner (Edward Norton.) This is somewhat touched upon in the film by Blonsky, the meanest Marine questing for more physical strength only to cause more destruction. However, his altercation with a scientist Samuel Sterns, who has been using Banner's blood to find a cure and improve the human body at the same time, makes it appear that any genetic manipulation of the human body is vicious. One must, of course, analyze the reasons as to why one wants to mutate the human body. A few moments before Blonsky arrives Stern explains to Banner that he is trying to improve the human body with Banner's blood so that humans are impervious to disease. This is virtuous. It shows that man controls his environment and his surroundings, and he can genetically improve himself to better his life. However, when Blonsky arrives Sterns is willing to inject him with Hulk blood. The Sterns character of a few moments ago would not have done this. The sterns character of a few moments ago would not want people to use these improvements for initiating violence. However, by combining the two conflicting positions into one character the movie indicates that both positions are vicious.

One of the other themes surrounding the Hulk that is touched upon in the film is that the Hulk is a symbol of free thinking. Originally, Banner was conducting research for the military so that Hulks could be used in battle. However, once Banner finds this out he refuses to assist the military and tries to keep the Hulk data and his self from them before he can cure it. Now, having a new weapon for the military is not necessarily vicious, as long as the military is using it for defensive purposes. However, General Ross (William Hurt) does not appear to be this type of military officer. He seems to be more concerned with initiating force, but it would have been better to make this clearer in the film.


This then leads into one final aspect that I liked. Blonsky develops into the Abomination because of the military, while the Hulk develops from personal research. Though the Hulk is not analyzed sufficiently to show he is a symbol of defense force and free thinking, while also questioning a love of violence and power inherent in some men, Blonsky's role is excellently analyzed. Not only is Blonsky constantly searching for the next big fight and more strength to cause more destruction in that fight, he gets all of his assistance from the military. Therefore, there is an interesting twist in the end of the film when Blonsky goes rouge and the military turns to Banner for help. Banner who has been running from military aggression for the past several years, assists the military to subdue an aggressor. This is the one point I would have to disagree with Ebert on. He stated that in Iron Man the villain and superhero both knew who they were and why they were fighting. I remain convinced that the Iron Monger character was vastly underdeveloped. In The Incredible Hulk the opposite is present. The Abomination is well developed, while a little foundation exists for the Hulk asking for a little more thematic dialog.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Great Lines

 
If u r born poor, its not your mistake BUT if u die poor, its your mistake
- BILL GATES


Born with personality is an accident, but dying in a personality is an achievement.


Your Birth may be normal, But, Your death should be History

 
Like All Trust Few


Follow None But Learn From Everyone.


Practice Like A Devil & Play Like An Angel


Old concept: "Do or die " New concept: "Do before u die "

Friday, June 17, 2011

Politicians



First, I want to make it clear I am not singling out Obama supporters. Nonsense like this happens for all sorts of political elections throughout history and across the globe. The only connection to Barack Obama this really has, is that the images were of Obama supporters. The problem here is not necessarily the candidate (though politicians and political candidates do have a wide array of problems) the problem here is the disturbing reaction as if they are worshiping a God.

This situation reminds me of a quote from Ayn Rand's We The Living.


"Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -- then, I know they don't believe in life.... Because, you see, God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God -- is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own."
These individuals do not love life.They believe the politician is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that the politician makes life worth living. Politicians do not make life better. Government does not make life better. One makes his life better. Improving one's life, achieving happiness, is a personal pursuit. It is not something achieved through government handouts, or politicians' careers.

Unfortunately, this is how these individuals are behaving. They believe this particular politician has infinitely improved their lives.  These individuals have ground themselves down into human fodder to prop up the careers of individuals who will orchestrate thievery, murder, and the initiation of force behind a governmental-guise that at a distance appears as legitimacy. These individuals have destroyed themselves. Made themselves nothing more than support beams. Therefore, if their candidate fails, they collapse, for they believe they have no purpose.

It is true that a support beam without a platform is useless; however, men are not support beams. Men are never fodder, holding up a creature as a God. Men make their own purpose, by living their own lives, for their own happiness. Reducing one's self to a resource for others, is a complete contradiction of one's nature as an independent reasonable individual; therefore, it can only assure misery.

Consequently, they will become unhappy. Obviously, the opponents supporters are now unhappy, once again because they relied on his success and not their personal accomplishments for happiness. Of course, this process will continue to repeat itself as it has in the passed until individuals' improve their philosophy.


However, those that realize this, realize how vicious government is regardless of what color and mascot it is dressed in, will be happy, or have a better potential to be happy than these individuals. The ones who realize this are not relying on any politician to succeed to affirm their own existence. They honestly could not care, or care very little. Instead, they solely care about their own lives, their own happiness.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Dream




I dream of you and me, inside a pond. We had learned to breathe underwater as we stood together in the bottom. It was blue, moist and chilly as water touched and caressed our skins.



I looked up and saw the sun shining upon the surface, with wavelets sparkling as if someone had spilled some floating diamonds on that pond.




There were a million tiny fish swimming around us, making us smile as they would run into us randomly, rubbing against our skin, tickling us. There were colors everywhere; green, yellow, orange, red, all covered in blue.


I could see your face, shinning like a fabulous being, glowing as sunlight kissed your skin, and you smiled. I held your hand and we both swam to the surface. I could feel the water getting warmer gradually as we ascended.


Blue sky, shinning sun, sea gulls were singing to the rhythm of the wind and beat of the waves. Perfect day it was. And you were mine.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

A Question

When I was child I used to love traveling by trains. Sitting by the window used to be so much fun, during the day as well as during the night. I used to enjoy looking at the green fields, big piles of hay covered with a clay overcoat, goats and cattle running around in the fields and sometimes, when there was a road parallel to the railway line, I used to look at the traffic and see if anyone was willing to race with us. At night time, you can’t see anything outside but if you concentrate, you see light glows popping out of the horizon as if the sun is ready to rise. 



You may even spot a number of them. These dim glows are the lights at far off places. It could be from a major city, a factory, a lonely house of a farmer who somehow managed to get a generator for his domestic use or from a mosque in a small town.


These glows used to fascinate me. I would just stare at them and wish that if I were able to fly I would fly to them. I was curious to see how many people would be there and what would they be doing, what would they be thinking. I was curious to know if I was as important to them as they were for me. I was curious to know if they ever wished that they could grow wings and come see me sitting by the window of a train, passing miles away from their town. Such a childish thought
 
 

Time passed by and I grew up. God gave me opportunities to see the world and meet people of every race, religion and language. Had experiences to groom myself, friends to cherish, moments to remember and stories to share. Now when I get to travel in a train and look outside the window I don’t get the same feeling anymore. I no longer feel the curiosity to grow wings and fly to see what lies within a light glow, miles away from our moving train. How do people live there and what are they thinking. Somehow, it doesn’t matter to me anymore.
 

Is this a blessing or a curse?

Monday, June 13, 2011

No More Guarantees


"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
~Friedrich Nietzsche


We are falling a part. From where we have started falling is very difficult to say but we are falling a part. There are no more guarantees anymore by anyone. Once we have left the vicinity of our homes, we are not sure that we will make it to our families by the time of dinner. Government has tried everything it can but only promises are made which won’t see the day light. But how our government can be of any help when they themselves have an axe to grind?

When coalition governments are formed, it is expected that they are formed on the basis of national interests. In Pakistan however, the present coalition was formed on personal interests rather than political or national. And therefore, every now and then, the news and possibility of government coming to an end is on the horizon.

The excitement doesn’t end here. These political parties will counter each other on every platform. This may include arming there student wings present in our educational institutions or backing a bandit who is willing to do their bid. This backing will even result in grooming of a new bandit to counter the old one being supported by their rivals. It is either gang-wars or so called target killings which will primarily target and terrorize  Pashtun people working in small tea dhabas (local restaurant) or our Muhajir population. 


The death of Wali Khan Babar . He started working for Rung T.V. and was currently a reporter on GEO T.V. He was murdered while reporting from Liaquatabad (Karachi).  It has been reported that he was intercepted, identified and shot at closed range in his car. He received five 9mm bullets in his forehead, jaw and neck.

Why was he killed? Some think that while reporting he was snooping too deep. He might have known too much and could have known the names of people involved in the gang-wars and their political backing. Some are saying that he was murdered because he was a Pashtun.

In the end, political parties blamed each other, twenty seven people were killed on the pretext of target killing, partial curfew was imposed in some parts of the Karachi, operation continues and so does the madness.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Whats LOVE?


Its LOVE when a Little Baby girl puts all her Energy 2 give her Daddy a Head Massage 2 Relief his Headache.



Its LOVE when a Wife makes Tea 4 her Husband & take a Sip b4 him 2 See if the Tea is ok.


Its LOVE when a Mother gives her Son the best piece of Chicken n he pass it 2 his Younger Sister.



Its LOVE when a Friend holds Ur hand Tightly on a slippery Road after Rain 4 your protection.



LOVE is Actually a Name of care. ...TAKE CARE Always ...:)

Thursday, June 9, 2011

04th January, 2011


4th January, 2011 was the longest day for Pakistan. With an attack on a school bus followed by killing of a professor and ended up with an assassinating Governor of Punjab. There are neither rules nor limits to this ugly game anymore. Anyone can be or becomes a target. The object here is to terrorise the masses which is successful so far.

A remote controlled bomb has ripped through a bus carrying children (age 8 to 12) of paramilitary soldiers in southwest Pakistan. The area of attack was Turbat. One might ask what kind of a strategic advantage is in mind while attacking a school bus. It was not a supply line, no arms and ammunitions for neither the soldiers nor any soldier was present in the bus.

The next news of the day was of Professor Syed Munir Hussain Sherazi who was shot in Dera Islamil Khan (D.I.Khan) by the sectarian terrorists yesterday. There was a time when teacher was a respectable figure in our society and people looked upon him for guidance. But now you will be judged by your belief and faith rather than to be allowed to profess your religion freely. In the past, the fundamental rights were fought for by us but now they are being fought by us for our interpretation of freedom.

The last news was a déjà vu for something similar had happened long time ago in India. Prime Minister Indra Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguard. On the dreadful day of 4th January, 2011 Governor Punjab Salman Taseer was brutally assassinated. Both assassinations were religious in nature but were very different from each other. Salman Tasser protested against the abuse of blasphemy laws in Pakistan as Muslims will victimse non-Muslims, especially Christians. He was killed by being shot by his bodyguard and then the murderer surrendered by giving up his rifle and is now being praised as a hero all over the country. National Assembly adjourned the session without taking any agenda item to mourn the killing of Governor Punjab.




A terrorist attack followed by an ethnic murder and then a political assassination. Enough to prove that we are still not civilised enough to settle our differences without a gun. We once believed in fundamental rights and now we are too selfish to allow anyone to practice his right of freedom to life, religion, association and property freely. In Quran, only ‘Life for a Life' and no murder of any kind is allowed. The second possibility is when the mischief is responsible to spread lawlessness. Islam always professes that a murder of single human being is a murder of entire humanity.  No one has a right to take a life because of  a person's belief. We are allowed to profess our freedom without encroaching on the freedom of others. We are no longer a true Muslim let alone a decent human being.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Iron Man


I give Iron Man three and a half stars because it starts out very strong, but then slips in the second half. The one problem I have in the beginning is the non-linear element. It seems like ever since Pulp Fiction the non-linear element has been all the rage. The problem is Pulp Fiction had a purpose for the non-linear. Pulp Fiction is really several stories surrounding the same events. If there is only one story and no other rational reason for the non-linear, such as Memento, there is no reason for non-linear elements.

In any event, the first half of Iron Man is excellent. Tony Stark (Downey) is a weapons manufacturer who is kidnapped by terrorists, while in Afghanistan displaying the latest weapon from Stark Industries. Stark uses a prototype of the Iron Man suit to escape; however, when he returns to America he does not build the Iron Man suit to be a superhero. While imprisoned by the terrorists he notices all their weapons are from Stark Industries. Here a favorable and rational image of the arms manufacturer is depicted. Stark only developed weapons for the U.S. military so to be used to defend America and protect the lives of those who fight to defend America. His weapons are solely for protecting natural rights. Thus, he is disturbed when he notices the enemies, the violators of natural rights, have his weapons. 

Consequently, he creates Iron Man to destroy his weapons that are in the hands of enemies. This is almost like Ayn Rand's hero Howard Roark who destroys his own building when the government builds it improperly. Also, Iron Man paints the rational depiction of the military. Iron Man is supposed to be one individual acting the way the military should act. Both are should only be concerned with protecting natural rights by destroying the violators.

Another strong element of Iron Man are the scenes when Stark builds the prototype and then creates the refined Iron Man. There are great scenes of Stark sweating and hammering in a cave with fire around him, and them more complicated assembly of the refined Iron Man. These sections adhere to the excellent tag line of the movie, "Heroes aren't born, they're made." Iron Man is basically praising the self-made man and the power of man. The superhero Iron Man is simply Stark, but he has a sophisticated vehicle to defend natural rights while protecting his own. Stark also needs his awesome mathematical and scientific abilities to create the suit. Thus, the message is man is a superhero because he has a sound morality and the reason to achieve greatness. Iron Man is basically a more technological version of Batman. However, Batman focuses more on the philosophical greatness of man, the moral angle, while Iron Man speaks to man's incredible ability to create and produce. Of course, both Batman and Iron Man praise reality and truth through Iron Man's emphasis on math and science and Batman's emphasis on philosophy.

Unfortunately, Iron Man begins to slip in the second half. Obadiah Stane (Bridges) is not well developed. His motives for creating the Iron Monger and trying to destroy Iron Man and kill Stark are vague. It appears he just wants to destroy and profit from destruction, but this is not incredibly clear and is really quite generic. However, Bridges does an excellent job as a villain.

Gwyneth Paltrow's acting as Virginia "Pepper" Pots also begins to slip in the second half. In the beginning Potts is intelligent and confident, but in the end the tone of her lines conveys the ditsy girl character.
I am also unsure about the last line of the film, but I am leaning towards liking it. In the end Stark admits to the press that he is Iron Man. As far as I know, the Iron Man comics did not have this angle. So that is what troubles me, not adhering to the Iron Man story line. I do understand adjustments must be made when changing from comic book to the silver screen, but this is a large deviation from the story as far as I can tell. However, this is the first superhero I know of that the individual has admitted to being a superhero, while still acting as the hero. This could develop some interesting superhero story lines never explored before.
Finally, I do like that S.H.I.E.L.D. is introduced in the movie, indicating that in future Iron Man flicks the government and Iron Man will have a strong connection. I have also heard rumors of a future Marvel superhero film of The Avengers, which is a team of superheroes including Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and The Incredible Hulk, which will all have their own movies by then. I assume S.H.I.E.L.D. will also have a large role in this.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Why I Did Not Vote


My reasons for not voting in the election, and probably for future elections include the similarity of the two candidates, my unwillingness to consent to government violation of my natural rights, and the fact that democracy does not make sense.


Expanding the government whether for social programs or security violates individuals natural rights. Social programs relies on government robbery of individuals' property. Security relies on government restrictions on individuals' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Expanding war in both cases does not achieve government's purpose. Government is supposed to protect the natural rights of the individuals residing within its boundaries. Peace keeping missions does not accomplish this. Peace keeping missions attempts to protect other individuals' natural rights. That is not the Pakistan military's responsibility. The Pakistan military's responsibility is to sit on Pakistan's borders, aim its guns outwards, and shoot those trying to shoot at those residing in Pakistan. This should not be construed as meaning that immigrants should be shot. Immigrants are not shooting at those residing in Pakistan, they are trying to become other individuals residing within Pakistan, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.


I would be consenting to everything I listed above. I refuse to consent to that. I do not recognize any of their positions as legitimate. This is probably why I will continue to abstain from voting in the future. Even if there was a candidate I completely agreed with, his paycheck still comes from government robbery of individuals natural right to property via taxes. I will not consent to being robbed at gun point so someone else can earn a paycheck.


Finally, democracy does not make sense. There seems to be this assumption that democracy results in virtuous decisions. This is false. Democracy guarantees no virtue. Democracy is not constructed to guarantee any level of moral quality whether negative or positive. Democracy only guarantees agreement. Therefore, democracy is an incredibly poor decision making method. It is designed to make a decision, it is not designed to make the best decisions. I do not wish to participate in a faulty process, especially in one that is ultimately allowed to decide whether my natural rights will be protected or violated. Democracy only guarantees that one will be decided on, it does not guarantee that the best decision will be made, that it will be decided individuals' natural rights are to be protected.



I have tried to consider if there was ever an election I would participate in. Thus far, I think I may participate in an election if Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were revived, Hitler was running for president, and the others were in his cabinet, and a liberal was running against them. I may consider voting for the liberal, to make sure I would not have an even more psychotic and vicious government. However, this, of course, will never happen. Furthermore, if it was happening, I may just decide to move. Additionally, this situation only changes the first premise. Now the candidates are dissimilar. However, I would still be consenting to the violation of my natural rights. I would just either consent to a whole bunch of them being violated, or just a few. Also, the decision is still being left up to majority rule. This decision is too damn important to leave it to majority rule, to democracy. The best decision must be made, not just any decision. Thus, if I am to participate in any future election, I must discover that I am mistaken. 

Obviously, that is a possibility, I acknowledge I could be completely and utterly wrong. Furthermore, I will admit I am wrong, if I discover how. 

Love


In several posts I have discussed how friendship and love are some of the highest forms of selfishness not selflessness as people frequently assume. One chooses another as a friend because he values that other more than mere strangers. The reason he values that other more than mere strangers is because the other follows the same moral standards as him. Therefore, similar people are friends. Dissimilar people cannot be friends, for they follow different moralities. Thus, they think one another is vicious. For example, a Marxist and a capitalist cannot be friends because the Marxist believes the capitalist is vicious, and the capitalist believes the Marxist is vicious.

The same goes for love. The only difference is that when one loves another, he chooses one person above all others, even his friends. One can have several friends. One can value several people more than strangers. However, one can only have a single favorite. That favorite, the best friend, is the one he loves.

Of course, this person, the one he loves, is only second to his self. The mere fact that he is choosing another person to love indicates that he values his self the most, even greater than the person he loves, for he is choosing that person because he enjoys being with that person, that person does not corrupt his virtue, that person makes him happy. When one is happy one is acting selfishly. Thus, love has nothing to do with sacrifice.

Unfortunately, most people assume that love is completely about selflessness and sacrifice. They believe love is about compromise. The assumption is, if one loves another, one will give up things - actions, items, etc. - for the other. This is not love. This is self-destruction. This is the atrocious sickening delusion that when two people love one another they become one. 1 + 1 does not = 1. 1 + 1 = 2. When two people love one another they are still two individuals; however, together they become more in the sense that they are happy, they enjoy life. The teaching of two loving individuals becoming one indicates that the individuals of the relationship decrease in value. They destroy parts of themselves so they can be one instead of two. They begin with more value than when they end. Since love is about happiness, about selfishness, one cannot destroy his self to love another. If he does so, he will be miserable, not happy. For before one enters a relationship he loves his self. He loves who he is. He has chosen to be a certain person, act a certain way because it is virtuous because it makes him happy. However, if he enters a relationship demanding sacrifice, he is aborting some of his virtues, aborting what makes him happy. In turn, this will result in one hating the person he allegedly loves because the other caused him to destroy his self, and it will also result in one loathing him self, for he is being less than who he was, the person he chose to be because it made him happy.

A further problem with this is that one must love him self before he loves others. A self-loathing individual cannot love another. If one loathes him self, he is basically saying that he is shit, that he is worthless. He admits that he is a failure, meaning he has not realized his values; thus, he is also admitting that he is vicious. Consequently, he is saying that he is unworthy of love. He believes that no one should selfishly choose him over all others, for he thinks he is worse than all others. Therefore, one contradicts himself by searching for love to cure his self loathing.

Additionally, as I have stated several times before love is a selfish act. Thus, one loves another because he believes he deserves love. Essentially, he values himself enough to pursue and enjoyable relationship with another. If one loathes himself, however, he admits he is of no value, that he is so horrible he does not deserve to enjoy a relationship with another. Therefore, one must obviously love himself before he loves others. 


Firstly, I now realize that I must love another that enjoys the same activities as me. If I am to love another, the other must be interested in philosophical discussion like this. I am not saying everyone must like philosophical discussion. Everyone should be concerned about truth and being virtuous, but not everyone must enjoy the exploration of it. My argument here is that two people who love one another must enjoy similar activities. For example, one who enjoy skiing, and loves the winter, cannot love someone who loathes the winter and despises skiing.

Secondly, it is completely nonsensical that one should not be able to enjoy innocent activities with other friends. It would make sense for one to oppose his loved one's use of heroine with others, for heroine indicates all kinds of unstable moral positions of the other person. Discussing politics, playing sports, playing video games, board games, card games, watching movies, listening to music, all pretty innocent activities that one should not demand his alleged loved one not to partake in.