"Democracy"

I had a really interesting assignment yesterday. At school, they asked me to do an essay which included advantages and disadvantages of democracy, and to conclude with an objective, argument-based veredict.

First, let me start with the advantages. First, I'd say, would be freedom of expression. I think that really enriches the society. That way, there is not only openness and diversity of thought, but I think that constructive criticism also. Maybe, well, most of the time actually, people and the media criticize instead of pointing out possible solutions. Nevertheless, I believe that by giving our opinion publicly, the government might have a better idea of how his policies are turning out, how and if they are really helping the people. It could also help him to prioritize. The people tell him what the necessities are. Without freedom of thought and expression, no one is allowed to say what is wrong, and therefore, those things wouldn't be taken into account.
Then there is, the diversity and alternativity this system provides. People have choices. There are different political parties offering different things and opinions, one way or another, permitting them to objectively think of their current situation and help them decide which is better for the future. They can see the two sides of every story.
Another one that I think is one of the most important and fundamental, is the fact that democracy prohibits indefinite rule. Presidents are in charge for a certain, regulated amount of time. I think this is very, very beneficial because I believe change and the mixture of different things, ideas and leaders leads towards faster and better development. Every leader is different. They all have different emphasis and focuses. I bet from each president, you could take only one thing they did 100% perfect and right, because it was their main purpose. So if we want to be perfect not in one aspect, but in many, we need leaders and focuses to rotate after the goal is achieved. No need for more time. Give others the chance. Change is good.
Also equally, if not more important, is the legal equality of all people. In rights, and everything. This, helps to the elimination of discrimination. Even if it is substancial, since we can still discriminate a person without making it legally involving, it at least provides protection and support to everyone. Every citizen has the right to actively participate in their government. Which is also a great advantage that people always underestimate. We all have the power, right and duty to engage in state manners; we can and should give opinions and solutions, we can make a big change. But, people, get accustomed to these privileges, and stop using them.

Now, time for the disadvantages of a democracy. You will be surprised at the magnitude of these.
More often than it should, democracies give the power to ignorant citizens who are not capable of knowing what is really the best for them. And this really represents a huge problem, since after all, we choose. This causes what I like to call, 'the mass effect'. People get carried away by overly charismatic leaders and what the powerful say, end up believing it is actually the best, and follow those policies because 'everyone else does', which at the end, is not actually the common well.
As I previously stated, democracy opens the door for the most charismatic and best known candidate, instead of the more capable, wise candidate. People vote for the one that promises more (a.k.a gives more bullshit), instead of the one that is more realistic about things. Voters should begin to understand that this is not a publicity campaign, this is not choosing the cutest model, this is choosing your country's future.
Democracies are way too liberal. There is no control over anything. There is an unmesurable amount of corruption on most democracies, and levels of such unregulated capitalisms, that only lead to poverty, death, analfabetism and backwards steps in development. More than a powerful man to lead us, we need an authority to lead us harshily, for the best. Think of it as a parent- your parents punish you and pressure you in order for you to be best. With parents that didn't put order, nor discipline, nor rules, I would be lost.

In conclusion, democracy is a really good form of government in theory, but in practice, it can result disastrous. It is propense to such amounts of abuses and misconceptions, that disvirtue its whole purpose. And when you actually think about it, there are no real, complete democracies in the world. The votes are always, always altered. And that is just a reality. There is corruption within every governmental organization in the world. And even if there are some, few, leaders willing to do everything for their people, most them, put themselves first.
While I was investigating, there was one analisis that said "It is less about the government system we imply, and more about the governor we choose"

WG

Today some friends and I were playing 20 questions. One question in particular emerged and brought a lot of controversy.
Someone asked : What do you prefer, to be a popular, party girl with thousands of friends who secretly hate you; or to be a loner?

Some of them answered they had rather have fake friends. But that only comes from the fear of being alone. As human beings, we are social creatures meant to interact with each other, which is good, but sometimes, just as happens with my friends, we grow to depend on our amount of 'friends'. We grow to base our self-eestem in the amounts of parties we attend to. Which must not be. Any person with a clear conciense shouldn't be afraid of being alone.

And what is really the difference between being alone and being knowed but hated? I can see none. At least with the first, you can say, well, people don't like me because they don't know me. With the latter, you would have to admit, hey, they know me, and hate me.

Personally, I am not afraid of lonelinness. I am happy with myself. I am proud of all the decisions I've made, and who I've become. I have made mistakes. But I don't regret them, because because of them, I have come to be what I am now. They have made me wiser. Therefore, I'm not scared of spending time with myself, with analysing all my moves and with talking with myself. I do not fear the encountering with my soul.
And I have always thought that I'd rather have one real friend that means everything that 10 you can't really count with. I have rather have one ten dollar bill that is real, than ten one hundred fake bills.
And you might think that you can't compare fake friends with fake dollars, but actually, they are the same. Good to flatter yourself in public, but useless in practice.

'Mejor solo que mal acompanado'
WG

"2012"

Yesterday I saw the 2012 movie. It was amazing. It had action, romance, tragedy, and a clear, meaningful statement.


There are a hell of a lot of things to get out from this movie. One of them, is a quote said by the lead character (the guy, don't remember his name) which said: 'The moment we stop caring about each other, is when we stop being human', 'Civilization and culture means to protect each other and work together for a better place. Destruction does not take place in civilization' and last but not least, 'If we start the new life with cruelty and death, what is there to wait for the future?'.


Also there is the issue of who survives. Who has the ability to judge who is worthy of surviving and therefore carriyng the legacy of what once was earth, civilization and the meaning of being human?.



I think the best way to start this analysis is by determining what does human means. Is it merely having two legs, two arms, a face and a body? I would say no. What distiguishes us from animals and other creatures is the fact that we have intelligence, and are aware of how and which is the best way to use it. We have consience. We are impulsive yet able to be reasonable. We have manners, customs and rules. We have real feelings. We have a soul.

In conclusion, we have the entire package. But what is important is not the fact that we have all the capabilities, but that these are inter-connected, they work together. One comes with the other.

For me, being human equals a complete life. The opportunity to trascend and be better. It doesn't necessarily means caring about one another, but then again, if we don't look out for each other then who is?. How can we be human if we don't respect other humans, equal to us?. How can we call ourselves something we don't care about?.

So He was right. The moment we stop respecting and caring and being reasonable and just with each other, is the moment we cease to be called humans. The moment we start being impulvise, salvages, disrespectful, without manners, unreasonable, ...Just like animals.



Then there is civilization. I think that currently people link that word with urbanization, cities, technology, liberalism..yet always forget to include what being civilized means. It means to be civil, a good and active person in community. Therefore, civilization should mean to be good, active, reasonable, following rules, developed, educated. Not technology. I bet that with some American's manners it would be rightful to say that indians are more civilized and rightful.

And were does culture comes from?. A culture is a set of customs followed by an amount of people, mainly either because of origin or religion. Culture comes from nationalism. From groupal (I don't know if that expression is right) love or admiration towards something. And do we want to disrespect and hate those who in other times we would've called brothers and sisters, because of common thoughts and interests?. Is it really civilized to let them all die, when those are the people we seek for support and help in times that claim change?.



This movie reflected all the flaws and bad things of humans. Reflectes the complexity of emotions and justice. The constant fight between our individualism and heroism. I got to the conclusion that our current society is shamefully more on the bad side than on the good one. We call ourselves humans, yet we don't make good use of those things that differentiate us from animals. We call ourselves civilized, when we loose control over anything and are not able to be patient and understanding. We call ourselves part of a culture we either don't participate actively in, or don't really care about the people that forms it and therefore makes it possible.
We choose among all the good and bad people, only those who are wealthy enough to pay it as survivors. Are we really saving the best of our kind?. I think not. I think probably as the president I would've done some sort of random selection of people to survive. A leader, of course. No old people. Not because I don't like them, but I think it is better to save kids, teens and young adults that will be able to fight for a new world longer.

Really, I just thought it was a very intersting and good movie overall. I think it is really a mirror of what we do and what we should do. I liked it a lot. I hope everyone sees it and tries to understand what I wrote. And add some things, too.

"RRR"

Recicle.

Reduce.

Reuse.



I know you have probably heared this all before, but I must reapeat it. I must be here to remind you the importance of taking action HERE AND NOW towards global warming. Did you know statistics expect a global disaster (as in The Day After Tomorrow movie) for 2030?!

I don't know about you, but that seems as if I will die in my diapers.

We have little time to change things. Nothing is impossible. Yet we must start. We won't have a chance much longer!



I won't bore you with specifics, since this is something everybody knows deeply but chooses to ignore (yes, you and me included). But I will put you my slogan for the school's global warming campaign.

"Unplug what you're not using.

Turn off the lights everytime you leave a room.

Close the sink while you are brushing your teeth.

Because little things make big changes.

Recicle. Reduce. Reuse.

It's your future"

Today on class one of my favorite teachers brought to discussion a pretty peculiar and unexpected story. Or at least unknown to me.
She explained to us the origin of Nazi racism. How German men and women came to dispise Jews, and how not so much of it was due to Hitler. Yes, he was the promoter of the theory, yet, it has a biological foundation.
The theory that whites are superior to blacks comes from two main studies. First, there was a scientist at the time whose name I don't recall that said to have discovered that the white people were stronger and smarter than blacks. And then there was Darwin. He was the one to create 'survival of the fittest'. In another context, of course. He said that only the strong animals were meant to live, meaning that the weaks should die. Or disappear.
Combining these two not-so-pleasant-theories, we find what came to evolve as a Nazi slogan. No interracial marriages so that every race was 'pure' in its own way, and whites are above the blacks. Furthermore, we are not supposed to help the sick, since if they are weak, they are not supposed to survive.

I find it inmensely curious that everything has such an unexpected background. Who would've imagined that those racist theories came indeed from studied, intelligent scientists?. Is it because thay thought highly of themselves? And would this theories would actually work right now, as in, 2009?
Not so surprisingly I do believe that these scientists thought very highly of themselves and therefore tried to find biological or scientific proof for it. Nevertheless, maybe it was just a combination of things. Jews weren't just hated at those times because of their DNA, but because thousands of years before, people that called themselves jews killed Jesus; that's how racism towards them really started, and later, well, found more reasons to continue.
Honestly I don't know if an extreme racism like that would succeed in our society, at least not with such vague, self-centered arguments. I do think racism has increased, though. Not in amount, but in the way. Now a days, it is not merely about blacks and whites. It is about African-Americans, Latins, Chinese, Muslims, Conservatives, Republicans, Socialists, Liberals, Buddhists, etc.. It is not just about color, but about origin, beliefs, religion... And it is actually ironic than in the era of supposed 'open-minded, accepting people' such distinctions still exist.
We still live like we did thousands of years ago, the streets for 'white people', the streets for 'black people', the 'Jew part' of the building, the Chinese street, the malls for whites, for black and for Latins. And I just can't help but ask myself how come we haven't evolved? How come we still do these things? How can I, when asked to describe my African-American friend, am only able to respond 'black', just like that, as if it were an automatic response?
I am not saying any of these things are right. I believe we are equal, and that even when it has increased in form, we are taking steps towards a stop. Maybe not of racism, since I think it has a cultural basis. But we are reducing every day more the limitations some ethnic, racial, or whatever word you want to apply, had in daily and work life. Take Obama for an example. He is so much more than a 'black' person, and by electing him president, we have proved that much. Besides, I think most of us when asked to tag president Obama TODAY, most of us wouldn't think of saying black, perhaps not positive tags, but certantily not race-based. Take Sotomayor for another. A Latin that gets to Supreme Court. Who would've guessed that one? Specially when we americans are so racist with Latins.

All of those are steps forward. I hope evolution also. But we have yet to take the big steps ourselves. Like I've always said and emphasized, it is not about the big ones, but about the million littles through which every achievement or true change is done.
As we have seen in both history and current events, the greatest things come from whom we least expected it.

"Genious can come from anywhere and in any way".-Ratatouille (...)

WG

"Were you scared you might die?"

" No, I know where I'm going. I just don't want to get there hit by a train"

Do you know were you're going?

"PP"

"Nothing is more deceitful than the appereance of humility. It is often an indirect boast.
You are really proud of your defects in writing, because you consider them as proceeding from a rapidity of thought you think highly interesting. When you told Mrs. Bennet this morning that if you ever resolved on quitting Netherfield you should be gone on five minutes, you meant it to be a compliment to yourself- and yet what is there sovery laudable in a precipitance which must leave very neccessary business undone?"

This is one of my favorite quotes on Pride and Prejudice. Because, as everything about the book, it is so precisely right. Most of us, myself included, presume our faults because we think of them as something cool, relaxed or good in front of everyone else. We put it as if it were the right thing to have those flaws. While giving the impression of being humble, not self-centered, and vulnerable. Such a dick move. Yet I always play that card.
The other day I was watching this movie called "The Jane Austen Bookclub". I've got to admit I enjoyed it a lot, it somehow resembles what I feel when I watch The Holiday with Cameron Diaz and Kate Winset. I feel free and identified with the characters. I feel joyful. I feel like it's the real lifes of people we are seeing on the television. Yet I have got to admit I didn't understand or- more accurately- wasn't able to reflect much about it because I haven't read all Jane Austen books, so I couldn't really make all the connections and realizations. Nevertheless, I fully recomend it. It portrays really well how relationships work, what others think about them, and, I believe, about impulsive love and patient love.
As is in evidence the lesbian girl on the film. She is an impulsive lover. She finds herself completely carried away and enrolled in relationships with people she met only a few days ago. She lets herself be driven by impulsivity, passion and new flings. So is the love of the husband that cheats, that way also following the paths of impulse.
Then there is the patient love of the wife who forgives, and that of the one that has enough control over herself as to not letting things go further with a student. And so is the kind, but spoiled and altruistic love of the friend, who always seeks other's satisfaction in love but failes to do the same with her romantic life.
I believe there's got to be a bit of the two in every succesful and lasting relationship. There's got to be passion and spark that keep the fire going throughout the years. The impulse of satisfaction in each other. But the patient love is the one to give length to the relationship. The one that is going to allow only one fire at a time. The one that is going to see beyond the heat, and into the wood that sustains it.

The other perfect quotes from the book (so far) go like this:
"Yes, vanity is a weakness indeed. But pride- where there is real superiority of mind, pride will be always under good regulation".

"Your defect is a propensity to hate every body.
And yours is willfully yo misunderstand them."- What's worse?

And I'm just gonna leave those two to stand by themselves.

WG