Critical Thinking: Barriers To Communication.

The main barrier to effective communication, according to Marshall Rosenberg, communication and conflict resolution expert, is that we are afraid that we are not going to get our basic needs met (1999). The following is my understanding of his work:

There are six main barriers to communication that cause conflict:

• Denial of accountability for ourselves;
• Judging and evaluating others;
• Honestly expressing our judgments instead of our own needs;
• Not expressing our feelings and needs;
• Not empathizing with ourselves and others; and
• Demanding that others do things for us.

Denial of accountability for ourselves: We deny responsibility for our thoughts, feelings, and actions when we say things such as, "You make me angry" or "I have to do this." As soon as we deny responsibility, we take away our own power. If I think I "have to take attendance because it is the policy at DeVry," then I am not owning my own power to make choices about what I will do. I take attendance because I want to stay employed here and I have agreed to fulfill that part of my job description.

We have little control over what the world serves up to us, but we do have control over how we respond to those events. If I make you the cause of my feelings, then I am stating that I have no control over my own emotional state. However, we all know that each of us has different emotional responses, given similar situations. Some people are "fit to be tied" after waiting 10 minutes for their ride to pick them up, while other people stay relaxed even after waiting 20–30 minutes. It may depend on whether you make the judgment that your ride "doesn't respect your time" or whether you make the judgment that "it is so great for this person to take time out of their busy day to give me a ride." We make the first and major step towards communicating effectively when we accept responsibility for our thoughts, feelings, and fulfilling our needs and desires.

Rosenberg has spent his whole life exploring means for increasing our communication effectiveness. He developed a model to find a way around the communication barriers listed above. Rosenberg states that these steps are not the "right" or "proper" steps that you "should" follow when communicating. They are, however, steps that are more likely to enable you to get your needs met, thus reducing conflict and increasing a sense of connection with others. Here are the four steps of his communication model:

• Make an observation (without evaluation);
• State your feelings;
• Connect your feelings to unmet needs; and
• Make a request of what would make life more wonderful.


Step 1 – Observation:

When we combine our observation with our evaluation, we are attempting to make our personal bias (evaluation, analysis, judgment) as "factual" as what it is that we objectively observed. An observation is that "you arrived home 30 minutes after you said that you would be here." An evaluation of this scenario might be that "you don't care about my feelings." A mixture of the two could be something like, "You're always home late because you don't even care about me!" If you mix an evaluation into your observation, then people are likely to only hear criticism and they are less likely to hear the rest of your message about what you need.


Step 2 – Expressing our feelings:

It is important to be able to express what you are feeling in order to be genuine. Oftentimes, we see expression of feelings as a choice to be vulnerable. It is one of the great qualities of being human, because it allows us to connect with others. Consequently, from lack of practice, many of us don't know how to express our feelings. We often say something similar to "I feel like you should . . ." (or "I feel that you . . .") This is not a feeling. It is a thought. Feelings are simply expressed as, "I am feeling overwhelmed" or "I am feeling so amazed!"

Usually, when we are feeling angry, it is because of the moral judgments that we are making. We are trying to play God by seeing the other person as wrong and in need of punishment. It is more helpful to focus on our needs than to disempower ourselves by focusing on the actions of others. The feelings of anger are not bad or wrong, but they are more superficial expressions of what we are really feeling and needing.

Expressing honesty of judgments instead of honesty of our needs and feelings often leads to more conflict. Failure to express feelings can lead to more misunderstandings, as people must create their own stories about how they feel.


Step 3 – Connecting our feelings with needs:

It is of utmost importance that we connect our feelings to our needs. We feel unhappy because we have an unmet need, not because of what someone else did. They did not do anything wrong. They were doing the best that they could to get their needs met, given what options they saw at the time. It is our responsibility to meet our needs. Our feelings about our unmet needs are our responsibility, and it is within our power to get them met.

When you are thinking about your needs, it is important to remember that needs are universal and that they don't contain reference to specific things or specific people. I don't "need you to go to the store to get potato chips for me," rather "I need food." Our strategy to get our needs met is best left for our request (Step 4) of asking someone to do something. Women, more than men, have been taught not to have needs. Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which clarifies basic human needs, may be especially helpful to women who are apt to express needs like a legal case because they have internalized the belief that they have no right to their needs. If we don't connect our feeling to our need, but instead connect it to what someone else has done, we will come across as criticizing and will have given the power of our feelings to others.


Step 4 – Requesting that which would make our lives more wonderful:

When people request us to do something, we usually do it with more joy in our hearts than when people make demands on us to do something. It is easy to tell a request from a demand by the response: if the request/demand is denied and the person responds badly (verbal attack, pouting, criticism), then it was a demand.

The request is a strategy for meeting our needs. If the person denies our particular request, perhaps he or she will have some other ideas on strategies that might be helpful in getting our needs met. If we have grown up in a dysfunctional family, we will often have limited strategies for getting our needs met. If we can clearly express our need, oftentimes, others will have ideas on how we can get the need met.

The purpose of a request or fulfilling a request is to make someone's life more wonderful. Marshall Rosenberg says that if you can't fulfill the request with "the joy of a child feeding the ducks in the park," then don't do it. Always ask yourself whether you are giving freely, giving in, or giving up. If you or the other person is not giving freely, someone is going to pay.

Another important aspect to sound communication is to make sure that we clearly heard what others said. An effective tool for this is reflective listening: Most people will not speak to us by stating their observations, feelings, needs, and requests. It will be our job to hear the feelings and needs behind the words that the person is saying. We can try asking them about their feelings, or if we think that would not be helpful, ask them what they need. If we empathize with the person and put ourselves in his or her shoes, it should be quite easy to know what the person might need.

It is often difficult for us to listen fully to someone else. We often think that we have to solve the problem or ease their pain. Often, all we have to do is really listen and validate what the person said without inserting our opinion or evaluation. Observe what has been said and mirror it back (without parroting it).

Values play a major role in communication. Values are the ideas, actions, and behaviors that are of worth and importance to us as human beings. They provide the foundation for human behavior. Most of what we value has been taught to us by others, such as our families and our peers. Some things that we value are self-respect, fame, friendship, wisdom, and financial security. Since we act on what we believe, it is easy to see how our values and our judgment of what the truth is can impact our logic and decision making.

It's important to prioritize your values. Think about why your values are important to you, who taught them to you, how they have affected your past decisions, and in what ways they will impact your future decisions.

Since the world is so incredibly diverse and communication comes in such a wide variety of forms, it is important to know many appropriate and helpful interpersonal skills. By practicing the few suggestions found here, you will find yourself understanding more of what people say and repeating yourself less to other people. Your co-workers and friends will have the confidence to come to you when they find themselves in need. Remember, great communication skills take practice. Do not give up on Day One. Your ability to express yourself will grow almost daily as long as you apply yourself in improving communication skills.

Ethics: Plagiarism.

According to Kant, nothing ever exempts a man from his moral duty. Sandra LaFave summarized Kant's definition of what makes a bad act, bad, perfectly, and I wouldn't word it any other way:

"Kant analyzes evil as a kind of logical error, or mistake in reasoning. A contradiction is the worst logical error. It would obviously be a contradiction for a rational being to say “Every rational being should do X, except me.” Contradiction of this form is called special pleading. When rational beings will to do bad things, they want a contradiction: they want everybody else to do the right thing, because that's exactly what makes their wrongdoing possible. For example, the liar wants everyone else to tell the truth; if everyone lied, no one would believe the liar's lie. So the liar in effect is willing a contradiction: “Every rational being should tell the truth, except me.” This is special pleading: wanting the rule to apply to everyone AND not to me. Such a contradiction is a failure of universality."

With that being said - would you recommend that everyone should cheat? -- or is it "different" when you do it?

Do not make an exception to a rule that you think everyone else should follow.

Consider:

• It means that other who worked hard, diligently and actually thought out their assignments are being robbed by other students who copy/paste and may get a better grade, since it's from a professional standpoint.

• It's too easy. It teaches you nothing, and it garnishes undeserved credit.

• It hampers the lessons you are supposed to learn leading to more failure later.

• People deserve money for all of their research, you cannot just lift it directly, you are allowed to make reference and take ideas however, but a direct lift is just theft.


And consider this thought carefully, as well: Not only is this harmful to the person from whom you are stealing, but it is also harmful to the thief. If you plagiarize another author's work, you risk your credibility as an author and your reputation for originality and honesty. Also, plagiarism is against the law and you are also risking control of your finances, should a lawsuit result in a judgment against you. Also risked is your freedom should you be convicted of the crime of plagiarism and sentenced to time in jail or prison.

The entire point of creating something is to express YOUR thoughts; YOUR opinions; YOUR ideas; YOUR vision about something. Plagiarism is lifting someone else's. You miss the opportunity to express yourself -- which, again, is the entire point of creativity.

It's stealing of intellectual property.

Ethics Essay: Kant on Deontological Ethics.

What would Kant do?

Of all the ethical theorists that I've read on thus far, I find myself having the most regard for Immanuel Kant's deontological theory. His theory goes beyond what 'feels right', what benefits the ego, or what fits in with societal norms, to determine what is right and wrong - his theory, to me, seems to be much more based on fundamental reason. According to Kritik der practischen Vernunft (Critique of Practical Reason, 1788):

"... good will is intrinsically good; its value is wholly self-contained and utterly independent of its external relations. Since our practical reason is better suited to the development and guidance of a good will than to the achievement of happiness, it follows that the value of a good will does not depend even on the results it manages to produce as the consequences of human action.

Kant's moral theory is, therefore, deontological: actions are morally right in virtue of their motives, which must derive more from duty than from inclination. The clearest examples of morally right action are precisely those in which an individual agent's determination to act in accordance with duty overcomes her evident self-interest and obvious desire to do otherwise."

In other words, the purpose of life is not simply to achieve happiness -- else, wouldn't we all be simply seeking self-gratification all of the time, with little to no regard towards helping others? Happiness is also not completely within our control; many external powers shape our lives, and our situations vary accordingly. It goes without saying that the consequences of our actions are simply beyond our control. Also, standing up for others -- and also for ourselves -- can, at times, have sad consequences; i.e., being a "whistleblower" at one's company can lead to the loss of a job, and the loss of income for one's family -- does this mean that having integrity in this matter was wrong? That because there were negative consequences, it was, therefore, the wrong thing to do?

Doing the right thing does not ever exactly depend on merely the results that one's action brings. Being happy, and doing the right thing, are, in reality, two very different things. According to Kant's theory, then, not only is doing the right thing a matter of personal integrity, but also of courage -- for courage is defined as doing the right thing despite the negative consequences that it can bring.

It emphasizes heavily on interest of others, and not on the self, which I feel personally is very noteworthy. Kant stated that doing the right thing meant to "act to treat humanity, whether yourself or another, as an end-in-itself and never as a means" - a.k.a., the Categorical Imperative. In other words, do not use people -- and do not allow yourself to be used, either. Recognize that yourself, and other people, have rights that should be respected [as opposed to the tyranny which is emphasized in utilitarian ethics -- which I personally despised].

Kant's theory, to me, personally, seems to be the one that strives to be at the most peace with the universe and with the rights to others living in it. It is a very tolerant and level-headed approach to life that is also very assertive and integral, and it is constant. According to Kant, nothing ever exempts a man from his moral duty. Sandra LaFave summarized Kant's definition of what makes a bad act, bad, perfectly, and I wouldn't word it any other way:

"Kant analyzes evil as a kind of logical error, or mistake in reasoning. A contradiction is the worst logical error. It would obviously be a contradiction for a rational being to say “Every rational being should do X, except me.” Contradiction of this form is called special pleading. When rational beings will to do bad things, they want a contradiction: they want everybody else to do the right thing, because that's exactly what makes their wrongdoing possible. For example, the liar wants everyone else to tell the truth; if everyone lied, no one would believe the liar's lie. So the liar in effect is willing a contradiction: “Every rational being should tell the truth, except me.” This is special pleading: wanting the rule to apply to everyone AND not to me. Such a contradiction is a failure of universality."

Finally, the right act must be performed with the right motive -- else, it is no longer a right act. A good will must be "purified" from inferior motives, and one must want to act according to good will; beyond that, even, Kant argues that any rational being that is capable of forming maxims and recognizing contradictions would want to.

As Kant puts it: "Rational nature is an end to itself."

Ethics Essay: Ford vs. Pinto

"In 1972, a woman, whom for legal reasons we will call Sandra Gillespie, pulled onto a Minneapolis highway in her new Ford Pinto. Riding with her was a young boy, whom we'll call Robbie Carlton. As she entered a merge lane, Sandra Gillespie's car stalled. Another car rear-ended hers at an impact speed of 28 miles per hour. The Pinto's gas tank ruptured. Vapors from it mixed quickly with the air in the passenger compartment. A spark ignited the mixture and the car exploded in a ball of fire. Sandra died in agony a few hours later in an emergency hospital. Her passenger, 13-year-old Robbie Carlton, is still alive; he has just come home from another futile operation aimed at grafting a new ear and nose from skin on the few unscarred portions of his badly burned body. (This accident is real; the details are from police reports.)"

- Adapted from a case by the Foundation Coalition
[http://www.foundationcoalition.org]

The legal issue here is the heavy responsibility that Ford Motors bears for willingly putting the lives of millions at stake, because there priorities were instead focused on the money that would be lost in recalls. They reasoned that the number of people they would be suing - and receiving monetary compensation for damages - would be far less brutal on the companies' pocketbooks than the recalls. As the discussion topic brings out, the assembly line machinery was already tooled when the engineers found the defect - it would have been harsh monetarily to fix the problem before the car was manufactured, let alone the recalls. However, here in lies the ethical issue: Ford *knew* about the problem *before* manufacturing it. They knew that people would be hurt. An exploding gas tank? - definitely, safety was not a major concern. And did they warn the public of this defect? It was not until *1978* that the issue was announced.

The action was NOT ethical by using utilitarian principles - if that had been the case, then Ford Motors would have used a point system to determine which choice would have yielded the greatest benefit to the most people. The public, obviously, is more people than the number of greedy manufacturers behind the Pinto being developed and sold to the masses without so much as a warning.

Advanced Composition Essay: Tolerance For Dummies.

"That's a good thing; that's a damn good thing. We can use that to keep the niggers in their place."

- Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest
[Speaking about the KKK in 1867]

--------

"O Christian Martyr,
who, for truth, could die -
when all about thee
owned the hideous lie!
The world, redeemed
from superstition's sway,
is breathing freer
for thy sake today."

- John Greenleaf Whittier
[Inscription on a monument marking the grave of Rebecca Nurse, one of the condemned "witches" of Salem]

--------

"Quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur.”

Translation [from Latin]:

“For punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."

- The Handbook for Inquisitors
[Written in 1528]

--------

From public figures like Mother Theresa and Ghandi, to John Lennon and Lady Gaga; from the Suffrage Movement in New York [1912], to the hippie-youth "Peace Riots" all across America [1964 - 1969] -- the issue of equal human rights has been more adamantly pursued and publicly debated in the past one hundred years than in all of human history. What exactly are human rights? Why are they so important? How does this affect us in this day and age? Why should we take a stand for tolerance even in our every day lives?

More importantly, why should we give a damn?

In a very basic nutshell, human rights are "international norms that help to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Examples of human rights are the right to freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial when charged with a crime, the right not to be tortured, and the right to engage in political activity," according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Let's imagine a world without these things.

That should be easy. Open up a history book.

As you can see, I've taken the liberty of citing a few brief examples for you in the opening to this essay -- but just in case that was not enough of a reminder of the dark history surrounding prejudice, intolerance, and hatred, here are a few more warm and fuzzy reminders:

After 1945, the holocaust during WWII, by the hands of the Nazi Regime, roughly about six million European Jews [as well as members of some other persecuted groups, such as gypsies and homosexuals] were rounded up, tortured and murdered -- these targeted groups were thought to be "flawed", therefore being a defective fit in the "master race" [a.k.a., the "Aryan" race]. Though only Jews were gassed, thousands others died of starvation and disease; some were even subjected to cruel medical experiments, such as twins; some were shot by a firing squad; some were hung for hours by their arms, tied behind their backs, outside on wooden poles; some were stripped naked outside in the freezing cold winter with cold water from buckets poured onto them; some were forced to walk on death marches -- those who managed to stay alive the entire walk were forced into the sea and shot.

Also during WWII, Joseph Stalin was responsible for the mass execution of tens of millions of ordinary people in the Soviet Union - many were shipped onto boxcars and placed into forced labor camps, similar to the concentration camps used by Nazi Germany.

Also in the first half of the 20th century, the United States was very anti-Japanese after the bomb attack on Pearl Harbor - roughly about 110,000 Japanese-Americans were placed into "War Relocation Camps" all across the Pacific Coast. It was finally admitted by a legislation signed by President Reagan in 1988 that the reasons behind this were nothing short of "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".

A little more recently - in 1994, The Rwandan Genocide was all over the news. Many of us are old enough to at least remember the very basic details - roughly about 800,000 people were murdered in an ethnic fight between the [majority] Hutu and the [minority] Tutsi people.

Intolerance and hate crimes have been commonplace since the dawn of society, and many of us have read stories like the ones I have briefly cited above – and similar others – in their history books.

Is it only in history books?

Far from it:

• Canada: Make Human Rights a Priority [May 9, 2011]

• Honduras: Stop Efforts to Discredit Human Rights Prosecutors [May 31, 2011]

• Sudan: Stop Abyei Abuses, Hold Forces Accountable [May 26, 2011]

• Rwanda: Justice Compromised - Mixed Legacy for Community-Based Genocide Courts [May 31, 2011]

• Nigeria: President Should Make Rights a Priority [May 28, 2011]

• Saudi Arabia: Free Woman Who Dared to Drive [May 23, 2011]

• Israel: Investigate Killings During Border Protests [May 20, 2011]

• Liechtenstein: Say ‘Yes’ to Same-Sex Partnerships [May 25, 2011]

• Sri Lanka: Military Conference to Whitewash War Crimes [May 23, 2011]

Every single one of the above articles are all from Human Rights Watch [hrw.org] - just to mention a few very recent human rights issues going on all around the world right now.

Would you like to be forced into a religion? Would you like to be told where to live? Would you like to be tortured by a violent mob over your skin color and denied a fair trial? Would you like to be denied your voice when treated with injustice? Would you like your sister to? Would you like your mother and your father to? Would you like your 75-year old grandmother to? Would you like your children to?

What example are we setting?

What are we doing about it?

Believe it or not, we can do more than read about it, watch reports on the news, and complain about it. We can actually do something about it. Does this mean standing in front of tanks? Putting flowers in cops' guns? Setting yourself on fire in protest? Getting involved in riots and marches? It doesn't at all have to be anything that shocking and dangerous -- not at all! Whether you realize it or not, you can have a very powerful impact on the world around you. Yes, you. Your words, your actions, and the way that you simply live your life, can go so much farther than you may even imagine.

It's quite simply, really.

How tolerant are you of yourself?

Think about it for a moment: Do you set a bar so high for yourself, that you often fail to reach it? Do you put yourself down, or even hate yourself, for making mistakes in the past? Do you often compare yourself to others? Do you feel that you can never let your guard down around others, in case they ever see through you? Is it extremely important for you to be right all of the time?

You cannot be tolerant of others, if you cannot even be tolerant of yourself.

So learn to be okay with who you are - flaws, quirks, scars, fears, mistakes and all; remind yourself that it's okay to not be perfect. Accept that you are an ever-growing and ever-changing individual. Once you can accept yourself, it is much, much easier to be more accepting of others. Give yourself permission to not know something; to have made a bad decision; to be yourself; to simply live your life. You might very much surprise yourself with how much more liberated you feel, and the less anxious that you are, when you learn to let go of the hatred that you feel towards yourself for simply being a human being.

Isn't it nice knowing that you have room to falter?

Everyone should know that feeling.

With so many people in this world, we could all use a little more breathing room. Would you like your decisions and beliefs to be respected? Wish more people would stop telling you what to do? What to say? What to think? How to feel? -- there's a quote from Ghandi that I believe is famous: "Be the change that you wish to see in the world." This is where it starts. It starts with how we treat ourselves. It starts with how we treat our friends. It starts with how we treat our family. Are you sick of how cold and the violent the world can be? -- then help break the chain. You can make a difference -- what are you waiting for?

Break the chain.

Be the change.

Advanced Composition Essay: The Importance of Tolerance.

TOLERANCE.

How many people know what that word even means?

More importantly, how many care?

Turning on the news, reading up on history, or even just drawing back from my own past, in my parent's home [I grew up in a highly religiously intolerant household] - the world is filled with intolerance, prejudice and hatred, and for the life of me, I will never be able to understand it. It's a mentality as old as humanity itself - point the fingers at the ones who are different than we are.

Not only does it boggle my mind that racism, sexism, ageism, etc. still go on in this day and age, but that it is still rampant in a country that is supposed to live up to its ideals of "liberty, equality and justice for all".

There is a saying credited to George Santayana that I believe is famous: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

• Native Americans are slaughtered and forced to abandon their lands; when European settlers establish the country, only white male land-owners have the right to vote.

• According to the McGraw-Hill School Group, "For much of American history, women were not considered equal to men and were denied equality in many areas of life. Most women had no legal identity apart from their husbands. Married women could not hold property in their own names, sue or be sued, make contracts, sit on a jury, write a will, or vote. Nor did women have the same opportunities for education and careers that men did." Only in 1920 were women even allowed the right to vote.

• "He didn't look like one of us..." To many residents of Atlanta, Georgia in 1913, this was reason enough to suspect Leo Frank of murder, according to the book, The Shadow of Hate - for some, it was reason enough to hang him. Not until The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did African-Americans have rights in this country.

• On August 1, 2007, Robert Maltby and Sophie Lancaster were attacked by a number of males in their late teens while walking through Stubbylee Park in Bacup, Rossendale in Lancashire, England. As a result of her severe head injuries, she went into a coma, never regained consciousness, and later died. Her fiance, Robert Maltby, barely survived. The reason that they were attacked? The couple's wearing gothic fashion and being members of the goth subculture.

• Throughout history, homosexuals have had to go into hiding to avoid persecution and discrimination. Sexual acts between persons of the same sex have only been legal nationwide in the US since 2003, and only five states and one district currently offer marriage to same-sex couples.

How is any of this relevant today?

We live in a world with very different people, with very different opinions, from very different cultures, with very different beliefs, and with very different backgrounds. How long do we have to see history repeat itself -- genocide after vicious genocide; wave after wave of bitter persecution; evacuation after heartbreaking evacuation; massacre after bloody massacre; attack after violent attack; prejudiced viewpoint after prejudiced viewpoint -- when does it end? I don't know about a lot of other people out there, but personally, I'm really sick of all of the hatred, gangs and violence. I want to believe that, as time goes by, the human race can better itself -- strive to become better assets to society, while not having to sacrifice everything about who they are, and without persecuting others for who they are. With so many different kinds of people, kindness, respect, sympathy, and courage are essential to life. I especially think this for America, which is not only a "salad" of races, religions, cultures and backgrounds -- but also a country that was 'supposedly' founded on the freedom of all men. How do we give freedom? -- definitely, not through prejudice and blind hatred.

Everyone has their own belief; ethnicity; tradition; race; heritage; culture -- who wants to be forced to change their own? Who has that right to do that to anyone else?

I want my children to be able to safely grow up in a world where they are free to express their individuality.

But it starts with us, right now.

* * * * *

Credits - [I'll properly source this later]:

http://blog.glencoe.com/blog/2010/04/01/history-of-women%E2%80%99s-rights-in-america/

How Do You Know If He or She Really Loves You, or Just Needs You?

[Yangki Christine Akiteng]

Picture this:

You meet this person who seems to meet your every need and the relationship flourishes for a while - but suddenly and out of nowhere, he or she needs some time to think and figure things out; or, has so many doubts about him or herself, you, or the relationship; or, he or she just stops calling and rarely returns your calls. You are left stunned and confused over his or her sudden change in behavior: What happened? What did I do?

What happened, is that you developed an attachment based on need to that person, and got it confused with love.

So many men and women often use the word “love", when they really mean "need". I have many clients who come to me with a broken heart - "I really love him/her" - but when we analyze what he or she really means, the person realizes that what they really meant was, "I really need him/her."

What’s the difference?

Have you ever had a crush on / “fallen in love" with a woman who seems so gorgeous and wonderful - and one month or year later, looked at that person again and saw only 'butt ugly' and “she has serious emotional problems"? - or have you ever had a great sexual relationship with a man that you are not compatible with, and - although it is so obvious that your relationship is just a ‘booty call" in which you feel used - you are still willing to put yourself out there to be used, misused, abused, and reused again and again?

That is attraction based on need, and not love. When you are driven by an unfulfilled psychological need for validation; an obsession about the romantic stuff; or, are pushy about getting into a relationship - you’ll typically develop an affinity to a member of the opposite sex who seemingly meets whatever need it is. Your emotional state [fear; anxiety; low self-esteem; desperate; drunk; superficial; unrealistic; broke, or struggling financially; angry; lonely; etc.] at the time you meet, makes the person appear more attractive and desirable than he or she actually is. In a way, that person temporally alleviates those “feelings" by providing temporary comfort - making you feel good about yourself.

The same applies to when someone is attracted to you because they think or have convinced themselves that you will make them feel good.

How can we determine whether what we feel is love, or attachment based on need?

1. Love based on need is often based on unrealistic expectations of perfection: "We had very much in common. In fact, he/she is perfect!' The irony is that our object of unrealistic expectations is often also looking for the perfect man or woman. Go figure!

2. Love based on need is often based on opinions like good looks, status, material possessions, race [including “loving" someone just because he or she is of a different race], etc., which may be quite irrelevant, or even become obstacles for being able to live happily together.

3. In love based on need, your feelings are a “little" exaggerated in that you are caught up in uncontrolled and overwhelming emotions which run from one extreme to another – from feeling deeply in love and being loved to feeling uncertain and even depressed.

4. When you need rather than love someone, you feel fear, anxiety, worry or jealousy especially when separated from him or her. This kind of “love’ often leads to possessiveness and possessiveness leads to FEAR of losing, fake affection out of fear, over-protection, craving or even the feeling: I can't live without her/him.

5. There is a sense of "owing to" in the relationship. In love based on need, how much each person “loves" is measured by and dependent on how much the other person fulfills a need or indulges a desire. We often close our eyes to the negative qualities.

6. Being in “love" based on need feels very exciting but it is also mixed with a fair amount of “pain" and the feeling that you are somehow “suffering" or not being appreciated and valued - enough.

It can be a sobering experience when one deeply reflects on what we normally describe as “love".

Try this experiment:

Ask the man or woman you are dating: “What kind of person are you looking for/interested in?". If that person is driven by need, than he or she will say something along the lines of: “I want a man/woman who looks like… makes me feel… who does this or that for me…". Notice how many times the word 'me' is used. He or she will run you a list of their 'needs' [often very unaware], and will look specifically for the kind of person who they believe will fulfill those 'needs' [read between the lines - you’ll not miss it!]. Better yet - go online and pull up a profile of a potential mate, and you'll see what I mean by 'looking for a person to fill a need'.

A person driven by real love, on the other hand, may think something along the lines of: “I am interested in a man/woman with these qualities… I can do this and that for… I can do this or that with… ". These people send the message that they feel that they have something about themselves that is valuable, and want to share it with a deserving person.

So if you have a crush on someone or have been dating him or her, the potential for something very special could be there… but you must be willing to take the risk of finding out what the person thinks, wants and needs - in another person, and in the relationship [what makes him or her tick]. Doing that may be risking rejection, but knowing is much better than just guessing or creating bonds that may turn very unpleasant!


Akiteng, Yangki Christine [June 5, 2007]. "How Do You Know If He or She Loves You Or Just Needs You?" Retrieved from here.

Kant: The Moral Order.

From Kritik der practischen Vernunft (Critique of Practical Reason, 1788).

From Good Will to Universal Law.


We begin with the concept of that which can be conceived to be good without qualification, a good will. Other good features of human nature and the benefits of a good life, Kant pointed out, have value only under appropriate conditions, since they may be used either for good or for evil. But a good will is intrinsically good; its value is wholly self-contained and utterly independent of its external relations. Since our practical reason is better suited to the development and guidance of a good will than to the achievement of happiness, it follows that the value of a good will does not depend even on the results it manages to produce as the consequences of human action.

Kant's moral theory is, therefore, deontological: actions are morally right in virtue of their motives, which must derive more from duty than from inclination. The clearest examples of morally right action are precisely those in which an individual agent's determination to act in accordance with duty overcomes her evident self-interest and obvious desire to do otherwise. But in such a case, Kant argues, the moral value of the action can only reside in a formal principle or "maxim," the general commitment to act in this way because it is one's duty. So he concludes that "Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law."

According to Kant, then, the ultimate principle of morality must be a moral law conceived so abstractly that it is capable of guiding us to the right action in application to every possible set of circumstances. So the only relevant feature of the moral law is its generality, the fact that it has the formal property of universalizability, by virtue of which it can be applied at all times to every moral agent. From this chain of reasoning about our ordinary moral concepts, Kant derived as a preliminary statement of moral obligation the notion that right actions are those that practical reason would will as universal law.


Imperatives for Action.

More accurate comprehension of morality, of course, requires the introduction of a more precise philosophical vocabulary. Although everything naturally acts in accordance with law, Kant supposed, only rational beings do so consciously, in obedience to the objective principles determined by practical reason. Of course, human agents also have subjective impulses—desires and inclinations that may contradict the dictates of reason. So we experience the claim of reason as an obligation, a command that we act in a particular way, or an imperative. Such imperatives may occur in either of two distinct forms, hypothetical or categorical.

A hypothetical imperative conditionally demands performance of an action for the sake of some other end or purpose; it has the form "Do A in order to achieve X." The application of hypothetical imperatives to ethical decisions is mildly troublesome: in such cases it is clear that we are morally obliged to perform the action A only if we are sure both that X is a legitimate goal and that doing A will in fact produce this desirable result. For a perfectly rational being, all of this would be analytic, but given the general limitations of human knowledge, the joint conditions may rarely be satisfied.

A categorical imperative, on the other hand, unconditionally demands performance of an action for its own sake; it has the form "Do A." An absolute moral demand of this sort gives rise to familiar difficulties: since it expresses moral obligation with the perfect necessity that would directly bind any will uncluttered by subjective inclinations, the categorical imperative must be known a priori; yet it cannot be an analytic judgment, since its content is not contained in the concept of a rational agent as such. The supreme principle of morality must be a synthetic a priori proposition. Leaving its justification for the third section of the Grounding (and the Second Critique), Kant proceeded to a discussion of the content and application of the categorical imperative.


The Categorical Imperative.

Constrained only by the principle of universalizability, the practical reason of any rational being understands the categorical imperative to be: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." That is, each individual agent regards itself as determining, by its decision to act in a certain way, that everyone (including itself) will always act according to the same general rule in the future. This expression of the moral law, Kant maintained, provides a concrete, practical method for evaluating particular human actions of several distinct varieties.

Consider, for example, the case (#2 in the text) of someone who contemplates relieving a financial crisis by borrowing money from someone else, promising to repay it in the future while in fact having no intention of doing so. (Notice that this is not the case of finding yourself incapable of keeping a promise originally made in good faith, which would require a different analysis.) The maxim of this action would be that it is permissible to borrow money under false pretenses if you really need it. But as Kant pointed out, making this maxim into a universal law would be clearly self-defeating. The entire practice of lending money on promise presupposes at least the honest intention to repay; if this condition were universally ignored, the (universally) false promises would never be effective as methods of borrowing. Since the universalized maxim is contradictory in and of itself, no one could will it to be law, and Kant concluded that we have a perfect duty (to which there can never be any exceptions whatsoever) not to act in this manner.

On the other hand, consider the less obvious case (#4 in the text) of someone who lives comfortably but contemplates refusing any assistance to people who are struggling under great hardships. The maxim here would be that it is permissible never to help those who are less well-off than ourselves. Although Kant conceded that no direct contradiction would result from the universalization of such a rule of conduct, he argued that no one could consistently will that it become the universal law, since even the most fortunate among us rightly allow for the possibility that we may at some future time find ourselves in need of the benevolence of others. Here we have only an imperfect duty not act so selfishly, since particular instances may require exceptions to the rule when it conflicts either with another imperfect duty (e.g., when I don't have enough money to help everyone in need) or a perfect duty (e.g., if the only way to get more money would be under a false promise).

Kant also supposed that moral obligations arise even when other people are not involved. Since it would be contradictory to universalize the maxim of taking one's own life if it promises more misery than satisfaction (#1), he argued, we have a perfect duty to ourselves not to commit suicide. And since no one would will a universalized maxim of neglecting to develop the discipline required for fulfilling one's natural abilities (#3), we have an imperfect duty to ourselves not to waste our talents.

These are only examples of what a detailed application of the moral law would entail, but they illustrate the general drift of Kant's moral theory. In cases of each of the four sorts, he held that there is a contradiction—either in the maxim itself or in the will—involved in any attempt to make the rule under which we act into a universal law. The essence of immorality, then, is to make an exception of myself by acting on maxims that I cannot willfully universalize. It is always wrong to act in one way while wishing that everyone else would act otherwise. (The perfect world for a thief would be one in which everyone else always respected private property.) Thus, the purely formal expression of the categorical imperative is shown to yield significant practical application to moral decisions.


Alternative Formulæ for the Categorical Imperative.

Although he held that there is only one categorical imperative of morality, Kant found it helpful to express it in several ways. Some of the alternative statements can be regarded as minor variations on his major themes, but two differ from the "formula of universal law" sufficiently to warrant a brief independent discussion.

Kant offered the "formula of the end in itself" as: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." This places more emphasis on the unique value of human life as deserving of our ultimate moral respect and thus proposes a more personal view of morality. In application to particular cases, of course, it yields the same results: violating a perfect duty by making a false promise (or killing myself) would be to treat another person (or myself) merely as a means for getting money (or avoiding pain), and violating an imperfect duty by refusing to offer benevolence (or neglecting my talents) would be a failure to treat another person (or myself) as an end in itself. Thus, the Kantian imperative agrees with the Christian expression of "The Golden Rule" by demanding that we derive from our own self-interest a generalized concern for all human beings.

Drawing everything together, Kant arrived at the "formula of autonomy," under which the decision to act according to a maxim is actually regarded as having made it a universal law. Here the concern with human dignity is combined with the principle of universalizability (← Jae Steele: Is this even a word? O.o) to produce a conception of the moral law as self-legislated by each for all. As Kant puts it,

A rational being belongs to the kingdom of ends as a member when he legislates in it universal laws while also being himself subject to these laws. He belongs to it as sovereign, when as legislator he is himself subject to the will of no other.

A rational being must always regard himself as legislator in a kingdom of ends rendered possible by freedom of the will, whether as member or as sovereign.

In this final formulation, the similarity of Kant's moral theory with his epistemology should be clear. Just as the understanding in each of us determines the regulative principles of natural science that all must share, so the practical reason in each of us determines the universal maxims of morality that all must obey.


Autonomy of the Will.

In fact, this final formula for the categorical imperative brings us back to the original concept of the will itself as that which is good without qualification. At this point in the argument, Kant can provide a more technical statement of its intrinsic moral value by distinguishing between autonomy and heteronomy of the will.

A heteronomous will is one in obedience to rules of action that have been legislated externally to it. Such a will is always submitting itself to some other end, and the principles of its action will invariably be hypothetical imperatives urging that it act in such a way as to receive pleasure, appease the moral sense, or seek personal perfection. In any case, the moral obligations it proposes cannot be regarded as completely binding upon any agent, since their maxim of action comes from outside it.

An autonomous will, on the other hand, is entirely self-legislating: The moral obligations by which it is perfectly bound are those which it has imposed upon itself while simultaneously regarding them as binding upon everyone else by virtue of their common possession of the same rational faculties. All genuinely moral action, Kant supposed, flows from the freely chosen dictates of an autonomous will. So even the possibility of morality presupposes that human agents have free will, and the final section of the Grounding is devoted to Kant's effort to prove that they do.

Human Freedom.

As we might expect, Kant offered as proof of human freedom a transcendental argument from the fact of moral agency to the truth of its presupposed condition of free will. This may seem to be perfectly analogous to the use of similar arguments for synthetic a priori judgments in the First Critique, but the procedure is more viciously circular here. Having demonstrated the supreme principle of morality by reference to autonomy, Kant can hardly now claim to ground free will upon the supposed fact of morality. That would be to exceed the bounds of reason by employing an epistemological argument for metaphysical purposes.

Here's another way of looking at it: Each case of moral action may be said to embody its own unique instance of the antimony between freedom and causal determination. For in order to do the right thing, it must at least be possible for my action to have some real effect in the world, yet I must perform it in complete independence from any external influence. Morality requires both freedom and causality in me, and of course Kant supposes that they are. I can think of myself from two standpoints: I operate within the phenomenal realm by participating fully in the causal regularities to which it is subject; but as a timeless thing in itself in the noumenal realm I must be wholly free. The trick is to think of myself in both ways at once, as sensibly determined but intelligibly free.

Kant rightly confesses at the end of the Grounding that serious contemplation of morality leads us to the very limits of human reason. Since action in accordance with the moral law requires an autonomous will, we must suppose ourselves to be free; since the correspondence of happiness with virtue cannot be left to mere coincidence, we must suppose that there is a god who guarantees it; and since the moral perfection demanded by the categorical imperative cannot be attained in this life, we must suppose ourselves to live forever. Thus god, freedom, and immortality, which we have seen to be metaphysical illusions that lie beyond the reach of pure reason, turn out to be the three great postulates of practical reason.

Although the truth about ourselves and god as noumenal beings can never be determined with perfect certainty, on Kant's view, we can continue to function as responsible moral agents only by acting as if it obtains. Things could hardly have been otherwise: the lofty dignity of the moral law, like the ultimate nature of reality, is the sort of thing we cannot know but are bound to believe.


Morality and Peace.

Kant's interest in moral matters was not exclusively theoretical. In Die Metaphysik der Sitten (Metaphysics of Morals, 1797) he worked out the practical application of the categorical imperative in some detail, deriving a fairly comprehensive catalog of specific rules for the governance of social and personal morality. What each of us must actually will as universal, Kant supposed, is a very rigid system of narrowly prescribed conduct.

In Zum ewigen Frieden (On Perpetual Peace) (1795), Kant proposed a high-minded scheme for securing widespread political stability and security. If statesmen would listen to philosophers, he argued, we could easily achieve an international federation of independent republics, each of which reduces its standing army, declines to interfere in the internal affairs of other states, and agrees to be governed by the notion of universal hospitality.


Kant's Third Critique.

The final component of Kant's critical philosophy found expression in his Kritik der Urteilskraft (Critique of Judgment, 1790). Where the first Critique had dealt with understanding in relation to reality and the second had been concerned with practical reason in relation to action, this third Critique was meant to show that there is a systematic connection between the two, a common feature underlying every use of synthetic a priori judgments, namely the concept of purpose. In the last analysis, Kant supposed, it is our compulsion to find meaning and purpose in the world that impels us to accept the tenets of transcendental idealism.

In aesthetics, for example, all of our judgments about what is beautiful or sublime derive from the determination to impose an underlying form on the sensory manifold. Like mathematics, art is concerned with the discovery or creation of unity in our experience of the spatio-temporal world. Teleological judgments in science, theology, and morality similarly depend upon our fundamental convictions, that operation of the universe has some deep purpose and that we are capable of comprehending it.

Kant's final word here offers an explanation of our persistent desire to transcend from the phenomenal realm to the noumenal. We must impose the forms of space and time on all we perceive, we must suppose that the world we experience functions according to natural laws, we must regulate our conduct by reference to a self-legislated categorical imperative, and we must postulate the noumenal reality of ourselves, god, and free will—all because a failure to do so would be an implicit confession that the world may be meaningless, and that would be utterly intolerable for us. Thus, Kant believed, the ultimate worth of his philosophy lay in his willingness "to criticize reason in order to make room for faith." The nineteenth-century German philosophers who followed him quickly moved to transform his modest critical philosophy into the monumental metaphysical system of absolute idealism.

Advanced Composition Essay: Stereotypes.

A stereotype is a commonly held oversimplified, generic image assigned to a group of people related to their race, nationality, age, sexual orientation, interests, etc. - to name a few. Generally speaking, they are not based on objective / verifiable truth, but on prior assumptions and prejudices. We’ve all heard them; some famous ones, by way of example, are:

• All white people are racist.
• All black people love watermelon and only listen to hip-hop and rap.
• All blondes are stupid.
• All women with short hair are gay.
• All men who love the arts are gay.
• All women are complicated.
• All men are pigs.
• All teenagers are sex-crazed drug addicts.
• All Irishman are drunks.
• All Germans are Nazi-sympathizers.
• All Asians are bad drivers, but good at math.
• All Vietnamese paint nails.
• All Russians are Communists.
• All Hispanics are illegal.
• All Americans are fat, lazy and uneducated.
• All southerners in the U.S. have sex with their cousins.
• All Italians have mob connections.
• All Jamaicans smoke weed.
• All Cubans deal drugs.
• All Brazilians play soccer.
• All Muslims are terrorists.
• All Christians are anti-gay.
• All Jews are greedy.
• All Atheists and Agnostics hate religion and have no morals.
• All homeless people are homeless by choice.

ETC.

I chalk up the forming of stereotypes to ignorance and fear of the unknown. People fear what they do not understand, and when they feel threatened, they feel a need to become superior somehow; so certain one-dimensional characteristics are noted, and then turned into caricatures / labels that represent an entire group of people. As a result, most stereotypes are derogatory in nature, i.e., racist, sexist, ageist, etc.

These stereotypes can even lead to bullying in a very young age – for instance, in grade schools, there are famous cases of the jocks and the preps picking on the nerds and the geeks; the skaters picking on the Goths, and the Goths picking on the emos. Even sexual stereotypes are common in schools – the conservatives picking on the gay and bisexual; the feminine men are harassed for being gay, and the masculine women are harassed for being lesbian; supporters for gay rights are harassed for being gay – the list goes on and on.

Where do we break the chain?

"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime."

- Mark Twain

There is such a thing as a positive stereotype, though [i.e., all black people are good athletes], but since stereotypes generally tend to not be based on truth, I disagree with treating them as such. We are all guilty of using stereotypes at some point; often, this is due to never having more than second-hand knowledge of a group of people while growing up.

However, once you have added knowledge to the contrary – and you are more aware of the uniqueness and individuality of the group, and yet, you still choose to categorize people in stereotypical ways – you are suggesting that you cannot accept anything positive about that group of people, and you are participating in prejudice. This is when stereotypes especially become damaging and offensive.

The bottom line is, judging a person based solely on preconceived notions will not only discourage another person to succeed – these stereotypes cause the enforcers of them to lead lives driven by hate, and the victims of these stereotypes to lead lives driven by fear. For these reasons, it is not only hurtful to stereotype– it is unethical, and creates a lose-lose situation.

Aristotle: Metaphysica.

I recently checked out "The Basic Works of Aristotle" from the library; I thought I would share my favorite points [so far] with you guys:

I. All men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer sight to almost everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things.


II. The investigation of the truth is in one way hard, in another easy. An indication of this is found in the fact that no one is able to obtain the truth adequately, while on the other hand, no one fails entirely, but everyone says something true about the nature of things, and while individually they contribute little or nothing to the truth, by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed. Therefore, since the truth seems to be like the proverbial door, which no one can fail to hit, in this way it is easy, but the fact that we can have a whole truth, and not the particular part we aim at shows the difficulty of it.

Perhaps, too, as difficulties are of two kinds, the cause of the present difficulty is not in the facts but in us. For as the eyes of bats are to the blaze of day, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature most evident of all.

It is just that we should be grateful, not only to those with whose views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed more superficial views; for these also contributed something, by developing before us the powers of thought. It is true that if there had been no Timotheus we should have been without much of our lyric poetry; but if there had been no Phrynis there would have been no Timotheus. The same holds good of those who have expressed views about the truth; for from some thinkers we have inherited certain opinions, while the others have been responsible for the appearance of the former.

It is right also that philosophy should be called knowledge of the truth. For the end of theoretical knowledge is truth, while that of practical knowledge is action (for even if they consider how things are, practical men do not study the eternal, but what is relative and in the present). Now we do not know a truth without its cause; and a thing has a quality in a higher degree than other things if in virtue of it the similar quality belongs to the other things as well [e.g., fire is the hottest of things; for it is the cause of the heat of all other things]; so that that causes derivative truths to be true is most true. Hence the principles of eternal things must be always most true (for they are not merely sometimes true, nor is there any cause of their being, but they themselves are the cause of the being of other things), so that as each thing is in respect of being, so is it in respect of truth.

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy.

[In my English class, we had an assignment on properly quoting an article; as sort of a way to commemorate the 30th anniversary of John Lennon's death, I'm sharing this assignment in here].

Reference List Entry for Article:

Costello, Maureen [December 8, 2010]. I Heard the News Today, Oh Boy. Retrieved from here.


Direct Quotation and Internal Citation:

Maureen Costello, a contributing author for Teaching Tolerance, recalled this memory upon the 30th anniversary of the death of John Lennon:

I don’t remember the next day [after John Lennon’s murder] very well, but one of my former students, Denise, does. We reconnected at her high school reunion last year, and shortly afterward, we became Facebook friends. On December eighth, she sent me this message:

"Twenty-nine years ago, you canceled your history class and played The Beatles’ music for us. I believe you even turned off the lights, and said something like, “I have no words, so let's listen to his.” As I recall, we all sat in silence. It was a beautiful tribute, since there really were no words. I never thanked you for that ... thank you!”

Another student chimed in, “I can't believe you remember that!”

Denise replied, “I never forgot it; I just never had the opportunity to say, 'Thanks'. It made a terrible day a little better for us.”

Paraphrased Material and Internal Citation:

In her contributing article for Teaching Tolerance, Maureen Costello states that, even though there was music that John Lennon still had to give the day he died, and was denied the chance to share it; even though we can only imagine the work that he would have continued to do for peace in his later years – he still continued to have a powerful affect on us today, when it comes to displaying tolerance, peace, love and a sense of self – even in death. Listening to music in the classroom together, and as a sort of community, morphing together in shared retrospect and tribute, brought a sense of togetherness – and that became a very memorable, moving and powerful lesson for the entire class that day. [Costello, Maureen; December 8, 2010; Retrieved from here.]

* * * * * *

Yes, we have to say it. Remember, this is just a football game - no matter who wins or loses. An unspeakable tragedy confirmed to us by ABC News in New York City: John Lennon, outside of his apartment building on the West Side of New York City - the most famous, perhaps, of all of The Beatles - shot twice in the back, rushed to Roosevelt Hospital: dead on arrival. Hard to go back to the game after that news flash - which, in duty bound, we have to take.

- Howard Cosell
[Reporting Lennon's death on-air during Monday Night Football on December 8, 1980]

This Is What Oppression Is:

op·pres·sion
   /əˈprɛʃən [uh-presh-uhn]
–noun

1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
2. an act or instance of oppressing.
3. the state of being oppressed.
4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.


Origin:
1300–50; ME oppressioun
a pressing down, equiv. to oppress ( us ) ( see oppress) + -iōn- -ion

—Synonyms
tyranny, despotism, persecution, hardship, suffering.

—Antonyms
kindness, justice.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.


* * * * * *

Ever wonder why some people believe their spiritual or religious belief is the only way to God and try to force it on us? It is simply because they believe in what they believe so much. So just discredit other religions or spiritual paths, and scream "religious persecution!" louder than anyone when it's happening to you? The truth about self-righteousness, is that not many people realize it is really vanity in action. Some religious people are so anti-blasphemy -- but do they realize that their beliefs are blasphemous to someone else? Do you know how to treat other people with love and dignity - even those who believe differently than you do? Do you even care to? Some of you saviors may believe you are born to save others.


Do you think that love is forcing change on others, or accepting others for what they are and letting them grow at the pace that they are comfortable with?

When we love, we don’t force our religion on others.


When we love, we don’t give people ultimatums. When we love, we don't force our beliefs and opinions on other people. When we love, we honor and respect the sanctity of another person's belief system. When we love, we simply love. So the next time you think of punishing and inflicting suffering on other people for not believing in what you do - before you think, "there has to be serious consequences" - think about love. Will love do that? Are you doing that?

Especially when you're preaching about living in a peaceful new world, should you think twice before attempting to justify acts of oppression with so-called noble intentions. No one should have to live in fear of having their own belief system, or feel forced into a religion. Is that even what your religion teaches? - that people have no free will or choice? That the true religion would be marked by forced coercion? That God is bloodthirsty and can't wait to kill anyone who does not agree? Is this the same happy God of love and peace that you're preaching to me and to everyone else about?

You twist beautiful principles of love into something ugly, and you use a message of peace to spread misery and hatred.

Don't tell me that you're doing this out of fear for my welfare and happiness.

Critical Thinking: Charity Relief Project

Here in the United States, the majority of us complain about having to work too hard - often, for the sake of buying things that we don't even really need. The truth of the matter is, there is a high standard of living in the United States. Yes, poverty has not been completely eradicated in this country; there are still many homeless people in the streets, and our economy has suffered a downward spiral in recent years - but it is safe to say, that we still lead a fairly spoiled lifestyle. If we don't own car, we have cheap public transportation at our disposal; we have welfare in this country; we have safehouses for people who suffer abuse; etc. Most of us can't even begin to fathom what true poverty really is.

"Generations have been working jobs they hate, just so they can buy things they don't really need."
- Fight Club, Chuck Palahnuik

During this season of giving and good cheer, let's do our part to make a positive difference in this world.

However, our charity strives to accomplish even more than helping those in poverty. As will be discussed in the last part of this report, we also aim to help women who have had to suffer greatly for simply being women. Most women in the United States have never had to live with such an intense fear of harassment, murder, rape, genital mutilation, etc., as women in Iraq have. In addition to helping fight poverty and famine, let's also do our part to defend dignity and equal human rights.

We can help these people.

The following are excerpt of articles taken from the three countries that we are primarily focusing our charities on: Cambodia, Africa and Iraq.

* * * * * *

CAMBODIA:

Time magazine made this statement that sums up the plight of thousands of Cambodians, who are dying daily: "Battered by war, famine and disease, the refugees' faces reflected the plight of a country that has become the Auschwitz of Asia."

In February 2001, Asian Rights Human News reported that "For as little as .40, poor mothers and fathers are known to have sold babies to "procurers" from orphanages. In this Third World nation where most cannot afford two meals a day, a few orphanages cater to Westerners willing to pay thousands of dollars in adoption fees."

Heang Ny, a 24-year-old mother in Cambodia, was begging outside a Buddhist temple when a woman approached and persuaded the young widow to sell her 6-month-old son, Pich Thea. "I didn't have any money, I couldn't produce milk, and my baby was getting skinny," she said. "When I heard these people would feed my son and give him a future, I wanted him to go stay with them."

According to S.C.A.O. [Save the Children in Asia Organization], more than one-third of the entire population is under fifteen years of age. The children of Cambodia follow an uprooted, war-torn, disoriented and lost generation still heavily marked by HIV, tuberculosis, child labor, child trafficking and child abuse.

Imagine this is you.

Imagine this is your child.

Poverty and starvation is NO life for a child.

* * * * * *

AFRICA:

According to the United Nations:

• A child dies every three seconds from AIDS and extreme poverty, often before their fifth birthday.
  
• More than 90 percent are suffering long-term malnourishment and micro-nutrient deficiency.
  
• About 120,000 African children are participating in armed conflicts. Some are as young as 7 years old.
  
• Only 57% of African children are enrolled in primary education, and one in three of those does not complete school.

One poor African has been quoted as saying:

“I know poverty, because poverty was there before I was born, and it has become a part of life like the blood through my veins. Poverty is not going empty for a single day and getting something to eat the next day. Poverty is going empty with no hope for the future. Poverty is getting nobody to feel your pain, and poverty is when your dreams go in vain, because nobody is there to help you. Poverty is watching your mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters die in pain and in sorrow just because they couldn't get something to eat. Poverty is hearing your grandmothers and grandfathers cry out to death to come take them because they are tired of this world. Poverty is watching your own children and grandchildren die in your arms but there is nothing you can do. Poverty is watching your children and grandchildren share tears in their deepest sleep. Poverty is suffering from HIV/AIDS and dying a shameful death, but nobody seems to care. Poverty is when you hide your face and wish nobody could see you, just because you feel less than a human being. Poverty is when you dream of bread and fish you never see in the day light. Poverty is when people accuse you and prosecute you for no fault of yours - but who is there to say something for you? Poverty is when the hopes of your fathers and grandfathers just vanish within a blink of an eye. I know poverty, and I know poverty just like I know my father's name. Poverty never sleeps. Poverty works all day and night. Poverty never takes a holiday."

According to Cozay Group, an equal human rights organization, "a child dies every three seconds in Africa. More than 30000 children will die today from poverty. HIV/AIDS and malaria kill every second in sub-Saharan Africa."

* * * * * *

IRAQ:

A human rights organization called openDemocracy reported the following on July 17, 2005:

Violent oppression of women is spreading across Iraq, a weapon of mass mental and physical destruction. And yet there is silence from world leaders, religious leaders, politicians and the media. Insurgents and religious extremists use rape, acid and assassination to force Iraqi women to wear the veil – the symbol of submission, first signal of further repression to come. Many Iraqi women have never worn the scarf. Now, dead bodies of girls and women are found in rivers and on waste ground with a veil tied around the head, as a message.

As well as unveiled women, key targets are those who wear make-up, who are well educated and in the professions, and who work with organizations connected with the coalition forces.

It is clear what the Islamic fundamentalist men want for women. Using the will of Allah as cover, they pursue women’s conformity to almost any interpretation of the Qu’ran. They demand women’s submission to any male authority. Women are to lead lives without voices, as the social, political and economic inferiors of men, even of 12-year-old boys.

The challenge for men and women committed to democracy and human rights is to trigger a campaign of commitment from the world on the scale of “Make Poverty History”, to make murder and violence against women in Iraq (and the world) history, and to punish the perpetrators. To quote the suffragette slogan: Iraqi women need deeds not words. And they need them now.

* * * * * *

HOW WE CAN HELP:

We will be hosting a charity event accepting donations. This is our chance for us to help out these people who are suffering. A little help is better than no help.

The event will be held at The Cambodian Christian Church on Temple and PCH. We are setting up tables that accept different items, and all of these items will be collected and shipped to the three different locations: Cambodia, Africa and Iraq. Each item donated will be distributed equally.

The charity organizations that we will be donating these items too are the following:

• The People Improvement Organization (PIO) was established in 2002 by Mrs. Phymean Noun and was officially registered at the Ministry of the Interior the same year. PIO is a non political, non religious, non government organization. They provide education, vocational training and support to the poorest communities in Cambodia, with a focus on girls, orphans and street children. Many of these families are living with HIV/AIDs or other serious health issues and are the very poorest communities in Cambodia.
• The Ball For All Organization will be where balls are donated for impoverished schoolchildren in Africa.
• Women For Women supports women in war-torn regions with financial and emotional aid, job-skills training, rights education and small business assistance so they can rebuild their lives.
  

The exact date, time and location for this event are as follows:

• Date: Sunday, December 19th, 2010, 12pm – 4pm
• Location: Cambodian Christian Church
• Accepted Items: Pillows, blankets, baby clothes, baby shoes, kids clothes, kids shoes, women's clothes, men's clothes, canned food, eggs, balls for playing sports, and money.
• Marketing: We will market this event through Facebook, fliers and word of mouth.
• Misc: We will also have this day video recorded and photographed for our records.

* * * * * *

REFERENCES:

• Decard, Chris. February 12, 2002. "Cambodia: Starving Cambodians Sell Babies". Asia Human Rights News. Retrieved from: http://www.ahrchk.net/news/mainfile.php/ahrnews_200102/420/
• [Everything quoted for Africa came directly from the home page for the Cozay group; I was unable to find the date and exact author of the quoted words, but they were retrieved from here: http://cozay.com/]
• Abdela, Lesley. July 17, 2005. "Iraq's War On Women". openDemocracy. Retrieved from: http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-iraqconflict/women_2681.jsp

If Not Now, Then When?

Excerpt from this article.

You have been raised to believe that thinking of yourself is selfish.

So often in life, we end up living our lives based on what others want, because we haven't got the confidence and self-belief to say 'No'. Maybe our parents expect us to live a certain life ... and so we continue to live a life based on keeping them happy.

Now, of course, if you have responsibilities, it is important to honour them. This is not about abandoning areas of your life that you have committed yourself to. What this is about, is standing up for yourself; putting yourself first; considering your own needs and being brave. It's a common phenomenon that people like to put you in a box, give you a role - and if you don't perform as they expect, they react - maybe they get moody, maybe they get angry; but you can bet they'll make you feel bad for daring to upset their reality.

What you must remember is: if you do have people in your life who make you feel like you have a role to perform, and they make you feel guilty if you don’t, then who’s needs are they considering? Their own! - and if you are considering their needs, and they are considering their needs, then who’s looking after you?

Thinking of yourself is not selfish; thinking only of yourself, to the detriment of others, is selfish. Remember, we are talking about adults here; people who can take care of themselves. Don’t let anyone make you feel like you have a responsibility to make them happy. That is their responsibility.

Making your happiness as a priority is not being selfish.

Excerpt from this article:

In the shame/blame-based culture we live in, we are made to feel that we are responsible for everyone and everything’s welfare: it puts the focus on you! It teaches you that you should feel guilty over other people’s failures; that it is your fault and to see yourself as the failure, or the problem, because you didn’t fix it or prevent it: you are supposed to take all of the blame.

If you don’t accept it and instead ask others to take ownership and responsibility for their actions and choices - and stand up for yourself - you are told that you are wrong, selfish, aggressive and mean. It is not selfish, mean, insensitive, or inconsiderate: you are just taking ownership and responsibility for you. There is nothing in that sick, dysfunctional environment to justify other people’s failures being all thrown on you - they need to take ownership or responsibility for own their lives.

People who truly love you will not further negative self-images you have of yourself.

Those people invalidate any claim of loving or caring about you when they back you into that corner and make you out to be the selfish, or the mean one, and try to get you to “back down” - when all you are doing, is simply holding out for your own self, and asking them to have some personal accountability, as well. Being assertive means being able to express and stand-up for your feelings, opinions, beliefs, and needs - directly, openly and honestly - without violating the personal rights of others at the same time. It means standing up for yourself. You have a right to your own mind and to your own opinion. No one, not even your closest relative, has the right to demand thinking for you.

Assertive behavior is often confused with aggression. The difference is that aggressive behavior is self-enhancing at the expense of others; other people’s feelings and rights are ignored, violated and not taken into consideration. An assertive person does consider others - and asks for and stands-up for - the same thing in return.

NOTE TO SELF.

Critical Thinking Discussion: Generational Core Values.

Each generation bases their decisions on their own core values. What are your core values? Make a list of your core values and then select two, and only two, that you feel illustrate your own personal core values.

My personal core values are [in no particular order]:

• Individuality
• Creativity
• Diversity
• Tolerance
• Honesty
• Integrity
• Empathy
• Hope
• Morality
• Family
• Achievement

The two that I feel are the most important to me are tolerance and empathy. I list this even over family, because [the way I see it, anyway], one's relationship with one's family is directly influenced by a display -- and by a lack of -- these two qualities, as well as bearing directly on one's social interactions in general. I think that the Millennial Generation's [in general] willingness and ability to accept others, even when they are different, says a lot about how far we've come from generations in the past, who had been raised with values steeped in prejudice and racism. Tolerant and empathetic people are not only better at displaying warmth and understanding, but they are also more socially competent -- and socially competent people are more successful in life. So, really, these qualities are just as essential as any academic training.

The fact is, we live in a diverse world, so not only are these traits desirable -- they are necessary.

Backstabbers Are Only Powerful When Your Back Is Turned.

This is a personal rant.

I've always wondered what it is that people are thinking when they act two-faced. Tell me, sweetie, do you really feel smarter for your sneakiness? Do you really think that people are stupid and can't see the forest for the trees? Do you feel more powerful and in control now? Do you feel good about yourself when you look at your reflection in the mirror?

And you know how wicked you are for it. Would the backstabber cry when stabbed? Louder than anyone.

I've been told many times that backstabbers act the way that they do out of insecurity. I've decided to dwell on that logic - people enjoy power. Some people abuse power, and they do it from fear. No one needs to abuse power when they feel secure; when they know that they are competent and capable; when they have nothing to prove. No one lies or hides if they truly believe that their actions are justifiable. When a person knows that you are better, stronger, or more confident than they are, that's when people use sneakiness as a tactic. They know that they can't match up with you one-on-one. The question that I've battled with myself on this issue is, "Am I willing to give up my integrity and peace of mind on a daily basis in order to play into someone else's misguided power games?" Like anyone who feels in any way betrayed, the popular motto of "Don't get mad - get even" plays on a loop in my head, and I'm so tempted to give that person a taste of his or her own medicine.

There are risks with this. You may be happier. People may gravitate towards you and want to play on your team. You may become a leader and have an army of sorts willing to inflict pain on the other person with you or for you. You could be a shape-shifter, and a damn good one - just like the backstabber you loathe and despise - but how are you any better, then? And again, would the backstabber cry when stabbed? Louder than anyone. With that in mind, is it really in your best interest to continue this cold game of backstabbing and plot revenge?

Whenever I face such a dilemma as this - as if I had a devil and an angel sitting on either shoulder, a voice of reason will chime in my head, as well: 'How about this, though? How about you behave in integrity with your values and refuse to play? Wouldn't that feel better? Would you enjoy each day more? And, eventually, other people will get the message.'

Despite all of my temptations to go along with my default drive of vengeance, I almost always see the wisdom in the peaceful approach, and go along that route, instead. Consider, for instance, the first rule of change: Be the change you want to see in the world. That's what Gandhi said, and I believe it is paramount. How can a person honestly expect behaviors from others that they are not personally demonstrating themselves? I'm not talking about being a wuss, a doormat or a snob. This is about being in integrity with what you value, with being the sort of person that you most wish there was more of in the world. Use your energy, time and resources in ways that make you feel good every day.

After all, this is a quality of life that you're creating. And guess what? If you choose to be mild-tempered, you'll be the one who is promulgating positivity. You'll be the one showing that there is another - a better way - to make it through the day. And, other people just may want you in their life as a result. Why? Because you are easy to be around. That has to be attractive.

In conclusion, here is another note to self:

Your best defense is to be calm, straightforward, and let them know that you know that they have some hidden agenda. That is you calling them out on your court, to compete on your terms - and not letting them use their sneaky approach.

Hang in. Backstabbers lose every day.

Critical Thinking Project: Fundraising For Cancer.

["Rough Draft Idea" - Week Three]

Horton, Paula (2010, April 25). 2-year-old loses eye to rare cancer. TriCity Herald. Retrieved from: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/04/25/990098/2-year-old-loses-eye-to-rare-cancer.html?storylink=addthis.

This article, as the title suggests, reports on a two-year old girl who was diagnosed with Retinoblastoma, a rare form of eye cancer, and lost an eye because of it. The reason I decided to use this article for the project this week is because it lists basic facts about the disease that our team's fundraising would focus on.

↑ PERSONAL NOTE: I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the goal of fundraising for a benefit - O.o - but, the team asked me to research eye cancer a little bit and to find an article on the topic, so - there you have it.


* * * * *


Cancer Fund-raising Ideas [Budget cannot exceed $1,000]

I think that hosting a Relay would be the easiest way to raise money -- initially, I wanted to host an event that would have food, music, games, etc., but not only would that be a lot of work, but it would most likely exceed our team's expense budget. In my opinion, our best bet is to host a fundraising walk, hosted by volunteer workers, with the idea of increasing awareness of the disease. It would be $10 to walk - and if we can get 500 people to walk in our event, than we have raised $5,000 to benefit the American Cancer Society. We would take this opportunity to celebrate with the survivors of cancer, as well as honoring the memory of those who have died from the disease. I would like to suggest to my team that we host this event at a school; not only would a school track be a great choice for this event, but it would also be a great place to begin spreading awareness; the likelihood of our attracting at least 500 people would greatly be increased.

Basically, the tasks to be completed [in order] are as follows:

- Find a school location for the use of their track.
- Round up volunteer workers, to ensure everything runs smoothly and that people are paying an entry fee of $10 to walk.

*Edited: Idea pitch of mandatory entry fee has been waived.

Top Ten Things Women Should Know About Men.

By Angel Za

1. There are two types of men - the honorable and the dishonorable man.
You must never get married until you learn to tell the difference between the two types of men. Your life will be trashed if you choose to be with a man who has no integrity and self-control.

2. Good men need to be treated like good men - and dishonorable males are meant to be left alone.
Ladies - we should adore, support, and give well-earned respect to our good men who do try their best to handle their responsibilities. No man is perfect, but the ones that really do try their best - these men are such treasures, and they will never turn back to the women that hate them simply for the things that the other dishonorable men do. Do stroke their ego sometimes and respect their manhood. If he deserves your praise, then give him praise - and often. Please cherish him.

3. Deceitful, manipulative, promiscuous and selfish women are not worthy of an honorable man.
They never were and never will be.

4. Dishonorable men do not practice self-control in limiting blood flow between his brain and his stick.
It doesn’t matter if you are the hottest thing in town; he would still sleep around - and sooner or later, give you a disease or two on top of it.

5. The dishonorable man treats sex as a de-stressing sport, you as a trophy, and any child as a result of your relationship as simply a by-product.
If he doesn’t care about the kids, treats you like a whore, and he doesn’t mind his friends’ sleaziness or bad-mouthing you - leave him.

6. If he pressures you to lower your standards on sexuality / is demanding of sex from you / talks lustily with you - and most especially if you are not his girlfriend or his wife -
There is no need to contemplate or wonder. He does not honor or respect you.

7. He doesn't take dating very seriously.
These men view relationships as transitory - which, in reality, prepares them for divorce rather than marriage. Would you like to date an overgrown child who plays with your feelings and treats you like a new toy - and then discards you when bored? You may want to say that dating should be just for fun, but it's no fun when one person is taking it seriously and the other isn't.

8. If you choose to be with the dishonorable male -
You have no right to whine or cry if you choose to hang on to those uncouth, barbaric, bastard men who manipulate, threaten, lie and undermine you. They torch your emotions; abuse you; leave you pregnant and alone; jeopardize your safety [if children are in the picture, than your 'romance' is jeopardizing their safety as well], and is otherwise harming or hurting you. There are many men out there who enjoy hurting women in any way they can; it gives them a sense of control and power. If you choose to be with such an abusive man, be sure to be his punching bag and door mat. Please indulge and enjoy every bit of heartache that you choose to keep holding onto - and don’t torment your genuine friends and any family members that actually do care about you, with listening to your complaints if you choose to ignore any and all advice. Remember! - “Zero” tolerances. You have the power to choose, and if you choose to remain with that type of man, than this is the type of life that you've chosen. Enjoy every minute of it.

9. "But everyone has hidden vices."
Wrong! Throw your own skeletons out of your closet, and don’t let them handicap you further - and be fair to the honorable men that are out there, as well. Don’t judge every man because of the actions of the stupid, selfish and dishonorable ones.

10. "By sticking around him and killing off other competitors, he’s going to marry me some day!"
"If we sleep together, will he like me better?" "If I move in with him, is he going to marry me?” The answer: “Not Likely”. Doubt me? Feel free to examine the ever-growing list of disillusioned women who are waiting for their non-committal lover to marry them. After going over what makes a man a dishonorable one, ladies - do you honestly believe that such a man would marry the woman who is desperate for him? And even if he did - do you honestly believe that he is the type of man who is willing to live up to his vows, or view his wife as a hindrance / spare tire?

NOTE TO SELF.

English Discussion: Word Choice and Diction.

What type of words are appropriate in your college papers? How does this relate to the kind of language you will use in the business world? Give an example of what you would consider as "slang." Why is slang not appropriate? What does "tone" mean? How are word choice and tone related?

When you write a paper, you are writing with the goal of enlightening and educating your reader, and to persuade your audience into viewing something from your perspective - therefore, it is important that you make every word count. This does not mean using antiquated or complicated language; especially for your college and business papers, it is best that you keep your language as clear, concise, and easy-to-understand as possible. Even so, however, it is important that the words that you say sound professional; conversational / informal / slang language will come across as juvenile and immature.

Think of it this way - before you share a business letter or a college paper with a colleague / boss / professor, read your writing aloud to yourself, and then ask yourself: Does it sound like I'm talking to that person during a break in high school? Or at a bar? - Or am I using the full power of my linguistic skills to command the attention and respect of my reader?