AROUND THE GLOBE

 AROUND THE GLOBE 

Lots of people pick up ideas and words from T.V and the media that they use over and over again because these ideas and words are put into a places of importance. They then start from an axiom to  explain the rest of their idea forgetting that the starting point is wrong so all the rest is wrong. Those of left or right political ideas are the same and anything that furthers their world view of the world is manna from heaven.

People want to present themselves as informed but they dont have the time or capacity to undertake the critical or independent thought to do that and when caught out by someone who does know they get angry because they have been found out to be deadwood . Deadwood burns away to nothing .They  may not realise this consciously but unconsciously it hurts.

This is  basically, human beings trying to push forward an idea that they want to be true even if it's not . Much of it comes from learning things from parents and people in perceived authority not wishing to be proved wrong .  Secondly they have little critical appraisal because  asking  if  the word or idea is made up or  never existed in the real world is not part of the thinking.

 Most are basically using incorrect information from media people who don't know what is happening or are frightened to say. 

For instance I just saw Bruno Vespa and guests talking about the security of School as regards Covid and according to them all honky dory no danger  . The basic idea was totally incorrect . There is , logically, no security in school . You travel on a crowded bus and then go into a crowded class room . You get the Covid from the bus then take it to school .That is logical.

 So let us take for an example the total chaos of the covid pandemic and this may explain my point . It was easily preventable as regards lowering the huge numbers of people dead but  governments were incapable of doing the logical thing of closing down points of entry as soon as they heard it was coming .

Historically, the last known pandemic the world survived was the influenza virus  between 1918 and 1920, which took up to 100 million lives.

Sadly, we seem to have not understood anything from these warnings. This has been proven by the response of governments across countries, developed and developing alike, and their attention to public health.

The ease with which we can globetrot today is undeniable. Coronavirus, therefore, was transported from country to country within a matter of days -- thanks to the ease of travel.

As a result, almost half a million lives have been lost so far, and one-third of economies have been shut down due to lockdown procedures. The world economy has shrunk more than 6% in the last five months alone.

This compels us to ask the big question: Does globalization really exist? If it does, then why was everything totally disaster, and no one hardly learned from anyone.

The world has always been divided into North-South or East-West. Globalization was supposed to remove that divide. However, in this time of great need, we haven’t seen many positive impacts of globalization.

What we have witnessed, though, is the flow of information which, on many occasions, was chaotic.  The virus reached war and poverty-stricken countries faster than any humanitarian help ever reached them.

On a global level, most events that happen have nothing to do with the global co-operation .The US has imposed new hard economic sanctions on war-torn Syria that has already lost 380,000 lives and seen the displacement of 11 million people since the war broke out in 2011. In the so-called age of globalization, in a time of a severe global crisis, the most important action should be reshaping and reorganizing the public health sectors; countries should be working shoulder to shoulder to address the issue of our social wellbeing, which has been annihilated by the virus.

Instead, the superpowers are deepening the conflict further. 

The role of super-governments such as the UN, civil societies, NGOs, and think tanks have been reduced drastically due to the pandemic.

One could interpret the situation this way: The East is now a more happening place for economic activity. So, the battleground is shifting towards the East, just as it did in Europe in the 1930s and 40s.

This can only be seen as a clear failure of globalization. So, where does that leave us? In the past, world leaders stated that they “didn’t have any choice” but to go to war. However, time and history have proven that we did have choices -- and we still do.

War and conflict were, definitely, never the purpose of globalization. Globalization is not about nations asserting their superiority.

 Globalization is to bring nations together to collaborate and consolidate efforts for the collective good of the world; let us not fail at it. 

That is why Globalization is just a word that people who should know better use to explain something but what? 

It is a word like nearly everything picked up from the media and never questioned as to if it was real. 

The easily led accept more or less everything that complies with their world view or their view on society and it is nearly impossible to reason with them as they already know what they want to say . As Nietsche said

     Who could change with reason that which was learnt without reason 

This is further embedded by a lot of education in schools where teachers take fake ideas as a given just because everyone more or less thinks they are true . The truth though is an adventure and maybe the greatest adventure that we as thinking people can take .Through truth comes communication and thus real globalization . You can go on that adventure or be as Aristotle said 

               Say  Nothing , Do Nothing , and Be nothing 

My own feelings and this might be myopic is that this word Globilization never existed in the real world merely fashionable . I think it might just be a word needed to explain the easy migration of people needed to work in the west at lower wages or for companies to open up in third world countries and dump their European workforces but that is just a feeling and I cannot prove it.

Questions 

1.Why do people believe the TV  and other media ?

2.What is the real fake news TV or Facebook?

3.Does the lack of co-operation as regards covid show us there is no such thing as globilization?

4.Why do"deadwoods" always want to be right without knowing

T

 

 

Why Is London Here?

Let's start off by looking at London's topography. The arrangement of the land made it a city ripe for expansion. You see, London isn't really that hilly. Residents of Highgate and Forest Hill might disagree, but in the grand scheme of things, even the hilly fringes of the city are relatively flat. The city is built in a gentle river valley, from Crystal Palace in the south to Alexandra Palace in the north. This meant that over time it was easy for the urban sprawl to slowly stretch outwards, something that continued until the introduction of the green belt in the mid 20th century.

Then there's the temperate climate. It isn't a coincidence that the city has a similar climate to one of the world's other major cities, New York. Never too hot nor too cold, this was important in the days before central heating and air conditioning.

These are small helping hands that made London flourish. But to understand why it was founded is in this exact part of Britain, we have to look at its Roman roots.London's outstanding geographical feature is the Thames. Most of the world's major cities are situated on a river; they were, of course, vital for trade links. In fact, 19 of Europe's 20 largest cities are on rivers (Milan being the odd one out). Except that when the Romans first came across the Thames, it was an obstacle rather than a boon.

London, you see, wasn't always been Britain's largest city. That honour goes to Colchester, which was the country's main hub when the Romans landed (how times have changed). As the Romans were heading towards Colchester from the south, they needed to cross the Thames, so they built the first ever London Bridge. Why was it placed where it was? This was the closest point to the sea that the bridge could be built using 46AD's technology. As the bridge was constructed, a settlement formed on the northern side: Londinium.Londinium played second fiddle to Colchester, which remained the capital for roughly 15 more years until Boudica's revolt. She and her soldiers razed many settlements to the ground; including both Londinium and Colchester. Boudica's revolt ultimately failed to free Britain from Roman rule. And ironically, the damage she did left the continental rulers with the chance to change the status quo when rebuilding. They decided to move the capital to Londinium.

For the Romans, Londinium's benefits were twofold. The first is that the Romans were proud of the city they had built from scratch, instead of taking over a major tribal capital that predated them. The other factor, is that over time it became clear that seagoing ships could reach Londinium and unload their freight there, with greater ease than in Colchester. Today, Colchester's population is around 122,000, compared to London's estimated 8.6 million. Ouch.

1. What town has no river?

2.Why was Colchester raised to the ground?

3.Why did the Romans love their city?

4.Where do you normally build a bridge?

5.When the Romans first saw the Thames what did they consider it ?

6.What is Cochesters population today ?

7.What is a steep hill in London?

8.What kind of climate has London got ?

 THE THINGS THAT CONCERN YOUNG PEOPLE AND TEENAGERS 

What are 10 things that we should know at a young age?

Read everything then discuss. Say exactly what you think even if you disagree.

1. It feels like your present life will last forever—parents alive, grandparents alive, the world of close family and friends. But in 20 years most of that will be long gone. Savor it now, even when it seems tedious. For many young people life seems to be forever but in reality its very finite .
2. You might believe aging will pass you by—it won’t. Ageing is different for many people but it means that physically your body will change but mentally it will more or less stay the same. Intelligence doesnt really diminish with age or the opposite . We dont become more intelligent. Maybe we become wiser .
3. At around 45  you finally learn who you really are. And you lose the ability to care what others think about you. You simply cannot care, no matter how hard you try. That is freeing. Age has some benefits. 
4. The choices you make in youth are very serious. That is why you get so anxious about them. Your 45 year old self will feel this closely. What you do now as a young person will create your future life . Job choices are important and they are based on what you do now . For instance you need a degree to go into some jobs but the money is no good so years of study are transformed into a life without much money.
5. If you are scapegoated by your family or friends  get away from these toxic people now. Don’t spend another 20 years suffering. If you try to open up and be vulnerable to “work out your differences” they will very often use these against you.Being away from these people feels like the weight of the world off my shoulders. It is indescribably liberating.
6. If you are only attracted to bad boys or crazy chicks, get over it. These people will ruin your life. Only go out with emotionally healthy people who are trustworthy and empathic.
7. Do not live with religious fear. Nobody knows what is going on, and self-inflicted harm only makes life harder than it has to be. religion is a private thing between you and your God but I may be wrong. Its my idea.
8. You can do far more than you think. You need to simply try. “Some things are worth attempting, even if you are likely to fail,” as Elon Musk has said.
9. If you are addicted to drugs or alcohol or nicotine remembrer that this will always be with you . It can end a life from having any meaning
10. Make sure you combine earning a living with something you enjoy. ask your teacher what they think you could do 

foster and empire

 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3199513?seq=1

E M Forster and the British Raj in a Passage to India Essay

E.M. Forster made a mark in the literature of his age through his last novel A

Passage to India (1924), which was entirely different from Forster's other novels in

that it dealt with the political occupation of India by the British, colonial

domination that ended soon after the publication of this novel. Forster, a liberal and

humanist in outlook emphasized the importance of love and understanding at the

personal level in this novel.

The novel dealt with the misunderstandings between the English and the Indians in the British India of 1910-20. The British East India Company, which had come to India in 1600, established themselves as the rulers of India. Though the natives revolted against the foreign rule during the Revolt of 1857, they were suppressed and India was made a colony of the British Empire in 1858.

A bureaucratic colonial system was established in India known as the British Raj with Queen Victoria as the Empress of India. The British Raj divided India into British India under the control of the British government and independent Indian states ruled by the Indian princes. The growth of nationalism made the Hindus and Muslims unite in a campaign of non-cooperation against the British Government. With the First World War, the power of Britain as an imperial nation decreased and led to the dissolution of the British Raj in India.

Many observations about race and culture in colonial India are threaded throughout the

novel. 

 A Passage to India is in some ways a sort of ethnography or an examination of the customs

of different cultures. On the English

side, many cultural forces affect the characters. One character  Ronny is naturally

goodhearted and

sympathetic, but his “public school mindset” and the influence of his English peers compel him

to become hardened and unkind to Indians. The other English expatriates view the

character, Adela, as strange and as if she is not one of them but above all

naïve for sympathizing with the Indians, and they even admit that they too felt the

same at first before realizing the “truth.” Overall the pervading culture of the English

in India is that one must adopt a racist, patronizing attitude to survive and thrive,

and that one’s very Englishness makes one superior to the Indians. Forster also

examines the English tendency to be rational without emotion, and what is

perceived as the English lack of imagination.

FASHION AND STYLE ARE ALWAYS THE SAME

 There are lots of things you don't like on sight. Rick Stein, Dawn Henry, and her ex-husband, white socks, and people with hoodies so over their head that you can't make out who they are. You can't make out why you don't like some things you just do and there's a prevalence to dislike new fashions especially if you are a mod but the truth is fashion always goes hand in hand with style.

Style refers to a person’s particular way of expressing themselves—whether that’s through clothing, cooking style, or a style of architecture. In the fashion world, “style” is usually shorthand for “personal style,” or the way an individual expresses themselves through aesthetic choices such as their clothing, accessories, hairstyle, and the way they put an outfit together. So if we take personal style as a starting point and let's say you are invited to a top VIP party you would hardly turn up in the high fashion and also the style of the 70s, let's say in a Tommy Nutter suit. You would be so out of style not only fashion. If you are one of those people who think Queen Victoria is still alive would you go to that party in what was the zenith of Victorian style? Methinks not .

Fashion is the dominant style within a given culture at a certain time. Fashion has to do with new trends: It refers to popular ways of dressing during a specific era but popular ways are also about style. Only some mods dress in clothes that are way out of fashion and style and I'm referring to the done-up like a kipper all buttoned three-button suit which to the world at large gets the mental comment "fucking ell still wearing a three-button that bloke. Must have bought it new and worn it ever since" The style part of that would be to only wear the middle done up. Then it might look like a Brioni 3k suit idea. Straight away a joke becomes cool.

Style is not timeless just like fashion. When I was young and still had proper hair and about 20 kilos less than now Id get stopped on the street with other young blokes asking me where I got the suit . It wasn't just a case of buying a fashionable suit, the style part came in with how you wore it.

 Someone fashionable closely follows the latest fashion trends and wears designer clothing. Someone who is stylish may or may not follow fashion trends, but they always stay a bit close to what is happening even hippie types and even dopes who say they don't like dressing. Personal style is about developing a sense of self, rather than simply absorbing trends but for sure even unconsciously we absorb trends.

The truth is that you will hardly ever see anyone who is dressed in a fashion that's not acceptable today. That's why style and fashion bed together.

EQUAL PAY

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQu9-LR4GcE

Watch the video to make sure you understand all words and phrases spoken.

1. If you try for example to create a team of engineers with 50-50 men and women and equal pay then you going to fail says Peterson because the pool of engineers is much lower as regards women and therefore they will not be as qualified. The point is men are going to fail if they enter the nursing profession in exactly the same way (maybe).

2. One company not that big might make a success of it but what Peterson is saying is that there is much more choice as regards men who are qualified engineers. So you can't use one successful operation to explain the whole and that's on anything. Isolated success stories never explain the real story.

3. Peterson says that creating equal positions for gender and race or anything has never been able to show any means of success. So people getting a good position simply because they are female or of a certain ethnicity is meaningless if you want to be successful.

4. More agreeable people get paid less. Why?

5. Equity is a bad idea and we are gonna pay for that he says. Why? Because if you put a stumblebum into a job just because he or she is of a certain gender or ethnicity then you will bring down the whole. Look at the Italian government. Many in position because they know someone. It brings disasters to not have really qualified people. Look at the reality; the bridge of Genoa, the Via Reggio train disaster, and the ferry to Genoa. All are caused by people in positions who are unqualified especially the overseers.

6.I have noticed that in school many students just go on with things they think sound good like everyone is the same. That is so ridiculous that it means the incredibly complex make-up of human beings are basically turned into robots if they are all the same. Peterson upsets that particular apple cart with facts but people still don't want to accept a truth or a fact.

7. Peterson is the type of person who tells you how it is. He thinks if problems are not dealt with then things always go on the same. An example of this would be Joe Biden appointing lots of women to his government simply because that act looks good to voters especially women but does no long-term good for the community. 

8. He says in another video that women have created an immense part of society today but he believes in opportunity of equality not the opportunity of the outcome.

QUESTIONS 

1. Whats your view on unequal pay today?

2. My view is that we should change the word unequal to bad pay . Most companies pay their workers very low money and the state is not exempt . A teacher earns about 1,300 for most of theoir career . Exploitation is always on the national news but the state exploits their workers including RAI.

3.What do you think of the Biden act ?

4.Why won't people accept truth if it goes against their unfounded opinion?

5.Your opinion on the video?

6.Women tell me that where they work in the private sector there is unequal pay .Does this explain the real story?

I BELIEVE I AM A PARROT

PARROT LIKE

Which job is more dangerous—working as a U.S police officer or a U.S fisherman? If you guessed police officer, you’re wrong. According to figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, fishing workers are 10 times more likely than police to be killed on the job. 

 The reason most of us believe police officers are more likely to die at work is because of the mental shortcut that can lead us to overestimate the frequency of an event when that event is more “available” or vivid in our memory. 

When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, it’s widely reported in the news and sticks with us in memory, so we tend to believe it must be more common than deaths in other professions. If a fisherman falls overboard it is not even news.

Who is more likely to kill you in the U.S if you are black, is it a policeman.No it's another black. Statistics prove this. 80% of black or African-American victims are killed by African-Americans but this is a statistic very hard to find on the internet . African Americans are highly overrepresented in murders and gun assaults. 

Doctors sometimes believe that diseases are more widespread than they really are—their jobs naturally fill their memories with vivid examples. In fact, when any of us read or watch a news story about an instance of terrorism, voter fraud, or other crime, we’re likely to overestimate how common such events are. Unless we’re careful, the vivid nature of the news story in our memory can unconsciously bias our estimate of how often these events actually happen. Because it's on T.V it gains much more important when it might not be very important.

Whether we like it or not, all of us can be powerfully swayed by emotions. We'd like to think that our feelings are driven by logic and reason, particularly when it comes to our political beliefs. Unfortunately, this relationship is often reversed. Sometimes we end up using our reasoning ability to justify or defend a conclusion that we’ve already drawn based on our emotions. Let's look at a romantic relationship. We try to believe someone loves us when they clearly do not. They hardly ever get in touch and we make excuses for them that do not exist 

This phenomenon, called emotional reasoning, can lead us astray without our ever knowing. We argue and argue something because we want it to be true or we want to win an argument.

Psychiatrist A.Beck  first noticed this in depressed patients. He observed that many patients drew obviously untrue conclusions about themselves based on how they felt, rather than the actual facts. "If I feel depressed,” one of his patients might say, "then there must be something objectively wrong with my job, my marriage, my children, or other parts of my life." This is wrong as depression can come for no real reason. 

But feelings are just feelings, even when they're powerful, and they can sometimes lie to us. Even in those of us who aren’t depressed, this tendency can affect our beliefs about virtually any emotionally charged topic, whether we’re talking about sexuality, religion, money, crime, or war. The Haute left will use any argument to justify their belief just as the right will do so.

 On the internet, there are what seems to be scholarly intellectual arguments that are really based on someone searching for something to back their belief and lots of people think it is true because they see that the font of the argument is a top university. This is even worse than the obvious lunatic on Facebook who tries to back an idea or belief with silly conclusions and not very convincing so-called facts. 

Take the arguments on Brexit. One side says we will be better off with making decisions entirely of our own the other side says it is a disaster to leave the E.U. Quite frankly I do not know. I have not seen any conclusive statistics on the question. I do know that when I have asked someone to prove their ideas they can't.

 When we feel scared, angry, anxious, or even just uneasy about a topic, we can easily jump to the conclusion that the topic is somehow objectively bad or dangerous. Next time a topic makes you feel uncomfortable, that’s probably a reason to keep an open mind, not to draw a conclusion.

But feelings are just feelings, even when they're powerful, and they can sometimes lie to us. Even in those of us who aren’t depressed, this tendency can affect our beliefs about virtually any emotionally charged topic, whether we’re talking about sexuality, religion, money, crime, or war. When we feel scared, angry, anxious, or even just uneasy about a topic, we can easily jump to the conclusion that the topic is somehow objectively bad or dangerous. Next time a topic makes you feel uncomfortable, that’s probably a reason to keep an open mind, not to draw a conclusion.

Confirmation Bias

Once we have a belief, we tend to cling to it, even when it’s untrue. and the tendency to seek out information that supports what we already believe. 

We do this in two important ways. First, we tend to surround ourselves with messages that confirm our pre-existing opinions. This is why both leftists and rightists tend to get their news from sources that already agree with them. 

The idea is you believe something then you see a piece of writing or news that you do not even know if it's true but you accept it.

Second, we tend to ignore or discount messages that disprove our beliefs. If we’re sure that climate change is a hoax and someone shows us a research study disputing this belief, we might dismiss the study’s findings by saying that the researcher is obviously biased or corrupt. This protects us from having to change our beliefs. When our ideas are true, this probably isn’t such a bad thing. Unfortunately, it also can keep us firmly believing things are false.

1. Do most people value the real truth_

2. Do people understand that truth can only come from statistics and data 

3. Can you prove a belief intellectually

4. I am always interested in listening to people not so much for what they say but where their ideas come from. What about you.

5. Why are scholarly university type articles as biased as the mug on Facebook according to the article

6.  What is confirmation bias 

7. Are people basically parrots who repeat rubbish

8. Why do we read things into people in a romantic relationship that do not exist 

GLOBAL

 

Globalization is the way that local or national ways of doing things become global, that is, done together around the world. It is about economics or trade, technology, politics, and culture. People feel differently about globalization: some think it helps everyone while others think it hurts some peopl

It describes the way countries and people of the world interact and integrate. Globalization has many sides and can be economic, political and/or cultural.

Economic globalization is how countries are coming together as one big global economy, making international trade easier. In the late 20th century, many countries agreed to lower tariffs, or taxes on goods that are imported from other countries. The way Internet and other communication technologies makes it easier for people to buy and sell products from around the world is an example of globalization. Herman E. Daly has said that there is an important difference between internationalization and globalization. Internationalization is about nations working together for the same goals. These are things like treaties, alliances, and other international agreements. Globalization is about international trade being less obstructed by national borders.

Political globalization is how institutions and countries can influence the whole world. The United Nations are an example of globalization because most countries of the world are members of its General Assembly. This international organization can make countries follow rules and apply economic sanctions to a country that doesn't. This means the countries in the U.N will punish them by not talking or trading with them so they don't benefit from globalization.

Cultural globalization is how culture is becoming homogeneous, which means that people from all over the world act in similar way. For example, many people around the world write with the Latin alphabet, wear T-shirts and jeans and watch Hollywood movies and other media.

Criticism

Some people, , do not like globalization because they feel it only helps rich people get richer by making poor people poorer. Offshore outsourcing, where companies hire workers in cheaper countries, is often a part of globalization. 

This  means that some people lose their jobs.  Globalization also means that problems from other countries will affect your country. For example the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 started in the United States but ended up affecting the entire world.

Many countries also dislike it when international organizations tell them what to do. However they have to do so because of sanctions. Many people also criticize the fact that globalization means that fewer people are deciding what happens to everyone when they don't always represent the people they're acting for.

Some critics of globalization also feel that it leads to global brands, like Coca-Cola and McDonald's, taking over smaller, local shops and businesses.

 They criticize the fact that powerful countries have bigger influence on world culture than others. For example, the United States is the biggest base cultural exporter, which means that countries around the world are becoming like the United States. However, this hurts local cultures. Jean Baudrillard believes that globalization hurts local cultures and is the cause of most terrorism. He also believes that most supporters of globalization just want to stay in power.

Others, believe that globalization can bring people together and make everyone richer without getting rid of local cultures. People who support globalization also believe that it makes war less likely because it is bad for business. 

Francis Fukuyama also argued that globalization would eventually lead to a system of world governance which would cause wars to end.

Many believe that globalization helps out poorer nations by bringing them business. A report by the World Bank said that poverty in India and Indonesia was cut in half because of globalization. The report also said that people in poorer nations are living longer and better because they were making more money.

1.Do you like globalization or prefer the local economy _

2. Do you think globalization is a word that has little meaning _

3.One good thing is that you can have an internet shop and reach hundreds of thousands of customers . What do you think

4.Do you think it will stop wars