Featured Post

SalaamOne NetWork

SalaamOne سلام   is   a nonprofit e-Forum to promote peace among humanity, through understanding and tolerance of religions, cul...

Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts

How to Make Friends



Image result for friendship

In my experience, people (generally) want to be friends with other people who follow these general guidelines:

Be positive, not negative. While it’s OK to share your struggles with people (I recommend it), if you’re complaining all the time, and are generally negative about other people and life in general, then people get tired of the complaining and negativity. We have enough trouble in life without having friends who are negative all the time. That said, a good friend will always listen when you’re in need, so don’t take this as “never complain.” Instead, just generally try to be a positive person, and if you have struggles, also try to show how you’re tackling those struggles with a positive outlook.
Be interested & a good listener. Be interested in other people! Don’t make the mistake of only wanting to talk about your stuff, and being bored and unimpressed with what other people are doing. I try to find the interesting in everyone, even if they lead a relatively uneventful life, there’s something fascinating about them. When someone wants to talk, listen. If they only talk about themselves all day and don’t want to hear your stuff, then they probably aren’t going to be a great friend, but still give them a chance and be interested for as long as you can.
Be excited about life, have energy. We generally don’t want a friend who is bored all the time. Someone who is excited about life, interested in things, has good energy … that’s someone you’d by hyped to be around. Not super hyper, necessarily, but just containing a positive energy.
Do interesting things. If you’re excited about life, you manifest that by doing new things, learning, creating, exploring, trying out new experiences, meeting new people. If you are this kind of person, you’ll be interesting. If you shut out life, people might not be as interested.
Tell good stories. No one wants to listen to someone who tells long boring stories. After the first two such stories, people generally start tuning you out. So try to keep your stories shorter, unless you can tell people are interested. Find something interesting to hook their curiosity, and then draw them in with that curiosity until you satisfy it with a good ending. Practice your storytelling when you meet people, and try to get better at it. It’s not one of my strong points, to be honest, but I recognize that and am trying to be better.
Smile. I’m not saying you should have a fake smile, but a smile puts you in a friendly mood, versus frowning at someone. Don’t smile all the time, or at inappropriate times. Just generally have a smiling disposition, as it signals that you like the person (also try to genuinely like the person, moving away from tendencies to judge them or complain about them).
Put yourself out there, be willing to try things. Sing in public even if that scares you. Try new food, new experiences, new ideas. This open-mindedness attracts others who are looking to get the most out of life.
Be calm, not overly dramatic. While it’s great to have a lot of energy, people who are overly dramatic about little things can be a turn-off. So learn to react to most problems as if they’re not a big deal (because they usually aren’t), and handle them with calmness instead of overreacting.
Be authentic, don’t try to show off. All of the above recommendations might seem like I’m recommending that you be someone you’re not. I’m not recommending that at all. Instead, I want you to be an authentic version of yourself (there are lots of versions of ourselves) — but choose the version that is more in the directions recommended above, in general. If there is a positive and negative version of you, generally choose the positive version. But most importantly, don’t try to impress people all the time — if you’re confident in yourself, you don’t need to impress. Instead, be a genuine person, not just the “best you.” When this recommendation is in conflict with any of the above recommendations, choose this one.
Be happy with yourself & confident. This is just something that’s good to do for yourself. Be happy with who you are, even the flaws. If you are, you can be confident that you’re good enough when you meet someone else. People generally don’t respect someone who is constantly harsh on themselves. How can you learn to be happy with yourself? That’s a whole other post, but in general, become aware of any tendency to be harsh and critical of yourself, and don’t let yourself stew in those kinds of thoughts. Start to see the good in yourself, the genuine heart and caring nature, and let that be the story you tell yourself about yourself.
I don’t claim to be an expert at any of this (my friend Tynan is a much better expert, and wrote an excellent book you should check out), but this is what I believe to be true right now.

I hope this helps, and if you find yourself lacking in any of these areas, see it not as confirmation that you suck, but as an exciting new area for you to explore.

By BY LEO BABAUTA ,


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, Knowledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace
انسانیت ، علم ، اسلام ،معاشرہ ، برداشت ، سلامتی 
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
بلاگز، ویب سائٹس،سوشل میڈیا، میگزین، ویڈیوز,کتب
سلام فورم نیٹ ورک  Peace Forum Network 
Join Millions of visitors: لاکھوں وزٹرز میں شامل ہوں 
Salaamforum.blogspot.com 
سوشل میڈیا پر جوائین کریں یا اپنا نام ، موبائل نمر923004443470+ پر"وہٹس اپپ"یا SMS کریں   
Join 'Peace-Forum' at Social Media, WhatsApp/SMS Name,Cell#at +923004443470
     
  
Facebook: fb.me/AftabKhan.page

The Jewish Intellectual Who Predicted America’s Social Collapse

The great American sociologist Philip Rieff (1922–2006) stands as one of the 20th century’s keenest intellectuals and cultural commentators. His work was stunning in its intellectual breadth and depth. Rieff did sociology on a grand scale—sociology as prophecy—diagnosing the ills of Western society and offering a prognosis and prescription for the future. Although he wasn’t a Christian, his work remains one of the greatest gifts—even if a complicated and challenging one—to Christians living today. (Tim Keller often lists Rieff’s The Triumph of the Therapeutic as one of his essential “big books” on culture.)

Rieff began his academic career in the 1950s and 60s by focusing on the work of Sigmund Freud. According to Rieff, Freud’s exploration of neurosis was really an exploration of authority, as Western man was realizing the idea of divine authority is an illusion. God doesn’t exist; therefore, he isn’t a legitimate authority. Freud recognized that as belief in God faded, psychological neuroses multiplied. Instead of correcting this by pointing persons back to God, however, Freud sought to heal by teaching his patients to accept this loss of authority as a positive development.

Thus the therapeutic culture was born. In place of theology, Freud and his progeny left us with sociology. Rieff warned that the tradeoff would not be a fruitful one.

Religion in Our Blood

Though Rieff rose to prominence as a public intellectual in the 1970s, he suddenly withdrew from the public eye for more than three decades. In fact, it wasn’t until the year of his death—2006—that he re-entered the public square with the publication of his magnum opus, My Life Among the Deathworks.

Deathworks is a devastating critique of modern culture, focusing on our vain Western attempts to reorganize society without a sacred center. According to Rieff, a patently irreligious view of society—which the Western world desires—isn’t only foolish and destructive, but impossible. We can no more live without a religious framework than we can communicate without a linguistic framework or breathe without a pulmonary framework. Religion is in our blood, and the more we deny it, the sicker our society becomes. As Rieff surveyed the 21st-century Western world, he perceived the sickness had become nearly fatal.

Cultural Works of Death

To expose the problems of modern society, Rieff outlines Western history according to three cultural “worlds,” each representing a time period (not a separate sphere of existence). The first was the pagan world, enchanted by its many gods. Following this was the second cultural world, one dominated by monotheism. This era has only recently given way to the third cultural world, our present age, in which many wish to do away with the gods altogether.

As Rieff saw it, human civilizations have always understood social order to be underlain by sacred order. The latter always and necessarily funds the former by providing a world of meaning and a code of permissions and prohibitions. Sacred order translates its truths into the tangible realities of the social order. Thus culture makers and cultural products served as middlemen between sacred order and social order, between God and society.

But the spirit of our third cultural world seeks to undo all of this.

Within this three-world conception of history, Rieff placed Christianity in the second cultural world. Christian monotheism provided the sacred foundation on which Western society was built, and gave individuals a place to stand. Virtue wasn’t just taught explicitly but reinforced implicitly through cultural institutions—in such a way that it shaped the instinctual desires of each successive generation. Most importantly perhaps, the underlying sacred order provided a powerful means of opposing social and cultural decadence.

The third cultural world, however, defines itself by its desire to sever this sacred/social connection. Whereas each of the first two worlds sought to construct identity vertically from above, our third world rejects the vertical in favor of constructing identity horizontally from below. Rieff knew the result of this rejection would be nihilism: “Where there is nothing sacred, there is nothing” (Deathworks, 12). 

Rieff pulls no punches in describing the cultural fruits of this project, describing them as deathworks. Instead of causing society to flourish (via works of life), modern cultural products function as subversive agents of destruction (works of death), undermining the very culture from which they arose. Rieff indicts an array of cultural elites—but especially Freud, Joyce, Picasso, and Mapplethorpe—for their role in poisoning society. “The guiding elites of our third world,” he observes, “are virtuosi of de-creation, of fictions where once commanding truths were” (4). Wishing to forget religion and rebuild society (irreligiously) from the ground up, these elites carefully construct a contemporary tower of Babel.

Enslaved to Desire

Of course, the attempt to construct a religionless society is as absurd as the attempt to reach God with a physical tower. As Reiff notes, “Culture and sacred order are inseparable. . . . No culture has ever preserved itself where there is not a registration of sacred order” (13). Yet our third world continues its production of deathworks as a “final assault [on] the sacred orders, of which their arts are some expression.” Deathworks, then, are “battles in the war against second culture” (7). In Rieff’s eyes, the third world is now busy with self-congratulatory festivities in honor its apparent rout.

One of the front lines of the contemporary battle is the notion of truth. The third-world perspective abolishes truth, leaving only desire. Yet desire proves to be as fierce an authority as any god—and jealous to boot. Nature, after all, abhors a vacuum. So the throne on which God once sat doesn’t remain empty; it’s simply filled with the more erratic god of desire.

The chief desire in our American third-world culture is sexual, and this desire demands freedom of exercise. You may now believe or disbelieve in the existence of God (yawn), but you must never question the dogma of absolute sexual freedom, nor restrict its public exercise.

Onward to a Fourth World

Christians who resonate with Rieff’s grim assessment may be tempted to go back, attempting to retrieve the lost Christendom of a previous age. But Rieff pushes us forward to envision a fourth world. We cannot ignore the deathworks our third cultural world has created, but we can work towards a world in which sacred order once again underlies social order. And if Rieff is right, the time for such change may be sooner than we think. The third cultural world seems powerful now, but its foundations are weak and already starting to crumble. A world founded on material desire, after all, may promise much, but our society requires much more (see Rieff’s The Crisis of the Officer Class, 6). 

Even amid a crumbling third-cultural world, we must recognize that the fourth world will not enact itself; it awaits a people who will speak and act responsibly. Responsibility in a time such as this will involve a return to seemingly defunct notions of truth and virtue. And this will become increasingly possible as our culture undergoes a “radical disenchantment” with the permissiveness of third-world culture (Crisis, 169). It seemed so liberating to fire God from his post and live without limits! But a world without boundaries is a frightening—not a freeing—place. We must recover the beauty of the “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not.”

When we read the events of our own time with Rieff-like eyes, we’re able to recognize many cultural products of our time as deathworks, and their authors as subversive agents undermining social order. But while Rieff generally takes aim at the creative class, we can expand our vision to include not only elite artists but also more ubiquitous culture-makers—popular entertainers, media outlets, corporate giants, and Supreme Court justices. As one example, we might point to the Supreme Court majorities who created “rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage out of thin air; those decisions are social deathworks in the deepest sense.

And yet, as helpful as Rieff is in identifying the cultural deathworks of contemporary society, his prescription for overcoming them is deficient. He often glances backward, pointing society to the moral code of a previous era. He also points forward, speaking of a future that ought to follow our corrupt age, a future defined by a virtuous cultural elite. But Rieff could never fully articulate a vision for either. He understood well the poison, but could never fully formulate the antidote.

Where Hope Prevails 

As he looked backward, what Rieff saw dimly was the biblical doctrine of creation. Had he reached for the wealth in that Christian doctrine, he might have grasped the enigma of humanity—of our created goodness and fallen badness—along with the Bible’s rich teaching about human flourishing. Moreover, what Rieff yearned to see in the future can only be found in a fully Christian eschatology, in its powerful and beautiful vision of Christ’s consummation of the kingdom. Only a Christian eschatology, rooted in the atonement of Christ and awaiting his triumphant return, can provide both avision for the future and the power to work toward it. We don’t merely need a heavenly vision; we need divine power to bring heaven down to earth.

This is what Christianity, and Christianity alone, offers. The resurrection of Jesus declares that where death seems to have the final word, the ending is not ultimate. God will restore the earth, and his kingdom will prevail. What he created, what he mourned over as it reveled in deathworks ranged against him, what he pursued and redeemed—this he will restore, from top to bottom. And what finally grounds our hope—a hope that, sadly, seems to have eluded Rieff—is that we’re privy to this finale before the finale. Though we live in the muddy middle of the script, we’ve caught a glimpse of the last scene.

As those who know the end of history’s story, then, Christians can engage in cultural activity with a humble confidence. As dark as it may seem, the realm of culture will one day be raised to life, made to bow in submission to the King. Since Jesus will gain victory and restore the earth, we remain confident. And since it will be his victory, we remain humble.

The 20th-century missionary theologian Lesslie Newbigin aptly captured this idea of Christian hope and action, even amid a culture of death:

[A transformed society] is not our goal, great as that is. . . . Our goal is the holy city, the New Jerusalem, a perfect fellowship in which God reigns in every heart, and his children rejoice together in his love and joy. . . . And though we know that we must grow old and die—that our labors, even if they succeed for a time, will in the end be buried in the dust of time—yet we are not dismayed. . . . We know that these things must be. But we know that as surely as Christ was raised from the dead, so surely shall there be a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwells righteousness. And having this knowledge, we ought as Christians to be the strength of every good movement of political and social effort, because we have no need either of blind optimism or of despair. (Signs Amid the Rubble: The Purposes of God in Human History, 55)

By Bruce Ashford,  the provost and professor of theology & culture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He co-authored the recently-released One Nation Under God: A Christian Hope for American Politics (with Chris Pappalardo) and the author of Every Square Inch: An Introduction to Cultural Engagement for Christians. You can follow him atwww.BruceAshford.net and on Twitter. 
http://flip.it/T_.Fp

Our addiction to the internet is as harmful as any drug

Something is rotten in the state of technology. I only realised the extent of this when I wrote last year about an Irish government minister who had committed suicide just before Christmas 2012, partly because – according to his brother at the graveside – he had received so many abusive messages on the internet. The response from those claiming to be “readers” of this newspaper was 1) to suggest that the brother was lying; 2) that the minister deserved to die because of his policies (which included cuts in care homes); and 3) to condemn the dead minister for not being thoughtful enough to postpone his suicide until after Christmas.

Was it always like this? Did these hateful anonymous messages arrive when “Letters to the Editor” was the only way to express feelings – in print, of course – about other human beings? “Name and address supplied” was the last straw in anonymity that any editor permitted. But now anonymity must be protected, cosseted, guarded, because privacy, even privacy to abuse, is more important than responsibility. “Online comment” – and the “comment” bit definitely deserves a “sic” – takes precedence over criminal threats.


As I travel around the world to lecture on the Middle East, I am finding that an increasing number of journals are suspending or restricting online comment. Among the latest to do so was the National Catholic Register, whose editor, Dennis Coday, decided that the malicious, abusive and vile comments received – far from remarks on the substance of an article – were “pure vandalism”. Coday suggested it was everyone’s responsibility to make the internet a civil place by making contributors identifiable, just as they were in the days when editors (and lawyers) decided whose letters may or may not be published.


The Irish columnist Breda O’Brien wrote in February that, while she had to adhere to strict guidelines in her work as a print journalist, it was “bizarre” that “people can comment on my articles with impunity and say anything they like about me or about others. The sheer level of nastiness is difficult to describe”. O’Brien wrote of the “dark” experience of those who – online – wish her to “be badly beaten, or die from painful diseases, or that my children be taken away from me… One person has repeatedly expressed the wish that I be burned to death”. Much of this material is intended to “take down” individuals. “The savagery of online commentary,” O’Brien wrote, “is beginning to bleed into everyday discussions.”


She is right. I have written before of the foul, racist abuse I receive – passed on in hard copy by friends who say they sometimes fear for my safety – and of the ambivalent, slovenly way in which those who are involved in “chat rooms” and “platforms” run away from their own responsibility by claiming that they’ve no money for a “mediator” (by which they mean editor) or that “the internet is here to stay, whether you like it or not”. Journalists around the world have noticed this phenomenon, whether it be the “preening nastiness of online comment” in Brazilian media about the need for street vigilantes, or the outright ethnic hatred that you can find on the websites of quite respectable publications, often remarks which should result in prosecution for racial hatred.


Some of the material I read about Muslims – sent to me on paper by internet users who are even more shocked than I have become – are the product of psychopaths, demanding the rape of Muslim women. Equally venomous, and just as dangerous, is the anti-Semitic filth aimed at journalists, politicians, historians and activists who are Jewish. One European Jewish government minister wrote of how “racist and prejudiced online commentary … all too frequently results on occasions when I am personally in the public eye”. I should add that both those claiming to loathe Israel and those claiming to support it are also on the front line of dishing out abuse.


Perhaps my own fury and frustration with this state of affairs makes my response all the more direct. But the dirt, racism, foul abuse, the lies and innuendo and slanders and bullying on the web, in blogs and text messages and chat rooms, has become a sickness. “Trolls”, we call these psychologically disturbed people, and even that is indicative of our craven addiction to technology. So awed are we – so “taken over” by the new science of communication – that we have to liken these poison-pen writers and abusers to creatures of Scandinavian mythology rather than to the fantasists and racial bullies whom they really are.


It leaches, this language, into the shock-jock radio shows and to right-wing cable news channels, and it deadens the soul; not in the religious sense, but in the way in which the internet itself – the experience of “social media” – has indeed become an addiction as fearsome as drugs or cigarettes. We must be “computer literate” rather than “literate”; some of the hard copy e-mails I receive are not only ungrammatical – the spelling is also appalling – but virtually incomprehensible. Who were the first addicts? The young who gulped down these new “freedoms” – or their peers who told them that this was the way forward?


I’m still stunned by a moment several years ago when I was asked by a student, after giving a lecture at a US university, if I “could name any good websites on the Middle East”. I replied with four words: what’s wrong with books? The students cheered. Their academic tutors in the front row glowered at me reproachfully.


The internet catastrophe – perhaps I should say tragedy – grows tentacles. We have become, as one psychologist has said, “seduced by distraction”. We no longer reflect. We react. We don’t read books – always supposing we buy them – we “surf” them. Take Spritz. According to its own pap advertising, it’s a “Boston-based start-up focused on text-streaming technology”, whose founders are “serial entrepreneurs with extensive experience in developing and commercialising innovative technologies”. And you’ll not be surprised to learn that the crackpots running Spritz, after inviting fans to read up to 600 words a minute, claim that you’ll soon be able to read Tolstoy’s War And Peace in less than 10 hours.


 Is that not part of the problem? When you delete thought, impoverish literature and worship technology – not as a wonderful scientific achievement but as a god – then there are no rules. You can drink Tolstoy, smoke books, and breathe in hatred. Something rotten? What does rotten mean? 

http://www.independent.co.uk

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Ethics, Science, Spirituality & Peace
Peace Forum Network
Over 1,000,000 Visits
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Why we love & cheat?

Anthropologist Helen Fisher takes on a tricky topic – love – and explains its evolution, its biochemical foundations and its social importance. She closes with a warning about the potential disaster inherent in antidepressant abuse.


Kofi Annan: A chequered career

Advance praise for Kofi Annan`s memoirs, Interventions: A Life in War and Peace, has come from the likes of Bill Clinton and Lee Kuan Yew to Bono and Bill Gates. Even Amartya Sen calls it a `wonderful book [that] gives the readers a lucid and enjoyable understanding of the kind of reasoning and commitment that has made Annan such a force for good in the troubled world in which we live.

Kofi Annan was the UN secretary general at a time when the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century saw the greatest challenges to peace and justice. No other UN secretary general gained the kind of significance, status or familiarity as Annan did. However, the invasion of Iraq proved to be very stressful, for even a skilled diplomat such as Annan.

Memoirs, however, are written in retrospect and Annan does his best to defend his own andthe UN`s role in approaching the various challenges to peace from Serbia to Rwanda and from Afghanistan to Iraq. However, his 10-year tenure will remain controversial, particularly in the cases of those conflicts, such as Darfur and Kosovo, where the UN acted rather late and let the suffering continue. In the case of Darfur, the debate focused on whether the killings could be termed a `genocide` or not. As Annan himself admits, the debate over terminology hardly helped those who were being ruthlessly killed. The humanitarian mission was delayed.

The Iraq war and the crippling sanctions preceding it will also remain a blot on the UN and Annan even though the decision to invade Iraq was the American president`s, supported by the British prime minister, overriding all opposition from the UN Security Council.

Annan`s account of the lead-up to the war has telling moments. He reveals George Bush`s dislike and distrust of him quite candidly (the US president`s remarks were caught by a microphone). His terming of the planned invasion as `illegal` in the face of opposition from the UN Security Council ensured that the US would block his quest for a third term. Annannarrates how, under persistent questioning by a BBC reporter who asked him point blank if the war was illegal, he had to admit it was.

Earlier, he had been more cautious. As he says, `I had expressed this view, in less direct ways, on other occasions in the past. I had up to this point always sought to retain my ability to engage both sides of this deep global divide by avoiding an outright condemnation of the illegality of the war.

Some of the most engrossing chapters, however, have less to do with international diplomacy. Annan`s account of growing up along the Gold Coast (Ghana), at a time when freedom struggles against colonialism across Africa were beginning to bear fruit, is an intensely personal account of an idealistic youth. It also serves as an excellent backdrop to the future career in diplomacy. As Annan writes, `As a young man, I was deeply influenced by the discussions going on at home with my father and his friends. At the same time, I was emotionally drawn to the passion and urgency ofNkrumah`s calls for `independence now`. Some of the statements that he was making that we must stand on our own, that we must have our destiny in our own hands resonated deeply with me.` The peaceful transition to power convinced the young Annan that transformation is possible without bloodshed.

With a career at the UN stretching 40 years, there are bound to be high and low points.

Among the most frustrating for Annan was trying to negotiate peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Very early in his efforts he realised the impotency of the UN Secretary General`s office in this particular conflict as US presidents took on the role of negotiators, starting from the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty of 1979 to the Oslo Accords. The Israelis, in particular, seemed to trust the Americans, more than the UN, to look after its interests. As Annan notes, he and other world leaders were simply onlookers as president Bill Clinton hosted the Camp David summit with Israel`s prime minister Ehud Barak and the Palestinian leader,Yasser Arafat. He seems particularly peeved at Israel`s rejection of UN efforts because as he notes, `It was the UN, after all, that had first given legitimacy (through General Assembly resolution 181, in 1947) to the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states in 1948.

Since then, Palestine is a cause that the UN hascontinued to betray.

Annan`s long stint at the UN, more so as secretary general for 10 years, brought him into close contact with world leaders. When he lets down the mask of diplomacy, there are frank comments on those who led nations into war and peace. Interventions is full of interesting anecdotes about Annan`s interaction with wellknown personalities. However, he is particularly critical of George Bush and American arrogance towards the world body. He recalls American opposition to the setting up of the International Criminal Court (ICC)an opposition that came from president George Bush to the US representative at the UN, John Bolton, to an American judge who called the ICC `a kangaroo court.

If peacemaking efforts were often difficult and sometimes futile, Annan obviously found a great deal of satisfaction in his success in setting up international bodies such as the ICC.

He writes in great detail of the arduous journey from the Rome Statute of 1998 to thereality of the ICC, ending at last the culture of impunity for crimes against humanity. He criticises his fellow Africans who consider the court to be `racist` as many dictators from the continent have been summoned by the ICC in recent years. Annan is also proud of making the UN Human Rights Council a reality, again a long journey of intense negotiation, as well as creating the principle of `Responsibility to Protect` under which recently there have been calls for intervention in Syria. Reading Annan`s biography, one is left with the impression that the UN`s role has been relegated to that of a provider of humanitarian assistance, rather than of a global peacemaker.

Ironically, Kofi Annan and the UN were awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in October 2001, just as another war was to begin with the invasion of Afghanistan. E The reviewer is the chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Interventions: A Life in War and Peace (MEMOIRS) By Kofi Annan with Nader Mousavizadeh Allen Lane, UK ISBN 1846142970 400pp.

کھلا خط آپ کے نام، پاکستان کے لیے

Open Letter for Pakistan

پاکستان کی ترقی ، خوشحالی اور امن کے لییے کچھ بنیادی معاملات طے کرنا ضروری ھیں. اس وقت پاکستانی سوسائٹی فکری طورپرتین بڑے حصوں تقسیم ہو چکا ہے : ایک طرف  "اشرافیہ , لبرل طبقہ"   دوسری طرف "خاموش اکثریت" ؛ تیسری طرف "مذہبی  شدت پسند دہشت گرد اور ان کے ہمدرد". ایسے حالات میں ضروری ہے کہ کنفیوژن کو دور کیا جائے تاکہ اکثریت ایک نقطہ نظر پر متفق ہو  جائے. اور پھر تمام توانایوں کو مرکوز کرکہ عظیم مقاصد ، امن . خوشحالی . ترقی کی طرف رواں دواں ہوں. اگر ہم کچھ بنیادی سوالات کا جواب موجودہ تناظرمیں قرآن سنت کی  روشنی میں معلوم کر لیں. ان پر قومی مباحثہ ہو جس میں میڈیا ، دانشور ، مذہبی سکالرز علماء ، سیاسی مفکرین ، سول سوسائٹی ، فوجی ماہرین ،  قانون ، خارجہ امور کے ماہرین اور تمام دوسرے متعلقہ ماہرین  اور عوام حصہ لیں . پھر جس پر سب یا اکثریت متفق ہو ان پر پھر ڈٹ کرعمل کریں تو پاکستان ایک ترقی یافتہ باعزت ملک، قوم  بن سکتا ہے .... اس لنک پر کلک کریں :
http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2013/11/pakistan-basic-issues-need-immediate.html
Related:
Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75

Why & How to Be a Skeptic?

Sometimes in this world the best defense from spammers, misinformation dispatchers, rumor-mongers, and their ilk is to take a skeptical perspective. According to dictionary Skeptic is:
  • a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. 
  • a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others. 
  • a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it. 
Philosophy
  • a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible. 
  • any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

The adage if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, does not offer the same protection it once did, with the modern age's offerings of computer generated images and the like.

How to be Skeptic!


  1. Listen closely or read carefully if the information you are offered that seems to go against your common sense or reason. There are lots of people who make up stories for the sake of doing it, but few who are really talented at keeping the manufactured facts straight for any length of time.
  2.  Ask pointed questions, and expect specific answers. If someone tells you they heard or read something in the media, ask when, where, and in what context. You can often go directly back to their purported sources and see if the story pans out.
  3. Check other reliable sources of information. If you have access to the Internet, search the topic, and look for authentic links like university websites, or other institutions.
  4. Find the bottom line of what you are being told. In email circles, often you will see the potential for someone to benefit by convincing you to believe something. An example would be the proverbial (almost) free laptops. Most people are automatically skeptical of these offers, but enough people fall for the sales pitch to make continuing to send them profitable.
  5. Listen to the news and read periodical publications. These sources are supposed to be dependable, with the possible exception of the news figures caught in recent times going a little over the line with "confidential" sources, maybe the supermarket rag?
  6. As a news consumer, be sure to write to newspapers, magazines and broadcasters correcting mistakes and demanding that they keep a certain quality of coverage. There are campaigns going on against "copy and paste" journalism and to get newspapers to cite and link to the original scientific papers used in their coverage of scientific stories.
  7. Decide if the issue is worth generating skepticism. If someone tells you the Martians landed in Manhattan, and you live in Fiji, it would make little difference to you. But when someone tells you to spend your life savings on a start-up company, skepticism can be a valuable asset.
  8. Cultivate a skeptical mindset. Even in the academic world, there have been innumerable instances of accepted facts being exposed over time as ridiculous. We once thought the world was the center of the universe but skeptical thinking people overcame this accepted "fact".
  9. Use the reason test as a habit. This goes back to listening to, and thinking about what you are hearing. If someone tells you something, and it slips into your subconscious, you are more likely to accept it as fact if you hear it mentioned again somewhere else. The idea is planted in your mind, and if it is not challenged, it may become more reasonable to accept it when it is repeated later on.
  10. Test statements for yourself when it is practical. If someone tells you driving with the windows down will save gas, try it out. This may not be a good idea when some television pitchman is selling a $79.99 gadget that can be installed in ten seconds and double your mileage, but often there is little risk if no investment or potential for embarrassment exists. This doesn't mean you should believe someone who tells you poison ivy makes an excellent herbal tea.
  11. Never imagine yours or anyone's understanding to be wholly objective. Remember there is no such thing as a truly infallible source, and that your own interpretation of even a very reliable source is necessarily subjective, and therefore subject to error. You should consider your own experiences, if only because they are occasionally all you have to rely on. Even the statements of a highly reputable source should not be taken as writ, while those of a disreputable source should not be dismissed automatically.
  12. Remember the results of these suggestions. The object of the requested topic is how to be a skeptic. Listening, checking, and testing will probably open your eyes and show you just how much myth and misinformation is being spread in our daily lives, and when you find this out, presto! You will become skeptical.
  13.  If you think this article is BS, congratulations! You're already a skeptic!

Tips

  • Listen to Skeptic podcasts. Podcasts like "The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe", "Skep-chick" and "Skeptoid" will keep you in the know and point you toward reliable information sources. 
  • There are great websites devoted to urban legends, email scams, and other misinformation. Snopes.com has a huge data base and great search link, and it is free! Make a habit of checking out generic warnings your friends send you by email. Snopes will have researched many of these and will tell you when they are unfounded. 
  • Join the Skeptical Community and keep abreast of the latest in hokey fads and dubious claims. Most major cities have annual Skeptic's conferences and there are a number of skeptic's forums online that will help you weed out the fact from the drivel. 
  • Look for friends whom you respect as authorities on the topic you are questioning. If they don't decide to "snow" you for the fun of it, they can be excellent resources.


Edited by Bob Robertson,  http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Skeptic

Related:
Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75

Social Media & Impact


Welcome to the virtual world 


First there were men and women of letters. Now, theirz just peeps of Ittrz. Social media may be partially responsible for the dumbing down of humanity, the further facilitation of procrastination and the gradual expulsion of vowels, punctuation as well as the need to make any sense at all, but it is also a group of tools that has made life a lot easier for everyone who chooses to use them.

Where should we begin? I guess texts were the original social media tool. They were intended as short, impersonal, cheap ways of ... what? Flirting? I think that`s what they`ve always been used for the most. Because any usef`ul inf ormation that needs to be shared, can always be done better with a short call.

Sometimes texts take too long to come through, and you`ve been waiting half an hour for someone to `Come downstairs`, before they actually get the text. Or at least that`s the excuse they can have, which wouldn`t be possible if you had actually spoken to them. But somehow they just seem so .

.. convenient.

I`ve been party to extensive exchanges of texts myself, which l later realised achieved as much as a phone conversation under a minute could have. So, text? I say No. Not unless you can`t get through to someone on the phone, or if everything that has to be communicated can be done within two texts, max.

Oh, and there`s another thing about texts. They have a word limit. And the strange thing is that it`s been pretty much the same since Friedhelm Hillebrand helped create them in 1985: 160 characters. And thus, the need to squeeze in all the `inf`ormation` that the aforementioned peeps needed to get into each text, led to every English teacher`s nightmare.

Not too long ago, journalists used to think they were all that. Just because they worked with institutions that had hierarchies, checks, balances, ethics and rules, they f`elt they were part of` an exclusive society responsible for the dissemination of knowledge to the world. And although many of these individuals committed great acts of heroic rebellion, the institutions they worked for often had to succumb to higher pressures and towed the line.

Then came the blogs. These are journal-based sites broadcasting individuals` thoughts for anyone with an intemet connection to read/sce. And so the medium of the institution was no longer necessary.

Blogs are a lot more personal.

Bloggers write in the first person, express their views and opinions freely and if they choose to, anonymously.

It`s no surprise that they are immensely popular. We are extremely social animals and seem to have an infinite interest in anything anybodyhas to say.

Journalists, of course, felt threatened by this medium. They said bloggers are irresponsible and that`s partially true. But now that blogging has become an established practice, it, too, is slowly becoming institutionalised (you`ll find blogs in the navigation of every major news website today), and journalists and bloggers are begrudgingly learning to live with each other or become the same.Whichever comes first.

Moving on MSN, AOL and Yahoo!`s messengers as well as IRC chat rooms were all the rage in the late `90s to early noughties. I remember having long `conversations` with work colleagues on MSN messenger who were sitting in the same room with me.

They were also great for keeping in touch with friends and family from all over the world. But then Google came and all but destroyed those guys. So we switched to Google Chat. And Skype, which was great because it was independent f`rom the bigwigs (now itbelongs to Microsoft), and allowed voice, and later, video calls.

The next logical step in the evolution of social media was social networking. And although several sites were already present which performed the same functions, somehow it was Facebook that captured everyone`s imagination. It allows you to stay in touch with everyone you know who also has a Facebook account, once you`ve added each other as `Friends`.Of course, there`s a lot more to it now than just staying in touch, i.e.

messaging both publicly and privately. You can share your pictures, thoughts, videos, life events, just about anything that has, is or is going to happen in your life.

The main purpose being to keep everyone you know up-to-date. But what eventually tends to happen is that we make narcissistic online shrines for ourselves: `Look at me! See how clever I am? How many friends I have? What fun we have! Oh! Check out my car!And what do your Facebook friends do? They visit yours and others` shrines, living vicariously through each other, so that every moment when something isn`t happening in their lives, they can spend stalking those `friends` that are `happening`. Gosh I sound bitter! Anyway, the stalking is always optional. You can also play games, invite friends to events, and do all kinds of other things. But one of the most important functions on Facebook and the biggest source of revenue for them is that businesses can start pages (for free) on the site. Any user who wants to stay informed about a business can simply `Like` it, and from then on any update that they post will show up on their fans` news feeds. To get more `Likes`, businesses can advertise their pages, so that their ads show up on their target audiences` home page. And since most people have their age, gender, preferences and contact information already entered in the Facebook database, that target is pretty spot-on, indeed.

Whatever your interests are, these sites become what you want them to be. If you`re politically inclined, you can have political conversations with your `friends`. You can `like` political pages and groups, create related events, etc. The same goes for sites like YouTube (which is banned in Pakistan) and Twitter.

Now although YouTube is a simple video-sharing site where users can upload their videos for anyone to see, it has played an instrumental role in what are known as `social media revolutions`. Activists uploaded videos of government atrocities, which rallied support from more and more people. If you just want to see music videos, movie trailers, math lessons or makeup tips, then that`s there, too, along with anything else imaginable.

Take Twitter. It`s a micro-blogging site where you share as many updates as you want, as long as they`re not more than 140 characters long, something like sending texts to the world.

Whoever your followers are, will see your updates. In turn, you can follow musicians, models, politicians, journalists, bloggers, whoever you like! And whenever they have something to share, you`ll see it on your home page.

I guess LinkedIn deserves a mention at this point, even though it`s kind of boring. It`s your online CV. You can look for employees or jobs on the site.

`nuff said.

So as I was saying, social media is whatever you want it to be. It`s up to you how you use it. If you want to be connected to the people you care about, then it can help you do that better than ever before. If you want to be informed, well, it can also do that better than ever before. If you want to stalk, or rant, or be just generally crazy, that`s an option, too. E 

I, me and my Facebook :

Let me confess at the outset that I am addicted to Facebook. But it wasn`t really my own doing.

Taimur Tharki, a friend as old as I and by the way I`m 52 who spent hours on FB, one day, whispered to me how much I was missing out in life by not being on FB. So I created my account.

Wow. Tharki was right. So many old familiar laces, stared at me out of the computer screen. It was difficult to recognise those school and college friends as the freshness of the youth was replaced by a balding head and apersistent frown on the face.

But there were so many pretty young faces (of course women).

Well, it is a different matter that only five in 50 invites accepted and added me to their list of contacts. The FB administration admonished: `You are adding too many contacts, not known to you`. That put a halt to my endeavours.

Yet I couldn`t restrain myself from sending a request to Samina Shakoor. There wasn`t any picture besides her name, just that familiar ghost. But I hoped she was she; the slim girl, a picture of beauty; the heartthrob of the whole college. On my request to add her picture, what arrived a day later was ol`a woman out of the World Wrestling Federation, double chin and bulging from here and there and everywhere.

Al`ter that I could not f`ind muchtime to chat with her! However, besides this chat thing, I leamt much of human nature on FB.

There was this f`ellow I knew, who worked as a clerk in a bank and somehow managed to climb the corporate ladder too quickly to the top.

He lives in a sprawling house in Singapore as befits the director of a bank. On his last visit to Karachi, he posted his status: `Something is removing the gloss from the tyres of my 2013 Mercedes-Benz-SLs-Class.

Does anyone know where I can get it fixed?` It was clear he wanted to flaunt his wealth Rs20 million car.

Then there are travellers and honeymoon goers (most on their emplayer companies` cash), always posting: `Geneva here I come`, `too cold here in New York` and so on.

Does it make the lesser mortals like me jealous? May be. 


Confessions of a FB junkie:

Well, to tell you the truth, FB provides me an excellent opportunity to upload my pictures and blatantly I`launt my riches, and you see how innocently I do that. Wherever I go I update my status so the whole world could know that I am at a fashion show, attending a ball, or having lunch and dinner at a l`êted place. To keep my photos captivating I have to hit the gym to keep that well-toned figure. Oh, I know for sure that most of my friends are so jealous of my design-er clothes, accessories and branded bags that they buy the same stuff after me and then pretend that they got it first. Oh, these new money people. But you know for sure that none of them can have my style and aura and that makes them green with envy.

And when I post photos of my numerous foreign visits they have to click the `like` and write a compliment too. Ha ha, I know the feelings behind the comments, `oh so sweet`, `looking gorgeous`, etc. Oh, this is called double whammy.

The other advantage is that you can stock your exes and old flames very conveniently and keep an eye on them. You know whose relationship is complicated, who is having an affaire de coeur and whose marriage is in trouble. Oh what a convenience, now you are not dependent on those gossip sessions and lengthy phone calls to know what is happening in other people`s lives.

I want to share one more secret; I have discovered a website through FB which sells fake but first copics of branded bags. You know all those brands that make my friends` heads spin and mouths water, like Burberry, Louis Vuitton, Chole, Balenciaga, Birkin, etc., In fact, you name it and they have it. I have most of` the original ones but it is no harm in carrying f`ake ones too as no one is going to doubt it.

But you know like all good things in lif`e, here is a spoiler too. My kids and hubby are not very happy with my FB friendship. They believe that the virtual world is an oxymoron and one should deal with real people and f`riends. All this crap gives me a headache. They have no idea that all these likes and compliments give my self-esteem a boost and flatter my ego no end. I could go on but bye for now as my Facebook is calling me. Coming!  >>> Moniza Inam 
Traversing the conventional path:
ver the last few years, social media be it Facebook, Twitter or YouTube have emerged as an `important tool of communication` and a platform for generating debate in Pakistan.

Rapid growth in the use of the internet is enabling individuals to `create, collaborate and share their own media`. The number of people using Facebook or microblogging on Twitter to upload `information` in real time, and discuss or make sense of it, has surged dramatically in the last three to five years.

Sometimes, new media are credited for breaking important stories like lynching of the two brothers by a mob in Sialkot, which traditional or mainstream print and broadcast media had missed until an amateur video made on a mobile phone found its way onto YouTube. And who can forget an IT consultant unwittingly tweeting the US Navy Seals operation to take out Osama bin Laden from his hideout in Abbotabad? At other occasions, social media amplifies news or events that the users think mainstream media have under-reported or neglected or are unwilling to report at all. In doing so, they`re often able to thrust their agenda, right or wrong, on traditional news outlets, and the state institutions.

Remember young Shahzeb Khan`s murder in Karachi? At times, mainstream media and journalists, TV anchors and talk show hosts find themselves under the scanner of social media.

But can, or will social media substitute the mainstream news outlets? The debate on the possible impact of new media on traditional media is raging across the globe. Many believe that the role of social media as `news breaker` is exaggerated. Mostly, what we find on social media are stories sourced from mainstream news outlets, or, at best, raw information.

People like Richard Sambrook, director of the BBC Global News Division, argue that `information is not journalism. You get a lot of things, when you open up Twitter in the morning, but not journalism.

Journalism needs discipline, analysis, explanation and context, and, therefore, still is a profession. The value that gets added with journalism is judgement, analysis and explanation and that makes the difference. So journalism will stay.

In several cases, Twitter or Facebook and even YouTube may be the early source of information. Still, it is the mainstream media that `verifies and contextualise` these stories. Some studies describe it as `a complex relationship where professional and amateur versions of events coexist and feed off each other in ways that raise new challenges both for the law and for traditional working practices in media organisations`.

While the possibility of social media replacing traditional print and broadcast media may be exaggerated, studies show that the new media are making a change in `the production, distribution and discovery of news`.

Social media have, for example, become important for newspapers in `reaching out` to the readers. Mainstream media are using social media to drive traffic to their websites and blogs. Though we don`t have any study on `ref erral traffic` in Pakistan, it is believed to be quite large.

Similarly, new media is redefining the standards of `journalistic objectivity` as we had known until now, forcing both journalists and their organisations to become more accurate, fair and transparent to retain the trust of their audience.

New media will remain an important instrument of communication in Pakistan as `disseminator of information, a tool of humanitarianism, an advocate for social causes and a facilitator of political discussion`, but will not be a substitute for mainstream media.  
The other side of midnight:
While Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) is busy banning contraceptive commercials and Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) is still concerned over `blasphemous` videos, made in another part of the world, on YouTube, everyday social media is being increasingly used to advocate violence in Pakistan against any group or person who is seen as different or moderate.

Hate speech is an issue that is causing concern worldwide, as more and more peoplejoin social networking websites and use them to target women, minorities, etc. in the f`orm ol` Facebook and Twitter updates threatening them or spreading rumours about them.

Pakistan is no dilTerent, but the problem here is greater due to rising extremism in society and ongoing incidents of terrorism.

Social media has given banned outfits and individuals with a fundamentalist bent, the ability to reach out to millions of Pakistani netizens. On the pretext of freedom of expression, they are creating Facebook pages and Twitter hashtags of their version of Islam, often to incite hatredagainst Shias, Ahmadis or just about anyone who chooses to disagree with their beliefs.

What is alarming is that these few hundred pages and their social media teams are able to not only reach but actually attract a large number of people, who agree with the messages posted on these l`orums and spread them further. They actually debate on whether killing another human being was justil`ied or not, on the basis of his beliefs.

Though the minimum age f`or joining Facebook is 18 years, many teenagers arecreating accounts on the site and their activities are not monitored by their parents.

Militant groups therefore have access to thousands of impressionable teenagers across the country and are using it to their advantage.

With their interpretation of Jihad, they post calls to action against Hindus, Indians, Americans, Jews, Shias, Ahmadis, liberals, etc. Anyone who chooses to speak against them is branded as a foreign agent.

Very cleverly, these Facebook and Twitter accounts also post Quranie verses, the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) andpictures of religious sites so that their images and statuses are shared widely, by many people unaware of why these accounts were created.

This is the downside of having a digital lifestyle in Pakistan. You cannot avoid being exposed to such intolerance unless the government actually realises that promoting a violent image of Islam through social media is more damaging, in more than one way, than any YouTube movie made by a non-Muslim could ever be. E -Ayesha Hoda  
Taking the world by storm
What are you doing? is the question that Twitter asked the world around seven years back when it was launched publicly in July 2006. People then started to answer this simple question on this SMS sharing website (wonder where that 140 characters tweet limit comes from, eh? That`s the length of a SMS text message {sms text is 160 characters}) and it took the world by storm of what are called `Tweets`.

As more and more people joined this micro-blogging website, the random babble started turning into meaningful conversations that brought people from all across the world together according to their interests, for different causes and lately for political movements.Hashtags that is the usage of any term with # sign came out as a way of combining tweets related to any particular topic in the f`orm of an inf`ormation stream.

With the change in use of this platform, Twitter also changed its question to `What`s happening?` eventually making this question disappear altogether. It is now being aggressively used both locally and globally, not just as a tool to disseminate information related to different things but more actively to mobilise communities for social and political causes.

Use of twitter in Pakistan`s 2010 floods and more recently in May 20l3 elections illustrates this fact well.

On a more regular basis,Twitter is used for anything from knowing route situations after rain or riots to textual commentary during cricket matches, discussions on current affairs, tweeting to showbiz and political celebrities.

Other than the causebased usage of twitter, comes the business usage.

Companies everywhere, including many in Pakistan, use Twitter for social media marketing as well as a means to directly engage with their customers. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation`s @KESC Ltd and Pakistan Telecommunication Limited`s @PTCL are some of the exec11ent example of having an active and responsive Twitter presence.

At individual level, different RJs and television anchors also use it to interact with their audience on-airand off-air. Some unconventional yet interesting uses of Twitter have been seen in the f`orm of` accounts such as Prayables @Prayables that gives a sense of humanity and oneness by tweet-asking f`or prayers f`or those who request it.

To add to the effectiveness of textual tweets, different third-party services and utilities have also emerged that make it possible to embed images, videos and music to tweets. The growing popularity of Twitter is evident from the fact that close to half a billion tweets are generated everyday from all around the world. With the advent of more and cheaper smart-phones this number is only likely to increase globally as well as locally.
Courtesy: http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailNews.php?StoryText=09_08_2013_426_002
Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75