Monday, May 25, 2015


The advertising sector is the main stay of the business world as it promotes sales and increases profits. Anything which is bought and sold on the market, i.e. commodities, can be advertised. Commodities in this sense include people, services and products one example of which is junk food. The growing popularity of junk food in the modern world cannot be denied but is it really necessary to promote something so harmful? The answer is no; banning the advertising of junk food and fast food is beneficial both for the individual and the state.
The main attraction of junk food is the carbohydrates, the fat and sugar content; it is comfort food, it is filling and it is cheap. This is hard to argue with but it doesn’t mean this food is healthy and has no long term drawbacks. Advertisements cannot be justified just because someone likes the taste of something. Lots of people like the taste of alcohol but advertising it is forbidden. Similarly, people enjoy smoking but the advertising of tobacco products is strictly forbidden.  Junk food should be in the same category because it causes obesity, which in turn leads to heart disease, cancer and diabetes all of which are killers. Laws should be fair: if products that are harmful cannot be advertised this should include junk food too. Claiming that this law should not be applied to junk food because people like the taste or it is cheap makes no sense. People like the taste of a lot of harmful things and through more awareness; they can learn to eat a healthy diet without spending too much. Individuals make up society and what is bad for one, is bad for the other; the same is true here.
The promotion of junk food via advertisements and increase in obesity related illnesses, the big killers, affects society as a whole too since the health services have to deal with these people. The amount of money spent on treating people with heart or cardio vascular disease each year for example is phenomenal; plus, it is completely unnecessary. Putting junk food in the same category as cigarettes and alcohol will solve the problem by reducing sales and victims. As a result the money saved could be diverted to those who really need help through no fault of their own. It could be claimed that people should have the freedom to select what they want to eat and if they want to die young, that is their problem. However, in a democracy one person’s freedom is limited by another’s and if the diseases these people inevitably incur impact society as a whole, society has the right to say no.
In conclusion, no harmful substance should be advertised and this includes fast food, sugary drinks, sweets and the like. Public health is the governments concern, which gives them the right to ban the promotion of any product which is deemed harmful. In this respect, junk food is no different from alcohol or tobacco.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015


Do your research and tell the story of one of the water shed moments of history: The Black Death
How it all started:
Reading material to make notes on:
·         “Black Death” Make sure to watch all three videos
·         “The Black Death”
·         “Social and economic effects of the Plague”
·         “Economic impact of the Black Death”
Videos and documentaries:
·         “Effect of the Black Death”
·         The Black Death: Influence on Culture and Religion

·         “Black Death consequences”


Do your research into this horrific system where racism is enshrined in the laws and tell the story.
Familiarize yourself with the issue:
·         “Introduction to Apartheid” 
·         “South Africa and Apartheid”
·         “Apartheid”  
·         “South Africa profile” 
Reading material to make notes on:
·         “History of Apartheid in South Africa” Remember to click next
·         “Apartheid”
Videos and documentaries:
·         “The Apartheid Era in South Africa”
·         “Apartheid explained”


Thanks to modern technology, people now become aware of everything happening around the world in a matter of seconds: images and comments appear on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, updates are provided in hourly news broadcasts and the ribbons at the bottom of the screen. The mantra of the press is that it is their duty to provide the public with correct information about everything that is taking place in the world whatever the nature of the event. Earthquakes, shootouts, celebrations and commemorations all receive coverage. Yet there are some who would wish to edit this list: they are in favor of lulling the public into a false sense of security and shielding them from bad news yet this can be very harmful in the long run.

It is true that children and other vulnerable people need to be shielded from some of the evil in the world until they are capable of correctly evaluating the nature of an event. Small children should not watch scenes from a bombed marketplace in Iraq or the aftermath of the shootout at Sandyhook elementary school. However, this doesn’t mean their parents shouldn’t watch this stuff. How else can people get a true picture of the world we are living in but by actually knowing what is going on? It was the broadcasting of the images from Abu Graib that brought the horrific torture there to light; the images and news concerning the event did not turn people into psychopaths overnight due to the simple fact that most people are moved by such images and forced into action to put a stop to the event. In short, the only way to eliminate the evil from the world is to bring it out into the open so it can be stamped out. Closing one’s eyes to what is going on just makes the problem more entrenched. If one cannot bear to watch certain images or read certain news, one can always switch channels.

Another point worth remembering is that the manipulation of the content of news is the hallmark of totalitarian regimes. It is all very well to say one is trying to protect the public and encourage good behavior but this is what North Korean leaders say as well. The idea that people can be lulled into a false sense of security and made to believe they are living in paradise surrounded by angels is very misguided. The public does wake up eventually as “truth will out”. The consequences of such increased consciousness are often social upheaval. Besides, in the modern world it is downright impossible to stop the flow of information whether good or bad so one might as well bite the bullet and tell the truth. In short,  “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” ; it is not possible to preserve the innocence of childhood into adulthood.

In conclusion, although some may be motivated by a completely naïve idea that shielding people from evil will help stamp it out and help encourage good behavior, this is far from being the case. Limiting the content of the news is impossible and counterproductive and should never be considered as an option.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015


Procreation is the basic instinct of the whole of the animal kingdom including humans, who, once they are married and a certain amount of time has passed by, feel the uncontrollable urge to have children. Undeniable though this desire is, some stop at one child whereas others have as many as a dozen. The latter type of parent is hard to understand as the need to have more children when one already has perfection makes no sense. Having only one child is the right decision in the modern world both in terms of the parents and the child not to mention the society as a whole.
Modern parents get married much later in the modern world: they graduate from university, get a job, rise in the ranks so as to be able to earn better and only then put down roots. The idea of bringing a new life into the world remains on the back burner for another couple of years while couples enjoy their new life together. The child, when he arrives, is born to mature parents with active professional lives, hobbies and interests and an active social life, all of which they want their child to enjoy as well. This being the case, it doesn’t make financial or practical sense to divide the pie among numerous mouths; one child can enjoy far more financial advantages. He can get the best possible education and get a much better start in life. From the parents’ point of view, taking maternity and paternity leave once in a life time is more than enough; people in the modern world have lives to get back to. There is the concern that the only child will have to carry the parents’ responsibility alone in old age but this is a very outdated view. Modern families save for retirement, have pension funds or prefer sheltered accommodation in old age; they neither expect nor want their children to wait on them hand and feet. To misquote Marx, “To each according to his means” holds very true for modern families be they well to do or not.
The only child is mistakenly assumed to be a lonely, maladjusted and thoroughly selfish sociopath but this is very far from being true as his social life rivals his parents’: he goes to the play center and then to kindergarten from the word go acquiring a social circle with whom he interacts on a daily basis learning social skills his parents acquired much later in life. He is soon being ferried to music lessons, swimming practice, basketball and the like, which makes coming back to a bed room he shares with no one a great pleasure. His toys and other belongings are just where he left them; nothing has been taken or broken and never will be. Lonely summer holidays are an alien concept in the modern world where kids go to camp or summer school returning home healthy but exhausted. The only child can look forward to the best education money can buy and therefore, the best possible start in life. He is also the only heir and when death finally catches up with his parents: the family home and the bank account go to him without being split three or four ways. In short, people don’t live in their own little bubbles and one’s social circle more than makes up for siblings.
To cut a long story short, an only child makes financial, practical and emotional sense. It also gives parents an opportunity to enjoy their own lives instead of working their fingers to the bone trying to raise a little troupe of children. Masochism of this kind requires a trip to a therapist. People should do themselves and their child a favor by not saddling him with a sibling

Monday, May 18, 2015


Humans are social creatures and thrive on close social and personal contact and relationships. This being the case, friends are vital for everyone.  There are various criteria governing friendship such as proximity in age, shared hobbies and interests, a similar cultural or family background, world view and the like. Some would like to include gender in this list as well yet they are seriously mistaken; gender is irrelevant when forming friendships.

The cliche that men and women can’t be friends dates back to the period when the social status as well as the social standing of women was very different. In the past, women went to school for a much shorter period of time, did not work outside the home and certainly did not go to university. Their field of interest was considered to be the home and children so naturally, friendship in the modern sense was harder – there being little share. Nowadays, the lines between gender roles are becoming blurred with the dissapearance in the difference between levels of education and participation in the job market. The obvious result of all this is the ever widening common ground of interests. In a world like this, gender is irrelevant.  The greater the level of industrialization and development in a country, the greater the possibility of friendship between men and women.

The misconception that all men or women see members of the opposite sex as potential mates is also linked to levels of industrialization and modernization. In western societies where women and men share healthy relationships in society, people don’t see the first person they meet of the opposite sex as a potential mate. Love and attraction in this sense is reserved for a specific individual who ticks a different set of boxes than a fellow worker or classmate of the opposite sex. To assume that men and women are ready to fall for any individual of the oppsite sex and therefore, cannot be friends is a gross oversimplification and completely wrong. This view is only prevelant in highly conservative and ultra religious societies governed by taboos and will disappear along with modernization just like it has in the Western world.

To cut a long story short, modernization and industrialization are changing  the social roles and status of women in society and causing the sharp distinction between them  to melt away. This ongoing process is making friendship between men and women just as normal as any other friendship and thus enriching people’s lives.