Russell Peters-His Comedy Style Creates the Newest Cultural Laugh-In: Laughter the Best Medicine

Writen by Carl Chesal

“And what is your background, Pinky?” Russell Peters looked directly at me from the stage at Yuk-Yuks in Ottawa Ontario at the 8 pm Saturday, Sept 9th show.

I was wearing a blue shirt, so I wasn’t getting the ‘Pinky’ comment until my wife, Janet, pointed out that I was all red-in-the face from laughing. Hey, we were seated center stage right in front of the microphone, so we knew we were potential targets for Russell’s smooth and engaging wit. I was mentally prepared. Not! I blurted out, “Czech European Cape Bretoner!”

Did I just say that? Not even a sentence! Now it was out there for Russell Peters to mould into an interactive dialogue about “rouge children”, “dirty Czech talk” and “hitting people in the face with a fish if I was an angry Cape Bretoner”. He even got the east coast accent right. I believe I might be the first Cape Bretoner to be exposed ‘Russell Peters Style’. This evening with Russell Peters is one that “Pinky” will cherish forever.

Russell Peters is redefining ‘Cultural Comedy’. Russell Peters, a comedian from Toronto, Canada, who has South-Asian roots, is touring the world and amazing audiences with his hilarious exploration of various races, including his own East Indian heritage. His brilliant comedy investigates culture clashes, viewed from the perspective of sublimely ridiculous, as he skillfully addresses racism and both cultural acceptance and non-acceptance even as it occurs within the race boundaries.

Laughter of any kind is one of life’s most effective medicines for ensuring good health. And being able to laugh at oneself is even healthier. Laughter promotes the emotion of happiness. Happiness, in turn, releases beta-endorphins that science has determined make your body feel good, naturally. Comedy focused on a particular social, ethnic, geography, political or religious matter can be enlightening while producing ’side splitting’ endorphin- releasing feel-good-all-over laughter.

Life now determines that who delivers the message in paramount in how effectively it is received by the listening audience. Not surprisingly a Cape Bretoner or Newfoundlander is most effective in delivering joke after joke about their culturally inherent traits or local idiosyncrasies. These two geographic cultures have spawned many comedic successes - Mary Walsh, Rick Mercer, General John Cabot Trail, Hughie and Allen, Cathy Jones, and Bette MacDonald. Overall, both Cape Breton and Newfoundland peoples are fun-loving, good-natured people. Laughing at ourselves comes with the territory.

Like a Cape Breton comic, Russell Peters personifies how laughing at yourself is an excellent venue towards cultural understanding and acceptance. Laughter is the best medicine. And a most effective way to unite all people in the world’s global community.

Want to experience more of Russell Peters in Action? His first DVD CD “Outsourced” is available. GO buy THIS DVD or CD today! You will love his style of comedy!

We cherish an autographed DVD sleeve of this first of many Russell Peters DVDs! You’re gonna love this guy!

Rebel Flag - Mississippi Flag Controversy

Writen by Beth Gabriel

What’s so controversial about the Mississippi State Flag?

In 1817, the United States welcomed Mississippi, into the Union as the 20th state. Mississippi’s first flag, known as the Bonnie Blue Flag was a simple flag design with a blue background and a single white star in the center. The Bonnie Blue Flag was striking in its simplicity and remained Mississippi’s first flag until 1861. But big changes were ahead for Mississippi and their flag.

When Mississippi seceded from the Union in 1861, it was considered to be a separate, stand-alone nation. The Mississippi Secession Convention decided not only to break ties with the Union but also to adopt a totally new flag. Out with the Bonnie Blue Flag and in with the new Magnolia Flag. Bonnie Blue Flag picture The new Magnolia Flag featured the Bonnie Blue design in the upper left corner and included a magnolia tree (considered by many to be a symbol of Mississippi) and band of red. This new flag was Mississippi’s first official state flag and flew above the state’s troops throughout the Civil War.

Mississippi’s second state flag, adopted in 1894, would become one of the most controversial flags our country has ever known. Why? Because this new flag included the Confederate Battle Flag, also called the Rebel Flag. The flag committee chose a union square (red background, blue cross, 13 five-pointed white stars) for the upper left corner. This ‘union square’ is often associated with the Rebel Flag of the South and the Confederate Battle Flag. Some are surprised to learn that the 13 stars represent the original 13 colonies, not the states that seceded from the Union. Next to the Union Square, are the stripes of red, white and blue. Mississippi Rebel Flag picture

More than 100 years later, in response to proposals and protests, Mississippi Governor Musgrove agreed to propose House Bill 524. This bill allowed for the people of Mississippi to vote to decide the fate of their state flag and try to put an end to the controversy. There were 2 flags on the ballot; the current controversial ‘rebel flag’ and an alternate flag where the ‘union square’ was replaced by a blue field with 20 white stars arranged in a circle. The 20th star represented Mississippi being the 20th state to join the Union and was slightly larger and centered among the other stars. In 2001, Mississippi citizens voted overwhelmingly (65%) to keep their original Rebel Flag. Mississippi let the world know that they are proud of their Confederate Rebel Flag roots and don’t want to change a thing about it.

Beth Gabriel is a successful Webmaster and publisher of FlagWave.com. She provides more Flag History and Rebel Flag reviews that you can read on her website from the comfort of your home at 2:00 am!

Stingray Said to be Distraught Over Crocodile Hunter’s Death

Writen by W.P. Mann

QUEENSLAND, Australia (Whacked Planet) - Steve Irwin known by wildlife throughout the swamps of the world as ‘That Idiot Again’ but more widely known among humans as the ‘Crocodile Hunter’ has died. Irwin was stung through the chest by a stingray while filming an underwater segment off the Australian coast for his daughter’s TV series. The stingray is said to be “distraught” over what it says was a tragic accident.

“I didn’t mean to kill him. I didn’t even see him. I was just waving to Dinkums an octopus buddy of mine,” said the stingray.

The stingray claims that it was the waving gesture of its tail that killed Irwin. A diver who was near Irwin when the attack occurred - and who chooses to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal from the aquatic community - tells a different story.

“It weren’t no accident mate. That bloomin stingray had it out for ‘ol Stevie,” said the diver while glancing nervously at the crabs crawling nearby on the beach.

When reached for comment later the Stingray rejected any accusations that it had killed Steve intentionally. “I didn’t murder Steve Irwin. Steve was a nice guy. I rather liked the mate,” insisted the stingray. “I really was just waving at Pepper a seahorse pal of mine.”

Whether or not the Stingray was telling the truth, the loss of Australia’s most recognized personality is being mourned all across the world - except Iraq where they have allegedly more important things to mourn over. Irwin along with his American expatriate wife Terri, was a champion of wildlife conservation and reportedly once said to a friend, “I’d die to save a crocodile or a king cobra. There aren’t enough of those blokes out there in the wild.”

Wes Mannion, an old friend and co-worker at Irwin’s Australia Zoo wildlife park on the Sunshine Coast, had this to say about Irwin’s death, “I’m sure he isn’t happy up there knowin he’d met his demise by a motherfu**ing poncy ‘ol stingray. Steve would have wanted to go out by way of crocodile or at least a great white shark.”

Unlike ‘Grizzly Man’ Timothy Treadwell’s death, Irwin’s demise brings sadness to millions of fans and wildlife alike. To those that loved him for his daredevil antics and those that were envious of his tan, Steve Irwin is simply irreplacable.

Secret Pooping

Writen by Brent Dickinson

I poop. I bet you didn’t know that. Well, it’s true. I poop. That fact has lived with me all my life. Another thing that you might not have known about me is that I am a secret pooper- I poop in private. Now I know what you’re thinking- “everyone poops in private”. NOT TRUE. Others poop in public bathrooms, generally having over two stalls (it’s awful, I know). Sometimes other people are in that room with them. Sometimes, those other people are also pooping (YUCK!).

That’s why I poop in private. That’s why I’m a “secret pooper”. In the lobby of a few select buildings on the beautiful Green Mountain College campus, private bathrooms exist. Other locations on campus also provide private bathrooms. By private, I mean that there’s one toilet, and the door locks. However, I wil attest to the fact that I am not the only secret pooper. Others often try at the locked door- the only degree of separation that exists between me and them. It is a most frightening situation that often makes me poop myself (HA! I just realized that too).

But I’ll tell you what I do. Nothing. I do absolutely nothing. Well, actually sometimes I turn off the light, so the bathroon appears to be closed and locked- which easily deters these “intruders”. However, there are times when I am not able to reach the lightswitch in time, in which case, I continue pooping, and I attempt to do so as loudly as possible. No one in their right mind wants to be around when someone else is pooping. They get out of there fast, too.

Much to my dismay, I was once involved in what I call a secret pooping disaster (SPD for short). The cleaning lady on my floor once entered the bathroom’s small outer room- the room containing a sink and mirror which precedes the toilet part of the bathroom. The part that locks. The part that I was in. I heard her enter the first room, and quickly turned out the light. The average person assumes the bathroom is closed and locked, as stated earlier. However, when you are one of the only people who holds a key to a bathroom you clean, or possibly close at times, you know better. She began to open the locked door with her key. I then had to obviously announce my presense in the room. I burst out with the first thing that came to my mind- “Someone is in here”, which she followed with, “Oh, sorry… why is the light out?”. I was dumbfounded. What was I to do? I couldn’t just tell her I turned in out because someone was coming in! I couldn’t tell her I enjoy pooping in the dark (I don’t, but I wouldn’t want to make up such a story). So I did the only thing I could- I told her the blub kept flickering and was now out. She told me she would replace it later and to take my time. Then she left.

Perhaps I shouldn’t turn out the light…but now you all know what to do in case this happens, to you.

Brent Dickinson is a student of Liberal Studies at Green Mountain College in Poultney, Vermont, and is the webmaster and contributor to WaffleQuest.com, an online comedy video, article and comic strip collaboration.

On Being Human

Writen by Sam Vaknin

Are we human because of unique traits and attributes not shared with either animal or machine? The definition of “human” is circular: we are human by virtue of the properties that make us human (i.e., distinct from animal and machine). It is a definition by negation: that which separates us from animal and machine is our “human-ness”.

We are human because we are not animal, nor machine. But such thinking has been rendered progressively less tenable by the advent of evolutionary and neo-evolutionary theories which postulate a continuum in nature between animals and Man.

Our uniqueness is partly quantitative and partly qualitative. Many animals are capable of cognitively manipulating symbols and using tools. Few are as adept at it as we are. These are easily quantifiable differences - two of many.

Qualitative differences are a lot more difficult to substantiate. In the absence of privileged access to the animal mind, we cannot and don’t know if animals feel guilt, for instance. Do animals love? Do they have a concept of sin? What about object permanence, meaning, reasoning, self-awareness, critical thinking? Individuality? Emotions? Empathy? Is artificial intelligence (AI) an oxymoron? A machine that passes the Turing Test may well be described as “human”. But is it really? And if it is not - why isn’t it?

Literature is full of stories of monsters - Frankenstein, the Golem - and androids or anthropoids. Their behaviour is more “humane” than the humans around them. This, perhaps, is what really sets humans apart: their behavioural unpredictability. It is yielded by the interaction between Mankind’s underlying immutable genetically-determined nature - and Man’s kaleidoscopically changing environments.

The Constructivists even claim that Human Nature is a mere cultural artefact. Sociobiologists, on the other hand, are determinists. They believe that human nature - being the inevitable and inexorable outcome of our bestial ancestry - cannot be the subject of moral judgment.

An improved Turing Test would look for baffling and erratic patterns of misbehaviour to identify humans. Pico della Mirandola wrote in “Oration on the Dignity of Man” that Man was born without a form and can mould and transform - actually, create - himself at will. Existence precedes essence, said the Existentialists centuries later.

The one defining human characteristic may be our awareness of our mortality. The automatically triggered, “fight or flight”, battle for survival is common to all living things (and to appropriately programmed machines). Not so the catalytic effects of imminent death. These are uniquely human. The appreciation of the fleeting translates into aesthetics, the uniqueness of our ephemeral life breeds morality, and the scarcity of time gives rise to ambition and creativity.

In an infinite life, everything materializes at one time or another, so the concept of choice is spurious. The realization of our finiteness forces us to choose among alternatives. This act of selection is predicated upon the existence of “free will”. Animals and machines are thought to be devoid of choice, slaves to their genetic or human programming.

Yet, all these answers to the question: “What does it mean to be human” - are lacking.

The set of attributes we designate as human is subject to profound alteration. Drugs, neuroscience, introspection, and experience all cause irreversible changes in these traits and characteristics. The accumulation of these changes can lead, in principle, to the emergence of new properties, or to the abolition of old ones.

Animals and machines are not supposed to possess free will or exercise it. What, then, about fusions of machines and humans (bionics)? At which point does a human turn into a machine? And why should we assume that free will ceases to exist at that - rather arbitrary - point?

Introspection - the ability to construct self-referential and recursive models of the world - is supposed to be a uniquely human quality. What about introspective machines? Surely, say the critics, such machines are PROGRAMMED to introspect, as opposed to humans. To qualify as introspection, it must be WILLED, they continue. Yet, if introspection is willed - WHO wills it? Self-willed introspection leads to infinite regression and formal logical paradoxes.

Moreover, the notion - if not the formal concept - of “human” rests on many hidden assumptions and conventions.

Political correctness notwithstanding - why presume that men and women (or different races) are identically human? Aristotle thought they were not. A lot separates males from females - genetically (both genotype and phenotype) and environmentally (culturally). What is common to these two sub-species that makes them both “human”?

Can we conceive of a human without body (i.e., a Platonian Form, or soul)? Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas think not. A soul has no existence separate from the body. A machine-supported energy field with mental states similar to ours today - would it be considered human? What about someone in a state of coma - is he or she (or it) fully human?

Is a new born baby human - or, at least, fully human - and, if so, in which sense? What about a future human race - whose features would be unrecognizable to us? Machine-based intelligence - would it be thought of as human? If yes, when would it be considered human?

In all these deliberations, we may be confusing “human” with “person”. The former is a private case of the latter. Locke’s person is a moral agent, a being responsible for its actions. It is constituted by the continuity of its mental states accessible to introspection.

Locke’s is a functional definition. It readily accommodates non-human persons (machines, energy matrices) if the functional conditions are satisfied. Thus, an android which meets the prescribed requirements is more human than a brain dead person.

Descartes’ objection that one cannot specify conditions of singularity and identity over time for disembodied souls is right only if we assume that such “souls” possess no energy. A bodiless intelligent energy matrix which maintains its form and identity over time is conceivable. Certain AI and genetic software programs already do it.

Strawson is Cartesian and Kantian in his definition of a “person” as a “primitive”. Both the corporeal predicates and those pertaining to mental states apply equally, simultaneously, and inseparably to all the individuals of that type of entity. Human beings are one such entity. Some, like Wiggins, limit the list of possible persons to animals - but this is far from rigorously necessary and is unduly restrictive.

The truth is probably in a synthesis:

A person is any type of fundamental and irreducible entity whose typical physical individuals (i.e., members) are capable of continuously experiencing a range of states of consciousness and permanently having a list of psychological attributes.

This definition allows for non-animal persons and recognizes the personhood of a brain damaged human (”capable of experiencing”). It also incorporates Locke’s view of humans as possessing an ontological status similar to “clubs” or “nations” - their personal identity consists of a variety of interconnected psychological continuities.

About The Author

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, and eBookWeb , a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory Bellaonline, and Suite101 .

Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.

Visit Sam’s Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com

palma@unet.com.mk

Scientists Discover Oldest Skeleton Of Human Ancestor; Report Face Looked Like Hugo Chavez

Writen by Tom Attea

The most well-preserved skeleton of an ancestor of homo sapiens has been discovered in Ethiopia. The skeleton, dating back about 3.3 million years, is a member of the evolutionary group known as Australopithecus Venezuelas and had a face that looks remarkably like Hugo Chavez.

Scientists have yet to determine if the homonid retained tree-climbing capabilities. Apparently, its arms hung below its knees, and it had a short neck like a gorilla. As they free more of the skeleton from the sandstone in which it was found, they will be able to determine if it did climb trees.

Remains of an ancient manuscript were also found buried with the skeleton. It appears to be the work of an ancient medicine man who identifies himself as Neander Chompsky. Experts are attempting to decipher the language in which it is written.

The scientists also discovered scratchings on a rock. So far they have been able to determine that the precursor of homo sapiens may have believed in the devil. One of the scratchings has been translated that states, “If you’re looking for the devil, first look into a reflecting pool.”

Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez, on hearing about the remains, asked that they be turned over to Venezuela, because, if the ancient person did look just like him, he or she may be a distant ancestor, and so, he reasons, the remains belong to the Chavez family.

He has also voiced the intention to lug the rock with the etchings on it to his next speech at the UN, where he plans to say he took its advice and looked into a reflecting pool to see the devil. He saw George Bush, because right before he looked, he tossed in a photograph of him.

She Wrote the Book on Fakin’ It

Writen by Alyce Chiles

She brought the guitar into vogue. She created the first “fake” books designed for regular folks who didn’t want to or were unable to invest the time and effort to master the guitar. Who was she?

Catherina Josepha Pelzer was born in 1821 in Mulheim, on the Rhine. She was the daughter of Ferdinand Pelzer, a leading German guitarist during the early part of the 19th Century. Ferdinand began tutoring his daughter when she was quite young - a task made easier by the fact that young Catherina was quite the musical prodigy. She made her London concert debut at the age of seven. Soon after, her family moved from Germany to England where she received much critical acclaim and gained fame as a performer. Her concerts and recitals inspired people all over to pick up the guitar. Catherina later became much sought after as a guitar teacher, instructing the likes of the Princesses Louise and Beatrice, among others. In 1854 Catherina Pelzer married a renowned flautist and composer, and took the name by which she is more commonly remembered - Madame Sidney Pratten.

After some time as an instructor, she realized that many people were not inclined to invest the necessary effort to master the guitar. Many others simply did not possess the skills to do so. She had the solution, which came in the form of several publications. Her most popular and successful manual, Learning the Guitar Simplified, included easy exercises, each of which was followed by a simple song, along with diagrams of the fingerboard to show where the notes were found. She created another publication that color-coded each note in the diatonic scale. This was known, logically enough, as Colored Diagrams of the Notes of the Fingerboard of the Guitar. And for those who had very little time to practice, she put together Instructions for the Guitar Tuned in E Major. One tuning. No muss, no fuss.

Mme. Pratten died in 1895, leaving behind a wonderful legacy. She had brought the guitar into popularity by showing the world how beautifully it could be played and by making it easier for the average person to play it well - or at least close enough for rock and roll.

Alyce Chiles is the manager and official “appraisal typer-upper” of http://www.VintageGuitarPro.com - a site for the vintage guitar enthusiast specializing in online guitar appraisals and vintage guitars in general. On the side she also writes freelance articles on everything from Prozac to Parenting. Learn more about Alyce and Vintage Guitars by visiting http://www.VintageGuitarPro.com

Show Me The Money

Writen by Tim Knox

As the stock market was experiencing its biggest one day drop ever last week, and as many investors watched their portfolios shrivel, I realized two very important things. One, there’s nothing sadder than a shriveling portfolio, and two, the stock market could crash like a circus fat lady falling over a lawn chair and it wouldn’t affect me in the least. I own no stocks. All my money’s tied up in bills. You know, electric bill, phone bill, Visa bill, etc.

I know, I know, I should be investing in long term growth stocks and no load mutual funds and high return commodity contracts. I should be planning for my financial future, saving for a rainy day, gathering nuts for the winter, yada, yada, yada.

The truth is, I gave up trying to save for retirement years ago when I realized it was a lost cause. I’m 37 years old. In order to have enough money to live comfortably by the time I’m 65 I would have to wisely invest $20,000 a year for the next 28 years. Now, I’m not about to divulge my salary (I don’t need your pity), but if I had an extra twenty grand a year to invest I don’t think I’d be sitting around worrying about retirement. I’d be having too much fun spending all that extra cash!

Maybe I’d take investing a little more seriously if I knew how the stock market really worked. As it is, I don’t know my NASDAQ from a hole in the ground. All I know is what I see on the news. You have a crowd of angry men in a trading pit, shouting and cussing, pushing and shoving, gritting their teeth and elbowing each other in the ribs. This reminds me too much of the buffet line at Grandma’s funeral. I’m not gonna trust these guys with my money.

I’m not too worried about living out my twilight years in poverty, though, because I do have a plan. There’s an ancient Chinese proverb that goes, “Invest in your children and your returns will be many.” A beautiful thought, huh. The moment I cracked open that takeout fortune cookie and found those words on the little slip of paper I knew I had struck gold.

Here’s the Knox translation: Be nice to your kids when they’re young and they’ll take care of you when you’re old. And don’t worry, if being nice to them doesn’t work, there’s always guilt.

If you’re a little hesitant about sponging off your kids, think about this. Statistics show that raising a child from birth to age 18 costs approximately $300,000! And that’s just for funny haircuts and Air Jordans. I think a little payback is in order here, don’t you?

If it makes you feel any better we’ll put a time limit on it. Since we as parents are legally responsible for the little darlings until they are 18 years old, we’ll use 18 as the benchmark. Using myself as an example, here’s how it would work. Let’s say I retire at age 65. Upon retirement, my kids would become legally responsible for me. They have to clothe me, feed me, give me a nice place to live, pay for expensive piano lessons I’ll never take, let me borrow the car whenever I want, and listen without comment when I play my music too loud.

Add 18 years to my 65 and that gets me to age 83. With the life expectancy of the average American, white male being 75, I’ll be dead long before they can legally kick me out! A brilliant plan, really, except for the part where I die.

So let those with disposable income throw their money into the stock market. I’ll be investing in disposable diapers.

Gotta keep those kids happy, you know. I’m counting on them.

Mill’s On Liberty

Writen by Mary Arnold

In his essay, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill discusses what he believes to be the greatest obstacle to individuality: the tyranny of the majority (Mill 7). This tyranny of the majority is the ability of society to impress their own beliefs and values onto other members of society who do not willingly adhere to these beliefs, but rather are compelled in this acquiescence (Mill 7). Mill asserts that this compulsion to conform to public opinion prevents the development of individuality among the community (Mill 7). In his discussion, Mill explains his conception of the characteristics of individuality, and the role of individuals in society.

Mill claims that the goal of the ideal individual is to continually strive towards achieving the complete development of his faculties (Mill 66). This development includes all types of knowledge; a true individual does not specialize in only one area. To obtain this complete development, the individual must have freedom and exposure to diversity (Mill 66). In the absence of freedom and diversity, there can be no development of the person’s individuality.

An individual will not blindly accept the customs and beliefs of past and present societies. Instead, he or she will examine the customs and traditions of other people to decide the applicability of those customs to himself or herself. Their decision must be based on reason, and not coercion to accept current customs. The individual will reject those customs which he or she is not inclined to embrace (Mill 67). A person who conforms to custom simply because everyone else does is not taking full advantage of his or her faculties of reason and judgment (Mill 68).

Once a person has examined all sides of an issue and made a decision, based on reason, which side is most agreeable to his or her own situation, he or she must then act upon their opinions (Mill 23). This acting upon opinions includes setting up what mode of life is best for him or her, and engaging in free discussion about their opinions. An ideal individual acknowledges that his opinions may be fallible, and therefore seeks out people who hold opposite views so as to continually test the truth of his own opinion.

In these discussions, the individual does not seek to rashly disregard his opponent’s arguments, but rather keeps an open mind. He listens carefully to the arguments against his own opinion and the ones for his opponent’s opinion. An individual must understand both or all sides of an opinion in order to fully understand his own opinion. This is the only way that an individual will most nearly arrive at the truth of their opinion (Mill 25).

In keeping an open mind regarding dissenting opinions, the individual constantly tests the truth of his own opinions and beliefs, and makes additions or adjustments to the opinion when reason has shown that changes are necessary (Mill 26). An ideal individual knows that what is claimed to be truths are not infallible, and that what is accepted today may be rejected tomorrow. An individual also realizes that an opinion does not contain the whole truth, but usually has some element of truth. The individual works to reconcile the two opinions that both hold elements of truth to a consistent whole (Mill 53). Therefore, openness of mind and willingness to change is crucial towards development.

In addition to testing one’s opinions, public discussion is imperative to the development of individuality in that if there were no discussion, people would forget the reasons why they hold those opinions (Mill 46). Mill asserts that when an opinion has become established among many people, if not the majority of society, then the opinion tends to be reduced to an “hereditary creed” (Mill 47). This creed gets passed down to others in a passive manner who do not test the validity of the creed “by personal experience” (Mill 47). The person who accepts these beliefs without discussion can never develop towards becoming an individual. When controversy over a particular belief and discussion of that belief ceases, Mill claims that “the living power of the doctrine” begins to diminish (Mill 46). When a person does not understand the reasons behind the doctrine, the doctrine exists in the person’s mind as “dead beliefs” (Mill 47).

Another important reason for the allowance of discussion is that, however widely accepted as truth an opinion may be, there remains the possibility of its fallibility. In suppressing dissenting opinions, mankind runs the risk of committing an error that succeeding generations will view with “astonishment and horror” (Mill 29). To illustrate this point, Mill offers the experiences of two historical persons: Socrates and Jesus. Both of these men deviated from widely accepted customs and beliefs of their time, and both men suffered persecution for their beliefs, resulting in their being executed (Mill 29-30).

Even though both Socrates’ and Jesus’ doctrines survived to be passed on to succeeding generations, Mill does not agree that truths always will survive persecution (Mill 33). He maintains the reason that Christianity survived its early years was that persecution of its adherents was “only occasional” and “lasting but a short time” (Mill 34). Mill acknowledges that dissenters are no longer put to death, but he maintains they suffer from persecution still. In Mill’s society, dissenters are commonly labeled as “bad and immoral men” (Mill 62).

This “unmeasured vituperation” of majority opinion does indeed cause people to refrain from voicing their beliefs which differ from the customary ones (Mill 62). When an opinion is not expressed, Mill claims that this is “robbing the human race” of the opportunity to discover their own truth (Mill 21). For these reasons, Mill believes that dissenting views from the majority opinion should never be suppressed.

In addition to holding and discussing their own opinions, people need to have the freedom to act upon those opinions, e.g. in choosing the sort of life that works best for him or her (Mill 68). Mill asserts that “while mankind are imperfect” we need to have “different experiments of living” as well as diversity of opinion (Mill 65). However, Mill does realize that actions cannot be as free as opinions, if they cause harm to others (Mill 64). In asserting their individuality, people must not say or do things that might infringe on someone else’s rights or incite others to infringe on those rights (Mill 64). To take a modern example, people have the right to protest against abortion in front of an abortion clinic, but they do not have the right to prevent people from entering that clinic.

Possibly one of the most important attributes of an individual is the realization that he or she does not have the authority to impose their own beliefs upon others who do not want them. The individual can and should share their opinions with others, and may attempt to persuade others to their own side, but there is never any justification to force others to accept them, either through legal prosecution or social condemnation. Mill argues that when a society is uniform, there can be no improvement among individuals or society as a whole (Mill 85). It is only through diversity and exchange of opinions that a society can continue progressing towards the ideal.

Bibliography

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Dover Publications, 2002.

Mary Arnold is an author on http://www.Writing.Com/ which is a site for Creative Writers.

Her writing portfolio may be viewed at http://www.Writing.com/authors/ja77521

Studies Show Teenage Drinking Kills Brain Cells; Oh, That Explains Everything

Writen by Tom Attea

We always knew teens often walk a bit on the wild side, and we had the inclination to misbehave abundantly ourselves.

Now we know at least part of the reason for our wiliness.

Studies suggest that alcohol causes more damage to the developing brains of teenagers than researchers previously thought and injures them more than it does adult brains. The research also suggests that heavy teen drinking may undermine the neurological connections needed to avoid alcoholism.

“There is no doubt about it now: there are long-term cognitive consequences to excessive drinking of alcohol in adolescence,” said Aaron White, an assistant research professor in the psychiatry department at Duke University. “We definitely didn’t know five or ten years ago that alcohol affected the teen brain differently. Now there’s a sense of urgency. It’s the same place we were in when everyone realized what a bad thing it was for pregnant women to drink alcohol.”

Alcohol also seems to do damage to the frontal areas of the adolescent brain, which are vital for controlling impulses and thinking through consequences of actions, which are abilities many addicts and alcoholics of all ages are disastrously lacking.

Fulton Crews, a neuropharmacologist at the University of North Carolina, states, “Alcohol creates disruption in parts of the brain essential for self-control, motivation and goal setting.”

So when a teenager gets behind the wheel of the family car without permission, inhabits the wee hours without a considerate call, or otherwise drives his or her parents to drink, think if alcohol might have flowed into the equation.

There is some good news on tap. Crews noted that adult alcoholics who stop drinking can recover cognitive function in time, and, fortunately, the same may be true for quaffing teenagers.

The brain is remarkably plastic, and, given the inveterate proclivities of teens, what a fortuitous thing that is. It’s almost as if nature knew beforehand the likely content of adolescent doings. Future studies may show that the teenage brain, while more vulnerable to alcohol, may also be more resilient.

So best not to drink at all until your brain is grown but for those few who can’t resist, keep in mind, less booze means more brains. And more brains, of all things, distinguished behavior.

Tom Attea, humorist and creator of NewsLaugh.com, has had six shows produced Off-Broadway and has written comedy for TV. Critics have called his writing “”delightfully funny” and “witty” with “good, genuine laughs.”