Liberals and Power

The non political aspects of the Trudeau’s are more prominent in the eyes of the world compared to their efforts to increase multiculturalism, improve environmental laws, their constant emphasis on a more feminist society and other empowering changes.

Liberals like Trudeau are often challenged for their policies and they are generally seen as weak and lenient, as politicians are expected to be harsh every now and then, either to protect the state or maintain their power, which is understandable. On the other hand they have to show some emotion every now and then to show they’re human in order to gain the people’s support.

Now the question is, is it bad to always be the people’s politician and rule a country where majority of the population support you for being humble and sympathetic? Does a politician like this actually exist? Well the closest example to a similar politician I can think of are the Trudeau’s and in this article below, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau offers some insight to some personal details of her life and the effect some of those events have had on her. The 41 year old yogi shares some inspiration as well and personally I feel that she shows that she is very down to earth. Although in the eyes of some people that could show a sign of weakness, I believe it shows strength and courage as a politician to identify yourself as being the same as ordinary people, because trying to show that you are above people only proves that you want to rule over a population and not work with them to strive for bigger things.

Click here


Are we a fallen generation?

People have never been so connected globally in history as they are in this current generation. Social media platforms, travelling, the media and several other sorts of devices have been developed in the past decades and they have increased our connectivity. But the problem which I believe is dominating our current society, is the fact that these devices have not entirely helped us become more positive, tolerable, kind and loving towards each other. In fact I think it has done the opposite. I see this issue from the perspective of a teenage girl who is being brought up in all these changes, so my views differ from the average 60 year who is probably against the new generation.

Firstly, the idea of being a successful, inspirational and strong person has been confined to how much money a person makes. A lucrative career is more desirable than a person’s heart, morals and intentions. Growing up, majority of us teenagers scroll through Instagram and Facebook and look at pictures of supermodels and celebrities receiving or purchasing items from expensive high-end brands and in our opinion, those are “goals”. But is that really what our goals should be?

Another thing that boils my blood is that in school every single thing we do, every subject we choose, all the work we do, every extra curricular activity we join, all of that is for us to get accepted into our desired university. Now I completely and utterly support the idea of getting higher education and getting as many qualifications as possible, but why do we not do anything for ourselves in school? Why do we necessarily not focus on things that we enjoy doing, even for self improvement? I am pretty sure that we go to university for our own self improvement and it is the time for us to explore. It is just upsetting that many of the people I see and talk to really don’t do anything because they want to – it is because they “have to” or it will look good on their CV or college application. This is pretty good for a better economy, since unemployment will drop, assuming that a college degree will make employability easier, but do we really just want apathetic people who are just doing what they’re doing because they have to. I just feel that that is going to cause a lot more unhappiness.

Moreover, the hate and intolerance that we see today is disheartening. I don’t know if this has been the case in the past, or if we talk to each other a lot more and we hear everything quicker than before, but I see more hate and intolerance everywhere. There are so many negative thoughts and everyone is always so ready to spread hate, that it’s just disappointing. Hate towards Muslims, hate towards women, hate towards the LGBT community, hate towards anyone who isn’t your friend, hate towards anyone who is doing better than you. Hating has become so easy that everyone has to hate something or someone. This may seem like a trivial issue, because we say everyone has their own opinion on who they like or who they dislike, but large scale hate, can lead to large scale problems. If we all hate each other, we will not stand up for one another, there is no longer any support. We sometimes forget that although we may have big or small differences, in the end we are all human and if we do not support each other, then who else will. It would be so much better, if we all believed that kindness and understanding is the backbone of society.

Although I may sound negative towards this society, I strongly believe that things always have the opportunity get better if we try.

Should we be against a total democracy?

In a democracy, every member of the population is eligible to vote in order to elect a leader. A democratic government generally  represents a state as liberal and open minded, however giving the whole population the right to vote may not always work in the favor of a state.

After the Clinton Vs Trump election in the US as well as the Brexit referendum, it is evident that allowing the whole population decide what’s best for a state, is not the best idea. Millions of people from various backgrounds, literacy levels, and ethnicities made a choice on what path to choose for their countries and other countries worldwide witnessed this, with majority of the people believing that the UK and US have taken the wrong route.

From the speeches of Trump and Farage, people could see that both individuals were far from the expectations of typical political leaders and yet they both got the satisfaction of a victory, possibly inspiring people and proving that anything is possible no matter how ridiculous it is. Aside from that, the point is that majority of the population wanted this and no one stopped them because every person had the right to vote for whoever pleased them, or to some extent manipulated them the most. Which brings us to the point that elections have proved to us that there are more naïve people than we think there are.

Politicians have been known to be cunning or evil, which isn’t entirely wrong, but it isn’t hard to distinguish between a bad or a terrible president if you know a lot about politics. It is similar to going shopping and knowing that buying carrots is a healthier option rather than a packet of chips; you know this because you have been educated about dieting and nutrition. On the other hand, we are not taught about politics in school and millions of people who are utterly clueless about the aftermath of picking the wrong politician as a leader, still go to election polls and pick the packet of chips over carrots.

Socrates was also against the idea of a democracy for similar reasons, he believed that a democracy is weak because it surrendered the people’s destinies to men with adequate experience in government affairs. Socrates’ idea could be taken into account over non-governmental affairs too. If an engineer is unsure about how to build a bridge, they would consult other engineers on how to solve the problem, not the whole population of people who will have inadequate knowledge about engineering. Political affairs should be taken just as seriously.

There is never a solution that is a hundred percent satisfactory, however if the right to vote could be given to individuals who are educated enough to make the decision, that could result in better change.

Globalisation in a nutshell

It is widely said that globalisation is the process of the world becoming “smaller”. What globalisation actually is, is the integration of countries’ cultures, lifestyles and ideas. In the late 19th century, large-scale globalisation was occurring as the countries became more connected. Connectivity further increased throughout the years as education improved and people were doing more skilled jobs, therefore developing more advance technology such as; telecommunication, transport, social media and radio & television. Western countries such as the USA developed rapidly and as a result, they were able to produce goods and services that many countries could not, such as cars (Chevrolet) and banking services (Wells Fargo). This then gave opportunities for them to set up in other countries as their products were highly demanded, therefore resulting in globalisation as American brands could be found in other countries e.g. the UAE.   

Globalisation however, is quite controversial as there are many advantages and disadvantages that are attached to it. One major advantage is that it results in lowering average costs, as companies and firms such as HSBC set up their call centers in LEDCs like India where the average wage is $250 a month compared to $3000 in the UK. Globalisation also helps people in LEDCs get better jobs compared to the professions the would usually be occupied with, as in most LEDCs, people work in the primary sector doing farming or mining jobs, where the pay is extremely low and tertiary jobs like working in hotels and call centres are a lot less physically demanding and pay better, which results in their quality of life improving as the government imposes taxes on their salaries to improve infrastructure and education to further develop the country. Cultural diversity also occurs as a result of globalisation, as people are exposed to different cultures via social media or tourists travelling around. This can result in people becoming more tolerant as they are more culturally aware and possibly less problems such as racism is likely to occur.

Globalisation is also controversial as many argue that it is unethical because only MEDCs are benefitting from it. Nike has set up sweatshops in Indonesia where the average wage is around $2.30 a day, and Nike shoes cost around $120 or more. Anti globalisation organisations protest claiming that the workers are being exploited, however, this statement could be debated as many claim that these factories pay workers more than what they would generally earn. Another disadvantage is that some countries are exploiting resources and not making any major progress such as Brazil, where the Amazon Rainforest has been exploited and over 600,000km squared of forest has been deforested; exported as wood for furniture, cattle ranching to export the cattle and mining for other raw materials such as coal and iron. The value of raw materials is not high and Brazil does not get enough money back to further develop their country, but make the state of the country worsens as more pollution occurs. Moreover, it is said that globalisation can cause cultural diffusion as people from foreign countries migrate to live in different countries and could then impose their own culture and lifestyles on to the local people therefore making them forget their own cultures, resulting in less diversity.

Overall, globalisation does bear several advantages and disadvantages; although it can possibly result in many social and economic benefits, it can risk damaging the environment to result in creating a plethora of greenhouse gases that will eventually harm our lives. Some political advantages could be associated with globalisation, as people can become more understanding worldwide and it could reduce hate within different ethnicities of people and this could possibly stop wars and conflict.

Globalisation is very beneficial to improve standards of living, but I believe in order for it to be very beneficial, some laws have to be placed by the United Nations or any international organisation to reduce the damage to the planet for example Kyoto Protocol (1992) that limits the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted from a country.   

“People With More Money Certainly Think They Have More Problems”

People are never satisfied with what they have, they either yearn for the happiness one can get in life or the wealth one could possess. Which is why the wealthy and famous are always whining and as a response, the less wealthy are confused as to why the people who basically have everything they need, are still not content with their lives.

The answer is never really simple, but it could be argued that the more successful and richer you are, the more greedy and under appreciating you will be. I say this because being successful raises your standards and nothing will ever be good enough when you believe that you can do better.

This article that I read does address some facts about why the wealthy are more unsatisfied compared to the less wealthy, although we can all agree that numerical figures do not account for something completely and every individual is different, but the figures do give you an interesting insight into what would normally be seen.

Link to article