اندیشمند بزرگترین احساسش عشق است و هر عملش با خرد

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Option انتخاب

There are certain natural resources or properties which are privately owned, such as land and forest, and sometimes streams and beaches.  From the earliest time written history is found, people have claimed such properties as their belongings, and have fought over those belongings with their neighbors. Same people got together and established an organization to protect their group property against others while eyeing their properties, and called that organization a government. Then, governments fought with each other in order to acquire properties each claimed to be theirs. In the meantime, if some crafts or products were made by any, such as household utensils and weapons, the victor in the war would have attained those as well, all of which became the property of the winner of the war. Therefore, private property started from the time one claimed a piece of nature as his (or most probably hers), and fought to keep it for himself, or herself. Anything else that the person added to the property, such as buildings and farming materials, became a part of that private property and subject to ownership. Consequently, wars are merely an aggression to annex, or for invasion of someone else’s property. After a while, it was realized that animals, and then other people could be forced to become properties as well, which continues to this day in a different shape and form. That is the time slavery, meaning owning someone else’s labor, was discovered. There have been various social and political forms that controlled and regulated private property (specially human as a property), beginning with bourgeoisie, feudalism, and ending with capitalism at its present form of monopoly, which exists in many Western countries.


بسیاری از منابع طبیعی به مالکیت خصوصی تبدیل شده‌اند، مانند زمین و جنگل. از زمانی‌ که تاریخ مُدَوّن یافت شده است، منابع طبیعی تحت مالکیت اشخاص قرار گرفته‌اند، و همیشه جنگ با همسایگان بر سر این املاک بوده است. گروهی با یکدیگر جمع شدند و سازمانی را به وجود آوردند که بتوانند بصورت جمعی‌ از مالکیت شخصی‌ خود دفاع، و اموال همسایگان را تحت سلطه خود قرار دهند؛ و نام این سازمان را دولت گذاشتند. سپس دولتها بر سر آن املاک شروع به جنگ کردند. در این حین، اگر محصولی نیز توسط اشخاص تولید شده بود، مانند صنایع دستی‌ و یا جنگی، آن محصول نیز توسط برندهٔ جنگ تصاحب میشد. بالانتیجه مالکیت خصوصی از زمانی‌ آغازید که شخصی‌ قسمی از منابع طبیعی را از آنِ خود دانست. هر آنچه که توسط شخص به وجود آمده بود، مانند ساختمان و وسائل کشاورزی نیز قسمی از مالکیت خصوصی به حساب آمد. بنابر این جنگها صرفا به منظور تحت تسلط گرفتن مالکیت خصوصیِ دیگران شعله‌ور گردیدند. پس از مدتی‌، انسانها به این نتیجه رسیدند که می‌توانستند با نیروهای زور، فشار، و اختناق حیوانات، و سپس انسانهای دیگر را نیز تبدیل به اموال کنند، که به صورتهای مختلف همچنان ادامه دارد. برای آنکه به مالکیت خصوصی نظمی بخشیده شود و بهتر بتوان آنرا بطور سیستماتیک مورد استفاده قرار داد (بخصوص مالکیت اشخاص)، روشهای اجتماعیِ مختلفی‌ از جمله بورژوازی، فئودالی، و سرمایه‌داری، ابداع شدند، که هم اکنون سرمایداریِ انحصاری در بسیاری از کشورهای غربی وجود دارد.

Friday, November 17, 2017

Lonliness: Testimony before the US Senate Aging Committee

Testimony before the US Senate Aging Committee
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience
Brigham Young University
1024 SWKT
Provo, UT 84602
801-422-1324
julianne.holt-lunstad@byu.edu https://socialhealth.byu.edu

INTRODUCTION
Thank you, Chairman Collins, Senator Casey, and members of the committee for your interest in social isolation and loneliness and for the opportunity to present testimony today. My name is Julianne Holt-Lunstad, and I am a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Brigham Young University. My research focuses on the influence of our social relationships on physical health outcomes. In my remarks, today, I’ll talk about the public health relevance of social isolation and loneliness, including data on prevalence rates, health and mortality risk, and potential risk factors.

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Alfred Hitchcock

Alfred Hitchcock
One of the most celebrated innovations of the twentieth century was the art of movie making. It was properly named the 7th art, which continues to this day in its original form and variations, whether on the wide screen or on a computer, television, or even on a cell phone monitor. Acting is an old profession, but having it accessible and watching it whenever or wherever one desires is what movie, film, and clip technology have brought to us. A movie director is the brain behind the film. Checking the history of movie making from the beginning, we don’t know the first director, as it started in several countries and spread out to the rest of the world rapidly. However, we know of famous movie directors at the time that a motion picture was in its infancy. The most known movie directors of all times are those who pioneered many of the movie making standards, such as D.W. Griffith and Fritz Lang. Many of the techniques of cinema and the art of movie making were as a result of innovations by these two, and some other internationally known movie makers of the time such as Sergei Eisenstein of Russia, Lumières brothers of France (who invented the art) and Alfred Hitchcock of England, to name a few. However, Hollywood’s fame is indebted to some early movie makers, such as Fritz Lang who started in Germany, and the British born genius Charlie Chaplin, whose films still bring smile to viewers’ lips. However, when one speaks of suspense in movies, the name that comes to mind is Hitchcock.

Hariri’s Resignation as Prime Minister of Lebanon is Not All it Seems

November 10, 2017
He certainly did not anticipate what happened to him. Indeed, Hariri had scheduled meetings in Beirut on the following Monday – with the IMF, the World Bank and a series of discussions on water quality improvement; not exactly the action of a man who planned to resign his premiership

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Trump and Democrats Misread Mandates


November 8, 2017
Exclusive: Neither the Democrats nor President Trump learned the right lessons from the 2016 election, leaving the nation divided at home and bogged down in wars abroad, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry
One year ago, the American electorate delivered a confused but shocking result, the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, a quirky outcome in the Electoral College that put Trump in the White House even though Clinton got three million more votes nationally. But neither party appears to have absorbed the right lessons from that surprise ending.
he Democrats might have taken away from their defeat the warning that they had forgotten how to speak to the white working class, which had suffered from job losses via “free trade” and felt willfully neglected as Democrats looked toward the “browning of America.”
The choice of Clinton had compounded this problem because she came across as elitist and uncaring toward this still important voting bloc with her memorable description of half of Trump’s voters as “deplorables,” an insult that stung many lower-income whites and helped deliver Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to Trump.
For more than a decade, some Democratic strategists had promoted the notion that “demography is destiny,” i.e., that the relative growth of Latino, Asian and African-American populations in comparison to whites would ensure a future Democratic majority. That prediction seemed to have been validated by Barack Obama’s winning coalition in 2008 and 2012, but it also had the predictable effect of alienating many whites who felt disrespected and resentful.
So, while the Democrats and Clinton looked to a multicultural future, Trump used his experience in reality TV to communicate with this overlooked demographic group. Trump sold himself as a populist and treated the white working class with respect. He spoke to their fears about economic decline and gave voice to their grievances. He vowed to put “America First” and pull back from foreign military adventures that often used working-class kids as cannon fodder.
But much of Trump’s message, like the real-estate mogul himself, was phony. He really didn’t have policies that would address the needs of working-class Americans. Still, his promises of a massive infrastructure plan, good health-care for all, and rejection of unfair trade deals rang the right bells with enough voters to flip some traditionally Democratic blue-collar states to Republican red.