Possible topics

These are the general areas I am considering for a possible topic choice.

1) Effect of media on Health choices: I would like to know how much the media contribute to health choices that people make. Depending on the availability of information, I could look at for example, if people do pick up habit like smoking from the media, and if the anti smoking campaigns on the media like the “truth” commercials have been successful. Or I may look at the possible effects of the media on a Conditions such as Anorexia Nervosa(an eating disorder primarily affecting adolescent girls and young women )to know what is really known about people engaging in extreme dieting to look like media models. A German magazine recently resolved not to have any models on their pages so I think there will be some information linking the two out there.

2) Effect of news on desensitization: In a previous research I came across where someone was arguing that the media violence that really has an effect on behavior are the real ones such as those in sports or those carried in the news. And a friend of mine told me she isn’t moved anymore at news of someone being shot in DC because it comes all the time. I guess that is desensitization, but I think people also what to know if someone is shot in their neighborhood. I would want to know the kind of news reporting being proposed by those who think news is desensitizing, and how far their proposal is from censorship.

3) Twenty-four hour news stations and news quality: There seem not to be enough news to hold a round the clock broadcast. So issue that are not news worthy starts making it to the news, the news gets repeated, amplified, and discussed with opinions sometimes stated as facts just to hold up 24hr coverage. I think news reporting should just be about presenting the news to the public and not process it for them. Depending on the information available, I could slice this down to how news anchors in the different cable news channels like (FOX and MSNBC) polarize the society by clinging to the extreme sides of issues.

I hope to narrow these areas down to a topic, and any suggestions will be appreciated.

Survivor!

If I am to vote off someone off the island it will be Osama bin laden. I consider him a selfish and unrealistic opportunist that wishes to realize his perverted objective through aimless killings and divisive tactics. I think he is disgrace humanity.

Angry that the Saudi government rejected his proposal to defend Saudi Arabia when Iraq invaded Kuwait, but did accept the United State’s offer, bin laden criticized the Saudi monarchy and was asked to leave the country. He moved to the Sudan and declared war on the United States and her interests. His organization Al Qaeda capitalizes on Pro- Palestine sentiments and poverty to recruit militants. His strategy is to brainwash his recruits and have them go blow themselves up to kill innocent people.Such terror attacks have killed thousands of innocent people around the world, including the East African American embassy bombings and the 9/11 attacks and caused resources that could have gone into progressive developments to be channeled to elevate preventive security measures against attacks. Mr. Osama bin laden is the reason you take your shoes off at the security checks in the airport. That Mr. bin laden is alive and still gives out instructions in tapes after all his terrible deeds could inspire other disgruntled elements of society to adopt his tactics and methods.

Terrorism used to be rare, and restricted to the Middle East conflict. But these days there seem to be some form of terrorist cell in every part of the world waiting to explode. The world will be a safer place without an inspiration to such fundamentalism.

Blood diamond

Blood diamond is an exciting and stunningly well made attempt to combine the budget and the stars of major league Hollywood with a serious message about difficult un-Hollywood subjects like child soldiers, contraband diamonds and amputations as a tool of war.

Set in Sierra Leone during the1999 civil war, Blood Diamond is the story of Danny Archer (DiCaprio), an ex-mercenary from Zimbabwe, and Solomon Vandy (Hounsou), a Mende fisherman. Both men are African, but their histories and their circumstances are as different as they could be until their fates become joined in a common quest to recover a rare pink diamond that Solomon buried while working at a diamond mine controlled by the guerrilla army (Revolutionary united Front).Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly),is a magazine reporter, that tries to cozy up to Archer so that she can get the story of how the smuggling racket works. Solomon, Danny, and Maddy all want something and they take turns using, helping, and half trusting one another to get it, stumbling in and out of war zones as young killers raid the towns firing AK-47s from the backs of pickup trucks. The overall effect is that of a fast paced and intense movie.

There are no major surprises in the plot of this movie; you can tell where it is heading to at any point. I guess the surprise is in that it actually is a good movie after all. A powerful storyline and fantastic acting held the movie together. A lot of attention is paid to the murder, mayhem, and chaos that have resulted in activist pressuring the Diamond industry to create The Kimberley Process. A joint government, international diamond industry, and civil society initiative to stem the flow of conflict diamonds (rough diamonds that are used by rebel movements to finance armed conflicts)
The filmmakers let us know that every time a valuable natural resource has been discovered in Africa—whether it’s ivory, gold, oil or diamonds—white Europeans have hired surrogates to plunder the goods, and the Africans have suffered terribly. But they do not preach to us; they work out the social meanings and the controlling economic interests through action.

Blood diamond is an exciting and stunningly well made attempt to combine the budget and the stars of major league Hollywood with a serious message about difficult un-Hollywood subjects like child soldiers, contraband diamonds and amputations as a tool of war.

Set in Sierra Leone during the1999 civil war, Blood Diamond is the story of Danny Archer (DiCaprio), an ex-mercenary from Zimbabwe, and Solomon Vandy (Hounsou), a Mende fisherman. Both men are African, but their histories and their circumstances are as different as they could be until their fates become joined in a common quest to recover a rare pink diamond that Solomon buried while working at a diamond mine controlled by the guerrilla army (Revolutionary united Front).Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly),is a magazine reporter, that tries to cozy up to Archer so that she can get the story of how the smuggling racket works. Solomon, Danny, and Maddy all want something and they take turns using, helping, and half trusting one another to get it, stumbling in and out of war zones as young killers raid the towns firing AK-47s from the backs of pickup trucks. The overall effect is that of a fast paced and intense movie.

There are no major surprises in the plot of this movie; you can tell where it is heading to at any point. I guess the surprise is in that it actually is a good movie after all. A powerful storyline and fantastic acting held the movie together. A lot of attention is paid to the murder, mayhem, and chaos that have resulted in activist pressuring the Diamond industry to create The Kimberley Process. A joint government, international diamond industry, and civil society initiative to stem the flow of conflict diamonds (rough diamonds that are used by rebel movements to finance armed conflicts)
The filmmakers let us know that every time a valuable natural resource has been discovered in Africa—whether it’s ivory, gold, oil or diamonds—white Europeans have hired surrogates to plunder the goods, and the Africans have suffered terribly. But they do not preach to us; they work out the social meanings and the controlling economic interests through action.

Smoking wins

This image of two lit cigarettes looks like the towers of the World Trade Center after being hit by the terrorist planes. And with a message that reads “5.4 million die of smoking related causes each year that's 2000 times a 9/11”,it is debatable weather such a tragic event should be leveraged for an anti-smoking campaign or not.

One side of the debate believes that by letting people know that cigarettes kill more people than the terrorist attacks they would hopefully be conditioned to either have a lower opinion of cigarettes or create a subconscious relationship between cigarettes and 9/11.This view also holds that considering the resources being spent towards terrorism, cigarettes should be made illegal because it kills even more people.
The other side of the debate thinks the two are unrelated and any attempt to compare them is absurd. Because While a person has a choice to quit smoking or not, the victims of the terrorist attacks did not have an option. They died because of other people's choices. From this point of view smoking is a voluntary hazard, and it is not the business of the government to save people from themselves.

I think this ad in an attempt to be provocative went a tad too far by making the casualties of the 9/11 attacks seem trivial, and there is no reasonable connection between smoking and the attacks. This would offend people that lost their loved ones in the attacks, more so if they were non smoking victims.
I haven’t smoked in about 18 months, but looking at the cigarettes in this ad, even with the extra darkened smoke, makes me want to light one up. I would rather see pictures of tar blackened cadaver lungs- I think they are more effective.

Social networking sites provide an efficient avenue to make new friends and/or stay in touch with old ones. These upgraded websites allow an individual to construct a profile, find a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and view the lists made by others within the system. These extra features create a ‘community’ where people can communicate from different angles rather than just through response to a central point as is the case in regular websites.
These sites provide an environment where people can connect with strangers, find and stay in touch with loved ones or colleagues, or advance a cause. Sometimes these interactions may turn negative, especially when people take their cyber activities out to real life. Like when someone physically assaults another because of comments made on a social network site or when a predator meet a victim from one of these sites.
But these sites are increasingly popular because it gives the individual an avenue to put their personalities and activities out to a wider audience, and also to see the activities of the other people. Young adults are increasingly becoming part of this social world of personalized communication, and are spending c considerable time in a day catching up with events.
I have a facebook account and I think it is wonderful. I have lived and studied in five different countries, whenever I moved, I lost contact with old friends. Facebook helped me reunite with friends as far back as to elementary school. And Keeping in touch becomes easier when connected. The isolated cases of predators is as concerning as any other criminal act is. But these criminal acts can happen anywhere, assuming a predator meets a victim at the mall, I do not think responsibility should be shifted to the mall, and certainly think it would be an overreaction to mandate the mall not to let people of a certain age into the mall as a result. Parents should train their kids and make them understand that just because they chat with someone online does not mean they can meet somewhere, or to not talk to strangers in general.

Always do your best

Growing up one of the most common advice I kept bumping into was the phrase “if you always do your best your destiny is king of the world”. I didn’t think it made any sense, not just because there is no such thing as king of the world, and that advice mostly came when there seem to be some form of anxiety and it never qualified as a solution. And I knew that doing my best does not guarantee success. I had done my best in certain cases and the result did not reflect anything near being king of the world.
But the point is not that it guarantees success, It is that if I did my best always, even if it is not good enough, I will derive some form of consolation In the fact that I gave it all I could.

I experienced this profound insight at a time I used to get into a lot of table tennis competitions. I used to go into them with my eyes strictly on the outcome- winning.And generally if I didnt win the first set i become anxious ,I would give up mentally if I lost the first two sets(three sets required for victory). I did win some games when I played like that and it felt good, but when I lost it was very disappointing, sometimes after such a loss I would consider if I should ever get into another competition.
One day as I was walking into the hall for a game, a friend of mine told me “walk in there and concentrate on playing you best game” and I did just that. I diverted my attention from trying to get points to executing the basic processes of the game like serves, returns and smashes the best way I could at any instance, and the points did come automatically. I won that game and I always play that game like that ever since. I still lose some games when I play like that, but the difference is that now I play with the same determination now till my opponent gets the victory point,I don’t waste time feeling sorry or mad at myself,and the reduced anxiety makes the game more interesting. When I lose a game I congratulate my opponent and that’s the end, I can walk across the hall and play another competition.
I don’t quite know about being king of the world but anyone that does his/her best always can easily live a life of little no regrets, not because such life will be perfect but because there is nothing to regret in doing your best.