Military effects on a countries ability to be a global superpower

Even though it has come to a point where internet, the verbal and unreal world, has taken over the reality, military still has a large impact on a country's ability to be a global superpower.
Nowadays, most people live in the online world, rather than the real, physical world. People forget about their life on the earth and spend majority of their daily hours on facebook, online games, tumbler, youtube, and all other sorts of things on the internet. However, this doesn't change our perspective towards the physical "fear." Physical harm, physical environment, and other physical aspects that directly affect us, of course, has greater impact on us than a comment on facebook or an email. Physical fear will never change for the human kind, as that is what decides whether we are safe or hurt, alive or dead.
Now, when weapons are so developed and destruction has become so easy, the idea of the Third World War is, indeed, fearful. And it would be very easy for even a small conflict between two countries to end up to be a worldwide warfare since most of the countries are associated with each other in some way or the other as communication has become very easy. And counting for the fact that people are fearful of these issues, which could kill them or injure them horribly and leave them in pain, we know that military power will always remain a threat and therefore account for a part in being a superpower. A bigger military, obviously, would mean a bigger threat and better ability to destroy, which will help a country to become more superior and authoritative than the other. It's the concept of bullying with size or physical force.
Recently, North Korea has declared a threat on South Korea and left the world in horror and concern. The reason this was such a big deal was because if a war breaks out, it's not only South Korea that gets involved but the US that helped South Korea in the previous war against the North, and China that supports North Korea as communists. If US and China joins in - the two biggest (in all aspects) countries on this planet - then the rest of the world will probably be affected or involved as well. And everyone dies.
North Korea, other than militarily, is probably the most inferior country in the world. It has horrible economy, government, and reputation. It probably would have been wiped out by now, if it wasn't for their possession of nuclear bomb and a very advanced military. That's what leaves them as a threat and that's what sustains them. They are powerful. No one can touch them. Even though it is a horrible, loser country to be born in, North Korea still holds some power all due to its military. This proves that military contributes quite a lot to being a powerful country, and US is not able to sneak in with their excuse of justice, with an invisible threat of force and power, like into Afghanistan.
Physical power will always take up a great part in a human's life, because that's what we are founded on, and military will always take up a great part in a country's superiority.

Essay outline

Name: Yesua Jeon                                                                                    

Individual Research title: The most dependable and realistically possible alternative energy source

What question do I want to ask? Which alternative energy resource can we rely upon the most? Which energy resource can we actually use in the place of coal, when we run out of coal? Which energy is most practical – apart from being the most green, because the issue is about if we have enough energy since we cannot do anything without energy and we anyway pollute the world through many other ways.

Where will I find the information to answer my questions? Websites of big alternative energy source industries, environmentalist websites, governmental websites, personal blogs (they seem to have a lot to say, but of course keeping in mind the bias), news articles, UN (maybe?), online magazines like national geographic, etc.

How will I analyse the information? Since it’s a worldwide issue, approach the topic from different points of view, considering all the bias, and draw a conclusion from majority and research the facts and stats. Be tolerant. Also, compare all the information and check for each one’s reliability.

How will I identify and evaluate possible scenarios? Look at the information and with the information I gathered draw to a conclusion.

Possible scenarios: From what I have learned so far, I think solar energy is the best. Even though it might be the most expensive in manufacturing and installing, after the installation it’s pretty much free according to Srikar’s presentation and it doesn’t cause any sort of pollution. It just absorbs the sunlight and converts it into energy quietly and effectively. Also sun is pretty common in places where it is, which is in most of the places, so I don’t think we need to worry about the amount of sunlight and its abundance. It doesn’t even take up any space. We can put it on roof tops and store the energy. Other resources create too much fuss.

Global perspective #3

Each student needs to find an article on food security and analyse it to find the contention, bias and purpose.

article:

Food distribution, not shortage to blame for India's food insecurity

The contention of this article is to point out the failure of food distribution that results to food insecurity, not lack of food. It also compares the directly contrasting situations in India and America, where in India 62% is starving and in America 62% obese. The journalist of course is not supposed to be biased, but we can see that he is siding with the criticism of the government and the country's corruption that allows "320 million people" to go hungry when they have "a surplus of 82.3 million tonnes of crops," by seeing that he only interviewed one person, food and trade policy analyst, and entirely writes from his point of view. The whole argument of this article lies in the title itself as you can see. The purpose of this article is to speak out for the people, and of the unfortunate reality in India, and to make everyone aware of India's abundance in food that that doesn't correlate with satisfied stomachs.

Global perspective #2

Write and post a comparison on what food insecurity means to countries like USA and the UK against countries like India and Pakistan.

Identify the Bias, purpose (informative, persuasive, etc), main contention of the writer (what is their argument), evidence and discrepancies between ‘A further attack on the PDS’ and ‘fighting for food security’. Post these ideas and either bring a computer into class with you on Monday or print out your analysis so we can work on these in class.

The two articles pretty much have the same argument. They both criticize the corruption and failure of the Indian government to reduce food insecurity in India. The bias of the second (UK) article was against the Indian government, stating that the "debate has shifted from starvation and subsistence to dignity and justice." It describes the "scandal of the country bursting at the seams with 60m tonnes of stored food grains as starvation, death and migration afflicted six states." The article from the Frontline suggests similar, stating that "while more than 500 million people are undernourished and many more are vulnerable to food insecurity, 45.5 million tonnes of foodgrains are being held by the Government of India." However, being a magazine produced from the publishers of The Hindu, it stands more on the local citizen's side and fights from the local perspective. The Guardian only revolves around the government of India, not the individual residents. The Guardian states the problems, the solutions, and the improvements made over the past years, whereas Frontline gives massive statistics and numbers, and also unfamiliar terms such as APL, BPL, TPDS, etc. Both of them are pretty informative, as they state the facts and give information on this issue, but also somewhat persuasive on their indirect attack on India's corruption. Both of the writers are Indians, who obviously would be concerned about their own country's conflicts and which portray their contention to publicize this topic, give spotlight on this topic, draw people's attention, and educate everyone of the problems and corruptions that are taking place in India. Since the first article was written in 2001, which is when the scandal happened according to the second article that was written in 2012, the second article mention the actions taken, and the progress, not failing to include more improvements to be made. The first article just states the situation and criticizes faults in the system of public distribution. The first article is very obscure. Not only there are many errors in the article, but the English is poor with continuous repetition of the same words and a not very smooth flow of the sentences. 

Global perspective #1

Food security & poverty/hunger
-who is affected?
-how many are affected?
-is this a major problem
-what are some solutions?

Anyone who starves is affected by this worldwide issue. Specifically, the people who cannot afford food or are in situations of food scarcity are all who are affected. As I remember someone telling me, over 50% of the world population is suffering from poverty. The world "we" (that is, anyone who is be able to read this with a proper house, computer, and internet access) are living in, is just the beautiful half of the world. Of course this is a major problem! People are dying from starvation when in some parts of the country, people are suffering from obesity and trying to prevent food wastage. Can you believe that? People are talking about food wastage when some are not even getting any at all. This is certainly a big problem. It's messed up. The solution is to better manage food distribution all around the world because there certainly is enough food to feed everyone on earth. We must stop indulging in so much luxury. Instead of buying a new car, which is very unnecessary, you could help the African kids. The whole system needs to change. The Africans should be provided with foods of equal quality and equal abundancy as those we find in North America or Europe. It's not fair that some people get enough food - enough to waste by truckloads - while some don't even have drinking water.

Video response
1. To encourage people to give
2. People need physical nutrition and love. Therefore, we who have these, should give those who don't already. As Krishnan states, "the ultimate purpose of life is to give." Also he believes that we should do so because "everybody's the same."
3. I do agree with the fact that we should give the needy. However, I wouldn't say that would change the world. It won't put an end to world hunger. It's just nice to give.
4. It's a story.

Central argument: Polite terms such as "thank you" or "you're welcome" are starting to disappear from our lives and are replaced with other terms, as people are becoming more casual and maybe even rude.

The terms we use did change over time. It's always been changing. The terms I used over the mere 17 years of my life changed immensely. As some famous saying said, "The only constant in this world is change," or something of that context.

That is very true. We humans always change. The trend will never stay the same. New concepts or ideas will be introduced, and some of them will become viral, changing our way of living.

Same with what we say. Words such as "dope" referred to drugs. But now, somehow, it has changed its meaning to be "cool." Who, in the 20th century, would have ever even imagined that the word "sick" would be transformed to mean something like "cool," or "nice." That doesn't even make any sense. And now we use "damn" as "very," and it's not even a swear word anymore. We say it in front of the teachers.

However, just because what we say changes, doesn't mean what we mean changes too. We use words according to their meanings, and no matter how rude it might seem to uncreative and grumpy adults, if it means the same thing then I don't think there is any harm in it. These old men be flipping 'bout it, but we ain't care cuz we still be dope! As I said, if it means the same, there shouldn't be a problem. It's like "fuck." The word itself doesn't hold any value. It's the fact that humans have decided to give it a bad meaning that made it bad-ass. The meaning is important. Therefore if we say "damn" with the meaning of "very," we won't get in trouble even if we are with the principal. However, if we use it as damn "damn," as in "damn it," the situation might differ. So if we say "what up, dawg~" instead of "how are you, my friend," but still mean the same thing, then it is the same thin! No being rude or rebellious or anything like that. Adults gotta chill out in life and realize the world is changing. (Gasp! Really?) I believe it's about time we use our ghetto-child language with adults too now. Lol. I'm just joking, that was a bit too far. Anyways, I'm just saying that we should tolerate the seemingly-rude-but-meaning-the-same terms. And I'm not saying we should tolerate the seemingly-rude-and-meaning-the-rude terms. We should place consequences on those hipster wannabe immature kids who dare try to be playing with old men. No one messes with age. No one f*** around with the "experienced." However, I believe the world is not as bad as to have all these people using the new, modern, reformed terms  to be rude. So I hope everyone just cope with it and live with it. Peace (lol). [I don't really talk like this, I don't want to, and I wouldn't like to. I just do this for the sake of my own entertainment of making fun of the "cool guys" that actually think it's cool to talk like this. Just so you know I'm not a psychopathic weirdilistic creep. (:]

Basically, I'm kinda agreeing with only the last paragraph of the article. "What won't change ... is the importance of acknowledging appreciation expressed." The meaning is important, not the (physical seemingageof the) words. "... if the appreciation is expressed in a genuine manner, I do not see it as a loss of courtesy." True that. If we mean it, even though our words might sound bit more shallow or rude, it should be fine.
The only conflict is, will others be cool enough to understand that we mean the same?

Why We Like What We Like

Central argument: We like what we like, obviously with the affect of what we physically sense with our five-senses, but mostly due to our mindset; due to our perception and thinking that something is likeable.

It indeed depends on our belief that something is good. The taste of the food does matter. when we come across a new food, we probably judge its taste by our tongue. However, whether we like that food or not, as the author argues and as I agree with him, depends wholly on our brain. It depends on whether we decide that it's good or not, whether we decide to like it or not.

I'm sure this is true with everyone that some of the things we like are urged by popular choice. People pretensiously like something just because many others say it's good. For example, I used to hate steak. The thick, stuffed, gross big chunk of cow was certainly overrated. I still didn't receive an answer why people think so highly of it, even when I had it in the most popular steak place, but I just pretended that it is amazing just because everyone else insisted so. Well, now I really do like meat and can't live without it, and this is not a perception affected by others.

A great example from the blog is holding hands with someone. It doesn't really matter what kind of hand it is, does it? It doesn't matter how the other person's hand feels on your hands. It depends on your brain whether to decide to like it or not. If you hold hands with someone you like, you like it. That's up to your brain. However, these are natural things. The problem in the real-life situation emerges when people are fake with what they like, just following the majority. Like the starting example of the article. People would act like gourmet liver pate is some amazing food, and dog food is gross, even though the scientific research reveals that most people don't even notice the difference between the two when they are similarly served with the "right sort of garnish." Same with my steak example, I think it gradually turns into a conflict when the fakeness goes over the line. It is certainly a problem in our world. Being unique, different, truthful to oneself, and standing up for oneself are denied because the world wants you to follow them. Follow their decision of what you should like, not your own honest feelings. If those dishes taste the same, why don't we just admit dog food tastes good or gourmet liver pate sucks? I don't get it.

As time goes by, the interruption of "attitudes and expectations" is increasing. In today's world, where people care so much about what others would think, it is all about the mindset of liking something - not your actual feelings of liking something by its goodness. You can't like something that others would find silly. Because from that day on, you would become an outcast.

If Chuck Norris said poop is tasty, I bet half the world would say the same. The author is true when he says, "It's hard to avoid the conclusion that we are frauds and fakes." We care so fucking much about our reputation that we start becoming fake. We pretend to like what we don't fucking like just to be cool. Just to follow the stupid crowd. Are you - an individual - afraid of them? When facing our own ego problems, there are no families or friends anymore. It's all about me, myself. What the hell is the world up to? Where is this craphole heading? We decide our friends according to our own fucking selfish reaosns. I have friends, thank goodness, because I'm good at drawing and dancing. That's all people care about. These fake-ass motherfucking bitches can't be true to themselves for once. I'm a fake-ass motherfucking bitch too. I won't blame everything on the individuals though, because Woodstock is turning people like that. The environment is threatening them with the terror of being an outcast that they should follow everyone else pretensiously. What the fuck!? The system is taking over our lives, and we are, like douchebags, following the system. Get out of there, man. Please. Let's get out and enjoy.