Blood pressure measures the work capacity of the heart. It consists of two numbers: the upper number(the systolic blood pressure) represents how hard the heart has to work to push the blood out; the lower number (the diastolic blood pressure) represents the pressure in the heart when it is resting between contractions. Since blood pressure can vary during the day, one high reading does not necessarily mean you have high blood pressure. A diagnosis of high blood pressure is given when readings at different times remain consistently high.
High blood pressure is a major risk factor for heart disease, stroke and heart attack.
Hypertension increases with smoking, obesity, atherosclerosis, stress, lack of exercise, caffeine ingestion, alcohol consumption, and unhealthy diet with lots of fat and meat.
Testing Blood Pressure:
<120/ <80 normal;
120-139/80-89 prehypertension;
140-159/90-99 hypertension stage 1; > or = 160/> or = 100 stage 2
Sources:
Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure, 2003)
Dr. Laurie Steelsmith. Natural Choices for Women's Health (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2005).
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Happiness
Everybody wants happiness, but few realize that it is a very relative concept. If happiness refers to a feeling, then happiness certainly does not last long, for human feelings and emotions are capricious. It comes and goes away. If happiness is a mental state in which a person achieves intellectual and emotional equilibrium, then it depends on the person's capability to maintain such a state in order for happiness to become constant and sustainable. In that sense, the state of happiness is also subject to change.
Some may define happiness as a state of well-being, physically, mentally and socially, which could be measured subjectively by individual persons,in terms of the quality of life, or personal and external/environmental factors that affect their life quality. In that sense, the spectrum of happiness varies on a wide range, depending on individual perception. It is true that one's wealth certainly does not guarantee one's happiness. However, living in unsafe environments such as war zones, or in poverty and unable to meet one's own basic needs only leads to unhappiness and sufferings.
Humans in the rat race are suffering from a lot of stress and worries. The rich and the poor alike all have their own problems, some of which they may get over, others they have to face in utmost distress. Besides getting caught up in the mundane turmoil, we also suffer from our own body with its demands and weaknesses, its unstable conditions from childhood to old age. We sometimes get confused while dealing with many issues and relationships in life, so confused that we may get tired of them all, and would like to find a way to escape, and get liberated from them.
Is liberation from daily life fetters happiness? Then those who denounce mundane life, such as monks and nuns, should be the happiest on earth. If you closely observe those who devote their lives to some spiritual or religious pursuit or ideals, and who are living and working in various religious sects or organizations, you may find the majority of them much happier than those in the secular world. The majority of them, but not all of them. Why? I believe happiness is a matter of the individual that demands the individual to look inward and discover it. After all, happiness is from within, not without.
Some may define happiness as a state of well-being, physically, mentally and socially, which could be measured subjectively by individual persons,in terms of the quality of life, or personal and external/environmental factors that affect their life quality. In that sense, the spectrum of happiness varies on a wide range, depending on individual perception. It is true that one's wealth certainly does not guarantee one's happiness. However, living in unsafe environments such as war zones, or in poverty and unable to meet one's own basic needs only leads to unhappiness and sufferings.
Humans in the rat race are suffering from a lot of stress and worries. The rich and the poor alike all have their own problems, some of which they may get over, others they have to face in utmost distress. Besides getting caught up in the mundane turmoil, we also suffer from our own body with its demands and weaknesses, its unstable conditions from childhood to old age. We sometimes get confused while dealing with many issues and relationships in life, so confused that we may get tired of them all, and would like to find a way to escape, and get liberated from them.
Is liberation from daily life fetters happiness? Then those who denounce mundane life, such as monks and nuns, should be the happiest on earth. If you closely observe those who devote their lives to some spiritual or religious pursuit or ideals, and who are living and working in various religious sects or organizations, you may find the majority of them much happier than those in the secular world. The majority of them, but not all of them. Why? I believe happiness is a matter of the individual that demands the individual to look inward and discover it. After all, happiness is from within, not without.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Cholesterol
Cholesterol is a waxy substance produced by your liver and found in some of the food you eat. Although cholesterol plays a critical role in the development of problems in your heart and blood vessels, your body needs it, because it is part of your cell membrane. Cholesterol is required to build and maintain membranes. It modulates membrane fluidity over the range of physiological temperatures. Within the cell membrane, cholesterol also functions in intracellular transport, cell signaling and nerve conduction. Within cells, cholesterol is the precursor molecule in several biochemical pathways. In the liver, cholesterol is converted to bile, which is then stored in the gallbladder. Bile contains bile salts, which solubilize fats in the digestive tract and aid in the intestinal absorption of fat molecules as well as the fat-soluble vitamins, Vitamin A, Vitamin D, Vitamin E, and Vitamin K. Cholesterol is an important precursor molecule for the synthesis of Vitamin D. Moreover, cholesterol level is linked to your hormones-- the steroid hormones, including the adrenal gland hormones cortisol and aldosterone as well as the sex hormones progesterone, estrogens, and testosterone, and their derivatives. Some research indicates that cholesterol may act as an antioxidant.
It is important to keep your total cholesterol level at less than 200 mg per deciliter of blood, and maintain a favorable ratio of good (HDL) to bad (LDL) cholesterol. Your LDL should be low (less than 100), and your HDL should be high (60 or higher). Exercise and a balanced diet can increase your HDL .
We should know sources of cholesterol, and maintain our optimal cholesterol level. Foods with animal fat contain cholesterol to varying extents. Major dietary sources of cholesterol include cheese, egg yolks, beef, pork, poultry, and shrimp. Human breast milk also contains significant quantities of cholesterol. The amount of cholesterol present in plant-based food sources is generally much lower than animal based sources. In addition, plant products such as flax seeds and peanuts contain cholesterol-like compounds called phytosterols, which are suggested to help lower serum cholesterol levels.
Total fat intake, especially saturated fat and trans fat, plays a larger role in blood cholesterol than intake of cholesterol itself. Saturated fat is present in full fat dairy products, animal fats, several types of oil and chocolate. Trans fats are typically derived from the partial hydrogenation of unsaturated fats, and do not occur in significant amounts in nature. Trans fat is most often encountered in margarine and hydrogenated vegetable fat, and consequently in many fast foods, snack foods, and fried or baked goods.
What is the optimal cholesterol level? How can we reduce blood cholesterol?
In the 1987 report of National Cholesterol Education Program, Adult Treatment Panels suggested the total blood cholesterol level should be less than 200 mg/dL (normal blood cholesterol). 200–239 mg/dL is borderline-high, and more than 240 mg/dL is very high cholesterol.
However, as today's testing methods determine LDL ("bad") and HDL ("good") cholesterol separately, this simplistic view has become somewhat outdated. The desirable LDL level is considered to be less than 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L), although a newer upper limit of 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) can be considered in higher risk individuals based on some of the above-mentioned trials. A ratio of total cholesterol to HDL—another useful measure—of far less than 5:1 is thought to be healthier. Of note, typical LDL values for children before fatty streaks begin to develop is 35 mg/dL.
A change in diet in addition to other lifestyle modifications may help reduce blood cholesterol. Avoiding animal products may decrease the cholesterol levels in the body not only by reducing the quantity of cholesterol consumed but also by reducing the quantity of cholesterol synthesized. Those wishing to reduce their cholesterol through a change in diet should aim to consume less than 7% of their daily calories from saturated fat and fewer than 200 mg of cholesterol per day. The view that a change in diet (to be specific, a reduction in dietary fat and cholesterol) can lower blood cholesterol levels, and thus reduce the likelihood of development of, among others, coronary artery disease (CAD) leading to coronary heart disease (CHD) has been challenged. An alternative view is that any reductions to dietary cholesterol intake are counteracted by the organs such as the liver, which will increase or decrease production of cholesterol to keep blood cholesterol levels constant. Another view is that although saturated fat and dietary cholesterol also raise blood cholesterol, these nutrients are not as effective at doing this as is animal protein.
What is HDL?
High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is one of the five major groups of lipoprotein which enable lipids like cholesterol and triglycerides to be transported within the water-based bloodstream. In healthy individuals, about thirty percent of blood cholesterol is carried by HDL. High concentrations of HDL (over 60 mg/dL) have protective value against cardiovascular diseases such as ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction. Low concentrations of HDL (below 40 mg/dL for men, below 50 mg/dL for women) increase the risk for atherosclerotic diseases.
How can we raise our HDL ?
A link has been shown between level of HDL and onset of dementia. Those with high HDL were less likely to have dementia. Low HDL-C in late-middle age has also been associated with memory loss.
You can raise your HDL with healthy and balanced diet and lifestyle
Certain changes in lifestyle can have a positive impact on raising HDL levels:
· Aerobic exercise
· Weight loss
· Smoking cessation
· Removing trans fatty acids from the diet
· Mild to moderate alcohol intake
· Adding soluble fiber to diet
· Using supplements such as omega 3 fish oil or flax oil
· Increasing intake of cis-unsaturated fats and cholesterol.
What is LDL?
Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is one of the five major groups of lipoproteins that enable lipids like cholesterol and triglycerides to be transported within the water-based bloodstream.
Because LDL particles can also transport cholesterol into the artery wall, retained there by arterial proteoglycans and attract macrophages which engulf the LDL particles and start the formation of plaques, increased levels are associated with atherosclerosis. Over time vulnerable plaques rupture, activate blood clotting and produce arterial stenosis, which if severe enough results in heart attack, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease symptoms and major debilitating events.
How can we lower our LDL?
In the USA, the American Heart Association, NIH, and NCEP provide a set of guidelines for fasting LDL-Cholesterol levels, estimated or measured, and risk for heart disease. As of about 2005, these guidelines were based on a goal of presumably decreasing death rates from cardiovascular disease to less than 2% to 3% per year or less than 20% to 30% every 10 years. Note that 100 is not considered optimal; less than 100 is optimal, though it is unspecified how much less.
Sources:
Dr. Laurie Steelsmith. Natural Choices for Women’s Health (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2005).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-density_lipoprotein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LD
It is important to keep your total cholesterol level at less than 200 mg per deciliter of blood, and maintain a favorable ratio of good (HDL) to bad (LDL) cholesterol. Your LDL should be low (less than 100), and your HDL should be high (60 or higher). Exercise and a balanced diet can increase your HDL .
We should know sources of cholesterol, and maintain our optimal cholesterol level. Foods with animal fat contain cholesterol to varying extents. Major dietary sources of cholesterol include cheese, egg yolks, beef, pork, poultry, and shrimp. Human breast milk also contains significant quantities of cholesterol. The amount of cholesterol present in plant-based food sources is generally much lower than animal based sources. In addition, plant products such as flax seeds and peanuts contain cholesterol-like compounds called phytosterols, which are suggested to help lower serum cholesterol levels.
Total fat intake, especially saturated fat and trans fat, plays a larger role in blood cholesterol than intake of cholesterol itself. Saturated fat is present in full fat dairy products, animal fats, several types of oil and chocolate. Trans fats are typically derived from the partial hydrogenation of unsaturated fats, and do not occur in significant amounts in nature. Trans fat is most often encountered in margarine and hydrogenated vegetable fat, and consequently in many fast foods, snack foods, and fried or baked goods.
What is the optimal cholesterol level? How can we reduce blood cholesterol?
In the 1987 report of National Cholesterol Education Program, Adult Treatment Panels suggested the total blood cholesterol level should be less than 200 mg/dL (normal blood cholesterol). 200–239 mg/dL is borderline-high, and more than 240 mg/dL is very high cholesterol.
However, as today's testing methods determine LDL ("bad") and HDL ("good") cholesterol separately, this simplistic view has become somewhat outdated. The desirable LDL level is considered to be less than 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L), although a newer upper limit of 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) can be considered in higher risk individuals based on some of the above-mentioned trials. A ratio of total cholesterol to HDL—another useful measure—of far less than 5:1 is thought to be healthier. Of note, typical LDL values for children before fatty streaks begin to develop is 35 mg/dL.
A change in diet in addition to other lifestyle modifications may help reduce blood cholesterol. Avoiding animal products may decrease the cholesterol levels in the body not only by reducing the quantity of cholesterol consumed but also by reducing the quantity of cholesterol synthesized. Those wishing to reduce their cholesterol through a change in diet should aim to consume less than 7% of their daily calories from saturated fat and fewer than 200 mg of cholesterol per day. The view that a change in diet (to be specific, a reduction in dietary fat and cholesterol) can lower blood cholesterol levels, and thus reduce the likelihood of development of, among others, coronary artery disease (CAD) leading to coronary heart disease (CHD) has been challenged. An alternative view is that any reductions to dietary cholesterol intake are counteracted by the organs such as the liver, which will increase or decrease production of cholesterol to keep blood cholesterol levels constant. Another view is that although saturated fat and dietary cholesterol also raise blood cholesterol, these nutrients are not as effective at doing this as is animal protein.
What is HDL?
High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is one of the five major groups of lipoprotein which enable lipids like cholesterol and triglycerides to be transported within the water-based bloodstream. In healthy individuals, about thirty percent of blood cholesterol is carried by HDL. High concentrations of HDL (over 60 mg/dL) have protective value against cardiovascular diseases such as ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction. Low concentrations of HDL (below 40 mg/dL for men, below 50 mg/dL for women) increase the risk for atherosclerotic diseases.
How can we raise our HDL ?
A link has been shown between level of HDL and onset of dementia. Those with high HDL were less likely to have dementia. Low HDL-C in late-middle age has also been associated with memory loss.
You can raise your HDL with healthy and balanced diet and lifestyle
Certain changes in lifestyle can have a positive impact on raising HDL levels:
· Aerobic exercise
· Weight loss
· Smoking cessation
· Removing trans fatty acids from the diet
· Mild to moderate alcohol intake
· Adding soluble fiber to diet
· Using supplements such as omega 3 fish oil or flax oil
· Increasing intake of cis-unsaturated fats and cholesterol.
What is LDL?
Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is one of the five major groups of lipoproteins that enable lipids like cholesterol and triglycerides to be transported within the water-based bloodstream.
Because LDL particles can also transport cholesterol into the artery wall, retained there by arterial proteoglycans and attract macrophages which engulf the LDL particles and start the formation of plaques, increased levels are associated with atherosclerosis. Over time vulnerable plaques rupture, activate blood clotting and produce arterial stenosis, which if severe enough results in heart attack, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease symptoms and major debilitating events.
How can we lower our LDL?
In the USA, the American Heart Association, NIH, and NCEP provide a set of guidelines for fasting LDL-Cholesterol levels, estimated or measured, and risk for heart disease. As of about 2005, these guidelines were based on a goal of presumably decreasing death rates from cardiovascular disease to less than 2% to 3% per year or less than 20% to 30% every 10 years. Note that 100 is not considered optimal; less than 100 is optimal, though it is unspecified how much less.
Sources:
Dr. Laurie Steelsmith. Natural Choices for Women’s Health (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2005).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-density_lipoprotein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LD
Friday, February 25, 2011
Mercury in Fish
Mercury is one of the most toxic heavy metals. Fish and seafood caught closer to industrial areas are more likely to have higher levels of mercury and other contaminants. Adults wigh levels of mercury in their tissues experience symptoms of muscle weakness, fatigue, headaches,irritability, hair loss, inability to concentrate, numbness and tigling around lips, fingers and toes, problems with vision, hearing, speaking, and balance. High levels of mercury increase risk for heart disease, while decreases one's level of selenium, an important antioxidant. Selenium is also important to recycle glutathione, a critical antioxidant to the liver's ability to neutralize many toxins. In extreme cases, mercury toxicity can lead to tremors, coma, and even death.
Fish absorb mercury from the organisms they feed on. The older and the larger a fish, the higher the level of mercury it contains. Nearly all fish contain some mercury, but predator fish and large-sized species, for example tuna, are usually high in methyl mercury, a highly toxic form. Nursing mothers, and young children should avoid eating high-mercury fish such as swordfish, tilefish, and king mackerel, and select small ocean or farm-raised fish. From 8 to 16 servings (a serving of fish is 3 to 6 ounces) of fish that are not high in mercury per month. Pregnant women should avoid fish and sea food, for mercury can easily cross the placenta, and disrupt the development of the baby's brain and nervous system.
Mercury Levels in Commercial Fish and Seafood
As measured in maximum parts per million (ppm)
Shark 4.54ppm
Tilefish (Gulf of Mexico) 3.73
Swordfish 3.22
King Mackerel 1.67
Halibut 1.52
Snapper 1.37
Lobster 1.31
Tuna (Fresh/Frozen) 1.30
Grouper 1.21
Monkfish 1.02
Bass (Salt water) 0.96
Marlin 0.92
Tuna (Canned) 0.85
Orange Roughy 0.80
Pollock 0.78
Spanish Mackerel (S. Atlantic) 0.73
Bluefish 0.63
Crab 0.61
Tilefish (Atlantic) 0.53
Cod 0.42
White Croaker (Pacific) 0.41
Squid 0.40
Butterfish 0.36
Anchovies 0.34
Perch (Freshwater) 0.31
Whitefish 0.31
Catfish 0.31
Spiny Lobster 0.27
Oyster 0.25
Scallops 0.22
Salmon (Fresh/Frozen) 0.19
Mackerel (N. Atlantic) 0.16
Herring 0.14
Mullet 0.13
Trout (Fresh Water) 0.13
Talapia 0.07
Pickerel 0.06
Shrimp 0.05
Crawfish 0.05
Haddock 0.04
Sardine 0.04
Perch (Ocean) 0.03
Sources:
US Department of Health and Human Services
and US Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Laurie Steelsmith. Natural Choices for Women's Health(New York: Three Rivers Press, 2005, pp. 25-29).
Fish absorb mercury from the organisms they feed on. The older and the larger a fish, the higher the level of mercury it contains. Nearly all fish contain some mercury, but predator fish and large-sized species, for example tuna, are usually high in methyl mercury, a highly toxic form. Nursing mothers, and young children should avoid eating high-mercury fish such as swordfish, tilefish, and king mackerel, and select small ocean or farm-raised fish. From 8 to 16 servings (a serving of fish is 3 to 6 ounces) of fish that are not high in mercury per month. Pregnant women should avoid fish and sea food, for mercury can easily cross the placenta, and disrupt the development of the baby's brain and nervous system.
Mercury Levels in Commercial Fish and Seafood
As measured in maximum parts per million (ppm)
Shark 4.54ppm
Tilefish (Gulf of Mexico) 3.73
Swordfish 3.22
King Mackerel 1.67
Halibut 1.52
Snapper 1.37
Lobster 1.31
Tuna (Fresh/Frozen) 1.30
Grouper 1.21
Monkfish 1.02
Bass (Salt water) 0.96
Marlin 0.92
Tuna (Canned) 0.85
Orange Roughy 0.80
Pollock 0.78
Spanish Mackerel (S. Atlantic) 0.73
Bluefish 0.63
Crab 0.61
Tilefish (Atlantic) 0.53
Cod 0.42
White Croaker (Pacific) 0.41
Squid 0.40
Butterfish 0.36
Anchovies 0.34
Perch (Freshwater) 0.31
Whitefish 0.31
Catfish 0.31
Spiny Lobster 0.27
Oyster 0.25
Scallops 0.22
Salmon (Fresh/Frozen) 0.19
Mackerel (N. Atlantic) 0.16
Herring 0.14
Mullet 0.13
Trout (Fresh Water) 0.13
Talapia 0.07
Pickerel 0.06
Shrimp 0.05
Crawfish 0.05
Haddock 0.04
Sardine 0.04
Perch (Ocean) 0.03
Sources:
US Department of Health and Human Services
and US Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Laurie Steelsmith. Natural Choices for Women's Health(New York: Three Rivers Press, 2005, pp. 25-29).
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Relationship
There are many types of human relationship in various settings --in a family, at school, at work, and in society. Some are close and last long; others, superficial and transient. Some remain smooth, steady and stable like a huge rock, or a stagnant pool; others, tumultuous and unpredictable like stormy weather. It all depends on the parties involved in the relationship, and, to some extent, on the environment or the situations in which the relationship exists and evolves.
I think only two human relationships worth discussing: mother love, and the first love between a man and a woman.
Mother love is usually unconditioned and one way. The mother never expects much from her child's love for her. She just loves the child, and wants to care for him/her. It usually happens that the child scarcely appreciates the mother's love, even when the child has become a grown-up, and has his/her own children. Taking care of old parents is sometimes considered a burden to the son or the daughter.
The first love between a man and a woman is the first blueprint in one's heart and mind. It is not easy to fade away with time. It is often genuine in the sense that it is not based on any calculations or any other kind of economic, social, or political interference. It is pure and innocent, like a piece of white paper without any traces of pen or pencil on it.
Other remaining types of relationships are often temporary or transient, and subject to environmental changes. Hence, they are vicarious, and usually do not have lasting values.
Of course, there are always exceptions. Some mothers treat their children badly, and some first loves have turned into nightmares for both lovers! You should not be surprised, for humans are diverse and their emotions, whimsical and erratic.
I think only two human relationships worth discussing: mother love, and the first love between a man and a woman.
Mother love is usually unconditioned and one way. The mother never expects much from her child's love for her. She just loves the child, and wants to care for him/her. It usually happens that the child scarcely appreciates the mother's love, even when the child has become a grown-up, and has his/her own children. Taking care of old parents is sometimes considered a burden to the son or the daughter.
The first love between a man and a woman is the first blueprint in one's heart and mind. It is not easy to fade away with time. It is often genuine in the sense that it is not based on any calculations or any other kind of economic, social, or political interference. It is pure and innocent, like a piece of white paper without any traces of pen or pencil on it.
Other remaining types of relationships are often temporary or transient, and subject to environmental changes. Hence, they are vicarious, and usually do not have lasting values.
Of course, there are always exceptions. Some mothers treat their children badly, and some first loves have turned into nightmares for both lovers! You should not be surprised, for humans are diverse and their emotions, whimsical and erratic.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Privacy on the Internet
According to Article 12 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
What about privacy on the Internet?
How much should one reveal or share one's personal life virtually? What are the consequences of having personal information exposed and vulnerable in cyberspace without knowing it? Individuals and organizations that have sensitive data now face many concerns and challenges. Information privacy or data privacy is the relationship between collection and dissemination of data, technology, the public expectation of privacy, and the legal and political issues surrounding them. When sharing data, we also face the challenge of data or information security.
Privacy software can help to protect the privacy of its users. The software works in conjunction with Internet usage to control or limit the amount of information made available to third-parties by applying encryption or filtering of various kinds. There are two different types of protection the software can provide: 1.Protecting a user's Internet privacy from the World Wide Web. Some software products can mask or hide a user's IP address from the outside world in order to protect the user from identity theft. 2.Hiding or deleting the users Internet traces that are left on their PC after they have been surfing the Internet. There is software that will erase all the users Internet traces and there is software that will hide and encrypt a user's traces so that others using their PC will not know where they have been surfing. Using encryption and anonymizers may help.
Encryption uses algorithm to make information unreadable to those who do not have knowledge about the "key." The encrypted information (or "cyphertext")can be unencrypted or made readable again (a process called "decryption"). Encryption helps secure data both at rest and in transit from physical security failure, and from unauthorized use or reproduction. It also helps to protect confidentiality and authenticity of messages. However, encryption application and products may not work properly in every case.
Anonymizer is a proxy server computer that acts as an intermediary shielding a client computer from the rest of the Internet. Anonymizers serve many purposes, from minimizing risks (e.g., identity thefts)to bypassing web technology (to get access to prohibited sites). Anonymizers can be implemented with one specific protocol, through connection with an independent protocol, or through relays in a network (e.g., the Tor network)
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymizer
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
What about privacy on the Internet?
How much should one reveal or share one's personal life virtually? What are the consequences of having personal information exposed and vulnerable in cyberspace without knowing it? Individuals and organizations that have sensitive data now face many concerns and challenges. Information privacy or data privacy is the relationship between collection and dissemination of data, technology, the public expectation of privacy, and the legal and political issues surrounding them. When sharing data, we also face the challenge of data or information security.
Privacy software can help to protect the privacy of its users. The software works in conjunction with Internet usage to control or limit the amount of information made available to third-parties by applying encryption or filtering of various kinds. There are two different types of protection the software can provide: 1.Protecting a user's Internet privacy from the World Wide Web. Some software products can mask or hide a user's IP address from the outside world in order to protect the user from identity theft. 2.Hiding or deleting the users Internet traces that are left on their PC after they have been surfing the Internet. There is software that will erase all the users Internet traces and there is software that will hide and encrypt a user's traces so that others using their PC will not know where they have been surfing. Using encryption and anonymizers may help.
Encryption uses algorithm to make information unreadable to those who do not have knowledge about the "key." The encrypted information (or "cyphertext")can be unencrypted or made readable again (a process called "decryption"). Encryption helps secure data both at rest and in transit from physical security failure, and from unauthorized use or reproduction. It also helps to protect confidentiality and authenticity of messages. However, encryption application and products may not work properly in every case.
Anonymizer is a proxy server computer that acts as an intermediary shielding a client computer from the rest of the Internet. Anonymizers serve many purposes, from minimizing risks (e.g., identity thefts)to bypassing web technology (to get access to prohibited sites). Anonymizers can be implemented with one specific protocol, through connection with an independent protocol, or through relays in a network (e.g., the Tor network)
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymizer
Universal Responsibility
In our interconnected universe everybody must cultivate universal responsibility. What is universal responsibility? How can a person develop and practice it in his or her daily life?
Universal responsibility begins with a person's wholesome and profound recognition that s/he is connected with all others in society and with all objects and events in the universe. That awareness will lead the person to constructive ways of thinking, which in turn will influence his/her actions. The person gradually becomes more and more observant of his/her own thoughts, words, and deeds, for s/he knows that their consequences affect not only him-/herself but also other humans and objects.
Anyone with a good will can practice universal responsibility, the old and the young, the rich and the poor, wherever they are living or working. It does not demand large scale plans, but it sometimes reveals itself through very simple and little things or events. Turning off the light or the faucet when you don't need it; not wasting napkins, foods and beverages at the restaurants or cafeteria; using reusable bags instead of plastic ones; picking up trash and not dumping antibiotics into the toilet bowl.....Those are simple deeds, yet many ignore or neglect them, because they have an "I don't care" attitude.
We also need more useful and constructive words: "Let's improve this;" "There must be a better solution;" "Why don't we work together to overcome this obstacle?" "Let's cooperate;" "What can we do to help?" "What would happen if ...?"
The mind is fundamental for such nice words and good deeds to develop. Our conscious mind with a sincere wish to make everybody happy, and to make the world a better place to live in is fundamental to cultivate universal responsibility. It is a special mind which fosters the realization that there is no distinction between "You" and "I." We all are just one. The parts are the whole. Interconnectedness. Hence, universal responsibility.
Universal responsibility begins with a person's wholesome and profound recognition that s/he is connected with all others in society and with all objects and events in the universe. That awareness will lead the person to constructive ways of thinking, which in turn will influence his/her actions. The person gradually becomes more and more observant of his/her own thoughts, words, and deeds, for s/he knows that their consequences affect not only him-/herself but also other humans and objects.
Anyone with a good will can practice universal responsibility, the old and the young, the rich and the poor, wherever they are living or working. It does not demand large scale plans, but it sometimes reveals itself through very simple and little things or events. Turning off the light or the faucet when you don't need it; not wasting napkins, foods and beverages at the restaurants or cafeteria; using reusable bags instead of plastic ones; picking up trash and not dumping antibiotics into the toilet bowl.....Those are simple deeds, yet many ignore or neglect them, because they have an "I don't care" attitude.
We also need more useful and constructive words: "Let's improve this;" "There must be a better solution;" "Why don't we work together to overcome this obstacle?" "Let's cooperate;" "What can we do to help?" "What would happen if ...?"
The mind is fundamental for such nice words and good deeds to develop. Our conscious mind with a sincere wish to make everybody happy, and to make the world a better place to live in is fundamental to cultivate universal responsibility. It is a special mind which fosters the realization that there is no distinction between "You" and "I." We all are just one. The parts are the whole. Interconnectedness. Hence, universal responsibility.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Democracy
Democracy is an elusive concept. Democracy has various forms and might be interpreted differently by various users depending on their respective motives. Why should I believe in those who use the term in their slogans during political campaigns?
In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper Colophone Books, 3rd ed., 1950, pp. 284-285), Joseph Schumpeter wrote: "Democracy does not mean and cannot mean that the people actually rule in any obvious sense of the terms ‘people’ and ‘rule.’ Democracy only means that people have the opportunity of accepting or refusing the men who are to rule them.” People may have that opportunity, but who actually governs is certainly not the multitude. Another question is that even when granted the right to accept or to refuse their representatives, can people actually change or influence the rulers' ideologies and values which shape their policy decisions and the social economic consequences? (as discussed by Larry Bartels in his Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age(New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008).
I am really skeptical about the multitude's capability in "ruling" or "governing," although I believe they play an dispensable role in any socio-political change. Without the participation of the multitude, there cannot be any reform nor revolution. Besides education, people need good leadership.
In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper Colophone Books, 3rd ed., 1950, pp. 284-285), Joseph Schumpeter wrote: "Democracy does not mean and cannot mean that the people actually rule in any obvious sense of the terms ‘people’ and ‘rule.’ Democracy only means that people have the opportunity of accepting or refusing the men who are to rule them.” People may have that opportunity, but who actually governs is certainly not the multitude. Another question is that even when granted the right to accept or to refuse their representatives, can people actually change or influence the rulers' ideologies and values which shape their policy decisions and the social economic consequences? (as discussed by Larry Bartels in his Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age(New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008).
I am really skeptical about the multitude's capability in "ruling" or "governing," although I believe they play an dispensable role in any socio-political change. Without the participation of the multitude, there cannot be any reform nor revolution. Besides education, people need good leadership.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Some Thoughts about Internet Freedom
This entry is inspired by Hillary Clinton's speech at George Washington University on Internet Freedom, which I posted on my blog yesterday. I did that because I considered it a speech of substance, which may have lasting impacts on each of us in some ways, for it is thought-provoking and action-inspiring.
What is the Internet? A vast, open information space, or, to be more exact, a virtual information universe where everybody may have a share, but not all of them can fully understand, manage, or control its activities, structure, and development. It is as vast and as diverse as the physical universe and the species in it. Even Internet experts are not quite sure about the fast changing characteristics and the future trends of the Internet. It is like a big black hole swallowing us in where we are trying to fumble to grasp some ideas about it and about ourselves in it.
Then what is Internet freedom? According to Clinton, it is about defending this space against those who always stand against Internet openness and freedom of expression in cyberspace, those who always stifle or repress voices in that vast information and communication universe:
Thus the fight for Internet freedom is also a fight for freedom of expression,
So far, basically, the gatekeepers to the Internet have been search engines run by big companies such as Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, and many smaller ones. Should the Internet remain a neutral competition space following the free market or laissez- faire paradigm, without government interference? What is the role of governments in this virtual world?
There are three key issues related to all activities in cyberspace: Internet accessibility and sustainability, Internet information services, and internet telecommunication services. The stakeholders are customers or users, producers and/or deliverers, and law enforcers or policy makers. The government obviously plays the role of the law enforcer and the policy maker, but big companies also have their own rights and responsibilities in policy making. Thus, cooperation is a must for sustainability on the Internet.
According to Clinton, there are three grand challenges facing out times when we choose openness in the Internet: 1.finding the proper measure to enable freedom and liberty, and to maintain but not endanger security; 2.protecting transparency and confidentiality; 3.protecting free expression while fostering tolerance and civility. She emphasized the values of freedom of expression, transparency and security, and cost effectiveness of all economic, social, and political activities in the Internet, and enlisted all nations' help in the struggle for human freedom and dignity against the repression of human basic right --freedom of expression.
What is the Internet? A vast, open information space, or, to be more exact, a virtual information universe where everybody may have a share, but not all of them can fully understand, manage, or control its activities, structure, and development. It is as vast and as diverse as the physical universe and the species in it. Even Internet experts are not quite sure about the fast changing characteristics and the future trends of the Internet. It is like a big black hole swallowing us in where we are trying to fumble to grasp some ideas about it and about ourselves in it.
Then what is Internet freedom? According to Clinton, it is about defending this space against those who always stand against Internet openness and freedom of expression in cyberspace, those who always stifle or repress voices in that vast information and communication universe:
Liberty and security, transparency and confidentiality, freedom of expression and tolerance – these all make up the foundation of a free, open, and secure society as well as a free, open, and secure internet where universal human rights are respected, and which provides a space for greater progress and prosperity over the long run.
Thus the fight for Internet freedom is also a fight for freedom of expression,
a struggle for human rights... a struggle for human freedom, and... a struggle for human dignity.
So far, basically, the gatekeepers to the Internet have been search engines run by big companies such as Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, and many smaller ones. Should the Internet remain a neutral competition space following the free market or laissez- faire paradigm, without government interference? What is the role of governments in this virtual world?
There are three key issues related to all activities in cyberspace: Internet accessibility and sustainability, Internet information services, and internet telecommunication services. The stakeholders are customers or users, producers and/or deliverers, and law enforcers or policy makers. The government obviously plays the role of the law enforcer and the policy maker, but big companies also have their own rights and responsibilities in policy making. Thus, cooperation is a must for sustainability on the Internet.
According to Clinton, there are three grand challenges facing out times when we choose openness in the Internet: 1.finding the proper measure to enable freedom and liberty, and to maintain but not endanger security; 2.protecting transparency and confidentiality; 3.protecting free expression while fostering tolerance and civility. She emphasized the values of freedom of expression, transparency and security, and cost effectiveness of all economic, social, and political activities in the Internet, and enlisted all nations' help in the struggle for human freedom and dignity against the repression of human basic right --freedom of expression.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Internet Freedom, Confidentiality and Security
Internet Rights and Wrongs: Choices & Challenges in a Networked World
A speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, at George Washington University, Washington, DC, on February 15, 2011
Thank you all very much and good afternoon. It is a pleasure, once again, to be back on the campus of the George Washington University, a place that I have spent quite a bit of time in all different settings over the last now nearly 20 years. I’d like especially to thank President Knapp and Provost Lerman, because this is a great opportunity for me to address such a significant issue, and one which deserves the attention of citizens, governments, and I know is drawing that attention. And perhaps today in my remarks, we can begin a much more vigorous debate that will respond to the needs that we have been watching in real time on our television sets.
A few minutes after midnight on January 28th, the internet went dark across Egypt. During the previous four days, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians had marched to demand a new government. And the world, on TVs, laptops, cell phones, and smart phones, had followed every single step. Pictures and videos from Egypt flooded the web. On Facebook and Twitter, journalists posted on-the-spot reports. Protestors coordinated their next moves. And citizens of all stripes shared their hopes and fears about this pivotal moment in the history of their country.
Millions worldwide answered in real time, “You are not alone and we are with you.” Then the government pulled the plug. Cell phone service was cut off, TV satellite signals were jammed, and internet access was blocked for nearly the entire population. The government did not want the people to communicate with each other and it did not want the press to communicate with the public. It certainly did not want the world to watch.
The events in Egypt recalled another protest movement 18 months earlier in Iran, when thousands marched after disputed elections. Their protestors also used websites to organize. A video taken by cell phone showed a young woman named Neda killed by a member of the paramilitary forces, and within hours, that video was being watched by people everywhere.
The Iranian authorities used technology as well. The Revolutionary Guard stalked members of the Green Movement by tracking their online profiles. And like Egypt, for a time, the government shut down the internet and mobile networks altogether. After the authorities raided homes, attacked university dorms, made mass arrests, tortured and fired shots into crowds, the protests ended.
In Egypt, however, the story ended differently. The protests continued despite the internet shutdown. People organized marches through flyers and word of mouth and used dial-up modems and fax machines to communicate with the world. After five days, the government relented and Egypt came back online. The authorities then sought to use the internet to control the protests by ordering mobile companies to send out pro-government text messages, and by arresting bloggers and those who organized the protests online. But 18 days after the protests began, the government failed and the president resigned.
What happened in Egypt and what happened in Iran, which this week is once again using violence against protestors seeking basic freedoms, was about a great deal more than the internet. In each case, people protested because of deep frustrations with the political and economic conditions of their lives. They stood and marched and chanted and the authorities tracked and blocked and arrested them. The internet did not do any of those things; people did. In both of these countries, the ways that citizens and the authorities used the internet reflected the power of connection technologies on the one hand as an accelerant of political, social, and economic change, and on the other hand as a means to stifle or extinguish that change.
There is a debate currently underway in some circles about whether the internet is a force for liberation or repression. But I think that debate is largely beside the point. Egypt isn’t inspiring people because they communicated using Twitter. It is inspiring because people came together and persisted in demanding a better future. Iran isn’t awful because the authorities used Facebook to shadow and capture members of the opposition. Iran is awful because it is a government that routinely violates the rights of its people.
So it is our values that cause these actions to inspire or outrage us, our sense of human dignity, the rights that flow from it, and the principles that ground it. And it is these values that ought to drive us to think about the road ahead. Two billion people are now online, nearly a third of humankind. We hail from every corner of the world, live under every form of government, and subscribe to every system of beliefs. And increasingly, we are turning to the internet to conduct important aspects of our lives.
The internet has become the public space of the 21st century – the world’s town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse, and nightclub. We all shape and are shaped by what happens there, all 2 billion of us and counting. And that presents a challenge. To maintain an internet that delivers the greatest possible benefits to the world, we need to have a serious conversation about the principles that will guide us, what rules exist and should not exist and why, what behaviors should be encouraged or discouraged and how.
The goal is not to tell people how to use the internet any more than we ought to tell people how to use any public square, whether it’s Tahrir Square or Times Square. The value of these spaces derives from the variety of activities people can pursue in them, from holding a rally to selling their vegetables, to having a private conversation. These spaces provide an open platform, and so does the internet. It does not serve any particular agenda, and it never should. But if people around the world are going come together every day online and have a safe and productive experience, we need a shared vision to guide us.
One year ago, I offered a starting point for that vision by calling for a global commitment to internet freedom, to protect human rights online as we do offline. The rights of individuals to express their views freely, petition their leaders, worship according to their beliefs – these rights are universal, whether they are exercised in a public square or on an individual blog. The freedoms to assemble and associate also apply in cyberspace. In our time, people are as likely to come together to pursue common interests online as in a church or a labor hall.
Together, the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online comprise what I’ve called the freedom to connect. The United States supports this freedom for people everywhere, and we have called on other nations to do the same. Because we want people to have the chance to exercise this freedom. We also support expanding the number of people who have access to the internet. And because the internet must work evenly and reliably for it to have value, we support the multi-stakeholder system that governs the internet today, which has consistently kept it up and running through all manner of interruptions across networks, borders, and regions.
In the year since my speech, people worldwide have continued to use the internet to solve shared problems and expose public corruption, from the people in Russia who tracked wildfires online and organized a volunteer firefighting squad, to the children in Syria who used Facebook to reveal abuse by their teachers, to the internet campaign in China that helps parents find their missing children.
At the same time, the internet continues to be restrained in a myriad of ways. In China, the government censors content and redirects search requests to error pages. In Burma, independent news sites have been taken down with distributed denial of service attacks. In Cuba, the government is trying to create a national intranet, while not allowing their citizens to access the global internet. In Vietnam, bloggers who criticize the government are arrested and abused. In Iran, the authorities block opposition and media websites, target social media, and steal identifying information about their own people in order to hunt them down.
These actions reflect a landscape that is complex and combustible, and sure to become more so in the coming years as billions of more people connect to the internet. The choices we make today will determine what the internet looks like in the future. Businesses have to choose whether and how to enter markets where internet freedom is limited. People have to choose how to act online, what information to share and with whom, which ideas to voice and how to voice them. Governments have to choose to live up to their commitments to protect free expression, assembly, and association.
For the United States, the choice is clear. On the spectrum of internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness. Now, we recognize that an open internet comes with challenges. It calls for ground rules to protect against wrongdoing and harm. And internet freedom raises tensions, like all freedoms do. But we believe the benefits far exceed the costs.
And today, I’d like to discuss several of the challenges we must confront as we seek to protect and defend a free and open internet. Now, I’m the first to say that neither I nor the United States Government has all the answers. We’re not sure we have all the questions. But we are committed to asking the questions, to helping lead a conversation, and to defending not just universal principles but the interests of our people and our partners.
The first challenge is achieving both liberty and security. Liberty and security are often presented as equal and opposite; the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. In fact, I believe they make it each other possible. Without security, liberty is fragile. Without liberty, security is oppressive. The challenge is finding the proper measure: enough security to enable our freedoms, but not so much or so little as to endanger them.
Finding this proper measure for the internet is critical because the qualities that make the internet a force for unprecedented progress – its openness, its leveling effect, its reach and speed – also enable wrongdoing on an unprecedented scale. Terrorists and extremist groups use the internet to recruit members, and plot and carry out attacks. Human traffickers use the internet to find and lure new victims into modern-day slavery. Child pornographers use the internet to exploit children. Hackers break into financial institutions, cell phone networks, and personal email accounts.
So we need successful strategies for combating these threats and more without constricting the openness that is the internet’s greatest attribute. The United States is aggressively tracking and deterring criminals and terrorists online. We are investing in our nation’s cyber-security, both to prevent cyber-incidents and to lessen their impact. We are cooperating with other countries to fight transnational crime in cyber-space. The United States Government invests in helping other nations build their own law enforcement capacity. We have also ratified the Budapest Cybercrime Convention, which sets out the steps countries must take to ensure that the internet is not misused by criminals and terrorists while still protecting the liberties of our own citizens.
In our vigorous effort to prevent attacks or apprehend criminals, we retain a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United States is determined to stop terrorism and criminal activity online and offline, and in both spheres we are committed to pursuing these goals in accordance with our laws and values.
Now, others have taken a different approach. Security is often invoked as a justification for harsh crackdowns on freedom. Now, this tactic is not new to the digital age, but it has new resonance as the internet has given governments new capacities for tracking and punishing human rights advocates and political dissidents. Governments that arrest bloggers, pry into the peaceful activities of their citizens, and limit their access to the internet may claim to be seeking security. In fact, they may even mean it as they define it. But they are taking the wrong path. Those who clamp down on internet freedom may be able to hold back the full expression of their people’s yearnings for a while, but not forever.
The second challenge is protecting both transparency and confidentiality. The internet’s strong culture of transparency derives from its power to make information of all kinds available instantly. But in addition to being a public space, the internet is also a channel for private communications. And for that to continue, there must be protection for confidential communication online. Think of all the ways in which people and organizations rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. Businesses hold confidential conversations when they’re developing new products to stay ahead of their competitors. Journalists keep the details of some sources confidential to protect them from exposure or retribution. And governments also rely on confidential communication online as well as offline. The existence of connection technologies may make it harder to maintain confidentiality, but it does not alter the need for it.
Now, I know that government confidentiality has been a topic of debate during the past few months because of WikiLeaks, but it’s been a false debate in many ways. Fundamentally, the WikiLeaks incident began with an act of theft. Government documents were stolen, just the same as if they had been smuggled out in a briefcase. Some have suggested that this theft was justified because governments have a responsibility to conduct all of our work out in the open in the full view of our citizens. I respectfully disagree. The United States could neither provide for our citizens’ security nor promote the cause of human rights and democracy around the world if we had to make public every step of our efforts. Confidential communication gives our government the opportunity to do work that could not be done otherwise.
Consider our work with former Soviet states to secure loose nuclear material. By keeping the details confidential, we make it less likely that terrorists or criminals will find the nuclear material and steal it for their own purposes. Or consider the content of the documents that WikiLeaks made public. Without commenting on the authenticity of any particular documents, we can observe that many of the cables released by WikiLeaks relate to human rights work carried on around the world. Our diplomats closely collaborate with activists, journalists, and citizens to challenge the misdeeds of oppressive governments. It is dangerous work. By publishing diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks exposed people to even greater risk.
For operations like these, confidentiality is essential, especially in the internet age when dangerous information can be sent around the world with the click of a keystroke. But of course, governments also have a duty to be transparent. We govern with the consent of the people, and that consent must be informed to be meaningful. So we must be judicious about when we close off our work to the public, and we must review our standards frequently to make sure they are rigorous. In the United States, we have laws designed to ensure that the government makes its work open to the people, and the Obama Administration has also launched an unprecedented initiative to put government data online, to encourage citizen participation, and to generally increase the openness of government.
The U.S. Government’s ability to protect America, to secure the liberties of our people, and to support the rights and freedoms of others around the world depends on maintaining a balance between what’s public and what should and must remain out of the public domain. The scale should and will always be tipped in favor of openness, but tipping the scale over completely serves no one’s interests. Let me be clear. I said that the WikiLeaks incident began with a theft, just as if it had been executed by smuggling papers in a briefcase. The fact that WikiLeaks used the internet is not the reason we criticized its actions. WikiLeaks does not challenge our commitment to internet freedom.
And one final word on this matter: There were reports in the days following these leaks that the United States Government intervened to coerce private companies to deny service to WikiLeaks. That is not the case. Now, some politicians and pundits publicly called for companies to disassociate from WikiLeaks, while others criticized them for doing so. Public officials are part of our country’s public debates, but there is a line between expressing views and coercing conduct. Business decisions that private companies may have taken to enforce their own values or policies regarding WikiLeaks were not at the direction of the Obama Administration.
A third challenge is protecting free expression while fostering tolerance and civility. I don’t need to tell this audience that the internet is home to every kind of speech – false, offensive, incendiary, innovative, truthful, and beautiful.
The multitude of opinions and ideas that crowd the internet is both a result of its openness and a reflection of our human diversity. Online, everyone has a voice. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the freedom of expression for all. But what we say has consequences. Hateful or defamatory words can inflame hostilities, deepen divisions, and provoke violence. On the internet, this power is heightened. Intolerant speech is often amplified and impossible to retract. Of course, the internet also provides a unique space for people to bridge their differences and build trust and understanding.
Some take the view that, to encourage tolerance, some hateful ideas must be silenced by governments. We believe that efforts to curb the content of speech rarely succeed and often become an excuse to violate freedom of expression. Instead, as it has historically been proven time and time again, the better answer to offensive speech is more speech. People can and should speak out against intolerance and hatred. By exposing ideas to debate, those with merit tend to be strengthened, while weak and false ideas tend to fade away; perhaps not instantly, but eventually.
Now, this approach does not immediately discredit every hateful idea or convince every bigot to reverse his thinking. But we have determined as a society that it is far more effective than any other alternative approach. Deleting writing, blocking content, arresting speakers – these actions suppress words, but they do not touch the underlying ideas. They simply drive people with those ideas to the fringes, where their convictions can deepen, unchallenged.
Last summer, Hannah Rosenthal, the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, made a trip to Dachau and Auschwitz with a delegation of American imams and Muslim leaders. Many of them had previously denied the Holocaust, and none of them had ever denounced Holocaust denial. But by visiting the concentration camps, they displayed a willingness to consider a different view. And the trip had a real impact. They prayed together, and they signed messages of peace, and many of those messages in the visitors books were written in Arabic. At the end of the trip, they read a statement that they wrote and signed together condemning without reservation Holocaust denial and all other forms of anti-Semitism.
The marketplace of ideas worked. Now, these leaders had not been arrested for their previous stance or ordered to remain silent. Their mosques were not shut down. The state did not compel them with force. Others appealed to them with facts. And their speech was dealt with through the speech of others.
The United States does restrict certain kinds of speech in accordance with the rule of law and our international obligations. We have rules about libel and slander, defamation, and speech that incites imminent violence. But we enforce these rules transparently, and citizens have the right to appeal how they are applied. And we don’t restrict speech even if the majority of people find it offensive. History, after all, is full of examples of ideas that were banned for reasons that we now see as wrong. People were punished for denying the divine right of kings, or suggesting that people should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, or religion. These restrictions might have reflected the dominant view at the time, and variations on these restrictions are still in force in places around the world.
But when it comes to online speech, the United States has chosen not to depart from our time-tested principles. We urge our people to speak with civility, to recognize the power and reach that their words can have online. We’ve seen in our own country tragic examples of how online bullying can have terrible consequences. Those of us in government should lead by example, in the tone we set and the ideas we champion. But leadership also means empowering people to make their own choices, rather than intervening and taking those choices away. We protect free speech with the force of law, and we appeal to the force of reason to win out over hate.
Now, these three large principles are not always easy to advance at once. They raise tensions, and they pose challenges. But we do not have to choose among them. Liberty and security, transparency and confidentiality, freedom of expression and tolerance – these all make up the foundation of a free, open, and secure society as well as a free, open, and secure internet where universal human rights are respected, and which provides a space for greater progress and prosperity over the long run.
Now, some countries are trying a different approach, abridging rights online and working to erect permanent walls between different activities – economic exchanges, political discussions, religious expressions, and social interactions. They want to keep what they like and suppress what they don’t. But this is no easy task. Search engines connect businesses to new customers, and they also attract users because they deliver and organize news and information. Social networking sites aren’t only places where friends share photos; they also share political views and build support for social causes or reach out to professional contacts to collaborate on new business opportunities.
Walls that divide the internet, that block political content, or ban broad categories of expression, or allow certain forms of peaceful assembly but prohibit others, or intimidate people from expressing their ideas are far easier to erect than to maintain. Not just because people using human ingenuity find ways around them and through them but because there isn’t an economic internet and a social internet and a political internet; there’s just the internet. And maintaining barriers that attempt to change this reality entails a variety of costs – moral, political, and economic. Countries may be able to absorb these costs for a time, but we believe they are unsustainable in the long run. There are opportunity costs for trying to be open for business but closed for free expression – costs to a nation’s education system, its political stability, its social mobility, and its economic potential.
When countries curtail internet freedom, they place limits on their economic future. Their young people don’t have full access to the conversations and debates happening in the world or exposure to the kind of free inquiry that spurs people to question old ways of doing and invent new ones. And barring criticism of officials makes governments more susceptible to corruption, which create economic distortions with long-term effects. Freedom of thought and the level playing field made possible by the rule of law are part of what fuels innovation economies.
So it’s not surprising that the European-American Business Council, a group of more than 70 companies, made a strong public support statement last week for internet freedom. If you invest in countries with aggressive censorship and surveillance policies, your website could be shut down without warning, your servers hacked by the government, your designs stolen, or your staff threatened with arrest or expulsion for failing to comply with a politically motivated order. The risks to your bottom line and to your integrity will at some point outweigh the potential rewards, especially if there are market opportunities elsewhere.
Now, some have pointed to a few countries, particularly China, that appears to stand out as an exception, a place where internet censorship is high and economic growth is strong. Clearly, many businesses are willing to endure restrictive internet policies to gain access to those markets, and in the short term, even perhaps in the medium term, those governments may succeed in maintaining a segmented internet. But those restrictions will have long-term costs that threaten one day to become a noose that restrains growth and development.
There are political costs as well. Consider Tunisia, where online economic activity was an important part of the country’s ties with Europe while online censorship was on par with China and Iran, the effort to divide the economic internet from the “everything else” internet in Tunisia could not be sustained. People, especially young people, found ways to use connection technologies to organize and share grievances, which, as we know, helped fuel a movement that led to revolutionary change. In Syria, too, the government is trying to negotiate a non-negotiable contradiction. Just last week, it lifted a ban on Facebook and YouTube for the first time in three years, and yesterday they convicted a teenage girl of espionage and sentenced her to five years in prison for the political opinions she expressed on her blog.
This, too, is unsustainable. The demand for access to platforms of expression cannot be satisfied when using them lands you in prison. We believe that governments who have erected barriers to internet freedom, whether they’re technical filters or censorship regimes or attacks on those who exercise their rights to expression and assembly online, will eventually find themselves boxed in. They will face a dictator’s dilemma and will have to choose between letting the walls fall or paying the price to keep them standing, which means both doubling down on a losing hand by resorting to greater oppression and enduring the escalating opportunity cost of missing out on the ideas that have been blocked and people who have been disappeared.
I urge countries everywhere instead to join us in the bet we have made, a bet that an open internet will lead to stronger, more prosperous countries. At its core, it’s an extension of the bet that the United States has been making for more than 200 years, that open societies give rise to the most lasting progress, that the rule of law is the firmest foundation for justice and peace, and that innovation thrives where ideas of all kinds are aired and explored. This is not a bet on computers or mobile phones. It’s a bet on people. We’re confident that together with those partners in government and people around the world who are making the same bet by hewing to universal rights that underpin open societies, we’ll preserve the internet as an open space for all. And that will pay long-term gains for our shared progress and prosperity. The United States will continue to promote an internet where people’s rights are protected and that it is open to innovation, interoperable all over the world, secure enough to hold people’s trust, and reliable enough to support their work.
In the past year, we have welcomed the emergence of a global coalition of countries, businesses, civil society groups, and digital activists seeking to advance these goals. We have found strong partners in several governments worldwide, and we’ve been encouraged by the work of the Global Network Initiative, which brings together companies, academics, and NGOs to work together to solve the challenges we are facing, like how to handle government requests for censorship or how to decide whether to sell technologies that could be used to violate rights or how to handle privacy issues in the context of cloud computing. We need strong corporate partners that have made principled, meaningful commitments to internet freedom as we work together to advance this common cause.
We realize that in order to be meaningful, online freedoms must carry over into real-world activism. That’s why we are working through our Civil Society 2.0 initiative to connect NGOs and advocates with technology and training that will magnify their impact. We are also committed to continuing our conversation with people everywhere around the world. Last week, you may have heard, we launched Twitter feeds in Arabic and Farsi, adding to the ones we already have in French and Spanish. We’ll start similar ones in Chinese, Russian, and Hindi. This is enabling us to have real-time, two-way conversations with people wherever there is a connection that governments do not block.
Our commitment to internet freedom is a commitment to the rights of people, and we are matching that with our actions. Monitoring and responding to threats to internet freedom has become part of the daily work of our diplomats and development experts. They are working to advance internet freedom on the ground at our embassies and missions around the world. The United States continues to help people in oppressive internet environments get around filters, stay one step ahead of the censors, the hackers, and the thugs who beat them up or imprison them for what they say online.
While the rights we seek to protect and support are clear, the various ways that these rights are violated are increasingly complex. I know some have criticized us for not pouring funding into a single technology, but we believe there is no silver bullet in the struggle against internet repression. There’s no app for that. (Laughter.) Start working, those of you out there. (Laughter.) And accordingly, we are taking a comprehensive and innovative approach, one that matches our diplomacy with technology, secure distribution networks for tools, and direct support for those on the front lines.
In the last three years, we have awarded more than $20 million in competitive grants through an open process, including interagency evaluation by technical and policy experts to support a burgeoning group of technologists and activists working at the cutting edge of the fight against internet repression. This year, we will award more than $25 million in additional funding. We are taking a venture capital-style approach, supporting a portfolio of technologies, tools, and training, and adapting as more users shift to mobile devices. We have our ear to the ground, talking to digital activists about where they need help, and our diversified approach means we’re able to adapt the range of threats that they face. We support multiple tools, so if repressive governments figure out how to target one, others are available. And we invest in the cutting edge because we know that repressive governments are constantly innovating their methods of oppression and we intend to stay ahead of them.
Likewise, we are leading the push to strengthen cyber security and online innovation, building capacity in developing countries, championing open and interoperable standards and enhancing international cooperation to respond to cyber threats. Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn gave a speech on this issue just yesterday. All these efforts build on a decade of work to sustain an internet that is open, secure, and reliable. And in the coming year, the Administration will complete an international strategy for cyberspace, charting the course to continue this work into the future.
This is a foreign policy priority for us, one that will only increase in importance in the coming years. That’s why I’ve created the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, to enhance our work on cyber security and other issues and facilitate cooperation across the State Department and with other government agencies. I’ve named Christopher Painter, formerly senior director for cyber security at the National Security Council and a leader in the field for 20 years, to head this new office.
The dramatic increase in internet users during the past 10 years has been remarkable to witness. But that was just the opening act. In the next 20 years, nearly 5 billion people will join the network. It is those users who will decide the future.
So we are playing for the long game. Unlike much of what happens online, progress on this front will be measured in years, not seconds. The course we chart today will determine whether those who follow us will get the chance to experience the freedom, security, and prosperity of an open internet.
As we look ahead, let us remember that internet freedom isn’t about any one particular activity online. It’s about ensuring that the internet remains a space where activities of all kinds can take place, from grand, ground-breaking, historic campaigns to the small, ordinary acts that people engage in every day.
We want to keep the internet open for the protestor using social media to organize a march in Egypt; the college student emailing her family photos of her semester abroad; the lawyer in Vietnam blogging to expose corruption; the teenager in the United States who is bullied and finds words of support online; for the small business owner in Kenya using mobile banking to manage her profits; the philosopher in China reading academic journals for her dissertation; the scientist in Brazil sharing data in real time with colleagues overseas; and the billions and billions of interactions with the internet every single day as people communicate with loved ones, follow the news, do their jobs, and participate in the debates shaping their world.
Internet freedom is about defending the space in which all these things occur so that it remains not just for the students here today, but your successors and all who come after you. This is one of the grand challenges of our time. We are engaged in a vigorous effort against those who we have always stood against, who wish to stifle and repress, to come forward with their version of reality and to accept none other. We enlist your help on behalf of this struggle. It’s a struggle for human rights, it’s a struggle for human freedom, and it’s a struggle for human dignity.
Thank you all very much. (Applause.)
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156619.htm
A speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, at George Washington University, Washington, DC, on February 15, 2011
Thank you all very much and good afternoon. It is a pleasure, once again, to be back on the campus of the George Washington University, a place that I have spent quite a bit of time in all different settings over the last now nearly 20 years. I’d like especially to thank President Knapp and Provost Lerman, because this is a great opportunity for me to address such a significant issue, and one which deserves the attention of citizens, governments, and I know is drawing that attention. And perhaps today in my remarks, we can begin a much more vigorous debate that will respond to the needs that we have been watching in real time on our television sets.
A few minutes after midnight on January 28th, the internet went dark across Egypt. During the previous four days, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians had marched to demand a new government. And the world, on TVs, laptops, cell phones, and smart phones, had followed every single step. Pictures and videos from Egypt flooded the web. On Facebook and Twitter, journalists posted on-the-spot reports. Protestors coordinated their next moves. And citizens of all stripes shared their hopes and fears about this pivotal moment in the history of their country.
Millions worldwide answered in real time, “You are not alone and we are with you.” Then the government pulled the plug. Cell phone service was cut off, TV satellite signals were jammed, and internet access was blocked for nearly the entire population. The government did not want the people to communicate with each other and it did not want the press to communicate with the public. It certainly did not want the world to watch.
The events in Egypt recalled another protest movement 18 months earlier in Iran, when thousands marched after disputed elections. Their protestors also used websites to organize. A video taken by cell phone showed a young woman named Neda killed by a member of the paramilitary forces, and within hours, that video was being watched by people everywhere.
The Iranian authorities used technology as well. The Revolutionary Guard stalked members of the Green Movement by tracking their online profiles. And like Egypt, for a time, the government shut down the internet and mobile networks altogether. After the authorities raided homes, attacked university dorms, made mass arrests, tortured and fired shots into crowds, the protests ended.
In Egypt, however, the story ended differently. The protests continued despite the internet shutdown. People organized marches through flyers and word of mouth and used dial-up modems and fax machines to communicate with the world. After five days, the government relented and Egypt came back online. The authorities then sought to use the internet to control the protests by ordering mobile companies to send out pro-government text messages, and by arresting bloggers and those who organized the protests online. But 18 days after the protests began, the government failed and the president resigned.
What happened in Egypt and what happened in Iran, which this week is once again using violence against protestors seeking basic freedoms, was about a great deal more than the internet. In each case, people protested because of deep frustrations with the political and economic conditions of their lives. They stood and marched and chanted and the authorities tracked and blocked and arrested them. The internet did not do any of those things; people did. In both of these countries, the ways that citizens and the authorities used the internet reflected the power of connection technologies on the one hand as an accelerant of political, social, and economic change, and on the other hand as a means to stifle or extinguish that change.
There is a debate currently underway in some circles about whether the internet is a force for liberation or repression. But I think that debate is largely beside the point. Egypt isn’t inspiring people because they communicated using Twitter. It is inspiring because people came together and persisted in demanding a better future. Iran isn’t awful because the authorities used Facebook to shadow and capture members of the opposition. Iran is awful because it is a government that routinely violates the rights of its people.
So it is our values that cause these actions to inspire or outrage us, our sense of human dignity, the rights that flow from it, and the principles that ground it. And it is these values that ought to drive us to think about the road ahead. Two billion people are now online, nearly a third of humankind. We hail from every corner of the world, live under every form of government, and subscribe to every system of beliefs. And increasingly, we are turning to the internet to conduct important aspects of our lives.
The internet has become the public space of the 21st century – the world’s town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse, and nightclub. We all shape and are shaped by what happens there, all 2 billion of us and counting. And that presents a challenge. To maintain an internet that delivers the greatest possible benefits to the world, we need to have a serious conversation about the principles that will guide us, what rules exist and should not exist and why, what behaviors should be encouraged or discouraged and how.
The goal is not to tell people how to use the internet any more than we ought to tell people how to use any public square, whether it’s Tahrir Square or Times Square. The value of these spaces derives from the variety of activities people can pursue in them, from holding a rally to selling their vegetables, to having a private conversation. These spaces provide an open platform, and so does the internet. It does not serve any particular agenda, and it never should. But if people around the world are going come together every day online and have a safe and productive experience, we need a shared vision to guide us.
One year ago, I offered a starting point for that vision by calling for a global commitment to internet freedom, to protect human rights online as we do offline. The rights of individuals to express their views freely, petition their leaders, worship according to their beliefs – these rights are universal, whether they are exercised in a public square or on an individual blog. The freedoms to assemble and associate also apply in cyberspace. In our time, people are as likely to come together to pursue common interests online as in a church or a labor hall.
Together, the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online comprise what I’ve called the freedom to connect. The United States supports this freedom for people everywhere, and we have called on other nations to do the same. Because we want people to have the chance to exercise this freedom. We also support expanding the number of people who have access to the internet. And because the internet must work evenly and reliably for it to have value, we support the multi-stakeholder system that governs the internet today, which has consistently kept it up and running through all manner of interruptions across networks, borders, and regions.
In the year since my speech, people worldwide have continued to use the internet to solve shared problems and expose public corruption, from the people in Russia who tracked wildfires online and organized a volunteer firefighting squad, to the children in Syria who used Facebook to reveal abuse by their teachers, to the internet campaign in China that helps parents find their missing children.
At the same time, the internet continues to be restrained in a myriad of ways. In China, the government censors content and redirects search requests to error pages. In Burma, independent news sites have been taken down with distributed denial of service attacks. In Cuba, the government is trying to create a national intranet, while not allowing their citizens to access the global internet. In Vietnam, bloggers who criticize the government are arrested and abused. In Iran, the authorities block opposition and media websites, target social media, and steal identifying information about their own people in order to hunt them down.
These actions reflect a landscape that is complex and combustible, and sure to become more so in the coming years as billions of more people connect to the internet. The choices we make today will determine what the internet looks like in the future. Businesses have to choose whether and how to enter markets where internet freedom is limited. People have to choose how to act online, what information to share and with whom, which ideas to voice and how to voice them. Governments have to choose to live up to their commitments to protect free expression, assembly, and association.
For the United States, the choice is clear. On the spectrum of internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness. Now, we recognize that an open internet comes with challenges. It calls for ground rules to protect against wrongdoing and harm. And internet freedom raises tensions, like all freedoms do. But we believe the benefits far exceed the costs.
And today, I’d like to discuss several of the challenges we must confront as we seek to protect and defend a free and open internet. Now, I’m the first to say that neither I nor the United States Government has all the answers. We’re not sure we have all the questions. But we are committed to asking the questions, to helping lead a conversation, and to defending not just universal principles but the interests of our people and our partners.
The first challenge is achieving both liberty and security. Liberty and security are often presented as equal and opposite; the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. In fact, I believe they make it each other possible. Without security, liberty is fragile. Without liberty, security is oppressive. The challenge is finding the proper measure: enough security to enable our freedoms, but not so much or so little as to endanger them.
Finding this proper measure for the internet is critical because the qualities that make the internet a force for unprecedented progress – its openness, its leveling effect, its reach and speed – also enable wrongdoing on an unprecedented scale. Terrorists and extremist groups use the internet to recruit members, and plot and carry out attacks. Human traffickers use the internet to find and lure new victims into modern-day slavery. Child pornographers use the internet to exploit children. Hackers break into financial institutions, cell phone networks, and personal email accounts.
So we need successful strategies for combating these threats and more without constricting the openness that is the internet’s greatest attribute. The United States is aggressively tracking and deterring criminals and terrorists online. We are investing in our nation’s cyber-security, both to prevent cyber-incidents and to lessen their impact. We are cooperating with other countries to fight transnational crime in cyber-space. The United States Government invests in helping other nations build their own law enforcement capacity. We have also ratified the Budapest Cybercrime Convention, which sets out the steps countries must take to ensure that the internet is not misused by criminals and terrorists while still protecting the liberties of our own citizens.
In our vigorous effort to prevent attacks or apprehend criminals, we retain a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United States is determined to stop terrorism and criminal activity online and offline, and in both spheres we are committed to pursuing these goals in accordance with our laws and values.
Now, others have taken a different approach. Security is often invoked as a justification for harsh crackdowns on freedom. Now, this tactic is not new to the digital age, but it has new resonance as the internet has given governments new capacities for tracking and punishing human rights advocates and political dissidents. Governments that arrest bloggers, pry into the peaceful activities of their citizens, and limit their access to the internet may claim to be seeking security. In fact, they may even mean it as they define it. But they are taking the wrong path. Those who clamp down on internet freedom may be able to hold back the full expression of their people’s yearnings for a while, but not forever.
The second challenge is protecting both transparency and confidentiality. The internet’s strong culture of transparency derives from its power to make information of all kinds available instantly. But in addition to being a public space, the internet is also a channel for private communications. And for that to continue, there must be protection for confidential communication online. Think of all the ways in which people and organizations rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. Businesses hold confidential conversations when they’re developing new products to stay ahead of their competitors. Journalists keep the details of some sources confidential to protect them from exposure or retribution. And governments also rely on confidential communication online as well as offline. The existence of connection technologies may make it harder to maintain confidentiality, but it does not alter the need for it.
Now, I know that government confidentiality has been a topic of debate during the past few months because of WikiLeaks, but it’s been a false debate in many ways. Fundamentally, the WikiLeaks incident began with an act of theft. Government documents were stolen, just the same as if they had been smuggled out in a briefcase. Some have suggested that this theft was justified because governments have a responsibility to conduct all of our work out in the open in the full view of our citizens. I respectfully disagree. The United States could neither provide for our citizens’ security nor promote the cause of human rights and democracy around the world if we had to make public every step of our efforts. Confidential communication gives our government the opportunity to do work that could not be done otherwise.
Consider our work with former Soviet states to secure loose nuclear material. By keeping the details confidential, we make it less likely that terrorists or criminals will find the nuclear material and steal it for their own purposes. Or consider the content of the documents that WikiLeaks made public. Without commenting on the authenticity of any particular documents, we can observe that many of the cables released by WikiLeaks relate to human rights work carried on around the world. Our diplomats closely collaborate with activists, journalists, and citizens to challenge the misdeeds of oppressive governments. It is dangerous work. By publishing diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks exposed people to even greater risk.
For operations like these, confidentiality is essential, especially in the internet age when dangerous information can be sent around the world with the click of a keystroke. But of course, governments also have a duty to be transparent. We govern with the consent of the people, and that consent must be informed to be meaningful. So we must be judicious about when we close off our work to the public, and we must review our standards frequently to make sure they are rigorous. In the United States, we have laws designed to ensure that the government makes its work open to the people, and the Obama Administration has also launched an unprecedented initiative to put government data online, to encourage citizen participation, and to generally increase the openness of government.
The U.S. Government’s ability to protect America, to secure the liberties of our people, and to support the rights and freedoms of others around the world depends on maintaining a balance between what’s public and what should and must remain out of the public domain. The scale should and will always be tipped in favor of openness, but tipping the scale over completely serves no one’s interests. Let me be clear. I said that the WikiLeaks incident began with a theft, just as if it had been executed by smuggling papers in a briefcase. The fact that WikiLeaks used the internet is not the reason we criticized its actions. WikiLeaks does not challenge our commitment to internet freedom.
And one final word on this matter: There were reports in the days following these leaks that the United States Government intervened to coerce private companies to deny service to WikiLeaks. That is not the case. Now, some politicians and pundits publicly called for companies to disassociate from WikiLeaks, while others criticized them for doing so. Public officials are part of our country’s public debates, but there is a line between expressing views and coercing conduct. Business decisions that private companies may have taken to enforce their own values or policies regarding WikiLeaks were not at the direction of the Obama Administration.
A third challenge is protecting free expression while fostering tolerance and civility. I don’t need to tell this audience that the internet is home to every kind of speech – false, offensive, incendiary, innovative, truthful, and beautiful.
The multitude of opinions and ideas that crowd the internet is both a result of its openness and a reflection of our human diversity. Online, everyone has a voice. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the freedom of expression for all. But what we say has consequences. Hateful or defamatory words can inflame hostilities, deepen divisions, and provoke violence. On the internet, this power is heightened. Intolerant speech is often amplified and impossible to retract. Of course, the internet also provides a unique space for people to bridge their differences and build trust and understanding.
Some take the view that, to encourage tolerance, some hateful ideas must be silenced by governments. We believe that efforts to curb the content of speech rarely succeed and often become an excuse to violate freedom of expression. Instead, as it has historically been proven time and time again, the better answer to offensive speech is more speech. People can and should speak out against intolerance and hatred. By exposing ideas to debate, those with merit tend to be strengthened, while weak and false ideas tend to fade away; perhaps not instantly, but eventually.
Now, this approach does not immediately discredit every hateful idea or convince every bigot to reverse his thinking. But we have determined as a society that it is far more effective than any other alternative approach. Deleting writing, blocking content, arresting speakers – these actions suppress words, but they do not touch the underlying ideas. They simply drive people with those ideas to the fringes, where their convictions can deepen, unchallenged.
Last summer, Hannah Rosenthal, the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, made a trip to Dachau and Auschwitz with a delegation of American imams and Muslim leaders. Many of them had previously denied the Holocaust, and none of them had ever denounced Holocaust denial. But by visiting the concentration camps, they displayed a willingness to consider a different view. And the trip had a real impact. They prayed together, and they signed messages of peace, and many of those messages in the visitors books were written in Arabic. At the end of the trip, they read a statement that they wrote and signed together condemning without reservation Holocaust denial and all other forms of anti-Semitism.
The marketplace of ideas worked. Now, these leaders had not been arrested for their previous stance or ordered to remain silent. Their mosques were not shut down. The state did not compel them with force. Others appealed to them with facts. And their speech was dealt with through the speech of others.
The United States does restrict certain kinds of speech in accordance with the rule of law and our international obligations. We have rules about libel and slander, defamation, and speech that incites imminent violence. But we enforce these rules transparently, and citizens have the right to appeal how they are applied. And we don’t restrict speech even if the majority of people find it offensive. History, after all, is full of examples of ideas that were banned for reasons that we now see as wrong. People were punished for denying the divine right of kings, or suggesting that people should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, or religion. These restrictions might have reflected the dominant view at the time, and variations on these restrictions are still in force in places around the world.
But when it comes to online speech, the United States has chosen not to depart from our time-tested principles. We urge our people to speak with civility, to recognize the power and reach that their words can have online. We’ve seen in our own country tragic examples of how online bullying can have terrible consequences. Those of us in government should lead by example, in the tone we set and the ideas we champion. But leadership also means empowering people to make their own choices, rather than intervening and taking those choices away. We protect free speech with the force of law, and we appeal to the force of reason to win out over hate.
Now, these three large principles are not always easy to advance at once. They raise tensions, and they pose challenges. But we do not have to choose among them. Liberty and security, transparency and confidentiality, freedom of expression and tolerance – these all make up the foundation of a free, open, and secure society as well as a free, open, and secure internet where universal human rights are respected, and which provides a space for greater progress and prosperity over the long run.
Now, some countries are trying a different approach, abridging rights online and working to erect permanent walls between different activities – economic exchanges, political discussions, religious expressions, and social interactions. They want to keep what they like and suppress what they don’t. But this is no easy task. Search engines connect businesses to new customers, and they also attract users because they deliver and organize news and information. Social networking sites aren’t only places where friends share photos; they also share political views and build support for social causes or reach out to professional contacts to collaborate on new business opportunities.
Walls that divide the internet, that block political content, or ban broad categories of expression, or allow certain forms of peaceful assembly but prohibit others, or intimidate people from expressing their ideas are far easier to erect than to maintain. Not just because people using human ingenuity find ways around them and through them but because there isn’t an economic internet and a social internet and a political internet; there’s just the internet. And maintaining barriers that attempt to change this reality entails a variety of costs – moral, political, and economic. Countries may be able to absorb these costs for a time, but we believe they are unsustainable in the long run. There are opportunity costs for trying to be open for business but closed for free expression – costs to a nation’s education system, its political stability, its social mobility, and its economic potential.
When countries curtail internet freedom, they place limits on their economic future. Their young people don’t have full access to the conversations and debates happening in the world or exposure to the kind of free inquiry that spurs people to question old ways of doing and invent new ones. And barring criticism of officials makes governments more susceptible to corruption, which create economic distortions with long-term effects. Freedom of thought and the level playing field made possible by the rule of law are part of what fuels innovation economies.
So it’s not surprising that the European-American Business Council, a group of more than 70 companies, made a strong public support statement last week for internet freedom. If you invest in countries with aggressive censorship and surveillance policies, your website could be shut down without warning, your servers hacked by the government, your designs stolen, or your staff threatened with arrest or expulsion for failing to comply with a politically motivated order. The risks to your bottom line and to your integrity will at some point outweigh the potential rewards, especially if there are market opportunities elsewhere.
Now, some have pointed to a few countries, particularly China, that appears to stand out as an exception, a place where internet censorship is high and economic growth is strong. Clearly, many businesses are willing to endure restrictive internet policies to gain access to those markets, and in the short term, even perhaps in the medium term, those governments may succeed in maintaining a segmented internet. But those restrictions will have long-term costs that threaten one day to become a noose that restrains growth and development.
There are political costs as well. Consider Tunisia, where online economic activity was an important part of the country’s ties with Europe while online censorship was on par with China and Iran, the effort to divide the economic internet from the “everything else” internet in Tunisia could not be sustained. People, especially young people, found ways to use connection technologies to organize and share grievances, which, as we know, helped fuel a movement that led to revolutionary change. In Syria, too, the government is trying to negotiate a non-negotiable contradiction. Just last week, it lifted a ban on Facebook and YouTube for the first time in three years, and yesterday they convicted a teenage girl of espionage and sentenced her to five years in prison for the political opinions she expressed on her blog.
This, too, is unsustainable. The demand for access to platforms of expression cannot be satisfied when using them lands you in prison. We believe that governments who have erected barriers to internet freedom, whether they’re technical filters or censorship regimes or attacks on those who exercise their rights to expression and assembly online, will eventually find themselves boxed in. They will face a dictator’s dilemma and will have to choose between letting the walls fall or paying the price to keep them standing, which means both doubling down on a losing hand by resorting to greater oppression and enduring the escalating opportunity cost of missing out on the ideas that have been blocked and people who have been disappeared.
I urge countries everywhere instead to join us in the bet we have made, a bet that an open internet will lead to stronger, more prosperous countries. At its core, it’s an extension of the bet that the United States has been making for more than 200 years, that open societies give rise to the most lasting progress, that the rule of law is the firmest foundation for justice and peace, and that innovation thrives where ideas of all kinds are aired and explored. This is not a bet on computers or mobile phones. It’s a bet on people. We’re confident that together with those partners in government and people around the world who are making the same bet by hewing to universal rights that underpin open societies, we’ll preserve the internet as an open space for all. And that will pay long-term gains for our shared progress and prosperity. The United States will continue to promote an internet where people’s rights are protected and that it is open to innovation, interoperable all over the world, secure enough to hold people’s trust, and reliable enough to support their work.
In the past year, we have welcomed the emergence of a global coalition of countries, businesses, civil society groups, and digital activists seeking to advance these goals. We have found strong partners in several governments worldwide, and we’ve been encouraged by the work of the Global Network Initiative, which brings together companies, academics, and NGOs to work together to solve the challenges we are facing, like how to handle government requests for censorship or how to decide whether to sell technologies that could be used to violate rights or how to handle privacy issues in the context of cloud computing. We need strong corporate partners that have made principled, meaningful commitments to internet freedom as we work together to advance this common cause.
We realize that in order to be meaningful, online freedoms must carry over into real-world activism. That’s why we are working through our Civil Society 2.0 initiative to connect NGOs and advocates with technology and training that will magnify their impact. We are also committed to continuing our conversation with people everywhere around the world. Last week, you may have heard, we launched Twitter feeds in Arabic and Farsi, adding to the ones we already have in French and Spanish. We’ll start similar ones in Chinese, Russian, and Hindi. This is enabling us to have real-time, two-way conversations with people wherever there is a connection that governments do not block.
Our commitment to internet freedom is a commitment to the rights of people, and we are matching that with our actions. Monitoring and responding to threats to internet freedom has become part of the daily work of our diplomats and development experts. They are working to advance internet freedom on the ground at our embassies and missions around the world. The United States continues to help people in oppressive internet environments get around filters, stay one step ahead of the censors, the hackers, and the thugs who beat them up or imprison them for what they say online.
While the rights we seek to protect and support are clear, the various ways that these rights are violated are increasingly complex. I know some have criticized us for not pouring funding into a single technology, but we believe there is no silver bullet in the struggle against internet repression. There’s no app for that. (Laughter.) Start working, those of you out there. (Laughter.) And accordingly, we are taking a comprehensive and innovative approach, one that matches our diplomacy with technology, secure distribution networks for tools, and direct support for those on the front lines.
In the last three years, we have awarded more than $20 million in competitive grants through an open process, including interagency evaluation by technical and policy experts to support a burgeoning group of technologists and activists working at the cutting edge of the fight against internet repression. This year, we will award more than $25 million in additional funding. We are taking a venture capital-style approach, supporting a portfolio of technologies, tools, and training, and adapting as more users shift to mobile devices. We have our ear to the ground, talking to digital activists about where they need help, and our diversified approach means we’re able to adapt the range of threats that they face. We support multiple tools, so if repressive governments figure out how to target one, others are available. And we invest in the cutting edge because we know that repressive governments are constantly innovating their methods of oppression and we intend to stay ahead of them.
Likewise, we are leading the push to strengthen cyber security and online innovation, building capacity in developing countries, championing open and interoperable standards and enhancing international cooperation to respond to cyber threats. Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn gave a speech on this issue just yesterday. All these efforts build on a decade of work to sustain an internet that is open, secure, and reliable. And in the coming year, the Administration will complete an international strategy for cyberspace, charting the course to continue this work into the future.
This is a foreign policy priority for us, one that will only increase in importance in the coming years. That’s why I’ve created the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, to enhance our work on cyber security and other issues and facilitate cooperation across the State Department and with other government agencies. I’ve named Christopher Painter, formerly senior director for cyber security at the National Security Council and a leader in the field for 20 years, to head this new office.
The dramatic increase in internet users during the past 10 years has been remarkable to witness. But that was just the opening act. In the next 20 years, nearly 5 billion people will join the network. It is those users who will decide the future.
So we are playing for the long game. Unlike much of what happens online, progress on this front will be measured in years, not seconds. The course we chart today will determine whether those who follow us will get the chance to experience the freedom, security, and prosperity of an open internet.
As we look ahead, let us remember that internet freedom isn’t about any one particular activity online. It’s about ensuring that the internet remains a space where activities of all kinds can take place, from grand, ground-breaking, historic campaigns to the small, ordinary acts that people engage in every day.
We want to keep the internet open for the protestor using social media to organize a march in Egypt; the college student emailing her family photos of her semester abroad; the lawyer in Vietnam blogging to expose corruption; the teenager in the United States who is bullied and finds words of support online; for the small business owner in Kenya using mobile banking to manage her profits; the philosopher in China reading academic journals for her dissertation; the scientist in Brazil sharing data in real time with colleagues overseas; and the billions and billions of interactions with the internet every single day as people communicate with loved ones, follow the news, do their jobs, and participate in the debates shaping their world.
Internet freedom is about defending the space in which all these things occur so that it remains not just for the students here today, but your successors and all who come after you. This is one of the grand challenges of our time. We are engaged in a vigorous effort against those who we have always stood against, who wish to stifle and repress, to come forward with their version of reality and to accept none other. We enlist your help on behalf of this struggle. It’s a struggle for human rights, it’s a struggle for human freedom, and it’s a struggle for human dignity.
Thank you all very much. (Applause.)
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156619.htm
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Individual and Organization
I find idolization, or the worship of any person, an immature behavior. On a national scale, it could be harmful, and have dangerous consequences for many generations. Human is not perfect, and nobody is good nor bad all the time and at all places. They change to adapt to the demands of the new environment. Also, people usually have a dark side, which they often hide from others. Depending on the situation, sometimes the good is more visible than the bad, or the other way round. Therefore, it takes a long time to get to know a person, and to understand him/her. It also demands much time and keen observation to come to a conclusion about any human behavior and its motive.
The same with an organization. An organization often consists of both good and bad people or members with their respective characteristics, virtues and follies. Ideologies and slogans might give us strong impressions about the organization, but in reality, there are always interest groups and subgroups within the organization. Among religious and political organizations, there are always those who try to climb up the ladder, in order to become leaders or VIPs. Some do that with integrity; others, with unimaginable means and tactics.
The power struggle between the good and the bad, the responsible and the irresponsible, the skillful and the unskillful is always going on within individuals and organizations . The young and the credulous are easy to be trained or manipulated, but it is not simple to convince the old and the experienced, or to talk them into doing things they don't want to, and much harder to change them. That is why leaders and politicians usually try very hard to gain the support from the young, the naive, and the ignorant.
I try to be an independent observer and thinker, and rarely believe something or trust anyone hastily. It takes time, sometimes a lot of time, to understand and discover a person. Still in the end, it is worth it.
The same with an organization. An organization often consists of both good and bad people or members with their respective characteristics, virtues and follies. Ideologies and slogans might give us strong impressions about the organization, but in reality, there are always interest groups and subgroups within the organization. Among religious and political organizations, there are always those who try to climb up the ladder, in order to become leaders or VIPs. Some do that with integrity; others, with unimaginable means and tactics.
The power struggle between the good and the bad, the responsible and the irresponsible, the skillful and the unskillful is always going on within individuals and organizations . The young and the credulous are easy to be trained or manipulated, but it is not simple to convince the old and the experienced, or to talk them into doing things they don't want to, and much harder to change them. That is why leaders and politicians usually try very hard to gain the support from the young, the naive, and the ignorant.
I try to be an independent observer and thinker, and rarely believe something or trust anyone hastily. It takes time, sometimes a lot of time, to understand and discover a person. Still in the end, it is worth it.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Information Evaluation and Free Inquiry
One of the most critical skills for survival in the Information Age is the ability to use and evaluate information efficiently, and to have a proactive and responsible view toward freedom of thought, self expression and inquiry.
Never has there been such a powerful explosion of information before. Leaders and policy makers everywhere must take into serious consideration the huge impact information plays when they make strategic decisions. No state nor government can obstruct the flow in the information universe. If for any reason the government should intervene, then the intervention must be temporary, and have a good cause for long term benefits of the majority. In my view, there is almost no reason to control the information flow on the Internet. Transparency and democracy are on the rise, and must be well respected. And beware that, as always, honesty is the best policy.
Information access and use must be fair to all people, the rich as well as the poor. Everyone needs information literacy, and should know their rights and responsibilities in the virtual world. They should also have freedom of thought and expression on the Internet. What the underprivileged and the disadvantaged actually need is education, especially about information-related issues. Education is always the key for any social betterment. Information evaluation and freedom of expression and inquiry cannot go far without good training and education. As long as there is ignorance, there are crimes, corruption, manipulation, tyranny, and even unequal democracy. Thus the fundamental revolution should begin with the education of the individual. Good education leads to good characters and behaviors, which in turn bring about better social changes.
Another issue related to beliefs and information source evaluation was mentioned in the Kalama Sutra. According to the Buddha, there are ten sources which a person should not rely on to accept a teaching without verification:
1. Oral history: because it is repeated again and again;
2. Tradition: because it belongs to some tradition;
3. Rumor: because of some rumor;
4. Scriptures: because it is from the scriptures or religious texts;
5. Suppositional reasoning: because it is a hypothesis;
6. Philosophical reasoning: because it is self-evident, or widely accepted
7. Common sense: because one uses one's own reasoning;
8. Opinion: because somebody has such an opinion;
9. Authorities: because the authorities said so;
10.The teacher: because one's master said so.
Only when a person finds a teaching skillful, blameless, praiseworthy, advocated by the wise, and leading to happiness to the many, should the person accept that teaching as true and practice it. In other words, observe, examine, and test a teaching or an instruction with a critical mind, before you decide to follow or accept it.
Similarly, with any information you retrieve from the Web, don't blindly accept it immediately. Research and compare, and use your experiences and knowledge to test the value of the information before you use or discard it. Very often you will see more trash than useful stuff on the Internet.
Never has there been such a powerful explosion of information before. Leaders and policy makers everywhere must take into serious consideration the huge impact information plays when they make strategic decisions. No state nor government can obstruct the flow in the information universe. If for any reason the government should intervene, then the intervention must be temporary, and have a good cause for long term benefits of the majority. In my view, there is almost no reason to control the information flow on the Internet. Transparency and democracy are on the rise, and must be well respected. And beware that, as always, honesty is the best policy.
Information access and use must be fair to all people, the rich as well as the poor. Everyone needs information literacy, and should know their rights and responsibilities in the virtual world. They should also have freedom of thought and expression on the Internet. What the underprivileged and the disadvantaged actually need is education, especially about information-related issues. Education is always the key for any social betterment. Information evaluation and freedom of expression and inquiry cannot go far without good training and education. As long as there is ignorance, there are crimes, corruption, manipulation, tyranny, and even unequal democracy. Thus the fundamental revolution should begin with the education of the individual. Good education leads to good characters and behaviors, which in turn bring about better social changes.
Another issue related to beliefs and information source evaluation was mentioned in the Kalama Sutra. According to the Buddha, there are ten sources which a person should not rely on to accept a teaching without verification:
1. Oral history: because it is repeated again and again;
2. Tradition: because it belongs to some tradition;
3. Rumor: because of some rumor;
4. Scriptures: because it is from the scriptures or religious texts;
5. Suppositional reasoning: because it is a hypothesis;
6. Philosophical reasoning: because it is self-evident, or widely accepted
7. Common sense: because one uses one's own reasoning;
8. Opinion: because somebody has such an opinion;
9. Authorities: because the authorities said so;
10.The teacher: because one's master said so.
Only when a person finds a teaching skillful, blameless, praiseworthy, advocated by the wise, and leading to happiness to the many, should the person accept that teaching as true and practice it. In other words, observe, examine, and test a teaching or an instruction with a critical mind, before you decide to follow or accept it.
Similarly, with any information you retrieve from the Web, don't blindly accept it immediately. Research and compare, and use your experiences and knowledge to test the value of the information before you use or discard it. Very often you will see more trash than useful stuff on the Internet.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
The Good vs. the Bad
One of the most popular sutras in Buddhism is the Prajñāpāramitā ("Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom"). In Mahāyāna Buddhism, Prajñāpāramitā is a central concept, and its understanding and practice are essential for understanding the Bodhisattva Path. In that sutra there is one line that goes like this: "Nothing is pure nor impure." What does that mean?
When you examine objects, events or phenomena in the universe closely and carefully, you can only see them in their constant interactions, movements or transformations. They actually are not themselves any more the moment you observed them. It is your mind, and the way you are observing them or thinking about them that make them so. But they are really not so, being themselves just combinations and interactions of various elements or factors. Hence, nothingness. If so, why should there be any discrimination?
Shakespeare wrote: "There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so." It is true. We have gotten used to thinking in a dual way so long that it becomes very hard for us to maintain a clear and truthful view of objects and events around us. Our mind also changes constantly, from one moment to another. Thus, the same object or event might have opposite values to the same person at different moments of time and in different locations. Not to mention there are diverse views about the same thing or event by people of different backgrounds.
A mother may think drinking more milk will be beneficial to her baby, but the baby, having been full, refuses to empty the bottle. To the mother, the action of feeding the baby more milk is good; to the baby, very bad, and it cries to protest. In one of his previous lives, the Buddha had to kill one robber to save the whole group of passengers in a boat. Was the Buddha's action good or bad in that situation? Killing is of course not allowed or acceptable in Buddhism, but killing one person in order to save many others must be much better than watching them die without doing anything to save them. Some may think the Buddha in that scenario is a killer, while others could consider Him a savior.
Should we then have any judgment? Let's remain calm, and be very cautious in our judgment, because there seems to be something wrong in judging or evaluating people and phenomena. Why don't we look into ourselves and be our "judge" first?
When you examine objects, events or phenomena in the universe closely and carefully, you can only see them in their constant interactions, movements or transformations. They actually are not themselves any more the moment you observed them. It is your mind, and the way you are observing them or thinking about them that make them so. But they are really not so, being themselves just combinations and interactions of various elements or factors. Hence, nothingness. If so, why should there be any discrimination?
Shakespeare wrote: "There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so." It is true. We have gotten used to thinking in a dual way so long that it becomes very hard for us to maintain a clear and truthful view of objects and events around us. Our mind also changes constantly, from one moment to another. Thus, the same object or event might have opposite values to the same person at different moments of time and in different locations. Not to mention there are diverse views about the same thing or event by people of different backgrounds.
A mother may think drinking more milk will be beneficial to her baby, but the baby, having been full, refuses to empty the bottle. To the mother, the action of feeding the baby more milk is good; to the baby, very bad, and it cries to protest. In one of his previous lives, the Buddha had to kill one robber to save the whole group of passengers in a boat. Was the Buddha's action good or bad in that situation? Killing is of course not allowed or acceptable in Buddhism, but killing one person in order to save many others must be much better than watching them die without doing anything to save them. Some may think the Buddha in that scenario is a killer, while others could consider Him a savior.
Should we then have any judgment? Let's remain calm, and be very cautious in our judgment, because there seems to be something wrong in judging or evaluating people and phenomena. Why don't we look into ourselves and be our "judge" first?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
War and Peace
I first read War and Peace by Lev Tolstoy when I was 12 years old. I loved the novel so much that I copied many paragraphs from it into a notebook. That way I could re-read parts of the book later wherever I wanted, after it had been returned. I recall that my favorite chapters were those about Count Andre's thoughts and monologues, the oak tree, human destiny in the war, happiness and love when the hero is about to die, lying still in bed with Natasha sitting close by. No other novel so far has had such strong impressions on me, and I find Tolstoy the most humane novelist and the greatest psychologist of all times. He has profound understanding of human weaknesses, pains and follies. He is a Shakespeare in prose.
A non-violent and spiritual anarchist and the founder of thirteen schools at Yasnaya Polyana for his serfs' children, he was truly a social and educational reformer whose vision was far beyond his contemporaries'. In a letter to V. P. Botkin,a friend of his, he wrote: "The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens.... Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere."
Much remains to be learned from Tolstoy's anarchism, and his thoughts about religion, education, and non-violence resistance. He had great influence on Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and has become an inspiration for many other non-violent fighters for democracy and social injustice.
A non-violent and spiritual anarchist and the founder of thirteen schools at Yasnaya Polyana for his serfs' children, he was truly a social and educational reformer whose vision was far beyond his contemporaries'. In a letter to V. P. Botkin,a friend of his, he wrote: "The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens.... Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere."
Much remains to be learned from Tolstoy's anarchism, and his thoughts about religion, education, and non-violence resistance. He had great influence on Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and has become an inspiration for many other non-violent fighters for democracy and social injustice.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Health and Wellness
Health is the most precious thing on earth, but its value is usually ignored until one lost it, or started to have a serious health problem. WHO defines a healthy person in a holistic way. Wellness implies a balanced state in which a person is healthy not only physically, but also mentally and socially. Nowadays with easy access to health information on the Internet, we can get much more health advice and knowledge about health care than ever before. On the other hand, we no longer find ourselves have enough time to listen to the signals of our body, or to take better care of ourselves. What a pathetic paradox!
There are multiple approaches to health care: the conventional western way, alternative methods, and the oriental styles of which the most popular is probably the Chinese traditional medicine. Which should you follow? It is your choice, of course, for ultimately you have the most responsibility for the wellness of your own body.
One of the alternative approaches is Integrative Medicine (IM). It is a multidimentional approach to health care, as it attempts to combine the best of conventional western treatments with selective but less mainstream therapies all over the world. It focuses on the patient's self-directed and proactive role, rather than the physician's reactive directions. It is healing-oriented, not disease-, nor technology-oriented. This approach considers the patient as an integrated whole, the body, the mind and the soul.
According Dr. Tracy Gaudet's Consciously Female: How to Listen to Your Body and Your Soul for a Lifetime of Healthier Living, (2004), a person's health and healing status can be evaluated in five different domains:
1. Movement or exercise
2. Nutrition and your relationship with food, drink and supplements
3. Mind or your mental state
4. Spirit or the connectedness that takes you beyond your self
5. Sensation or sensuality and sexuality
Based on this framework, the person can reflect on the five domains, and check his/her health status daily, then record it in a journal.
There are multiple approaches to health care: the conventional western way, alternative methods, and the oriental styles of which the most popular is probably the Chinese traditional medicine. Which should you follow? It is your choice, of course, for ultimately you have the most responsibility for the wellness of your own body.
One of the alternative approaches is Integrative Medicine (IM). It is a multidimentional approach to health care, as it attempts to combine the best of conventional western treatments with selective but less mainstream therapies all over the world. It focuses on the patient's self-directed and proactive role, rather than the physician's reactive directions. It is healing-oriented, not disease-, nor technology-oriented. This approach considers the patient as an integrated whole, the body, the mind and the soul.
According Dr. Tracy Gaudet's Consciously Female: How to Listen to Your Body and Your Soul for a Lifetime of Healthier Living, (2004), a person's health and healing status can be evaluated in five different domains:
1. Movement or exercise
2. Nutrition and your relationship with food, drink and supplements
3. Mind or your mental state
4. Spirit or the connectedness that takes you beyond your self
5. Sensation or sensuality and sexuality
Based on this framework, the person can reflect on the five domains, and check his/her health status daily, then record it in a journal.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Corruption
Part 1
I have just read an article entitled "Frost at the Core" in The Economist (December 11, 2010 issue, pp. 29-32). The article is about Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin's Russia, but from it I find many similarities rampant in many other totalitarian regimes in the world.
In Russia, corruption and violence have spread from Chechnya to the north of Caucasus, Kushchevskaya, and other places. Corruption no longer means breaking the rules of the games; it has become the game. No wonder WikiLeaks used the term "mafia" to refer to the Russian government. The few Kremlin bureaucrat-entrepreneurs have prospered, and, worse of all, they have a license for violence. Everywhere people sense injustice and the ineffectiveness of the system. Even government officials have to agree that corruption is eroding and will bring down the system, and their country is fast heading to a dead end.
As the young and the educated are getting more and more access to democracy sources, movements, and exchanging their views openly on the Internet, the Russian government can hardly escape their downfall caused by the tsunamic democracy wave. They probably have already predicted it, but they simply cannot change the status quo of their system.
I am thinking about China, Vietnam and Myanma. How long will the current governments in those countries last? Will there be any political change soon? How could people in those countries live on under such regimes? Maybe because the majority of them are complacent, and too busy with their lives, they choose to close their eyes before the injustice around them. Maybe the poor already have to struggle so hard for their daily survival, to bring food to the table day after day, to make two ends meet, that they do not have the energy to think about fighting against their leaders. Or maybe they have no choice but to accept their national situation. Or they may lack good leaders. The question is who can mobilize them?
Part 2
There is an article about a recent study about the attitudes of Filipinos towards graft and corruption. The url is:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20080315-124939
/Psychology-of-corruption
Psychology of corruption
By Ma. Regina M. Hechanova
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:56:00 03/15/2008
Filed Under: Government, Graft & Corruption
MANILA, Philippines—We toppled a dictator and thought we had gotten rid of his cronies. Yet four administrations later, the same issues of graft and corruption continue to plague our country. Amid the prospect of history repeating itself—some wonder, will changing presidents really eradicate corruption? Probably not—unless we understand the reasons why corruption continues to exist in the country and we do something about it.
A recent study on the attitudes of Filipinos toward graft and corruption by Ateneo Psychology students Tanya Gisbert, Therese Posas and Karla Santos shed some light on the phenomenon. They interviewed 12 people and surveyed 380 others from income classes A, C and E in Metro Manila from October to December last year.
They asked how people defined corruption, what acts they would consider corrupt, why they think corruption exists and whether they would engage in it. In the survey, respondents were asked to rate corrupt acts in terms of how acceptable they are and the likelihood that they would engage in them.
Form of stealing
Their study found that people commonly defined corruption as some form of stealing. Corrupt acts fall into two types: small scale (those done by individuals as citizens or in a business context) and large scale (those associated with government).
Examples of small-scale acts include paying a police officer to avoid getting a fine and paying off government offices to speed up transactions. In the business setting, corrupt acts could include charging personal expenses to the company and pocketing excess travel allowance.
Large-scale acts are those associated with the government—electoral fraud, kickbacks, getting material things in return for favors, etc. Although the majority of the respondents said that they had not engaged and would not engage in large-scale corrupt acts, there was significantly greater tolerance for small-scale corrupt acts.
Commonplace
Asked why corruption exists, the respondents cited the negative image of our public officials. Some respondents even described corruption as being commonplace or worse as “being in our blood.”
When asked why one would engage in it, those from class E surmised that perhaps it stemmed out of need or even the survival of one’s family. Those in upper classes cited the difficulty in transacting with government, hence the need to cut corners. As one respondent said, “It’s already there. So might as well benefit. Why inconvenience myself when there is an easier way to get to it?”
An interesting finding of the study is that those from class A have significantly higher scores in acceptance and intent to engage in corrupt acts compared with those in lower classes.
The middle class was the least tolerant of corrupt acts. Related to this, those from lower and middle classes reported feeling victimized by corruption. Many of the respondents complained about seeing their tax payments wasted by nonexistent or poor-quality services. As said by one respondent, “The barangay captain announced that there would be free medicines and checkups. Nothing was given out allegedly because of budget constraints. Afterwards, he was seen driving a new car and his house was renovated!”
How does one understand these findings? Although corruption can be viewed from many perspectives, corruption can be seen as a learned social phenomenon that is rooted in several psychological concepts:
Vicarious learning
We learn from the actions of others and people have come to associate corruption with the government. Unfortunately, there is so much press coverage of corrupt acts of public officials and very few role models to counteract such stereotypes. This may shape the minds of the young and future leaders into expecting that corruption is acceptable.
Desensitization
Although people decry corruption in government, they also find acts such as paying off fixers to expedite transactions as more acceptable. The problem with this is where does one draw the line between small and large acts? Big acts start with small ones.
Rationalization
People who engage in negative behaviors will typically seek to justify their behaviors so they do not feel conflicted. The responses suggest one strategy used is denial of responsibility—the corrupt act was done only because of the circumstances and that there was no choice. A second justification is denial of injury—the act does not harm anyone and the end justifies the means.
Reinforcement
One explanation for the differences in attitudes toward corruption between socioeconomic classes is reinforcement. For those with higher income, the cost of corruption is minor compared with its benefits—the amount paid to a cop is inconsequential in comparison with the hassle of retrieving a confiscated license.
The responses of the middle and lower classes suggest that what is salient to them is how they are being victimized by corruption—seeing how their tax money is being squandered on poor service or officials’ personal gain.
Learned helplessness
Despite such anger toward corruption, there also appears to be a sense of helplessness in doing something about it. People seem to believe it is difficult to eradicate corruption precisely because it is those in power who are engaging in it.
What can be done?
Given all the factors that are creating this culture of corruption, what can be done? The Ateneo Center for Organization Research and Development has a framework for culture-building in organizations.
Although the scale is much larger, the elements are applicable as well. The CREATE model stands for Communicate, Role-model, Engage, Align systems and structures, Train and Evaluate. An important part of building a culture is explicitly stating the desired norms. However, such talk needs to be backed up by action.
The problem with President Macapagal-Arroyo’s recent statement that she is also against corruption is that people simply cannot believe her—not when she and her family are associated with controversial deals.
Engagement means bringing different publics together to strategize and implement anticorruption measures. The more the watchdogs there are, the less bold people will be. Alignment of systems, structures and resources means putting in the necessary checks and balances to prevent and prosecute graft and corruption. Training people and institutions to detect and address issues of graft is also important in diminishing the sense of helplessness.
However, value orientation also needs to begin in school and in our homes.
Finally, evaluating anticorruption efforts are important. For example, the country currently ranks 131st out of 179 countries in Transparency International’s 2007 Corruption Perception Index. Improving such ranking will give people some hope that change can happen.
In a UNDP conference against corruption, eminent international thinkers advocated institutional reform, law enforcement and public support as important ingredients in the fight against corruption.
As shown in this study, corruption is a complex phenomenon that has deep psychological and cultural roots. It suggests that beyond the actions of our leaders and institutions, we need to believe that corruption can be eliminated. Such change may take generations and will require a concerted effort—from our family, schools and other institutions. But perhaps more importantly, it requires our commitment to be part of such efforts and be the change we would like to see.
(Ma. Regina M. Hechanova, Ph.D. is an associate professor at the Department of Psychology at the Ateneo de Manila University and a director at the Ateneo Center for Organization Research and Development. For inquiries, contact ateneocord@admu.edu.ph)
I have just read an article entitled "Frost at the Core" in The Economist (December 11, 2010 issue, pp. 29-32). The article is about Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin's Russia, but from it I find many similarities rampant in many other totalitarian regimes in the world.
In Russia, corruption and violence have spread from Chechnya to the north of Caucasus, Kushchevskaya, and other places. Corruption no longer means breaking the rules of the games; it has become the game. No wonder WikiLeaks used the term "mafia" to refer to the Russian government. The few Kremlin bureaucrat-entrepreneurs have prospered, and, worse of all, they have a license for violence. Everywhere people sense injustice and the ineffectiveness of the system. Even government officials have to agree that corruption is eroding and will bring down the system, and their country is fast heading to a dead end.
As the young and the educated are getting more and more access to democracy sources, movements, and exchanging their views openly on the Internet, the Russian government can hardly escape their downfall caused by the tsunamic democracy wave. They probably have already predicted it, but they simply cannot change the status quo of their system.
I am thinking about China, Vietnam and Myanma. How long will the current governments in those countries last? Will there be any political change soon? How could people in those countries live on under such regimes? Maybe because the majority of them are complacent, and too busy with their lives, they choose to close their eyes before the injustice around them. Maybe the poor already have to struggle so hard for their daily survival, to bring food to the table day after day, to make two ends meet, that they do not have the energy to think about fighting against their leaders. Or maybe they have no choice but to accept their national situation. Or they may lack good leaders. The question is who can mobilize them?
Part 2
There is an article about a recent study about the attitudes of Filipinos towards graft and corruption. The url is:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20080315-124939
/Psychology-of-corruption
Psychology of corruption
By Ma. Regina M. Hechanova
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:56:00 03/15/2008
Filed Under: Government, Graft & Corruption
MANILA, Philippines—We toppled a dictator and thought we had gotten rid of his cronies. Yet four administrations later, the same issues of graft and corruption continue to plague our country. Amid the prospect of history repeating itself—some wonder, will changing presidents really eradicate corruption? Probably not—unless we understand the reasons why corruption continues to exist in the country and we do something about it.
A recent study on the attitudes of Filipinos toward graft and corruption by Ateneo Psychology students Tanya Gisbert, Therese Posas and Karla Santos shed some light on the phenomenon. They interviewed 12 people and surveyed 380 others from income classes A, C and E in Metro Manila from October to December last year.
They asked how people defined corruption, what acts they would consider corrupt, why they think corruption exists and whether they would engage in it. In the survey, respondents were asked to rate corrupt acts in terms of how acceptable they are and the likelihood that they would engage in them.
Form of stealing
Their study found that people commonly defined corruption as some form of stealing. Corrupt acts fall into two types: small scale (those done by individuals as citizens or in a business context) and large scale (those associated with government).
Examples of small-scale acts include paying a police officer to avoid getting a fine and paying off government offices to speed up transactions. In the business setting, corrupt acts could include charging personal expenses to the company and pocketing excess travel allowance.
Large-scale acts are those associated with the government—electoral fraud, kickbacks, getting material things in return for favors, etc. Although the majority of the respondents said that they had not engaged and would not engage in large-scale corrupt acts, there was significantly greater tolerance for small-scale corrupt acts.
Commonplace
Asked why corruption exists, the respondents cited the negative image of our public officials. Some respondents even described corruption as being commonplace or worse as “being in our blood.”
When asked why one would engage in it, those from class E surmised that perhaps it stemmed out of need or even the survival of one’s family. Those in upper classes cited the difficulty in transacting with government, hence the need to cut corners. As one respondent said, “It’s already there. So might as well benefit. Why inconvenience myself when there is an easier way to get to it?”
An interesting finding of the study is that those from class A have significantly higher scores in acceptance and intent to engage in corrupt acts compared with those in lower classes.
The middle class was the least tolerant of corrupt acts. Related to this, those from lower and middle classes reported feeling victimized by corruption. Many of the respondents complained about seeing their tax payments wasted by nonexistent or poor-quality services. As said by one respondent, “The barangay captain announced that there would be free medicines and checkups. Nothing was given out allegedly because of budget constraints. Afterwards, he was seen driving a new car and his house was renovated!”
How does one understand these findings? Although corruption can be viewed from many perspectives, corruption can be seen as a learned social phenomenon that is rooted in several psychological concepts:
Vicarious learning
We learn from the actions of others and people have come to associate corruption with the government. Unfortunately, there is so much press coverage of corrupt acts of public officials and very few role models to counteract such stereotypes. This may shape the minds of the young and future leaders into expecting that corruption is acceptable.
Desensitization
Although people decry corruption in government, they also find acts such as paying off fixers to expedite transactions as more acceptable. The problem with this is where does one draw the line between small and large acts? Big acts start with small ones.
Rationalization
People who engage in negative behaviors will typically seek to justify their behaviors so they do not feel conflicted. The responses suggest one strategy used is denial of responsibility—the corrupt act was done only because of the circumstances and that there was no choice. A second justification is denial of injury—the act does not harm anyone and the end justifies the means.
Reinforcement
One explanation for the differences in attitudes toward corruption between socioeconomic classes is reinforcement. For those with higher income, the cost of corruption is minor compared with its benefits—the amount paid to a cop is inconsequential in comparison with the hassle of retrieving a confiscated license.
The responses of the middle and lower classes suggest that what is salient to them is how they are being victimized by corruption—seeing how their tax money is being squandered on poor service or officials’ personal gain.
Learned helplessness
Despite such anger toward corruption, there also appears to be a sense of helplessness in doing something about it. People seem to believe it is difficult to eradicate corruption precisely because it is those in power who are engaging in it.
What can be done?
Given all the factors that are creating this culture of corruption, what can be done? The Ateneo Center for Organization Research and Development has a framework for culture-building in organizations.
Although the scale is much larger, the elements are applicable as well. The CREATE model stands for Communicate, Role-model, Engage, Align systems and structures, Train and Evaluate. An important part of building a culture is explicitly stating the desired norms. However, such talk needs to be backed up by action.
The problem with President Macapagal-Arroyo’s recent statement that she is also against corruption is that people simply cannot believe her—not when she and her family are associated with controversial deals.
Engagement means bringing different publics together to strategize and implement anticorruption measures. The more the watchdogs there are, the less bold people will be. Alignment of systems, structures and resources means putting in the necessary checks and balances to prevent and prosecute graft and corruption. Training people and institutions to detect and address issues of graft is also important in diminishing the sense of helplessness.
However, value orientation also needs to begin in school and in our homes.
Finally, evaluating anticorruption efforts are important. For example, the country currently ranks 131st out of 179 countries in Transparency International’s 2007 Corruption Perception Index. Improving such ranking will give people some hope that change can happen.
In a UNDP conference against corruption, eminent international thinkers advocated institutional reform, law enforcement and public support as important ingredients in the fight against corruption.
As shown in this study, corruption is a complex phenomenon that has deep psychological and cultural roots. It suggests that beyond the actions of our leaders and institutions, we need to believe that corruption can be eliminated. Such change may take generations and will require a concerted effort—from our family, schools and other institutions. But perhaps more importantly, it requires our commitment to be part of such efforts and be the change we would like to see.
(Ma. Regina M. Hechanova, Ph.D. is an associate professor at the Department of Psychology at the Ateneo de Manila University and a director at the Ateneo Center for Organization Research and Development. For inquiries, contact ateneocord@admu.edu.ph)
Friday, February 4, 2011
Parenting
I have only one son, who is now 17 years old and at college. From my experiences as a parent, and through talking and sharing with other parents, among whom are my close friends and relatives, I have discovered that parenting is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks on earth. It is difficult because universal parenting principles do not seem to be useful or applicable to every child successfully, even within a family. What's more, once done, it is almost irreversible.
It is true that there are fundamental guidelines for parents in all cultures. We know that it is good for parents to pay attention to their child's character training since s/he is in the mother's womb. We often try to cultivate good habits in toddlers and kindergarteners, teaching them to be confident and independent, to share and show care, love and respect to everybody. To our elementary kids, we encourage them to maintain a balanced schedule between study and games or play, to eat healthy foods, and to take good care of themselves. Step by step we introduce our middle schoolers to the large and complicated world, so that they know how to protect themselves when parents are not available. Our early teens begin to discover themselves and the world under our guidance. Then comes the time when we have to say to the young man or the young woman, "Now is the time when you can flap the wings and soar to the blue sky wide open awaiting you to explore, discover and develop to your best capability." From then on your used-to-be baby begins to change dramatically until the next time when s/he comes back, saying, "How do you like me now?"
You try to remain calm, and continue to play the parenting role of the old days. Is that good for you and your child? Perhaps not. For you have changed, and so has s/he. You must adapt to your child's changes as much as s/he to yours. At a certain point you must remain calm, and stay away, lest you should become an intruder in your children's lives. You have done a lot raising them, and now you should know your boundaries. You are only their friends, and that is good enough. You are growing older, and hopefully wiser; but do not be condescending, nor should you expect much from them, for there are enough burdens for them to carry along their life journeys.
In my view there are many phases in the parenting process, and parents should be flexible to meet the demands of each phase in the process. There seems to be three main phases: the nurturing-caring protector phase; the listening-guiding advisor phase; and the listening-sharing acceptor phase.
High standards or expectations? I think it is good for the kid to know that his/her parents have high expectations for him/her, and thus the kid will try all their best. Self-complacency is as harmful as inferiority complex. Yet, do not ever sacrifice your valuable parent-child relationship to transient and superficial fame, award, or reward. The most importance is probably teaching values to the child. What is good vs. what is bad. Be consistent. Be a good role model.
Intrinsic motivation is the key to long-lasting creativity, enjoyment, self actualization and wonderful success. Let your child have a dream. Let him/her explore and enjoy as s/he fulfills that dream. Life is too short to live in an ivory tower, or to confine oneself to a certain mold or standards designed by others, even one's parents.
Amy Chua has her own ways, which may reflect some aspects of the oriental parenting style usually found in China and Chinese communities. I am glad it worked for her family up to this point. She continued the way her immigrant parents taught and trained her. But who knows if that way will have nice effects on her children till the end of their lives, and if it will be re-applied successfully to her grandchildren?
Anyway, she has successfully marketed her book. Good marketing strategy! Her book came out at the right time when everything Chinese seems to threaten to dominate the globe, and when the USA feels it is losing power.
But let's wait and see.
It is true that there are fundamental guidelines for parents in all cultures. We know that it is good for parents to pay attention to their child's character training since s/he is in the mother's womb. We often try to cultivate good habits in toddlers and kindergarteners, teaching them to be confident and independent, to share and show care, love and respect to everybody. To our elementary kids, we encourage them to maintain a balanced schedule between study and games or play, to eat healthy foods, and to take good care of themselves. Step by step we introduce our middle schoolers to the large and complicated world, so that they know how to protect themselves when parents are not available. Our early teens begin to discover themselves and the world under our guidance. Then comes the time when we have to say to the young man or the young woman, "Now is the time when you can flap the wings and soar to the blue sky wide open awaiting you to explore, discover and develop to your best capability." From then on your used-to-be baby begins to change dramatically until the next time when s/he comes back, saying, "How do you like me now?"
You try to remain calm, and continue to play the parenting role of the old days. Is that good for you and your child? Perhaps not. For you have changed, and so has s/he. You must adapt to your child's changes as much as s/he to yours. At a certain point you must remain calm, and stay away, lest you should become an intruder in your children's lives. You have done a lot raising them, and now you should know your boundaries. You are only their friends, and that is good enough. You are growing older, and hopefully wiser; but do not be condescending, nor should you expect much from them, for there are enough burdens for them to carry along their life journeys.
In my view there are many phases in the parenting process, and parents should be flexible to meet the demands of each phase in the process. There seems to be three main phases: the nurturing-caring protector phase; the listening-guiding advisor phase; and the listening-sharing acceptor phase.
High standards or expectations? I think it is good for the kid to know that his/her parents have high expectations for him/her, and thus the kid will try all their best. Self-complacency is as harmful as inferiority complex. Yet, do not ever sacrifice your valuable parent-child relationship to transient and superficial fame, award, or reward. The most importance is probably teaching values to the child. What is good vs. what is bad. Be consistent. Be a good role model.
Intrinsic motivation is the key to long-lasting creativity, enjoyment, self actualization and wonderful success. Let your child have a dream. Let him/her explore and enjoy as s/he fulfills that dream. Life is too short to live in an ivory tower, or to confine oneself to a certain mold or standards designed by others, even one's parents.
Amy Chua has her own ways, which may reflect some aspects of the oriental parenting style usually found in China and Chinese communities. I am glad it worked for her family up to this point. She continued the way her immigrant parents taught and trained her. But who knows if that way will have nice effects on her children till the end of their lives, and if it will be re-applied successfully to her grandchildren?
Anyway, she has successfully marketed her book. Good marketing strategy! Her book came out at the right time when everything Chinese seems to threaten to dominate the globe, and when the USA feels it is losing power.
But let's wait and see.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The Rich and the Poor
Today I read an online article entitled "A Stone in Your Heart." It is about the gap between the rich and the poor in Vietnam, a developing country in Southeast Asia. The writer describes the contrasts in shopping patterns and behaviors of the rich versus those of the poor during the last few days before "Tet," the traditional New Year celebration in Vietnam.
If you watch those behaviors, and find the gap between the rich and the poor an unacceptable social injustice, then the stone in your heart is small and manageable. That means you still have a human heart, basically made of flesh and blood. If, on the other hand, growing callous and indifferent to others' sufferings, you cannot feel indignant against the widening rich vs. poor gap, your heart is probably growing into a big rock. In that case you must be alarmed, for you are no longer a human.
As I wrote once, every one of us is part of the whole. We all want to be happy and enjoy the way each of us define happiness in life. Yet, it seems peace and happiness cannot be fulfilled once there are still worries, stress, hunger, disasters, epidemics, wars and terrorism, etc. It is obvious that my own safety depends on yours, and my enjoyment cannot be complete without you and others around me having a share in it. After all, why should I make a lot more money than you, when in the end death is the greatest leveler to everybody? I need you as much as you need me. We depend on one another. A trash collector has an important role to play in society, just as the president of a superpower. Imagine the Obamas living in a trashed-filled Washington, D.C. Could they?
Let's share, show respect, and be humble. Every one on earth is but a small grain on the beach, or an earthworm whose usefulness awaits some more discovery besides those already made by Charles Darwin.
If you watch those behaviors, and find the gap between the rich and the poor an unacceptable social injustice, then the stone in your heart is small and manageable. That means you still have a human heart, basically made of flesh and blood. If, on the other hand, growing callous and indifferent to others' sufferings, you cannot feel indignant against the widening rich vs. poor gap, your heart is probably growing into a big rock. In that case you must be alarmed, for you are no longer a human.
As I wrote once, every one of us is part of the whole. We all want to be happy and enjoy the way each of us define happiness in life. Yet, it seems peace and happiness cannot be fulfilled once there are still worries, stress, hunger, disasters, epidemics, wars and terrorism, etc. It is obvious that my own safety depends on yours, and my enjoyment cannot be complete without you and others around me having a share in it. After all, why should I make a lot more money than you, when in the end death is the greatest leveler to everybody? I need you as much as you need me. We depend on one another. A trash collector has an important role to play in society, just as the president of a superpower. Imagine the Obamas living in a trashed-filled Washington, D.C. Could they?
Let's share, show respect, and be humble. Every one on earth is but a small grain on the beach, or an earthworm whose usefulness awaits some more discovery besides those already made by Charles Darwin.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Food as Medicine
In the West, Hippocrates (Hippokrates of Kos), founder of the Hippocratic School of medicine, said,"Let food be your medicine and let medicine be your food." In the East, a popular Chinese proverb goes like this,"Illness comes in through the mouth; misfortune starts from the mouth." I also remember another saying which has a similar meaning: "People dig their graves with the teeth." As we usually celebrate a new year with foods and beverages, why not talk about our diets?
I know some people who are obsessed with eating healthy food. Good for them, as long as they don't go to extremes, for even "healthy foods" can become harmful if eaten excessively. When I was little, I happened to learn about a neighbor whose skin turned "orange," because he had eaten too much carrot. Why? He naively believed that carrots were good for his eyes and skin. Recently, I learned about a woman in her late middle age, who ate a lot of yogurt in order to have strong bones. She said she ate yogurt as her main meals! Unfortunately, it turned out that after a while she developed osteoporosis. She should have read T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II's The China Study.
For me I follow the Middle Way, and try to keep a balanced diet. I listen to, but don't trust any advice until I have tested and experienced it on myself. My body changes every second, and I know that I need to watch it closely. It gives me hints that I must recognize, and correct if I made any mistakes about my daily diet. Basically I don't like meat and animal protein. I prefer vegetables and plant protein, just because whenever I eat veggie foods, I feel much better.
This is an exciting topic, and I'll come back and discuss it next time. TTFN
I know some people who are obsessed with eating healthy food. Good for them, as long as they don't go to extremes, for even "healthy foods" can become harmful if eaten excessively. When I was little, I happened to learn about a neighbor whose skin turned "orange," because he had eaten too much carrot. Why? He naively believed that carrots were good for his eyes and skin. Recently, I learned about a woman in her late middle age, who ate a lot of yogurt in order to have strong bones. She said she ate yogurt as her main meals! Unfortunately, it turned out that after a while she developed osteoporosis. She should have read T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II's The China Study.
For me I follow the Middle Way, and try to keep a balanced diet. I listen to, but don't trust any advice until I have tested and experienced it on myself. My body changes every second, and I know that I need to watch it closely. It gives me hints that I must recognize, and correct if I made any mistakes about my daily diet. Basically I don't like meat and animal protein. I prefer vegetables and plant protein, just because whenever I eat veggie foods, I feel much better.
This is an exciting topic, and I'll come back and discuss it next time. TTFN
Happy Lunar New Year
Today is the last day of the Tiger Year 2010. At midnight today will begin the first day of the new Lunar Year-- that of the Rabbit, or of the Cat in some countries. Although Japan no longer celebrates the Lunar New Year officially, some Japanese and most Asians living in the East as well as in the West continue to celebrate it in their respective traditional ways.
For me, this is the time when I usually make phone calls to my close relatives in order to send them my best wishes for the New Year. It is also the time for me to share good news and nice little gifts to my best friends and dear ones. Some elderly people consider the transition moment between the old year and the new year the most sacred time to pray for the best to happen to them and their families.
The beginning of a New Year...Perhaps that's one of the reasons I would like to start my own blog today. Why not share with others your thoughts and part of your life? Every one of us is part of the whole, and there should not be too much privacy....With that in my mind, I begin this Webpage.
For me, this is the time when I usually make phone calls to my close relatives in order to send them my best wishes for the New Year. It is also the time for me to share good news and nice little gifts to my best friends and dear ones. Some elderly people consider the transition moment between the old year and the new year the most sacred time to pray for the best to happen to them and their families.
The beginning of a New Year...Perhaps that's one of the reasons I would like to start my own blog today. Why not share with others your thoughts and part of your life? Every one of us is part of the whole, and there should not be too much privacy....With that in my mind, I begin this Webpage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)