SMOKING KILLS
Well, so does alcohol, especially if you overdo it. The same goes for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD or any other of the so-called “drugs”, for that matter.
The title I have chosen refers to the warning in big capital letters that can be read in every carton of cigarettes people buy. And some people do buy those cigarettes, they do not seem to feel the least daunted by those menacing words: SMOKING KILLS.
I think it is hypocritical to keep warning people about the obvious dangers of something they simply choose to ignore. It is also hypocritical to try to stop drug traffickers from selling what people insist on buying, even when these people are fully aware of the damage drugs will cause to their health.
There are a great number of factors that lead to drug abuse. The government taxes tobacco and alcohol, of course, and makes a lot of money out of it. The trade in illegal drugs is big business for drug barons and those who make a living out of peddling drugs. On the other hand, consumers are easy prey. For many people, especially young people, getting high can be a sign of rebellion against their family or the establishment, a way of “making a statement”, a gesture of defiance, a symbol of independence. There is also the question of peer pressure. “What will my friends at the party call me if I say no to a little ecstasy? They´ll say I´m chicken…”
Curiosity is another factor. Human beings are curious by nature and it is very difficult to resist temptation, especially when the media, movies, songs, etc. continue to suggest that at least “soft” drugs are a glamorous thing. Well, the fact is that sooner or later we will all be dead. So, why worry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HERO OF OUR TIME
Rolihlaha Mandela was born in 1918, in Mvezo, a small village in southeast South Africa.
The time Mandela lived in South Africa was not auspicious for a black man like him. He grew up under the apartheid system of government, when the white minority ruled the country and black South Africans were segregated.
He refused to accept that system and became the leader of an underground political movement which strived for freedom for black people. He was arrested several times and finally sentenced to life in prison.
He spent 27 years in jail but because of international pressure he was eventually released. He became the first black president of South Africa and received the Nobel Peace Prize.
He could have chosen vengeance, but he preferred reconciliation, thus contributing to peace and progress in his country.
ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION AND ENGLISH SPELLING - FRIENDS OR FIENDS?
Everybody knows how to pronounce the word “friends”. But if you are reading a text and come across the word “fiends”, you understand, using the context, that it means “evil spirits, little monsters”, but you will probably jump to conclusions and think it is pronounced the same way as “friends”, without the “r”. And you will mispronounce the word.
Reading on your own is an excellent way of increasing your vocabulary, but you might come across some tricky words, of which there are a great number, since there is no coherence between English spelling and English pronunciation. “Lemons” is no problem, everybody knows how to pronounce the word. But if you come across the word “demons”, as in the title of Dan Brown´s “Angels and Demons”, you´d better be careful!
You say “own” (my own problems), you say “owe” (I owe you some money, I owe you a favor), you even say bowl, beginning with a b (a bowl of fruit, a bowl of soup), always the same vowel sound. But what happens when you refer to a nocturnal bird, which has big eyes, that is sometimes used as a symbol of wisdom, the bird that goes “hoot, hoot!” on a winter night? How do you say the name of that bird, spelled “owl”?
As I said, there is no coherence between the way we spell words in English and the way we say them. Just have a look at these sentences and observe the words in bold, all spelled with the same ending (-ough):
. Although I know a little English, I can´t speak like a native speaker.
. Getting to be as fluent as a native speaker can be really tough.
. The time you devote to studying English never seems to be enough.
. I got part of my English vocabulary through reading books, magazines, and so on, without hearing a native speaker say those words.
. I walk in the park here in England and enjoy looking at the trees with their big boughs (the big branches) covered with leaves in the Autumn colors.
. How many boroughs (districts) are there in London?
What do the words in bold have in common? The final -ough in their spelling, but they all sound differently. So, watch out!
A LETTER OF COMPLAINT
35 Colville Road
Cambridge, UK
April 1st, 2010
Windermere Wildside
Adventure Holidays
Wildside Hall, Ambleside, Cumbria
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have just returned from an adventure holiday at Windermere which, I am sorry to say, turned out to be a bitter disappointment.
My reason for writing to you is not just to let you know that the services provided by the hotel which you sent me to were astoundingly bad. At this point I would like to inform you that I happen to be a journalist in my country, and I intend to write a small article telling my readers about the horrible experience I had at Windermere last weekend. My intention in writing that article, rather, is to warn innocent people like me in case they feel tempted to believe the appealing words used in your advertisement, which I consider a piece of deceptive advertising.
I will not go over the details of all the things that went wrong during that holiday, but I will just mention a few of them: to begin with, room service was a complete disaster. If I happened to order a crayfish and rocket sandwich I had to be content with a simple, tasteless ham and cheese sandwich. Whenever I asked for some orange juice I was bound to be brought some apple juice instead.
I know you cannot be held responsible for the bad weather, but it rained throughout the weekend, so I decided to stay in my room although it was a bit chilly, since the central heating was not working. Another thing that made it difficult to stay in the room was that I found out that I had to share the room with a family of mice, which seemed not to be timid at all.
I know I could have used the indoor swimming pool, but I decided not to. After all, I am not used to using a pool which is also used by reptiles. Can anyone tell me who had the crazy idea of letting a baby alligator use the same pool as the guests? Who did that reptile belong to? What was the idea? Chasing the (human) guests out of the pool?
Not only that, but when I tried to use the sauna I was shocked to see that it was also being used by the staff to fry bacon and eggs for their breakfast. I found that situation rather odd, to say the least.
As a man of words I have a pretty wild imagination, but I suppose the situations I have described are quite sufficient to give you an idea of that very special holiday. Of course, none of that actually did happen. In fact, I have nothing to complain about the holiday you advertised. It was indeed a very pleasant experience and I was able to use the excellent facilities at Wildside Hall, which I will certainly recommend to my friends.
I started with a letter of complaint but as in fact I had no reasons to complain about, I made up the whole story when I looked at the calendar and realized what day it was. April 1st, April Fools´ Day. So, there you are. No complaint, no need for a refund. On the contrary, thank you for an exciting holiday. Keep up the good work.
Yours faithfully,
Amadeu Marques
P.S. Imagination is more important than knowledge.
FACING A DILEMMA
The teacher had given each of us several topics from which to choose in order to prepare an essay as part of our course of study. My assignment had to be completed and handed by the end of the week. I had chosen a topic which can be controversial and cause heated arguments. For moral, religious and ethical reasons, people tend to be either passionately for or fiercely against euthanasia.
Euthanasia comes from the Greek and means mercy killing. When I chose to write about that issue an image immediately came to my mind: the opening scene of a Spanish film, "Mar Adentro" ("Deep Into the Sea", in rough translation) , a very touching film based on a true story. The film tells us about a young man who had become tetraplegic after having dived into the shallow end of a pool , thus having broken his neck. As a consequence of that tragic accident the young man was doomed to spend the rest of his life lying in bed, confined to a small room in his house, completely paralyzed, unable even to speak. He could express himself only through winks and blinks, so the strong handsome young man the film showed (in flashback) diving into tragedy now lay immobilized, looking like a decrepit old man, pale, gaunt and in pain.
I remember I was impressed by the quality of that film, especially the performance of the leading actor (Javier Bardem), who played perhaps the most difficult role of his career. An actor´s mission is to convey feelings and expressions, but Bardem´s character had been physically deprived of expressions, so he was limited to communicating feelings, something he achieved with his eyes only. That film was slow and sad, but there was never a moment of dullness. I remember feeling emotional and sympathetic towards the character played by Bardem, who eventually convinced someone from his family to do him a favor, the ultimate favor of letting him die.
While I was doing some research for my assignment I happened to read some news in The Guardian (November 13, 2010) about an English lady, Frances Inglis, who gave her brain-damaged son a lethal injection of heroin to end what was, in her own words, "a living hell". Ms Inglis´ son, 22-year-old Thomas Inglis suffered severe head injuries when he fell out of a moving ambulance in July 2007. The case had again been brought to trial and the newspaper reported Ms. Inglis had lost her appeal against conviction on the mercy killing of her son, and she had been sentenced to serve five years in jail. The words of one of the judges were final: "murder is murder whatever the motive." But the judges´ decision was not unanimous. Three court of appeal judges reduced the minimum prison term that Ms Inglis must serve from nine years to five, describing it as one of the most difficult sentencing decisions they had to face.
In fact, I would not like to be in a judge´s place in a case like that. "Mercy killing is murder," states the law. And all citizens must abide by the law. That seems reasonable, and yet... What would you do if you were in the mother´s place? Ms. Inglis, 58, is a mother of three who worked as a carer for disabled children. I underlined that phrase for a reason. Isn´t it a bit of cruel irony that a person who makes a living out of caring for disabled children was now forced by society´s laws to stand by and hopelessly watch her own son go through "a living hell" day by day, as she described her son´s ordeal? Who is supposed to know better in such a situation - society in general or those who care for the individual directly affected? Who certainly cares most for the person who is still "living", but in excruciating pain - the pious society or the loving mother?
In Ms. Inglis´ case, considering her profession, she knew her son had no chance of recovering, and she was convinced that her son´s life had to be brought to an end. I thank God for not being a judge, for I do not think I would have the courage of sentencing that lady to spend five years in prison. Maybe the judges are technically right in following strictly what is written in their books, but I certainly sympathize with Ms. Inglis. And again, I thank God for not being in her place, as I probably would not be able to pluck up the courage to deliberately put an end to my son´s life. In conclusion, depending on the circumstances, I am in favor of mercy killing, but I hope I will never have to face such a dilemma.
GLOBALIZATION
Ask anyone´s opínion about globalization and you are bound to receive globally different answers. As is the case with many of man´s inventions, globalization can be used for good or bad - for the benefit of society or the personal benefit of just a few, while many others suffer, sometimes unwittingly, the ill effects of the system.
The idea of developing a single economy and culture as a result of improved technology and communications and the influence of powerful international companies has undeniably brought about an impressive amount of progress and improvement to some countries and some of their citizens, but the price the whole world has had to pay for that success has been too high.
It is true that "free trade" among nations (can it truly be called "free", I wonder?) has taken countries like China, India, Russia and Brasil (the so-called BRICs) out of their potentially dangerous nationalism and isolationism. Through an aggressive policy of exporting everything they possibly can, from primary commodities to industrialized products, those countries have been growing at amazing rates.
Those who praise globalization could also argue that thanks to that system consumers all across the world can now avail themselves of the marvels of modern technology. A Mexican citizen, in Guadalajara for example, can drive his Japanese car to the German company where he works, work on a Korean computer that was assembled in Brazil, enjoy a good meal at a Thai restaurant, order a bottle of Portuguese wine, buy his Canadian girlfriend a bottle of French perfume for her birthday. He will be doing this while wearing an Armani suit and a pair of Nike (a Greek goddess) sneakers made in India or a pair of Brazilian flip-flops, which happen to be called Havaianas (from Hawaii). All this is possibly true, and another reason for lauding globalization is the fact that it enables anyone in the world to consume the best quality product, as long as they can afford it.
The critics of globalization, however, also have a lot to say. The main reason for the development of a single economy and culture was not the promotion of a peaceful worldwide society, free from social inequalities and poverty. Business is what makes the capitalist world go round and money is the name of the game. Along with economic progress for some countries, globalization has brought forward a surge in illegal immigration, a disease with hazardous side effects such as human trafficking, child prostitution, the exploitation of slave work in sweat shops, racial or ethnic prejudice and even war. Many of the wars that break out every now and then in one part or the other of the planet, especially in Africa, are to a certain extent started by unscrupulous warmongers and arms merchants, secretly trading in weapons made in "civilized" countries such as the United States, Russia, Israel, Switzerland, Germany, and yes ... the United Kingdom and even Brazil. Money makes the world go round, even when it is covered in blood.
Critics of globalization also blame it for at least a partial loss of cultural identity in the countries "invaded" by international ideas, customs and products, a kind of cultural colonialism against which the locals have no immunity. They consider the system to be the culprit of something that might be labelled "culture homogenization", the loss of the characteristics that used to be peculiar to a certain culture and have gradually given way to ideas, customs and products brought over by multinational companies that operate worldwide. One can be in Nepal and see the familiar Coca-Cola sign, one can be in Lisbon at lunchtime and have the choice of eating either at Pizza Hut (Italian food served at an American chain restaurant) or at McDonald´s (Scottish name, American junk food restaurant). But that person will have to try harder if he just wants to have lunch at an old-fashioned homemade Portuguese food restaurant.
Sometimes I recall the time when, as a boy in Portugal, I gorged myself on fruits of the season - peaches, plums, cherries, grapes, melons ... They were so abundant, sold dirt cheap at any corner grocery store. Those fruits were locally grown, on small individual farms across the country. They tasted delicious, I can still feel the sweet taste of those juicy peaches from Alcobaça. Now you go to Portugal and you cannot find them. There are no grocery stores anymore, for that matter. They have been "made redundant" by the supermarkets. You can buy all those fruits at the supermarket, of course. Fruits from all parts of the world. They have the same name, they look the same, but they just don´t have the same taste. And they all taste the same, they have been "pasteurized", they have lost their individual excellence, they have been produced according to common regulations that have deprived them of their uniqueness.
Bottom line: globalization is here to stay. Like it or not, we will have to accept it, with its pros and cons.