User talk:Ghufran

Democracy in its ideal sense is the notion that "the people" should have control of the government ruling over them. This ideal is pursued by implementing a system of voting such that the majority of people rule, either directly or indirectly through elected representatives. Democracies may be "liberal", where fundamental rights of individuals in the minority are protected by law, or they may be "illiberal" where they are not.

Democracy is often implemented as a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the real majority (as opposed to a partial or relative majority of the demos/citizens) in a decision-making process, usually elections or referenda, open to all or most citizens. In recent decades 'democracy' was used as a synonym for (western) liberal-democratic systems in nation-states, but the existence of "illiberal democracies" is now recognised. The qualifier 'liberal' in this context refers strictly speaking to constitutional liberalism and individual rights, but 'liberal democracy' is widely used to describe other aspects, (see below and the main article Liberal democracy). Definitions of democracy have in any case broadened to include aspects of society and political culture in democratic societies, which are not specifically a 'form of government'. Most liberal-democracies are parliamentary representative democracies, but there are many varieties of democracy, some still hypothetical. The term 'democratic' is also used in a looser sense, to describe participatory decision-making in groups or organizations.

Indeed, due to implications of comparative government, other prefered governments included: theocracy, monarchy, parliamentary republic, and republic. Since there are these other forms of government, the preference for the democratic form is itself an ideology, and a source of conflict. Despite its historical importance, there is no separate name for this ideology; it is referred to as 'pro-democracy' or simply 'democracy'. It is a universal ideology: most supporters of democracy consider it to be the only ethically legitimate form of government, and believe it should replace all other forms of government. Democratization is the replacement of these non-democratic forms by a democracy, and the historical impact of modern democracy has taken the form of successive democratisations of nation-states (rather than slow parallel evolution). If it continues, some consider that this process will make the liberal-democratic nation-states the standard form of human society, although they are historically recent and historically unique. This (incomplete) transition is the core of the end of history thesis.

Italic text'Italic textBold text'Bold text'Bold text'Bold textLink titlelink title

Headline text

Media:Example.ogg$Insertformulahere$Insert non-formatted text here--Ghufran 07:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

---

globalisation

An economist debates the NGOs. By Prakash Loungani | Aug 1, 2004

In Defense of Globalization , by Jagdish Bhagwati, New York: Oxford University Press, 308 pages, $28

One's first impulse on coming across yet another book on globalization, even (or particularly?) by a Nobel-caliber economist, is surely to keep on moving: Most turn out to be dry treatises that end up convincing readers they were right to hate their economics courses in college.

It's an impulse worth resisting in the case of Jagdish Bhagwati's In Defense of Globalization , a book that amuses as it instructs. The author, a professor at Columbia University and one of the world's leading scholars of international trade and development, has grappled in many arenas with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—the leaders in the fight against “globalization,” the process of economic integration of nations through trade and international flows of capital and people. He understands why NGOs fear that globalization causes social ills. But while he concedes that some of the anti-globalizers' complaints have merit, he is bold enough to label their arguments “rubbish” when warranted.

Bhagwati concludes that fears of globalization deserve an “extended and careful response,” not out-of-hand dismissal, but are in the end “a false alarm.” He is mostly satisfied with what globalization has accomplished. But some of his recommendations for moving it to a next step, one more congenial to its current ideological enemies, are ultimately unconvincing.

Bhagwati's book starts by discussing the rise of the NGO movement because, as he generously acknowledges, the debates over the effects over globalization today owe their “salience, shape and content” to this movement. But he slyly suggests that the NGOs' rise might be more in the number of groups than in the number of citizens they represent. Take pity, he says, on poor Nigel Wilkinson, whose branch of the Radical Left Movement for Socialist Revolution had to be disbanded after the group's membership dwindled “by almost 70 percent over the last year from a peak of three members to just one—himself.”

Wilkinson's sad fate notwithstanding, the NGO movement has grown into a global phenomenon. Bhagwati offers a variety of explanations. Among the poorer nations, the expansion in the education of women is a cause; in India these days, Bhagwati jokes, it's easier to attract a bride by offering her an NGO than by offering her a green card. In transition economies, he says, NGOs were a natural outgrowth of the “parallel politics” developed by Vaclav Havel and others as a “weapon for democratic progress in regimes governed by communists.” But it is in the rich countries—and particularly among the young there—that the NGO movement has really taken off.

The young, says Bhagwati, see (or think they see) capitalism failing to deliver social justice. Lacking direct experience or historical knowledge of socialism, they don't realize it was in earlier systems that “the well-connected…could jump” queues, while capitalism allows “a larger number to make it to the check-out counter.” Bhagwati also credits television images with increasing the empathy of the young in rich countries for the effects of poverty, famines, and civil wars in poorer areas of the world.

This book tries to show that major complaints about the adverse social effects of globalization are mistaken. Globalization in fact reduces poverty and the use of child labor, fosters women's rights, promotes respect for democratic norms, enriches culture, and even sustains the environment. Multinational corporations are not wreaking havoc by leveling wages and labor standards across the globe. In fact, they raise them. The “gotcha” examples produced by anti-globalizers of the occasional social harm done by globalization are exceptions and not the rule.

To show that globalization eases poverty, Bhagwati offers a tale of two continents. In 1970 average African incomes were 30 percent higher than average Asian incomes. Thirty years later, African incomes had remained stagnant and were then half of Asian incomes. While there were undoubtedly many causes of this reversal, Bhagwati documents that a primary one was that Asia opened itself and adapted to external markets while Africa did not. As a result, in 1970 Africa was home to about 10 percent of the world's poor and Asia to more than 75 percent, using standard measures of the absolute level of poverty. Thirty years later Africa had more than a third of the world's poor and Asia's share had declined to just 15 percent.

Looking more closely at developments within Asia bolsters the point. Who can doubt, Bhagwati asks, that the dramatic reductions in poverty in China and India came about only when these countries began integrating with the world economy, mimicking the tactics of Japan, Korea, and Singapore? Trade and foreign direct investment boost growth, and growth reduces poverty.

Growing incomes from globalization then translate into progress toward social and environmental goals. Child labor falls, Bhagwati writes, because “when incomes improve, poor parents can generally be expected to respond by putting children back in school.” This is exactly what happened, for instance, in the 1990s in Vietnam. Households used extra income from liberalized rice exports to put their children, and particularly their older girls, in school. And increased foreign competition—like competition more generally—narrows the gender wage gap. Bhagwati laments the attempts of feminist NGOs such as Women's Edge to force multilateral institutions to analyze the “gender effects” of their actions. “Women, as a class, are not destined to lose from progress,” he says. To demand, as the NGOs do, that every World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling be examined specifically from the viewpoint of women's welfare is, Bhagwati writes, “about as compelling as saying that the removal of potholes from New York's roads be subjected to a prior examination of whether women are more likely to fall into them.”

A country's environmental quality also improves with sustained income growth because economic activity tends to shift away from pollution-intensive primary production and manufacturing toward service industries. At between $5,000 and $6,000 annual income per capita, income growth and environmental gains go hand in hand. Many countries are still far from this income level, but Bhagwati notes that because technology is constantly getting more environment-friendly, developing countries are starting to see their environmental quality improve at a much lower income threshold.

Another common complaint about globalization —generally from Westerners rather than the cultures allegedly despoiled by Westerners—is that it spreads an unlovely cultural homogenization. Bhagwati observes that the fear of “McDonaldization” is prevalent in all strata of French society, from the radical farmer José Bové to Alain Rollat of Le Monde, who declared that “resistance to the hegemonic pretenses of hamburgers is, above all, a cultural imperative.” But the evidence is that McDonald's is quite responsive to local sensitivities. The golden arches have disappeared in some of the branches around Paris, the company's traditional red-and-yellow colors have been replaced by more muted tones, and espresso and brioche are now offered where culturally appropria

samosa +love

Sex and Samosas?

Well, actually neither sex nor samosas have anything to do with one another—unless, of course, someone somewhere has a samosa fetish. It's just the complete fulfilling experience that is comparable—the filling up of every sense that leaves one replete for the moment but ready for more — at the right time and the right mood. The 'rightness' of it depends on the participants!

OK! Let's look at the samosa experience! 11 o'clock in the morning, it’s coffee or teatime! In comes a waft of freshly fried samosa—no perfume in the world could smell as tempting to an Indian nose! And there, before you, is a perfect, crisp, piping hot, golden-brown samosa. Boy! Take a load of that shape!! Reach out for it; go on…take a bite…ummm! The delectable filling is even more sensational than the crust! You dip it in the tangy sauce and greedily finish it off, each bite more delicious than the last, till, at last, it's over, leaving you satisfied and replete. Could anything be more sensuous?

Of course there are those who won't wait to appreciate the entire experience but just wolf the samosa down. And then there are those who don't like samosa at all… and this is completely in keeping with my analogy of sex and samosas! What is being said here, in short, is that sex, like samosas, is a therapy that engenders tremendous wellness.

Sexercise Therapy

Sex, in a loving and intimate relationship, has innumerable health benefits. Answer the following question truthfully:

Would you rather run 75 miles or have sex three times a week for one year? Research has shown that both the activities will burn approximately 7,500 calories. Many of us however, feel that anything that feels so good can't possibly be 'good' for us. But wait! Pause and think again! A staggering number of scientific studies have shown that sex and specially, sex leading to orgasm is good for you. The obvious physical benefits— the heavy breathing and the increased heart rate that occur during sexual arousal and orgasm— help to keep the tissues and organs healthier by circulating oxygen. And by the way, as an exercise it will burn off more calories per minute than playing tennis. During sex, the average person maintains the heart rate above 70% of the maximum. That really makes sex a wonderful workout and the longer it lasts, the better cardiovascular workout you get!

As a matter of fact, having sex three-four times a week will cut the risk of heart attack or stress in half! Although women also benefit in this manner too, in the case of men the results are well documented and clear. Not only that but in men sex encourages the flow of testosterone, which strengthens bones and muscles and helps transport DHEA, a hormone believed to be important in the functioning of the body's immune system. In women, the act triggers the release of oxytoxin. This promotes the feelings of affection and the nurturing instinct. Looks like for men, it's a win-win situation!

Intimacy not Promiscuity

It was in the 1950s that serious research on sexuality began in the US. Alfred Kinsey's famous Kinsey report detailed that sex reduces stress, and people who have fulfilling sexual lives are less anxious, violent and hostile. So, the twin benefits of regular exercise and a secure relationship, which leads to feeling happier, could not only lead to greater health but also a younger you! The point to note is that all these studies do not encourage promiscuous sex, the issue here being, not morality but intimacy. Intimacy plays a key role in the health benefits of sex. A promiscuous sexual relationship may, in fact, produce an opposite effect and introduce fear and anxiety. What's in it for women?

Hmmm! OK. Research done by Dr Winnifred Cutler, a specialist in behavioural endocrinology, indicates that women who have sex at least once a week are more likely to have normal menstrual cycles than women who have infrequent sex or are celibate. They have a healthy cardiovascular system, lower bad cholesterol; increase good cholesterol, increased bone density and supple skin. And if this were not enough, there is also evidence that estrogens are beneficial for brain functioning.

AND— Wait! I'm not done with the benefits of estrogen as yet! The vaginal tissues get suppler and it provides protection against osteoporosis and heart disease.

More…and more…and MORE!

So what more this multi-vitamin samosa does for a person's overall well being? Well, for one, you get an improved sense of smell! Yup, I did say smell. And here's how. Prolactin, a hormone produced after sex, stimulates the olfactory nerve, the centre for smell, increasing smell perception. You get better bladder control because the muscles used during sex are the same used in doing 'Kegel exercises', the alternate contraction and relaxation of perineal muscles for treatment of urinary incontinence. Incidentally, ‘Kegel exercises’ are good for men too.

There's more, lots more, and here it is… immediately upon orgasm, endorphins are released and these are natural pain relievers. Endorphins remain active in the body for several hours after the climax. So the next time you feel a headache coming on, don't go towards your medicine chest but reach for your partner instead! No more, “I have a headache, darling.” Make it: “I have a headache, darling. I need you.”

The moral of the story, dear readers, is that sex has wellness benefits throughout all our different stages of life. It's an activity that's important both for our health and our happiness. Sex therapists say that sex acts on the principle of 'use it or lose it', so when it feels so good and its benefits are numerous, what are you waiting for? JUST DO IT!