What can you do to improve the world

Making a difference not only helps the person who got helped, but it can be really life changing for you too. I want to make this world a better place. I think it is important for us all to be kind, caring, and helpful. So I challenge you to go and make a difference in the world. It doesn’t matter if it’s as small as just smiling at someone, you still would be making a big difference in the world.

What You Can't Say - Paul Graham

Did we actually dress like that

Thank you for the thought provoking article, and I am impressed also by the comments it has evoked. There is such a broad diversity of responses to the main message of the article–that Jews must practice and publish the principle “Love your friend as yourself!” It occurs to me that the one common denominator in all the reactions, among the various respondents, whether written outright or implied, is a longing for the implementation of love in the world between all the various religions, nations, ethnicities. In the sense that this now world-famous principle of loving one another did certainly spring from the ideological tradition outlined in this article, the Jews have been a light to the nations. We all feel the sublime beauty contained in the principle. If only we could find a way to sit as equals and focus on how to manifest this state between us, what problems could not be solved? Who cares about dogmas, customs, rules, blame, etc.; it is the state of love between us that we need because it can make a place for everyone. We would do well to study the ancient texts of the ideological tradition to brought this concept to the world and discover the method of how to make it real among us in our ordinary lives. If there is a leader(s) in the science of how to make love real in the world, I would call such a messiah. One thing is certainly clear, it is only through unity that true wisdom and peace will be established, through somehow learning how to sit together and unite above all that divides us in a way that all feel heard and respected. Anyone who knows how to lead us to this, please step forward! If we Jews have the know-how in our tradition, let us unearth it and use it to heal our fractured world. It does feel as if we are “living on a powder keg and giving off sparks.”

SigmaEssays - Essay Writer | Write My Essay For Me …

THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD HATE JEWS. THEY CAN’T ALL BE WRONG!!!!
why dont jews do something to improve their image
What they do with the settlement business is simply wrong, its bullying in the nth degree.
Israel is seen as an abomination on the face of the earth.

02/10/2017 · How to Make the World a Better Place

A century later, the Japanese "bullet train" would be one of the technological wonders of the world, surpassing anything available in the United States. But, before this happened, a major cultural transformation had to take place among the Japanese people. A painful awareness of their own backwardness spread through Japan. Western nations in general and the United States in particular were held up as models to their children. Japanese textbooks urged imitation of Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin, even more so than Japanese heroes. Many laments about their own shortcomings by the Japanese of that era would today be called "self-hate." But there were no cultural relativists then to tell them that what they had achieved was just as good, in its own way, as what others had. Instead, the Japanese overcame their backwardness, through generations of dedicated work and study, rather than redefining it out of existence.
Both the British and the Japanese became renowned for their ability to absorb the ideas and the technology of others and to carry them forward to higher levels. So did the Scots. At one time, it was common for Scots to blindly imitate the English, even using an English plow that proved to be unsuitable for the soil of Scotland. Yet, once they had absorbed what the English had to offer, the Scots then surpassed the English in some fields, notably medicine and engineering.
History does not offer blueprints for the present but it does offer examples and insights. If nothing else, it can warn us against becoming mesmerized by the heady visions and soaring rhetoric of the moment.
One of the most seductive visions of our time is the vision of "fairness" in a sense that the word never had before. At one time we all understood what was meant by a "fair fight." It meant that both fighters fought by the same Marquis of Queensbury rules. It did not mean that both fighters had equal strength, skill, experience or other factors that would make them equally likely to win.
In today's conception of fairness, only when all have the same prospects of winning is the fight fair. It was not in The Nation or some other left-wing magazine, but in the neoconservative quarterly The Public Interest that we find opportunity equated with "the same chance to succeed" or "an equal shot at a good outcome"-- regardless of the influence of social, cultural, or family background.
This confusion between the fairness of rules and the equality of prospects is spreading across the political spectrum. Regardless of which of these two things might be considered preferable, we must first be very clear in our own minds that they are completely different, and often mutually incompatible, if we are to have any hope of a rational discussion of policy issues ranging from anti-trust to affirmative action.
To add to the confusion, when prospects are not the same for all, this is then blamed on "the system" or "the rules of the game," as Brookings Senior Fellow Isabel V. Sawhill does in the Spring issue of The Public Interest. Rules and standards are the creation of particular human beings but circumstances need not be. Ms. Sawhill herself includes "good genes" among the circumstances which affect economic inequalities, and we might add all sorts of other geographic, demographic, cultural and historical factors that were not created by today's "rules of the game" or by "the system" or by anyone currently on the scene.
It makes sense to blame human beings for biased rules and standards. But who is to be blamed for circumstances that are the results of a confluence of all sorts of conditions of the past and present, interacting in ways that are hard to specify and virtually impossible to disentangle? Unless we wish to start a class action suit against geography or against the cosmos or the Almighty, we need to stop the pretense that somebody is guilty whenever the world does not present a tableau that suits our desires or fits our theories.
This new kind of "fairness" has never existed anywhere at any time. The real world has always been astronomically remote from any such condition. Nor are the costs and risks of trying to achieve this cosmic fairness small.
Crime rates soared when our courts began to concern themselves with such things as the unhappy childhoods of violent criminals or the "root causes" of crime in general. Those who paid the highest price for these excursions into cosmic justice were not the judges or the theorists whose notions the judges reflected, but the victims of rape, murder and terrorization by hoodlums.
The same preoccupation with "fairness" in some cosmic sense has often turned our anti-trust laws into ways of penalizing those whose lower costs enable them to sell profitably to the public at lower prices than those of their competitors who are struggling to survive. Here again there is often a pretense of villainy enshrined in rhetoric about "predatory" pricing or "domination" or "control" of the market. And here again there are third parties who lose-- the consumers.
Equating an absence of cosmic justice with villainy has become common in employment law as well. Companies whose employees do not statistically mirror the ethnic composition of the local labor force can be found guilty of "discrimination," even if no one can find a single employee or job applicant who has been treated unfairly by having different rules or standards applied to his or her work or qualifications.
Do we as individuals and as a nation wish that others less fortunate had our blessings? We should and we do. But our blessings as a nation did not consist of having other nations give us foreign aid. The blessings of individuals who have achieved in life have seldom taken the form of having others accept mediocre performances from them or make excuses for their counterproductive behavior.
Almost as mushy as the quest for cosmic justice is the notion that the alternative is to "do nothing" about the gross disparities in prospects that are common around the world. There has never been a moment in the entire history of the United States when we have done nothing. There are innumerable things that still need to be done, but spreading confusion is not one of them.

Essay Writer Service | Custom Writing Help with all Papers

"In the past, those who no longer subscribed to thevalues of the dominant culture were held in check by the myththat the state possessed a monopoly on coercive force. This mythhas undergone continual erosion since the end of World War IIowing to the success of the strategy of guerrilla warfare, asfirst revealed to the French in Indochina, and later conclusivelydemonstrated in Algeria. Suffering as we do from what SenatorFulbright has called 'the arrogance of power,' we have beenextremely slow to learn the lesson in Vietnam, although we nowrealize that war is political and cannot be won by militarymeans. It is apparent that the myth of the monopoly of coerciveforce as it was first qualified in the civil rights conflict inthe South, then in our urban ghettos, next on the streets ofChicago, and now on our college campuses has lost its hold overthe minds of Americans. The technology of guerrilla warfare hasmade it evident that, while the state can win battles, it cannotwin wars of values. Coercive force which is centered in themodern state cannot be sustained in the face of the activeresistance of some 10 percent of the population unless the stateis willing to embark on a deliberate policy of genocide directedagainst the value dissident groups. The factor that sustained themyth of coercive force in the past was the acceptance of a commonvalue system. Whether the latter exists is questionable in themodern nation-state." [p.p. 59-60]

John Locke (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“We Jews are accused of being destroyers: whatever you put up, we tear down. It is true only in a relative sense. We are not iconoclasts deliberately: we are not enemies of your institutions simply because of the dislike between us. We are a homeless mass seeking satisfaction for our constructive instincts. And in your institutions we cannot find satisfaction; they are the play institutions of the splendid children of man – and not of man himself. We try to adapt your institutions to our needs, because while we live we must have expression; and trying to rebuild them for our needs, we unbuild them for yours.” –Maurice Samuel, “You Gentiles”