May 7, 2012: All the “birthers”, those people who don’t believe President Barrack was not born in the United States, are going to love this.

Not only was Barrack Obama not born in the United States, Joel Gilbert insists that Barrack Obama’s father was not Barrack Obama Sr., but rather Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA propagandist.

Frank Marshall Davis supposedly was a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) head member in Chicago and Hawaii, as well as a writer and poet. He was under FBI investigation or surveillance for 19 years, according to Gilbert. Davis was on the FBI’s ‘Security Index A’, which meant (Gilbert points out) he would be arrested in the event of national emergency.

Joel Gilbert is an Islamic history scholar, writer and director. After 2 years of research, interviews, newly unearthed footage and photos, and the writings of Frank Davis and President Obama, Gilbert published his finding in his book “Dreams of My Real Father”. According to Gilbert, the book “weaves together the proven facts with reasoned logic and speculation in an attempt to fill-in the obvious gaps in Obama’s history.” In addition to his book, Gilbert also produced a movie, with the same title. The movie chronicles Barack Obama’s life journey in socialism, from birth through his election to the Presidency (per the book and Gilbert’s research). It is Gilbert’s stance that Barrack Obama’s political agenda is framed by his real father Frank Marshall Davis.

Joel Gilbert, who is not a “birther”, concludes, “The ‘Birthers’ have been on a fool’s errand. To understand Obama’s plans for America, the question is not ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate?’ the question is ‘Who is the real father?’”

Click Here to watch movie trailer

I am neither a “birther” nor do I subscribe to Joel Gilbert’s research. I am just sharing.

Brought to you by: Another break from the poetry
Sources: YouTube, jgil14, obamasrealfather.com

         This brings me to the question of whether or not the British welfare state was a good or bad thing. As explained by Jose Harris’s article, it is difficult to reach a sensible conclusion on whether or not social welfare policies are a good or bad thing as the effects of these policies not only vary across countries, but also can be muddled by other economic and political factors. Instead we must look at the efficiency and overall benefits of this system, and the criticisms that are leveled at it.

The criticisms of social welfare in Britain are numerous, with many linking the existence of a welfare state with Britain’s decline as a world power after the Second World War and the economic difficulties that persisted over the following decades. In 1979, Thatcher’s Conservative government issued a statement claiming that ‘public expenditure is at the heart of Britain’s present economic difficulties’. It is true that having to keep these welfare policies afloat required substantial amounts of money, and that the government often had to make budget cuts in order to maintain their services. But to lay the blame of economic hardship entirely on social services ignores external economic factors such as the oil price shock in 1973-74. Paul Johnson notes that while in the 1960’s welfare was considered responsible for the growing economy, in the 70’s it was considered an economic burden that needed to be cut back. In times of economic hardship it seems that welfare is an easy scapegoat, with criticisms of it based on preconceived notions regarding laziness of the unemployed and other variables.

Critics of welfare also argue that it reduces the incentive for individuals to work hard by providing unemployment benefits, and that the government’s running of certain services is not as efficient as a private corporation would be in a competitive market. For each of these arguments, it is important to weigh the good against the bad. Granted, the NHS is plagued by long queues for minor ailments and many unemployed use the dole as an excuse not to work. Furthermore, many of the impoverished fall into a ‘Poverty Trap’ as a result of the social security and tax system’s combined efforts. At a certain income level, a slight increase will both raise a person’s tax liability and eliminate their entitlement to benefit, keeping them trapped in their income bracket. These issues plague the social services, and are good arguments for the British welfare state’s inefficiency. But I feel that these issues are outweighed by the benefits offered by Britain’s social services.

Despite the long waits, the formation of the NHS provided health services to those who previously had not been able to afford them. Whereas the previous barrier to healthcare had been high prices, the NHS replaced it with long queues. As a result, the same amount of medical treatment is administered, but to those with urgent ailments rather than deep pockets. Additionally, a 1956 committee tasked to investigate rising health costs in Britain concluded that the NHS was cheaper and more cost effective than alternatives, thus confirming the efficiency and usefulness of the NHS.

As for the argument that unemployment benefits breed idleness and hinder motivation, it is hard to provide concrete evidence supporting this. Thomas’ states in his article that a 1987 survey of econometric studies on unemployment shows a lack of strength in those claiming that welfare services promote laziness, and that the prior beliefs of the researchers color their conclusions. Additionally, between 1968 to 1983, the amount of workers who received benefit payments equal to or greater than 90 percent of their previous income had gone down from one-in-three to one-in-35. The lack of data confirming the laziness of unemployed workers on benefits indicates that while some anecdotal evidence may support the fact that some people abuse the system, it does not cripple the economy like is often argued.

         The overall goal of the welfare state in Britain laid out in the Beveridge Report was to provide a standard level of healthcare, housing, education, and standard of living for even the most destitute of citizens, and in that regard I feel it was successful. This is reflected in the fact that in 1987, only 3 percent of British citizens surveyed desired to reduce taxes and welfare benefits. The overall betterment to British society brought on by the welfare state overrides the negatives inherent in the system, and while I cannot conclude that the welfare state is strictly good or bad, I can conclude that the welfare state that emerged in Britain after the Second World War is an efficient use of the nation’s resources to provide substantial benefit to society. 

In Winston’s world, every scrap of power is reserved for the Party.  They choose for Winston and all others what they should do, how they should do it, and when.  It’s not entirely obvious that this is the case, because it looks like the people choose to follow the Party on their own.  There are no laws in Oceania.  It seems like people can do as they please.  The problem is that although the decisions often come from their own minds, their own minds are no longer actually their own.  Their minds have been corrupted by the Party.  They do what the Party wants them to do because they have been made to believe that is best.  Devices such as doublethink and crimestop lead them to believe fully in the lies of the Party.  Even when people like Winston believe they are rebelling, they are actually under close supervision, and their actions are easily stopped.

In fact, this attempted rebellion of Winston’s is what makes up the whole book, and it tells us a whole lot about power; at least what Orwell believes about it.  Winston begins with thoughtcrime.  In his mind, he realizes that things aren’t right, and he wants to change that.  When begins trying to undermine the Party, he does so simply by doing things he knows they wouldn’t approve of.  He buys a diary and an old fashioned pen to write in it with.  As his ‘rebellion’ grows, his biggest crime would likely be his renting an unmonitored room for the purpose of having a love affair.  Winston isn’t even sure if the Party will ever know what he is doing, but he believes that simple disobedience is the only way to make a statement.  Although there are no actual laws, there are ways of knowing what the Party won’t like.  It seems that the number one indicator that something is probably wrong is if it has any connections with the past.  The junk shop was very old fashioned, and that’s where both Winston’s first, and his largest acts of rebellion took place, as well as many others, including his purchase of the paperweight.

Winston isn’t stupid.  His actions are not exactly a bad way to rebel, but he simply does not have enough knowledge to know how unlikely his plan was to work.  He didn’t know that Mr. Charrington was a member of the thought police.  He didn’t know there was a hidden telescreen in his secret room.  He didn’t know that O’Brien and the rumored Brotherhood were both fake.  Most importantly, he didn’t know that the Ministry of Love would torture him to any necessary extent in order to alter his sense of logic.  Winston’s rebellion didn’t work.  Despite its extreme subtlety (so subtle, in fact, that he admits it might never make any real difference), it was still discovered and suppressed.  It failed because the Party had already acquired enough power such that it could stop any attempt to remove that power.

This is what Orwell really has to say in 1984.  He knows that power is dangerous.  He knows that those who are given power can easily become corrupted by it.  If left unchecked, this corruption will lead them to take more power, and this extra power will lead to more corruption.  It is an endless cycle, which can easily get out of hand.  All it takes for this cycle to continue endlessly is for those involved to admit that what they want is power, simply for the sake of power.  At a certain point, there is no turning back.  Through a possibly nonexistent, yet immortal leader, the collection of power is able to grow eternally, because it had reached a point where nothing can compete with it.  Even when people like Winston rebel, the Party has enough power to literally change his very mind.  Not only will he obey the Party, but he will want to obey the Party, because he loves Big Brother.

When a company that builds its success on the American capitalist system and employs thousands of American to produce its product removes its production system into another society, the laid off workers are not easily absorbed into the local jobs. There are not nearly enough extra jobs to go around. These laid off workers now add to the number of people dependent on the welfare system, taking taxes instead of contributing. There is more draw on the welfare system and less people paying taxes to fund it. The elite few that run these corporations get richer and use their money to influence things to their advantage that should be for the better good of America. They promise some of their money (made by using Mexicans or Indians instead of Americans as workers) to politicians in exchange for passing laws advantageous to the business. American society is all about improving the economy and contributing to it, all except for the people that really benefit from it, the ultra-rich who own and run these companies. Companies that become successful on the capitalist system in America should be required to keep their production within the capitalist system, and not be allowed to take advantage of other types of economic societies in a capitalist manner. This would ensure our capitalist society continues to work as a successful system of equality, keeps the American Dream a reality, and does not weaken and lose its meaning as is happening now.

The America Dream of being able to succeed and become rich no matter where you come from, if you work hard at it, is becoming more a dream and less a reality. The middle-class IS disappearing, that is apparent. Mobility is stagnant in this country which prides itself on its lack of social class and attainable mobility (Scott and Leonhardt). Rising standards of living and extensive credit lines have blurred the appearance of the social class lines, but behind the appearance is the reality that most of it is bought on credit by the lower class. It will stay with them their entire lives, crippling their financial stability while they try to pay off their debts and making it even harder to get ahead financially, especially if they lose their job. Meanwhile the ultra rich buy these same things outright and do not need to worry about owing anybody anything. Money they earn is theirs alone and free to use it to become even richer.

This includes their education and their children’s education, which they can pay for outright and it will not follow them the rest of their lives. They can also pay for the best education in the most elite schools, landing them the top choice for the dwindling jobs available to college educated people. Lower class people set on the American Dream and willing to take the risk of buying loans to pay for their college will usually have those loans follow them a long way after they are out of school, even when they find a job to be able to begin paying it back. The off-shoring tactics of many American companies has made getting a college education even riskier for the lower classes. They offshore their jobs which require an education, removing the chance at a middle-class or upper middle-class move for a lower class American who has worked hard to be able to fill that job. Between 2000-2003 it was found that college educated people had the toughest time finding a job because the companies could find a cheaper alternative in another country or replace them in some other way, such as with technology (Cooper). This leaves many college educated people scrambling for low class jobs in hopes to keep up with their college loan payments, while getting placed in the welfare system to make ends meet. They receive no reward for any of the effort they went to, to try to attain the American Dream.

Big businesses that have built themselves up on the American system are now dumping the system, working in every manner to keep themselves getting richer and everyone else poor. They outsource their available jobs and influence politicians with their money, asking for tax cuts while they dump Americans into the welfare system, creating an overburdened system with less taxes coming in to fund it. They claim that outsourcing is good for the economy because it allows their business to create higher paying, cutting-edge jobs for Americans (Cooper). Where are these jobs they talk about? They are being transferred to other countries too. “Today, many good-paying manufacturing jobs are being sent overseas, as are many of the high-tech jobs that were supposed to replace them.” (Greenblatt) What about the people that went to college to be able to work for them and are now making minimum wage and trying to pay off their tuition debt? What about all the tax money the government is having to spend on the welfare system to support these replaced workers? What about the huge bonuses the company executives are now getting while they take advantage of enormous tax subsidies and turn their middle-class workers into people on welfare?( McIntyre)

People who use our capitalist society to succeed, and then take their capitalist ventures into non-capitalist societies need to be reined in. They should not be allowed to cheat the system that helped them succeed. The government should recognize that the money they receive from big businesses is not enough to shore up the weaknesses in our society caused by from big business taking its production into other societies, and should pass laws regarding companies that start in America on our system, and how they need to stay in our system or it will weaken as it is beginning to do. The American Dream and right of a business person in our society is to make money, but it should not extend to taking advantage of other types of economic societies. Social responsibility is not enough for these company executives who are only intent on getting more for themselves. Their tax cuts that they wrangled out of the government also need to be rescinded. As they are cutting workers and contributing to the pull on welfare while they support people in other countries, they should have to pay their extra share of taxes. William Domhoff reports on skyrocketing wealth for the ultra-rich while the lower class enjoy a decline in wealth, “It’s due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which were down to a mere 15% in 2007 thanks to the tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress in 2003. Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it’s not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few. Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 7% during the Clinton presidency and 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay. It’s also worth noting that only the first $105,000 of a person’s income is taxed for Social Security purposes, so it would clearly be a boon to the Social Security Fund if everyone — not just those making less than $105,000 — paid the Social Security tax on their full incomes.” The tax cuts proposed to help businesses make more jobs has obviously so far only made more loopholes to cut jobs and keep more money. This needs to be rectified along with making sure they keep their production in America, instead of outsourcing to contribute to other economies and take away from ours.

These tax cuts for them decrease funding for the welfare system, the safety net put in place to help out those with no other options. The safety net by definition should give those without other options the opportunity to create other options for themselves, and support them while they do it. Specifically, it should provide education to find other jobs or produce new innovations. It should also provide healthcare that won’t cripple them financially for the rest of their lives. Replacing the taxes on the rich to create better welfare programs along with requiring American corporations to employ American workers would put the system back on the right track. The rich man might not be able to get instantly exorbitantly richer, but it would keep the lower-class out of poverty and possibly give them an opportunity to improve their own status and provide for their family a good education and hope for success. Bringing back more jobs and taking back the taxes on the ultra-rich would shorten the divide between the classes.

Sources:

Moore, Michael. “Roger & Me”. 20 December 1989. Video.

Domhoff, William G. “Wealth, Income, and Power” Who Rules America?

September 2005 (updated July 2010).Web. August 13 2010.

Cooper, Mary H. “Income Inequality”. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. April 17, 1998 • Volume 8, Issue 15. Web. August 14 2010.

Cooper, Mary H. “Exporting Jobs”. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. February 20, 2004 • Volume 14, Issue 7. Web. August 14 2010.

Greenblatt, Alan. “Upward Mobility”. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. April 29, 2005 • Volume 15, Issue 16. Web. August 15 2010.

“Layoffs and CEO Compensation” Daily Headlines. University of Arkansas. October 03 2006. Web. August 17 2010.

McIntyre, Bob “Tax Subsidies Reward Job Cutters” Citizens for Tax Justice. September 19 1996. Web. August 17 2010.

Scott and Leonhardt. “Class Matters: Shadowy Lines That Still Divide”. New York Times. May 15 2005. Web. August 10 2010.

Professional football is copiously expensive, and it’s just one of the many major league sports in the United States. Here’s the thing: Major League Sports are way overrated.

Lots of folks complain about the rich, referring to them as the one percent. In all honesty, the rich are often where they are because they worked harder, so it’s not right that we blame them for our problems or tax them more. It would make much more sense to boycott professional sports. Why should a few jocks get paid 90 million dollars a year to play? They shouldn’t.

So, before you start complaining about how you’ve been wronged by those who actually work hard, think about all the money you’ve spent on sports this year.

According to the dictionary on line at http://www.dictionary.com   Socialism means that the government seizes control of all things belonging to every community within its control then doling it out as they see fit. This includes but is not limited to money, land, health care, transportation, etc. It is a Marxist theory that follows Capitalism before transforming into communism.

Totalitarianism is not too different from Socialism except that this control is by a governing body that is not necessarily the government proper, but an individual or an institution of some sort. They dictate to you everything you will do or suffer the consequences.

Both of these are communistic in their dealings of the people that actually do the work. Laws are dictated in a fashion that says you have no rights. You cannot say anything against something you feel strongly about. You are nothing but a slave in any of these scenarios. If you do not comply you become an enemy and are disposed of; period. No trials. No choices.

In every one of these scenarios tried by many other nations in the past production has gone down drastically. Also just like with many things today quality disappears in favor of quantity. You will no longer be able to choose what you will do for a living they will tell you what you will do and you cannot refuse. Depression becomes a mainstay of the population under any and all of these scenarios. Fear becomes a way of life because if for any reason you are targeted you will be history and perhaps your entire family with you. You will have no individual identity. Because of these factors you become afraid to communicate with anybody for any reason outside of work and even then the only communication is about the subject matter. Everybody becomes the enemy of each other.

Sound familiar? That is exactly what the government is doing to the United States right now and have been for some time now utilizing the media as their propaganda machines.

Republic is a place be it state or nation where the highest power resides with the citizens whom decides by vote what will be passed or acted upon. They choose their representation by vote. They are considered a Commonwealth. A Republic is a place where the leaders or governing body is neither monarch or obtained by birthright. These people live freely to choose for themselves in every respect what is right for themselves.

Now after knowing these differences where would you rather live? Personally I choose the Republic of the United States of America. Now let’s look at what is happening to that Republic. Anything that are not the basic laws of common sense like you should already know that murder is against the laws, stealing is against the laws and anything to deliberately cause physical damage to another or the property of another is against the laws. Everybody retains the right to protect themselves when threatened and yes in some cases this includes with a weapon if you are in fact on your own property. No that does not give anybody the right to take their weapon and go after somebody, that is what the lawman is for and the courts to decide on whether the person or people are guilty. Anytime somebody issues orders telling you that you must do this or that is an infringement upon your rights if it is not a normal law.

Now that we have that cleared up let us take a really close look at the shenanigans the government has been pulling over on the people of the USA for generations now.  Welfare instead of jobs to live on and when those that were able to break away from the system and begin to make it on their own did; they were hunted down and abused by the system they left and stripped of everything by being labeled by crimes not committed by them. Children from descent law abiding homes that were not in the system removed on trumped up charges in order to subsidize the system backed by the government and are now trying to enforce in the United States of America. They have accomplished all of this by utilizing the media with their propaganda and “larger than life” report tactics. Tactics, I might add; that deliberately incites unrest, division and fear among the people of the USA.

Oh yes Divide and Conquer has worked for so many years and everybody in the USA said it would never happen here. Guess what folks it has happened here and right under your very noses. Because of the unwillingness of so many, so called good United States of American Citizens for whom this government was supposed to operate under; has taken a back seat to watch the show we now have Terrorists living right here in the United States with their hate speeches also inciting unrest within our very own school institutions.

Why do we have so much killing in our country all of a sudden; look at what we the people have allowed to happen in our country and I believe you can answer that question for yourself.

Prior to his election, Obama ran on his words.  He ran on many promises which is really politics as usual, only he rallied those round the flag with promise of change, not loose change but hard core change of Washington.  Many believed him, trusted him on his word, only was ne a liar, nope, was he going to change Washington, yep.  You see, the folks hear one thing as Obama did another.  When Obama promised change, people understood that to be making politicians do the right things, but that was just a key word.  What Obama didn’t say, but did, was create so many new regulations, literally placing a choke hold on American business.  Obama said change, he just never said what kind.  His change was to transform America to a socialist nation, enter Obama Care, which is Hillary Care, which is Romney Care, and with that said, who cares. 

Nancy Pelosi was in charge in passing through bills so fast, no one had time to read them.  One must ask why, wouldn’t one?  You see folks, to understand why, you must first learn the leftest reasoning.  A long, long, time ago, the French, a socialist far left country decided they were like a club.  No member can say anything bad about another without fail.  When the right started to ask questions, the left rose up and started their rhetoric.  Since the right was the only ones questioning authority, the left started calling them racists, and so on and so forth.  You never heard a peep out of them when Obama placed a moratorium on drilling for oil, which in turn was payback to his green energy friends who helped get him elected.  It is his words that are so eloquent.He is running around the country on the tax payers money telling everyone that it is not his fault that oil is high.  Now, oil is being pumped more then it has been in the past eight years.  Ok, once again, it is what he doesn’t say.  He never will tell you that it takes six years for all of that paperwork, the red tape, to boost oil production, and yet, he blames Bush for his troubles.  He calls the peaceful tea party movement folks radical right winged racists, but the wall streeters a nice little group.  So, the smoke is really blowing smoke up the buttocks of anyone who will follow, and they buy into every moment.

I question everyone in a higher position.  I don’t listed to their words, but I do watch their actions. The Obama action was to force religion to go against its beliefs.  When their was an uproar in the religious community, he started to change his words, making it a female issue, not a religious one, and yet, it was still a religious one.  You see, words can be changed to appear wonderfully accommodating, but it is the actions that stay the same.  He walks out and tels America, “We got him.”  When Osama Bin Laden was captured.  The fact is, Obama never made a decision, and Department of Defense
Secretary Leon E. Panetta made the call that day the Navy Seals team six killed Bin Laden.  Another fact is that the Bush surveillance, had already found Bin Laden three years before but were making sure the facts were right before taking actions.

Now it is almost four years into his time in office and yet, his words are the same, but everyone can see all his actions which was spending, spending, and more spending.  He has no real record to defend another four year term, but he knows, his leftist media,will still be his shills, and those who are not so political savvy, will follow him for one reason or another, just not for his politics.  He will campaign on how evil the right is, not how great he was.  He will create the smoke which got him the office of the Presidency in the first place.  His smoke will disguise any bad dealings with his office.  He already hides Pelosi, Reade blocks any bills that come over to the Senate floor, so the right wont have any ammo against the left for passing their bad policies. He only recently let Joe Biden speak again after months of quiet. Can we see through the smoke, which will be those same words written by others, to make Obama seem smart and not a, green spending idiot who would rather see science work on getting algae running our machines instead of oil?  I hope I was able to show you what the smoke was, of yes, I forgot about the mirrors, well that one is easy, The mirrors are another four years of bad political moves, another four years of showing the world that America is weak, another four years of questionable politics, and yes, another four years of blaming Bush.   As for hope and change, America can only hope they have change left over when Obama is finished We cannot afford another four years of higher gas prices, homes lost in foreclosure, and watching Obama take more vacation time then anyone on the planet, travel the world on our dime, and turning our great nation into the land it was before 1776.

All I am asking is for fairness.  All I ask is, before you let someone turn your life upside down, ask questions, never take anyone words as their word.  Make sure you understand what is happening just don’t follow blindly. Like the Obama care bill, it may be too late when you find out what happened to you.  Bless you all, and God Bless America.

      Karl Marx lived at a time when the conditions of the working class were hideously inhumane.  Not only were adults exploited, but children were as well.  Because of their small size, young children were made to work in mines and other industries. 

     Marx befriended Frederick Engles, who wrote The Condition of the Working Classes in England.  Together they paired up to write…The Communist Manifesto.

So what exactly did Marx believe?  

     The way Marx saw it, there was a natural course that was taking place.  He saw it like this…

     First comes Feudalism, then Capitalism and finally Socialism.  This (according to Marx) is the natural course the “material forces of production” takes.  Of course, different countries haven’t followed this outline as laid out by Marx, and we have witnessed their demise (e.g. Russia).

     It is interesting to note the course the United States of America is on.  Only time will tell if Marx had it right.

“pas d’ennemis sur la gauche”, simply means, “No enemies on the left”.  This stems back to old France where the left was king.  This is why the media, the news, and every lefty in the world will never say anything bad about anyone who is a leftist.  Next time you wonder why the lefty media, the lefty Hollywood hoods, and anyone else who has a voice who is in fact a leftist, says nothing bad about anyone else who is left.  They will find ways to blame the right wingers even if they had nothing to do with the situation.  The left stick together no matter how bad the crime is, the plan is, or the ideals are.

The way the left sticks together frustrates the right to no end.   Oil prices will rise to a whopping five dollars by mid summer.  The left will say, “Well, it is because the right has bad idea’s, and yet the right kept gasoline prices low by drilling here in a nation that can be the worlds highest oil producer.  Its all in these memo’s.  This is why, you see the media all sticking to the same story.  The regular Joe’s, the public, really has nothing to do with it, even if they are extreme leftists.  The media, the politicians, and anyone with a voice all say the same themes, they are all on board the socialist train.  So my friends, and foes, pas d’ennemis sur la gauche is nothing new, and we are on to those who are in that group.  The next time you see the sitting President, doing something so outrageous, and wonder why everyone loves the idea, its because of those memo’s which is directly stemmed by pas d’ennemis sur la gauche, because they all stick to the story no matter how foul it is.

.

Cause

One of the interesting aspects of such a classification is that it can easily found in any social challenge. In the education sector the main intention is to maximize the productivity of children so that they can contribute to the welfare of the society. One of the main causes for poor productivity can be stress from parents and teacher.

Issue

This poor productivity may lead to excessive punishment, as elders may perceive corporal punishment as good solution for this problem. This challenge of improving poor productivity can itself become the cause of some different issue in like discriminating students as dull or scholar by assessing their performance using some conventional academic techniques. The techniques can be misleading as many great people might have failed those techniques.

Effect

Such activities can have disastrous effect on the development of the children. Such changes may not be immediately evident but may start becoming visible over a period of time, as everyone change with time but kind of change do matter to the individual  as well as to the society. They can find relief in stress and feeling of dominance by getting involved in unstable affair, violence, crime, etc.

Solution

Among the various academicians, social scientists are most proactive in such scenarios. The effect of any decision on the abovementioned challenge will vary. A solution like creation of certain legal punishment for people doing any criminal activity, social awareness about unstable relationships or involving some scientific researchers to come with the technology to prevent crime or identify the technical source of instability in relationship. Such measures/solutions may not be very effective. They are not addressing the root cause of problem, the feeling of inferiority/uselessness in the person and background research on the emergence of such feeling may be effective in developing solutions for the crimes which are encountered. In that case, activities which help them to realize that they are also important, people do need them and it can be problem for people if they say no.

Such cause to solution relationship can be designed for several sectors in the social domain. In case of human psychology, it is has been quite fascinating how different people react to same scenario. Everyone wants to know about others in order to determine ones approach towards other. Since, certain reactions can get you the tag of good person. This domain has been studied to such an extent that some group specific attributes have been identified. Groups can be any community which can be identified by its geography, caste, culture, creed, religion, language, etc. Certain interesting tools have also been generated which help the person to understand others on the basis of some key attributes and based on that they create various perceptions like inclination towards unsocial (fight, unsupportive and discrimination) or social (philanthropy, non-violence and supportive) feelings. Poor perception accuracy is possible as people are good in hiding their true intentions, in such cases, more bad then good happens to people as they can feel cheated and discriminated, which can affect their development.  

P.S.: Can you create cause to solution relationship in the human psychology paragraph?

<<<<<