The Character of An Intellectual, Mr. C. Wright Mills

The ability to be inspired is one of the grandest attributes that a person can possess. C. Wright Mills had precisely that quality. And his works provide a plethora of evidence, and serve as respectable illustrations of how he was influenced. Noticeable echoes of Marxism, Weberian Sociology, and the Pragmatism of George Heber Mead live within the pages of his writings.

Consequently and fortunately, my reading over biographical books and articles of Mills has increased my awareness of my own capacity to be inspired. Keeping the mind vacant to the brilliance of others is essential to the luminosity of one's own mind, I would opine.

Who is C. Wright Mills?
Charles Wright Mills greeted Waco Texas on the 28th day of August, in 1916. He would mature to be a notable sociologist, professor, and writer.

As young Mills matured, he experienced the severing of several relationships he had formed over the years, due to the frequent movement of his family. This subjected the young scholar to a good deal of seclusion.

Mills continued his education to a plausible extent; moving on after high school (Dallas Technical High School) to embark on collegiate scholarship at Texas  A&M University. However, his tenure at A&M  ended prematurely; instead, he graduated in 1939 from the University of Texas at Austin.
An undergraduate degree didn't suffice for the eager Mills. He received a doctorate in sociology in 1941, through the academic programme of the University of Wisconsin--Madison.

An Amourous man
While his neurons fired away, as they should with any man of thought, his heart proved to be just as fiery. In fact, it was indeed his studies that led him to meet the woman that he would marry.
Dorothy Helen Smith too studied at Texas--a place that seemingly taught the two to fall in love with one another. The duo married; and Mrs. Wright swiftly began to demontrate her suport for Mills.

She is responsible for an appreciable amount of work to financially support herelf and her newly-wed mate, as he mentally muscled through the demands of graduate studies. Further, she lent a typist's and editor's hand to Mills' jottings. For him such assistance would prove professionally helpful--very helpful.

For whatever reason, Charles Mills didn't find himself sated by having experienced marriage only once thus far, he went on, later in life to propose marriage to two other women--both accepted--but I needn't elaborate on the other two lovely ladies. If you wish to read further into romance, 50 Shades of Grey may be able to provide your poison. Or, you could wait until my pen feels naughty. I'm dying of digression here.

Rolling Stone
Just as was commonplace during his more tender youth, Mills moved. It could be quite the struggle for one to harness their growing potential while sedentary; being idle was something that he would never master.

Formal education credentials are considered commendable, widely. But to turn training into honest labour augments credibility. With this new move--to the University of Maryland--Mills begins his journey to establish credibilty.

He was made professor of sociology, but he only held the position for four years. I suppose his ambitiousness overcame him.From there Mills left to accept a position where he would be a research associate at Columbia Univesity's Bureau of Applied Social Reasearch. He excelled on to be deemed assistant professor of the sociology department.

Confidence and Independence
Mills was very much so the autonomous man. In my opinion, one of the most outstanding things Mills ever articulated is that he is a "Wobbly". His words were: " It's a kind of spiritual condition...Wobbly is not only a man who takes orders from himself. He's also a man who's often in the situation where there are no regulations to fall back upon, which he hasn't made up himself. He doesn't like bosses, capitalistic or communistic, they're all the same to him. He wants to be, and wants everyone else to be, his own boss at all times under all conditions and for any purposes they may want to follow up. This kind of freedom is Wobbly freedom."

I welcome such freedom, and can admire the person who could fancy such an idea. I interpret this as having healthy understanding of one's self and one's society. It requires the confidence to have and unshakeable belief in one's self, with the courage and love to believe in others.

His Influences:

Marxism
While Mills never claimed himself to be Marxist, he openly expressed his appreciation for Marx, saying: "I believe Karl Marx one of the most astute students of society modern civilisation  has ever produced; his work is now essential equipment of any adequately trained social scientist as well as any properly educated person."

He didnt mean that Marxism was the definitive rule of sociology, clearly; he was merely demonstrating Marxism's importance. He respected the tradition of the science of it.

The premise for Marxism is a materialist understanding of how society develops. Born in the near centre of the 19th century, it combines an organised interpretation of history, philosophical anthropology and socio-political programmes.

Weberian Sociology
Max Weber was a bit more of an influence on Mill's sociology. The German born sociologist has a system that is composed of the kinship of institutional orders. Mills understanding of Weber's structure is that it's capitalistic. Well, considerable volumes of his work were indeed of capitalism. Regarding the matter, Weber contended that strong capitalism requires specific institutions, economic and non-economic.Though he warned that capitalism will crumble if something else isn't provided--insert it if you know it.

The Pragmatism of George Heber Mead
He wasn't solely a sociologist. Mead boasted the title of American philosopher and psychologist. Philosophers who lean towards pragmatism, direct attention to the development of the self and the objectivity of the world within social parameters that "the individual mind can exist only in relation to other minds with shared meanings."(Mead)

Indigenous to the United States, Pragmatism began circa 1870. The central point of Pragmatism involves analysing conjectures, or more precisely, hypotheses by tracing their "practical consequences." It is the pursuit of a predicted truth--a truth that must be substantiated by way of practical models and means.

George Mead was instrumental to the work of Mills, who explicitly bows to Mead in his book Character and Social Structure. He expressed how he'd like to marry the pholosophical schools of thought of Mead and  Freud, so that he could " arrive at a convergence of the social and psychological bases of personality."

Died as a Great
Mills went on to have a number of works published. Before leaving this life peacefully, in a gentle sleep, he applied the final touchces to the Marxist. His tenacity, passion, and assertiveness is remembered through his journals, books and other contributions to social science. He was known to stand firmly for what he knew to be true, a quality we all could benefit from utilising. Today, his words stand firmly on the pages that many sociologists and other intellectuals look to in respect.

-sreehc, Derrick Antonio

Short(lexically) and sweet(southern iced tea) social deformity

Silence and humility minimizes mystery. 

We are all essentially the same. We are nobodies; but collectively, we are as we should be: perfect, dynamic, strong. Independently, we are a fallible people. It's part of the design. The atoms which compose us aren't human alone. It is requisite that there be enough of them, and other factors for them to create the imperfect flesh that we see as human. 

If we were to visualise a single person as being a single atom, it should be easy to put in perspective the importance of the billions of people that populate the world today. (Deem me crazy if you like. I assure you that's not a unique opinion.) 

It seems as if there exist some natural  intent of humanly oneness. The separation of these atoms facilitates the separation of life, as we know it--or do we know it? 

But this understanding is contrary to  what we want. I shouldn't be elaborating on the cohesion of humanity. We don't want to converse about atoms, we much rather fancy how we could atomically bomb--socially. And we appear to be somewhat at work at it. 

As an individual, I can admit that I like a good fight. Sometimes I might prefer to watch a bout from the comfort of my couch (or bar stool. Cheers to that), and at seldom times I like to go a few rounds myself.  

However, my individual and minute quarrelsome nature isn't our problem. We don't spar as a whole--we war, and there are no handshakes involved. Well we handshake politically, but its bullshit. 

As I've asserted, we are nonetheless the same in our nothingness. But such a humble idea isn't soluble in some of the acidic ideals many of have in our heads. We find it necessary to sequester ourselves. We form perforations where none are needed--and those who aren't malleable are targets. 

 The nonverbal communication of the "in crowd" is almost deafening; and if we were to tune down the volume, what we would hear is infantile mockery.  We cringe at the non-elitist, the independents--independence--one of our ever so esteemed tenets of America. 

One of the most popular(and loosely used) adages is "ignorance is bliss". Most of us are ignorant of faults of our own. Some of us disguise our transgressions by illuminating the troubles of others. I find bliss in being thought ignorant; it's those times especially that people unintentionally shower me with information, saving me effort. 

What if ordinary  nobodies were required to have a Juris Doctor degree before they could judge ordinary nobodies? With proper illumination, dirt is evident on anyone, but that's not law or anything. 

-sreehc, DeRrIcK aNtOnIo

I Think I Can--nabis

We live in a chemical world, in this pharmaceutical day and age. Many of these chemicals can have deleterious effects on health, while others are as harmless as some of the endogenous chemicals of the body, such as our endorphins.

The pharmaceutical that I have chosen to expound upon requires no formal introduction, as it is ubiquitously known. Whether we like it or not, cannabis is a household name. Or perhaps one might be a mite more familiar with its less Latin  name --WEED.

What's my position? I'd delight in telling you. I hope to, through the presentation of objective information, and humoured opinion, demonstrate that Mary Jane isn't as evil as people mention her to be. I am not implying her innocence, as much as I'm alluding to the undue derision she faces. Should one be qualified to judge? Well, I'd venture to say hell yes (no pun intended on the devil's lettuce). If someone  wishes to offer opinions opposing its medicinal and/or recreational use, I'd at least like for them to have invested time in research. I will concede in advance, that requiring someone to have had used marijuana before they are qualified to opine against it, hints at bias. Therefore, research and conversation shall suffice. Telling someone not to do something because it is bad, is a very impoverished reason not to do something. Some things necessitate a bit of elaboration.

What is marijuana?
As mentioned in past lines, marijuana is known in the botanical world as Cannabis Sativa and Cannabis Indica. It is possible to hybridize the said two to produce a multitude of other strains. These two seem to be the main bunch.

Sativas are known to grow much taller than Indicas, reaching just over four metres. Indicas are the denser, bushier of the two, and reportedly cause a different euphoria than Sativa. This is due to it having different concentrations of the cannabinoid CBD --one of the chemicals that will be an instrumental part of the coming lines.

What causes the high (euphoria)?
Behind the scenes and smoke screen, there are a few things known as cannabinoids that induce that psychoactive effects on the brain. THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is likely the most familiar cannabinoid to persons who use marijuana, and to those who enforce legislation against it; THC is the main psychoactive cannabinoid in the plant. When THC is derived from plants, its deemed a phytocannabinoid, and is to be called delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. I mention this because there's a form of cannabinoid in another well known place -- the human body. They are called endocannabinoids, produced endogenously by us and other animals (yes you are an animal, get over it, Go Darwin!).

Another cannabinoid contributing psychoactively is Cannabidiol, often writen shorthandedly as CBD. It comes second in being the most plentiful cannabinoid in marijuana. CBD has slightly different influences, in that it is psychoactive, but not quite intoxicating. Yes that is possible. When seeking marijuana for medicinal use, such a characteristic might be attractive to persons looking to mitigate their medical woes without experiencing a high. Speaking of medicinal use, cannabis offers a sincere promise, in respect to it being a treatment for an array of ailments.

Medical Application:
Researchers at the University of California Center for Medicinal cannabis Research have been diligently at work studying the notorious plant. And as you may suspect, or perhaps not, the "buzz" is actually true--that cannabis indeed proves itself in the field of medicine.

Regarding pain, cannabis demonstrated not only that it can quell pain, but also augment the effects of prescription medication. A doctor at UC San Francsco (Dr. Donald Abrams), and one from UC San Diego (Dr. Ronald Ellis), found this to be true when marijuna was administered to HIV and AIDS patients. The subjects reported a significant decrease in pain--pain that could be brought about by the simplest of stimuli.

In another blog post, I spoke of a handful of unfortunate truths tethered to cancer. I then attempted to elevate spirits by bringing the news of the latest scientific research aimed at eradicating cancer, to the eye of the everyday person--my two readers. Stem cells were the good news then.

As of now, it is cannabinoids. In numerous studies, they showed remarkable  ability to restore appetite in terminal cancer battling patients. One particular study, led by Dr. Wendy Wismer of the University of Alberta, provides an appreciable illustration. In her study, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, and a placebo was administered to a 21 person group. Intuitive to many of us, the ones who were treated with THC experiened a heightened appreciation of food. For those who lack the desire to nourish themselves,  due to cancer, or the powerful medicines used to treat it, this is a wonderful thing.

Scientists have discovered that CBD alone has tons of rewarding properties and uses, remember--we cannot point the scolding finger at its use as an excuse to get stoned; CBD differs from THC in a notable way. It's much less intoxicating. Some even use such language as "non intoxicating".

Cannabidiol has been found to have anxiolytic (anti-anxiety), anti-inflammatory, anti-pain, and anti-spasm properties. Its anti-spasm properties has earned the attention of many doctors who believe that it could treat epilepsy. It does. However, the government doesn't see it this way.

What the GOVERNMENT say:
It is as simple as this: the government has their arms folded like a tot coming down off a temper tantrum. Cannabis is illegal in almost every state in the U.S. Whitehouse.gov maintains that marijuana is a harmful, schedule 1 drug. By definition, a schedule 1 drug has high potential for abuse, and hasn't any currently accepted medical use in the united states. Well, most politicians aren't scientists, science advocates, or doctors. It isn't requisite that they are. But it would be appreciated if some of them didn't keep their minds so debilitatingly closed.

The website goes on to explain how heavy, "chronic" use of the drug can be problematic, with regards to health. From what orifice are they speaking? Researchers and decent persons of sound minds, aren't endorsing massive, "chronic" use. If you understand that your bottle of Centrum helps to promote good health, and you ingst the entire contents of the bottle, then you are an imbecile.

I urge the government, on a federal level, to go a step farther than legislation. They should take huge leaps in educating themselves in the groundbreaking advancements in science, and find the key that they seemed to have misplaced, the moment they closed their minds. Maybe then they could be more qualified in disseminating mandates, and general information to the American people. We need to know more than what we are forbidden to do.

Now, guess who is a perfect candidate for a urinalysis now--this guy. Oh well, I've gone to the loo in court before. And I did it pro se.
-sreehc, Derrick Antonio

Nasty Cancer and The Grand Potential of Stem Cells

It is with ease that I revere our foot soldiers who have been summoned to battle. I especially lend unwavering empathy to those combating an inextinguishable, mental, and emotional flame that painfully burns within their memory, complicating life. 

However, with my rather peculiar way of thinking, the above thought led me to think of another very real war, one that has existed for as long a time as we have--this is none other than the gruesome war on disease. 

We often neglect to adequately appreciate the scientists, physicians, and persons whose bodies are reluctantly the host to these dreadful illnesses.  They are inarguably the most courageous of all. 

Herein, I will shed light light on the darkness of cancer. And speak to the promising research of stem cells, which may be microscopic, but are nonetheless huge due their potential to revolutionize medicine. 

MORTALITY: 

This year alone, more than 1.4 million people have battled cancer to their last literal breath. Too add to the gloom, the World Health Organization has projected that an estimated 9 million people will perish in 2015, due to this pathological beast. 

HOW DOES CANCER PROVE LETHAL?:

Malignant growth not only compromises the health of the particular organ that it parasitises, but it could metastasize (spread to other areas of the body). Just as we require sustenance to power our biological machines, each cell of our body independently has the same taste for nutrients. And any amount of nutrients requisite to facilitate angiogenesis is utterly gluttonous; these antagonistic cells deserve to feed on no one. 

Because cancer cells cannot grow very large alone, they rob nearby blood vessels. They do so by delivering signals that cause the neighbouring vessels to sprout toward them, thereby establishing a direct source of nourishment. 

If said cells were on a vital organ, it should be conceivable how such a stealing of its nutrients could jeopardize the organ. Moreover, as cancerous tumours grow,  they could physically obstruct necessary processes by their size alone. Visualise cancer in the digestive system, for example. If it is largely the function of the digestive system to allow the body to absorb nutrients, and there's a malignant growth in part of the intestine, it's quite clear how this could be life threatening. If one cannot properly absorb sustenance, then life would be difficult to sustain. 

MODERN SCIENCE:

While I am a huge advocate of antioxidants and healthy eating habits (irrespective of my fat kid snacks), which are too proven to lessen to a degree, one's chances at cancer--via round house kicking free radicals--recent research have taken it medically to another level. This is partly through the study of stem cells. 

Firstly, what are these stem cell thingamajigs I speak of? Stem cells are cells (duh) that haven't specialised to form a specific tissue of the body--differentiated cells. 

There are a few select methods of obtaining these undifferentiated cells: Through a process, namely pheresis, stem cells can be extracted from the blood of a donor.  --This isn't quite hemophobe  friendly; my condolences. Another rather invasive method of extraction is harvesting. This involves the drilling into bone to extract the cellular nectar. And then there's the god forbidden embryonic stem cells. As some of you may know, this is the most controversial of the methods of extraction that are practiced. It poses ethical questions that are difficult to reach agreement on. The Catholic Church are known for their strong opposition to embryonic stem cell research, and according to whom you speak with, they are opposed to stem cell research as a whole. 

STEM CELLS FIGHTING CANCER!!

In Japan, researchers have brilliantly demonstrated that it is indeed possible to make cancer specific immune system cells. These disease fighting cells were engineered from induced pluripotent stem cells. Generally these sort of cells originate from an adult somatic cell--a non-pluripotent cell. It might also be worth it to add that induced pluripotent cells are artificially derived, hence the "induced"? 

THE BRAINS:

Shinya Yamanaka, and British scientist John B.  Gurdon, were awarded the 2012 Nobel prize for physiology or medicine, for discovering that they can reprogram mature cells to become pluripotent stem cells. 

Researchers were able to create cancer-specific T lymphocytes from induced pluripotent stem cells. This is bad news (FoxNews) for some cancer. 

Yamanaka found that with utilising four pieces of DNA--known now as Yamanaka factors--adult skin cells could be induced to revert back to a pluripotent state, in which state they can become any cell in the body! This is medically beautiful. 

I hope that we can dramatically reduce the number of tears lost due to mourning the loss of loved ones to cancer world wide. As science grows and tumours progressively shrink, resulting from the progression of science, I have sufficient reason to be optimistic. 

-sreehc

Derrick Antonio

Soar

She couldn't wait to get on a jet plane to look down on the city that she once looked up to,

Grew up listening to Freebird, only wishing that it was true

But it wasn't quite easy, so she settled for the substitute,

chemically attaining the altitude

Smoking up in pop's garage

And when she was high, friends thought her to be happy

But mom knew it to be façade, 

though mom ain't innocent. 

She didn't applaud but she could have done more, 

The times dad ridiculed her for love but never smacked his hands from her door; 

Who've heard of such a chore? The poor girl gave her precious soul and he always demanded more--

He sang those gospel hymns the loudest; she soon learned the correlation, 

And now she's sufficiently old, to flee the congregation. 

-sreehc 

I love you, lets get stoned

Stoning is sanctioned within the bible. Islamic law prescribes the stoning of couples suspected of having sex, or having children out of wedlock. Many of us now ridicule such a practice, deeming it inhumane, or unfair---at the very least. But this sort of punishment isn't exclusive to old religious practices. It is still an accepted means of reprimanding convicted persons today. This way of capital punishment is shameful, but legal in various societies. And though we don't necessarily throw physical stones in our society, here in the U.S. of A., we aren't free of guilt. For we have alternative, and just as sickening means of throwing stones, for the mere infraction of loving someone.

 I've learned recently, that Islamists have carried out such an execution just days ago. They controlled a town in northern Mali. An otherwise innocent couple were brought to death---after the Islamic group accused them of having children outside of marriage. The couple were maliciously transported to the town of Aguelhok. Once there, the less than human group of Islamists buried them in voids four feet in depth, leaving exposed their heads, and proceeded to pelt them with stones, until death ensued. http://americablog.com/2012/07/islamists-in-mali-stone-couple-to-death-for-having-kids-out-of-wedlock.html

 The normal, decent individual might understandably think this to be a fairytale. That individual has not the slightest idea how much I wish it was so.

 Though it isn't a common occurrence, this barbaric,idiotic practice is alive and well in Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates. To the extent of my knowledge(everyone knows that's not far), there's not much that definitively indicates that stoning has been carried out in Pakistan, Nigeria, or Iraq. That doesn't mean that there isn't a possibility.

 The Old Testament prescribed stoning for murder, blasphemy, and apostasy. I am not perfect, nonetheless I try to uphold honesty whenever possible and practical---so, I can say that I can probably understand how this might barely be justified for murder. This guy here has minimal respect and remorse for murderers that prey on those who cannot defend themselves. Those are the mentally and physically impaired, children, and women( I don't mean that women are inferior, bare with me here). Death for apostasy and blasphemy is senseless. That's putting it gently.

 How it's specified in law: Article 102 of the Islamic penal code of Iran, states that "men should be buried up to their waist, and women up to their breasts", for the execution. Beautiful right? --Yeah. Article 104, referring to adultery, contains directives for the stones that are used. According to this directive, stones that are to be utilised shall not be sufficiently large as to cause death by only a couple of strikes. Selected stones should neither be so small that they can't be classified as stones. Who in Hell comes up with this stuff?

 I've even discovered that persons who were able to fight themselves free from the hole they were placed in, were let go. This doesn't make me feel any more chipper. And women always seem to afford the short end of the stick. Because women are buried to their breasts, and men to their waists, it is easy to deduce who possesses the greater probability of escape. It's not like men are generally physically stronger or anything. Sillyrabbits. http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/faq_stoning

 Why the U.S. is guilty: We throw stones of a different type. These stones come in the form of destructive words, and ridicule to single mothers, that even a child can sense the inequality and unfairness in. Single fathers and children of single fathers don't seem to endure quite the judgement. They may receive a few bats of the eye, from the "uppity", out of touch with the crude world posh, but nothing in comparison. For a being as delicate as a child, why must we make them to endure such disgusting description? Words like "bastard", "illegitimate", "whoreson", and other choice words that I would consider choking the life out of a person for, are completely unacceptable. Adults are less mature than the children they are describing when they decide to use such language. Regarding the aforementioned derogatory terms, many people use them to distinguish themselves from the unwed, or children therefrom---as if it makes them elitists. Reasonably, having that thought process lessens one's credible character. Is that a tenet of what we stand for? I opine that people should use less of dilapidated texts to define, or govern respiring human beings, and start using their hearts.

 Legally, the method of legitimizing a child involves the parents being married at the moment of birth. Currently, children are regarded as legitimate if they are formally acknowledged by their father. Am I the only one who thinks this to be a bit absurd? All children are legitimate! I mean, have we gone mad or what? Love is the binding force that legitimizes children---love from any direction in fact. Who cares what the conveniently pious thinks? Love is too that binding force that legitimizes any true relationship. It is the ring figuratively around your heart when commitment is real--the one around the finger is intended to be symbolic, but it's rapidly changing into a piece for show. As soon as a child is born, that child is more significant than a word. The magical moment a mother embraces her newborn for the first time, that child has a proper name, and shan't be called upon by anything other than what it is, unless one is speaking constructively. No legal entity, nor religious text, nor any emotionally debilitating opinion from any poor excuse of a person shall be credible.

 Perspective: With divorce rates in the neighbourhood of 50%, who shall casts judgment? Moreover, the U.S. is running a close race with having the highest rate in the dissolution of marriage. That's alarming. This isn't to mock or look at our nation negatively. I'm a realist. I introduced the aforesaid fact to introduce another: the institution of marriage, and the adherence to religious beliefs, do not necessarily guarantee a healthy or sound partnership, or childhood. We all know troubled children of married parents; each of us can think of an abusive marriage.

 The effect: Parents and children especially, living under a single parent roof, face different realities; some never overcome them. Sometimes a child will try to compensate for that absent parent. Many times this is done positively and effectively. Also, a bleak truth is that some children grow to compensate counterproductively. The euphoria from a missing parental hug, in some cases, is replaced chemically or promiscuously--There's an array of other ways. (Obviously this isn't exact under every circumstance.) This compensation can be known as self medicating, psychologically. http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP10-14-FF.pdf

 I intend to do nothing more than shed light on the hearts that may indeed be fractured. Why would we throw lexical stones at hearts that might already be in pain?

 Unmarried couples, children of unmarried couples, and single parents do not have to be plagued by the shirt that society, theocracies, or any other entity have stitched for them. Not knowing his father has never stopped Lance Armstrong from achieving greatness(I don't give two cruise ships about his steroid accusations, or use). Being raised by his grandparents didn't stifle the suave voice, or comedic genius of Jamie Foxx. Being abandoned doesn't jeopardize the wealth of Jay Z today. And having met his father only once as a tot doesn't seem to damage the ambition of Barack Obama(set aside your political or personal dislike for a sec).

Perhaps we should think about the acceptance of stoning in the Old Testament---But surely, we should watch how we throw stones, in the form of words.

 -cheers, D.A.
 Thanks for reading.

Sorry, you still have to deal with your crappy boss. The world doesn't appear to be going anywhere.

We have an uncanny ability, as people, to believe in notions that are considerably improbable, and some are just down right impossible. I haven't a confident explanation as to why this is so, but it's quite a curious thing. For example: a doctor can forewarn a patient of imminent health problems, and often times that patient has the audacity to be skeptical of the doctor's expertise. This is done irrespective of the doctor's medical and scientific training, and his daily practice. Of course, the analogy isn't to insinuate that doctors are infallible; the doctor has the higher probability of being correct in the matter, and should therefore earn more of your trust. 

Yet, in many cases they don't. But people will lend 100% of their faith to superstition and things as trivial to your existence as a daily horoscope. To augment my confusion, I watch people visit neighbourhood psychics and swallow the reader's whole "prophetic" pill without question. 

Just as I am amused by the propensity to invest faith in neighbourhood psychics, the reverence that Y2K, Harold Camping's predictions, and the 2012 commotion received also has a strong command of my attention. Herein, I shall visit the three of these doomsday, scaremongering concepts. If nothing else, perhaps we will relieve some of their superfluous woes. The good news is--that the world is unbelievably older, and more stubborn than you are on your worst day.(even a Monday) And it will be that way for a number of years longer than we are used to putting into numbers. 

Y2K!!  

 I watched as reporter after reporter broadcasted live at various retail locations, as people frantically ridded stores of gallons of water and canned goods. To maintain integrity here, I should admit I was amongst the frantic patrons and crowd; I had no choice, as my age at the time was just a trifle too tender to have any say so in the matter. So, reluctantly tethered to mother, I helped to carry gallons of water as well, preparing for what she thought could be the end as we knew it-Y2K. 

How did all this come about? My computer savvy friends may be able to modify the sentences that will follow, or perhaps be more elaborative, but I think you'll get the gist. Though the story morphed and mutated a few times, the original cause remains intact. The problem that sent everyone into a frenzy was due to dated computer programs, as I understand. Yes, this is what had some people in chapel at midnight, and the reason Wal-mart and like stores experienced a fat payday, and customers lamented of skinny pockets. 

Until recent times, computer scientist, or programmers, used a month/day/year format that required a two digit number in the respective positions. For example: my birthdate would be written 11/21/84. You might be intuitively already suspecting a problem this could cause, come year 2000. Such a format cannot accommodate any such date from year 2000 onward. Inputting 11/21/00 could consequently cause faulty calculations and/or software crashes. I guess we expected the world to crash technologically. 

Software was merely, though not simply,  recoded so that it can understand and utilize numbers such as 00, 01, 02, etcetera. Nonetheless, we are still here, and have yet to technologically crash the earth. 

Harold Camping!!!   

Anyone remember the Judgement Day May 21, 2011 signs? Probably so. They are easily traceable to an American Christian radio broadcaster, namely Harold Egbert Camping. Mr. Camping erroneously predicted(on more than one occasion) that Christ himself would return to earth on May 21, 2011. As preposterous as you may think this, it caught on with many a entranced people. Camping has multitudes of followers, and sadly some of these people were naive enough to give up everything, as they braced for judgement that never came. The only judgment they received was from atheist, and even Christian skeptics alike. Robert Fitzpatrick, aged 60, surrendered his entire life savings of $140,00, to campaign for camping. Fitzpatrick is a retired transit worker from Staten Island, New York(http://m.christianpost.com/news/christians-respond-to-campings-may-21-rapture-prediction--50275/)

27 year old Adrienne Martinez opted not to go to medical school. Instead, she and her husband migrated from NewYork to Orlando, where they too proceeded to exhaust the remainder of their savings. They didn't think it mattered(http://m.christianpost.com/news/christians-respond-to-campings-may-21-rapture-prediction--50275/). Both of these accounts are profoundly, and confusingly sad to me. 

Camping is said to incorporate numerology in his interpretation of the bible. This should easily be detected as a recipe sure to lead anyone considering it astray. Numerology involves studying the special(mystical) powers of numbers, or the divine, mystical relationship between a number and an event. The mixing of numerology with the bible seems a touch illogical to me, but Mr. Camping, having a BS (stuff he's also filled with) in civil engineering, found quite the sly way of manipulating the mathematics to work in his favour. Reportedly, Camping later admitted that his predictions were "sinful". Not quite the words I would like to hear, but at least the unrelenting pressure of the public squeezed that much out of him. 

2012!!!!

The earth is over 4 BILLION years old!  There is ample science to substantiate that. However, there are a plethora of theories suggesting that, regardless of how long it has been carrying on without our intervention, we get to tell it when it shall perish. It's hard to contain oneself from wearing a pretty firm smirk in response to some of the ideas. 

There are several assumptions about 2012 that contribute to its doomsday baggage. Some think that planets will align in such s fashion as to cause a negative effect on earth. Scientists don't think this to be plausible. The earth will not pass through the galactic plane in 2012. This plane is where most of the mass from disk-shaped galaxies lie. Even if some weird alignment was to occur, many scientists believe that the effects on earth would be negligible. As far as celestial wonders, we have nothing more to look forward to than the December Solstice, or Winter Solstice, if that tickles your fancy. 

I wanted to know and understand some of where the 2012, world ending predictions began. The following is what I've learned thusfar: Nibiru, an alleged planet, is headed toward earth. It was supposedly discovered by the Sumerians. According to the claim, the disaster was projected to happen on May of 2003, but quite apparently nothing happened. This caused the date of doom to be moved to December 21, 2012. When this fable was linked to the end of ONE of the cycles in the ancient Mayan calendar( that's right, one of the cycles), at the winter solstice, it solidified as a viable doomsday prediction. Calendars abroad will carry on. 

Here's the deal mates, the earth preexisted us, and it will out endure us. This is especially true considering how silly we are nowadays. We don't have to fret over some end of the world rubbish; with our behaviour, we're likely to destroy ourselves. 

-cheers