<0001> /^t/One often hears the despondent voice their complaints about the deteriorating condition of human creativity which is due to the overdevelopment of technology. What a preposterous idea! Neither technology nor industrialization can impede our capability of dreaming or using our imagination since human minds intrinsically harbor vast amounts of creative powers. We simple need these to overcome daily hazards and excuse our uncommendable behavior. /^t/One area in which we urgently need the help of our imagination is school. Every young person realizes that this institution is not the most attractive place in which to spend those short and therefore precious hours of youth. So rather than face the boredom of educational grind, we manufacture scores of elaborate excuses in order to avoid responsibility for our misdemeanors. And this in itself constitutes a miraculous mental exercise. Ages of formal instruction could not equal the intellectual benefits we reap of those intense bouts of creativity when we try to explain our absence, lateness or lack of homework. And what is more important, our inventive efforts have to remain vigorous all the time, since any excuse used twice becomes inescapably cliche. /^t/It is a sad truth that adult life breeds adult problems. And this determines the different direction in which the development of our mental powers goes. We are now grown-up and sensible individuals and our worries are of adequately paramount significance. We will go to any lengths to be pardoned for our sloth and continue to be considered full-fledged adults. Thus, we no longer say: "I have not done my homework because my dog chewed it up" but we are more likely to come up with something like this: "My child is in the hospital and I cannot come to work" or "My wife has just run away with my best friend so it was impossible for me to meet the deadline". And it really does not matter that the person involved is a childless bachelor - the boss is so struck by the employee's tragedy that s/he does even notice this blatant inconsistency. It has to be remembered, however, the samples mentioned above are just the most basic and worn-out excuses that would never be used by a truly creative individual. /^t/Ironically, we make use of domestic problems to excuse our inefficiency at work and the other way round. Whenever we come back home after midnight or (perish the thought) next morning, our boss (depicted as a ruthless despot) always plays the role of the culprit. Yes, that is true - coping with a shrewish wife or kind but a little bit dull husband also requires constant cerebration on our part. And here, our task is probably the hardest since no matter how vehemently we try to deny it, it is our spouses who know us best. Consequently, it is the quality of our brainchildren that matters most. No wife would believe that the office computer exudes the suffocating Opium-like fragrance, just as no husband (even the most loving one) would be willing to accept some flimsy explanation about his wife having to work all night with a group of special-slows before an upcoming exam. /^t/When, regardless of all explanations we have used we are forced to shoulder the grievous burden of too many responsibilities and we feel we have too little time to truly enjoy the few pleasures that have been given to us, we can always afford a little flight from the grim reality - we can dream. In this harmless game called "What Would Happen If..." we are freely allowed to wallow in glorious visions of our success accompanied by inescapable failure of our mortal enemies-teachers, employers, spouses. Here our imagination reaches its zenith. We rack our brains with unheard-of intensity to invent the tortures that would suit those monsters best. And after such relaxation conjoined with an effective brain exercise we are ready to resume our educational, professional, and connubial duties. /^t/There is not a single sound reason to worry that the advancing industrialization wreaks havoc on the formidable might the human mind is naturally endowed with. As long as humans interact the scope for their creativity will remain virtually unlimited. <0002> /^t/We live at the end of the twentieth century. We witness extraordinary progress in science, medicine, and technology. We pride ourselves on becoming more and more civilized and sophisticated. We tend to have more refined tastes in art, literature, music, and architecture. We boast of being able to cooperate, to solve political problems peacefully, by means of discussion and negotiation. We believe in democracy, in what the French Revolution brought to the world. Equality, freedom, and brotherhood are our principles and the bases of our lives. We are enlightened. "All men are created equal", we claim. But are we completely honest? Is there not a little hypocrisy? Do we really mean that all people are equal when we say this or do we add in an undertone, as if repeating after George Orwell, that some are "more equal" than others? Should we not scrutinize our society in search for inequality? /^t/What George Orwell meant when he wrote "All men are equal: but some are more equal than others" was probably that theoretically everyone should enjoy the same rights and have equal duties. Yet, the other side of the coin is that there are people who are privileged, whose status is higher than that of the rest. It seems that the word "equal", ironically, came to mean "having rights" here. If everybody has rights there are some who have even more rights. This kind of attitude was what Orwell tried to ridicule. /^t/Certainly, one could argue that the above statement by Orwell refers to the situation described in his novel and does not reflect the state of affairs in the modern real-life world. It is not difficult, though, to verify the truthfulness of this statement. Let us look at the first part of it. Are all people equal? Well, yes. The constitutions of most civilized countries secure for their citizens equality, democracy, and numerous rights. Among the most fundamental ones are the right to live, the right to work, the right to profess a religion, and the right to express opinions. The whole body of society is entitled to exercise these rights. This is how the idea of equality is realized. /^t/There are, however, people who have an advantage because of their social, professional, or financial status. They are members of elites, superior on account of their power, talent, and privileges. People who are in authority, who are rolling in money, even those who belong to mafias have better opportunities and very often do not hesitate to benefit from it, even illegally. They are in position to break the law and to hush it up. The rank and file citizens cannot elude justice and very often they have to carry the burden of punishment while their bosses shuffle off the responsibility. But the superiority of elites do not have to consist in vice. For example, they have better education opportunities. Money talks, so the well-off can afford studies. Consequently, those who are better educated have better perspectives and more advantageous job opportunities. The affiliation to an elite proves to be very helpful in climbing up the career ladder. Moreover, the interweaving relations between "the more equal" make them mutually dependent which creates stronger bond between them and alienates them further from the rest of the society. /^t/There is still another aspect of inequality. Not only are there people who enjoy more liberty than others, but there are also these who are refused even the basic rights, who are ignored by the law, who seem to be "less equal" than the society as a whole. The criteria for such discrimination may be various: race, nationality, religion, and so on. "The less equal" are usually members of all kinds of minorities like homosexuals, the disabled, the left-handed, or the fat, but not necessarily as women are hardly a minority. They all form a kind of underclass which is deprived of certain rights. Obviously, not all of the discriminated are refused the same privileges. Certainly, it is difficult for the disabled to get good education, the blacks cannot count on finding a prestigious job, women are less paid, even if they are as well-qualified as men, and homosexuals meet with social disapproval and are often forced to live beyond the pale. Problems with buying fitting clothes or scissors that would be comfortable to use seem trivial to us; they are, however, reasons for complaints of the fat or the left-handed. Undoubtedly, "the less equal" exist. /^t/These are clear examples of inequality. It is, however, so widespread that very often it is not considered something evil or uncommon. People got used to politicians breaking the law, to the rich evading paying taxes, as well as to the masculinization of high positions, to the absence of the disabled at universities, and to social ostracism of lesbians. Another thing is that probably every society has its elites and its underclass, that they are nothing out of ordinary. Perhaps we should accept the fact that there is injustice, consent to every community being divided into exclusive and impregnable castes. Perhaps we should agree on highly hierarchical societies existing under the banner of democracy and equality. Perhaps, as somebody once said, "democratic equality is the most efficacious instrument of spiritual selection". The alternative to such an attitude is Orwell's ridicule. We have to make a choice. <0003> /^t/"Juvenile delinquents broke into an old woman's house, burgled it, and then, bestially tortured the defenceless victim. Her mutilated body was left on the floor." Having read another report of this kind, one pities the victim but finds comfort in the thought that the wrong-doers have been caught and imprisoned. However, there is little hope that those criminals will be stacked away forever. Soon, they will be paroled for good behavior and will set on the evil quest again. By no means does the outdated prison system of punishment help eradicate the crime factor from modern societies. Thus, civilized societies should seek other ways of dealing with criminals; rather than incarcerate them, they should rehabilitate them. /^t/Many people are drawn to breach the accepted rules because of shortcomings or deficiencies in their system of moral values. What's deeply immoral for the bulk of the society, they perceive as natural for the inability to distinguish good from evil. Others, capable of recognizing this distinction consider it irrelevant. Such was the case in the movie "Natural Born Killers" where the two protagonists set out on a killing quest across America. They knew that what they were doing was evil and immoral, but they were not troubled by their conscience. The undeniable thrill, excitement and pleasure made them continue of their path. They are also people who break the law because their wretched living conditions stripped them of all hope. Modern societies should realize that these perpetrators cannot be responsible for their shortcomings because they cannot control them. Thus, separating criminals from the rest of the society will not change their psyche. The time and the money will be squandered on this purposeless effort. It is doubtful that these criminals will have any qualms for crimes they have perpetrated. /^t/Being confined to a leper asylum never cured anyone of the disease. Quite contrary, having come in contact with other infected the disease progressed even faster eating away the person's flesh and bones and finally resulting in death. Similarly, prisons turn into crime universities. Those, convicted of lighter misdemeanors quickly learn how to go about organizing serious crimes. Instead of leaving the prison walls repentant and willing to make up for their wrong-doing, they leave predisposed and trained to become hardened recidivists. The prison life and contact with ruthless incorrigible offenders eats away their soul and conscience finally resulting in innocent people's deaths. If they had never been put to prison they wouldn't have absorbed the infectious microbe of evil. Had, instead, an effort been made to educate them to become valuable citizens, they would reenter the society equipped in necessary qualities to make their lives meaningful and successful. /^t/However, intimidated law-abiding citizens would rather see their oppressors behind the prison bars. Little do they realize that they do not really secure safety for themselves. The overcrowded prisons are far from housing every offender. Moreover, paroles and temporary releases are issued freely to make place for new arrivals. Thus, criminals have the opportunity to try out new knowledge and commit further crimes. If the so called "lomiarz", the man who attacked women by hitting them with a crow-bar, hadn't been issued those releases five Warsaw women would still be alive. The perpetrator allegedly took advantage of his temporary prison releases to attack women. /^t/The prison system of punishment proves greatly ineffective. Rather than help the society to do away with crime, it encourages felons to lightheartedly oppress innocent people. If the societies recognized crime as a kind of disease and treated criminals accordingly, not only would the prisons be empty but societies would gain new valuable members as well. <0004> /^t/Violence and crime are one of most characteristic features of the modern world. In order to find a solution which would prevent the rate of crime from growing, many people point out that the key to the problem lays in rehabilitation of those, who have already committed offenses. Accordingly, the y regard the present systems of prisons to be outdated and not serving the purpose of improvement of those, who are kept in them. Following this point of view, no civilised society should punish its criminals but rather do its most to rehabilitate them. Unfortunately, this way of thinking, though attractive, is completely wrong. The biggest crime that a society could commit to itself would be to forgive its criminals. /^t/Those who think that we should stop punishing criminals and lead them through the process of reeducation in order to improve their behavior and respect for the law, unavoidably follow the path of thinking established by some nineteenth century philosophers and criminal lawyers. According to this approach, criminals do not commit offenses because they are bad by nature, but rather it is because of the society which forced them to be who they are. How dangerous can accepting this point of view be, may be illustrated by a popular case of a murderer accused in nineteenth century Germany of killing somebody. He said to the court that he was sorry for having committed the crime, but he couldn't be punished, because he had been brought up by the people who regarded crime as something natural and accepted, and therefore the society in general is to be blamed for what had happened. Now we must ask ourselves this question: should we allow killers to get away with a not guilty verdict? Of course not! The judge in the case supported this point of view. He said to the accused that he was sorry, but he, in turn, had been brought up by the people who despised crime and he returned the death sentence verdict. /^t/Society must never stop punishing criminals. It should be realized that punishment, contrary to what some people say, does have a significant purpose to serve. Criminal lawyers, as early as in the Middle Ages, invented the concepts of general and individual prevention. The latter is based on the assumption that if one suffers considerable hardships for his misdemeanour, he will not decide to commit a crime again. The former, on the other hand, presumes that if the general public sees how severe a punishment the convict has received for what he had done, it will not dare to commit the same offense. In other words, it will realize that crime does not pay. Indeed, people must be aware that if they willingly decide to go astray, they will without fail be punished in a severe and quick manner. This is crucial for any society in order to function properly. Rehabilitation, on the other hand, is based on a naive presumption that those who are already bad, will collaborate to improve their behavior. Will any manufacturer lower the prices of his products knowing that he is o monopolist? Will any horse pull a cart without being urged to do it? Obviously not! It is precisely the same case with criminals and rehabilitation. /^t/One should realize, too, that the modern system of prisons is by no means outdated. As a matter of fact, it has never been as lenient as it is nowadays. People who stay behind bars receive decent food, stay warm, may receive regular visits, may write letters and write books, even watch television. Many, on special occasions, are allowed to visit their families outside a prison for a few days. What more should they need? A swimming pool with a swim-up bar and sunglasses? After all, the idea is that they are supposed to endure hardships. One century ago, prisoners could not even dream of such conditions as there are in the prisons today. Water and bread in a dark and damp cell was all they could count for. Today, societies agree to pay great amount of money in order to support comfortable enough prisons, for the people who have done nothing better than to show their disrespect for the law and morality. This fact is rarely mentioned, although it is quite important and should not go without recognition. /^t/What all idealistic points of view have in common is that it is not feasible to put them into practice. It would be simply wonderful to live in a society without prisons and without criminals, either (those few ones who have chanced to put their foot on that land would have already been rehabilitated). Unfortunately, such a state of matters would quickly lead to complete anarchy. We must realize, that prisons are perhaps too comfortable by this time, and the only way to prevent crime is severe sanctions and quick punishment. <0005> /^t/Nowadays, at the end of the 20th century, people are more aware of the importance of protection of nature than people living a hundred years ago. Therefore the Victor Hugo's words: "How sad it is to think that nature is calling out but humanity refuses to pay heed" are not true nowadays. Nature is certainly calling out but human race is no longer unresponsive. /^t/There are undoubtedly many problems concerning our planet that are still to be solved. However, in order to achieve global solutions, we should start with our surroundings and the local environment. Some of the earth matters that are gradually dealt with by Poznan authorities are as follows: air and water pollution, deforestation and desertification and depletion of natural resources. /^t/The first problem I would like to focus on is the air pollution. Some years ago it was almost impossible to breathe in the center of my hometown. Poznan if famous for the highest number of cars per person in Poland. Since the local authorities introduced the so-called "Blue Zone", life has become much easier for an every inhabitant. It doesn't mean that the number of cars in Poznan has decreased. But in order to stop in the center of the city, drivers are required to purchase special tickets allowing them to do so. Any car without such a ticket placed on a windshield is towed away or immobilized so that a driver has to pay fine before taking his/her car back. This regulation was enacted to discourage people from going to the center by car and to reduce the traffic. This system has undoubtedly has proved to be successful. Another regulation that has been introduced lately, this time all over Europe, requires every new car to have a catalyzer installed. Such an equipped car uses up a lead-free petrol which is environmently friendly. The ultimate goal is to install a catalyzer to every car to reduce the emission of the pernicious pollutant to minimum. In addition, special roads for cyclists are built so that people can ride a bicycle instead of going by car. /^t/As far as water pollution is concerned, every big city has a purification plant clearing the contaminated water. There is such a plant near Poznan as well. However, the technologies used there are obsolete. Nevertheless, the city council doesn't have any funds for the modernization of this object. Still, a purification plant itself will not solve the ongoing problem of water contamination on a big scale. It only fights against the effects not the causes. Thus, we should rather find other ways of disposing waste liquids than changing our rivers into sewage ditches. But so far nobody has created a better solution. /^t/Every year a deplorable cutting down of hundreds trees takes place. Deforestation would certainly lead to undesirable desertification of land if nurseries of young trees weren't introduced. And afforestation takes place in the woods surrounding Poznan as well. /^t/Another global problem concerns depletion of natural resources. However, instead of dumping away waste products such as glass, paper or metal, we can reuse them. The process of recycling allows to use ready-made materials instead of exploiting natural resources. Therefore, there are special places in Poznan where waste products are purchased. Poznan authorities also provided containers in which both glass and paper can be gathered. Unfortunately, many people are indifferent to this matter and prefer to squander recyclable materials. /^t/To conclude, nature is not calling out in vain. More and more people over the world, Poznan being one of the examples, are increasingly environmently-oriented. They carry out environment-saving actions that answer the calls of nature. Still there is a lot to be done to achieve global solutions. But what matters is that a growing number of people do not stand with their arms folded and do their best to answer the calling out of nature. <0006> /^t/University studies are the highest level of education provided by most of the world's education systems. Theoretically, graduating from a university is something of a great value. It is supposed to mean getting a better job, university graduates are associated with high social position. Therefore a lot of young people decide to study at university. After having graduated from a secondary school they decide to continue their education and the most prestigious way to do it is to enter a university. However, in nowadays' world the number of students who are disappointed after having graduated from a university is increasing. The value of a university degree seems to lessen. The knowledge gained at a university does not help young people to achieve success. The fact that the value of a university degree is very little in the real world is conditioned by various factors. /^t/First of all, during the studies a student is "forced" by a curriculum to choose less and less subjects which automatically leads to concentrating on a very narrow segment of knowledge. This in turn means putting less effort in studying other, in one's opinion less important subjects. The most obvious example of negative consequences of such a narrow specialization is incompetence of medicine doctors. Having great and detailed knowledge in one field they very frequently cannot diagnose properly illnesses of a more general nature. /^t/Secondly, the more prestigious studies are, the more theoretical, knowledge is required from students. Additionally, such knowledge concerns various fields. Students of economy, for example, during the five years of their studies have to study various subjects which tackle different problems that are not necessarily connected with one another. Such theoretical knowledge proves to be useless in a real world because usually, at least as far as economy is concerned, practical knowledge is definitely more profitable than the one gained at a university. /^t/The distinction between practical and theoretical knowledge is connected with another factor contributing to the theory that university degrees are of little value in the real world. The knowledge that a student has after having graduated from a university is only theoretical. In very few cases students have an opportunity to use their knowledge in practise or to gain professional experience while studying. However nowadays, the key-word while applying for a job is "Experience". The number of years one has worked in a particular profession is in most of the cases more important than the marks he/she got for his/her M.A. thesis. The very basic requirements imposed on people who want to work for some prestigious firm are the ability to work on a computer and to use a fax-machine (not to mention typing), fluency in more than one foreign language. These are the things which are usually not included in a curriculum of studies. Consequently, usually none of them is a requirement for getting a university degree. What follows, for a potential employer the fact that an employee has finished university is of a very little importance and in most of the cases will not be the decisive argument during the job-interview. /^t/All the above arguments lead to the conclusion that graduating from a university does not mean that a young man or woman is prepared to face the requirements of the real world. The prestige of a university degree remains unchanging but in order to achieve success in nowadays' world one needs knowledge from various fields. So the fact that one has graduated from a university will remain only a subject of a personal satisfaction as long as one does not prove that he/she is really good at something. Then a university degree will become the trump in one's hand and claiming that it has some value will not be baseless anymore. <0007> /^t/George Orwell in his Animal Farm wrote: "All men are equal: but some are more equal than others", showing how gifted he was in observing society and human nature. Neither society nor human nature have changed since the novel was written. One can easily notice today, even in democratic countries where "all people are equal in the face of law", that people are still far from being really equal. The most influential factors that make people unequal are: race, sex and money. /^t/The color of skin has always differentiate people. The strange thing is, however, that the most obvious reason why people are of different colors, that is because of the climate zone they or they ancestors come from, is the least popular one. White men are usually those who think of themselves as superior because they were the ones who conquered less developed nations. The whites regarded other races as worse, unable to equal them. This situation was reflected in the laws of many countries. Nowadays in democratic countries people of different colors have the same rights. However, still many people are so conceited or biased that they cannot accept equality, and discriminate races different than theirs. The discrimination can take place in neighborhoods, schools or places of work. It can take the form of lower payments, worse chances in competition with other races (e.g. while looking for a job), or not including people of different color into neighborhood communities or social meetings. It shows that introducing equal laws does not mean real equality in society, and changing people's minds takes much more time and work than changing laws, and still is not always successful. /^t/The second factor that makes people unequal is sex. The legal situation seems to be similar to the one described above: the rights are equal, however life shows that it is far to real equality. Men's and women's different position in society is rooted mainly in their traditional upbringing, the prejudices concerning their role in society, and the mutual misunderstanding. Even though now women are free to choose their own ways of life, and they do not have to follow the traditional pattern of being only wives and mothers, it is still very often more difficult for women to gain the positions equal to those men have in their professional lives. Women are often discouraged to start their careers, sometimes are paid less or forced to choose between having a successful career or having a family. So, the saying that a woman has to be twice as good as a man to gain the same position is surely not an exaggeration but the illustration of what being "more equal" means. /^t/The last, but for sure not least factor that differentiate people is money. In fact this is the most powerful factor which can overcome race and sex differences. Let alone all the illegal action that can lead to multiplying a fortune, having power and influence. Having money means independence from anybody (e.g. parents or employer), possibility to decide (as a shareholder or the boss of enterprise), freedom to buy all the necessary or unnecessary goods, and the freedom to travel. Money also makes it possible to run for an office and to win. A high position in the world of politics means power and influence again. The race or sex of a person who is really wealthy is not that important, and the person is "much more equal" than the rest. /^t/Equal rights for everyone in a democratic country seem to take equality for granted. However, not only law, but also people living in the country, with their prejudices and fears have to change to allow the real equality. It is possible when sex and race are concerned: people can learn to tolerate and respect one another. The situation is a little different with wealth and power. Probably in this case the Orwell's sentence that some people are more equal than others will always be true. Or maybe the author wanted to tell us that total equality could never exist. <0008> /^t/"All men are equal: but some are more equal than others". Equality. What is equality? Obviously, the belief that all people living in this world have the right to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment, regardless of their apparent differences. We live in the world that is dominated by science technology and industrialization. The breathtaking technological advancement is visible everywhere. Societies all over the world differ a lot. People, despite the close of the twentieth century, are still being divided into the white, black, red, or yellow, the affluent and the poor, the old and the young, the unemployed and the employed e.t.c. There is no doubt that people are put into categories. They are judged on the basis of their colour of the skin, intelligence, income, abilities, dwellings, affluency or poorness. Such a categorization might threaten the precarious balance among human beings. There is no question about it, inequality is here. No one is unaffected either by racial prejudice, nationalism, explosion of technology or being simply an old person. Inequality poses a threat to our privacy, even to our concept of reality. Thus, the words written by George Orwell in "Animal Farm" that "All men are equal: but some are more equal than others" are still applicable to the reality we deal with. Although, as this century closes and we enter the first computational millenium, one of the great conflicts in civilization is the attempt to reorder societies, cultures e.t.c. preventing people from the "checks and balances" so delicately constructed in those previously "flourishing" centuries. /^t/The most vivid example of inequality is the belief that abilities depend on race and that some races are superior to others. In some countries where racial prejudice is acute, violence has so come to be taken for granted as a means of solving differences, that it is not even questioned. There are countries where the white man imposes his rule by brute force. There are countries where the black man protests by setting fire to cities by looting and pillaging. Important people on both sides, who would in other respects appear to be reasonable men, get up and calmly argue in favour of violence as if it were a legitimate solution, like any other. What is really frightening, what really fills one with despair, is the realisation that when it comes to the crunch, we have made no actual progress at all. We may wear collars and ties instead of war paint but our hostile instincts remain basically unchanged. /^t/The bewilderment of the black man is caused solely by the action of the white one. What are the lessons about democracy which the black has learnt from the white? What has he learnt about liberty, equality and fraternity? Definitely, the black is none the wise seeing and observing the white. Before we can even contemplate peaceful coexistence between the races, we must appreciate each other's problems. When dealing with each other, white men depend on force. It seems that the status quo is preserved by violence. The basis for all racial conflicts are religious, political and cultural. It happens that the white are far less tolerant than the black. Generally, the white love to be superior and wield power. People think in stereotypes. They fear of other people who are e.g. visually different from them. The only way to get a hearing is through violence. Violence improves our status, encourages others respect us as a force to be reckoned with. Violence is sometimes a well-tried means of achieving peace and can succeed where other means are bound to fail. /^t/Racist beliefs have been used to justify genocide, chronic poverty and the maintenance of systems of inequality - such as South African Apartheid. The whole of the recorded history of human race, that tedious documentation of violence, has taught us absolutely nothing. We have still not learnt that violence never solves a problem but makes it more acute. The sheer horror, the bloodshed, the suffering mean nothing. <0009> /^t/I do not agree with this statement. I think that the prison system is the best way to punish criminals provided that every sentence is actually executed without any exceptions. In the cases of the worst atrocities there should be the capital punishment introduced and executed without changing it into imprisonment under any circumstances. /^t/As long as human race exists there has always existed crime. People established certain laws to curb crime and for many years depriving an individual of his or her freedom or just taking away his or her life has been the only way of protecting society from cruelty, of misfits. Punishment inflicted on those who broke the law does not seem to be a sufficient deterrent only when it is not executed entirely for some reason or other. That is also why there is still a growing number of cases of so called serial killers. Those are the people who kill repeatedly, particularly after being released from prison too early. /^t/Another aspect of the subject is choosing the right punishment for the most serious crimes. There are cases in which the capital punishment is indispensable. Let's look at the example of Dennis Nilsen, a British mass murderer who killed twelve people and dismembered the bodies of his victims. Some time ago he appeared on TV to give an interview in which he presented explicit details of his atrocities. His words delivered in a matter-of fact tone could almost serve as a beginners guide for potential killers on "how to murder and dispose of your victims". When the interview was broadcast, it gave Nilsen four minutes of fame and granted him a celebrity status and glamour. It is not difficult to imagine, however, how much distress this programme brought to the relatives of Nilsen's victims, and what is more, it could have encouraged others to follow him. Such a warped man as Nilsen should have been excluded from society long ago, not only by imprisonment, but by the capital punishment. /^t/Rehabilitating people who committed grisly crimes should not take place in a civilised society. This may lead to the anaesthetization to the human cruelty and the whole society may become inured to violence. Dubious remorse shown by criminals is going to evolve into new atrocities very quickly. The individuals who commit crimes are usually weak, ineffectual people and they can assert some power only by killing or by other kind of breaking the law. Very often they themselves admit that they are not able to lead normal life and in exceptional cases, like in case of Westley Dodd, they publicly plead to be executed for their crimes. /^t/There are many arguments for the prison system and against rehabilitation of criminals. Obviously, such a severe punishment is right for them, and what is more, it scares others. Anybody who wants to commit a crime must know for sure that when it comes out, there is no other way but prison. Such system eliminates from the society individuals that may have a very destructive influence on others. Besides, the money that would be spent on rehabilitation of criminals should be allocated to the prevention of crimes instead. What is also very important, the society must know for sure that there is justice in their country and that all the criminals are going to be punished properly. Nobody would like to see acts of revenge done by victims' families in a civilised society. /^t/Bearing all this facts in mind, I think that the prison system is by no means outdated and that every civilised society should punish its criminals in this way. <0010> /^t/An encyclopaedic entry gives such a definition of money: 'a common, unchanging equivalent of goods which marks their value and can be exchanged for them'. Its origins, dating as late as four to six thousand years ago, are connected with a sociological division of labour which found its expression in the separation of husbandry from handicraft. As a consequence, a surplus of certain goods appeared which could serve as means of exchange. Those goods which were the most transferable became directly exchangable for all the other articles and thus money originated. In the earlier ages, various commodities served as money, later precious metals such as silver and gold started to function as a general equivalent. /^t/From this brief history of money and its invention, it can be observed that it is possible to mark an exact moment when money began to be present in the existence of the mankind. Thus the saying that money is the root of all evil seems to be rather unlogical. It is not easy to state when evil came into being, it seems to be a sort of universal category and a feature of all human beings. While evil has existed as late as our first ancestors started to inhabit the Earth, money is but a human invention, just a useful tool which makes the trade more efficient. Rather, man's love of possessing, greed and unlimited desire to have causes all the wrong which money is unjustly blamed for. /^t/It is, however, true that money rules the world. As far as historic sources can tell us, there has always been a certain regularity concerning money. It is, the clear distinction between those who have been in possession of money and those who put a lot of effort to gain it. Moreover, what can be easily noticed is the striking disproportion between these two categories of people. The number of those, who have been trying to find out various ways of possessing it, in other words becoming rich, remains in a predominant majority to those who actually already have had it and have been rich. /^t/My view is that it is this disproportion which can be accounted for the evil in the world, not money itself. The common lack of it, on the one hand, and demoralizing power of its excess in much fewer cases seem to be a problem. For it is a universal truth that the disturbance in balance is the source of trouble. Our society, in a result of civilisational progress, operates on such principles which condition the fact that even the most basic needs of man can be fulfilled only when paid for. Food, clothes, accommodation, entertainment, every single item in our surrounding has its price. Even human body as a whole or just its separate parts have a market value and can be sold. In fact, everything has its certain value expressed in some amount of money. /^t/The natural and distinctive feature of all people is aiming at comfort and security. There is nothing immoral in this tendency. Further, possession of money gives many obvious opportunities and options of fuller existance. The problem appears when not everyone can achieve all the advantages simply because of the lack of money. Again, the impossibility of existing in a modern world without it is clear. The living examples might be all the people who struck by the extreme poverty have found themselves at the very bottom of social piramide, nearly loosing their human dignity. They would, for sure, attribute their status to the lack of money. /^t/The opinion that money cannot give happiness has been functioning for ages. Is it really so? People asked for the definition of happiness would probably point at health, knowledge, security or love. Money, of course, is not a direct equivalent of all these things but if one wants to be honest, it would be necessary to admit that money, to a great extent, helps to achieve all of them. /^t/Money itself has little value. It is just a scrap of paper or a piece of metal. How can it be, than, so powerful that, on the one hand, it may help to achieve ultimate happiness and, on the other hand, it is the underlying cause of crime, hatred, humiliation, ignorance, depravation and corruption. Money is not evil. Rather, evil which, just as good, is an innate feature of all human beings makes them treat money as a good excuse for all the wrong in the world. <0011> /^t/In the present world wreathed in the flourishing ideas of democracy, freedom, independence and tolerance there should, theoretically, be no space for racism, sexism, xenophobia or persecution. The average modern human being prides him/herself on open-mindedness, liberty of thought and tolerance. Nevertheless, the practice shows that what a white person puts actually most pride in is the skin colour while for a male individual it is his masculinity and for a Christian the religious beliefs to be exalted. The rule, of course, is that always the majority or the socially and culturally privileged group usurps the right to acclaim their qualities and features as these of a higher status. /^t/What is interesting, the open fight or the explicit discrimination is apparently perceived as primitive and inhumane while any covert action brings rarely such negative connotations. Therefore, it would not be generally accepted to say that some men are superior to others but the dissembling statement that "All men are equal: but some are more equal than others" sounds fair enough to be approved of. Indeed, nobody is free from prejudices and inferiority or superiority feelings and, as a result, true equality remains only an abstract notion. People have, alas, always had tendencies to discriminate or exterminate what is different or unknown. /^t/At first, what seems nowadays superficially preposterous is the fact that it is a female individual who finds most difficulties in being viewed as equal and treated with full respect by men. Although the process of emancipation has been already completed there will always remain some deeply rooted conceptions about women being less immune to the hardships of life. The main fields in which this can be visible is the world of politics, business and entertainment in which woman plays usually the role of a "toy" or a supplementary element. Since men are prime ministers, employers or entertainment recipients women will always remain lower officials, employers or entertainers. For those to whom the above statement seems too far-fetched it is enough to look at the percentage of women in Parliament or at high offices, not to mention with whom the word 'prostitution' is usually associated. /^t/Traditionalists may claim that women are biologically programmed to bear children and fall back into marriages, and that nobody is so good at supporting husbands in their careers as wives. Nevertheless, are men biologically programmed to minimize the roles and potentials of women and nip their ambitions in the bud? /^t/Secondly, the most unsettling and delicate aspect of the problem of equality, or rather unequality, is the racial and religious persecution. While any kind of overt hostility or oppression provokes disapproval and the majority of enlighted modern liberals take a dim view of racism and intolerance, the numerous admit to a 'slightly' racial tendencies. Not everybody would, in fact, dare to commit a "petty crime" of calling in public a Black person the Niger or harassing his family but scarcely any individual would hesitate to show favouritism to the people of his/her race. Is not it true, however, that racism and discrimination begins when one evaluates oneself as the better while not simultaneously maintaining that somebody else is worse? From whichever angle we would scrutinise the problem in question it is evident that people always tend to compare and label themselves and there will always be some hierarchy, no matter what criteria we would establish as the basis for the hierarchical structure. /^t/In conclusion, the absolute equality was, is and will be impossible. Whether it is human nature or stark reality that causes the segregation and discrimination, remains a rhetorical question. It lies, however, beyond doubt that despite the written law and numerous attempts to provide every individual with the right to his/her individuality, people will never experience equality. Racism, sexism or any kind of persecution may, of course, work in two directions but irrespective of whether it is the Black or White, man or woman, Christian or Buddhist who is harassed there is, anyway, somebody who stays "more equal than others" in this relation. If only the eradication of the negative human tendencies to discriminate was possible our world would free itself from many unnecessary wars, conflicts and social problems. Is it, however, possible? <0012> /^t/Imagination is one of the features human beings have been equipped with. Some of us overuse this trait, some, on the contrary, use it very seldom. No one doubts, however, that life without dreaming would be dull and uninspired. Despite the fact that science, technology and industrialisation have made a decisive step forward in the 20th century, and many of us cannot do without them, there are still many people whose main aim is to use their imagination in order to contribute to the development of art, culture or philosophy. Since imagination belongs to one of the most important of our features we cannot deprive ourselves of it. That is why, many of us are interested in art, theatre, films or philosophy as these domains prompt our imagination and dreaming. /^t/Painters have always been very controversial personages. Their views on life, people or God have been argued about, and so they have made people more considerate in sensitive. Jerzy Duda-Gracz is one of the most famous painters in contemporary Poland. His paintings say more about us than philosophical tracts. He shows the world of existential despair where a person cannot find his/her internal harmony. Humour is to be the protection against deep distress. By means of painting he talks to people, about people and about Poland. The fact that he lives in the country, away from 'civilised' citizens, does not make him less famous. His works have scandalised and astonished, excited and disturbed people. Certainly, however, they have made people think about our existence on the Earth. Statys Eidrigievicius is a Lithuanian who by means of art tries to join Polish and Lithuanian cultures. His drawings consist of irony, tenderness and Slav exaltation. Therefore, his exhibition have attracted all kinds of people: connoisseur of art as well as the average spectators. After visiting his display, one cannot stop wondering whether our lives make sense or not. /^t/Other visual pictures, apart from paintings, that can prompt our dreaming and imagination are theatre plays and films. A cinema has become one of the important elements of entertainment nowadays. The repertoire is varied, so that young as well as elderly people enjoy themselves there. The audience, however, can be divided into two groups. There are people who go to see a film in order to have a good time during a projection, and after leaving the cinema they forget what the film was about. The other group, consists of people who go to the cinema not only in order to have fun but also to consider and discuss important issues raised in the film. By means of visual pictures they use their imagination. Krzysztof Kieslowski is considered to be one of the best film directors by this part of audience. By making films, he tells stories about various levels of life. According Kieslowski, reality does not consist of hard facts, which can be taken in hands, but of the mass of feelings and tension that influence our relationship with others. The world he shoes, is the world of presentiment, suspicion, experience, mystery that exist in us, and which we do not realize during everyday lives. What is more, he tries to answer the question what for we walk in the streets, live in cities and countries. This problem, as each question without an answer, will always accompany human existence. Moreover, people will imagine that perhaps one day they will find the answers to these basic questions. That is why, Kieslowski's films have had such a large audience. Many people hope that once, after seeing his film and thinking it over, they will be able to answer some of the important questions. /^t/The figure of God, the question of life after death and the truth of the Bible are other problems that have occupied people for centuries. These issues have not been clarified yet, and as we live at the end of the century there is an urgent need for solving the problems. Uta Ranke-Heinemann, the most famous woman in the field of Catholic theology, tries to provide answers to them. Her issues lies on the verge of theology, philosophy and first of all, religion. She is employed in defining the relation between faith and the mind. Her books force us to personal consideration, to verification of traditional opinions which often are superficial and consequently false. Her publications have attracted the whole world's attention, since they help in coping with controversial matters, and 'second' part of our lives. /^t/Concluding, people cannot exist without using and appealing to one of the most significant traits they have been endowed with, which is imagination. Yet, people use it to various degree. Some, create works of art, others base their dreaming on these works. However, there is no doubt that neither technology nor science can substitute for our mind, and replace dreaming and imagination with technical entertaining inventions. Therefore, people will never stop dreaming no matter how highly developed science, technology or industry will be. <0013> /^t/"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal..." says the Declaration of Independence. From history, however, we know that this enlightened idea of equality remained but a theoretical concept which did not have much to do with real life. Even today, although according to the law all people are equal, inequality, for some reasons, is blatant. Shortly speaking, some people are 'more equal' than others. /^t/Why do some people drive BMWs while others beg in the streets? Why do some people buy houses with swimming pools and large, beautiful gardens while others strive for a piece of bread for their children? Are they really equal? The answer to this question is obvious: no, they are not; and the reason is money. It is money that makes the statement that all people are equal a hypocrisy. How can we claim that everybody has equal chance in life when the poor are, in fact, doomed to fail? It is only people lucky enough to be born to wealthy families that can get good education and good social position, which, in most cases, are the keys to success. The poorer part of our society usually have to finish their education early in order to support themselves and their families. As we can see, money divides the world into two parts: one for the 'more equal', and the other for the rest of society. One is for respectible, rich citizen, and the other for the masses. Even the law, which is supposed to be the same for everybody, is more likely to take the side of a well dressed and educated person than that of a beggar. /^t/Another thing that makes some people 'more equal' is their sex. No doubts, women are at a disadvantage. Not only are they treated as less valuable members of society by some men, but also, in the most extreme cases, they are denied any rights. In Muslim countries, for example, women have no right to vote, no right to any possessions, and, as a matter of fact, they are treated no better than domestic animals or slaves of their fathers or husbands. However, even in the countries where they apparently have the same rights as men, women are much 'less equal'. They rarely get the most prestigious jobs, and even if they do, they are paid much less then men. In Poland, for example, woman' s earnings are by 30% lower than those of a man in the same position. What is more, women are treated by many people as less intelligent than men, and their success is often belittled. Women themselves are also not taken seriously. Their ambitions and their jobs are very often treated as the whims of bored ladies, who just do not know what to do with their time. What is more, although women in Poland, for example, are on average better educated than men, they have more difficulties with getting a job. The above examples show clearly that the theory of equality has not really worked in practice. /^t/As we can see, it is not easy to be a woman. However, it seems to be even more difficult to be a black person. Inequality stemming from the skin colour was commonplace in the past, but it has continued up to this day, although in the less explicit form. For example, the coloured are very often viewed as worse, less reliable and dishonest people. Therefore, they are twice as likely to be unemployed than the white, and four times as likely to be stopped by the police. Moreover, it is much more difficult for their children to get good education than for their white peers, and, even when they graduate from the best schools, it is difficult for them to get a good job. The wrong colour of the skin unables them to occupy the most prestigious professions, which are taken by the white. Consequently, black doctors, lawyers or politicians are in a minority. Also, the living conditions of the black are much worse. What is more, studies show that the coloured people must work much harder for respect, and sometimes, even when they are honest, hardworking and intelligent, they are treated with suspicion and derision, and their efforts are belittled. Shortly speaking, the darker colour of the skin puts people into the class of 'less equal'. /^t/The above examples show that Orwell's statement that some people are more equal than others is true even today. This truth cannot be denied by any law, however just and impartial. This is because, as a matter of fact, no law can abolish our deeply rooted racial prejudice, no law can change our attitude to women, no law can ever provide all people with equal amount of money, equally good education, or give them equal chance in life. Therefore, no matter what we do, there will always be a favoured class of people, a class where no woman, no black and no poor person will ever enter, a class of 'more equal'. <0014> /^t/According to extreme liberals, there should be no censorship whatsoever in a democratic society. These liberals fear that if freedom of speech and artistic expression are restricted to some degree some people may attempt to use these limits for political reasons. Despite this fear of abusing censorship most Western countries have drawn the line at complete freedom of speech. /^t/First of all, censorship is indispensable in order to defend the rights of some minorities. In Germany, for instance, it is forbidden to express publicly opinions which aim at defaming Jews. In many countries it is condemned to disdain publicly homosexuals. A few years ago, in a TV program, one of the Polish government officials called homosexuals perverts and blamed them for the spread of AIDS. As a result, this intolerant minister was thrown out of the government. Minorities should be protected by the law because they are too weak to defend themselves. Especially, people in the limelight ought not to be allowed to openly express intolerant attitudes towards people of other race, religion or sexual orientation. Ordinary people very often perceive these politicians, state figures and actors as examples to follow. Therefore, famous people should be careful in expressing their points of view because otherwise their admirers may think that Jews, Blacks, gays are really worse human beings. Such a belief could lead to racial tensions and even to a tragedy akin to Holocaust. After all, Hitler was allowed to state his antisemitic ideas freely and after some time the bulk of Germans started to agree with him. /^t/Pornography is another area of "human expression" which should be restricted to some extent. Nobody ought to be exposed, and in this way forced to see pornographic magazines and watch pornographic movies. That is why, obscene literature must not be displayed, in ordinary bookshops, in such a way that it presents its frequently indecent covers. Such printed matter should be legally sold but not everybody wants to be exposed to it on a daily basis - everytime one buys a newspaper. Similarly, the exposition to pornographic films must be limited. Such films should be shown only very late at night in order to prevent children from watching them. Obviously, this limitation does not entirely protect children against these movies but at least diminishes the access to them. For children such primitive demonstration of human bodily functions may only distort their vision of love and sex. /^t/Violence on TV and in the movies also should be subject to some degree of censorship. The influx of the movies which openly promote evil and seem to persuade viewers to break the law has been increasing recently. According to some scientists, especially children who are exposed to violence on the screen, are inclined to believe in what they see indiscriminately. Children are also very often not able to distinguish between reality and fiction. Massacres, kidnappings, bloodsheds become an everyday phenomenon for them. They start to perceive evil as something normal and acceptable. The increase in the crime rate may constitute one of the outcomes of such permissive attitudes toward offense. /^t/In spite of the fact that censorship is often regarded as a tool used by communists to get rid of their political opponents, even in democracy some spheres of life should be protected by it. Societies ought to be able to foresee the consequences of unrestricted freedom of speech and artistic expression. Otherwise, one day, they may wake up in a very unhappy country. <0015> /^t/The contemporary world is becoming more and more influenced by science and industrialisation A contemporary man does lot realise how much science contributes to his or her life. When a telephone, a TV set, a radio or a computer are so common as any other everyday facility, man unconsciously diverts his or her attention from dreaming and imagination. That influence is a threat that has the gradual effect on all of us, it diminishes our ability to think thus to dream or imagine. /^t/There are various other factors that limit the development of our mind. First, the communication development, as it has become so easy, there is less need to concentrate the mind. To receive information, we need only sit in front of the TV set and flick from channel to channel with a remote control. To impart information, we need only pick up a telephone and throw out phrases in random sequence, punctuated with "ums" and "errs". In the 60s the Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan predicted the advent of film and TV would have as radical an effect on our culture as the invention of a printing press had on the culture of the Middle Ages. He predicted that books would become obsolete in one generation. He has been proved wrong in that point, however, who knows what would happen in 100 or 200 hundred years, as although more books are now published than ever before, the vast majority of these books demand little literacy, imagination and intelligence. Having been at the centre of our culture for the past 3 or 4 hundred years, they have now been pushed to the margins, either as adjuncts to TV series, or as a form of entertainment for those few moments when we are out of reach of a screen - on the beach, on a plane, or as a help to prepare people for sleep at the end of a busy day. /^t/Twenty or thirty years ago, writing letters, keeping diaries were common, people could use words to communicate various, vague emotions, they could use their minds to express thoughts in a concise form. Nowadays, with the use of electronic aids, telephones, videos, faxes, etc., there is no longer place for words, now the content is more important than the form and we are beginning to abandon the habits of thought. It is very frightening as it all starts very early, computer toys, digital watches, calculators, computers are present in the children's lives from the very beginning. Children instead of learning to think grow up convinced that these electronic aids are their right. They learn dead vocabulary that has nothing to do with Shakespeare or Milton. The impute of information they get is boring and mindless and the use of computer breed laziness and discontent. From the very childhood they learn that thinking and organising will be done for them and later this computer generation assumes that it is better to calculate, buy petrol, tell the time, pat the bills or shop with the aid of a computer. Children and young people glued to the computer screen will be more and more common phenomenon. Parents, unaware of a danger, are happy that their beloved kids are developing their minds while they in fact do nothing of that sort playing violent, sophisticated computer games. These children have simply no time for thinking and their behaviour is just the sign of the fact we are entering the computer age which is the age of dehumanisation. What is even more scaring is that people who express misgivings about the use of electronic aids by children are considered to be unimaginative, old-fashioned and out-of touch. /^t/To sum up one can draw one frightening conclusion that there is apparently no way in which we can stop the development of science and industrialisation. The only possible solution lie in ourselves it should be of our concern not to allow technology to interfere with our lives too much and to use it wisely, trying not to eliminate from our lives the ability to think, communicate, love, dream, and imagine. However, one must ask him/herself the question whether he/she is strong enough to resist the influence of science and technology. In the majority of cases the answer will be no, as it impossible to do so. What is left then? Are we going to turn into mindless creatures without imagination and dreams? <0016> /^t/The feminist movement was started in France in the middle of the XIXth century by, so called, suffragists, who were fighting mainly for the right to vote. After a fifty-year campaign, women gained political equality symbolized by franchise. But they wanted something more, i.e. full equality between the two sexes, not only in the field of politics. Therefore, since the beginnings of the XXth century, females have been striving for further rights under the patronage of Women Liberation Movement. It seems, however, that the situation of a contemporary woman is very far from the desired one. There is no equality, either in work or on political scene. The only result which has been achieved is the increased number of responsibilities and duties on the side of a woman, who is now expected not only to take care of her house and family but also to find time for professional work. If former suffragists had been able to see the future consequences of their forelost fight, they wouldn't have probably believed how far good intentions were improperly understood by men. But the harsh truth about women's existence in today's world seems undeniable. Inspite of some advantages, feminists, in fact, have done more harm to the cause of women than good. /^t/Modern feminists claim that the greatest success of their female predecessors was the attainment of women's suffrage, which was to be the first step in establishing full political equality between the two sexes. However, this full political equality hasn't been achieved yet. The percentage of women taking active part in political life is still rather small, there being approximately 5% of them elected to the Polish Parliament. Hardly ever is a female chosen for a party leader or a president. The obvious prejudice against women results from the lack of confidence for them. According to men, neither sufficient experience nor inclination towards politics are females' strong points, therefore they prefer to keep them aside. Additionally, having gained franchise, women usually don't take advantage of it; during parliamentary or presidential elections, they tend to vote for candidates that their husbands approve of. Most often it is because they don't have the slightest idea about politics in general or are not able to distinguish between parties' polices. Surprisingly enough, in Poland there is another reason for which women elect MPs according to their husbands' way of thinking: some men still expect their wives to show obedience in due form. /^t/Fighting over the years for women's rights, feminists have intended to gain equality not only in the field of politics but also in public life, i.e. education and work. In both those places, however, females are conspicuously discriminated. Educated women still constitute a minority in our country, although more and more of them manage to graduate. One of the most arduous female problems is the fact of having a baby during studies. A woman with new additional responsibilities, connected with bringing up a child, is less likely to finish her education with a master degree, there existing many inconveniences from the academic authorities' side. As far as work is concerned, women experience difficulties in finding a job and, then, keeping it. The obviously less-secure position of females results from the belief that they are less efficient workers, not being able to devote as much energy and time as males do. Additionally, women frequently take advantage of their right to get numerous sick leaves, either because of children's health problems or their own's. Therefore, females' earnings constitute only two thirds of males' earnings for the same kind of work, which is another explicit evidence for the lack of equality between sexes. /^t/One of the greatest achievements of Women Liberation Movement is the attainment of the right to practise a profession. At the same time, however, feminists haven't eased females of their daily activities. Most women still do the nine tenth of the whole housework, taking care of their children additionally. The biological function ascribed to a woman, of being a mother who would nurse her babies, together with the traditional function, of maintaining a house and satisfying her husband' needs, have been widened by nowadays' demands to support a family financially. No wonder that a contemporary woman suffers from the constant lack of time to accomplish all those duties and responsibilities. Undoubtedly, she cannot stand on her feet again in order to find herself, being completely lost in this new situation. /^t/Along with more responsibilities and duties which were added to the already existing ones, the privileges of women have decreased. Hardly ever can one come across the former customs of kissing a woman's hand, or allowing her to pass through the door first, especially abroad. Together with those symbols, the respect for females seems to have disappeared also. Women staying in permanent relationships are very frequently beaten, shouted at during quarrels, sexually abused and psychologically tormented by their husbands. Additionally, men are nowadays more likely to demand a divorce and abandon their families without having any qualms of conscience. Truly enough, this humiliation of women is indirectly due to feminists, who wanted to gain equality of sexes at any cost. After all, when a woman was dependent upon her husband financially in the past, a man felt responsible for her as well as their children. Now, he doesn't have to worry about the future lot of his wife who, having become independent and self-reliant, is able to earn for a living herself. /^t/The feminist fight for women's rights, which have taken about 150 years, hasn't turned out as beneficial as it may have seemed at the very beginning. Owing to suffragists, females gained franchise, the symbol of political equality; but they did it at the cost of their serenity and respect from the males' side. One can risk to say that women declared themselves against their own sex. They didn't attain the real equality; instead, more duties and responsibilities were added to the daily activities of a woman, including professional work. The clash between tradition and liberalisation has resulted in women's perplexity and inability to find themselves in a new situation. One may pose a question: is there anything that could help women? It seems that the only way to reverse this hopeless plight is to demand equal rights for men. Since males understand a right as a duty, it's high time they were given their rights to do housework and take care of their children. Maybe this will appear advantageous for women. Who knows?... <0017> /^t/Women are just a part of the human race. They are not something apart. They are not something new on the surface of the earth. Women are as sophisticated as men, anyhow, and they were never anything but women, and today they still should be only women. As normal human beings they should not feel either inferior or superior to men. These are the feminists who have created the false image of a perfect 'superhuman female' which still has a pernicious influence on the cause of women. Suffragettes from the 19th century fighting for equality between the sexes and for political rights of women have changed into members of Women's Liberation Movement in the second half of the 20th century who are ferocious feminists condemning everything what is connected with a traditional feminine mould and, in fact, doing more harm than good to the cause of women. /^t/Contemporary feminists claim that they have liberated women from their disadvantaged position in a society by creating a perfect Queen of Beauty who is better than a man both in physical and psychical sense. Feminists also think they have created a strong and independent female whose primary goal in life is to achieve success in 'male' terms, who can compete with men in every job. Finally, for those women who do not want to forfeit the idea of a conventional marriage and traditional family, feminists have found a solution in a type of a woman who might 'have it all ', a woman who can combine easily the role of wife and mother with her professional career. Therefore feminists claim that they improved the situation of women in a society but probably they never considered an exorbitant price that women had to pay for the change. /^t/The Sixties in the 20th century were the true beginnings of emancipation. The early Sixties' response was to decide not to grow up at all, to remain a spindly-legged girl-child - the look that was piloted by model Twiggy, a perfect Queen of Beauty. It was at this point that cases of anorexia nervosa and bulimia began to multiply. To be perfect was most important, even if you have to die for it, or play the no-food game to the brink of death. Nowadays women still go, in pursuit of the impossible, to hairdressers, to the cosmetic surgeons, to the beauty counters, to the dress shops, to the physical fitness clubs, pushing their food away, making themselves vomit, constantly tripping into the Beauty Myth, the Beauty Trap. Why? To show men a raised female consciousness, to show men that if they want, they can be perfect and better. But is it really the case? Certainly, it is not. There is no perfection and beauty in artificiality, in a woman who due to dieting and worrying about her appearance suffers eating disorders or nervous breakdown. Emancipation has gone too far, it turned into the constraint. Women did not prove to be better than men either in physical or psychical sense. Moreover, they harmed themselves. /^t/Sixties's women also thought of themselves as free spirits, free of the conventions which had dulled their mothers' lives. They needed economic independence and an identity beyond wife and mother at home. So they became strong and financially well off conducting their own businesses or involving in politics. A new type of a career woman, who no longer lives vicariously through her husband, was created. Obviously such women attain social prestige but at the same time they lose something very important. Career women usually lead workoholic lives in which there is no room for love and friendship. They want to be better than man either in work or in politics. So if they compete with men they cannot love them deeply. They have difficulties in establishing satisfactory relationships with men. Children also seem to be an unnecessary burden, an obstacle to success. After some time career women may realize that their biological clock have ticked away. Then she feels old and lonely and she finds her life incomplete but often it is too late to change it. /^t/Obviously there are some women who decided to 'have it all' so they try to combine their professional careers with family lives. But it is usually a tough row to hoe. A pregnant woman stands a slight chance of being employed and if she is already employed, there can be some problems with getting maternity leave. Sometimes, even after a few weeks' break returning to work proves quite a struggle. Firstly, it is very difficult to leave a little baby because the mother has to find a person she could trust to look after her child. Secondly, a young mother cannot hope for praise and support on the part of her boss and co-workers when, for example, her child is ill or has been crying all the night and the mother wants to take a few days off and has not done her work on time. When a child is older and goes to school it seems that a woman can devote herself entirely to her professional life. But it is not true. If a child has some problems in school, his or her mother is to blame for it. Mothers need to talk, to play and to take care of their children. But professionally working women have not much time to do this. A child who is neglected may acquire some bad habits such as smoking, drinking alcohol or taking drugs. Obviously none of the mothers would like to have such trouble but when mothers come back home after long hours spent in their offices and they still have some housework to do, they feel so exhausted that they are unable to notice their children' s problems. /^t/Changes caused by feminism resulted in overwhelming sense of powerlessness to combine successfully the new image of a woman with the traditional one. Women no longer see themselves as a softly flowing stream of attraction and desire and beauty, soft quiet rivers of energy and peace. Under the influence of Women' s Liberation Movement they became isolated, selfish and lost creatures going to an extreme to pursue the impossible. Instead of independent females, feminism made them instruments for work and politics, unable to give true love and care to other people. <0018> /^t/We live surrounded by objects and systems we take for granted. The science has rationalised things and created the order according to which the life on the Earth is going on. As a result, dreams tend to be treated as frills and frivolities and people pay a lip service to the inner life of imagination. Although modern world is so much dominated by science and technology, some people keep on saying there is a place for imagination. /^t/Opponents to this claim give many reasons to support their opposition. They aim at proving that imagination does not contribute appreciably to human life. They believe that imagination does not help tackle basic life problems such as unemployment or lack of money. They also put forward an argument that imagination is of no help in fostering interhuman relationships. Finally, they claim that imagination does not serve as an effective means of creating equitable society. /^t/In response to the argument that imagination does not help to struggle with life problems, one can say that in fact it is the only beneficent force capable of running up against a host of unpleasant troubles. On the whole the world economic situation today is traumatic: percentage of unemployment is on the steady increase and a lot of people live below the poverty line. These people are aware of their poor standards of living and bend over backwards to forget about complexities of everyday life. Certainly, the poor cannot lessen the pain of their miserable existence while watching all the technological inventions in the shop windows or on TV commercials. Therefore, they excite the imaginary visions of living far from modern technologically-dominated world somewhere on the beautiful island covered with evergreen plants and surrounded by deep blue ocean. They move themselves into quiet meditation so as to escape from the harsh reality where technology deepens their poverty. If they did not have any dreams, it would be extremely difficult for them to lead their lives. /^t/When it comes to the view that imagination is not a means of significant contribution to interhuman relationships, one can say that each "toy" of the electronic wonderland isolates us from one another. Spending long hours in front of a computer screen - probably the best invention of the 20th century's - moves people into self-seclusion. This form of entertainment seems to be a sheer waste of time in that it brings about a mechanical, disillusioned mentality and inhibits emotional development. People cannot realize their visions about friendship when sitting in front of video and thinking passively, like robots devoid of feelings. Thus it should not be machines that are most needed by a man, but it should be another man as P.Holbach, a famous artist once said <*>. Only when people did not make a considerable effort to transfer their mirages into real life, would they not be able to stand a chance of forming constructive relationships with others. /^t/To believe that imagination does not enable us to savour the sweet smell of equality would be readily accepted if in fact people did nothing to create equitable society. Through history of mankind people have been setting laws concerning human rights on the basis of their imagination of the fair world. The governments of the affluent countries do their best to relieve the suffering of the citizens of the Third World and post-communist countries. Various aid organisations such as UNICEF, UNESCO or WHO have been established to help people of different races and nationalities. In addition to that there are many private benefactors. People who dream lead happy lives and their inner happiness affects positively those who suffer. In this way people all over the world face a magnificent opportunity of building equal-right society. /^t/Apart from the above mentioned, imagination moves us to realize our underdeveloped potentialities. People wish their deep-hidden dreams came true and often make a tremendous effort to achieve their imaginative goals. They cotton on the importance of self-development and self-esteem. Therefore, by means of their dreams they aim at constant altering their egoes as they feel a strong desire to live in unison with themselves and others. So, imagination is not only a factor which serves the individual needs, but also a factor which help to obviate the needs of others. /^t/On no account should imagination be left aside. Just as we think of basic needs of life such as food or clothes, we should also think of satisfying our spiritual needs which offer people benefits of security. With imagination we can alleviate excruciating pain of humdrum life and help each other in creating trouble-free society. Thus, imagination should not be regarded as a weapon if a fool who cannot come up against his or her problems. It should be perceived as a means of overcoming the disadvantages of our urban-industrialised, still imperfect society. <0019> /^t/One only needs to take a look around to see that the world we are living in is the future already. To get to Peking from Warsaw, the distance of 7500 kilometres, within 8 hours is not a problem today - supersonic aeroplanes make it possible for us. Thanks to mobile phones one is available at any time. Through a network of computer connections people have access to huge databases of computerised information that they are able to obtain in a split second. With computers used in every field of life, we are in fact on the brink of a computerised future. As our society becomes more technologically sophisticated, we can shop without leaving the house even by means of electronic supermarkets. However, those who boast of blessings of civilisation and conquests of science are usually unaware of the negative impact science, technology, and industrialisation have had on us. Despite of all benefits we derive, disadvantages of technological development do remain evident - a gradual decline in social life and a progressing loss of creativity seem inevitable in the modern world. Moreover, as scientific inquiry provides answers to every question, hardly anything nowadays remains unanswered. Thus, nowadays people live their lives being deprived of dreaming and imagination. /^t/Proponents of technological advancement often argue that it has facilitated communication among people. To back up their stand, they point out to the alleged advantages of the twentieth century inventions such as, for example, the telephone - the device which makes it possible for people from far ends of the world to communicate. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with the telephone - one finds it a very convenient way of communication nowadays. But, as far as the television is concerned, the situation needs deeper insight. Let us now go back in time to the days when the television was not invented yet. Whenever asked what their pastimes were at that time, elder people have a ready answer to give: "We used to gather together, play cards, visit our friends, organise picnics or go to the parties". Nowadays, having the whole family staring at the TV set for hours is a common picture. There is a countless number of channels to choose from, all providing a huge selection of programmes which, quite unexpectedly, are supplanting our other activities. We do not feel the need for such a great social contact any more - TV provides us with entertainment of any kind. /^t/Surprisingly enough, on the verge of the 21st century people also find themselves emptied of their creative abilities. Computers perform a lot of work for us so we do not have to think but just press the buttons. Shops are filled with 'ready-to-eat' food so we do not have to devise our own recipes but just switch on a microwave oven. However, some do believe scientific development fosters human creativity. They say that special Computer Aided Design (CAD) programmes help to visualise architectural designs better. But, even if thanks to technology, new improved construction materials continue to be invented and higher and higher buildings erected, does it really mean that technological development encourages creativity? Not necessarily. If, again, we investigate the last one hundred years in the history of architecture, we will soon discover that, in fact, as technological development progressed the quality of architectural design started to decline. The Eiffel Tower - a famous Parisian landmark and technological masterpiece in building-construction history - may serve as a good example here. Built of wrought iron in 1889, the construction aroused a lot of scepticism and no little opposition on aesthetic grounds. For the next few years the tower was considered the ugliest construction in the world. But we do not really have to date back to the late nineteenth century when the development of building construction was still at a relatively low level in comparison with the one we have today. The evidence of our poor creative abilities is to be found all around us - blocks of flats we are living in, those simple boxes made of reinforced concrete, speak for themselves. /^t/Undoubtedly, the reinforced concrete environment does not inspire us for dreaming. Sadly enough, there remains very little place for dreaming and imagination in our technologically advanced world. Today, parents do not have to wait till the delivery of their child to find out his/her sex - ultrasonic examination allows them to know it during the first month of pregnancy already. Moreover, thanks to in vitro fertilisation labs, people can consciously decide what sex their baby would be. There is no speculation whether there is life on the Moon or not - outer space research has proved there is not any. We are no longer amazed watching a rainbow in the sky as we know it is just an ordinary fission of light waves. Probably, the only thing to admire in the modern world is the high level of technology and the only chance for imagination for us is to think where science would take us in the nearest future. /^t/Although there are people inclined to see the blessings of civilisation as beneficial for us, it seems that scientific advancement does not necessarily has to influence us in a positive way. Some inventions turn out to disrupt our lives contributing to a breakdown in human communication. Others deprive us of creative powers by making us keep up the pace of technological progress. In the strictly scientific modern world we are also left with no chance to dream. Maybe, it is time to think whether science, technology and industrialisation do lead to a genuine improvement in the quality in our lives. Maybe, it is time to stop being so receptive to new developments. <0020> /^t/Huge number of people begin studies every year. The appetite for knowledge, abundant social life and lure of the so-called academic world has brought them all to big cities, where universities and colleges are located. And there they have been affected by academic way of living, so rich in purely theoretical courses that are hardly, if at all, relevant to the outside world. Before passing entrance exams most students had hoped that after three or five years of studies they would reach a kind of prestige and social high status, and this position will secure relatively high salaries. In reality, though, things are different. People who have already got various degrees lack basic abilities to cope with the problems of the real world. Moreover, it is this ability which is valued, rather than the knowledge of theory. /^t/Academic staff, together with students, create a world of its own, a vacuum for which nothing from the outside world is of any interest and hardly anything out of it is applicable beyond its boundaries. Universities are totally isolated from the outside world, scholars focus on some abstract disputes rather on their possible implications. Instead coming up with theory-based solutions for today's problems, scientists stick to their useless theories in which nobody is interested except themselves. /^t/It is no wonder, then, that students graduating from such stagnant worlds lack skills that might prove handy in the real world. The majority of subjects taught at universities contribute to the students' general knowledge, although later on, provided that a student does not choose academic career, nobody will pay any attention to the courses that a given student completed. Rather, he would be interested in the practical skills and abilities to cope with certain problems, which universities seem to have neglected. /^t/Even if the need for such skills has been recognised by academic world, students taking part in more practical courses cannot resist the feeling that their practice is both unreal and simulated. Consequently, they do not treat those courses properly, not performing as well as they would have been forced to in a real life situation. As a result of such an attitude students do not benefit from those courses anyway. /^t/Apart from that, universities do not develop skills of making one's way through ruthless reality. As students at universities, they feel secure and comfortable, but at the same time, unaware of the problems existing outside. They proud themselves on getting a high grade for some theoretical projects or congratulation on a given lecture, whereas, in fact, it is life that assesses, not teachers. /^t/Degrees achieved by students at universities present no value. Despite of their being challenging, or even thrilling, for one has to put much effort into them, one has to be careful not to pay too much attention to the academic work. Since universities fail to prepare for the real world, students have to do this on their own, probably applying for the job while still studying. After all, total negligence of the outside world may result in an inability to cope with its problems. And this would be a disaster. <0021> /^t/People plan. The ability to arrange future according to our needs is said to be one of the factors which distinguishes us from animals. Voyagers plan their holidays, the young couples - their future homes, while the contents of menu may be of some importance to a cook. However, very often happens that the future cannot be made in our way: the place of destination of the voyager proves to be not interesting, the couple gets divorced, and the cook is fired from the work. Then a question arises: what has gone wrong? It is definitely not what we expected. The answer might be that the differences between expectations and reality are caused by our insufficient imagination. /^t/Sometimes we do not posses the gift of picturing in mind the future at all.. More often, our imagination is not good enough to do so, which turn out to be the source of our disappointments and dissatisfactions. We read a holiday advertisement in which there is written that the hotel is ten minutes from the sea, and some of the rooms are provided with the stereo equipment. What is the most important, the cost of such holidays is 75 percent lower than the similar ones offered by other travel agencies. So a happy holiday maker strikes the bargain, buys a two - week stay somewhere abroad, goes there and is very surprised. The hotel is of the lowest quality, the stereo equipment is only in the room of the manager, to mention only some of the inconveniences. Reality proves to be different from what it was to be. Why? The miserable traveller did not thought of the existence of a catch which must have been in the offer cheaper by 75 percent than others. His imagination proved to be too poor. /^t/Very often we are disappointed by the reality because of our imagination being too rich. We tend to beautify reality, or simply believe that something will be better in the future. Not always it is the case. No matter whether it is a pupil who goes to school, a woman who has just got married, or film-goer who wants to see a new movie, they all believe that their school, marriage or film will be a very good one, to say the least. Nevertheless, when the reality has been checked, they find that it was supposed to be better, but proved to be worse. Worse than what, one may ask. Probably than the ideal picture of it, created in our minds by means of employing our imagination, which once again happened to be incompetent. /^t/Fortunately, reality is sometimes better than our secret plans concerning it. There are some people who have a very low opinion about themselves., who depreciate their value, treating themselves inferior to others. However, when they have to verify their abilities it proves that they are as gifted as their peers. There are many students who imagine a big failure which will be caused by the exam they have just taken. Still, when the results of it are announced, many of them pass this exam, some even better than others. In their case, the reality proves to be different because of the tendency to imagine themselves as being in constant dire situations. /^t/Expectations are nothing more than hope that something will happen, sometimes based on the knowledge of reality, more often on our imagination. It is this imagination which causes so many distortions between expectations and the real life. Imagination is very often a substitute for the things and situations which are not likely to happen in our life. It is a very subjective notion, perceived by every one of us in a different way. That is why the application of it should be limited in some way while planning our future. Sometimes we should be more down-to-earth. Otherwise we might be surprised finding that the hotel is too far, the film not very interesting, and our marriage is fraught with problems. <0022> /^t/Our century has been dominated by technology. Cars, computers, telephones, TV sets, etc. have become a inseparable part of everyday reality. We depend on technology so heavily that we cannot imagine living without electricity, running water, and other marvels of science. We tend to think that technology brings progress, advantage, and improvement. We support its development in the hope it will make our lives easier, more comfortable, and happier. Unfortunately, it does not necessarily have to be the case. Very often does it happen that technology does more harm than good. /^t/First of all, the development of technology contributes to the devastation of the environment we live in. It affects everything that we depend on. Petrol fumes from car engines poison the air we breathe in. Waste from factories pollutes the water we drink. Large areas of land are seriously contaminated. As a result, many people suffer from diseases that have their roots in the pollution of the environment. For instance, an increased number of allergies is proved to be highly correlated with pollution. Most often, however, we do not appreciate the dangers of technology unless we face a disaster. It was a great shock to us when a few years ago the leakage from the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl contaminated large areas of Eastern Europe. Lots of people died of radiation sickness and the land around the nuclear power plant became uninhabitable. There is no doubt then that the development of technology has serious ecological consequences. /^t/Moreover, the development of technology has dramatically affected our way of life. We tend to watch TV rather than read books or go to the theatre. When solving a problem, we rely more on computers than on ourselves. We do not bother to go on foot when we have a car. We would rather use the phone than visit somebody. However useful all these invensions may be they limit our use of intellect and encourage laziness. We tend to be concerned with material reality. We forget, unfortunately, about spiritual and intellectual side of our existence. /^t/Last, but not least, technology has always been and still is seriously abused. New scientific discoveries are immediately applied to the production of more and more sophisticated weapons. Practically every branch of science has various applications in the armaments industry. Consequently, nowadays, people have at their disposal not only so called conventional weapons but also chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons. Scientists constantly look for new inventions for the good of our civilization. But hardly ever do they think how their discoveries may be misused in the future. Maria Curie, for example, could have known that her discovery of radioactivity would consequently lead to the construction of nuclear weapons. Our century has experienced the murderous effect of modern weapons. Both World Wars proved how disastrous technology may be. Perhaps the most warning event was the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It made people realize that our world can be easily blown up at the press of a button. /^t/In the light of the above evidence, it seems obvious that technology does not necessarily have to improve the quality of our existence. On the contrary, it may conceivably threaten the whole of our civilization. It is true that there are some advantages to be gained through the development of technology but many of them are only illusive and, in the long run, they turn against us. In most cases, the benefits that technology offers us are hardly comparable with its dangers. That is why, it is crucial that we should stop treating technology as a solution to all our problems and began to be more sceptical about it. Perhaps it would be an exaggeration to suggest that the development of technology should be held up but certainly it has to be controlled in some way. It would be a good idea, for example, to establish an organization which could supervise and control the development and applications of new scientific discoveries. <0023> /^t/"We stand in the face of environmental disaster by pushing countless plants and animals to the brink of extinction. If nothing changes soon, there will be no future for mankind on earth." Such alarming messages are sent all over the world by environmentalists, who put forward the thesis that the world inexorably aims toward self-destruction. As major culprits of such a situation, they point to big business enterprises whose activities are said to contribute to ecological degradation. As a solution to the most serious environmental crises, the environmentalists suggest the use of so-called restorative behavior. This means that by using safe procedures, the environmental degradation will be slowed down and in fact reversed. Earth's sources can begin to be restored. Among the safe procedures recommended by environmentalists are several which are both friendly to the environment and profitable to business. /^t/One of the procedures that business can adopt is recycling. Recycling is a good alternative to the disposal of industrial waste products. Generally known is the fact that waste products like wrappings cannot be easily biodegraded as they usually require a long span of time for decomposition. Recycling reduces waste disposal and, at the same time, lessens the degradation of the environment. With recycling, dumping grounds would be less burdened with trash. This in turn will reduce the danger of toxic leakage into the soil and lessen the possibility of underground water pollution. Recycling protects the environment and, at the same time, brings profits to business. By reusing container products, the companies need less of them to produce. They will not have to spend as much money on new material as they will be able to use the recycled substances. /^t/Another way of preventing environmental degradation is by reducing the use of fossil fuels. We should mobilize clean energy sources instead of sticking to coal. An economy based on solar or tidal sources of energy will contribute to the lessening of carbon dioxide omission and other toxic gas emission into the atmosphere. Following this course of action will reduce acid rain, which destroys forests. It will also give an economic advantage to big enterprises. By investing in clean energy sources, business will plug into sources which will never run out. Such an investment will be beneficial in two ways. First, companies relying on clean sources will not have to pay for coal, which is expensive. Second, they will avoid penalty fees for polluting the air. /^t/The last procedure suggested here is reforestation. It can be applied in the case of Central America rain forests. The destruction of this area is caused by the American fast food industry. Trees are cut down to give room for cattle, which are used by food chains as meat for hamburgers. The clearance of rain forests has already brought about over-grazing and erosion to the land. Reforestation proposed as a possible solution to this problem will be profitable to business and the environment. Big companies will make use of the regrown trees and, at the same time, further degradation of rain forests will be restrained. /^t/The procedures mentioned above show that possibilities exist to stop the degradation of the environment. By adopting such procedures as recycling of waste products, exploitation of new sources of energy, and reforestation, we can prevent such disasterous consequences as water pollution, toxic gas emission to the atmosphere, and degradation of rain forests. On the other hand, if business continues its old ways, there will be nothing left for posterity. <0024> /^t/It is Monday afternoon in October 1995. Rarely has the entrance gate to the Rialto cinema - one of bigger cinemas in Poznan - been so crowded. One could wrongly guess that this is a line for a best-selling movie. Actually, people in the crowd are picketing to prevent other people from getting in and buying tickets. The movie drawing this crowd is The Priest by Antonine Bird, a film that has aroused intense opposition in the Catholic Church in Poland. What is it about this film that has offended Catholic sensitivities? /^t/The film takes place in a small Catholic parish in one of the poor districts of an Irish city. The name of the city is never mentioned. In this way, the film director wanted to emphasize that the parish shown in the movie is a parish, one of many, perhaps the one you belong to. A new priest comes to work in the parish. He is young, full of ideas and brimming with energy. Gradually, he gets more and more discouraged and doubtful about his vocation. As the story develops, he becomes aware of his parishioners' immorality and corruption. Finally he finds out that his colleague, the old priest working in the same parish, is having a relationship with his housekeeper. Unexpectedly, the young priest, who has seemed to be above human weakness so far, turns out to be a gay and enters a relationship with a friend met at the disco. A sub-plot in the movie involves the incestuous abuse of a teenage girl by her father. /^t/The Priest was introduced to Polish cinemas at the beginning of October 1995, and very soon its subject became very controversial. First, newspapers started to discuss it. In all Poznan dailies, one could find reviews of the movie. They were not focused on its artistic values, but on its contents. The film director touched upon such topics as homosexuality, incest and sexual relations between a priest and his housekeeper. Stirred on by the media, these issues opened the question whether the movie profaned Christian values and offended the Catholic Church. As one can easily guess, the Polish Church and the political right found the film offensive and wanted to have it banned. Catholics were preached to in Sunday services to boycott the film. They were also asked to sign letters protesting against the showing of the movie in Polish cinemas. Public demonstrations and pickets were organized in front of bigger cinemas not only in Poznan but also in Warsaw and other Polish cities. /^t/Although there was a lot of opposition to the movie in society, there was no bias in the way the media presented the whole issue. They did it rather fairly and objectively. Apart from people who protested, quite a few people were given an opportunity to speak for the movie. In one of the issues of Gazeta Wyborcza, an interview with a well-known Polish theology professor was published. He assessed the movie as definitely anti-clerical, but not anti-Christian. He emphasized that the criticism contained in the film is aimed at the church organization and structure, not at Christian values. They are not diminished but propagated in the movie, he asserted. The examples of people representing such values as compassion or brotherly love are the young and the old priests. Another interview where positive remarks were made about the film was broadcast on a popular radio station Radio "S". There was also a call-in allowing people to express their opinions on the movie. Among fifteen callers there was only one who spoke against the movie. In view of the future reaction to the film, why were people picketing and demonstrating in front of cinemas? One street survey carried out by a reporter of Radio "S" showed that most opponents of the film had not seen it at all. They believed what their priests had told them in churches about the movie, and condemned it without even trying to get to know facts and form their own opinions. /^t/Another important question is why this film brought about such a controversy. Have there not been other films in Poland before, touching such taboo topics as incest and homosexual relationships? Actually these topics have already emerged, but never in association with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has been always perceived as the highest moral resort, pure and uncorrupted. More than church organizations in other religions, the Catholic Church considers itself to be God's representative. This perception of the Church has prevailed for so long in our society that Polish people regard the Church as the moral authority of the highest rank. In the movie, the film director simply challenged that unshakable authority. It was very risky to project a Catholic priest as a gay, and what is more, to shoot very bold scenes of him having homosexual intercourse with his lover. /^t/The Polish Church was opposed to the movie because it could not put up with the way the morality of the Catholic Church was portrayed. A priest's breaking the vow of celibacy is viewed by the Church as immoral. It is severely punished by expulsion. In the movie, however, the priest who broke the vow of chastity was featured as a positive character, and his behavior was interpreted as the reflection of his human soul. The Church also criticized the movie because of its portrayal of a Catholic bishop. In the movie, he is shown as having undue concern for earthly property, power, and prestige among people. /^t/For Polish audiences, The Priest is the first film showing the Catholic Church in a dim light. The Church constitutes a very significant authority in Poland, and so far it has gained as many supporters as opponents. Having appeared in such a culture as ours, the film inevitably became the source of controversy. Apart from people who find the film offensive and profaning Christian values, there are also people who are glad that finally someone was brave enough to break taboo and reveal what they thought to be true about the Catholic Church today. <0025> /^t/Although the modern world has developed many effective facilities to relieve the physical effort of people at work, the need for fitness is still alive in it. There are various reasons one may plead to justify one's commitment to exercise. On the whole, they differ according to a whole range of the functional purposes exercising can serve and to the emotional motivations of practitioners. As a result, some persons may be accused of being maniacs, while others, not necessarily exerting themselves less, recognised as sensible self-carers only. /^t/The tastes and conducts of thousands of people are dictated by the public fashion rules; it is not striking then that the selection and practice of physical activities by the interested follow suit. Nowadays, for a person to be universally considered attractive certain conditions must be met, one of them being a slim, agile and sexy figure. Unfortunately, in many cases the condition happens to be absolutely compulsory for an individual to be at all noticed and approved. Our times are hard for the short, the plump and the lame. Therefore, it is quite common that not only people who are but also those who suspect themselves to be in some respect deficient, will soon become obsessed with the idea of getting themselves immediately into shape by all the available means and at any cost. It is here that we find the majority of maniacs, whose whole sense of living is filled with the one wish to be slender and sexy. Fitness identified as the way of achieving that aim may then counterproductively contribute to a person's breakdown entailed by his or her unquenched ambition, simply because nature does not enable us all to be perfectly trim and shapely. /^t/Besides those ever-struggling and never-satisfied practitioners of exercise, there is another set of people who suffers from the idea of fitness as well, for some other reasons, however. These are the flabby, timid and irresolute, who would like to say yes to exercise, but who lack the courage to put on the tracksuit and run out, in fear of changing their fixed image born in mind by their relatives, acquaintances and neighbours. Shyness or the fear of being possibly ridiculed paralises them, and so they stay home, torn apart by the attacking wishes and the cooling fear, totally unhappy. Most often they become by-standers or viewers of the events which they cannot dare to take part in themselves. Their personal motivation is much lower than that of the maniacs, which results from that they would often take up exercising for just pleasure and good health and not for the necessity to reform the appalling appearance. /^t/Luckily, there is still another group of people, the largest one, who recognise self-exertion as something actually beneficial to their bodies and minds, and who thus maintain the necessary amount of common sense in viewing the question, thanks to either their strong personalities or favourable social atmosphere. They comprehend that exercise is not a way of life, nor should it be a source of distress. It is intended, as long as its advocates are pure amateurs, to increase their motor ability, calm their nerves, secure to them a relatively shapely figure (compatible with their natural predispositions), improve their breathing system, and, most of all, to provide them entertainment and satisfaction. Fitness never ought to be the ultimate goal in itself, but a factor stimulating our sense of happiness and enhancing or facilitating our functioning in the contemporary society. /^t/The clear-cut division I have sketched above may arouse objections whenever we think of ourselves as of individuals endowed with an extent of unique idiosincrasy which determines our lifestyle. Yet, however imperfect the scheme may appear, it reflects some universal pattern which people cling to in everyday life, not only when addressing fitness and exercise. Among those who feel truly concerned with a given element of reality there will always be both addicted maniacs and complexed dreamers, spanning the space occupied by a sensible majority who are able to somehow reconcile their needs to their activities and preserve a fresh, realistic and untroubled mind. Only such exhibited common sense and moderation can give you a real bit of success, in exercising as well. <0026> /^t/For years parents have been trying to explain the issue of sexual behaviour to their children in a way that would satisfy both sides. Books and lectures of the subject have been their last resorts. As a matter of fact, then, discussion on sex and its consequences has divided parents into supporters, but most of all out-and-out opponents of the subject. The opponents have concentrated upon the mental and physical consequences of sexual intercourse and its influence on young people. The supporters, however, use their own strong arguments, such as, awarness and responsibility for one's sexual behavior which underline the necessity of discussing sex with children at a very young age. /^t/Parents frequently restrain themselves from making a family taboo, sex, more explicit. First of all they feel embarrassed and incompetent to lead such a discussion. They all, however, expect their children to behave as responsible and mature people, especially when they have already started a sexual relationship. The supporters, on the other hand, reckon that ignoring the subject is much worse than putting it into discussion. Children are usually ten (at least in Poland) when the problem of sex differences is raised at schools. The subject is limited to enumerating these differences, but there is much more to it like prevention, pregnancy and abortion, for example. Children expect to gain this knowledge at school, but it seems that they are mistaken in thinking that it is the right place to rely on. /^t/Caring parents defend themselves stating that an open discussion and, moreover, description of sexual intercourse might force children to reject it as natural way of expressing one's feelings. The supporters of the idea, however, compare a rape of unaware teenager or a child to it and wonder when she would be much more shocked and inclined to rejecting sex completely. It is necessary to inform children how they should behave when faced with indecent proposals or persuaded into prostitution. Such a discussion proves helpful in evoking self-defence and self-awarness of what sex really is. Children should be taught that sex can have a very positive influence on their lives as a way of getting to know a person who they love and care for. All advantages of it should take place in the right moment of their lives. /^t/Another argument given by the opponents is that discussion about sex may encourage children to try and do it. First of all, if they are aware of the consequences of sexual intercourse in their childhood, they will be reasonable enough not to take a risk and bear the consequences of irresponsible decision. The main reason why so many young people become parents is their sheer curiosity how it is to make love. Ignored by their own parents they seek for any explanation and decide that the best way to find it is to try it themselves. Their knowledge is based on books, magazines or films that treat sex as a mechanical behaviour and present its vulgar forms. Therefore, the young struggle with the consequences of irresponsible decisions such as pregnancy, marriage and a divorce in the end. /^t/Sex has always been a controversial subject, nevertheless, its influence on our lives cannot be overlooked. Moreover all the questions about its functions, purposes and consequences should be made explicit to children before they are in trouble. In this way they could prevent themselves as adults, from unexpected pregnancy or veneral diseases, especially the AIDS virus. The knowledge about sex, on the other hand, could help them to make responsible decisions as to if and when they would like to become parents. The influence of sex on our lives is undeniable, therefore, we must be teachers to our own children and show them that sex is the symbol of love not hate. Besides, we are the only source of knowledge the child relies on and expects to have an access to. <0027> /^t/The pursuit of money is the only aim in many people's lives. Money is desirable as it assures a full and interesting existence. It enables people to take advantage of many amenities provided to them and satisfies both their physical and psychological needs. Hence, at the turn of the 20th century money is attributed the greatest value of all. /^t/Opponents to this view would probably shout with indignation on hearing such a statement. They believe that it is love, not money that is the most important thing in life. They also stress the significance of satisfaction achieved through harmony between body and soul. What is more, they say that it is only health that is the most precious thing in life. /^t/In response to the argument that love is the most important it can be said, however bitter it seems, that without the support of money love dies away. Lack of money makes it impossible for a couple to have a chance to go to cinemas, theatres, cafes or fancy restaurants. Going out together, spending time in a pleasant atmosphere and travelling a lot add a good taste to a relationship and provide a couple with new experiences. Lack of money hinders the development of a relationship and truly weakens it. It has been proved by many psychologists that lack of money is one of the factors leading to a break-up of a supposedly stable and strong relationship. In this way money can be viewed as a guarantee of the success in love as it is superior to love. /^t/To some people satisfaction means more than money. Nevertheless people's satisfaction hardly ever stems from turning their dreams into reality and gaining respect from others. It is often money that assures satisfaction. The belief that self-development and harmony between body and soul lie at the roots of complacency was characteristic of medieval monks, who valued ascetism highest and paid no attention to any earthly comforts. By contemporary people satisfaction is measured by the amount of money put away in a bank or located in real estate. In this way money can be perceived as the only means of assuring people's self-confidence and pleasure in life. /^t/To many people health has the highest price. Unfortunately, they are unable to see that health can be preserved only with the support of money. Wholesome food, recommended a lot nowadays, is said to be one of the factors ensuring people's health. Nevertheless, feeding well costs a lot as a diet of low fat, sugar free products rich in vitamins is quite expensive for average people. Apart from eating wholsome food, practising sports is treated as another factor to guarantee fitness. Beneficial results of practising sports cannot be called in question, but for example skiing, playing tennis or riding a horse are quite expensive again. Without money there is no chance of maintaining good condition. Still, more serious problems arise when seriously ill people need hospital treatment and professional care, but they do not have money to cover all the expenses connected with curing their illnesses. What about people for whom expensive transplantations of organs could be the only salvation of their lives? They die because they do not have money to buy a new heart or a kidney that could at least prolong their lives. In this way one can dare a statement that there is no life without money. /^t/To summarise, seemingly people hold the topic of money in contempt and look down on those who pay too much attention to it. On the other hand they do not realise that everything is subordinated to money. Without it they would not be able to maintain love or find satisfaction. Even more paradoxical is that without the support of money they would not be able to preserve health or even life. In this way money has the greatest value. As Oscar Wilde said: "Young people think that the most important thing in life is money. Old people know it". <0028> /^t/Nowadays the media regularly cover animal rights and the actions taken by different groups in the protection of various species. One of the main reasons for this is the aggressive nature of some animal protection groups. Demonstrations, pickets, break-ins and letter bombs are becoming an increasingly large part of media coverage of animal liberation. Over the past decade or so, this amount of coverage of animal rights has resulted in more awareness by the general public. Therefore, it seems it is necessary for animal right groups to resort to militant activities to get people to realise the need for animal protection. /^t/Some opponents of militant animal protection groups say that such illegal acts as the destroying of vivisection laboratories by activists is just simple vandalism. There is also a fear that the damaging of these laboratories is putting into danger the lives of the people who work in such places. One such example of these forceful activities is the burning down of a vivisection laboratory by animal rightists in Milton Keynes in 1973. As one knows aggressive behaviour by rightists has increased public knowledge about the protection of animals. Normally, any laboratory that has been destroyed by animal liberators was owned by large corporations which can easily afford to rebuild and fix these buildings. Still, in the process of rebuilding the laboratories the animal rightists may have saved the lives of thousands of creatures. For instance, if one damages a lab, the owners of the laboratory have to increase their security and that is less money to spend on animal experiments. That is only a short-term aim. The longer-term aim would be to escalate such events to a stage where all these industries are under threat and cannot operate. /^t/More opposition comes from the belief that humans are far greater than animals. Therefore, in the opponents' point of view, it is too time-consuming to be involved with militant animal rightists in the protection of a different species. Some people believe, that animals are of no real consequence and that human life is the only thing that should be protected. Still, at least due to forceful activities by animal liberators a small amount of the general public have become more aware about the rights for living creatures. One has to realise that humans are only one species among many on earth, yet humans totally dominate the other animals by confinement, torture and death. Although in general, people care about the rights of living creatures, sometimes it takes an illegal act by animal rightists, for people to become more involved in the protection of animals. /^t/While the traditional campaigning methods for the protection of animals have been in use for over a hundred years, sometimes they are not that successful. Therefore, illegal activities such as the damaging of laboratories or criminal actions to grab media attention have been necessary. For example, the attack on the Charles River Laboratories by activists caused several thousand pounds' worth of damage. In this attack not only did the laboratory lose money, but also various lab animals were stolen. So, such a militant activity affected animal research industry a lot more than traditional campaigning could ever do. /^t/Although the protection of animals by forceful actions is threatening and illegal, it is also indispensable. What is important is that animal cruelty is stopped in all its different aspects such as vivisection, blood-sports, bullfighting, etc. Ultimately the best way to prevent animal suffering is in militant movements by animal liberators. <0029> /^t/The idea of European unification conquered modern policy and economy. It is viewed as a best option for Europe that is still divided into the rich West and the poor East. Such Europe cannot be a significant competitor for other growing economies and military powers such as the United States or Japan. Besides, the example of the USA as a country of many states proves the conviction that the unity is the key to success. However, Europeans have to realize that creating "another America" in that part of the globe is impossible. Europe is different, burdened with history, old alliances and animosities. Therefore it seems that the idea of the united states of Europe is not such an obvious and promising perspective. /^t/Looking at this idea from the Polish point of view, also brings double standard conclusions. History provides enough proofs for the mistrust towards western attempts to unify all European countries. Many times was Poland treated like a good on the market by the powerful (Jalta agreement). Therefore the unification is perceived both as a great chance for Poland and as a danger to its independence. /^t/The advantages of entering the European Community, however seem to be very encouraging. As a member of the Community, Poland would have to be respected as an equal partner. This would be connected with the recognition of the Polish rights that are not always respected by the influential neighbours (Russians' and Germans' intervention in Polish foreign affairs). Cooperation in policy would be accompanied by the economic partnership. Creating common European trade law, which appears to be the only way of introducing Polish goods to the European market, would become possible, then. This step might turn to be a stimulation for this country's economy and a remedy to such problems like unemployment, technological backwardness and bad organization of many branches of economy. /^t/On the other side the unification rises a strong outcry. The opponents of this project claim that setting links with the powerful may deprive Poland's of its true freedom. Poland as a country that have never had a privileged position on the continent is afraid of using its weaknesses by the West (the West to use its weaknesses). The predictions that this country will be treated as a looser and a stranger among the rich is quite common. Therefore, for many Poles joining the Community means nothing else but giving others the right to decide about their issues. /^t/The future of cultural cooperation may also be perceived both in negative and positive respect. It would undoubtedly enliven the relations with other countries. Additionally, the unification might provide new opportunities for the young, giving the a chance to study and work abroad, and for the scientists who would have an access to all sources. However, such a cooperation may appear counterproductive. It is very likely that the economical "exodus" of many talented individuals to the richer countries would achieve enormous proportions. This phenomena seems to be the most gloomy perspective for Poland's future. /^t/The unification of all European countries is a very complicated process. It requires from the future members of the European Community tolerance and longsightedness. Being on the threshold of that process, Poland and all post communist countries, have to face many dilemmas. The present attitude of the Twelve may support their fears and discourage them (the recent exclusion from the Community's conference on Polish issues). However, Poland cannot reply with isolation as the unification still remains the best solution to its problems. On the other side, all countries should understand that history and its consequences cannot divide the continent. The successful process of unification should be carried out with respect to nations' rights and without special privileges given to the powerful. Otherwise, Europe will never become a continent of success. <0030> /^t/I belong to those non-smokers who do not reject cigarettes for some ideological reasons, but purely practical ones. Smoking really disturbs me. Last weekend I went to a concert to one of the cafes in the city. The groups of people sitting here and there, drowning in the billows of smoke were the first thing I noticed. The smoke was so thick that I felt sick almost immediately. In the following half an hour I could not listen to the band. I fought with the smoke. I tried to find a place with some fresh air, drank in order to suppress the smell and taste of cigarettes in my nostrils and mouth. Then I suffered from the first attack of a terrible headache, and finally, left the cafe. /^t/Being a non-smoker, you go to such a place and have your evening spoilt, and your feeling of comfort gone as a result. When you come into the university hall, any office or an official meeting, first you are forced to stop breathing for a while, then you are offered a cigarette. Most people smoke there, no matter who else is in the room and how he or she feels. A non-smoker must put up with the circumstances and conditions. Therefore, after the meeting, you leave fainting and come to the conclusion that you live in a society in which a cigarette is an indispensable ingredient of public and social life. /^t/I ask, "Why should we not change that?" I do not want you to stop smoking, but I want you to limit it to the situations in which you are not likely to risk other people's health. I want you, smokers, and me, a non-smoker, to enjoy the most the ways of life we have chosen. I want a little bit of tolerance and common sense. Therefore, I insist on a prohibition against smoking in those places in which smokers and non-smokers officially or less officially meet. /^t/We have begun living in a democratic state in which a natural law of a free choice exists. You have been deceived by the numerous tobacco companies that have entered our free market, and I have chosen the life of a non-smoker. Accept my choice! I have chosen health, so help me to be healthy and let me be healthy. Like those tobacco companies that have a right to enter our market and conquer you as their customers, I have a right to reject their offer. Therefore, when we meet to argue or cooperate, try to understand me and refrain from smoking in order to respect my choice. /^t/Since you are in the majority, you may think that all the good reasons are in your side. Do you not realize that this approach to non-smokers is a bit egoistic. Democracy also means variety, and we both make this variety. Don't deprive me of my part in social life by drowning my creative abilities and physical efficiency in the cigarette smoke. Have you ever heard about the passive smokers? Yes, you certainly have. I, a non-smoker, belong to those passive smokers who inhale cigarette smoke and risk their health as much as you do. I am even at a double disadvantage. My time is wasted, because I cannot enjoy the meetings in cafes or do my best at the conferences, and my health is impaired. I do not want you to waste my time! I do not want you to ruin my health. I do not want your cigarettes to shorten my life, and I do not want them to sentence me to death of lung cancer. Therefore, think of a democratic progress and achievement, and support my claim to forbid smoking in the cafes, at the restaurants, in the conference rooms and other public places. /^t/You can of course, say that my claim is unreasonable, that I am in the minority, which should conform to your habits. You can say that your decisions, as the majority decisions, are valid and you are not interested in my contribution to the public life, because you will be able to manage. This is not true. I am an equal participant of the social life of the group we live in. There is no law that allows you to prevent me from going to school, hospitals or the city hall. Therefore, do not ignore the problem! Put yourselves in my shoes and do not allow YOUR habit to lower the quality of MY life. /^t/Do you remember a popular slogan issued by the Ministry of Health, "Cigarettes or health. It is your choice!", that "decorates" every advertisement of the tobacco industry? I have chosen health. Therefore, do it for me and for others like me, and make a small part of each day a Non Smoking Part of a Day. <0031> /^t/Animals communicate in different ways depending on which sense organs they developed best and on the natural environment to which they had to adapt. Communication is sharing information, causing others to respond to the stimuli which other creatures send. Information can be sent with the use of a variety of channels and stimuli: visual, auditory, chemical, or tactile. /^t/Visual communication can occur in three general classes: an active movement, fixed postures and facial expressions. When one hen pecks toward another, it is an example of an active movement. When a bird wants to attract another bird by colorful feathers, it is communication with the use of fixed postures. Finally, when a wolf snarls because it does not want any other animal to enter its territory, it is sending the information by facial expression. /^t/Auditory channels are also used in a variety of ways by different species of animals. Fish use high-pitched noises as a form of sonar for locating underwater objects as well as for communicating between individuals. Many insects produce noises through the vibration of wings. There is a wide range of frequency of these sounds, from low-pitched sounds to high-pitched noises produced by bats. Some of these noises are inaudible to other animals. /^t/Next comes the channel of chemical communication which is used by animals in water and in air. The distribution of chemical communication is achieved through diffusion and currents. This kind of communicating has an important function, from the well known examples of sexual attractants in insects to the distribution of odorous urine and feces by mammals. /^t/The tactile of communication is also important in many forms of sexual behavior and the care of the young in mammals. It plays a big role in the sexual behavior of insects: stroking movements of the antennae are a prominent part of sexual behavior in blister beetles. /^t/Methods of communicating between animals are strongly dependent on natural environment and the mode of life of the particular species. There are varieties of communicative channels even within one group of animals. Fish and insects are good examples to illustrate this statement. /^t/Within different kinds of fish one can find visual, auditory, tactile, and chemical stimuli of communication. Fish which live in shallow and clear water use visual channels of communicating, while fish of great depths and turbid water use auditory or vibratory stimuli. Sharks are able to communicate between themselves using chemical stimuli because they developed repellents from their tissues. Ocean fish make noises but auditory communication is useless in the mountain streams. Neither is this kind of communication used by fish in shallow and clear waters because vocalization could easily attract the attention of predators. /^t/Insects use mainly odorous and auditory signals to communicate. Although they are sometimes very colorful, much of the visual stimulation is not related to social communication but to the protection against predators. Nocturnal insects, e.g. moths, use odorous signals. Among grasshopers and crickets auditory signals are the most significant. /^t/From the foregoing it should be clear that the world of animal communication is very rich. What channels, stimuli and signals animals use to send information depends on their morphology and ecology. It is highly possible that there are kinds of animal communication which people do not know because these kinds are too difficult for people to detect. <0032> /^t/In todays world teenagers face many difficulties as well as dangers which they are often too vulnerable to overcome on their own. Being left by their overworked parents to themselves they not seldom find help and solution to their problems in wrong places and with wrong people. This leads to teenagers' crimes and, as a result of these, to their tragedies. Therefore it is essential that parents have a duty to keep a tight control over their teenagers to protect them against bad future. /^t/Unfortunately, adults do not often understand their duties towards their children. They mistakingly comprehend earning money and buying their kids everything they want with proper raising. They never have time to talk to the teenagers or to do things together with them. No wonder that youngsters feel abandoned and so they try to get attention by all possible ways. Undoubtfuly, the most popular ways of getting attention are the most shocking ones. So, in first place, the kids try alcohol or drugs. Needless to say, these "toys" are very expensive so sooner or later the kids are forced to lie or to steal to afford them. If the parents do not react in time their kid can become an alcohol- or a drug-addict who additionally may have a "rich" police record very early in his life. Of course, this would never happen in a loving and understanding family who talk to each other and know all the problems which the youngest ones have. /^t/However, all the dangers mentioned so far seem trivial in comparison with the ones which other peers carry with their readiness to "help". Teenagers not only see in each other their greatest solace but also their greatest menace. They realize that they can get both good as well as bad advice from their peers but still they say: "it is better than nothing". So they not seldom get advised to misbehave at school or at home, shocking their teachers and relatives by doing things they would never do if they knew that they already have the attention they fight for so desperately. Unfortunately, parents do not read this information properly assuming that the bizarre behavior on the part of their children is a result of their transition from childhood to teenagers. Again, the role of the parents is substantial and those who understand their duties as parents to teenagers do not have problems with misbehaving kids. Not dealt with in time, misbehaving may lead to violence and crime. Teenagers soon can find out that getting attention by the means of fear is the best way to become "popular". Everybody knows and remembers the one who acted violently against him, either with powerful fists or with a gun. And it is such a "fun" to see a terrorized peer kneeling in front of his suppressor begging to let go. It is not far from this point to real crime: shooting at people for money and for no considerable reason. Here is when attention is no longer the matter: now the parents have no power to change the situation. They once had the chance which they were not eager to take. Their teenagers do not need them any more because they think they have already found their way of life. /^t/This is usually the end of an unsuccessful parenthood. Too many adults want to be "liberal" for their children and try to raise them without too much "stress" and "intrusion". When, and still if, they decide to take a deliberate action to make their kids understand that they are not alone and that they do have their parents attention, most of the time it is unfortunately too late to change the criminals back into their own, innocent teens. <0033> /^t/Human are social animals. Since the dawn of time they have always formed communities. Living and working together gives them the feeling of safety and consequently a good opportunity of peaceful development. As man has become more and more sophisticated, the structure of the communities he lived in has changed as well. Simple tribes have turned into huge societies, and little dwelling-sites have become big cities. Their role, however, has always been the same: to offer security and support for individuals. /^t/People, the best mentally developed species in the world, physically belong to the weakest. This is probably why they prefer living in groups rather to living alone. Society, a monstrous human group, is the highest form of human community. It gives people the necessary illusion of security. An individual believes he is never left on his own, as he is surrounded by other people. He counts on them, relies on their support, as there will always be somebody whose task is to help him. Indeed, in such a big organisation as today's societies are, everyone is ascribed their specific and important role. There are people who are supposed to cure and those supposed to extinguish fire, there are some whose task is to teach, and those who have to keep law and order. Life is organized and humans are dependent on each other, which, on the one hand, makes them less helpless, on the other, puts them in charge of others, developing their feeling of responsibility. /^t/It seems, however, that today's immense social organisms are not oases of safety and peace any longer. People appear to lose control over huge communities which instead of tranquil and secure life offer danger and violence. Society causes too much pressure on its members, and social conventions, responsibilities and various social tasks, all intrinsicly connected with living in a city, confine city-dwellers and eventuate in multifarious abnormalities in their behaviour. Overpowering stress and ubiquitous "other people" deprive city-inhabitant of free time and privacy, result in stomach ulcers, fetishism, obesity and murder. /^t/Indeed, society seems to have lost its basic role which has always been to offer security and support. Today's cities are inhabited by nervous and stressful humans, who have become more and more insecure, and less and less free. Truly, it looks as if people were created for cities, and not cities for people. <0034> /^t/What's a book? A collection of printed pages neatly arranged between the covers? Or, maybe, a close companion? The companion that provides you with a unique opportunity to enter a different sphere, where fiction diffuses in reality, where you can discover yourself again, through somebody else's eyes. It's easy. All you have to do is listen and identify with the characters, and enjoy the story only to find out that you are not alone. /^t/Personally, I would opt for the second, somewhat simplified definition of a book, as only this one gives the full explanation of why I read. In other words, I read for a book to enjoy somebody else's company and to hear a real human voice emerging from the pages. What's more, I have very specific and precise preferences. To feel the real ties with the REAL person (dead or alive) I choose biographies or autobiographies. Only here, can I discover that the problems and joys of my life seem to be very similar to the ones of others, not imaginary characters, but people of flesh and blood. This gives a very comforting feeling that humans are not hermits, living their solitary lives in some far-away places. /^t/To illustrate my statement, I would refer to a very particular book I have read recently - "Wicked Lady: Salvador Dali's Muse" by Tim McGirk. The enormous proportion of the book is devoted to the life of the most eccentric of artists, the genius of surrealism - Salvador Dali. I was mesmerized by the real story of his life described masterly, in great detail, by the English journalist. This volume provided me with a multitude of peculiar sensations: from shock to amusement, from sympathy for the artist to admiration of his work, from liking to strong hatred. Isn't it human? I also discovered that although famous and glorified, which is, by some people, regarded as a recepy for utter happiness, Dali was not satisfied with his life. He was an extremely fragile and delicate individual, that could be easily hurt and discouraged, hunted by numberless maniacs, phobias, and mental breakdowns. Isn't it amazing? Almost for everybody Dali has always been the embodiment of extravagance, artistic courage, and self-confidence. He must have been a great pretender, hidden in the shell of lies and "faces", unable to cope with problems of personal and artistic nature that he encountered. I ask again, isn't it human? /^t/Certainly, my life is not that colorful or tragic, as the life of Dali. The example of Tim McGirk's work is just to serve as an illustration of great joy and knowledge a book can provide the reader with, but, most of all, of the peculiar unity that develops between the hero and the reader. <0035> /^t/State-of-the-art health technology works wonders in pushing the biological barriers forever forward. Youth worshippers are now offered a stunning variety of transplants, miraculous diets and treatments which can keep them up and about till their late 80s or 90s. Modern science has succeeded in artificially heading off senile decay, but has evidently failed to eliminate the process altogether. The descent from middle age to senility, however deferred, always takes place in the same sequence of steps. /^t/The first stage of ageing is marked by a gradual, yet noticable, deterioration of physical fitness. It is at this stage, roughly between early 50s and 60s, when various aches and pains become a real nuisance. These are accompanied by a rapid decline in sexual activity; interest in sex diminishes accordingly. For the more vulnerable the process of ageing may stop at this stage, as people in this age bracket are especially prone to tragic heart and circulatory failures. /^t/Next comes mental decay. A person entering this phase will often develop obsessive habits and ideas. Mental faculties, particularly memory, suffer greatly. While retaining of the remote past, an ageing person frequently has no recollection of some more recent events and is usually forgetful of daily trifles and routines. /^t/Finally, an ageing person reaches a point where all the previous irreversible changes occur with double intensity, turning the person virtually into a passive vegetable. This, in fact, constitutes a preparatory stage for imminent death. /^t/Senility and death are inevitable, which even most ardent health and youth freaks must grudgingly admit. The process of ageing may be either long and or sudden and dramatic; it may be delayed and nicely cushioned by modern medicine. However, it will always be part and parcel of human experience. <0036> /^t/"All men were created equal." However, sexism exists and is clearly visible even within the above sentence. The term "men" may be addressed to all human beings as well as to the male part of humanity. It is well known that the differences between the sexes are huge. They refer not only to the appearance but also to the mental characteristics of both sexes. This knowledge entails a stereotype of a strong, wise man and his weak, silly woman treated as someone inferior to him. This is supposed to be an enlightened age but it would be hard to say so hearing what the average man thinks of the average woman. Even in the most progressive societies, women continue to be regarded as second-rate citizens as if they belonged to a different species. /^t/It is enough to take into consideration the smallest unit of our society: a family and the role of a man and a woman play in it. There is the traditional family that has the male as its head. Except for ruling, his duties are rather restricted. Of course he works and earns money while all the remaining chores are on the woman's shoulders. If it accidentally happens that she also has a job, it does not excuse her from being a housewife. In most cases, such a thing as partnership does not exist. /^t/For centuries, a woman was treated as an object or a thing. Nobody cared about her needs. As an example we may use the fact that female sexual needs were acknowledged only in the nineteenth century (when clitoris was discovered) while men's sexual needs have been recognized for ages. Women are often treated as child-producing machines and they serve as a objects to satisfy men's lust. /^t/Men keep on maintaining the myth that there are many jobs women cannot do. Political posts, business and many other managerial positions are almost entirely controlled by men. This situation is preposterous! It is said that women are unreliable, irrational and that they depend to little on cool reasoning and to much on intuition to arrive at decisions. The situation does not change even when women prove their abilities. The truth is that men have so called inferiority complex and they are simply afraid of being beaten by women. /^t/Unfortunately, in most cases it is a woman who does not want to admit she has the same abilities as a man and the same rights to be a "full-time" citizen. It will be impossible to change the situation unless women themselves stop to relish their social position. Militiant feminists constitute a very tiny part of the female population and most women approach their actions with a big dose of distrust. However, if women go on accepting their position within imposed frames, they will remain second-class citizens forever. <0037> /^t/According to the Center for Studying the Public Opinion (CBOP), 77% of people surveyed fear that Polish army cannot guarantee safety to our country. When asked for reasons why the army is so insufficient, 83% of people pointed to our army's inadequate and obsolete equipment, 56% blamed politicians making decisions unfavourable to the army, and 34% claimed that Poland is too small and weak to defy any potential aggressor. In fact, Polish military budget is much smaller than that of other post-communist countries, and is inadequately used. Consequently, Polish army in its present shape is indeed poorly equipped and inefficient. For this reason, it should be replaced by a modern professional army. /^t/The main failure of the present system is making wrong use of the funds awarded from the State's budget. Limited as these funds are, they constitute a serious strain on the state's finances. Still, at present the greater part of them is drained by the costs of providing housing, uniforms, shoes, and basic military equipment to hundreds of thousands of recruits called up every year. Shortening the time of service, from 18 to 12 months, is not a good solution to this problem. It would certainly reduce the costs of housing, at the same time having no negative impact on the quality of training. However, it would cause the increase of spendings on uniforms, and it is worth noting that the army already does not have money to provide service dress for all recruits (they only receive battle dress). /^t/The fact that the army spends the greater part of military budget on housing and uniforms results in lack of funds for modernizing armaments and increasing the number of military equipment. Polish politicians and military men see a chance of increasing safety of our country in joining NATO. However, as the former Minister of Defense Piotr Kolodziejczyk stated (in widely quoted words), "We cannot enter NATO barefooted." Majority of Polish army's equipment is obsolete and, as such, does not need NATO's standards. The obvious solution seems to be buying modern material. However, production of majority of armaments in Poland is based on obsolete technologies, and Polish army cannot afford foreign equipment. In fact, it even has difficulties in purchasing those Polish products which actually gained acceptance of NATO; for example, the army can afford buying 10 tanks a year. Without doubt, such imperfections of the armament system does not increase the safety of Polish citizens. /^t/Another failure of the present system of defense is the fact that it is based on people called up on compulsory basis who often have negative attitude towards military service. The reasons for such an attitude are numerous. Recruits usually have to join the army precisely at the moment when they start organizing their adult lives. Instead of persuing their professional careers, they have to indulge in activities which are useless in civil life or pointless. During the service, they are humiliated by their superiors and older colleagues. Finally, during the military training, they practice on obsolete equipment. It remains a mystery how an army made up of such soldiers is to keep high morale and guarantee good protection to our country. /^t/All problems mentioned above could be solved if professional army substituted for compulsory military service. In the first place, such an army would consist of well-motivated and positively predisposed people. There is no doubt there would be no problem in finding such people, as already there are many volunteers for the professional service which exists in a "narrow" form in Poland; it is so because, on the contrary to compulsory service, the professional one guarantees well-paid jobs and retired pay at relatively young age (after 25 years of service). Additionally, the costs of housing would radically decrease, as professional soldiers would live in their private houses, and limited number of soldiers would make it possible to save considerable sums of money now spent on uniforms. The funds gained in this way could be spent on salaries for professional soldiers, and, what is more important, on modern equipment. The civilians would receive some basic military training during short and intensive courses, so that they would be able to support the professional army in an emergency. Thus, in every respect, the professional army would surpass the non-professional one that exists at present in Poland. /^t/As it has been shown above, the contemporary Polish army, which is costly and unable to perform its duty of effective defending of our country, should be replaced by a modern professional army meeting Western standards, able to guarantee safety to Polish citizens. <0038> /^t/Polish Parliament has recently become interested in drugs. This is not because the Members of Parliament started to like or to use them, but because they want to strengthen the law concerning drugs. The presently operating rules are too liberal, for they do not determine the maximum quantity of drugs one can possess for his or her own use. Thus, everybody may feel free to bring legally for example six kilos of heroine from abroad. The amended law, on the other hand, seems too rigid. It establishes three to five years of imprisonment for only possessing drugs, regardless of their quantity. Moreover, it does not differentiate between drugs. In other words, marijuana is treated exactly the same way as other drugs, although in comparison to the hardest ones it is almost harmless. On the contrary, it may even bring positive effects. Therefore, marijuana should be legalized in Poland. /^t/There are, of course, many opponents of this idea. They say that if drugs mean a slow death, why they should not be legalized. If the recent fashion for drugs result from the too liberal law, what dramatic effects legalization will bring. They are afraid that their children will become addicted when drugs will be easily available. But they, just as the politicians, do not realize that marijuana differs from stranger drugs and is not that dangerous. /^t/First of all marijuana is less harmful than most people should think. Not only is it the lightest of all drugs, but also it brings less danger to our constitution than alcohol or cigarettes. As a matter of fact, "grass" affects only a part of brain, while some other parts are stimulated by it. Therefore doctors call marijuana "easts for brain". In case of many, it awakes creativness in various fields. Alcohol, on the other hand, brings only disorder to thoughts and deeds; affects whole nervous system and poisons the body. However both alcohol and cigarettes are sold legally. Marijuana does not work like that and what is most important, it is not addictive! /^t/In addition to not being very dangerous, "ganja" may have positive effects, which is scientifically proved, yet not very well known in society. Professor Kozakiewicz says that the drug is very helpfull in the process of curing of as much as twenty diseases. It eases the pains of those who suffer from cancer, for example. It does not cure directly, still it prevents from vomiting during chemotherapy. Next, marijuana helps the patients ill with asthma, multiple sclerosis, glaukomia and many others. It also eases rheumatic pains. /^t/Finally, legislation seems to be the best solution to the whole problem. Marijuana is smoked by 26 mln people in the USA only. Nobody knows the number of "grass smokers" in Poland, a country of 38.4 mln citizens but it must be very high. Prohibition is not a remedy at all. It would bring higher demand and in consequence a development of illegal drug production and trafficking. Everybody knows that prohibition of an alcohol and cigarettes would not prevent from their use. Why should the situation with marijuana be different? After all, legalization does not mean that "smoking" will be approved of. It only means that marijuana users will not be treated as criminals. /^t/In brief, legalization of marijuana is not an act against society or its members. Before it is done however, people should learn about its true values. Besides, there is no reason why marijuana should not be legalized while amphetamine or morphine - drugs of similar effects, though much stronger - appear on the list of legal medicines. On the other hand, neither alcohol nor cigarettes are neutral to our bodies. Nontheless their production and trade are legal and run by state. After all, it would not be fair to imprison somebody for at least three years for smoking "grass"! Anyway, there would not be enough place in all prisons for all the "smokers". <0039> /^t/The tremendous achievements in science and technology have entered the world of modern medicine. Sophisticated equipment unables doctors to save the lives of patients who would have died if they had lived a few decades ago. Nowadays prematurely born babies survive thanks to incubators and people with kidney defects are kept alive thanks to machines that clean their blood. A logical temptation, though, would be to attribute all successes in medicine to science and technology. This however wouldn't be true for a very simple reason: doctors are not only technicians. Their patients are also complicated much more than machines. /^t/In dealing with human beings, doctors realize how much their feelings, emotions and other spiritual powers influence every stage of the treatment. People are creatures who, at least, need to know that their phisicians do care about them. Therefore, the attitude of the doctors towards their patients is very important. Through showing care and attention, a doctor may give a patient the feeling of safety and comfort. These factors are something most people look for when they entrust themselves to their doctors. Although they don't always change the effects of the treatment, they can definitely help in its success. If it was just technology working to cure our bodies, our spirits wouldn't be so powerful. /^t/In the book "Doctors talk about themselves", there appears: "Sometimes I know I'm not really curing my patients. They are curing themselves. I'm just aiding in that cure and that is all I can do." The doctor tried to stress here how much depends on whether a person develops a positive or a negative attitude towards a treatment and life in general. In extreme cases it may determine whether a patient will live or die. For instance, there was the case of a boy who had a cancer and bravely fought in the disease until he broke down after the death of his friend with whom he was going through chemotherapy. After his decision not to live any more the end came very quickly. Other statements from the book include: "The rule is that before the medicine has a chance to work a patient has to see the reason to keep living. The more effective a doctor in showing that reason, the better." /^t/Another feature which makes the doctor's job different from that of technicians is the uncertainty of their work. The causes of diseases may remain unknown, the diagnosis may fail, an autopsy may not reveal the reason of death. Doctors are not superhumans, although they are often looked up to. Often they must tolerate the feeling of helplessness. The wise saying goes "Doctor, heal thyself'" It shows that doctors aren't almighty and that the use of technology is not enough in the curing process. A human being has many aspects and human body is only one of them. /^t/Finally, a very trivial truth must be realized. Doctors are people themselves and nothing shields them from their own emotions, problems or the feelings that some patients arouse in them. Some of them feel grief for the people in their charge. They feel joy when some patients who were to die, survive and become healthy again. Some of them pray before an operation, like the neuro-surgeon who confessed "Things can go wrong. Operating on a brain is not like taking a car motor apart. There, if you strip a bolt, you can get another one. Here you deal with the most delicate tissues. I'm on the edge when I realize that one mistake means my patient won't survive." /^t/To save people's lives is a beautiful job. However, this job isn't devoided of stress and nonmedical problems. Doctors and patients are affected by the suffering they see. The first ones must be more than technicians, whereas the other ones are more than machines. Humans are so complex, that a lot remains unknown to us, and we feel very uncomfortable about these mysteries. As one doctor stated "We are just scratching the surface of what human life is all about." <0040> /^t/Probably at the very beginning of human being history females and males, although different, were equal in their "rights" and social position. It was strength and violence which most probably made women inferior to men. Years after years, centuries after centuries, women were becoming more and more dependent on men which resulted in their being treated as inferior "creatures". Although in the last two centuries the position of women has changed due to flourishing feminist movements, giving them more opportunities and freedom, men and women equality is still just a theory today. /^t/Women inferiority can be best traced on the example of the Islamic world. In these countries governed by religious codes, the position of women is defined by the sacred book of Islam - the Koran, which says that: "men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other" and "good women are obedient". Basic religious law, which is the foundation for all legislation concerning families, allows a man to marry four wives, while it is impossible for a woman to have more than one husband. It also diminishes a woman to the status of half a man for purposes of inheritance. Most Muslim women are deprived of primary education. In Egypt, for example, 66.2 percent of the adult women are illiterate, while only 37.1 percent of the men. The ratio of women and men illiterates is similar in most of the poorer countries in the Muslim world. Of all 960 million illiterate people all over the world, two thirds are women. Ninety million girls in the world are denied primary education. Even if some of them are lucky enough to go to the university, they still have to sit behind men during lectures. Even educated women cannot perform top jobs and work among men. /^t/For more than a century in the Islamic world, the questions of what women should wear and how they should behave have been issues for debate by men. Women have no right to control their own lives, husbands and the number of children. Girls from poor families are sold at the age of fifteen to their future husbands and have to be obedient and faithful to them whatever happens. The man has the right to kill his unfaithful wife, but it is impossible the other way round. Women don't "have" a family, they "belong" to it. Their only role is that of a slave of her husband. /^t/Another part of the world worth mentioning while talking about women discrimination is India. Although the situation of women in this country is better than those Muslim women, it is still bad. First of all, giving birth to a baby girl is treated as a disaster for the whole family as her father would have to give her husband a dowry, which many a time exceeds ten years' income of the family. This situation led to massive killings of baby girls and abortions of female foetus. It resulted in a ridiculous situation: almost each Indian village has an ultrasonograph to check the sex of the foetus, but it still has not got running water. Girls are treated much worse than boys, yet they have still quite a lot of freedom. If their families are rich enough they can get all forms of education. Although it happens very seldom, they can perform top jobs, or be the head of the country, as, for example, Indira Ghandi was. /^t/However the Western culture gives women the best chances. After years of struggle for their rights, women are in a position almost equal to men. Some people even claim that men and women equality is a fact in Europe nowadays, but it is not true. Women discrimination is covert and that is why it is very difficult to detect. The constitutions of all European countries give women the same rights as men, and say that men and women are equal. But still women are discriminated. It is still a common situation that women are less paid for the same work. A male doctor gets at least ten percent higher salary than a female doctor at the same hospital, it is also him who is more likely to become the ward head. Most top jobs are more available to men, and performed by them not because they are better educated or more efficient, but because of their sex. Although it is prohibited by law in many countries, employers many a time refuse to employ women just because they are females. /^t/Even if men don't show women that they consider them inferior it is still in their minds. Even unconsciously they tend to think of women as somebody worse and uneducated. They try to prove that they are better and more worthy. /^t/The problem of men and women equality is a universal one. All over the world women are treated as inferior to men. It differs from country to country, ranging from treating women as slaves in the Islamic world to treating them as almost equal in Western Cultures. However, even in Western culture, where feminist movements have been flourishing for years, the men and women equality is still just a theory. <0041> /^t/Opium is a highly-addictive kind of drug, whose effect is sleepiness, indifference, detachment. The comparison of opium to religion seems to be quite justifiable when we look back on history and the part religion has played in it. When we think of the masses blindly following their religious leaders as if unable to reason themselves; complying with their orders, too stupefied and mentally blind to defy them. /^t/At present, at the doorstep of the 21st century, at the time when religion has considerably declined and its position has weakened decisively, the masses are no longer liable to be addicted to religion. In this case, is there anything that replaced religion and acts as the opium for the masses, a new stupifier the masses need so much? /^t/Undeniable, television plays an enormous part in the lives of the 20th century people. However, can it be compared to the addictive role of religion in the previous centuries? Have the masses assigned the role of the new opium to television? The only way to find out is by selecting examples from the past and from the present, and finding similarities. /^t/Most importantly, taking opium as any kind of addictive drug makes you utterly dependent on it. That is the obvious and inevitable side effect. You cannot at will make yourself stop taking it. On the contrary, your organism demands more and more. According to this purely biological process the masses used to be utterly addicted to religion as it had unlimited control and exerted extreme influence over them. At some point people became too weak to resist it. /^t/Nowadays, the collocation 'TV addiction' does not require any further explanation. People do suffer from it on a large scale and even worse, most of them are totally oblivious of that. A TV set supervises all the branches of human life: it entertains, teaches, informs. People more and more often tend to be incapable of performing all those activities without the aid of television. It is easier to relax by watching a run-of-the-mill show than by reading a good book. Similarly, it is easier to face the difficult problems, to overcome them when being on drugs. At least, that is what hosts of youngsters believe in. When you are feeling like having a good time, television is nearby. You are not on your own, you have your inseparable companion, which is however far from being your genuine friend. It has simply enslaved you. /^t/In the former times the masses sought knowledge in the Bible and among the educated elite, namely the priests, monks. The knowledge derived straight from religion what the church imposed was holy and unshakeable. Similarly, television teaches us everything; starting with cooking, ending in morality. Moreover, it is the main adviser, people no longer go to their parsons or priests to ask where "to invest" their money. The advertisement branch is in fact a separate industry, it will always show you the right way. Furthermore, children are brought up in front of the small screen. It is not the morel values of their parents, consequently, but the moral values of the screen that are transferred to the children and automatically adopted by them. Is television not as powerful as religion once used to be? The right to educate the youth makes it an extremely influential institution, I daresay its power in this field even transcends that of education. /^t/In the older times, families' lives were organised according to the masses at church and common Bible readings. At present their lives are arranged according to the TV programmes. Instead of common readings and discussions of the passages from the Bible, they enjoy common TV watching and discussing the conduct of the characters of popular soap operas. /^t/There is one more facet of the impact of television on the masses, which is undeniably of primary importance. Religion was undoubtedly the driving force for the masses. The history is rich in examples to prove it. People would do anything in the name of their religion, their God. The superior power was concentrated in the hands of religious leaders, the stupefied believers would follow. Thousands could participate in the crusades, could massacre other human beings, the most fierce wars could be fought on religious grounds. People, as if blinded, did not question, did not object as if "opiumized", in a state of coma, unconsciousness. /^t/Nowadays, in the age of religious decline, the unquestionable leadership of religion has been conveyed to television that can stupefy the masses equally successfully and in such a way that they are apt to fall for everything it presents. To provide a good example; Oliver Stone's latest film "Natural Born Killers" excellently depicts how threatening the influence of television can be. The most ruthless and unscrupulous murderers are glorified by the mass media, are elevated to the status of divinities. Hosts of youngsters openly state their admiration for the killers, look up to them, even worship them. /^t/Summing up, it is obvious that what we witness at the twilight of this century is the mass TV addiction. The society consists of ninety five per cent TV maniacs for whom the small screen means everything and which controls every sphere of their lives. They are refuse containers in the sense that they are fed with all the rubbish, disposed of, and are too passive to object to it. They are also like opium-takers in the sense that they are constantly too drowsy to become aware that they have deliberately become such refuse containers and the only thing they do is to digest the rubbish. <0042> /^t/In the whole known history, societies have always used some sort of currency. First it was the produced goods (bartered for other ones), then precious metals, which in turn were replaced by the paper money issued by banks. Nowadays new forms of currency have emerged (cheques, credit cards) which have already superseded paper bills in many situations. /^t/This short history of currency is to show that people have always needed some means of paying for goods and services. Why pay for them at all? Cannot everything be free? - someone might ask. The answer is quite simple. Every member of society needs certain goods like food, clothes and a shelter to survive. A single person can hardly be expected to be so versatile as to provide for herself or himself all these. So people have specialized - some produce food, some manufacture clothes and some build houses. This leads to the need for social interaction. If everyone is to have all the necessary products, the commodities must be exchanged within the society. In a group of ideally cooperative people this problem would be easily resolved. Everyone would produce as much as possible and everyone could take as much as he would need from the others. People, however, vary. Some are more productive and cooperative, some less. In a typical society the solution presented above would most probably lead to a situation when some of the people would work hard but there would also be individuals who would do nothing and profit from the labour of others. If one can have everything without any effort, why work? Some administrative solution can be proposed, for example making everyone work, but this has at least two major disadvantages. The first one is that the liberty of the people would be seriously infringed. People should be able to do what they wish (if their activities do not harm the others, of course). The second disadvantage of making work compulsory is that it would be simply ineffective. It could be feasible to establish if the person is doing nothing at all but determining if they are doing their best is impossible. People could largely simulate working and still draw profits from the society. So this model is not practicable - the system where goods are free for everyone quickly degenerates into one where the more diligent people work for the less industrious ones. /^t/The problems presented above occur even in the simplest possible model of society, where everyone needs only basic things. This is not the case in real conditions. Some people want larger houses and more clothes than the others. The needs of individuals are not the same and again, one cannot change it in any administrative way. A decree saying that buildings are to be of a given size and not any larger would make many members of society irritated and unhappy. Why should such regulations be imposed on people? Everyone should be free to have as huge a house as they wish. However, then a problem occurs. In any society most people would like to have large and luxurious residences. There would be neither enough people or materials to construct palaces for everyone. A just solution can be found - maybe only individuals who contribute the most to the society should have larger houses. To find the deserving ones, we have to establish whose products are the most valuable. Let us try to compare a mason with a baker. We have to find out how much work a house requires (how many days would a single mason have to work to build one). Then we should establish how much time it takes to bake a loaf of bread. When we divide the time of constructing a house by that of baking a loaf, we will get a factor representing how many times a house is more valuable than a loaf. We should also take into account the fact that baking bread and building require different qualifications and adjust our calculations accordingly. Then we can compare the baker with the mason by allocating them figures expressing the values of their work. Now everybody in our hypothetical society can calculate how much work they do and how large a house they should get for it. The value of each person's labour is expressed by figures and it determines their 'social status'. But here we get to the concept of money. When the production of an individual is worth a certain value, he or she can afford a large house. This is market economy. /^t/Luxury means palaces for some people and different things (for example fast cars) for others. They want to possess different commodities. So it would be much better if everyone got a certain number of tokens of some sort for their work and could exchange them for the products they want. Only two things must be ensured. Firstly, the institution which issues the tokens should be supervised to prevent someone getting tokens for free. Then the tokens should be hard to forge. And this is, in fact, the concept of money proper. /^t/In the light of what was presented above it is clear that money is necessary for any society which wants to function and conduct its business smoothly. We cannot do without some sort of currency. Money is not the source of evil doings, it is the bad sides of human nature that threaten the societies. The problem is with the psychology of man, his desire for wealth and power - and not with the means of evaluating and rewarding human effort. Models of Utopias where people do not use money assume that humans are equal in everything. The truth is quite the contrary - people are neither equal in abilities and talents nor in their needs. Every individual is different from the others. This must be taken into account and market economy, based on the free flow of money and goods, does it in the best way of all the political systems hitherto known. <0043> /^t/George Orwell or actually Eric Arthur Blair is, in my opinion, a writer who described totalitarianism in the best way. I mean, it cannot be done better. It does not matter if we are talking about socialism, communism or fascism. Orwell described a system which includes all those enumerated above. He described in a brilliant way mechanisms which work in all of those systems. /^t/In one of his essays Orwell wrote that politics is a kind of a subatomic world in which part can be bigger than a whole. According to Orwell world of politics is too complicated to talk about equality in it. He once said that Stalin and his colleagues having the best intentions could not behave in different ways in reality of that time. There is no equality if there is any hierarchy. Since 1930 it was possible to notice signs of attempts to establish clear hierarchy in Russian society which completely argues with the idea of equality. Orwell thought that English people could not understand the system established in Russia because they wanted to believe that somewhere in the world there is a country of real socialism where equality is the highest virtue. Of course we know that there is no such country. It cannot exist as there will always be a kind of hierarchy. There will be always a ruling class: "more equal" people who pull the strings and "less equal" group of society which has to work hard. Orwell admits in one of his essays that there is no complete democracy in England. Definately there is no equality in England nowadays. What is more there is no equality on any street of any town in the world. Because how should we understand equality? What kind of criteria should we use to describe and estimate it? Is it only money, good job or position in society? In my opinion we can consider equality also when we are talking about love, health or friendship. People have various talents and abilities but is it always just? One can learn three languages within two years fluently. The other one is able to learn one language in that period of time on a very poor level. It is not just but that is the way it is and nothing can be done to change it. It is much more tragic if we consider the idea of equality in connection with health, life. Some people are born with misshapen feet, some are blind or deaf and some will not live until they are thirty because they have a serious heart disease. Is it just? Is it equality? No. However no one can change it. There is no equality in love. Some are loved and adored and some spend their lives lonely and unhappily although they are ready to give and receive love. However they are not attractive or outgoing enough and they remain unnoticed. They will never know the taste of self-realization in love. They will never know how it feels to be the only person for the other man. It is not equality. However this is reality. And we have to face it. Equality was never possible. It is not possible now. The statement about "more equal animals" regarded as a metaphor applied to society is as true as it was fifty years ago. Those who promise equality are liars or mad people. Knowing history we can see how tragic were results of "equality" proposed by Lenin: hunger, concentration camps, cultural and economical destruction of a country. The result was bloodshed and terror. /^t/Krzysztof Kieslowski describes the problem of equality in one of his three films which together are called Trilogy. Kieslowski in his film called "White" seems to be saying that there is no equality in love or any other strong feeling. White represents equality in French flag. However the idea of liberty, equality and brotherhood was also born during violent and brutal revolution. /^t/Unfortunately there is no equality, it never existed and it will never be the main virtue of human race. Some attempts to change it are possible but they will never be successful. Looking at present situation in the world Orwell could see with bitter satisfaction that what he said was never more true than it is now. <0044> /^t/Man has always dreamt of making his life easier. Primates had to struggle for survival and try to improve harsh conditions of life. With time, man started to feel secure and warm in his cave; yet, out of greediness he wanted more and more ... He dreamt of better life with permanent light inside his dwelling place, he dreamt of being able to fly and move from place to place quickly and easily. Most of his dreams came true and man became an advanced creature who managed to achieve a lot thanks to the power of reason. But a price had to be paid for this ... /^t/Now man has everything his forefathers dreamt of but does it mean that he does not dream any more? And here a paradox arises - man wants to go back to his roots. He longs for a quiet, peaceful life, far from the sight of sky-scrapers and traffic jams. Of course it is mere wishful thinking as we have gone too far in our run for making our lives better and it is practically impossible to turn back now. /^t/It is obvious that our lives are dominated by modern science and technology - we are victims of our own creation - but I would not agree that there is no place for dreaming and imagination in this world. Very often people are simply ashamed to admit it but dreams have always been an important part of their lives. The fact that we live in the age of spacecraft does not mean that imagination has been rejected. It may not be as explicit as it was in Homer's days when Greeks lived in the world full of gods created by their own imagination, but it is present in our lives. Like our Victorian predecessors we feel endangered by the development of science and technology and that is why we try to escape into the world of dreams. It is possible by means of literature and Disney lands. The former is very fertile. It has always been the means of giving way to emotions of various kind and imagination running wild. Writers, poets in particular, have tried to show the beauty of the world and contrasted it with the ugliness of big cities and their industrial development. Some film makers have also used their imagination in order to create an unreal but beautiful world of fairies and good spirits, and as an outcome we have such films as "Hook" or Disney productions. I remember how sad I was after watching "Hook" and how I kept asking myself, "Why don't we live in a fairyland where everything is so pretty and simple? Good wins over evil and everybody is happy?" But then I came to the conclusion that this world is in fact inside us and we are the only ones who can make it live on or die. /^t/A Disney land is a paradise not only for children but also for adults. It is a place where grown-ups forget about the existence of taxes, bills, morgages, etc. It is a place where time has stopped and where everyone forgets about their problems just for a while. /^t/But not only is there a tendency in art to escape into the world of dreams but also in architecture. People get and tired of concrete and iron and they seek after solitude in the countryside. The cottages adorned with flower baskets are a truly delightful sight and to me they are an expression of people's longing for simplicity and peacefulness. /^t/I have tried to show that people of all ages have had various dreams and desires. It is obvious that they differ from age to age but they have always been and always will be present in mankind no matter how more advanced we may become. And I really do hope that Aldous Huxley's gloomy prophecies presented in his novel "Brave New World" will never come true and that people won't turn into unfeeling creatures deprived of this precious thing called imagination. <0045> /^t/At the very beginning I should say that I only partly agree with the above statement. In my opinion money is the root of evil indeed but certainly not of all of it. There are other reasons that make people choose the wrong path. Those could be ambition, power, fame, or even alcohol and these do not have to have anything in common with money. /^t/Let us imagine two old ladies who are neighbours. They always try to exceed each other in everything. Both of them have the most beautiful gardens in the area, best cut lawns and hedges. But one day one of the ladies finds out that her neighbour has bought four splendid greyhounds which look so terrific playing in the garden. Unfortunately she has no funds to buy herself four dogs that are so expensive. She cannot stand the fact that her neighbour is better. She steals secretely to the neighbour's garden and she poisons the dogs. She did an extremely evil thing which was caused by her sense of being better than others, her ambition and also jealousy. What does it have to do with money? Nothing, unless we say that she had to by a poison for it. /^t/Doing evil things for power or fame many times is connected with money. There are people who strive to get better positions or to became famous it would give them more money, or better connections which would make it easier to make money. But we need to point out the fact that there are many maniacs who love to be in charge of everything and they would every evil thing in order to have everyone in their hands, to manipulate people and kame them dependent. /^t/At the very beginning I have mentioned also alcohol as one of the reasons for evil behaviour. We all know how many murders are committed by people who are intoxicated. Alcohol makes people unable to think logically. Murders are effects of a momentary impuls raised by anger which could not be suppressed by reason. What does this have to do with money? Nothing at all, unless again we say that the murderer needed money to buy some alcohol. Of course we can agree that people murder for money, but there are also other reasons: insanity, jealousy of a husband etc. /^t/The words of a song yet are true. Money is the root of evil because it is the only mean for our life commodity. If we have money we live better. But in order to have money we have to earn them by hard work and not all people are hard-working. On the other hand there are jobs in which no matter how hard you try you will not earn enough money to feed your family. Finally, there are people for whom there is no job at all. These people might do evil like cheating or stealing. In this way money again has been found to be the core of evil deeds. /^t/Yet everything depends mainly on the personal qualities of a particular individual. For one person money could matter very much, the other could not care for it at all. <0046> /^t/Science has been an aspect of every advanced human civilization. An increasing amount of evidence suggests that the priests of the ancient Egypt or of the Maya or Aztec civilizations of America were surprisingly skilled surgeons, clever astronomers and mathematicians. They used their knowledge to support or override rulers. Generally, however, they employed their powers to establish and preserve the law and order in the state. /^t/Modern science is, similarily to the ancient one, prone to abuse. The implementation of Einstein's law of relativity in the construction of H-bomb being the most telling example. Yet, it points to the fact that it is not the pure science, but its application, that may become a menace. /^t/The development of science has always been assisted by parallel developments in technology. These, in turn, often met with strong social resistance or even violent actions conducted by the workers made redundant due to the increasing mechanisation of industry and other branches of economy. Moreover, the novel inventions were rarely properly tested before implementation. This resulted in terrifying catastrophes, which, on the one hand, incited fervent opposition to the new, and, on the other were viewed as the reason for further scientific research. /^t/At this point humans realized that any modification of nature causes side effects, which cannot be entirely foreseen. Not only the application of science, but scientific experiments themselves have begun to present a danger to nature and hence to ourselves. Such a situation calls for more scientific investigations, so that we could protect what is left. The inevitable circularity of such reasoning is striking. /^t/It seems that humanity has been caught in a trap of forcing order in chaoes, and is now facing the results of this foul attempt. Nonetheless people cannot cease to try to control and adapt nature to their needs. They can only pay more attention to the truth that the more cautiously science is applied, the less menacing it will become. <0047> /^t/Man has always wanted to understand his or her fellow human beings. The search for understanding has prompted man to think. Thoughts were a way to probe into the other man's realm of ideas. Man has always felt the urge to share his or her thought, he, therefore, attempted to record them the best he could. Ancient drawings on cave walls or computer-edited texts; they all testify to the universal need of human beings to understand and be understood. That's why humans read. They read to be able to find a point of reference for themselves. They read to find out more about the other and at the same time to find out more about themselves. This is how make sure we are not alone in our quest to understand the world around us. /^t/People read newspapers and magazines to make sure that, somewhere out there, there are other humans with different ideas. Caught up in the rat race, people yearn for variety. Reading about the war in Rwanda might not be encouraging but, at least, it reassures the readers that apart from their own world of unpaid bills and meager salaries there are other worlds with different priorities. Without such points of reference, man might be tempted to view his or her world from a very narrow-minded point of view. /^t/Man has tried to understand his or her mind and soul ever since he or she developed the perception of these attributes of humanity. People attempt self-definition through comparison. We look inwards and what we discover becomes valid only if we relate it to what the others think. Poetry has served this purpose for years. It offers significant insights into the human mind and soul and, at the same time, it allows to express what otherwise would remain ineffable. People write poetry to express their musings on the life. People read poetry to make sure that they are not alone in their search to understand their place in the world. /^t/Then, apart from printed texts, we often catch ourselves reading each other's eyes. Other people's eyes, blue or brown, slanted or straight, misty or clear; they are a peculiar sort of connection between our minds. Catching a stranger's glance at a subway station or at a bar counter, we know that we are not the only ones who imagine, think, love, hate, hope or simply do not care. Human eyes allow a careful observer to enter the realm of other people's mind. They should be read very carefully. /^t/Reading gives us the key to other people's ideas. It opens up our own world and exposes us more to our fellow human beings. Through reading, we are able to progress in the search for understanding humanity and its role in this world. More importantly, however, reading about the others gives us the proof that we are not alone in this search. This is a guarantee that life will never turn into a mundane one-man show. <0048> /^t/Human life is becoming more and more difficult. Nowadays many people feel alienated and alone and they find some help in reading. Reading newspapers or magazines makes us feel we are not alone in the world and that there are others who also have hopes, fears, joys and sorrows. Various kinds of newspapers that are nowadays available everywhere reflect human nature and human lives. Almost every magazine or newspaper contains articles that are very optimistic in their nature, that make people laugh or just be happy but at the same time there are articles that are so pessimistic that make people think, be sad or even cry. /^t/No matter what kind of newspaper one takes she or he can easily find the subjects that draw her/his attention and that are very optimistic. When one looks at the pages of Time, Newsweek or Polish Gazeta Poznanska she/he finds a number of articles about scientific inventions, fascinating films, new found medicines, etc. These articles are very optimistic and supporting and as a result people who read them feel that the world and life are not so cruel and that there are others around us who are doing some good job. When one reads, for example, an article about the family who was struggling with the lack of money but finally the man found a good job thanks to somebody's help, he or she feels better, and his faith in others is renewed. After reading, the reader realizes that there are others who have difficulties but they can be solved and this makes him know that he is not alone. /^t/But the world and our lives do not consist only of pleasant things and of stories with happy-ends. There are also sorrows, tragedies and about these issues one can also find articles in newspapers. Nowadays, many articles are devoted to murders, assaults, rapes, wars, etc, and these dark sides of human nature are also described in newspapers. As a result, when one reads an article about the war in Yugoslavia he/she is shocked but at the same time forced to think about the existence and the humans. These articles also make us feel we are not alone, that there are other nations, other people who suffer from many tragedies. /^t/Summing up, I'd like to write once again that newspapers and magazines reflect the world and human lives and at the same time when we read various happy, joyful articles we know that we are not alone and while reading bad or tragic information we also realize that there are others who have problems and it's not only us that live in the world. <0049> /^t/There are thousands of different sport games many of which were invented and developed in the ancient times. Owing to sport, young people can both compete with one another and develop their phisical features and some personal qualities, for example self-confidence. It also helps in gaining the respect and admiration of others. Even though all sport games have always been organized competitively they have usually equalled amusement and fun. Both sportsmen and the wide audience could have a very good time either while observing or taking part in a sport event. /^t/Whenever I watch a boxing match I keep in mind what the word "sport" conveys. The more I think the more sure I am that boxing cannot be called a sport. First of all, it lacks real competition. Obviously there are some rules which govern boxing. In boxing, however, everything can very easily go out of control as this sport evokes lots of negative emotions. During the matches the atmosphere is usually so tense that it often results in dangerous fights among spectators. The aggression is everywhere, it radiates so quickly and so spontanously. Instead of pleasant sport event people are involved in hatred and aggression. Boxing provides us only with enormous cruelty and violence. /^t/Furthermore, sport is always associated with health. Boxing however is such an activity which can very easily lead both to mental and phisical injuries. Thousands of noses and fists broken, people deprived of their teeth and eyes - such are results of boxing. It is however brain that is too a large extent exposed on the most dangerous injuries. The boxer's brain is punched very strongly all the time as it is head that receives most punches. Special boxing gloves are no protection in such cases. Lack of balance, problems with hearing and sight and other brain damages are very sad, drastic outcomes of boxing. People who are keen on boxing will not be in good health. On the contrary, boxing may change them into severly handicapped. /^t/In the past people could enjoy any kind of sport - even boxing. Before the war boxing was neither so brutal nor violent. It is money that led to present, drastic situation. It should be blamed for spoiling many sport games. The willing to win and thus to earn a large sum of money is often so strong that the boxers do not comply with sport rules. What a boxer wants is a humiliation of his opponent. /^t/To sum up, boxing should not be called a sport as it has lost such sport features as real competition, amusement or fun. It results in human humiliation and deprives boxers of their dignity. Instead of developing human health it can lead to serious injuries which prevent young people from normal functioning in modern world. <0050> /^t/Living our lives, being occupied by everyday events, going through our problems and having our own happy moments, we do not always realize how important eating is. Being too busy to think about it at least for a while, we usually take a bite of anything to run back to our extremely important matters. Only when we have some problems with our health, do we realize how important eating is. Not just eating understood as stuffing ourselves with anything, but eating in the sense of providing our organisms with certain elements necessary for us to live. The problem of nourishment, on the other hand, has been of great interest to many scientists all over the world. There have been many experiments carried out and much research done which has finally led the scientists to reach some conclusions. /^t/One of the first scientists to take up the subject of nourishment seriously was an American scholar - prof. Keys. In the sixties he conducted an experiment with 34 volunteers who, for some time, were given food rich in calories but deprived of protein. The results were astonishing. After just a few days the characters of the volunteers changed drastically. The protein deficiency led to their becoming egoistic, suspicious and easily irritable. /^t/Another element of importance in nourishment is carbohydrate. An excess of this element, which can be found in cereals, potatoes, sugar, milk and fruit, may cause tiredness, irritation and inability to concentrate. Very similar symptoms can be observed when the organism lacks magnesium (present, for example, in chocolate). /^t/Apart from all the above elements being so important in our everyday nourishment, there is also something else extremely significant, namely vitamins. It has been proven that vitamins A, C, E, B6 and B12 are the most necessary for male and female fertility. Also vitamine B3 (present in liver, meat, nuts, beans and peas) is very important in everyday nourishment being responsible for the efficient working of the brain. /^t/And finally fats play a great role in people's nourishment. "Saturated fats have long been the villains in reports on heart disease but now they figure in a cancer study. According to a report in the journal of the National Cancer Institute in the US, non-smoking women who derive 15 per cent or more of their calorie intake from saturated fats are six times more likely to develop lung cancer than those whose diets contains 10 per cent or less." /^t/Does what we eat matter then. Of course, it does. There is no doubt about it. If we watched more closely what we eat, we would certainly be much healthier. Maybe it is high time we started to eat consciously instead of stuffing ourselves with lots of useless calories. That would certainly make our lives better. <0051> /^t/Learning that in some countries children are taught about television came as a surprise to me. How? Why? What for? I do not understand. /^t/Why should anybody teach children about television? I have always thought that television is doing irreparable harm. When children are allowed to watch television, they stop reading books. Watching television does not require any work from your brain. And an organ which is not used is said to deteriorate very quickly. So then, maybe by allowing children to watch television, we make it impossible for them to develop mentally? Maybe by letting them sit for hours in front of this one-eyed monster we deprive them of the most useful thing they possess - their imagination? It would really be a horror to live among people with no imagination and no brains. I myself would not like to have brainless friends or, much worse, brainless children. /^t/Television does not show children the real world. It only gives them the pleasure to watch handsome and brave men, beautiful, weak women and healthy children loved by their families. On television there is no place for cripples, divorces and murders, for pain, humiliation, fear and this sort of everyday events. And even if they are shown it is usually late at night when children cannot see them. On one hand it seems natural to keep children out of any shock they could experience, but on the other hand would it not be sensible to show them that sometimes also bad things happen and that normal is not always good. They would surely get a clearer picture of the world. Why then teach children about television if it cannot give them any profits? /^t/Unfortunately here, I have come to the point in which I have to admit that all the statistical data say something very important. Whether we like it or not, children spend many hours sitting in front of a TV-set and gaping bluntly in the screen. Children do not choose which programmes they want to see. They just sit and watch everything as it goes (with films, discussions, commercials, etc.) Being aware of the fact that this is the case with TV, I now understand some people's idea to teach children about television. Because it can be useful and pleasant as long as you choose programmes and not just watch everything. Television can give children an opportunity to see places they have never seen. Television can show children what is bad and what is good. Television can teach. /^t/Now, if we assume that it is impossible to stop children from watching TV, I think it is a good idea to teach them how to take the most of it, how to watch TV in a proper way. If this is the aim of classes teaching children about television, then I am in favour! <0052> /^t/The society of ours is, to a large extent, gender-polarized. The roles of men and women are very much determined by stereotypes and changing them requires more than legal regulation. Acts of law assure the equality of the two sexes. Both males and females are granted the same educational opportunities and job prospects. They have the right to vote and choose political career. Yet, all this is just a theory. In reality people ground their thinking and behaviour on stereotypes, which in result enforces and reinforces gender inequalities. /^t/Despite women's suffrage and the sexual revolution, stereotyping is still very powerful and preserves the biased status of females in society. This seems to be fuelled by male chauvinist presentation of women in the media. Indeed, it "emphasises women's domestic, sexual, consumer and marital activities to the exclusion of all else." In soap operas women are depicted as busy housewives and as contented mothers. Advertisements show women to be dependent, narrow-minded consumers of products advised by men. In entertainment the role of women is often that of sex-objects - to mention only such crudely sexist shows as Benny Hill or Monty Python. The media easily ignore that over half of women go out to paid employment and that they have profession-related ambitions and problems. Because the prejudice against females being mere homemakers inferior to males prevails, women face more inequalities in their public lives. /^t/Women are said to be "a majority with minority representation and power", and unfortunately there are lots of cases supporting this argument. In Britain, for example, twenty years after the equal pay act women in non-manual jobs earn only 67 per cent as much as their male counterparts. Most prestigious professions, like lawyers, doctors, company directors, are male-dominated while women are usually employed in clerical or unskilled posts. To get promotion women have to prove that their qualifications are not only as high as men's but much higher. As a rule, says Barbara Follett, "the lower down the hierarchy you go, the more women you find." And "nowhere is women's lack of power more damaging than in politics. That is where the battle for equality has to be fought, because that is where the laws that determine people's lives are made and changed". /^t/To attain actual equality women should overcome fear of public presentation of their opinions and broadly enter the world of business and politics. Female participation in making decisions concerning war and peace, economy and environmental protection would be to the benefit of all. However it will not be possible until males re-think and, hopefully, reject familiar arguments about women being unreliable, irrational and dependent on instincts. In fact, it is the opposite; women taking active part in social and political life prove to be responsible, thoughtful and worth confidence. Their ability to mingle intelligence with intuition makes them successful negotiators and helps them in reaching compromise. /^t/The only field with men's under-representation is the home. Again, stereotyping tells men that they are breadwinners; their role is limited to supporting their families financially. Hence more conservative males are typically reluctant to participate in domestic tasks and rearing children. However the absence of a husband and father considerably weakens family ties and has a negative effect on psychological and social development of offsprings, boys especially. In order to eliminate this and introduce real partnership in the home, men should be encouraged to devote more time to housework and children. Legally, all fathers should be entitled to paternity leave. Limiting their average working week from 46 to 35 hours would also help. Men taking the burden of the double shift off women's shoulders would create opportunities for their female-partner to self-actualise in professional career. Besides, relieved from some of the hards and stresses at work men would live longer and more fulfilled lives with their families. /^t/Over the last 70 years women have won their struggle for legal equality between the sexes. Yet, this seems to have been easier than assuring respect for the law. It usually takes generations to change popular believes, stereotypes and unwritten rules that govern social life. Women demand that their intellectual faculties be appreciated and that they should have free access to management and politics at all levels. Still, we must remember that real equality does not necessary mean equal number of seats in parliament or a board of directors. It is rather removing chauvinist attitudes towards women being second-rate citizens and creating atmosphere of acceptance for women pursuing professional and political careers and men running the house and rearing children. <0053> /^t/As the most violent century in human history comes to an end, and as a calmer, more peaceful era does not appear to be in sight, the average recipient of the mass media cannot but be worried that he or she, a family member, or a close friend might, at some point, become the prey of a vicious individual or gang. How might one react? Would it be reasonable to call for a tightening up of the law and stiffer penalties as disincentives to crime? And, in particular, would there be any justification in advocating the retention or (in countries where it no longer exists) the reintroduction of capital punishment? Is it legitimate to suggest that murder should result in the ultimate penalty for the murderer both as an appropriate punishment and as a deterrent to others? If the answers turn out to be in the negative and, above all, that the death penalty is not a reasonable response to serious crime in a violent society, one is compelled to enquire why this is so. /^t/Perhaps if it were possible to believe that capital punishment might serve as an effective deterrent it could be argued that the deaths of a few criminals would serve the greater good by preventing many more deaths, both of potential victims and of their potential murderers. But there is statistical evidence to show that the harshest penalties are the best deterrents. The strict laws of most European countries prior to the nineteenth century did not mean that the gallows were seldom needed. And today, in America, where the death penalty is regularly meted out in semi-public conditions, death rows round the country are full to overflowing. Crime results from a combination of various factors including desperation, deprivation or genetic disposition. To believe that executing a certain number of offenders who have been caught will seriously affect the reasoning of potential murderers is a simplistic response to a complex problem. At the bottom, it is no more than the lust for revenge. /^t/A society that is committed to improving itself should take responsibility for creating conditions which as far as possible eliminate the need to respond with violence in various situations or to use violence to achieve an end. Meanwhile it would seem fair to offer to who seem only capable of evil an opportunity to undergo a rehabilitation. Perhaps some people will never be fit to re-integrate into society and will have to remain isolated for the rest of their lives. But it is not unreasonable to assume that some people will eventually see the error of their ways and feel the desire to atone by leading honest lives back in the community. People who are executed are denied the right to make up for their crimes, whereas those who are sent to prison have time to reflect. The hope of release and a new start can be a great motivator. /^t/Of course it might be argued that many violent offenders, by the time they are caught and convicted, are totally beyond all redemption. But does this mean they should be got rid of? Does not a civilized society have an obligation even to its misfits? Does not the giving of an opportunity for rehabilitation, however limited the chance of success may be felt to be, show that society is not prepared to sink to the level of those who have gone astray but desires to lead by a sincere moral standard of righteousness, compassion and mercy. Two wrongs do not a right. There is no avoiding the fact that an execution is also a murder; it is a legalized murder, but a murder just the same. /^t/Another problem which cannot be avoided by the proponents of the death penalty is that of the finality and irreversibility of the punishment. No matter how carefully the evidence is sifted, and how sure the jurors are that they are convicting the right person, it is by no means certain that a defendant is in fact always guilty. Many people have been sentenced to death on the strength of circumstantial evidence rather than factual, and as long as capital punishment exists, innocent people will be executed. It is worth noting that capital punishment existed at the time of the conviction of the six people in Birmingham and four from Guildford - Irishmen whom it was felt had been proved to be savage terrorists - ten totally innocent men would all have been hanged. As it was, both groups spent 16 years in jail, but at least they remained alive so that the chance continued for their innocence to be proved. /^t/Capital punishment should not have place in a civilized society. It is a morally and spiritually impoverished community which can despatch its misfits into oblivion. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that an execution deprives the people involved in carrying it out and those watching it of the utter degradation of a fellow human being; their innocence is lost forever. As George Orwell wrote in "The Road to Wigan Pier": "I watched a man hanged once; it seemed to be worse than a thousand murders." Human beings ought to see themselves as being bound together in a community of the mind and universal brotherhood. The execution of a member of the human race is a denial of that bond. We ought to be able to say with John Donne: "And man's death diminishes me because I'm involved in mankind." <0054> /^t/The theory of evolution places man on the highest level of development. He is the creature whose highly developed brain has enabled him to acquire skills which have proven indispensable in subordinating the remaining life forms. Moreover, over centuries of evolution, humankind has succeeded in harnessing the wild and creating the modern urban life. Surprisingly enough, modern living conditions are perceived as most unnatural for man despite their great sophistication. People are often referred to as 'human animals' who have trapped themselves in an enormous, concrete zoo which is in constant danger of cracking under the strain. Certainly, there are those who relish urban life for a variety of reasons. People who condemn the city life and those who cherish the values of it put forward a number of well-founded arguments which are mainly of personal and social nature. /^t/Those who perceive modern society as a crumbling structure claim that its future disintegration will ensue the disintegration of individuals who form it. They assert that a modern city-dweller has been trapped in the most unnatural conditions imaginable. He has been confined to living in concrete flats or houses where his desire for expansion has been effectively supressed. He has also been forced to participate in the 'ratrace', the strife to succeed in any circumstances. Man's most natural instincts to live amiably with the members of his own species have been 'killed' because in order to succeed he is compelled to eliminate those who may prevent him from doing so. Man's supressed urges and cravings find an outlet in most abnormal behaviours he frequently displays. These include masturbation, attacks on his offspring, homosexuality. /^t/People who relish the pleasures of modern urban life express a drastically different view. They reiterate that man is highly unlikely to suffer from any 'side effects' of urban life. New technological developments, expanding industries provide an increasing number of jobs that enable people organize their lives, secure their financial position. Their standard of living is constantly rising which enables them enjoy the pleasures unattainable outside the city. /^t/Another argument put forward by both groups is of social nature. Those who see society as a cracking block maintain that the rising number of city dwellers results in undesirable social phenomena like unemployment. A stupendous number of jobless people eventually take to crime. They start robbing, murdering in order to survive in anonymous concrete zoos. /^t/The opponents, however, claim that the metropolis provides an enormous number of pleasures that prevent people from any unsociable behaviour. The city provides an opportunity to indulge in the luxuries such as a variety of cultural events or a possibility to socialize with different nationalities. The opponents also assert that those who don't relish urban life have an option of leaving the city and setting down in a different environment. /^t/The arguments presented by both sides of the debate 'Is society going to collapse soon' are fairly convincing. However, a comparison of the behaviour of the city dweller and an animal leads to an amazing conclusion that human behaviour resembles that of a captured animal, and not a wild one. Therefore, it seems feasible to assert that urban life created over centuries of evolution is not natural for human species and thus, very likely to collapse. <0055> /^t/There is no denying the fact that humans are the best developed creatures living on earth. Though physiologically they do not differ considerably from other mammals, the development of their brain functions has put humans high above any other species on earth. However, if one looks around at the progress of science and technology as well as at social relations in city conurbations, one might wonder whether mankind has chosen the right direction. Among individuals concerned with the problem there are those who believe in human power to solve any environmental or social difficulties. There are also those who maintain that the environmental and social structure people live in at present will some day crack and disintegrate. /^t/Those holding an optimistic view towards the future of the civilisation argue that the power of human intelligence that has created a sophisticated science and technology will also tackle bad effects this development might ever bring. To illustrate, they believe that developing technology will find ways to reduce the harmful influence of pollution. The optimists also maintain that the progress of medical research will eventually discover means of treating the majority of modern plagues. Looking back at the development of civilisation during the last few decades, they conjecture that future decades will bring humans more comfortable and longer lives. /^t/However, those in opposition are worried that scientific and technological progress has followed, to some extent, the bad route. As far as environment is concerned, technology is in many cases powerless to repair the damages that have been caused to the environment. Pollution in big city conurbations results in new diseases, causing earlier death in some individuals. The loss of many green areas has led to the situation that cannot be repaired by sophisticated inventions of modern technology. Overall, humanity may face the integration of the environment and structure of life on earth on a catastrophic scale. /^t/If a social point of view is considered, those who are in favour of the present situation, believe that the modern human being lives in a natural social environment he has managed to work out throughout the past centuries. Those in favour of contemporary civilisation believe that, in spite of some social disturbances, humans are nowadays less violent and cruel than in the past - when they were more savages and thoughtless creatures struggling for their survival. The development of civilisation with its more humane approach to an individual, with the system of rules that protect the weak, or at least try to do so, is one of the greatest achievements that did not exist in the past on such a scale and, what is more, does not exist in an animal world. /^t/The opponents, however, prophesing the fall and disintegration of social environment strongly maintain that humans have put themselves in a situation which is largely unnatural to them. They compare human beings to animals in captivity, as opposed to the required status quo, namely, animals under normal conditions, in their natural habitats. Those who see many disadvantages of contemporary, mostly city social structure put forward an argument of increasing violence and deviant behaviour resulting from pressures of living under social pressure - in "human zoo". They point to examples of parents abusing their children, people suffering from eating disorders, a variety of bizarre neuroses and psychoses, increasing suicides etc. The above examples are considered by them to be the true "achievements" of modern social structure in environments where people are confined, without a space they do need to function normally. /^t/Even though it is not possible to refute arguments pointing to various achievements humankind has attained so far, it seems obvious that the present status quo is not a desirable one. Looking at health phenomenon like AIDs or environmental one like the ozone layer one can see that some of the present problems have got out of human control. The only solution to avoid a catastrophe is to change the direction that has been followed for too long. <0056> /^t/It is said that man is one of those creatures who needs companion to develop his personality and skills. Although almost everyone needs some loneliness from time to time, he needs much more someone to rely on. That is why a little girl looks for a friend to play with her in a sand box, a boy spends so much time with his peers riding a bicycle and that is why a man looks for a woman with which he could spend the rest of his life. If he is lucky he will succeed. However, for men, unlike for women, the rediness for being together for good and bad does not always equal "marriage". The reason is that women and men percieve "marriage" in slightly different ways. /^t/For a woman marriage is something she tries to achieve. Her intelectual and vocational success is as much important as the social one. Marriage is one of her goals that she establishes as soon as she is ready to think about her future. Although a woman is aware of the fact that marriage may not give her happiness she much more prefers to be an unhappy wife than an unhappy spinster. She even feels stigmatised by society as a spinster and that is why she tries to get rid of this label. Definitely a woman (at least most of them) is not afraid of marriage. Somehow biologically she is created as someone who can and wants to take care of anyone who needs her help or support. Consequently as a wife she fulfils her duties not only as a housewife but also as the best friend of her husband and children. She is not afraid of hard work because all she needs is someone who is ready to accept her sacrify. That is why while making a vow she thinks about herself as a lucky person: there is a man whom she loves, who loves her, who needs her and who is ready to be with her till the end of life. One of her life aims has been achieved. /^t/A man is much more reluctant about marriage. Although he needs a woman to make him happy, he wants to have a cake and eat it. He wants to have a woman but at the same time he wants to be free, The woman he loves is not in the center of his interests, she is only a necessary addition to them. However as time goes, when he becomes socially mature and more responsible, certain hierarchy of values changes. He feels that he wants his own family, to support it and to be the head of it. He does not percieve marriage as a cage from which there is no escape, but more as a duty to be fulfiled. On the other hand, because he is not afraid to be called a bachelor (even with this label he'll be attractive to women), his decision about marriage is well thought and a woman he wants to marry may be sure that he really loves her (at least at the moment of making a vow ...). /^t/A woman expects something different from marriage than a man does. Still, there is at least one reason for which they get married and then live together with their children, problems and joys. This reason is love. This strong feeling tights relationship between a man and a woman, helps to fight together against trouble, helps to understand them one another and finaly strengthens them to make a crucial decision to say "I shall abandon you." <0057> /^t/Last year there was a chance of introducing compulsory and well organised sex education to Polish secondary schools. Unfortunately, Poland is such a strange country, where decisions are usually influenced by people least competent in a given field. Owing to this phenomenon, any classes treating sex seriously will not be incorporated into school curriculum. The pressure group composed of the MPs, who judging from their age and views, have for a long time had nothing to do with sex, backed by clergymen, managed to halt the necessary legislation. Their arguments ranged from the lack of demand for such classes, via the dangerous consequences of arising teenagers' interest in this sphere, to claims that sex is only to be dealt with between a husband and his wife. /^t/The argument that there is a lack of demand for sex education at schools if confronted with the statistics according to which 60 percent of secondary school graduates declare they have already had sex, proves very weak. Moreover, 97 percent of secondary school pupils would like to have classes thoroughly covering sex related topics because they are not satisfied with their present knowledge of this subject. Therefore it should not be surprising that most of young parents of unwanted children blame adults for lack of sexual education. And this is not only the problem of unfortunate youngsters and their parents because the burden of unwanted children is shouldered by the whole society. Denying that there is the demand for sex education at secondary schools not only contradicts the facts, but is also extremely harmful to the society. /^t/Similarly false and harmful is the view that lessons devoted to sex would unnecessarily arise teenagers' interest in sex. It is only human nature that this interest arises and if it is not properly dealt with, it becomes vulgarised or is artificially suppressed. Both scenarios lead to serious personality crises such as provocative sexual behaviour on the one hand and illnesses like anorexia on the other. Most of anorexics acquired their illness due to difficulties with accepting the puberty changes in their bodies or disappointment with their first sexual encounters. these facts refute the theory according to which interest in sex can be diverted into sports or education. It is hard to understand then, why in Poland, where recent studies revealed that 30 percent of secondary school pupils can be diagnosed anorexic, the parliament sticks to the false theory and denies sex education to thousands of frustrated teenagers. Such education, approaching sex as a natural human function, would ease tensions and consequently prevent mental diseases and abnormal behaviours. /^t/The most ridiculous argument against introducing sex education to secondary schools is the one which advocates that sex should only be dealt with within a marriage. It is very naive to assume that the right attitude, appreciation, and knowledge of sex will come naturally once two people are declared husband and wife. It simply does not happen. The fact that 35 percent of divorces are due to sex related problems proves this. Also half of marriages caused by pregnancy are doomed to fail. These alarming figures clearly show that the lack of sex education does not help marriages but actually undermines them and brings about a lot of suffering which could have been avoided. /^t/Sex education should be introduced into secondary schools. This would satisfy the existing demand and take care of anxieties related to this subject. Not only young people, but the whole society would benefit from this introduction as there would be less tragedies caused by mental illnesses or unwanted children. It would also strengthen the institution of marriage. Therefore we should not be taken in by false arguments of campaigners against the introduction and do as much as we can to make the authorities introduce compulsory education into secondary schools. <0058> /^t/Someone who goes to stay in a foreign country, no matter if it is for a short time or forever, passes through several stages of culture shock. If the stay is short, the person mover quickly through the stages; is the stay is long, the stages last longer. However, to get accustomed to some new culture, one has to go through the adjustment cycle, which is usually a very painful experience, due to the travellers' great expectations and what really the new country offers. /^t/Indeed, before the travellers leave home, they form ideas and images what life in the new place will be like. They imagine themselves into the new way of living and they make big plans about their future. Because they usually tend to perceive the country they go to as better developed, more interesting and easier to live in - which is most often the case with the Eastern Europeans travelling to the West - they think about their future in a very optimistic way. /^t/However, when they finally reach their destination, the place never is as perfect as they imagined, people are never as nice as they expected, and the travellers are not so happy as they thought they would. The first stage of culture shock then is the confrontation of the travellers' expectations and the reality. One has to adjust one's dreams or/and plans to what is possible, sometimes having to change them completely. This stage, however, although painful and absolutely unexpected, does not usually get the travellers stunned. They still feel pretty sure and think positive about the future, as the newness of the place and culture fascinates them, no matter how different it is from what they expected. /^t/Yet, any novelty stops being a novelty at some point, and sooner or later the travellers find themselves bored with the place they live in and the people they encounter everyday. After they have visited all the places worth visiting and after they have seen everything worth seeing, their lives become as mundane and they used to be in their native country. Thus, they go through the second stage of cultural shock when they come to realise the foreign country is not a lost paradise but a very earth-like affair. /^t/This stage usually is connected with some depression and nervous breakdowns. The immigrants or/and tourists feel lonely and lost, not safe and in need of protection. Even if they speak a language spoken in the country, they feel like using their mother tongue. Their families and friends stayed in their homeland, so the travellers feel bereaved. This is the stage during which most people decide to come back home. However, if they manage to get through that, they shall come to the last stage of culture adjustment, that is to the culture adjustment itself. /^t/Indeed, if someone has managed to cope in the second stage of culture shock crisis, they will soon get accustomed to the conditions of the life they lead now and will accept the new culture adopting it with time as their own. They will think positive again and take charge of their own lives. Although the new life will not be as superb as they imagined, they will not regard it as hopeless and down-to-earth any more, and soon they will feel at home. /^t/Culture shock is what all the travellers have to encounter, and all of them can pass successfully. It seems an inevitable step in their culture adjustment process, and as one can hardly leap over it, it must be climbed courageously and treated as a good exercise for one's mental (and physical) fitness. <0059> /^t/After many years of playing the role of villain and almost vanishing from the media drugs have again made an ominous comeback. There has recently been a sharp rise in drug use among teenagers but what's even more alarming is the rise of popular culture the glorifies drug use. Drugs are no longer taboo. They are discussed freely in media that do not spread anti-drug propaganda but rather than this they promote drugs and consider them as non-addictive and "not a big deal". After such encouragement young users do not hesitate to try the "stuff" and what confirms them in the conviction that there is nothing wrong in using it is the fact that they are too young to remember the drug users of 70's and their ugly, moral and physical downfall. The problem of drug using is more discernible today than it was 10 years ago. What's worse, drugs such as heroin are more potent these days because their purity has increased which makes them deadly, to say nothing of side-effects and other fatal diseases that drug use entails. The phenomena of drug use and drug pushing have already gone too far to be ignored. Nevertheless restrictions and regulations are helpless in its solitary fight with drugs. Through the law governments can to a certain extent control the supply of drugs but they cannot change the minds of young people which is the main task for youth idols, parents and teachers. /^t/Drugs should be prohibited for practical but chiefly ethical reasons. It would be highly immoral to let the experiment like drug use or drug running go on without any constraints or control and consequently to allow millions of deaths. It is the law that should fight with drugs in the first place however it is not always successful in doing so and does not always suffice to fight back at the phenomenon. It would be rather naive to believe that regulations can put an end to drug use and drug trafficking. Jail rarely deters drug pushers from coming back to the "job". Furthermore, prohibition of drugs will not prevent drug growers from cultivating marijuana which seems to be the only source of income. No matter how strict the law can be it cannot itself tackle the problem. A lot is to be done by other institutions and people who might find the task easier to solve with help of regulations. Whereas the primary aim of the law should be to at least hinder an access to drugs, tighten patrol on the borders where trafficking in drugs goes on, control their cultivation by looking for illicit plantations and impose severe penalties in case of spotting one, compensate drug growers with cash for not planting drugs. Finally, as long as drugs are illegal, the belief prevails that they are not safe and unlike other medications they are deadly. /^t/The law is helpless in its fight against drugs. After certain steps have been taken by governments next turn belongs to parents teachers and most of all to media; pop and rock singers in particular. Overdosing on drugs is depictable chiefly among teenagers which is hardly surprising after taking into consideration the fact that the foremost groups such as Cypress Hill demand in their songs liberation of smokers and promote marijuana as in the song "Legalize it" or "Black Sunday". The same stance have taken other groups such as Nirvana or Metallica, both have com publicy for legalization. In order to cut down on drug use the rockers and pop musicians should keep on singing about cocaine or marijuana but with a totally different approach towards it. Instead of glorifying drugs they should sing about their deadly nature and devastating side-effects. Anti-drug propaganda can be spread not only by individual singers but the whole educational system can be engaged in it. However the problem of many teachers is that they deem drugs the taboo which is wrong because by doing so they encourage adolescents to perceive drugs as a forbidden fruit for which they might really reach. Teachers should not be afraid of discussing the problem, reaching for specialistic sources and trying to prove that it is indeed "white death". Ultimately parents can also do a lot about it. They can take some steps to make their children give up the habit, which is not such a Herculean task as it was in the past. In the past drug users were followers of certain ideology that promoted peace, joy and friendship. These ideals were at odds with contemporary world of wars and cruelty, which justifies their escape into drugs in search of consolation. Today drug users are not guided by any kind of ideology. They take drugs just for fun. Those who do it are usually bored, poorely educated, aimless young people. If that is the case than parents should take care of the education of their children, their hobbies, interests and accordingly channel their energy and interests into positive activities. /^t/Drugs re-entered the social life but this time not as vicious ones associated usually with hippie groups but as benign ones taken by people regardless of age and occupation, during parties or in disco-clubs helping them to perceive the world as a perfect and beautiful place and allowing them to feel optimistic about everything they see. No wonder that adolescents without inhibition more and more reach for drugs. They are too young to remember the downfall of drug users of 70's and perhaps too ignorant to know the other, more murky side of potent drugs that step by step wreck the brain. Meanwhile smugglers are thriving because demand is now flourishing. It seems that the time has come when drug taking and pushing have become a large scale phenomena and must no longer be ignored. <0060> /^t/Gene experimentation is one of the dangers of today's civilization. Although this achievement has fascinated both scientists and average people, it may be also treacherous. By cloning, which is transferring new genes to embryos and developing them or by changing the code of chromosomes scientists can collapse a ballance of organisms. Thus gene experimentation means "playing with nature", modelling human beings and environments according to current needs without predicting the consequences. Indeed, the consequences of such process cannot be predicted. Besides, people may use it for their own benefits, regardless of many other dangers. In this light people should become more reluctant towards experimenting with genes and be aware not only of its advantages but also disadvantages. /^t/The disadvantages of experimenting with genes may appear distructive for humanity and environment. As a strong intervension in natural traits of all organisms, it can evoke many mutations. By cloning which aims at improving those traits, the undesired qualities could be developed. It also applies to experiments carried on viruses, which may cause outburst of new diseases instead of counteracting them. Gene experiments, which are to regulate and improve fertility, may violate the population balance on earth. This would lead to increase of population and starvation. For all those reasons gene experiments should be perceived as a danger to the human civilization. /^t/Beside those disadvantages gene experimentation should be limited as it is immoral and provides many possibilities for its misuse. Experimenting with genes is associated with using animals and human embryos. Manipulating with life may be very counterproductive for people, because this may lead to creating "embryo business". Moreover, ability to bring to life new species of bacteria, is a strong temptation for developing biological weapon, that could serve for military purposes. This makes gene experimentation not only scientific problem but also serious moral issue. /^t/The biological and moral dangers that experimentation with genes creates make it a disquieting problem. Although some view it as a chance for some improvement on earth, it may be also very counterproductive. That is why, people should realize all the dangers. Their knowledge does not give them right to violate nature. Only responsibility and longsightedness can give them this right. However, nowadays gene experiments should be limited until people become more critical towards it. <0061> /^t/Any experiments in medicine that overlap ethics create an atmosphere of uneasiness and tension. The issue of using fetal tissue in transplants is one of such extremely controversial moral problems. If this problem is to be looked at in an objective way we must take into consideration arguments both "for" and "against" it. /^t/The curative effects of fetal tissue were discovered in the early fifties, though scientists has started experimenting with some parts of the human foetus early in the nineteenth century. It turned out that many diseases which caused great problems to doctors or were found incurable might be treated quite successfully with the help of the tissue. Fetal cells are unlikely to be rejected by a recipient's immune system and that is why they are perfect for a host of scientific and medical uses. These cells grow quickly, divide rapidly and may become a kidney, a liver cell or anything else. The use of fetal cells seems to be the only successful way of treating patients suffering from Parkinson's disease, Hurber's syndrome and other neurological disorders. /^t/Medical experiments have also proven that fetal cells transplanted into diabetics helped the patients' pancreas produce the vital hormone insulin. As a result these patients require less insulin than before. There also about one hundred and fifty genetic disorders that can be corrected before birth with fetal tissue younger than sixteen weeks. These examples show that the advantages coming from using aborted foetuses cannot be questioned. In many cases it is the only hope for people suffering from deadly diseases. /^t/There is one more argument for the use of aborted foetuses in medicine. There is a huge number of abortions every year. What can be done with the remains? Can we simply bury the organs and tissues if they might be used to save others' lives? Using them for medical purposes seems to be a better solution. /^t/This is one side of this important problem. The other is equally important. If a human foetus is used in medical experiments it is treated as an inanimate object, a coin that circulates on the bio-market and as such is deprived of the right to live, to enjoy life and to decide about the future. Some people provide us with the frightening vision of a future society in which medical treatment is governed by a human organ market where one can sell, buy, exchange or donate what is needed. The bioengineering industry would use the raw material in the production of medicines. A depressing conclusion is that only the strong, who were lucky to be born, would benefit from it. /^t/There is also a question who should have the right to decide whether an aborted foetus may be used in medical research or not. Many people think that mothers should decide. Some women are afraid of the situation in which their bodies would be treated as fetal factories and their role would be to provide the raw material. /^t/Fetal-tissue transplantation cannot become an unsupervised private industry using foetuses for both medical and nonmedical purposes, A partial solution to the problem is to shift the centre of investigation from fetal tissue onto its potential substitute. And the government should fund a fetal-tissue bank to keep research and transplantation carefully insulated against commercialisation. <0062> /^t/The problem of using drugs is one of the most serious problems in all the modern societies. The whole world is now facing the problem of the increasing number of drug addicts and the developing drug market. Since it is extremely harmful it should be solved as soon as possible but I do not think that making drugs easily available is the right solution. /^t/Every day more and more people start using drugs. It is mainly due to the influence of their friends who have already tried it. It seems to be the reaction to stress and problems of their everyday lives. When they have nobody to help them they turn to drugs. For them it seems to be the only way to make life easier and more pleasant. Drugs are treated as a kind of medicine. They are the way out of the difficult situation. At least it is what these people think. Fortunately enough the high prices of drugs and quite difficult access to them stop some of us from taking up this risky procedure. Making drugs easily available would very quickly increase using them. It is not difficult to imagine what would happen if drugs were presented on the shelves of every single shop just like any other product. It would make drugs and e.g. food and medicines equal. Drugs would be perceived as something good and healthy which seems absurd. Young, unexperienced children would not be able to differentiate between drugs and other things. Pure curiosity could very often lead to trying drugs, just to see how they work. And at this point there is only one step left to addiction. /^t/It is really doubtful if there is a single society in which the level of knowledge as far as drugs are concerned is sufficient enough. If it were the case there would not be any drug market or drug addicts. Wise and educated people are aware, or at least should be aware, of the disastrous effects of using drugs. No man would willingly risk and destroy his or her life. But still many people do it and it proves that societies are not fully aware of the dangers. Even if they were, making drugs legally available would be very misleading. People expect to be offered products that could improve the quality of their lives and not put their lives in danger. <0063> /^t/When an Englishman says he is a student, he simply makes a statement about a certain phase of life when one goes to school to get his education. In case of a Pole, however, a similar utterance is more likely to be the emphasis of his social status, rather than a general piece of information. This kind of attitude may seem somewhat surprising, considering that for the last fifty years we had so-called 'democracy' and free education. For years Polish authorities prided themselves on the availability of higher education to all citizens, irrespective of their economic status or family backgrounds. Indeed, there was a time when grants and inexpensive student accomodation were easily available, but it is all long gone now. In fact, the present situation is far from looking rosy. What are the facts then? /^t/First of all, the very structure of Polish educational system leaves much room for improvement. Compared to other countries, it seems old-fashioned and not well developed at all. In the times when Western Europe introduces more and more of so-called mature student schemes, in Poland there are still only two basic forms of higher education available. These are full-time and weekend university studies, each lasting five years and ending in a master degree. The length of courses is a major drawback for many a potential student, simply because they cannot afford to pay all the expanses involved. There have been first attempts to introduce shorter, three-year bachelor courses; however, the whole idea is still relatively new. /^t/Unlike weekend courses, full-time study is still free in most places, but since the majority of students does not work, they have to rely on their parents for the money. This makes higher education inaccessible for some people, for it is the financial status of a particular family, which determines their children's futures. /^t/Someone might argue, that in other countries it is only some students who get the financial support from their parents. Others have to both study and make their own livings. We must not forget, however, that there are significant differences in the way Polish and Western-european societies are organised. Therefore what applies there, may often not be possible in our country. In England, for instance, there are special organisations helping students to find part-time work, Polish students, though, have to count entirely on themselves. We used to have special employment agencies for them too, but they are unfortunately a thing of the past now. Apparently it is all related to the acute crisis on the Polish job market. /^t/Even if there are vacancies, however, employers usually prefer a person with a few-year work experience to a student, no matter how knowledgeable the latter might be. The only exception are language students, as well as people specialising in certain ares of business and computing, who are always sought after by many companies. /^t/Landing a job, though, is just the first step and keeping it is another problem. University activities are in many cases scheduled in such a way, that they make employment impossible. Lack of regular school hours, long breaks between consecutive lectures and often having to go to different buildings for different classes, are the things Polish students frequently complain about. In Poznan, students of certain faculties often have to travel all around the city in order to attend their classes. /^t/Even after graduation some people are not particularly successful in finding work. In certain cases it is due to shortage of positions to be taken. Sometimes, though, it is mainly because their education is too general. The end of 20th century is the time of increasing specialisation and narrowing down of all fields of science. I believe that this phenomenon should be reflected in our educational system by a better choice of university faculties, as well as a wide range of evening classes. Apart from regular university instruction, alternative forms of adult education, such as open universities, correspondence courses and so on, should be developed, so that more people can further their studies. /^t/In Japan, which is one of the world's richest countries, the value of good education is understood as early as primary school. Pupils have to work really hard to get a place at some good college and teachers are among the top-earners in the country. Some of our politicians, while talking about their vision of Poland's economic progress, like to use the expression 'second Japan'. We will never become like Japan, though, unless we reform our educational system. <0064> /^t/It is heard very often that children spend too much time in front of TV. In fact, they seem to be addicted to it. This starts from the very young age because most mothers treat television as a free baby-sitter. Whenever women are too busy to take care of their children, they just switch the TV on and sit the babies in front of it, so that the children do not disturb them. Then the kids watch hours of programs devouring rather less than more meaningful pictures. Next, they get used to consuming visual material without thinking and finally they become thoughtless consumers of showbusiness and propaganda. In order to prevent people from passive reception of motion pictures we should teach children about television, its programs, purposes and value /^t/All children of today generation undoubtably watch TV but majority of them cannot properly estimate the value of the program they look at. Therefore, they should be taught from their first school years that television is not only fun and entertainment but also a source of knowledge. During the TV lessons pupils could be informed first of all about the variety of educational and cultural productions and where to look for them. Teachers should also talk about the role of propaganda and psychology behind the advertisements. At the higher level, it should be also useful to teach about the history of pictures and television. Discussions on the recently seen programs would help a lot in teaching pupils thinking about and analysing the surrounding reality. What is more important, stress should be put on the difference between the pictures and reality, especially in the case of young children, for they seem to have problems with that. Of course subjects and issues should be adapted to the age of pupils. /^t/Such as the modern society cannot escape technology, similarly children cannot escape television. We cannot forbid kids to watch TV. What we can do however, is to guide them properly and teach how to use television in the most profitable and harmless way. Therefore professionally led lessons about mass media and their role is the best way to help our children in their future lives. <0065> /^t/Nowadays many of the big companies maintain that their main aim is to look after people and to make them happy. This is the reason why new products, especially cosmetics, appear almost daily on the market. Best scientists are hired to ensure that all the novelties may be safely used by the consumers. On the other hand, a great number of scientists work on new medicines and vaccines. Few people realize, however, that all the products must be thoroughly tested before their release on the market. Yet, even fewer are aware of the fact that many of the experiments are carried out on animals. Scientists claim that as animals are similar to human beings, it is safe to predict the results on the basis of vivisection, that is tests on live animals. Nevertheless, many's the time they forget that animals are living creatures as well and their rights have to be respected. Therefore, experiments on animals should be stopped, as they are cruel and inhumane. /^t/It is commonly believed that without vivisection progress in medicine would not be possible. All new drugs and vaccines have to be checked for side-effects before they can appear on the market. However, predicting what the effect of a medicine will be on human beings from tests done on animals, may prove to be very difficult. Since human organism is very complex, very few species are similar enough to guarantee that the results of the tests will be reliable. Thus, there is not much point in experimenting on rats, mice or rabbits. Moreover, it is due to improvements in medicine and better standard of living, and not as a result of animal tests, that diseases such as tuberculosis, diphtheria, cholera or smallpox, which were fatal in the old days, are now in decline. In fact, penicillin and aspirin, two of the most widely-known drugs, were discovered just by chance. Therefore, since advances in medicine do not necessarily involve tests on animals, there is no need to use them any longer. /^t/The cosmetic industry also relies on being able to test the products on animals. According to a recent market research, as much as 65 % of all available cosmetics were tested on animals. The results may seem strange. Lipsticks or soaps are designed for people, and rabbits or mice are not likely to use them. Thus, there is no reason why they should take part in experiments. Nowadays most of the tests on cosmetics may be carried out by means of the IN VITRO method, that is on isolated fragments of human skin, on artificial skin or cell cultures. Another technique, called IN VIVO, involves testing cosmetics on groups of volunteers who remain under special medical control. Finally, some firms resort to consumer testing. Volunteers use a certain product for a month and then complete a detailed questionnaire. Thanks to these methods, some of the companies, such as L'Oreal, completely abandoned vivisection. As we can see, the use of animals for tests in the cosmetic industry cannot be justified. /^t/Animals are the same living creatures as we are. Therefore, using them in experiments not only deprives them of their natural environment, but also of their rights. Tests done on animals are frequently cruel and inhumane. Very often the animals have suffered so much that they have to be put down. Evidently vivisection is neither indispensable for advances in medicine nor for testing cosmetics. Consequently, it should be banned. Scientists should stop experimenting on living creatures. We all also could defend animal rights by choosing products that were not tested on animals. <0066> /^t/If it happened to be the election day today you, being a patriot, would probably give your vote to the candidate you support. Then you would probably resume your usual holiday routine, not giving much thought to elections. This being Sunday, you could spend more time with your children, you could pick up a book or take tour family for a walk. Whatever you would do, however, one thing is certain: as it were getting on for eight o'clock, the time polling stations close, you would be more and more apprehensive about the anticipated results of elections. You will tune to television or radio to find out. /^t/It is because there is a demand for certain information, elections oriented for this matter, that this information is supplied. After all, there have always been people only happy to make profit by meeting others' needs, and it is information that people now desperately want. /^t/In a free market economy, what people want, people get, always in abundance. Since providing information in whatever form or means seems to have become a very lucrative business, there are more and more people determined to make money on it. Even though, for instance, there are numerous news bulletins on television, there are more and more news-oriented channels coming into being. We have got as many as seven such channels on satellite television, which is too many for us to watch anyway. /^t/What media, those interested in profits, do is they relay information to those who want it and make the others want it desperately by explaining to them how important information is in our world, especially in business, economics and politics. The trick is that, having glued people to a source of information (a television news bulletin, a newspaper, etc.), they all slot a few commercials here and there. After all, it is all about money. /^t/The more people are glued to a source of information the more profitable it is, the money from commercials constituting its income. Therefore, different news relaying media compete trying to scoop others by being fastest, most reliable and accurate about the news they disseminate. Still others attempt to attract people by assuming a certain angle in their analysis and coverage of facts. /^t/Thus, Sky News aims at a watcher within The United Kingdom, focusing on the news that is of some importance to the inhabitants of The British Isles. EBN (European Business News) finds business-relevant side to news as does CNBC, the former concentrating on European affairs. In turn, EuroNews, being broadcast in five languages, scrutinises mainly Europe, bringing up facts that might have a bearing on the evolving European Union. /^t/The governing boards of those channels will always find ways to attract viewers. The information they use has an informative role. However, for them it is probably a means to make profits. Everyone wants to profit and information is as good means to achieve that as any other. <0067> /^t/For almost four years Polish people have been living under a new system introduced by the government of Mr Mazowiecki. This system brought immense changes both in political and social structure of the country. There are at least four aspects of social change in the Poznan region which result from the introduction of a new form of government. /^t/Since 1989 Poland seems to have been proceeding towards the model of a class conscious country. Poznan follows that pattern. During the last three years two socially contrastive groups became clearly distinguishable - that of the poor and the rich. Those two groups have been steadily increasing in number. However, at the same time the gap between them becomes deeper and deeper. Before the new system was introduced the very fraction of the Poznan society had not been visible. Nowadays in Poznan one can see beggars everywhere - in street corners, churches or a railway station. At the beginning people were concerned about them. The poor were given money, food, or clothes. However in due time the average city dweller have become more indifferent. They simply got used to beggars and now they do not help them so eagerly. As to the rich, they came into being after the communist regime had been abolished. In previous times the rich constituted a hermetic and isolated group of the top party members. Since 1989 the structure of this group has been radically changed. In due course the communists were replaced by new people, mainly connected with business. Now those people contribute greatly to the prosperity of the town and that is why they are respected by the remaining part of the society. /^t/During the years since 1989 the inhabitants of Poznan have also changed their attitude towards foreigners. On the whole they are friendly and tolerant. However, when a great tide of Romanian people came to Poznan they began to show negative or even hostile attitude towards them. The same pattern of behaviour applies to Russians. An average city dweller feels threatened by them, because they contributed to the increase of criminal offences such as robbery, theft or deception. According to the statistics, in 1992 Russian citizens committed 1,5% of all crimes in the Poznan region. The attitude towards the citizens of the Western countries is diametrically opposed to the one presented above. Most of Poznan inhabitants are friendly and hospitable towards, for example, Germans or Japanese. The reason is that people understand that the more foreign investments in Poznan the richer the city and its dwellers will be in the future. /^t/Another area where social changes can be visible is the area of interpersonal relationships. People in the Poznan region have become more indifferent towards each other since 1989. They take care only for themselves or at most for their families. Most of them do not pay any attention to their fellow-townsmen. It happens quite often that neighbours in a block of flats know hardly anything about each other. The possible reason can be that nowadays people are more absorbed by their jobs, career, and making money than they were before 1989. Another distinctive feature of the Poznan society is envy, which should be mainly understood in a financial context. The inhabitants of Poznan envy each other a better social position, success, job or a car. What seems to be even worse, they overtly show their jealousy. In extreme cases such as attitude towards the fellow-townsmen may be transformed into agression. For example, according to the police statistics more and more city dwellers use guns to solve their problems. /^t/The Poznan region develops according to the model imposed on it by the Western countries. In a way, it is likely that social relationships in Poznan will resemble those in Berlin or Paris after some time. <0068> /^t/The process of the westernization of Poland began to operate in 1989 when the communist government was defeated in general elections. The new government initiated several reforms which allowed western businessmen to invest their capital in Polish industry and agriculture. However, these businessmen not only brought to Poland their money, but they also affected the nation socially and practically. /^t/The first symptom of the westernization can be observed in the streets and on the market. Polish shops are flooded with foreign goods of different kinds. A great number of Poles still prefer buying western articles to home made ones. Furthermore, there is more English names in the streets than Polish ones. Most shops are named in American way and most firms have got foreign names, too. /^t/Next, some Polish businessmen, imitating the western models introduced fast food restaurants in Poland. You can see such places in almost every main street. However, the only food you can buy there is a hamburger or a hot-dog. Besides, it seems to have been good idea to build fast food restaurants, because earlier there had been no places to eat cheap food while doing shopping. /^t/At the same time Poles started to imitate western style of life. Money began to function as the most important value. People evaluate others taking into consideration their appearance and the state of their bank accounts. /^t/Furthermore, clerks working in banks and offices are now wearing suits and costumes. They always look smart, tidy and professional. They are usually polite and helpful towards a customer. /^t/However, the strongest influence of western countries upon Poland could have been observed in 1989. Then, the Polish government decided to introduced capitalism in a form which pervaded in most western countries. It initiated a great deal of economic and political reforms to establish western-oriented government and parliamentary system. /^t/Finally, the process of westernization affected also the policy of Polish governments. They tried to adjust laws and rules of free market economy to Polish reality. That is why the stock exchange was established or Value Added Tax was introduced. /^t/In conclusion, the impact of western countries on the Polish nation has been immense and undeniable. However, Poles should learn to distinguish between true values and the treacherous ones. Only the former ones ought to be transplanted into Polish social and political system. <0069> /^t/Talking about sex usually arouses such different and rather unexpected adults' reactions as disgust, shame, embarrassment, anxiety, and, finally, a feeling of offence. It is quite frequent and common as well that some grown-up people treat sex as a complete taboo, the issue the is not to be discussed and talked about at all. Meanwhile, teenagers experiencing fundamental and rapid changes in both their body systems and personalities are in desperate need of open discussion of their problems and of unprejudiced touching on the subject of sex. Thereby, the compulsory introduction of sexual education into secondary schools' syllabuses constitutes a justified and an irrevocable move in helping youngsters throughout a most difficult period of puberty. /^t/Many people object to the plan of introducing sex education as a subject in schools arguing that it is going to serve solely as an instruction lesson of how to properly carry out sexual intercourses. In fact, sex education is far more than merely acquainting young people with a practical side of erotic affection. Primarily, it aims at providing pupils with some intelligible and credible information concerning psychological and physiological development of both sexes. This programmed instruction focuses, in other words, on making young people aware of the current changes occurring in their psyche and body and on teaching them how to accept these processes without any inhibitions. Additionally, the classes attempt to make the everyday social contacts with members of opposite sex easier and less stressful for students. They also emphasise the significance of different human relations like love or friendship and help to get to know and accept young people's most personal feelings and emotions. Thereby, sex education due to its overall approach towards the subject supplies the students with basic and necessary knowledge about sex. It does not at all treat it as the ultimate object of study but rather places it in an appropriate context of such important correlations as maturity and social responsibility. /^t/The opponents of the scheme also often say that supplying young people with the knowledge concerning sex is solely parents' job and responsibility which should not be claimed by school. Yet, parents very often are not aware of the problems and doubts their children are currently dealing with. They easily forget what kind of stress and trouble they themselves experienced when they were teenagers. Their children's worries and confusion about certain things may seem funny, not serious and not worth mentioning to them. Meanwhile, teenagers are utterly embarrassed and ashamed when they are to discuss sex and other equally tickish issues with their mothers and fathers. They do not know if they can count upon the parents' understanding and discretion or rather expect some critical remarks and false imputations. A school, thus, appears to be an ideal institution where such an education could take place. Young people are among friends and acquaintances which share not only common interests and hobbies but also problems connected with adolescence. Therefore, the explanation of perplexing issues may go on in a friendly and propitious atmosphere without needless stress and uneasiness that usually accompanies similiar conversations with parents. /^t/Finally, the antagonists of placing sex education in secondary schools like to prove that teachers are not at all ready and capable of presenting the subject to their students. They lack both the relevant knowledge and the necessary experience. Indeed, classes conducted by an unprepared and embarrassed teacher who has been forced to do it by order of superior authority would not make much sense. The task of discussing the issues of sex can be performed properly and achieve its ultimate goal only if it is carried out by professionally trained and familiar with the topic people. Only experts can provide the knowledge and answer the in-coming questions in a clear and unambiguous way. Sex education needs, thereby, the same treatment as any other subject - qualified professionals and not fortuitous and reluctant people - if it is to be received with trust and appreciation on the part of students. /^t/All in all, the issue of sex education among the teenagers at school belongs to one of the most urgent and burning problems of the time. It is beyond all question that some decisive steps need to be taken immediately if the matter is to be treated with due recognition and respect. <0070> /^t/Polish people have always looked up at Americans and admired their easy-going manner of calling colleagues or even supervisors by their first names. As a result, a number of attempts of adopting the American style of addressing others have been undertaken in the country and just as many have failed. /^t/Using first names in a formal situation like one's place of work is, in fact, an entirely strange idea for most of the Poles. In Poland when people use their first names they have to be either of the same social status or very well acquainted with each other. Otherwise, there is always a danger that someone will feel offended or disrespected by this kind of intimacy. /^t/Preserving the seemingly old-fashioned forms such as Mr or Mrs helps Polish people establish the necessary distance between each other. Moreover, Polish people are generally known to like to be referred to with all the due honorifics. When people call themselves by full names, in other words, they show respect but, what seems to be more important, they flatter and please each other. /^t/It is hard to imagine then the proud and pompous Poles giving up the formalities which assure them so much pleasure and are so self-rewarding. They may envy the American culture its openness and unorthodoxy but, in fact, they prefer to keep to their own safe and unrevolutionary customs. <0071> /^t/Terms of address can be divided into two main groups. One of them includes "v-forms", that is the forms that are to be used while addressing people we know well, our subordinates, or children. "Sie-forms" are reserved for addressing strangers and people with higher social status than that of a speaker. These forms and their usage have changed during the development of languages. Such changes happen gradually and to be anchored in a given language, most of its speakers must feel it necessary. Therefore, any attempts made by one social group to influence the pattern of terms of address are doomed to failure. /^t/As a good example of such a failure may serve an introduction of a new "v-form" by the communists in Poland. This form, which was taken from Russian, did not suit the needs of Polish language and sounded out of place. Poles simply felt this form strange, and in spite of an enormous effort made by the communist government to implant it into Polish language, they ignored it. This resentment made this form leave our country about thirty years before the communism. /^t/A very similar attempt to change the pattern of terms of address by one of the social groups, according to many Americans, taking place in their country. It is undertaken by the salespersons who are trying to get quickly on a first-name basis with their prospects. They do it in order to gain false intimacy and use it to obtain advantages. Because such practises cause more and more resentment among people exposed to it, there is no chance that they will have any long lasting effect on American address pattern. /^t/Communists, salespersons and many others seemed not to realise that forms of address cannot be changed by one social group to serve its needs. Language is too complicated structure to allow for such manipulation. If small fractions of speakers could introduce changes, communication would be threatened. <0072> /^t/Joining the European Community could impede social changes in Poland and threaten our economy. After the collapse of communism and the revolutions of 1989 Poland is going through serious economic and social changes and the process will take years before it is finished. Therefore, even if the advantages of joining the EC would be big, we should rather concentrate on stabilizing our inner situation than think of a common market with other European countries. /^t/The advantages of becoming a member of the United Europe seem to be obvious. Poland would no longer need to "struggle" to improve the situation of its citizens, but it could put some part of responsibility on other EC members. This would mean getting help on the economic and social level. Because of the monetary union, Polish currency, which is not very strong, or sound, would be strengthened. Also thanks to a common defense policy Poland would have better organizations and methods to fight crime. Our country would not become a safer place because of that, but at least we could cooperate with other EC countries who have necessary equipment and well-trained people at their disposal. The question, however, is what would "cooperation" mean and how would Poland contribute to the creation of the United Europe. /^t/Poland's contribution to Europe's prosperity would be almost non-existent and, therefore, the role of our country would be insignificant. The costs of unification would be too high and this, in turn, would lead to a collapse of our economy, lay-offs and social discontent. Poland would not be able to keep to a 30% increase of the EC budget that was proposed by the Community's three richest countries - France, Germany and the United Kingdom. There is also the danger that many issues, like the question of whether students should pay for their higher education or not, would be approached in a way that most Poles would not approve of. /^t/Poland cannot approve of, or accept, the benefits of joining the EC without thinking of the shortcomings of that process. We are too poor a country to bear the huge economic costs of unification. We cannot take help without giving anything in return, either. For that reason, Poland should rather seek cooperation with countries that have a similar economic situation and do not belong to the world powers instead of trying to join the EC. For the present, at least. <0073> /^t/The job of a stewardess is one of the most controversial. People tend to judge it on appearances which are often deceptive. Only a person who has been working as a flight-attendant for an airline, may have an objective opinion about it. Taking into consideration all the aspects of this unconventional profession, one can sat that it is a perfect job for a woman. /^t/At the beginning, it should be mentioned, that a stewardess' job has some disadvantages that may be disheartening but only for those people, who are not fit for such a job anyway. /^t/What is discouraging for some is the irregular time of work and early wake-ups. Most of the people however, can learn self-discipline and flexibility and easily adjust to 3 o'clock wake-up calls and the night shifts. Moreover, flight-attendants get at least a 24 hour rest time, which is enough to fight the jet-lag and relax sufficiently. /^t/What makes the flight unendurable is the dry air and the cigarette smoke in the cabin. Currently most of the airlines that are concerned about complaints of the non-smokers plan to ban smoking on all flights. For example, Delta Airlines on January 1th, prohibited smoking on all of its flights. A survey indicates that stewardesses, find their work far easier and enjoyable after that significant change. /^t/Nevertheless all the disadvantages taken together can not equal the advantages that a flight attendant's job brings. First of all stewardess' job gives the opportunity to travel for free. Flight attendants can benefit from free passes or reduced employee-tickets on other airlines during the whole year. They take advantage of free travel for many reasons. The main one is pleasure. Rarely can one find a flight attendant who spends her vacation in her own country, Usually, given ample opportunities, she choses a destination of her preference in another part of the world, one that other people can only dream of. /^t/Another reason for using free tickets is business. Most of the stewardesses, for example, do their shoppings in foreign countries, that are cheaper, such as America, Turkey or India. Travelling around the world, they know what is fashionable and can afford to wear the most elegant clothes since they are experts in finding places where they can buy them five times cheaper than in their own country. /^t/Another advantage of flight-attendants' job is an opportunity to meet interesting people. An airplane is the most frequently used means of transport. Here a stewardess has direct contact with all kinds of passengers from deportees and emigrants to businessmen and celebrities such as actors, top models, politicians and even heads of state. Especially on the long-haul flights there is plenty of time for making new contacts and getting to know people's lives better. Sometimes those casual conversations end up in long lasting friendships. Worth mentioning is the fact, that many unmarried women find their husbands while airborne. /^t/Travelling to international destinations requires a minimum of knowledge about them. Consequently flight attendants acquire wider horizons and they can certainly broaden them flying to various countries. They have an unusual opportunity to learn about their cultures and customs. /^t/Moreover the flight attendants' job provides assertiveness and self-confidence in dealing with any situation which may occur while travelling. An airplane is a perfect place to obtain our inside to human psychology. Stewardesses soon become experts of human behaviors. Such an experience may be very useful later in life. /^t/Safety is one of the most important advantages of this job. Many people simply do not realize how safe flying is. The odds of being in an airplane crash are ten times smaller than being run over by a car. Drunken or careless drivers, slippery roads and normal city traffic represent a much bigger a threat to human life. /^t/The biggest advantage of flight-attendant's job is free time. The Federal Aviation Administration does not allow stewardesses to fly more than 120 hours per month. In fact they fly much less, only up to fifteen days a month. Having a lot of free time, they can take another job, study, or take a good care of their children. /^t/The position of a flight attendant is a perfect job for a woman because it gives the opportunity to travel and visit many unique places in the world, admire the wonders of nature, meet unusual people, it teaches flexibility, resiliance and self-discipline, it changes people, giving them self-confidence and immense experience. It is worth being flight attendant and fully enjoying life. <0074> /^t/Although it seems that women and men grow up and exist in the same world and there are more women working than ever before, they still are discriminated at work. /^t/There are obvious differences between the two sexes. Women are regarded as physically weaker and less practical while men, on the other hand, are said to be really strong and practical. These stereotypes of women being more sensitive, imaginative, influenced by emotions and men, on the contrary, more rigid, quicker in taking decisions and choosing the logical way of thinking, have a great deal of influence upon the work discrimination. /^t/First of all - women's work is undervalued. It is commonly known that they earn only half of what men generally earn. Their work is treated less seriously as it has mostly grown out of domestic work - caring, cooking, making clothes - things females have done for centuries for their families without payment. Some men consider those jobs as being part of women's natural role. Cleaning activities, clothes manufacture, retailing, homeworking are almost entirely staffed by women and as a result the fields became "feminised", and what is really annoying, lower paid. One potent myth which keeps women's salaries low is the belief that women work for "pin-money". Despite the fact that more and more mothers are becoming the sole wage earners, either because of growing unemployment or because they are single parents, this opinion results in women getting lower pay than their male workmates. Some men still think women do not need the money as desperately as male bread-winners and because of this they should work only part-time to fit in with their family commitments. It is sad, as they do nearly all the domestic work at home and they cannot find full-time good quality childcare, working part-time seems to be the only way out for them. In addition, having children does not help the situation at all and it can severely damage your career in your boss's eyes. Many women are led to believe that they should be grateful to their employer for giving them a job at last and they should just "keep their head out of the firing line". Some male bosses have sexist, hostile attitudes that females should stay at home and raise children. Moreover, extra or merit payment for good employees can often be extremely different for sexes - women are judged unfair where employers make up the basic rate of pay with heavy overtime - they have to devote far more time to their families than their male co-workers. /^t/In connection with the problem of women's discrimination at work it is worth pointing out some data. As the national surveys announce women still earn only 70% of male wages. In finance, women make up almost half the employees and earn in total only half male wages. The caring, cleaning, catering professions are underpaid partly because they are seen as less skilled than "male" jobs. The law discriminates against part-timers: they have to work for more than twice as long as full timers to earn protection from unfair dismissal and have far fewer employment rights. Since the majority of part-timers are women the law is just sanctioning discrimination. Besides only 3% of university professors, 8% of business managers and 15% of medical consultants are women. /^t/Some men manufacturers claim to employ women factory workers on the grounds that their fingers are more nimble than men's and that they are better at jobs that are monotonous and need dexterity. There is no evidence that women are more or less dexterous than men. On might say - Part-time work should be a way forward to help women mix family and financial commitments. In fact it is rapidly becoming a step towards casual, unprotected jobs. For those who work either full- or part-time the quality of childcare available is so poor that worrying about what is happening at home is not conducive to giving your best at work. /^t/Women have succeeded in any jobs. As politicians, soldiers, doctors, university professors, farmers, company directors and presidents of countries, they have often put men to shame. They frequently succeed brilliantly in all these fields in addition to bearing and rearing children. So when women prove their skills, men object to appreciate them and give them their due. Work discrimination is probably caused by men's inferiority complex. Men know women are superior and they are afraid of being beaten at their own game. /^t/Changing attitudes does take time, but changing the law to make it easier to bring discrimination cases and to give full time rights to part-timers could give a real push to the process and that is something every discriminated at work woman should ask for. <0075> /^t/Television and video films are widely available and atractive especially for young people. TV has become not only one of the forms of entertainment but a kind of faulty imagery for many people who want to follow, perform everything they watch on the "silver screen". /^t/Witnessed violence heightens the observers to act aggressively themselves. Film scenes with violence stimulate aggression on and lower the restraints of viewers, against such behaviour. Aggression on the TV screen stimulates aggressive inclinations of the viewers. Psychologists claim that each person has more or less inclinations towards violence. These inborn inclinations can be lower or enhance by bringing up, social, influences and education. Unfortunately, nowadays children and the youth spend most of their life in front of the TV screen so the influence of TV is dominant in their life. /^t/One can say that parents should control what their children watch and protect them from bad influence. However the real fact is that children and teenagers watch what they want, because parents are absent or too busy to control their off-spring, and the young people imitate scenes from films like a bomb-hoax or derailing trains by bars. TV shows them a lot of interesting ideas connected with vandalism, mugging or shoplifting. TV "educates" potential criminals by displaying crimes. /^t/Teachers at schools observe their pupils who imitate violent scenes from recently watched films. Schoolchildren train their colleagues. They imitate their TV or movie-idols Mc Guywer or Bruce Lee. They demonstrate how to kill somebody or harm as painful as possible. /^t/Besides, figures reveal a considerable prevalence of vandalism in schools. There is perennial rise of juvenile delinquency and crime. There are more and more assaults on teachers, robberies and rapes. They often imitate the same violent scenes which were displayed on TV or movie screens. /^t/Violence breeds violence and the increasing rate of especially juvenile delinquency and the forms of crimes, mostly identical with violent scenes from films, prove that films stimulate aggressive inclinations produce bad examples, prompting anti-social ideas in various attractive forms which tempt, influence especially young people. /^t/Hooligans more and more wretch or damage flats. Even young boys are able to plunge a knife into somebody's knife, extortion money and inflict grievous bodily harm. These are deeds of young people, who mimic Their TV heroes or some would say "black characters". /^t/Many directors or script writers claim that "black characters" in films deter some crimes because they show the face of cruelty in murders or assaults. In fact, these films are terrible only for some sensitive spectators. Most people with aggressive inclinations are stimulated to bad deeds by prompting interesting, new although often cruel ideas. Violent films become training grounds for such people. Police reports confirm these conclusions because many criminals imitate scenes from films. /^t/The rising tide of violence in films must be curbed before it does irreparable damage. <0076> /^t/"Some television programmes are just as chewing gum for the eyes" - says John Mason Brown. Such a statement sounds unbelievable, but recent studies have indeed proved that television has devastating effects on our health. /^t/Because it prevents physical fitness, displays violence, and steals valuable time, television is a form of entertainment that does children more harm than good. /^t/According to the Health Centre, symptoms that are associated with sitting in front of the television include irritation of the eyes, headache, fatigue, general irritability and increased stress. Hours spent watching, put you at risk of back pain and inhibition of muscle development often caused by poorly designed furniture and the general discomfort of sitting. Fluorescent strip lights cause eyestrain, allergic skin reactions and difficulty in concentrating. That's why children shouldn't stay watching more than about two hours a day. The most important thing is to make their childhood full of games, sports and fun in order to avoid further troubles associated with their physical fitness. Parents should give their children good opportunities to be more active and try to fill their spare time with some playful games. They should distract their children's attention from watching television suggesting them the activities that have good effects on health. /^t/As a result of watching television all the time, children can incur the delayed reaction of posttraumatic stress disorder. These reactions may depend on hoe secure a child feels. Some children are more sensitive than others. There are kids for whom scary movies are devastating, as they show a large number of cruel heros using brutal force to hurt one another. <*> - says Dr. Scott May, cochairman of the committee on Children's Television and Media of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. In addition, he says that the stories can squelch the children's imagination. Children have nightmares, wake up during the night and cannot get back to sleep again especially when they watch horrors, war films or catastrophic films. They also imitate the behaviour of bad heros they saw in movies and they usually show it off by beating younger pupils at schools or using swear words in front of other children. They are impressed by the brutal power exposed on television, used to cause pain or damage to people. /^t/The films cause one another bad effect which is stealing valuable time in which more useful things could be done. Children usually forget about the work they have planned to do when they start watching television. They often don't realize how much time they waste sitting and watching. This promotes laziness and takes away from the time that should be devoted to schoolwork. Even if they open their books and notebooks, they may be not ready to start learning because they may think about a certain movie that will start in a few minutes rather than the subject, they should start learning during the time. If their parents helped them to organize their time in a better way, they could have done everything on time and even they could have watched some good programmes. So that should be the role of parents, to encourage their children to watch only the programmes worth seeing; not the mess which is now being broadcast. /^t/Television effects many people. It has a kind of magnetic power which draws us towards watching. A recent opinion poll has discovered that 98% of all the people watch television every day. This has degrading effects on our generation. Our children probably spend too much time in front of the television, so we should sometimes think it over if it is good or bad for our health. Sometimes it is better to take a walk or do something useful at home rather than watching television for hours. <0077> /^t/The nuclear power issue has always aroused a fierce debate in the world. The supporters of the idea of using nuclear energy point out that it is less damaging to the world than energy generated from fossil fuels and that there is no threat of nuclear fuel running out. On the other hand, others warn that nuclear power and the radioactive waste and the radioactive waste of nuclear power plants may eventually cause the extermination of plant and animal life. The awareness of the risk nuclear power plants pose to the environment, of the increasing problems with nuclear waste, and of the costs connected with the plants, as well as of the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons makes more and more people convinced that the disadvantages of nuclear power plants are greater than their advantages. /^t/First of all, nuclear power industry is dangerous to people and their environment. Nuclear power plants are never really safe because small amounts of radioactive substances always leak from reactors into the air, soil and water. What is more, a serious nuclear accident, whether during transport or production, can cause a major catastrophe resulting in the contamination of large areas around the reactor for several hundred million years. The radiation could then lead to genetic changes and abnormalities in wildlife and people, to changes in the life of organisms and to the increase of fatal diseases in people. /^t/Second, nuclear power plants produce large quantities of radioactive wastes for which no safe disposal exists. They can remain radioactive for thousands of years, and the y are lethal. /^t/Third, the costs of building and exploiting of nuclear power plants are extremely high. A nuclear power plant costs about twice the cost of a conventional power station. Even more must be spent to dispose of nuclear waste and dismantle old power stations. It is also very expensive to reduce the effects of nuclear accidents, for example, the Soviet Union had to pay up to 10 billion pounds to clean up the contaminated zone around the destroyed power station. /^t/Fourth, it is now evident that there is a link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Nuclear power plants provide armies with plutonium and other radioactive materials for building nuclear bombs. The expansion of nuclear power raises the risk of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. /^t/In spite of all these disadvantages, some point out than nuclear power plants have advantages. /^t/First, nuclear power is less damaging to the environment than energy generated from fossil fuels as far as the emission of greenhouse gases is concerned. Nuclear power plants release about twenty five times less carbon dioxide than coal-fired stations. /^t/Second, nuclear power plants fuel will never run out. Uranium, for example, exists in large enough quantities to last for at least another five thousand years, while oil is being consumed at such a rate that its known reserves will run out in about forty years. /^t/Although nuclear power plants have some supporters, the number of their opponents is still growing. It is because with each new piece of information on radio or TV people become more and more aware that nuclear power industry is dangerous, inefficient and expensive. For example, if you take into consideration radiation after nuclear power plant accident and its long-term effects for the environment, the fact that nuclear power plants release about twenty five times less carbon dioxide than coal-fired stations, becomes an unimportant one. Nuclear power is dangerous not only to the environment, but also to the world's peace. It is nuclear power plants that provide materials for building nuclear bombs. There is no point in investing huge sums of money to build such a dangerous and inefficient industry. It is true that there will be no problems with providing fuel for nuclear power stations because its reserves are ever-lasting, but it should also be pointed out that nuclear fuel could easily be replaced by sun, wave or tidal fuel. This type of fuel is much safer than nuclear power which can spell a complete disaster for the environment if not properly controlled. <0078> /^t/Books are getting less and less popular today. Such a situation is due to the fact that people, being more and more tired and disappointed with their lives, prefer easier entertainment, namely watching television or playing the computer. In fact, being not interested in reading books, they do not realize what they are missing. Books, being filled with practical wisdom, are the best compass on the seas of loneliness. There are many kinds of books; thanks to a wide variety of subjects they present, each of us can find a book for himself or herself. Many people believe that books are the best friends, as, thanks to them, we are never left alone. /^t/For example, there are many psychological books which teach us how to heal our lives. I believe that such books are very important, especially today, as our lives are getting more and more difficult. They may help you fight depression or give the feeling of encouragement; sometimes they are simply the best proof that there is somebody who cares for you and who really wants to help you. Such books are extremely important, because they give us advice and help us get through the most difficult times of our lives. One of such books, namely "Toxic Parents", written by a famous American psychologist Susan Forward, is an excellent guide for parents. Showing how much parents' behavior influences their children's lives, the book makes us aware of the importance of our actions. /^t/But not each of us enjoys reading psychological books, no matter how useful they may be. Some of us may find science-fiction books interesting. In fact, such books help us forget about the world which surrounds us; also, they help us forget about our loneliness. Full of unreal events, they show the world which is more beautiful than the world in which we do live. S. King's book, for example, the title of which is "Shining", is a wonderful company for at least a few hours. Once you start reading it, you will probably forget about all your problems. /^t/There are also scientific books, which, explaining different phenomena, can guide you through the world. They are the best teachers; filled with photographs, they help us realize what is really interesting in the world around us. They can teach us about historical events, biology, or geography. In fact, people who do not read such books are missing a lot. /^t/Thanks to books our lives can be changed for the better. Although each of us has different preferences as far as books are concerned, we all can find something for ourselves. In fact, no matter if a given book makes us laugh or cry; what is important is that each book can give us the reassuring feeling that we are not alone any longer. <0079> /^t/People going to stay in another country, be it for a short or long time, should be prepared to pass through several stages of adjustment to the new culture. Some of them go through the adjustment cycle quickly, like children who are easily adaptable to a new environment, but others may find it hard to adapt themselves to a different reality. /^t/The first stage of adjustment takes place before people start to travel. They imagine themselves in new situations, think about the stereotyped views on the country they are going to visit or stay in, try to anticipate all the difficulties in communicating with people speaking different language and representing different mentality. This is the first attempt to adjust to the change. /^t/The second stage is the first impression of the foreign country. Even if the reality fits our expectations we experience a kind of shock at the new culture. The best example is the food that frequently makes the visitors' stomachs turn up. People from the northern countries may find repulsive the idea of eating frogs and snails and diverse frutti di mare. The other thing is weather. Those who go to visit England are bound to be shocked at the average rainfall in this country. /^t/Another aspect of this stage of adjustment is the first impression of the mentality of the inhabitants of the foreign country. We can be, for instance, positively surprised by the openess and warmth of French people and shocked by the cold manners and selfishness of the English. /^t/The next stage is getting to know the foreign country better and, possibly, fitting in the new culture at last (though there are people who never adjust to a new culture, i.e., never pass this stage of adjustment). This is the time when we can ultimately get acquainted with the mentality of people and verify or deny our first impressions. We find, e.g., the English people different - reserved, but trustworthy, stable, having principles. While the French keep their reputation of being nice and friendly but underneath - not very responsible and trustworthy. /^t/In front of the unifying tendencies, in Europe at least, it would be tempting to think that the cultural boundaries, more important than the real ones, will be disappearing and the phenomenon of cultural shock cease to exist. But, conversely, most people become more and more nationally conscious, aware of their individuality and it is possible that the cultural adjustment will become ever more difficult. <0080> /^t/Various pessimistic scholars - sociologists, anthropologists - have recently pointed out at the diverse phenomena and processes: increase in crime rate, deterioration of morals, disintegration of relationships between people as indications of a rapid future downfall of society created by man. Others, more optimistic, have claimed that a society as such is bound to survive and it is historically and instinctively determined. /^t/The advocates of the prospective downfall of a society maintain that human beings are individual creatures and should not be forced to live in a net of interpersonal relations - in a society, which is according to them an artificial link between its members. And members of a society are arbitrarily ascribed to a place where they have been born. On the other hand, plain scientific researches have proved that a society is a very popular form of organisation of species in the animal world. This is so, because every living creature possesses an inborn necessity to have a sense of belonging - to a particular place or, more important, to a particular group. Human species is no exception to this rule - people are sociable creatures - they need even the sheer presence of each other to exist. /^t/According to the pessimistic view the society (and especially a modern one) is driven by the internal disintegration processes that will make it fall apart. They cite mainly: the loss of a national consciousness, more and more competitive life, loss of significance of moral values - resulting in an increased number of crimes and the disintegration of the family - the fundamental part of a society. However, the sheer fact that the societies remain still so distinct and members of different societies differ in so many respects seems to confirm the idea that people long to be parts of a unique whole - the cherish the tradition of their own nation, they think their language should be spoken all over the world, etc. /^t/A society as such is not probably going to fall apart - human inclination to join into groups is too deeply rooted. But it is definitely possible for modern (western) societies to disintegrate, though in remote future, where the highly competitive life prevents humans to be humane to themselves. <0081> /^t/First of all the state is an institution based on the general agreement of the people. Thus, maintaining that it is the state that uses capital punishment, seems to be a tentative euphemism aimed at making our responsibility rather remote. I personally think, that it is the society and not the state, who permits to eradicate criminals. Hence I intend to use people rather than state as a referent in this essay. /^t/Having clarified this we can procede to the discussion of capital punishment. Is it a punishment? If so what is its role? What are the arguments of its protagonists and antagonists? Is it justifiable? These are the basic questions I shall try to answer in this essay. /^t/Punishment is an infliction of pain, suffering, discomfort or death on a person who has infringed the law, rule or custom of the community. In ancient times it was exacted on the basis of the "eye-for-an-eye" rule and was designed only to satisfy the thirst for revenge. Today we claim to be a more civilized society and design punishments not to revenge, but to reform. The major aspect of any punishment is to create the possibilities for the offenders to reeducate themselves, and, having served their sentences, to start new lives, and be useful to the community. Capital punishment is devised exclusively to eradicate people who have committed a mistake, however gross it might have been. It is ultimate, it does not give a second chance. In this respect it fails to meet the requirements of a civilized punishment. /^t/Many of the protagonists of death penalty hold that its main role is to deter the violent crime. They claim that the numbers of offenders who carry guns have increased enormously in the countries, which abolished capital punishment. However the antagonists maintain otherwise. Namely, that death penalty is not an effective deterrent. According to them statistics prove that violent punishment does not tend to bring about a decrease in violent crime. /^t/Another issue, fervently discussed by both parties, is the question of morality. Advocates of death penalty believe it immoral that the taxpayers, who may fall prey to murderers and rapists, should pay for their upkeep in prisons. This claim is difficult to refute. Nevertheless killing people, even if they are habitual criminals, can hardly be called moral. Neither jury nor judge should have the power to put an end to a human life. The antagonists of death penalty would probably conclude that it perpetuates the very evil it seeks to remove. /^t/To stop the viscious circle, the opposition of capital punishment postulates a prison reform. They emphasize the fact that the object of modern penal system is not only the protection of society but also the reclamation of the criminal. Reeducation and reclamation of an offender, they believe, is likely to reduce the amount of crime. The only answer their adversaries give, is that hardened murderers are beyond hope of reform. On the expiry of their sentences they return as the source of danger to the society. Thus eradicating them is the same as cutting of a diseased organ. But who is to judge that the disease can't be cured? /^t/This short discussion of the main points linked to the problem of capital punishment leads to the final question. Is death penalty justifiable? Though, as we have seen, it is a complex issue, but an instinctive answer is simple. Death penalty is not justifiable. First and foremost, it does not meet the requirements of a civilized penal code, because it denies the criminal the right to reform. Second, it does not seem to be an efficient deterrent. Statistics are ambiguous in this respect as it is difficult to account for all sociological factors involved. It also raises numerous moral questions and does not solve any. Finally, it does not cure the society from evil, but only removes responsibility for it from all of us, to one, to the offender. Capital punishment is nothing more than a confession on the part of the community of a failure to protect, educate and support its every member. <0082> /^t/The warming of the Earth's climate is already a part of our reality. The Antarctic ice cap is melting faster than it can be replaced by snowfall, and many European countries experience the unusual rises of temperature during the summer season. These are the results of ozone loses in the stratosphere, which increase the risk of skin cancers and damage to plants. The ozone layer protects against cancer by absorbing the sun's ultraviolet radiation, which means that its existence determines our existence. Nevertheless, it seems to have been losing its wonderful qualities recently, or, to be more precise, it has been actually disappearing. There is no way to patch the ozone hole in the sky at present, but we can prevent it from getting bigger and bigger. /^t/First of all, we should deal with it on the individual level. Having known that major CFC (chlorofluorocarbons) offenders are aerosol sprays, refrigeration, vehicle air conditioning and cleaning agents, we can take a few wise decisions. The most obvious is to stop using aerosols using freon. There are many deodorants with the sign "ozone friendly" available in the shops. It is up to us. It is the same story with buying a refrigerator. We must forget about refrigerators containing CFC-11 and CFC-12, even if they are cheaper. It is simply not worthwhile, since the smaller the prize, the bigger the ozone hole (more or less). Another ingenious decision would be to stop using cars in favour of public transport. Recent research shows, however, that this one occurs to be too drastic to be taken. The only thing that can be done about it is then, at least, using catalizators and the petrol of lead-free variety. One more thing that can be done individually is to buy cleaning agents that are biodegradable. /^t/There is also a lot to be done on the national level. In the first place, each country needs to switch to CFC-free technologies. Needless to say, this means producing ozone friendly sprays and refrigerators. However, there are still many old type refrigerators in use, especially in the countries of Eastern Europe and the foreign Soviet Union. They have an additional task, therefore, to establish systems for recycling CFCs from discarded refrigerators and automobile air conditioners. Such systems for the first time appeared in Germany, and they are been worked on in Sweden, Switzerland and Netherlands. Another source of ozone losses are power plants. The logical conclusion then is that it would be better for humans to turn to alternative sources of energy like solar, wind or water energy. Such attempts, of course, present a problem, since energy supply depends not only on available resources, but on economics and politics. Nevertheless, one should never give up so easily. It is also essential, on the national level, to make young people aware of the tragic situation they may occur in unless they switch themselves to the ecological way of life. /^t/Finally, there must be cooperation between countries from all over the world, regarding this problem. It must be stressed that the industrialised countries that are responsible for the ozone depletion should help the poorer nations in solving the environmental problems. Besides, scientists from different countries should support each other in search for substances and processes that can replace CFC-based systems without doing further harm to the stratosphere. /^t/Since the scientists have not invented the way to patch this hole yet, the only thing we can do is trying not to enlarge it. The key-words here are: acid rain, ozone depletion, greenhouse effect and radioactivity. They all come as a result of air pollution. In other words, we must stop polluting the air. The funny thing is that no sane person will deny that pollution is a threat, but lessening that pollution is hard. If you abandon driving, you must take the bus, cycle or walk, but it is not so comfortable or convenient. We tend to think that one car more, or one less on the road does not make any difference. No. It should not be our motto. We should rather bear in mind the following statement: "Damage the environment and it will damage you", and not let it come true. <0083> /^t/"The more i hear, the more I see, the more I find fewer answers", sang once William Derek Dick, a Scottish singer and poet, expressing his confusion and disappointment with reality that surrounded him. True, the tones of information that we get every day may usually confuse us, rather than clarify the things that we are unsure of. This may, in turn, lead us to the well known conclusion that we know nothing. Somehow, however, it seems reasonable to think that getting information about the world, reading being only one possible means to achieve this, may make us, and many a time does make us wiser and thus more human. /^t/It is a common stereotype that people who read more are more sophisticated, more intelligent and have a wider view of the world. And I must agree that, whether we read a newspaper to learn about what happened yesterday or a precious novel to learn about somebody else's fantasies, we know we are not alone as we learn more about others and thus we are more conscious about what is going on in the world. This surely makes us less self-centered, more humble and probably even wiser. /^t/When we take a morning paper we learn much about reality, about what has happened to somebody else. In this way we can place ourselves easier in this great mess which is called "the world". We grasp other people's opinions and, whether we agree with them or not, this surely serves an educational purpose - it widens our view of the world. We learn more about people from their adds, we make use of doctors' and scientists' advice, and we get to know famous politicians, actors and, what is even more important, valuable but unknown people, from the profiles in magazines. /^t/Books are also very helpful in this respect. Non-fiction volumes sometimes let us know somebody's opinions and help us realize that we are not alone in our thinking and perception of the world as we learn that there is someone out there who thinks in the same way we do and who has come up with the same or similar ideas. This may, of course, mean that our thinking is not by all means original, but it may be very helpful to know that we are not alone. Fiction, on the other hand, is often considered to be a record of things that are unreal and simply not true. But it is often reality that is the source of inspiration for fiction writers and their imagination sometimes only helps them put the little pieces of their own experience together. In this way we learn so much about themselves. But so much more can be learnt from fiction writing. By reading we enter the realm of imagination and dreams, and as a creation of a human mind, they are also real, they also tell the story of human race. /^t/And whether we find other people's lives, their opinions and dreams totally surprising or so similar to ours, they DO tell us more about others, their hearts and their souls. We know that we are not alone and this probably makes us more worthy and certainly more aware. <0084> /^t/In the midst of everyday-life activities and problems we feel oppressed and alone. Rushing to school, work, or shopping we pass by many people whom we do not know and we are not interested in their troubles and details of their lives. This relationship acts both ways - other people are also indifferent about our needs and feelings. Even people whom we consider to be our friends, or at least close acquaintances, can hardly help us to suppress the feeling of loneliness and sometimes even alienation. Our problems are either different or we are afraid of being ridiculed; therefore, we preffer not to share the dilemmas with others. Books and magazines seem to be a kind of escape for lonely people. The lonely read them to see someone experiencing the hardship of life, facing the problems they have themselves; they read to know they are not alone. /^t/Simple as it may seem, books, letters, magazines, and even some newspaper articles help people in their lives. In most works authors describe human existence and notice human problems. They touch immortal, phylosophical issues as well as small and trivial matters. They show, for example, that sometimes it is extremely difficult for a family to take care of a handicapped child, to resist in their love and not let the child be taken to a special treatment house. We can read about broken engagements and marriages, letting down friends, financial straits of big companies and small families. We read about a single woman rearing a child, about an alcoholic father, about incest, and about death of close friends or relatives. We are often allowed by the authors to see people not only getting in trouble but also overcoming them. We can observe the protagonists finding some solution, the panacea, an exit to the light. /^t/People need a kind of confession. They can be both a person confessing the problems or listening to them. People have to have a purification of their lives, a way out of all intangled details and aspects of their existence. If they do not have friends they read books to become one of the characters and overcome both their and the character's dilemmas together. Such a katharsis is not a contemporary issue. It was brought up by Aristotle in ancient Greece and "has served" people since then. People need to share the problems to see they are not alone. <0085> /^t/The unification of Europe is probably the most important and optimistic single event in the history of the continent. What has been a dream over the past centuries is now taking place, providing us at the same time with an opportunity for tentative predictions as to the future of the process. The unification is here limited historically to the post-war period. Even though the process could be regarded as continuous, a division into three stages would make it more understandable, as it would be reflected in the social and economic changes that have been taking place. /^t/To begin with, the post-war Europe was faced with a need for a closer economic union as the only possible means of overcoming the disastrous effects of WWII. Likewise, in view of the ever-present danger of conflicts both between France and Germany, and between Western Europe and the Soviet Union, a political union was also a necessity. These were realized in the creation of the European Community of Steel and Coal on the economic level, accompanied with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on the political one. The ECSC soon came to be the foundation of the European Economic Community, the first international organization devoted to cooperation in the spheres of economy, politics, along with social and cultural matters. This foundation stage extended to the end of the 1950s, closing with a defined set of common policies. /^t/It was already in the 1950s that the most poignant difficulties emerged. The inability to deal with the demands of particular countries, such as those of the U.K., France and Italy, and also the continuing budget deficit caused by the ineffective common Agricultural Policy clearly characterised the subsequent stage of development. It extended from 1960 to 1980 and was characterised by an expansion to what then constituted a body of ten European countries. All the same, the membership of new countries only led to a growing division into the richer and poorer member states. Such disproportion resulted in a wide-spread disillusionment among the richer nations. /^t/Finally, the European Community was given a sound structure at the beginning of the 1980s. Began at the Treaty of Rome in 1982, these energetic attempts resulted in the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. Despite the continuing difficulties caused by the particular interests of member states, the union has grown stronger, with a number of successful policies put into effect. Such a course of development obviously does not lead us to expect a full union in the near future. Nevertheless, we have been shown that cooperation on a larger scale is possible, after all, and can result in common development. <0086> /^t/Intelligence - the mental ability of human beings is primarily the result of the education that one receives. Moreover, it is the effect of gaining an experience by an individual in various interactions with the outside world. For example, a student of English Philology at the University gets knowledge about English lanquage, English and American literature, culture and history. What is more, he or she also learns how to respect and tolerate other students' different personalities by having to adjust himselt or herself to various personal relations. Additionaly, an intelligent student draws conclusions from the previous experience when he or she has to tackle a problem. So intelligence is a complex mental power which can be analysed in terms of three interconnected aspects: receiving new information, understanding it as well as applying this information in various contexts of the outside world. /^t/First of all, intelligence is the process of acquiring knowledge. This process includes an ability to receive numerous messages from the outside world. For example, a student of English Philology should be able to store in memory information presented to him or to her during lectures, laboratory classes and seminars. Therefore he or she must be prepared to receive information about all aspects of language: its phonological, semantic and syntactic system. Moreover, a student of English has to learn not only about English and American history, literature, culture and will be also oblidged to attend lectures on psychology, philosophy and methodology. So a student of English Philology has to learn also the subjects not directly connnected with English but also many additional subjects. Such a student will have to be capable of "reading between the lines" - that is to understand information hidden in the form of methaphors and symbols. This ability is necessary for students of English to understand the language of poetry. /^t/Secondly intelligence requires reasoning. So for example, a student of English Philology must develop various strategies of reasoning in order to acquire knowledge in many subjects and on many levels of abstraction. The reasoning processes include an ability to deduct, that is to reason from general principles to a particular case. So a student of English, while learning phonological principles about aspiration, on the basis of general rule should be able to say which sounds in English are aspirated and which are not. The opposite mental process of reasoning is called induction, which involves discovering general laws from particular facts or examples. Thus, a student of English given only various instances of words in which sounds are aspirated, should be able to come up with a general principle referring to the process of aspiration in English language. Moreover, intelligence denotes an ability to synthetise, that is to combine separate facts or parts into one unity. This ability is necessery in learning for example history, because a student has to learn many historical events in order to have a general "picture" of history. The opposite mental process is connected with analysing things to study their structure. This type of thinking which demands careful analysis to understand mathaphors and symbols is necessary in studying for example literature. /^t/Thirdly intelligence involves utilising understood knowledge into practice. This skill called "know how" means that an intelligent person is ready to approach and to come up with solutions to a particular problem. For example a student of English must be able to organise his or her work when preparing for the exams. He or she must know what to learn first, how to select things in order of their importance in the given span of time. Additionally, this aspect of intelligence is connected with passing acquired knowledge to the others. Therefore, a student of English should not only know methodological methods but should also know how to apply them while teaching English language. /^t/Generaly speaking intelligence can be defined as a complex mental process, which can analysed in terms of three interconnected aspects. These aspects: receiving, applying and passing information are equally important in determining one's level of intelligence. Nethertheless, each of these aspects can be examined at more detaild levels to study the complex structure of intelligence. This additionally means, that each element of intelligence should be simultaneously developed so as to ensure an optimal mentel development of an individual. <0087> /^t/Live on our planet is unique. Our planet has such conditions as the favourable combination of elements creating the atmosphere, moderate temperature, protective layers of ozone, that created a natural environment in which all sorts of life have been able to develop and exist. Any interference with the earth's ecosystem destroys these favourable conditions. The consequences can lead to the destruction of life on this planet. They also threaten the existence of the very planet. This is what has been happening for years. The fastmoving and technologically complex industrialized world caused air, river and sea pollution, the destruction of the ozone layers, loss of rainforests, and excessive waste. These are only some of the environmental problems facing the modern world. There are, though, some environmentally friendly procedures that business enterprises, mostly responsible for the state of affairs, can undertake to save the environment. At least three procedures can minimalize air pollution, and another three, if followed, may halp to control and manage waste disposal. /^t/The three procedures that can be adopted by business enterprises to minimize excessive air pollution are the following: replanting trees, eliminating a carbon-based economy, and changing technologies that produce vehicles. /^t/The first procedure concerus trees, the most important suppliers of oxygen. For such reasons as acid rain and excessive use of wood for celluse industry, we have been facing a shortage of forests. These drastically limit the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere. Business enterprises, especially those responsible for the destruction of forests, should monitor and finance massive replanting of trees. Every bit of land, especially around factories and plants, should be filled with new trees. This procedure, however, treats only the results of technological development. The second procedure concerns the core of the problem, the technology. One possible solution to the environmental problems would be supplantinga carbon-based economy with one based on hydrogen and sunshine. This will reduce not only enormous amounts of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere during the combustion of carbon, but also minimize the use of oxygen from the atmosphere needed for that chemical reaction. Solar or wind power could be adopted particularly by power stations. They mostly contribute to air pollution. The third environmentally safe procedure is also connected with technology. The car industry produces vehicles run on leaded petrol. This causes an enormous emission of pernicious fumes into the air. Therefore, car producers should either manufacture vehicles equipped with catalytic converters or change their technologies and produce cars run only on unleaded gas. /^t/Another three procedures can be adopted by enterprises to cope with and manage waste. One environmentally friendly way to dispose of glass bottles is, for example, to create bottle banks. In such places bottles can be gathered, sorted out, cleaned and prepared for further use. This will not only solve the problem of accumulated waste, but also protect natural resources used for producing glass. Another way of dealing with waste is to use plastic bottles as raw materials for producing textiles. Such technology has already been invented and adopted by Wellman, Inc., a fiber producing company. It is involved in manufacturing a 100% polyester fabric from plastic bottles. The fabric, Fortel Ecospun, is used for producing rests, jackets or blankets. The last environmentally friendly technology concerns the car industry. The idea of recycling has also been introduced by BMW, an auto manufacturing company in Germany. Their newer models are produced with specially designed parts that can be later used in the production of new vehicles. These parts are made from a limited range of plastics. In this way when a car is trashed the plastic parts can be later melted down and reused as material for a number of applications. /^t/The environmental problems facing the present world are enormous and cannot be neglected. There is a great need to protect clean air and a number of ways to achieve this. Replanting trees and changing technologies into more environmentally friendly ones are only some of the procedures that can be undertaken by business enterprises. The other major problem of waste disposal can be solved by means of recycling and reusing raw materials. <0088> /^t/One of the most noticeable features of every young generation is its tendency to rebel against the lifestyle imposed on it by the older generation. Joining cult or identifying with subculture is the common way of the young's' manifestation of their disagreement on the adults' world. Young person's decision about joining a given subculture may be dictated by the following reasons. The first reason is looking for a purpose and meaning in life; the second is the need to express personal attitude toward every-day issues, it can be either anger caused by poor economic condition or a protest against imposed social norms. Obviously, there are many other reasons, both of sociological and psychological natures, but the two given above seem to be the ones of the commonest. /^t/Firstly, joining cult or belonging to subculture creates for a young, inexperienced person the possibility to find an easy answer to a question "what is the purpose of life". A person who does not have any established hierarchy of values, and whose life is a source of confusion longs for any kind of order, a set of rules that would enable him or her to lead a happy life. Consequently, popularity of cults among the young comes from the fact that a philosophy propagated by a given cult makes the impression of a ready-made "recipe" for a problem-free and meaningful life. What's more a confused youngster is the first one who will desperately search for an easy remedy or a guide who will set a definite purpose in his or her life. An example that can be useful here, may be Shoko Ashahara's follower - often highly educated people who were attracted to him by his promises of achieving inner peace by means of self-enlightenment. The same phenomenon can be observed in case of young people who decide to join skinheads whose philosophy is known for its radicalism and an overt aggression. The young's interest in skinheads' philosophy may be partly explained by the fact that this particular subculture has clearly defined code of rules in which the division between good and bad is explicit. Thus, if one follows the most radical slogans typical for skins, one can learn and believe that these are the color immigrants and minorities of all kinds that are to blame for confusion and disorder in one's life. In fact, a clearly defined enemy may not bring the meaning to one's life but at least, it is good to know on whom to exert anger. Therefore, it may be said that these are the tempting promises and catchy slogans that appeal most to people who search for a purpose in life, Consequently, words are the most powerful means of persuading people to join cults. /^t/Another reason of young people's identification with a certain subculture is the necessity to display in public one's anger and frustration caused by bad social and economic conditions. Since it is easier to express anger while being in a group, young people tend to join organised communities. Being a member of a larger group gives the sense of unity and security that is necessary in revealing subversive views. For example, in England in the 70's the economic crisis triggered the explosion of punks whose attitude toward life resolves itself into a well-known slogan No Future. The popularity of punks in England in the 70's was the reflection of a public disappointment resulted from a big unemployment, strikes and lack of perspectives that was overtly expressed in punk music. Similarly, the negative attitude toward compulsory military service became in the 60's the factor that made generation gap even more striking. It was because the young in the 60's manifested their pacifism and disapproval of social norms In a very spontaneous way like for instance: burning conscription cards and propagating free love. It may be said that joining hippie communities was not only a sign of protest against the rigidity of moral and social rules, but also the young' attempt to create a new order in society. Becoming a hippie was the way of displaying a certain attitude, quite opposite to that of a law-abiding citizen's. In other words, becoming a member of subculture defines one's political orientation and hierarchy of values. /^t/The will to identify with subculture or cult may have either psychological or sociological background, and it seems that these informal institutions will always exist. Therefore, as long as there will be young, disoriented people searching for meaning in their lives, cults and subcultures will be necessary to provide them with easy solutions and a sense of order. There will be always some charismatic leaders who will be able to captivate thousands of people by means of temptetive promises of a good life. Additionally, there will be always some people who will be trying to find a vent for their disagreement with social and economic norms, as well as the way for promoting a new lifestyle. And though, the philosophies of subcultures and cults may change and multiply in a course of time, these informal groups will always exist. This is because they will be providing confused people with a sense of stability and harmony in life as well as with possibility of creating one's identity - or at least with the substitutes of these values. <0089> /^t/Video is surely one of the most important inventions at the end of the 20th century in technology, let alone in entertainment. As a competition to the 'obsolete' movie theaters video became more and more popular. Many claimed that it was just a matter of time that movie theaters would vanish for good and everybody was going to watch films on their TV screens at home. The 'old-fashioned' moviegoers were terrified because their opponent's arguments seemed very convincing and real: easier and cheaper access and exploatation, coziness - one doesn't have to leave one's home to see a picture, and so on. Yet the worries showed up to be unnecessary. Somehow, movie houses got the upper hand on video and are still the most substantial 'conveyers' of films. There are several factors that contributed to it. /^t/The movies have never been just a place to come to see a picture, they also serve social purposes. It is a good excuse to go out in the evening, to meet friends, and to spend some time among people in order not to isolate oneself. Many treat going out to the movies as an event that is worth remembering as a relief from our everyday activities, just like a party or holidays. In this aspect video and theaters can be compared to eating at home and out, respectively. It is obvious that if one seeks something fancy or wants to celebrate, one will eat out. /^t/When it comes to the process of watching itself, conditions in the movies are more tempting. The atmosphere created there makes it easier for one to concentrate on a movie only: darkness, the feeling of intimacy and sitting in the theater itself where the only only thing one is able to do is to watch a movie. While at home there are always million things to do and to thing of. One is constantly interrupted by phonecalls and one doesn't mind it very much as it is easy to pause a movie and come back later to finish watching it. It may be easy but it certainly weakens the perception of the movie. When the quality of the picture and sound is concerned, the movies have the upper hand again. Big screens are more comfortable to watch while the sound fuller. /^t/Finally, Hollywood movie companies have a say in establishing what is more popular: theaters or video. Theaters partially owe their existance to constant promotion. The companies have always tried to bind motion pictures and theaters into an inseparable unit. The notorious premieres, that are set up with big celebrieties, can serve here as an example. The Motion Picture Academy (the one responsible for Oscars) established a rule which says that a movie in order to be nominated for the Academy Awards has to have its theatrical opening first. Generally, movies are released first in the theaters and then on video, usually after 6 months. The video releases are intentionally delayed until a movie has been completely exploited in the theaters and made its way out of there. Therefore, in some cases, when a movie has become a box-office hit, the video release can be pushed to even more than 6 months as it happened in case of 'Jurassic Park', for example. It took almost a year and a half until people could finally see the dinosaurs on the attack at home. The reason for delaying the video release is money. The theaters are much more profitable for movie companies than video rentals. In the USA the movie ticket is about 6 to 7 dollars, which is usually twice the price for renting a new release video per one night. Consequently, the majority of the profits movie companies make on their movies come from theaters, while the video rentals and purchases are responsible only for additional gains. /^t/In the past the movie theater popularity was jeopardized twice, surviving each time. First, the invention of television was supposed to make moviegoers disappear. Later, in the 80s, video was believed to be killing weapon. Today, preserving its strength, a movie theater is likely to keep on soaring as long as a motion picture being the tenth muse plays the lead role in the culture. <0090> /^t/Drugs are an issue which arouse strong feelings and provoke controversy. Although drugs have been around for centuries, not all of them have yet been legalized. The question whether drugs should be legalized is a tough one, and there will always be people for and against legalization. /^t/Alcohol, coffeine and nicotine are legal drugs and it is estimated that over 90% of the adult population now drink alcohol, coffee and smoke. All these drugs have certain side-effects, namely they increase or decrease the pulse rate and blood pressure, reduce appetite, lead to heart diseases, blood clots, cancer of the lung, throat, stomach, and mouth. However, along with the side-effects, there are many good points in the drugs mentioned above. Doctors recommend alcohol to those who have high blood pressure and coffeine to those who have low blood pressure. Nevertheless, one should remember that one should not abuse these drugs, whatever the good and bad points of them are. /^t/Cocaine, heroine, LSD, and similar drugs which are illegal, are not registered in medicine as drugs which can be used for treatment. On the contrary, people who take or use these drugs must undergo treatment. Why do people these drugs? The main reason is that they want to experience the feelings they get under the influence of them. They do not realize at first that taking the drug once will mean having to take it twice, thrice and so on. Eventually, this will lead them to becoming addicted. At the beginning they like it because they have visual sensations and feel that they can rule the world. They experience increased feelings of well-being, excitement, pleasure, confidence and energy. /^t/Drugs should not be legalized, except for these which have already been. If a person 'does' drugs, he or she should realize what he or she is liable to suffer. There should be some organizations which would explain the facts of 'doing' drugs. If there are such organizations, the number of drug addicts will not increase. <0091> /^t/Television hasn't been with us all that long, but we are already beginning to forget what the world was like without it. Before we admitted this "time-consuming monster" into our homes, we never found it difficult to arrange our daily schedule of certain activities. We used to have time both for top duties and certain pleasures as well. Nowadays the whole schedule, previously so cautiously arranged, seems to be broken. The reason for this lies in the simple fact: everyone nowadays seems to be obsessed by a popular, however, time-wasting activity, i.e. TV watching. /^t/Let's come back to the schedule of your every-day activities. Each of us is obliged to perform certain duties either in our work or at home. However television programmes, especially those "worth watching" are arranged in such a way that our plans are often spoilt. It's true that certain programmes provide us with valuable information, for example those concerning health or food matters. It's also true that in some cases television is indeed the only source of such information. Nevertheless we are often forced to make a choice between the pleasure of watching and our duties. Especially those, who choose TV watching for a few times running, (rather than their duties) usually become television addicts. In such a case their need of TV watching increases to so great an extent that it becomes nearly an obsession. In fact, they often prefer wasting their time watching a rubbishy film or commercial to having an appointment with their employer. /^t/Next think of your leisure. All the civilised pleasures, that we used to enjoy, belong to the past. The evenings spent in serenity and quiet surroundings with our close friends seem not to return anymore. Now all our free time is regulated by television. We often rush home or gulp down our meals to be in time for this or that programme. We turn on a television set to watch anything new, which in fact may turn out to be complete rubbish. /^t/Think about children who constantly watch television. Homework is often undone, the sleep is lost. Especially those teenagers influenced greatly by this "time-wasting monster" prefer TV watching to studying. This happens even in case of examinations or tests on the following day. It doesn't matter they waste their time on watching, often, the out-dated commercials or certain films full of sadism and violence. Such a shallow kind of entertainment is only a waste of their precious time. Neither does it contribute to their studying nor does it provide them some relaxation. /^t/At last, think of the programmes themselves, which our nowadays presented in television. Most of them are completely rubbish, not worth talking about, let alone watching. Nearly all the films presented nowadays are full of violence, sadism and crime. Very few of them concern the top matters, such as health, food or animals' rights. And even if they do, the content is presented in so a superficial and boring way that we often give up watching them to the very end. Another thing is concerned with TV commercials. It's another waste of time. Most of them don't tell the actual truth about a certain product available. Besides, it's boring to watch the same commercials 5 or 10 times a day or even during the same programme (which is constantly interrupted by this technical device). /^t/TV watching encourages passive enjoyment. We waste our time, sitting in our armchairs and watching others working. Gradually we get lazy, we choose to waste a beautiful day in semi-darkness, glues to our sets, rather than go out into the world. It's true that sometimes television id the only source of information that are not available in any book or newspaper. Television may be a splendid medium of communication, but, in fact it prevents us from communicating with each other. Very often we have "so little time", because we waste most of it just in front of our TV sets. <0092> /^t/When writing about legalization of narcotics one should make a distinction between hard and soft drugs. There are vast differences between these. Hard drugs (ecstasy, heroine, cocaine, opium, morphine) are addictive and potentially damaging to the body and mind. Soft drugs, include cannabis and cannabis rasin (hash), amphetamines. Cannabis, perhaps the softest of all illegal substances, is non-addictive and cause little or no hangover. Considering the consequences of drug-addiction only soft narcotics are admissible to be legalized. /^t/Doctors should be enabled to prescribe cannabis, since its therapeutic effects have long been recognized. The drug has been found to be effective in relieving some of the symptoms associated with glaucome, cancer, chronic pain, epilepsy, and bladder problems. Although possession of cannabis is against the law, it is common that a significant part of the police do no more than caution personal users. Many police officers "would rather deal with cannabis users than drunks coming out of the pub or disco". It is time to decriminalise that drug, provided that there is the utmost care not to make them appear attractive. /^t/Contrary to cannabis, hard drugs have damaging effects on the mind and body. Prolonged use leads to restlessness, nausea, insomnia, and hallucinations. Behavioral changes proceed almost unnoticably for a junkie. After some time of regular usage, an addict totally detached from reality, is not capable of functioning in a society any more. The drugs suppress the appetite and the need to sleep, which results in weight loss and gradual emaciation of the organism. Injecting drugs with shared needles carries a high risk of contracting aids. The amount of dope that is needed to get the expected results is gradually increasing. As a consequence on e may overdose, which usually is equivalent to death. The legalization of hard drugs would make it easier to get hold of them and what results is that many more addicts would appear. If it was enough to reach out your hand to buy dope many momentarily depressed, unhappy, or lonely people would take a chance and try it. /^t/To sum up, one must admit that drug-related afflictions are very complex. Nevertheless, the arguments presented above provide a sufficient basis to decide that the hard drugs are not safe to be legalized. While the decriminalization of soft drugs is acceptable, since there are many proven therapeutic effects, and what is even more important they are not posing a threat to ones health. To conclude, it's necessary to mention that if the decriminalization is to go ahead, there should be a realistic education and prevention measures to reduce demand amongst young people, as well as wide action against trafficers. <0093> /^t/Man is often called a "Human Animal". It seems true in that biologically man is just another species. However, because of his high development, man can be put above any other species on earth. Some people claim that this high development and sophistication is going to cause it to crack and fall apart some day. Others, though, are not as pessimistic. In an attempt to predict man's future the two opposing sides often mention lack of communication among people and lack of space for existence. /^t/Many people maintain that the sophisticated technology man uses, only prevents people from communicating with each other. Television, for example, makes people passive in that they will not look for information by talking to other people, but rather by watching television all day. Nowadays one can get virtually any sort of information via computer networks. Computer users are anonymous. Therefore, even though they communicate with thousands of people, they are just lonely individuals in a crowd. /^t/The opponents of this view, however, point to the fact that technology enables people to obtain more information and to communicate with more people. After all, we could not receive news from all over the world simply by talking to our neighbours. Besides, visual images are best transmitted by visual means, such as television. Computer networks give people even greater freedom of choice and access to whatever information they might need. And man, being always curious, needs information like air. /^t/Some people claim that because of the rapid development of the cities, man's living space has become so limited that it precludes normal existence. People need open spaces, but cities today are extremely congested. This makes life very stressful. Besides, with so many people on a very limited space, modern cities breed crime, which can only lead to man's fall. /^t/This, however, doesn't necessarily pose a fatal danger, because man adapts very easily to the changing environment. In big cities there are parks, in which the city's inhabitants find the peace and quiet they need so much. In addition, many people get away from the fast paced city centres to the country, where they get revived and find the energy that they lose in the city. /^t/In conclusion, it seems that the situation is not as bleak as it is often depicted. Undoubtedly, some aspects of technology and limited living space make life more difficult. Saying, however, that they will cause man's environment to fall and disintegrate is definitely far-fetched. After all, one of man's best developed skills is adapting to the changing environment and it is his main ally in the struggle for survival. <0094> /^t/Even though in a number of countries single-sex schools have existed for many years now, today one can hear more and more voices calling for their closure. Many people claim that they are not only necessary, but also that co-education is the only kind of environment in which children should be taught. In weighing up the pros and cons in this matter one should consider the aim of education, which is not just the accumulation of knowledge, but, above all, the preparation for existence in a n adult society. It is obvious that segregated schools cannot prepare boys and girls for their future roles of men and women in the adult world. /^t/Advocates of segregated schools maintain that children from such schools have greater self-confidence when they leave. They also point to the fact that such schools have been around for centuries, which in itself is proof of their worth. /^t/However, those apparent advantages are in fact minor and irrelevant. One of the greatest advantages of co-education is that boys and girls live together from their earliest years and have an opportunity to get to know each other. The idea of the supposed superiority of one sex over the other that is often fostered in single-sex schools will not help young adults in their contacts with the other sex. It can only lead to shock and hostility. In a co-educational school, on the other hand, young pupils and students can compare themselves. They soon notice that there are some differences, but that they are not great and general. Many illusions are dispelled at school. For example, there are no differences in the academic abilities of boys and girls. Also, many girls are better athletes than boys, especially in the early stages. /^t/Only in a co-educational environment can boys and girls grow and develop free from the myths and illusions about the other sex. In pre-schools years children usually listen to fairy tales in which the picture of men and women is far apart from their roles in modern society. Consequently, children acquire these unreal images and accept them as reality. For example, girls imagine that men are romantic heroes on white horses, whose main attributes are strength, valour, and chivalry. Boys, on the other hand, often imagine that women are ethereal creatures whose destiny is the home and the bringing up of children. In a co-educational school boys and girls are faced with reality. Hard as it may be, it is an ideal introduction into the adult world. /^t/A co-educational environment can greatly help adolescents to overcome the physical and emotional problems involved in growing up. In the awkward stage of adolescence young people undergo rather drastic changes; both physical and mental. They all centre around increasing sexual potential. At this stage boys and girls feel the need to mix with members of the opposite sex. In a segregated school young people do not have the opportunity to come close to each other. This often leads to frustration, and sometimes, even to sexual deviation. /^t/It is undeniable, therefore, that only a co-educational school is the right environment for educating children. For education lies not only in accumulating facts and numbers. The fore and foremost aim of education is to prepare children for the roles of men and women in their future lives. After leaving a co-educational school they are well-equipped to cope with the many problems that face men and women in modern society. <0095> /^t/Eating is indispensable as it provides human bodies with energy that is used to make the organs function properly. Apart from nourishing the organism people eat to sheer love for eating. Most people can be classified according to the way they eat candy: those who eat to reduce their nervousness, those who impose restrictions on themselves due to certain reasons, those who are occasional candy eaters, and those who eat candy only when there is a lack of energy in the body. /^t/The first group includes substitutioners, as they try to substitute any kind of nervousness with something else. A good example of the substitutioner is a white-collar worker. The person's job is sedentary and stressful. It may be ungratifying due to low salaries or lack of chances of promotion. Day in and day out the person fears the possibility of being fired because of somebody else's replacement. Thus, when the time to reduce stress comes, the choices are: alcohol, sex, sports, or candy to mention a few. Unlike alcohol, sex and sports, candy is the cheapest choice. The shops' shelves in supermarkets are full of various kinds of candy, whether domestic or foreign, that are easy to reach for them in order to feel better. The more stressed a person is, the more candy is consumed. All the irresistible and mouth watering commercials on TV enhance the desire for something sweet and tasty. Thrillers and perilous scenes also tend to increase the frequency and amount of candy being eaten. /^t/A restricted candy eater, in contrast to the substitutioner, imposes on his or her eating candy. There are basically two kinds of goals concerned with restrictions on eating candy: short-term and long-term goals. The restrictions concerned with both types of the goals reflect what a person's view on himself or herself is. The short-term goals are those concerned with annoying daily activities or what the person regards as one's own self-help program. If somebody works too much on the computer but loves candy, the person may restrict oneself to giving up eating candy for five days a week. The long-term goals, on the other hand, require much more persistence on the part of the restricted candy eater for a long period of time. Passed exams, driving license or the total immersion will do to prize oneself with candy, the moment awaited for so long. /^t/The next group includes so-called occasional candy eaters. They are neither so strict as the restricted candy eaters, nor so eager to do away with their stress by eating candy. The special occasions such as: birthdays, anniversaries or family reunions are the mainly opportunities for them to eat candy. Many a time when they feel like eating something sweet they do. Some of them may be fastidious as far as candy is concerned. What satisfies them most is delicious, home-made pastry. /^t/The last category is represented by proper candy eaters who are aware of the benefits and the drawbacks of eating candy. Weight is not a problem for them, they consume candy only when their bodies need it. Many members of various expeditions or mountaineers make good examples of the proper candy eater. /^t/The confectionery market is in blossom due to tremendous demand on the part of consumers. People have loved, love, and will love candy, so various companies compete against one another to satisfy the strangest tastes. We all eat candy, more or less than others, and we all love it because it tastes so good. Those who deny it probably eat it furtively. <0096> /^t/At the end of the twentieth century two cultures, American and European ones, have finally started to merge together. It is too early to see the two cultures blend into one, but they are not independent of each other, either. Let us analyze the differences between American and European cultures on the examples of movies. The obvious differences, the causes of different traditions and conventions, can be analyzed through several aspects found in movies: their cost, actors, topic, and setting. American movies, unlike European ones, will never reach the level of abstraction in art. It is the result of the different functions these motion industries perform. The American movie industry plays the role of a social connector between the author and the audience. On the other hand, European movies perform artistic functions. Differences are inevitable and appear at the very beginning of the process of making a movie. /^t/The most obvious diference is in cost. An American approach is that of an investor: The more you pay now, the more you will get back later. The costs are dependent on the evaluated success. Since the American movies are aimed at getting to the audience, and at financial success, the costs will range high. European movies have artistic, rather than commercial, ambition. They are seen as complete without an audience. The costs are then unimportant: may be high or may be low. /^t/Of course costs are closely linked with hiring actors. The more stars you have, the higher the costs. The American movie industry tends to hire as many stars as possible either to make the audience happy or to make sure the movie will be impressive. European movies have the tendency towards hiring unknown actors, since they are perfect subjects to create an atmosphere by not drawing attention away from the essential meaning of the movie. That brings us to the other aspect of hiring actors, that is: who controls what. It is obvious that stars can have and like to have their own way. American movies are thus much controlled by the actors. The movie fails to be a separate piece, it is a live creature reshaped in the hands of actors, directors, and indirectly of the audience. The European movie tradition has treated movies as separate pieces of art. So actors are controlled by the movies and movie stays the most important element in the process. /^t/The choice of topic is another cultural but also formal matter. Again, the choice of topic is a direct cosequence of the two industries' aims. American industry often chooses an issue or a topic while in European movie it is hard to state any topic. Racism vs an old judge listening in on telephone conversations, women's sexual abuse vs two prostitutes making use of a car driver; these are just two examples of a contrast. At the same time American choices in topic are very conscious; they provide real topics taken from real life. European movies seem to wander through the never-never land, discussing theoretical questions, or intellectual issues. The real action is withdrawn from the physical action, unlike in American movies. /^t/The question of action shows another difference in approach. What would the audience like to see while watching a movie? Probably a lot of action and the visually striking setting. And that is what they will probably get in American movies. "Action" becomes a symbolic word in the US. Dynamic motion, speed, and progress are markers of American culture. Movies, which are reflection of culture, must thus contain action. Action, as seen by Europeans is very symbolic. The real action happens in the never-never land, in the minds of protagonists. Since the message and setting are unimporant, the action may be scanty. Actually, it is better this way, since action does not draw attention away from the place of the real action, which is the mind. American movies are visually perfect. It must be the case as the action is where it actually takes place. Thus, American movies seem to gather many positive elements. /^t/Probably the most powerful shot of positive attitude mixture is the happy ending, an American invention. It cools down our nerves, gives us the power of the predictor and provides us with positive feelings that miracles can really happen. The European movie industry ends its movies with a bitter ending, or the most beloved: the open ending. These latter types are parallel to real life. The Americans are at this point dreamers. They always create an unrealistic ending. They do not want to leave the audience crying. /^t/At the example of movies we see that the two cultures appeal to different senses: European culture shows the importance of experience as well as the bitter consequenses of life. American culture brings fresh optimism and hope. The first is bitter, the latter is naive. The two cultures are like the father and son. We can choose between them but cannot deny the correctness of any of them. In fact they are two extremes that are constantly being pushed toward and away from each other. Now is the right time to combine the knowledge of two. And this is what is happening: the two cultures are at last approaching each other. <0097> /^t/Since cars started to be produced, many years have passed and many things have changed. The first vehicles were rather primitive, slow and very similar to one another. Today there are so many people simply do not know all of them. Large auto companies do their best to satisfy their clients, whose requirements are varied and demanding. When people buy cars nowadays they have specific needs and criteria. Cars serve different purposes. They are means of transport not only for people but also animals and goods, so we have so many kinds of vehicles nowadays. Most generally we divide cars into those for transporting goods and passenger cars. /^t/Cars play a very important role in transporting goods. They are used for transporting different things from one city to another. Within this group are trucks for carrying goods in large quantities and transporters, long vehicles on which one or more cars or machines can be carried. Moreover, there are vehicles for liquids like cisterns and cars for solid goods like trucks. There are also vehicles specially prepared for transporting frozen food. All of them are very big in order to contain a large part of goods. /^t/Passenger cars can be classified according to the functions they perform. The fastest of them is sports car. Young men especially are interested in such vehicles. The young like crazy driving, overtaking and leading on the roads. Sports cars are created for this use and this may be the reason why their price is so high and use is expensive. On the contrary, station wagons are not expensive in maintenance. The main users of this kind of vehicles are families. The reason why they choose that car are low price, comfort and spaciousness. It has convenient seats for all the members of the family and also a big boot for luggage. It is equipped with a fuel - efficient engine which lessens the costs of maintenance. The limousine is the most expensive of the passenger cars. However, it is very comfortable and elegant, has a wonderful silhouette and impressive facilities to provide the client with the highest quality service. /^t/Cars are past the point when their only function is transportation. What the clients have in minds choosing a car is a model according to their needs. Again, the need caused the invention. Now, buying a car we can choose from a wide variety of car models and we can be sure we will be satisfied. <0098> /^t/Since the fall of the communism all governments in Poland have promised to reduce taxes. Most citizens look upon it as a positive step, and do not realize that reduction of taxes brings not only positives effects but also negative ones. Lower taxes mean more money in people's hands, but also less for the government to spend on administration of public affairs. /^t/More money in people's hands undoubtley will have an effect on how much citizens spend. The more citizens, as consumers, buy the more must be produced. The growth in production is also the growth in economy. A well developing economy attracts foreign business which brings capital. When economic situation is improving, with the help of foreign capital, it is necessary to create more jobs, and thus the unemployment rate is decreasing. The improvement in economy is also the direct cause for the increase of salaries. And again more assets available to the citizens allow them to invest in private education and health insurance, which is usually more effective and of better quality. /^t/The other side of reduction of taxes, which most people do not realize is the negative one. The direct cause of the reduction is the troublesome situation of the government budget, which means that there is less money to disburse. In reality it means that some, or even all, governmental programs are cut. One of such governmental domains that is likely to be cut is public education. Financial difficulties in schools, caused by reduction of donations, have an effect on the number of students accepted as well as the total of the teaching staff. The consequence is that less research is being done and the total of qualified workers is low. When there is a shortage of qualified staff, and new technologies are not invented and applied, the progress of the economy is slower. /^t/Another governmental domain that is indubitably being cut when there is less money in the budget, is the domain of social welfare programs. It is the poor and the old who suffer most from such a cut, making the lower class grow in number and stimulate poverty to prevail. As statistics show the rate of crime is associated with indigence and on the other hand the government has no means to fight the transgression. /^t/The domain of health care programs is the next to be impaired form budget cuts. The direct result of the incisions is the lack of prevention projects as well as the appealing disorganization of health care service. What is meant by prevention is vaccination of infants, teaching about AIDS protection and so forth. That leads to slow degeneration of the society with the rate of mortality drastically increasing. /^t/Such a simple and necessary, as it may seem to some people, move like reduction in tax rate has both positives and negatives consequences. The positive ones are of equal importance as the negative ones and while the government makes the decision whether to reduce of not it must take both into consideration. The only logical solution of the dilemma, whether to reduce or not, is to keep some kind of balance between governmental and citizens desiderata. <0099> /^t/At the present time a lot of single women and men decide to bring up a child or children by themselves. However, in comparison with a couple who is bringing up their children, a single parent's task is far more demanding: it consumes more time, it is more difficult financially and psychologically. /^t/First of all, parents have to financially support a family, which is a necessary condition to provide a sense of security for the whole family. However tough the task is in the present-day economic situation in Poland, it becomes particularly difficult in case of single parents. They have to cover the cost of the living of the whole family. In a traditional family there can always be two salaries, which makes the financial situation of such a family a lot better. Financial problems of one parent family often make a parent work overtime, which in turns leads him to hiring a babysitter. The problem grows even bigger because a babysitter has to be paid from what a parent has earned working overtime. /^t/In a traditional family, parents who do not have to work that much can spend more time with their offspring. Besides, they can share their duties at home. In contrast, single parents have to do everything at home. So they have very little time for going out or chatting with their children. Parents' lack of time deprives one-parent families of this special kind of atmosphere that is so characteristic of a traditional family. /^t/There is also another factor that makes single-parent families different from traditional ones, namely the psychological factor. Single-parent families lack traditional role models either of a mother or of a father. It is particularly important for a girl to have a mother, and for a boy to have a father who would be models for them. Sometimes it might turn out later in life that they have problems being mothers and fathers themselves, for example they become overprotective or too strict towards their children, because they have the image of how to be a parent based on their own imagination. Moreover, later when choosing their partners, girls lacking a father and boys lacking a mother tend to seek those who would fulfil their dreams about parents they did not have. This is not psychologically normal behavior and may sometimes lead to unhappy relationships. /^t/The above comparison of a traditional two-parent family with a one-parent family proves that it is much better for a child to have two parents and a lot easier for two parents to bring up a children than for single parents. It is important from a psychological point of view for a child to have two parents because it is simply natural. What makes traditional families better for a child is that parents have more time and can easier financially support a family. However, it is certain that it is best for children to have even one good and loving parent than not having one at all and spending their lives in orphanages. <0100> /^t/There are many ways in which a person can express his ideas. An essay is one of such ways. Its name derives from a French word 'esseyer' which means to try. An essay writing is an attempt to show and support one's point of view. Every language uses this form of the expression, however, every language has a set of very strict conventions of writing. These conventions are the major cause of Polish students making serious mistakes when writing an essay. /^t/First of all, the structure of a Polish essay substantially differs from an English one. On the first sight in both types of essays we have an introduction than goes the body and in the last place a conclusion. However simmilar they may look they have a totally different structure. English essays are constructed in a way that the arguments are in the linear order whereas in Polish type of essay they are in circular order. An English essay resembles a ladder, one goes step by step from one idea to the another. In Polish type of an essay the order is free. Many different points of view may be presented at the same time. This discrepancy of presenting the ideas is a major cause of weak performance of Polish students at the beginning of their writing career. /^t/Secondly, Polish essays "do not know" the notion of a transitional. In English essays there is a group of words that is called transitionals. They are such words as: in spite of the fact, on the other hand, further, nevertheless, first of all etc.. They are meant to serve such purposes as introducing the new ideas, smooth transition from a paragraph to another paragraph and stressing the importance of an idea. In Polish essay there is not such a category as transitionals. There are some rules which state how the best open a paragraph for example they say never start a new idea with a conjunction. The lack of transitionals in Polish type essays causes difficulties with using them in English. It has been scientifically proved that one can succesfully operate with the ideas that are codable in his language. Codable means having equivalent in a language. Polish students have to acquire this knowledge, transitionals have to be learnt and become codable to be succesfully used. /^t/Furthermore, Polish students have a lot of difficulties when they face the great variety of types of essays that are available in English. In Polish there are some expository techniques such as rozprawka, wypracowanie and felieton, nevertheless they are not so numerous and their structure is very free. For example one can show cause and effect relation in every type of the above techniques whereas in English this type of relation is reserved only for cause and effect essay. In English every type of essay i.e. definition, cause and effect, comparison and contrast, argumentative etc. is ruled by its own conventions. Consequently, the variety of English expository techniques is another cause of difficulties for Polish students. /^t/Summarizing, Polish students are taught totally different way of approaching the subject and presenting it. They are taught a synthetical way of describing the reality whereas their English friends are analytical when writing an essay. The problem is maybe also connected with a way of perceiveing the reality; analytic vs. synthetic. The lack of certain categories in a language is the next cause of problems. English rich system of the expository techniques seems to mess up a Polish student so that he cannot transfer his skills of writing a Polish rozprawka into English multiplied techniques. All that callamities that wait for Polish student has to be taught from the very beginning. Only by training very hard and writing innumerable essays can a Polish writer achieve Conrad-like skills of writing in English. Therefore, do not waste time and get to the pen!!! <0101> /^t/As it always happens in history something must come out of something - this means; one event is the result of an earlier one. It is very difficult to investigate what was the stimulus to a given event and what was the response to it because the case of finding correlations between the two facts in the history may appear sometimes tricky. However there is no doubt that Poland has been affected by westernization and americanization to large extent, as many European countries have been during the past half a century. /^t/Initially, there was this irresistable glamour of the West - as the land of wealth, joy and happiness, but a hard work at the same time. The image of a hard-working, middle-class citizen of France or Germany was like the ikon for plenty of Poles emmigrating to these countries - willing to work for ten times higher wages than in Poland. They could do this, at first, under the condition of submitting a proof stating that they had been politically discriminated. A significantly large part of our society became west-oriented - lingering for better - capitalist times, which we as a nation enjoyed in the period between the two World Wars. /^t/Secondly, the Poles found themselves on the crossroads in 1989 - the turning point in our history. The collapse of communism in its deviated form was caused by a big social unrest revealing itself in many strikes throughout the country. People missed normality and the only token they had of this "normality" came from the West. We began to have greater access to western culture - films especially. More and more of us started to buy (at that time a state-of-the-art) equipment like colour TV-sets, videos etc, in order to feel a bit like in western world. Then plenty of Poles followed the instruction of President Walesa, "Money is lying in the streets". They set up new businesses - small ones but which allowed them to become rich very fast during the time of changes. This was also the result of scrutinizing the american culture that seems to have as its motto: "First come, first served." Next, we found ourselves in the country of growing social and economic diversity. Some couldn't cope with the problems of everyday life, and after they were made redundant committed suicides. At the same time, the noveau-rich travelled to Bermuda for a holiday and spent their money in the richest parts of the city - most expensive and exclusive shops. /^t/Some people wonder: "We must have done something wrong when transforming the country. We overlooked some important details about capitalism." They are dead right - there is nothing wrong with capitalism if there is a good law regulating all the social and economic matters, but they should have done some thinking before setting up this wild system - wild because not limited by wise laws. /^t/Finally, we should face up to the fact that the westernization affected us politically as well. Our government tries to maintain good neighbourly relations with the former republics of the USSR, but nothing else. Our policy is focused on the West. Our parliamentary system and procedures became very much like the ones from Great Britain. Our ministers endevour to establish close economic relations with the European Community without thinking much about how much Poland will have to pay in the future. /^t/In consequence, we will become a western nation in couple of years time if we are not already. We will have to change only some minor details like: improve our economy, reduce unemployment, create some sort of art - perhaps film or theatre that would affect the rest of the world, stop arguing about vain matters in Parliament and so on. Not much to do then - we may have a rest. <0102> /^t/Even though production and sale of substances inducing hallucinations are prohibited in Poland as well as in many other countries, the governmental ban has never eliminated using drugs. There is no single reason why people use drugs regardless of the risk of being caught by the police. The problem seems to be more complex. First of all, people want to try something new - drugs make them feel better for a moment, especially in the stressful situations and predicaments of everyday life. Second, there are drugs that extremely activate human brain. People take them before important examinations or tests in order to be able to learn quickly and more easily. Another reason is that some drugs enable people to have a look inside their minds. These are most popular among writers, painters and other representatives of the cultural elite. Finally, some people use drugs because of the fashion - their friends or drug dealers convince them to try. /^t/One of the most important reasons why people use drugs (especially soft ones like marijuana and hashish) is that they want to react to the disappointment with their own lives. When people see no acceptable future for themselves or have to face a serious predicament, they tend to try to escape from the problems in some way. Some of them find an interesting hobby, some drink alcohol and some others start doing drugs to forget about the hardness of life at least for a moment. Hashish, marijuana and sometimes even hard drugs become their remedy for everything, a kind of panacea. Nevertheless, there is no remedy without side effects and the price they have to pay for using drugs may be enormous. As even soft drugs contain many toxic chemical substances, used frequently they cause great disorder in the human organism, especially in the brain. /^t/There is a bunch of drugs that help people use their brains in a more efficient way. One of the most popular "brain activators" is amphetamine. It is extremely popular among students who have to pass a difficult examination and do not have time (or simply do not want) to learn. Taken before an exam, amphetamine allows the user to learn easily and efficiently even the most hated subjects. Added to that, it causes a temporary sense of euphoria which turns even the dullest and most apathetic student into a vivid and brilliant one, highly increasing his or her chances to pass the exam. Unfortunately, some of the people who resort to taking amphetamine instead of learning get addicted to it very quickly and after some time they cannot function properly without the drug. /^t/The third reason for people to use drugs is the wish to increase their creativity. It concerns mostly the people connected with so called high art - poets, writers, painters, etc. Drugs give such people a possibility to look inside their minds and find there something new that could be used in their art - new visions and images to be described and new ideas to be developed. Quite many great pieces of art (especially contemporary) were either inspired by or created under the influence of hallucinogenic substances. Without drugs they would probably never have been created. Some writers, composers, and painters openly admit that while writing their novels and songs and painting pictures they often "opened their minds" with such substances as LSD, cocaine and marijuana. There may probably be hundreds of other artists who do not want to admit that they used the dope to create their masterpieces. /^t/Besides, there are people who use drugs for no apparent reason - just because their friends do. Drugs are fashionable because they are prohibited, especially among contestating subcultures - the official ban creates an atmosphere of mysteriousness. Some other people occasionally take hallucinogenic substances such as Ecstasy and cocaine in their ultimate situations. Sharpening all the senses, these drugs considerably increase the pleasure of sex, acting as aphrodisiacs. /^t/Summing up, people in Poland and in all over the world take drugs to make themselves feel better and make their lives easier. Unfortunately, they are generally unaware of the dangers that hallucinogenic substances impose on them. People fight the stress with drugs, pass difficult examinations with a help of drugs and have a lot of fun using drugs. Then, one day they are very surprised to realize that they cannot already live without the dope. Hopefully, people who use hard drugs frequently constitute only a small percentage of the society as a whole and their number does not increase rapidly. <0103> /^t/Comparing life in the city with life in the country we will meet a great deal of contrast. To discuss differences we have to take into consideration few aspects. The choice of settling down in either of environments depends on personal preferences and what one appreciates in life. However, in Poland we can observe striking differences between particular cities and the same as regards villages depending on the part of the country a city or village is located. /^t/Most people living in the downtown of big cities live in a condominium or have an apartment in block of flats. Those who managed to find a suite overlooking the old parts of the city, city square old church are often considered as lucky ones. However, purchasing or renting an apartment in these parts of the city is rather costly matter. Only those who live at the outskirts live in semi-detached or have a residence. Very often their life would be comparable with life in a small town. It is not a question of a choice to live in such type of the house in the village but the nature of construction and development of the land. /^t/Polish village still is regarded to be poor as there is less educational and job opportunities thus unemployment rate higher. Some commute to big cities which involves considering additional cost home budget planning. Although cost of living in the big cities seems to be higher the salary conditions are higher comparing with villages. Most of people are farmers and cultivate their own land or have stock-raising farm. Some of them are farmers for the rest of their lives and their children become farmers as well. In more modernized villages which we find in the northern and north-western Poland a farmer can make a living from his farm, however it might be hazardous facing the changing Polish market. /^t/Big cities offers range of possibilities of study and work. Thus most of young villagers continue either education in big conglomerations. Work environment, although hard to get into, offers variety of professions and fields to be studied. /^t/Municipalities seem to put more funds to renovate and keep up buildings and roads in the centres of the cities than in surrounding villages. As most buildings have been transferred back to their owners and are now private properties people still spend more money for living rather than cleaning and development. We can find in some villages houses without indoor sanitary facilities which in this extreme example makes life more difficult and complicated. As people are very poor not all of the villagers are car owners and public transportation is the only, however dubious source to get out of the city. In cities buses, trams and cars take care of the issue of communication. While in the country, considering distances, these are not necessary and healthy feet are enough to take you everywhere in the boundaries of a village. /^t/Mostly outdoor work, everyday access to the woods, lakes takes us into conclusion that life in the country is much healthier. But living in the small village in Upper Slask region would make this theory questionable. On the other hand there is variety of sports facilities in cities which allow us to keep fit. Unavailability of medical facilities in the villages is still problem in some parts of the country. /^t/Easy access to cultural events as well as entertainment, shopping centres then in the villages is one of the features that makes life in cities more attractive to some people. For the others, peace and almost anonymous, isolated life is much more important. <0104> /^t/It is late afternoon. We have been driving the day long. We enter Poland. We have not been here for a long time. Light is getting dim. But is it dusk that makes the visibility so poor? Ahead of us we can see a gray truck. From the muffler the black cloud flies straght at the windshield. On the sideways empty bottles and papers dumped carelessly. We know we are back. Poland - after breakdown of Communism - one of the countries in Europe with the lowest awarness of environmental problems. Is there a lot an individual can do to help the major environmental problems in Poland? Yes, there is a lot. But every single individual has to be aware of the problem and has to be aware what he can do. /^t/The enviromental problems ought to be vital part of national awarness. These are individuals who create certain population, cetain country, Those are teachers, doctors, journalists, engineers, clerks, dustman, houswives and so forth. Those are the onces who decide how to live their lives and which patterns to follow. Those are fathers and mothers whose influence on their children may shape future. The state of the enviromental awarness of an individual describes the state of awarness of the whole population. /^t/Each individual follows certain pattern of living. This pattern is influenced by enviroment an individual was born and he lives in, by customs, by iheritance, standards as well as mass media. To let an individual make a choice he has to be aware of the possibilities he has. The enviromental problem ought to be introduced as a complex program and kind of injected to our every day life. It could be done through mass-media which persuading power has already been proved. Enviromental protection education should be introduced into education system starting with primary shools. /^t/Every parent serving as an example to his or her children indirectly helps the enviroment. These are our children who will decide, who will be presidents, lawyers, journalists, teachers and so on and again they will be parents of the next generation. The enviromental care should exsist in the process of bringing up. Again, the enviromental problems should appear in the education, carried out through mass-media, organized sessions, conferrences. /^t/At last but not least an avarage Pole can help enviroment directly. The environment friendly product have poured onto the Polish market. Recyclable plastic bottles, fuses, battteries are properly marked. Washing powders and other detergents labeled with a letter 'B' are meant to bring no harm to enviroment. Three coloured garbage containers ask us to separate litter. The ozone friendly sprays appears to be kind of trend or fashion. /^t/In this light our input into protection of enviroment seems to be only a matter of choice. It is an individual who are constituent parts of our society. It is an individual who says - 'yes' - to the nature friendly products. These are individuals who shape their country. It is them who may influence future. <0105> /^t/Hair - threadlike tube of horny fibrous substance with a core containing pigment cells, rooted in the skin and growing freely outwards, states the Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary (1980). But this definition seems to be incomplete. It does not mention protectional, scientific and sociological significance of hair. /^t/Protectional character of hair is a result of its basic function, which was the most important when the humankind was down the evolutional level. As antropologists prooved, the prehistoric human was covered with thick hair all over the body. Hair served as natural protection against weather; it helped to keep the body dry and warm. Now we have only traces of that function. Hair on the head it is what evolution left unchanged - an additional protection for the brain (apart from the skull and the skin). It also protects the body against losses of heat. Eyebrows and eyelashes preserved protectional function as well, as a natural barrier against: dust, slurd or wind. /^t/Scientific importance of hair rests in the hair analysis. A skillful analyst can reconstruct "the picture" of a person on the basis of a single hair to whom it belonged. It is possible to extract from a hair gens conditioning the colour of skin or eyes, other phisical features of a person. This particular achievement is frequently exploited by the police. Inquiries accept data gained through a hair analysis as a proof, especially in cases when the identyfication of a person is difficult to confirm. The same method is used in medicine. The general health condition of a patient can be diagnosed to such an extent that even deficiencies of particular microelements or vitamins are detected. /^t/Sociologically hair can be treated as a medium for expressing someone's ideas or political preferences. It is easy to spot people who represent movements or belong to a group that share the same ideas, which frequently reflect political preferences, e.g. the Skin-heads show strong jingoistic tendencies, in contrary to the hippies who are against inequality, violence and war. The two opposite groups are easy to differentiate because the skin-heads prefer very short haircut, whereas the hippies prefer no hair-dresser's intervence at all. /^t/It is hard to imagine that hair is important. Your single hair can provide us with a nearly visual image of you and your hairstyle reveals your political tendencies. <0106> /^t/The 1989 up-turn in Poland resulted in changes in politics and economy. It has also brought social changes and the fashion for western style of life. Youngsters are most open to the influence of such culture. Statistics reveal that young people in Poland are engaging in pre-marital sexual relations more often and at a younger age than in the past. The model of such behaviour is especially promoted by media. What's more, the lack of guidance from adults strengthens this influence and makes young people copy things which seem attractive but not always good for them. /^t/Not books but magazines and video films are of youngsters interest these days. They give a model of a modern teenager falling in love at the age of 13, 14 and having the first sexual experiences at the age of 15. Let's take magazines such as Bravo and Popcorn, which are read by 12 years old 18 years old, as examples. They present love stories whose heroes are only interested in love affairs. Such stories are accompanied with photos which often show erotic scenes. Their heroes are very attractive fashionably dressed and their life seems so interesting that young people desire to look like they do, to speak like they do and to do what they do. Also, the advertisements of these magazines presented on TV sometimes look like soft porn films presenting night clubs with all their attractions. Youth magazines are not the only one source of information for youngsters about how to live. Video libraries also provide an enormous offer of all kinds of films. There would be nothing wrong with it if someone checked who borrows what kinds of films and what these people age are. But if nobody does it all feel free to take what they want, including teenagers. /^t/Ideally schools and parents are responsible for education of young people. At present, however, they do not serve their purpose because of financial problems, in general. Schools struggling with lack of money reduced classes with tutors. These meetings are held once a fortnight not once a week as it used to be a few years ago. Consequently, the tutor has only time for checking the attendance and talking about school problems of pupils. There is no time left for discussion about problems concerning maturation, personal life etc. Not long ago it was proposed by the Ministry of Education that sexual education classes could be held at primary and secondary schools but the agreement over what books to use or who should conduct the classes has not been reached. So if schools, in spite of their attempts, do not succeed in sexual education of teenagers parents are left. Some of them openly discuss with their children about love, relationships, sex and they are probably satisfied with the effects of such education. But majority of parents avoid these subjects while talking with their children either because of lack of time or knowledge or because they feel ashamed while talking about it. Most of parents are generaly concerned with trying to support their families financially and later they think about other things such as upbringing of children. /^t/Pole's craving to join EC and become "Europeans" in the full meaning of these word is understandable after their experience of totalitarian system of government. But a nation should aim to preserve its individuality and its culture and not to be "a parrot of Europe". So let's try to follow Jan Kochanowski's motto "Moderation in Everything". <0107> /^t/How many times did you wish to live on an inhabited island? Only nature and you; just like Robinson Crusoe. When you are fed up with work, family, your dog, naging telephone, the world around you, in general, the only thing you want to do is to escape from all this mess and live alone. But if you think of Robinson Crusoe again, could he live in loneliness for a long time? No, he could not. He missed other people, he talked to himself, at last, he met Friday and civilized him. His story proves that no man is an island. Right from birth untill death we are used to live among others. At one time we need people; at the other they need us. /^t/When a child is born, he is the most helpless creature in the world. He needs to be fed, kept warm and clear. His mother is the most appropriate person to do it. On the other hand, the child always brings something new and important to a family; he is somebody who they can love and care for. While growing up the child needs more and more contacts with other people to his development: grandparents, uncles and aunts, cousins, other children to play with. All of them help him to develop physically, mentally and emotionally. /^t/At the age of seven he goes to school and meets other pupils. In a group he learns to cooperate and share his experience with others. He makes friends, acquaintances and enemies. He acquires some knowledge from school as well as from the outside world. Films, plays, books, masterpieces of arts and music, all created by other people, affect his tastes and likings and mould his personality and views. Educated and eager to enter the adults' world he starts his career. /^t/At one time he realizes that he wants to have a family, loving wife and children. Here the system of dependence also works. Now other people needs him. He has to care for others: growing up children and growing old parents. In a way he pays back the credit from his childhood and adolescence. On the other hand he also needs his family. They give him happiness and feeling of fulfilment. /^t/In the course of time he finishes his career and becomes a grandfather. He devoutes much of his time to family and grandchildren and becomes loving and helpfull old man. Because of his advancing age and problems with health he needs care not only from doctors but also from his relatives. /^t/In this paper I tried to show that staying away from other people is almost impossible for a man. It even turn against because he was created to live in a community. <0108> /^t/If you want to study you must forget about having fun. You do not have any free time, you have to pass so many exams and what is more your nerves are being ruined during studies. It means that student's life is not a happy one. /^t/When you are at a secondary school you think you do not have any time. At a university you find out that a student's week has not seven but fourteen days. The first day starts on Monday's morning and finishes at 10 p.m. The next one begins on Monday's evening at 10 p.m., and comes to the end about five a.m. on Tuesday. It means you have a lot of time, but not for fun but studying. The closer exams are, the longer is your day. /^t/Passing exams is not a fun. Sometimes, or rather usually it is harder to get a signature that allowes you to take the exam. So, the signature is only a first step after a term of tortures. If you think that the exam is the next step, you are completely wrong! Hardly never do you take an exam at this point. You must pass a short test very often before the final battle. It is an oral or written test, or even both of them. There may be possible variations. If you are lucky enough and you are still alive, prepare to the final round. It is a next ambush because if you do not pass it, it happens to many of us, you get one or two more chances. The second and the third one are usually a lot harder to pass than the first round. /^t/We must not forget about our precious equipment which exposed to flames all the time. I mean nerves. The nerves are being ruined during studies. Student's nerves are threatened with extinction. You feel like a small animal and everybody is a hunter. Similarity to monkeys is overused at studies, especially before exams. You are given a test and you hear that it is an ape's test because even a lucky monkey can fill in the gaps. It means you are not even like those animals if you do not pass the "entrance" exam. You can comfort yourself saying I only had a bad luck. Your nerves look like ancient Pompei after the first exam. When you pass all the exams, you will not find any of them. /^t/For some people studying is a real fun, but even they change their minds before the exams. We look ahead in hope that the last day will arrive. We are waiting for the holidays. But for those who are not lucky enough there is the last chance: to drop out of college. <0109> /^t/Nowadays our world is like a precious spiece - it is threatened with extinction. It is believed that only the gouvernments can do something about it, but fortunately there are voices asking "What can an individual do to help protect the environment?". It is said that it is sad not to do anything about that problem. /^t/A standard human being can do lots of things in order to protect the world's climat and the other things. "Get electricity from the wind", "Hot rocks: a natural source of electricity", "Use a bicycle", "Use public transport" they say. /^t/The potential for using the wind to generate electricity is huge. A recent study for the European Community estimated that there were sufficient sites in Europe for about 400,000 big machines - enough to provide three times Europe's present needs. Modern wind generators are very different from old windmills. They are more like giant propellers with to or three rotors. /^t/Hot rocks are very useful, as well. The nearer you get to the Earth's centre the hotter it becomes. Nuclear reactions, caused by the decay of radioactive materials, constantly heat the molten core. Because of its geothermal energy it is several degrees warmer at the bottom of a mine than it is at the top. In some places hot rocks lie quite near the surface, causing hot springs, geysers. These can be used to produce electricity. /^t/As far as an individual is concerned, it may sound nicely, but if you remember buses in our streets you will not subscribe to this point of view. Is it really healthy to ride a bike covered with cars' fumes? It is even said it is very unhealthy. If one has an urge to get a lung's cancer it is impossible to stop him. /^t/So that the individual cannot protect the environment by using a bike or by taking a bus that produces lots of smog. A standard car filled with unleaded petrol produces less fumes, actually less toxical fumes, than buses do. So, the only one thing that the individual can do is to stay at home and do not move. If human beings cannot do anything to protect they shall stop destroying the world. /^t/Stay in bed, do not move, do not talk, just look around and commit a suicide. Now when one feels completely numb and dumb he can again look around and start repairing one's world. /^t/One of the best ways is to board "Rainbow warior" and fight against France's nuclear tests. As a sailor one can do a lot of things to protect the sea. A message in a bottle can save one's life, but it also polutes the sea. <0110> /^t/Because our country is regarded as Catholic one and Catholicism is the most popular religion here, the issue of the Catholic Church has always been important in Poland. Having been present in our reality for nearly thousand years it still evokes emotions and discussions. Even between Catholics opinions and attitudes are divided. Nowadays the rising criticism to the Catholic Church is noticable in Polish society. The general attitude to the Catholic Church in Poland is that this institution is too conservative and outdated, and too much interferes in political life of our country. /^t/In fact, the Catholic Church has not changed for centuries while the world and reality have been evolving all the time. There have been no progress as far as institution of Church is concerned. Conservatism and old-fashioned manners are the most visible factors characterising the Catholic Church. These are observable in the attitude towards marriage and sexual life. /^t/It is commonly known that Church does not allow people to divorce. That is because divorce is illegal in the eye of the Church. Even in extremely difficult situations, e.g. when one of the spouses is a drunkard and does not care about the family or persecutes children, the Church is unshakable. Once married couple stay married forever for the Church. A lot of people, Catholics, do not agree with such point of view of the Church and criticize it for that. /^t/Moreover, the approach of the Church to sexual life and contraception rouses more controversies and negative attitudes. Again, the Church reveals its conservatism and backwardness. It agrees on sexual life but only for procreation. Other uses of sex are not allowed. Additionally, the Church does not agree on the use of condoms in times when AIDS is one of the most dangerous and fatal illnesses. Here the public opinion does not go hand in hand with that of the Church. /^t/Even when some people understand and follow rules and principles imposed on by the Church, the great majority cannot tollerate an active interference of this institution in politics. People want to see the Church neutral and engaged in religious matters. They are surprised observing the way the Church tries to build its power which is connected with political position within the country. It is also irritating that bishops or ordinary priests are always present during all kinds of political events in Poland. They always stay one step behind politicians and look as if they were their advisors. They also lead indefatigably political agitation during presidential or other campaigns what is at the same time disgusting and unforgivable. /^t/The desire to reach power seems to be extremely important for the Catholic Church. Conservatism and interference in political reality of our country cause people have negative attitude to the Catholic Church in Poland. They do not want to see the Church as a powerful and rich institution that imposes its laws on their lives. They do not want to see the Church enlarging its political and material power. As long as the Catholic Church does not change its manners, people will have negative attitude and criticize this institution. <0111> /^t/Poles are considered to be a nation of excess and it is true, at least, as far as cooking and eating patterns are concerned. The epicurean ways to enjoy fine food brought out by the old Polish saying, "Eat, drink and loosen your belt", are still in favour. Therefore, Poles tend to attach great importance not only to the content of plates but also to the size of portions. Our meals must be square, rich and greasy, otherwise, they are considered no meals at all. What is worse, vegetable and fruit dishes are generally neglected in our cuisine and consequently our meals are poor in fibre. All these factors make our cuisine unhealthy. So massive changes in our eating habits are necessary. /^t/First of all, moderation ought to be exercised as we put too much emphasis on substantial meals. An average Pole cannot do without piles of sandwiches for breakfast. Dinners usually consist of a soup and then a main course is served. The main course means: piles of potatoes overflowing in rich sauce and mammoth size pork chops. These are frequently followed by desserts. To make things worse, suppers must be square as well because a Pole cannot go to bed hungry. What is more, however huge the portions are they must be obviously eaten up because we haven't developed the habit of leaving tables with some room left in our stomaches. If a Pole does not eat much, his company may easily declare him ill and crying for a second helping is in good taste. /^t/The quantity alone does not account for the richness of our cuisine. A good meal is not only enormous size but also abounding in proteins and fat. The staple diet consists of bread, whose more healthy sort - wholemeal bread - is underestimated. Wheat flour is ubiquitous as an ingrendient of soups and sauces, used as a thickener, and other flour dishes like: pies, pancakes and different kinds of pasta are consumed on the unknown elsewhere scale. Meat and its derivatives are in high esteem as well. Post that contains most saturated fat is widely consumed. It's hard to imagine oneself any party without the most popular meat dishes like: knuckles of pork, sausages, pork chops or our traditional, greasy "bigos". These are just indispensable to satisfy the guests. Apart from this, all the meat dishes are fried or roasted in bacon fat, which is undoubtedly harmful to health. /^t/This stodgy diet could be easily balanced by consuming more vegetable and fruit dishes but these are underestimated as well. We are not used to treating vegetable meals as fully valuable and nutritious. Even if we prepare such dishes they are served as hors d'oeuves and must be complemented by something more concrete. We also drink too little fruit juices, prefering artificially flavoured sparkling water. /^t/All these mentioned above habits are deeply rooted but why should we stick to the set patterns? A little moderation would be welcome and some variation ought to be introduced into our cuisine. Revision like that would be only for the sake of our health. <0112> /^t/It is hard to imagine oneself being separated from other people and living by oneself and for oneself. People are sociable creatures and the presence of others is essential and almost indispensable from the very beginning. In the course of life people are surrounded by others and they spend substantial part of their lives within different groups. Everything a man knows has been learnt through interaction with other people. In the process of interaction the reciprocal dependence is developed and no one can be self-sufficient. /^t/When a child is born it is so imperfect and vulnerable that only the care and help of its parents make it possible for it to survive. The presence of its family ensure its development, as it seems to be the only way of the acquisition of all the skills which make a man a man. Children learn to signal their needs and the people surrounding them are the addressees of their signals. As the signals do not remain without a response, mutual communication is developed. All this would not be possible without the presence of the receivers. What is more, parents or other people taking care of a child supply it not only with food but also with the feeling of safety and the feeling of being attributed to certain group of people. /^t/Along with time the circle of people surrounding a man widens and as every human being is different, the variety provides more opportunities of defining one's identity. Meeting other people who represent different ideas and attitudes helps us to define ourselves through making choices. Moreover, the ability of dealing with other people becomes to be seen important. It is innate to human beings to seek acceptance and when being surrounded by others we learn to cooperate and we tend to seek our own place within a certain group. /^t/As a result of this process we realize that we are not islands. The mutual relationships and dependence deepens and we feel need to share our ideas and emotions with other people. In this way we make ourselves dependent on other people and others become subordinated to us. The dependence is present not only in our spiritual life but also in the more prosaic sides of it. Because the notion of omniscient man cannot exist any longer at the present stage of civilization we need other people to do for us things we are not able to do. /^t/That is why, every sane man sees himself or herself as a member of certain group. The fact is even historically conditioned, as the human species came into existence during the formation of community life, which created various opportunities of mixing with other people. Therefore, the isolation, although possible, is contradictory to the human nature. <0113> /^t/Every humanbeing lives his life on three basic levels: physical, psychological and spiritual. They are in fact fundamental aspects of life. In the society doctors care about phisical health, psychologists are interested in emotional life and spirituality is left to many different kinds of churches and congregations. Polish spiritual life is dominated by the Catholic Church and within that organisation three different attitudes can be enumerated. First attitude is hostility, second indifference and the third one is devotion deprived of all criticism. /^t/Hostile people criticise everything what happens in the Church. They say that priests earn too much, have expensive cars, that they do not bother about people. This group of people doesn't go to church, they stay outside and are a kind of observers. When bishops announce a letter, it is always wrong and too conservative. The hostility is based on one or three facts from their lives and does not have any deeper reasons. What is positive about this group is that they do not support the Catholic Church and are not afraid of stating it clearly. /^t/Another group consists of people who are indifferent. For many reasons they do not care about what is currently going on within the Church. Most average people belong to this group and say that priests are ordinary people and have their rights, that bishops have to write and administrate the Church, so if the actions of priests and bishop do not disturb their everyday life too much it is all right. When taking into consideration why they conduct or think in such a way we can say that these indifferent people have just too much their own problems, they have to earn money, care for the children etc. /^t/The last group is not very large. These people support The Catholic Church, but because of sheer lack of knowledge and criticism they do it in silly way. Most of them follow blindly everything what is said in the Church. Even if they do not see any sense in it, they do things that they are ordered just hoping to find sense later. This group is responsible for weak development of the Catholic Church as an institution and for the lack of awarness of a single priest. Paying complements is not enough. /^t/These three groups and attitudes are visible within Polish society. There are of course many other people who do not belong to any of these groups and still have high developed moral and spiritual lives. I wish there were many wise and clever people who criticise when it is necessary and are responsible for the institution they belong to. <0114> /^t/The environment has never been as poluted as it is today. It is a huge issue that concerns not only Poland. The waste is being produced by all kinds of factories all over the world. But they are not the only ones to be responsible for the piles of waste that are going to cover nations if nothing changes. It is every single individual who makes the piles higher and higher. If he could his best to help protect the world from annihilation then it would be much easier to keep a country clean. /^t/What can an individual do then? First of all he can try to limit the amount of litters he produces himself buying useful goods in packets that can be easily recycled. Everyone should remember about folding litters before throwing them away to make them take less room. /^t/Secondly an individual can separate his waste and throe it away in appropriate places. He can put different kinds of litters like glass, plastic, papers and organic remains into separate bags. Also in the streets there are more and more containers for different litters. A lot of people make places like streets, lawns, meadows and forests dirty only because they drop their litters anywhere. They do not realize that a simple bottle needs 500 years to decay. /^t/Of course protecting the environment does not only concern the waste the nations produce. It also means pollution of the air. Everyone can reduce the amount of fumes simply using a bicycle instead of a car. Certainly it would be troublesome to give up driving completely since for some people it is the only way of getting i.g. to work. However, one can give up some short drives and instead of using his car producing the awful fumes he can use his feet or a bicycle as mentioned before. /^t/These are the simplest ways of helping to protect the world. The very important thing is to teach a child already to be aware of the danger of the annihilation in case he is not sensitive as to what surrounds him. Sometimes reprimending a child for dropping a paper on the floor instead of a waste paper basket can start the habit of protecting the environment in which each human being exists. <0115> /^t/"There is no such a man who is so rich that he does not need a neighbour" says a Hungarian proverb. It is closely related to the title of this essay essey: "No man is an island". There are some reasons why it is so. First of all people cannot be separated since our sociaty would be not able to grow and last. Apart from this humans are sociable, loving persons and we all are engines for each other. /^t/As I mentioned one of the goals of any community is to develop and last. How could we grow without giving birth to new members of our sociaty. How could we give new lives without getting into pairs. There is no possibility that one person - an island, can assure that a sociaty will last. No way. We all have to cooperate. It is one of the basic prooves that we can not be like lonely islands which are so distant that nobody can get there. /^t/Certainly there are many other reasons supporting the desire for community, f.ex. the desire to be loved. We are sociable beings and it would be against our nature to get away from people. We are very gentle and deep. Nobody can live without love and what follows love needs to be loved. Two persons, at least, are a must for love to exist. When we do not experience the feeling of love and warmth we cannot develope in a normal way. Some deviations get into our lives. /^t/I have also written about people as engines and I believe it is very true. Whatever happens in our lives we always need someone to tell him about it. No matter whether it is a sad or a happy event. It is much easier to hear it or enjoy it when we have someone we can share it with. In sadness we need another person to cheer us up, to "move us forward", not to let us stop and stay in the state of selfpity. We need those engines - other people. And the most wonderful thing, we not always realize, is that those people need us as well. We cannot exist without each other. As islands we can survive only few moments. Sometimes when we need some time to stop and get deeper into our souls. Then we need silence. However these moments do not last very long. After some time we find ourselves looking for somebody to tell him about our thoughts we have experienced staying "on a desert." /^t/That is why I deeply believe that "no man is an island". I believe even stronger because once I tried to be like an island but it was a disaster. We cannot live without people as they cannot live without us. Each man has love in his heart. Love cannot grow without giving it away to others. <0116> /^t/This is not a joke. Monarchy, as such, has had a long and beautiful tradition in Poland, and although the last Polish monarch - Stanislaw August Poniatowski - abdicated the throne in 1795, that is, over two centuries ago, many Poles still seem to be attached to the idea of Polish monarchy. /^t/If we look at the history of Polish statehood, we will find that Poland had existed as a kingdom since 960 A.D., that is, in fact, for some 800 years before its last king was forced to abdicate. In view of the fact that the tradition of democracy in Poland is quite short, and by no means deep-rooted, it stands to reason that the Poles should found their present-day political system on well-grounded monarchism, which is so much rooted in the history of the nation. /^t/Next, if we went further in our considerations, we would find that one of the national symbols of Poland is an emblem of an eagle wearing a gold crown. The crown, which is emblematic of the past Kingdom of Poland, has been recently restored after a forty-five-year-old epoch of socialism. This little crown has really made the eagle as majestic as never before, and even the American bald eagle - a scraggy birdlike creature as bald as a coot - cannot be compared with the Polish eagle, which do not need a shield nor thirteen arrows to look as impressive as it is with its bare chest proudly thrown out. So, if we had decided to put the sparkling gold crown back on the eagle's head, why are we - the Poles - not consistent enough to materialize this symbol by restoring the monarchy? A crown without a monarch is really worth nothing, and its sparkle seems to be that of pinchbeck rather than that of gold. If we are really going to join Nato in the near future, it is not a good idea to do it as a republic "wearing" a mock crown. We should join Nato as a monarchy, for it would certainly add some esteem and dignity to the stature of Poland as a new member. /^t/Yet another reason for restoring monarchy in Poland is that, monarchism is a system that has shown itself to work all around the world - and it is generally agreed that if something works it cannot be a bad thing. The British system of constitutional monarchy, like many monarchies still in existence all around the world - including such well-developed countries as Japan, Spain, Denmark or the Netherlands - shows that monarchy is by no means a bad or fossilized system. Next, it is not anti-democratic to have a queen or a king, and British society, for example, is living proof that monarchy and democracy can coexist without any harm to the society. Yet, if we go back into the past, we shall see that Cromwellian military rule in the republic of England in 1650s, which was harsh and extremely unpopular, proved that the only thing worse than a monarchy is lack of it, and that the monarchism is actually the best way to rule a country. /^t/Since the monarch seems to be an indispensible link with a nation's past, providing a symbol of national cohesion, there is no doubt that for the Poles, who have actually lost a unifying national symbol and a vital historical link, the only thing they really need is a sense of unity; and that the sense of unity can be embodied only in a monarch himself... or herself, if it is a queen. /^t/Although it may be a bit expensive to have a queen or a king, we must notice that many countries are quite content with their royals, so there is reason to believe that Poland would not be an exception. After all, there can be no doubt that all state ceremonies and occasions would gain in dignity and historical relevance, and that it would be more impressive to be met by a Polish monarch than by the president. /^t/All in all, it must be said that Poland of the future would be a more succesful country as a kingdom, for the majority of the countries which are monarchies are among the best developed ones in the world. <0117> /^t/If you are a parent yourself you know how wonderful it is to have this little precious thing roaming around the house, smiling at you and calling you mam or dad. It is hardly possible to express in words what you feel when you look at your darling learning to walk, to read, to ride a bicycle or awkwardly trying to help you with your work. Most people are able to experience all these feelings sooner or later in their lives. But there are also couples that cannot have children. They would be robbed of all the pleasures of parenthood if there wasn't the possibility to adopt children. Unfortunately this possibility is not given to everyone. Gay couples have no right to adopt children. They are deprived of the most magnificent experience of rearing a child, of watching her/his grow and answering why-series questions. Their lives seem fruitless. They feel useless and their relationship cannot give them full happiness. /^t/The opponents of introducing a law that would give gay couples the right to adopt children say that such couples cannot bring up normal, healthy children. Whereas there are more and more examples from real life which show that people brought up by two homosexual women or two homosexual men are in no way different from people brought up in heterosexual families. "The Times" has described a case of a young man who was brought up by two lesbians. He recalls his childhood as full of love and tranquility. He says it didn't differ from the childhood of his friends from heterosexual families. What is more, now he leads perfectly normal, stable life. He is an architect, he has a wife and two children. This is just example and there are many more in support of the stand that the sexual orientation of parents has no negative bearing on children brought up by them. /^t/There are at least two other important reasons why homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children. Firstly it can be beneficial for children who have no parents at all. Spending your childhood and youth in an orphanage can have a tremendous effect on your future life. From the begining you are on your own and you have to share everything. You share your room with others like you, you share these scarce warm feelings you sometimes encounter with houndreds of other orphans. You feel rejected, useless and very lonely. It is very hard to overcome these feelings later, in adult life. Besides, the conditions in orphanages are surely not good. There are more and more orphans, and less and less money provided for them (in Poland, for example). The best solution to this problem is just to enable them to have loving parents, who can give them happiness and all the conditions necessary for stable development, proper education. It is easier than it looks like. It is love that really matters for these children, not sexual orientation of their step-parents. There are houndreds or even thousands of gay couples waiting for their chance to have a child. They can give them true love, they need so much, peaceful childhood and much more optimistic outlook for the future. Martina Navratilova can serve as a good example. She has enough money, no doubt, good living conditions and she has been trying to adopt a child for many years without any positive result. And let us consider an orphan swinging in the corner of an orphanage. Which place would be better for her or him: a shabby orphanage shared with the whole bunch of other orphans from different social backgrounds or Navratilova's house, where she/he could enjoy being the only child and in addition being loved. /^t/Secondly, as there are no proofs that homosexual couples are not able to bring up healthy, stable children why should we deny them the joys of parenthood. The only difference between them and heterosexual couples is that they are of the same sex. The rest is the same: they love each other, they share their duties, go to work, for holidays. Yet being not able to conceive their own children they are also robbed of the only chance to enjoy their relationship fully, that is of adapting a child. It is, in a way, a restriction on basic rights of an individual, the right to be happy. /^t/As most people experience this overwhelming feeling of happiness when they look at their child fast asleep, they should be able to understand all those who can only dream about having a child. They are in minority and they need some support to convince the opponents that adopting children by homosexual couples can be beneficial both for children and for the whole society. <0118> In the contemporary world where most of the values that have been highly regarded for centuries depreciated, there are many people who represent the opinion that modern societes do not need marriage which is perceived by them as a slightly outfashioned way of spending life. In fact, there is a "healthy" attitude to marriage which says that marriage is an appropriate institution for an emotionally balanced person who wishes for a permanent relationship quaranteeing care and security. /^t/The opponents' view says that there should be no legal or institutional interference in love between two people because where feeling reigns there is no need for any kind of contract. But it should be stated that a long relationship brigns about certain consequences, including legal ones, not mentioning moral ones. People who live together often share some goods, possibly they have children. So they are required to think about legal regulations concerning at least their descendants, because children born out of wedlock have frequent troubles executing their rights. Besides, marriage belongs to this kind of institutions which existance has not been undermined for centuries. Being married both spouses are entitled to have certain expectations, as well as obligations and marriage can quarantee that these rights and duties will be fulfilled at least in legal terms. /^t/Some critics object to marriage saying that when people love each other they do not need any legal confirmation of their love. Their affection is fragile and so special that they do not have to adhere to any standards getting married because it may spoil their feeling. But it is true to say that marriage has remained the most traditional institution in the world which has never lost its value completely. People married even during wars or revolutions and maybe at that time they felt that marriage would brought them some substitute of peace and some degree of security. At present people live their lives extremely quickly and in such a hurry the time which is devoted to other people is the most precious, especially, in case of marriage and family, which comes to one's mind right after it, where two people decide to be together "till the end of their days". Wedding and its celebration is like announcing to the whole world that we are together, we love each other and we do everything to protect our love against the danger from the outside. People who decide to marry are usually more responsible and they can trust each other more because they know that in case of problems they do not just split apart but they will be more willing to deal with troubles since they want their relationship to be solid. /^t/There is an opinion that grown-up people are free and independent enough to do whatever they wish and they are not obliged to obey any moral code. It may seem true but people live in certain societies which establish certain requirements. Polish society belongs to traditional ones and it definitely imposes certain rules, including moral obligations. There is no such a tradition in Poland that would allow people to live together without marriage. Even if they try to do that there is usually quite a strong social pressure on them to legalize their relationship. /^t/Each human being, but particulary a woman, needs a strong stable relationship on which she is able to build her happiness. Feminists say that in the present-day world women are so independent that they can rely on themselves entirely. That is true and nobody is going to deny that women have achieved a lot recently but their nature and interior features have not changed at all. Despite their professional careers and tremendous achievements of any provenance, women still need a lot of love and care. They do not only expect to get it from their men but they are eager to favour their husbands, and eventually children, with their greatest affection and solicitude. Women definitely need appreciation and success in their professional life and they also hope for fulfillment in maternity and family life. All of these can be truely found an marriage built on the stable foundations. Besides, there is nothing more beautiful that can happen in life like a mutual agreement of two people who love each other to stay together in marriage. /^t/Human beings are created in such a way that they possess certain emotional needs which fulfilment they seek for. "A man is a social animal" so he or she is predisposed to live together with somebody in a permanent relationship. Nobody wants to suffer from loneliness so when people look for a partner they are fairly aware of the sad fact that the older they are the more difficult it is to adjust to another person. Especially, in case of women where their attractiveness decreases with their age. One can infer from the above that women are hunting for men but it is not as simple as that. Women's psyche is far more complicated. Their emotional needs are stronger and they look for stability creating their own world that consists of images. One of these images that every woman cherishes in her mind, presents her as a wife and a mother. Such an image may be more or less conscious but it is definitely present and in most cases it finds its reflection in their crave for marriage. /^t/Marriage is a way of life, an asylum where one can find love and understanding. Since most of people in Poland are born in traditional families where a married couple brings up their children so it is obvious that members of Polish society will follow such a pattern and even if their parents' marriage is not perfect they hope that they will manage not to repeat the same mistakes in their future life. Marriage gives no quarantee that life will be always happy but it creates a stronger base for it because people who decide to marry each other are, at least theoretically, prepared for every bad or good side of life hoping that this good one will prevail. <0119> /^t/'A murderer from the beginning (...). When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies' (John 8:44). What kind of villain is that? He has many names: Lucifer, Satan, the Evil One, the Prince of Darkness. Once, these names would evoke horror. Today they are merely literary metaphors. With the advent of the Enlightenment and its distaste for the supernatural, the Devil, a real personification of evil in the past, has turned into a laughable cartoon figure with a forked tail, a cloven hoof, pitchfork and horns. However, our society does not seem to be any happier, healthier or saner because it no longer believes in the Devil. Quite on the contrary, it looks as if the modern world needed the concept of evil more desperately than ever before. /^t/Many people dismiss Satan as demoralizing. They claim people use it as a scapegoat to shift responsibility onto. They say it is high time people began to acount individually for the things they have done. They tend to forget that scapegoats are useful psychological defence mechanisms. On television one can see the mass graves in Rwanda or Bosnia, the broken bodies in Oklahoma City or Jerusalem. This evil is so overwhelming that no sane man would ever be able to comprehend it. This is where defence mechanisms come in handy. As we no longer believe in the Devil, we reach for rational explanations: sociological, psychological, or even genetic. They help to restore our self-esteem and the sunny view of human nature. In fact, these explanations are more harmful than the old concept of the Devil. When you say 'Satan made me do it' you are still guilty of what you have done. When you blame society or genetic endowment, your guilt gets blurred or even washed away. Crimes and sins are left unpunished. So, if we do need a scapegoat anyway, let it be the one we have had for centuries, the Devil. /^t/The devil is considered alien to modern society also because of the repressive character of the concept. For a long time Satan served as a deterrent in the strict moral system of the Church. People knew that whenever they did evil, they ran the risk of eternal condemnation, weeping, and grinding of teeth. They may have been living in a constant fear, but they had one thing that modern society lacks: the sense of radical evil. Moral deterrents, however, have gone out of fashion. We should be happier now as we no longer have to fear Satan. But this also means that the concept of evil itself has faded away. If there are no clear-cut boundaries between God and Satan, there are no such boundaries between good and evil either. What remains is the total chaos and confusion the modern man is living in. We claim to be free individuals that need no moral formulations, guidance or deterrents. Fair enough, but then we should not be taken aback by kids or adolescents comitting grievous crimes. If we have lost the meaning of good and evil, why should they have it? /^t/The concept of Satan is also deemed useless and old-fashioned by feminists. They claim the Devil is a bogey created by patriarchal religion because a God without an adversary is inconceivable to the masculine mind. Feminists seem to overlook one point. Without the Devil, Eve would have to take sole responsibility for enticing Adam into eating the fruit and breaking the harmony that had hitherto existed between God and man. If so, women would have been blamed for all the evil in the world, and this would not make their lives easier. /^t/Charles Baudelaire once wrote: 'My dear brothers, never forget, when you hear the progress of the Enlightenment praised, that the Devil's cleverest ploy is to persuade you that he doesn't exist.' This may be true but statements like this are impossible to verify. What is important is not whether we believe in the existence of the Devil or not, but whether we respect the concept. The idea of evil, and its realization in the concept of Satan, is crucial for the health of society. It is a defence mechanism that helps society to deal with the overpowering wickedness of the world; it serves as a moral litmus test revealing the true nature of our deeds; finally, becauseof its politically correct character, it saves women from having to take full responsibility for the Fall of Man. <0120> /^t/Since the beginning of mankind man and woman have joined in couples to support each other and bear their offspring. Their relationship, called later marriage, has been recognised by many religions and governments all over the world. Nowadays, however, as the decline of the traditional family has become a world-wide trend, the institution of marriage is regarded by some as an outmoded concept. Thus, an increasing number of couples decide to cohabit without getting married. Although such people claim no need for legislation of their love, boast great personal freedom and seem to create a suitable atmosphere for rearing their children, marriage still has an important function as only this legal institution can strenghten a relationship, protect spouses under the law, as well as provide the right background for the development of their offspring. /^t/When two people are in love and decide to stay together for the rest of their lives, they do not need a formal piece of paper to confirm it. They make their own arrangements and in that way become responsible to each other. Their love is only their own private affair. Besides, they, just like anyone else, do not know themselves good enough to vow before God or the state to stay together for their lifetime. On the other hand, however, if the couple are deeply in love with each other then marriage will only legalise and announce their relationship publicly making their union more stable. After all, it is marriage, the beginning of a family that constitutes the very basic part of every nation and society and as such it is no longer a private affair between two people. Besides, the decision to stay together 'till death tells us apart' involves taking up serious obligations and duties. Due to the legal bond of marriage, spouses are fully responsible for each other and obliged to mutual support. Marital union merges the two, before separate, words - 'you' and 'me' - into one omnipotent word 'we'. Consequently, only superficially may marriage seem an easy thing to enter into, just a nice ceremony. In fact, the ancient vow of matrimony requires real strength as it is the test of the couple's maturity. Those who are unable to declare and accept mutual commitment reject marriage showing emotional immaturity as well as lack of responsibility, which is by no means the basis for a lasting relationship. /^t/Cohabitation as a complete alternative to the married state seems to offer more freedom and a painless end to an unsuccessful relationship without any legal obstacles. It has of course its own laws but these may be easily broken if only it is necessary. Consequently, a couple whose relationship has not worked out simply part without long periods of waiting for a divorce or legal division of their mutual property. It is marriage, however, that due to every day compromises holds spouses together ensuring their protection under the law. Thus, although it is usual for every couple to go through a bad patch, in case of married partners this does not immediately end in a break-up so a divorce is only a last resort. This is so because marriage teaches people the art of compromise and self-sacrifice that helps them survive crises. Aiming at their own happiness and their children's future, they are able to play down the differences between them at the cost of their personal freedom instead of simply separating as cohabitants usually do. Besides, marriage is protected and favoured by legal systems in all countries. The marital state creates a safety net especially for women who even nowadays are regarded as second rate citizens in some countries. It affords women protection under the law as their husbands, even after divorce, have financial obligations towards them. They also acquire an important social status that accompanies being a wife. Moreover, such legal procedures as property rights, citizenship or inheritance claims are easier to regulate when the point of reference is a formally married couple. /^t/Cohabiting couples maintain that their children are equally happy to those born to a traditional family since they are perfectly able to love them and bring them up successfully without any legal obligations. They claim that the times when the society was prejudiced against such out of wedlock children belong to the distant past. Today, the offspring of cohabiting parents even have the advantage over other children as the former do not have to witness long arguments or painful divorce cases of their parents, who can easily part before it comes to that. Nevertheless, only marriage can guarantee a suitable environment for raising offspring. Despite wide tolerance a child born out of wedlock is still likely to be stigmatised, which definitely has a negative impact on its psyche. A child reared by a married couple not only does not suffer from inferiority complexes but also is not threatened by poverty resulting from a sudden desertion by its mother or father. Statistics have proved that not legalised ralationships break up more often and easily than marriages. Consequently, children in these single-parent homes are more prone to be poor than those looked after by both parents or a divorcee getting a monthly maintenance guarenteed by the law. Besides, since in the future a child is bound to follow the behaviour of its parents, it is for its benefit and for the benefit of the country to be born to a married couple and thus copy the traditional patterns of a family. This, due to its far-reaching legal and moral consequences, may ensure the stability of whole communities and should be considered by potential parents. /^t/In spite of a growing number of cohabiting couples, marriage still performs useful social functions. The opponents of this ancient institution focus on its negative aspects but these are far outweighed by its many advantages. Marriage, a difficult test of responsibility, ensures security to a relationship, legally protects the rights of spouses as well as their children and guarantees a proper development of future generations, the qualities cohabitation lacks. The latter is simply a popular trend some opt for, while marriage has existed and will exist as the indispensable part of the society. <0121> /^t/There is a neverending discussion about homosexual couples whether they should or should not be allowed to adopt children. Some people dislike the idea of bringing up children by homosexuals because it doesn't fit their own views and opinions. Others are indifferent about that matter. However, homosexual couples, like other ones, should do whatever they like. It is their life and their convinctions. There are some positive aspects of adopting and bringing up children by homosexuals. First is that such children are going to live in the atmosphere of tolerance; second they are not subject to two opposite sexes struggle and third there are no taboo topics in such a family as this kind of family is open to many different views. /^t/To start it should be stressed that a lot of families nowadays don't bother to bring up their kids in tolerance. Tolerance is not so important a value. Therefore there is much discrimination and critics in a society. Homosexual couples for sure are tolerant and open couples. They must be, having such controversial views on sex. Children observe their parents behaviour every day and they learn, repeat certain patterns of behaviour. Homosexual, like many other couples, can be good or bad in rearing children but surely they have their own, developed opinions and views on life. If someone decide to be homosexual, to set a family and to bring children they must be strong and persistent because they must face lots of difficulties and critics from other oriented people. Here the question appears, why other people find themselves to be proper to bring up children and why they think they should be in power to critisize someone who has another option for sexual life and for life at all. Considering all above facts, it should be firmly stated that homosexual couples must be tolerant to bear all these unconveniences and nastiness from so called "normal" families. They must spend much time with their adopted children talking with them about life problems, discussing plenty of topics not understandable for others, presenting their own opinions versus other people's opinions. Their children, instead, are going to be well prepared to life, have more open mind and be very understandable. And these values, in turn, are ones of the most important and evaluated. /^t/Besides the lack of tolerance and understanding, there is also another bad aspect of lots of people's life, namely the competition of sexes. It often happens that a wife and a husband struggle among themselves to mark their position in family, to prove that one is better or more important than the other. It leads to neverending quarells and competitive behaviour. Children, for sure, cannot be satisfied with such attitudes of their parents as all kids want warmth and love. In such a sexist society battle is on the first plan. It's emboded in professional relationships but also, to the detriment of children, in family relations. The children of homosexual couples need not observe every day sex struggles. The relationship of their parents is based on partnership and understanding. It does not matter that there is no strong division for mother and father, however in some homosexual couples there is such, sometimes the one sex only can do more good especially when the representatives of this sex offer love and a nice atmosphere at home. Children then can see that there is no hierarchy of importance, that everybody is equal and has equal rights. It is obvious, that if two persons chose homosexual model of relationship they did it on purpose. They must love each other, so there is no place for sex struggle there. Consequently, their children learn that to be a good parent it's aimless to quarell one with another or to compete. In such relationships the division of duties looks differently, it's better organized, so quarells don't exist so often as in "normal" ones. /^t/At last, there is one more advantage of being a child of a homosexual couple. Everybody knows that in an average family the matter of sex is said to be shameful. Parents not very willingly want to discuss this topic with their children supposing that school is responsible for sexual education. The results of such attitude are not successful because children try to get to know about sex on their own. The way they get information is not always good, as they are explained by their peers who often use shabby language. In the case of homosexual couples, this problem doesn't exist. As homosexuals are open to sex matters, sex is not thought to be a taboo issue. Homosexuals willingly talk about sex, they are not ashamed by unconvenient questions, also they don't hide their feelings and emotions. Their children can ask everything and everything is explained. They need not find this kind of information in "other sources". In future, they will benefit from it because they are going to be well adjusted to life. They are going to make a conscious society fraction and they will not necessarily blush when talking about "these matters". Moreover, such children will not shame to talk about their feelings seeing how that feelings are very important in their home. Such an attitude creates a healthy atmosphere, an atmosphere of honesty and loyalty, when every member of a family can count on a responsible and mature behaviour. /^t/To sum it up, it is to be emphasized that the discussion on homosexual couples and their adopting children is not finished on these pages and it's not finished in the society. Surely, it is a controversial issue. Anyway, to understand this problem better one should take into account not only arguments against it, but also in favour. The tolerance, giving up the sex struggle or sex as taboo word are only exemplary advantages. The list can be fulfiled by many other positive aspects of bringing up children in a homosexual family and it is worth realizing that such advantages exist. <0122> /^t/Traditional educational practices for dealing with exceptional children involve remolding their characters so that they fit in society, excluding them from a society or segregating them from other so-called "normal" children. The implementation of exclusion polices can vary considerably from keeping the children in seclusion to even murdering them. Ancient Sparta where physically handicapped children were simply killed just after being born can be an example of extremes to which things could go. Although in the 20th century such practices are inadmissable, there is still no one unambiguous solution to the problem. Most modern researches have criticized the whole approach to the case rejecting the idea of classifying any human being as retarded or deviant. This idea may be supported by several very strong and sensitive arguments. First of all, even a child which is born without some of the basic capabilities may bring a lot into the life of his family. On the other hand, only parents are able to form a warm, supportive, nurturing environment indispensable for any child, let alone - for a child which is different in any way. Finally, separation from family and society always has a negative impact on the child's psyche. /^t/To most people who have never had a closer relation with so-called "mongolian" children, it may seem unbelievable that such children can contribute to the stability and serenity of their families. To most outsiders and even to the parents it means a big tragedy when their new-born baby turns out to have Down's Syndrome. The prognosis often don't leave the parents any hope. However, after some time they often discover that this "tragedy" has become an "element" uniting and integrating their family as nothing else ever before. Moreover, having a "different" child at home helps the parents to be more aware and flexible in evaluations of their other children and people in general. They become more understanding than they otherwise could be. While they observe slow progress of their child with Down's Syndrome they can truly appreciate the marvelous development and quick learning process of their fully capable children. What is more, "normal" children which are brought up together with their "different" sisters or brothers, which can see their efforts, suffering and small successes become more sensitive and tolerant towards others. It is as if their readiness to try to understand children with Down's Syndrome has extended into a general method of dealing with people. /^t/The problem of children with Down's Syndrome shows clearly how much each individual in a family affects the lives of its other members. It goes without saying that the developmental growth of a child born with "mongolian features" depends mostly on interaction between the child and the environment - that is why the commonly accepted dogmas that institutionalization of such children is the only way out should be abolished. Only the atmosphere of love, acceptance and the sense of unity which are specific for a family, never for an institution, can assure the optimal conditions for the development of a child. Parents should not be fearful or ashamed of their "problem" child. Children with Down's Syndrome like all the "normal" ones need love, warmness and home to develop physically, psychologically and, which is even more important - emotionally. Hence, while making a decision whether to keep a child born with Down's Syndrome at home parents should take into consideration those fundamental needs and rights of the child. Working with a child on improving his physical capabilities makes sense only when the basic needs of security and affirmation are satisfied. /^t/Parents are often not aware of the fact that children placed in segregated environments suffer negative psychological consequences - naimly, lowered self-concept. The growth of children born with Down's Syndrome depends on the same set of principles applicable to "normal" ones: a rich, stimulating, abundant early environment, an active versus passive learning environment, including a heavy emphasis on practice and participation from the early years onward. It is clear that children excluded from their families have little chance to grow and make any progress, they often suffer either actual physical or psychological death at an early stage. Additionaly, a number of studies have prooved that a child kept in institution is deprived of a positive stimulation and as a result his development is even more inhibited. Besides, children born with Down's Syndrome are usually very sensitive and understanding. Having such sensibility they can be easily offended or emotionally hurt and because of that keeping them in institutions may only worsen their condition. /^t/In addition to the assesment problem children with Down's Syndrome can vary in a great measure. Although there are some family situations when institutional care seems to be the best solution, the point is that one should observe and react to the specific case and circumstances, rather than to the generalization. No two children born with Down's Syndrome are exactly the same in all respects, but still they are human beings. The new policy for children classified as "mongolian" should deal with the reduction of the barriers that have separated such children from the mainstream of society. Instead of putting them away the society may change the commonly accepted attitude towards children born with Down's Syndrome. Following this premis, traditional methods of dealing with such children shouldn't be used any longer. <0123> /^t/The last decades of the twentieth century may be safely called the era of computers. Since the half of this century this branch of science has developed considerably. Computers have started to play an important role in offices and education as well as in entertainment. Possibilities computers open up are abundant and fascinating so it is not surprising that they have become more and more popular and apart from industry they have also entered people's homes. This fact has, unfortunately, turned out to be dangerous for children who are especially susceptible to all novelties. Computer games, although they may seem innocent at first sight, turn out to be harmful to children because they make children waste their time, they affect young people's natural development, and, finally, they promote violence. /^t/First of all, video games are harmful because they absorb too much of children's free time. These games may even turn out to be addictive. There are children who spend at least 3 hours a day playing video games and they can't even imagine giving up this habit. Young people prefer sitting at home in front of their computers to going out and playing with their peers. They sometimes even give up studying because they don't have enough time to do their homework. They don't read books and they also stop watching TV. This fact results in their poor education and the only knowledge they have derives from video games such as "Panzergeneral" or "Civilization" which are nothing more but deformed and simplified version of historical events. Those youngsters whose parents haven't yet provided them with computers spend the bulk of their free time at arcades where they waste their time as well as all their pocket money. If these young people had decided to devote the time spent on playing video games to studying they would certainly become brilliant and versatile pupils. /^t/The second threat posed by video games is connected with the fact that these games affect young people's mental and psychical development. Youngsters who spend a lot of hours playing video games usually look as if they have been absent from the real world. In fact, they are because even if they leave their computers in order to go to school or to have a supper they are still in the world of the game they have been playing. These video game addicts seem to think about nothing but their latest "computer adventures". Additionally, they are usually at the age when their bodies are rapidly developing and video games may affect this development, too. Instead of playing football with their peers, which would be natural for them, children choose "indoor" video games. They sit in front of the monitors for many hours which may result in their worsening eyesight and bad physical condition in general. Unfortunately, such pale young people with an absent look on their faces are not a rare sight in the present streets. /^t/Finally, video games are harmful because they promote violence. Most of the fashionable video games are full of blood and brutality and they deal with nothing but wars and fights. The best example of such a game is "Mortal Combat" the heroes of which tear off their enemies' heads and rip out their hearts. The scenes of fights are so realistic that it is really difficult to watch the game without disgust. Unfortunately, the majority of young people play it with pleasure. This kind of video game makes children accept violence or, at least, it makes them tolerant to it. The heroes of these games are usually powerful and invincible which easily appeals to children's imagination. They want to be like their idols and, consequently, the only way for them to gain an authority among their peers is through violence. They don't see any difference between the real world and the world of computer games. Thus, violent video games are undeniably one of the sources of the increasing juvenile delinquency. /^t/Summing up, video games are harmful to children because they are a waste of time, they affect children's natural development, and they promote violence. What is really annoying about these games is their increasing popularity among youngsters. Something should be done to stop it or, at least, to decrease it. In some countries, in Australia, for instance, the governments have tried to control the distribution of video games by banning games which promote violence. The responsibility rests, however, on parents who should spend more time with their children rather than leave them home alone. If, this happened video games would lose their power over young people's minds. <0124> /^t/For many years giving birth to a retarded child has been viewed as a tragedy for parents. It was considered as a shame and an obstacle to one's career and normal life. The prevailing opinion was that such a child would be to the detriment of family's life and would have a disastrous effect on other children. The only way of dealing with retarded children, often imposed on parents, was sending them to the special institutions in which children are put away. Recently, thanks to many brave parents who love their child enough to fight for it, attitude towards retarded children has changed. This is very optimistic sign as there are at least three advantages of keeping such a child at home: a chance for him or her to live a worthy life, the unity of the family, and an opportunity to learn tolerance. /^t/Naturally, no one can deny parents' right to decide whether they want to deal with the problem of their child or let it be solved by an appropriate institution. Still, it is more human to take into consideration a child's right to live a good life. This is bound to happen in a loving family; although, it is not impossible in a special centre for retarded. One must remember, however, that such institutions tend to generalize and do not pay sufficient attention to the differences between kinds of retardation. It is scientifically prooved that there are no two the same retarded children. Thus, only in their own home can they find individual approach and care based on true love. With the help of attentive parents, retarded children are given the possibility of discovering their strong sides; those with Down's Syndrome for instance, are good at sorting, packaging, and at simple machine operations. They parents observe that they found it funny and are very glad and proud being paid for that, without even knowing that they contributed to the society. Certainly, they are not able to earn their living and the question arises as to their future after parents' death. Contrary to the common opinion, retarded child does not have to be a burden to the rest of the family, which sometimes is willingful to take care. Usually parents provide financial security for their child so it can find a happy place in one of the residence homes for the retarded. They are like clubs or families with home-mother or manager, where work is shared and everybody can find one's fulfilment. /^t/However, before a child, being actually an adult, goes to the residence home, it stands a good chance of contributing to the family. One can observe it on an example of the children with Down's Syndrome. If such children are treated as an individuals, valued human beings, they feel good about themselves and, consequently, are good, to live with. It is beyond their abilities to concern themselves with others' opinion about their persons; hence, they tend to be unconsciously happy and satisfied. Other members of the family can learn a lot from them as they posses the enjoyment of simple experiences like swimming, food or weather, does not matter fine or nasty. Family can acquire capacity for contentment, typical for such children. They can show that so boring an activity as loading the dishwasher can be a pleasure if "tackled" with positive attitude. Their tendency to focus on the present moment helps others to stop their concerns at least for a happy while. The family is drawn together thanks to such occassions. The unity is also achieved by the necessity for help and care. Whole family learns to share duties, comes up with entertainments. Such situations develop responsibility in other children. Although that sounds as a naive utopia, it is not; many families with Down's Syndrome offspring prooved it to be effective. /^t/In thus united family, tolerance comes as a natural fact, although it requires some work. It is inevitable for the family to be tolerant as evaluating the child with Down's Syndrome in the same way as others or expectating from him or her quick, normal reactions would cause a lot of harm. So the family learns to be patient and their relationships with other people develop very well too, as based on understanding and readiness to cooperate. Parents find out that they have more tolerance for their healthy children. Normally, they would probably expect a lot from them and feel disappointed at their results. Dealing with retarded child lets them appreciate the development of their offspring even the least outstanding one, and feel happy at any sign of progress. One can also easily contradict the opinion that children with Down's Syndrome bring shame on their families. It is being observed that other children rarely feel embarrassed by their retarded brother or sister. On the contrary, they usually boast of his or her achievements and estimate others at their reaction to the child. Healthy children also proud themselves on being observant, mature and understanding. This awareness, pleasant and natural, helps them to be more tolerant indeed. /^t/Considering written above, one notices that often people unnecessarily feel sorry for the family with the retarded child. Definitely, it is not easy to bring up such a child and to secure its future but more and more people cope with it. They decide on keeping a child at home aware of his or her contribution to the family which becomes united and tolerant. They also find it righteous to give a child a chance to live a worthy life. <0125> /^t/There are number of reasons which support the idea of bringing up a child with Down's Syndrome at home. First of all, it is beneficial to the child from the medical point of view, because it gives such a child the opportunity of good physical and mental development. Secondly, ethical and moral values, which guide people through their lives, tell that parents cannot exclude their own child from the family. Finally, the idea has advocates among family members and examples of such families convince that it is beneficial not only to a child, but also to a family. It should be underlined that parents of a child with Down's Syndrome should be supported in their effort by society. Unfortunately, society is still prejudiced against such children and very often they are discriminated against and laughed at, as if it was their fault being born with Down's Syndrome. People must realize that it could have happened to anybody and they must show some understanding and respect both for the child and for the family. That would certainly help parents in their effort to bring up a child with Down's Syndrome at home. /^t/Dr. William Preston from the University of California, in his latest research, proves that it is better for children to be kept at home. Dr. Preston has studied an overall physical and mental development of those children and their skills in coping with everyday situations. The research has embraced all the children born with Down's Syndrome in California during last ten years and it has included children brought up in families and those from public institutions. The results are astonishing. Children brought up at home prevail other children e.g. in solving simple mathematic problems and in orthography. They are doing very well in everyday activities like dressing, cleaning, washing up et cetera. Moreover, children kept at home are more happy, more open and willing to meet new people while children from public institutions are very shy, reserved and they remain all the time in their inner world of dreams. Dr. Preston says that it is because parents have much more time and patience for their children than workers in the public institutions; and he claims that there is nothing but advantages of keeping a child with Down's Syndrome at home. /^t/It should be stressed that also from ethical point of view it is right to keep a child at home. Nothing can excuse parents for abandoning their own child. The child belongs to the family and first of all, it is a human being with its needs and feelings. Parents cannot get rid of it, only because they are not able to boast about its achievements. A child is not a toy which can be thrown away when it is not entertaining any more. A child is parents' flesh and blood; they brought it to this world, it belongs to them by the law of nature which cannot be violated. Noone says that bringing up a child is easy, on the contrary, it demands sacrifices from the parents, but... /^t/Nothing can replace a happy and loving family and Mark Hayakawa's life is the best example of it. Mark's parents took the responsibility of bringing up the retarded child. They were advised by medical authorities to put Mark to the public institution, but they believed that only the family would bring him a happy life. They were right. However, it was not an easy task and they had to rely only on themselves. They admitted that Mark had never been a burden for them. Although, his retardation brought him grief, but at the same time it drawn the family together. Mr. and Mrs. Hayakawa were supported also by their other children who had never complained and they had dealt excellently with Mark's annoying behaviour. Moreover, they became more tolerant and patient in their adult life. Now, Mark is 27, he works in a shop and feels that he is an individual. Thanks to his parents, Mark is happy and adjusted to the life in society. /^t/Hence, medical and ethical considerations together with the example of the Hayakawa family support the idea of bringing up a child with Down's syndrome at home. From the medical point of view, it certainly is beneficial, as Dr. Preston confirms in his research. It is also right as the ethical and moral values are concerned. Finally, the Hayakawas' case proves that it is possible for parents to bring up such a child at home; and, although, it is not an easy task, but as a reward one can have a happy child. <0126> /^t/Parents always await their child with anxiety and hope that she/he will be physically and mentally healthy. Unfortunately, it happens differently. Medical research proves that one to ten thousand children is born with retardation. Most frequent disease is Down Syndrome that is characterized by quite heavy mental disorder and some physical changes as well. Specialists already know several important facts about Down Syndrome, but they are not able to get into it too far. Scientists announced that this disease is caused at the very early stage of the development by false cell division when one additional chromosome is produced. Of much importance is also the age of a future mother. It was proved that the older mother is the greater possibility of her child to suffer from "mongolism". In the past specialists also advised parents to get rid of such children maintaining that it would be completely impossible to keep them at home. It is a wonderful thing that people who have dealt with that problem decided to change this attitude and show the world that retarded children are "also" human and that they should live human life. Children with Down Syndrome are not a burden for their families as they were thought to be in the past. It is quite the opposite. They can also prove to be quite useful for the society, for sure not in all ways, but they are able to contribute to it. It is obvious that children with Down Syndrome should not be "put away". /^t/Most parents agree that children with Down Syndrome joined their families. They contributed to their stability and serenity. It would be very desirable to give here the example of Mark, a 26-year-old boy with Down Syndrome. His father is eager to defend the idea that such children should be kept at home. He describes Mark as an easy-going, quiet, friendly and passive child. As parents he and his wife have not had any major problems with him. Quite the opposite, he did help the whole family a lot. The challenge to communicate with Mark drew all of them very close to one another. It is not true that their love focused only on Mark. They shared it equally among other children. Mark's parents maintain that one does not lessen one's feelings by dividing them among others. All their efforts focused on the bringing the family together. Mark's brothers and sisters helped to bring him up and that changed their characters and attitudes a lot. They became delightfully playful and mature, observant and understanding. They also showed remarkable ingenuity in instructing him and amusing him. All of them were proud of Mark. It never came to them to give him away. /^t/Every member of Mark's family claims his wonderful and sociable character. He is capable of accepting things as they are, he never complains. He has great capacity of contentment, he focuses on the present moment and tries to make the most of it. Mark enjoys simple experiences - swimming, food, birthday candles or sports car rides. Mark is also good to live with because he was accepted exactly what he was. They always treated him as an individual, but as an valued individual. All parents of children with Down Syndrome confess that dealing and living with such children helps to communicate and cope with people. They become more flexible with the evaluation of others. Not only Mark's parents agree that children with Down Syndrome have wonderful, mild characters that make healthy people think deeper about theirs. /^t/People with Down Syndrome can really be useful for the society. They do not have to be a burden at all. Mark and other retarded children prove that if they are really interested in something, they are able to perform it very well. Mark, for instance, is especially fond of music. He manages to figure out how to operate a hi-fi set. Mark thrives on routine and enjoys things others despise: cleaning the table, loading the dish washer. It is a great fun for him. People with Down Syndrome work in special assembling institutions. Mark does some packing, sorting, simple machine operations. He earns his own money and that makes him very proud. Mark's staying at home is much (smaller) cost in human terms and in money indeed. /^t/Mark's parents maintain that their son and other children with Down Syndrome staying at home can live useful and independent lives. They help their families to develop and become one loving unit. Retarded children with their easy-going and friendly, even passionate characters teach other people understanding and love. When they stay at home, they are able to contribute not only emotionally to the families but also financially. It is very easy to get rid of such children and live another life. However, responsibility is the measure of humanity. In everyday life we deal not only with perfect and beautiful things. When something goes wrong, we try to cope with it somehow. These are children who were given birth to by their parents, they are not nameless. Parents should take the responsibility for them. Mark's mother says that it is not easy of course, but easiness is not the test of the value of anything in the world. <0127> /^t/Down's syndrome is known to be caused by the presence of an extra chromosome, a fault of cell division, but so far no-one knows why it happens. It is just one kind of incurable illness which may serve here as an example. Parents of a baby with this syndrome have to face many problems and get used to the fact that their child will never recover and will never be independent. The most serious of these problems is the decision about keeping the child at home or giving it away. Generally, placing retarded children in special institutions seems to be better for both the family and the child itself. On one hand, the professional help and the company of similar people can have a better influence on retarded children and on the other, one has to take into consideration the financial situation and the time that parents have to devote to them often neglecting their other children. /^t/The first and probably the most serious argument is the good of the child. In specialized public or private centers, it will have professional help. People who are trained to cope with the every-day problems concerning retardation like their work and they do their utmost for those in their care. Parents, who have to go to work cannot equal them as they usually do not have so much time. It is also good for such children to have every-day contact with their peers who suffer from similar disabilities. They do not feel different or worse, just because they cannot do this or that. /^t/Everybody knows that bringing up children entails expances especially children with Down's syndrome. They need day care and cannot be left at home alone, so unfortunately one of the parents has to give up her or his job. It is also possible to employ a baby-sitter or a nurse, but it has to be qualified person which means more money. Such a child will never be self-reliant and will always have to live in a protected environment. /^t/Keeping a retarded child at home mean that there is considerably less time for other children. Although Down's children, if properly controled, may shown some mental development, the process is painfully slow. Unfortunately they never reach an adolescent's mental age. This is why they require more time and concentration. This is why their parents may neglect other children who in sharing their lives with a retarded sibiling and taking part in every-day care problems, may decide never to have their own offspring. Observing and residing with a mentally challenged child may have negative psychological effects on healthy children who whilst at play usually condescend to their ill brother or sister. That is why retarded children should be put into an institution among other retarded people. /^t/Usually when a retarded baby is born it is a horrible event for its parents. They are not prepared to cope with the situation and usually do not know what to do. It is not easy to keep such a child at home and spend the rest of their lives taking care of a person who will never reach full normality. Of course, it is also not an easy decision to give one's child away. However, it is necessary to realize that this would probably be a better solution for everybody. It is better for the child itself, because it would have professional care and appriopiate company there, and for its family - there would be no strain on finances and no bad effects on other children. <0128> /^t/Video games are so popular nowadays that hardly any child would claim that he or she has never played such a game. They seem to be a natural by-product of the computer age; nevertheless, the possibility of their harmful effects would be worth investigating. Three main arguments for the negative influence of video and computer games can be proved. First of all these games promote violence among young people; secondly they have a negative influence on children's health and, finally, they are very time-consuming and distract teenagers' attention from their school duties. /^t/Video and computer games promote violence in a sense that they contain a lot of cruel scenes. Parents hardly ever realize how violent are the games that their children play. There is a tendency among keen video game players to claim that the more bloody and violent the game is the better quality it has. In those games children are supposed to be accustomed not only to various kinds of weapons but also to various methods of killing. They wound their enemies with a knife, cut their heads off with swords or kill them with an electrical saw. These are only a few chosen examples but they are surely enough to illustrate the seriousness of the problem. Such violent scenes undeniably have a negative influence on children's minds. Psychiatrists claim that video and computer games have long-term psychological effects on young people, who after many hours of playing are not able to separate reality from the game. It is horrible to think about possible results of this. /^t/Apart from the harmful influence on young people's mind video and computer games have also a negative influence on their health. The most vulnerable are eyes in such a situation. It is common knowledge that sitting too close to the TV screen is harmful and the same thing is with the computer monitor. That is why people who work with computers in offices use special filters to prevent the emission of damaging rays. Many video game players have been examined and it was found that almost half of them have deteriorated sight. The spine of those players is in danger, too, as they spend long hours sitting, very often in bad positions. This frequently results in spine curvature or round-shoulders. In general video and computer game players do not live a healthy life as instead of playing any sport or keeping physically fit they spend time with games ruining their health. /^t/The last but not least argument is the amount of time spent by children in front of computer monitors. Video games are in fact very time-consuming and when one starts playing the time does not matter. Even people who are not very keen on these games claim that it is difficult to stop playing and the situation usually goes out of control. They say that it is like a kind of addiction. Hardly any parents control how much time their children spend playing games and it is sometimes a great amount of time. As a result, children neglect their school duties and fail to develop their personalities. Psychiatrists claim that a considerable percent of young people with school problems spend too much time playing video or computer games. Children of the computer age read fewer and fewer books, which must lead to the impoverishment of their personalities. Taking this into consideration one must agree that anxiety about the whole generation appears. /^t/It should be obvious now how much harm video/computer games can do to young people. The invasion of these games is the result of the development of civilization but the important thing is to recognize the advantages as well as disadvantages of a given product of the modern world. In the past people frequently used the products of civilization in such ways that they did much harm to them or their environment. Video and computer games may be helpful and useful in numerous situations under the condition that they are used wisely. It is for adults to decide and reasonably choose what is really good for their children. <0129> /^t/Video games are part of rapidly evolving world of interactive amusements so new that nobody knows how to name them. They are also the most controversial modern inventions, so controversial that even discussed in parliaments and by high officials. The Australian prime minister Paul Keating has recently written to his state premiers expressing his concern about the need of regulation. By the regulation he meant the limiting distribution of video games. Although the interactive amusements have become more and more fashionable among people, especially youngsters, there is no doubt that they are harmful because they are time and money consuming, they damage people's health and, eventually, they are one of the greatest threats for the man's future. /^t/Playing video games consumes both time and money. Instead of doing some useful things people sit and do something that leads to nowhere. An average American child spends about 1.5 hours a day in front of his computer. The typical example for nearly "permanent" video-game players are The Bains from Manchester. Shelly, who is forty, pays about 130 dollars a month to spend unlimited time on network. Her husband Paul, who is a police officer, pays 90 dollars for a 90-hour-month package from his local distributor. The two of them spend hour after hour perching in front of computer screens playing games. At the same time they are subject to great commercial campaign of new products which are created to fill the video-game producers' purse. They waste time and money instead of working on their real physical and psychological development. /^t/The damage of one's health both physical and psychological is even more dangerous. Taking into consideration the recent surveys, children who spend so long time playing suffer from many spinal diseases. Moreover, the radiation they receive from the monitor screen causes harm to their sight and makes them dizzy. They become unable to concentrate longer on tasks which are difficult and involve attention. It has also been proved that playing video games causes addiction. The players are unable to stop doing it because the better solution seems to them close at hand. Playing the games also results in overexcitability and uneasiness. Players' conscience is also uneasy as long as they are able to realize all of the disadvantageous effects the interactive amusements bring about. Because of the fact that the video games gain more and more devotees all over the world, no matter in which country they live and to which class they belong, their popularity now exceeds the popularity of Hollywood films. While realising all of the symptoms of the cultural decline one should try to imagine the future. /^t/People's future is threated both by the patterns of violence which are presented in the games and the direction of technical innovations in the field. The main rule of the games is to kill as many foes as possible. Jean-Marc Demaly, editor of a pair of Paris magazines for home-video fans, sais that many young boys phone to ask how to do special attacks and how to get blood splattering on the screen. There were some cases when children after such a great dose of violence were not able to distinguish reality from the fiction which resulted in fatal consequences. The innovations in the technical equipment may also appear fatal in results. The recent experiments on virtual reality may even contribute to the fall of the modern civilization. In a few years the technique will be so excellent and programs so sofisticated that one may prefer to stay in the artificial surroundings of a fake world which would seem more attractive to him. Why go to Paris if you can see all of the most beautiful Paris scenes and, additionally, have some most exciting adventures without leaving home? Because of the fact that people, in general, are intellectually lazy and agree on choosing the easiest and the most pleasant ways, such "virtual baths" may result in decline of human culture. /^t/So far, not much has been done to prevent people from their fall. One should realize that any town with electrical power - or at least a store selling Game Boys and batteries can become an outpost of this burgloning international phenomenon. The British video-games market is over 1,5 million dollars a year and rising fast. Very few people take into account the real dangers of it, how damaging it is for health, how much time and money is wasted and what is the possible disastrous future. The video games become more and more violent and more and more at public expense. <0130> /^t/Since they were invented, computers have helped people work, study, carry out business transactions or do research. They are widely used in medicine, technology, education, etc. Moreover, many people, especially children, start spending their free time with computers, namely playing video games. It may be argued that it does no harm for children to play video games as it helps them learn how to work with computers, it also develops their logical mind, quick reflex and ingenuity, and finally gives them an opportunity to spend a good time with their family and friends. /^t/Playing video games may be useful for children. In fact, children much quicker than their parents or grandparents can grasp how to use a keyboard, mouse or joystick. Karen Smith, who is 56 years old now, gives an illustrative example to this. She has noticed that nowadays the employers need workers who are familiar with computers; this forces adults to take computing courses, which, as they admit, is often difficult for them. Therefore, Karen allows Mark, her grandson, to play video games. She says that the fact that Mark has some acquaintance with computers, may help him find an interesting and well-paid job in the future. /^t/Another advantage of video games is that they develop children's logical thinking, quick reflex and ingenuity. To give an example, there are such video games as chess, checkers, tick-tack-toe or puzzle, which are not only absorbing but also develop children's logical thinking. This, in turn, will certainly be useful during maths classes. There are also other types of video games. Przemek and Michal, students of a high school, especially like two games, namely "Lotus", which imitates driving a car, and "Gods", in which a main hero must overcome various obstacles in order to achieve some aim. They say that these games improve their reflex, which may cause them to react faster in some emergency situations. Przemek and Michal also like playing "Vikings", a game about three warriors who must pass more and more difficult levels to come back home to their families. Przemek admits that it is sometimes hard to come up with an idea how to finish a level successfully. This, in his opinion, develops ingenuity. /^t/It is very important to do something that brings satisfaction. Actually, children playing video games have a chance to spend a good time with their family and friends. Monika, Przemek's younger sister, enjoys playing mother video game, "Goblins". Both Monika and Przemek like the way the two main heroes do funny things or make witty comments on what is going on. They think it is very exciting to play such games; besides, they can do it together, which is really important to them. Apart from playing computer games, many children also like going to amusement arcades, where they can meet their friends and enjoy themselves together. /^t/Therefore, video games are not harmful to children. In fact, playing video games helps them learn how to work with computers, which is going to be useful in the future. Moreover, it develops children's logical mind, quick reflex and ingenuity. Finally, it offers them an opportunity to spend a good time with their family and friends. However, everything in excess is harmful, and so are video games. Thus, parents should turn their attention to how many hours a day their children spend playing video games, and take care of their health and physical condition. <0131> /^t/Video games - a natural by-product of the computer age - give much concern to many parents. One of the main concerns is the possibility of violence promotion among children who regularly go to video game arcades. As the issue of video games has become so controvertial, the possibility of their harmful effects has become a subject for scientific investigation. In fact, it turned out that they not only pose no threat to the youth but also have lots of advantages which can be seen by looking at skills and personality features developed thanks to video games. /^t/Although parents are so afraid of video games, professionals find that they do not cause any psychological traumas. Hundreds of video game players have been interviewed in the last two years and no evidence has been found that playing games makes children violent. Moreover, psychiatrics maintain that games help to relieve aggression that could be otherwise directed against society. It has already been proved that in towns where video game arcades exist, the amount of violent young people in the streets is smaller than in towns where young people do not know what to do with their free time. When a group of boys playing an interesting war game in the arcade was asked how they spent time before the arcade was opened, they admitted they painted a monument green and pink and broken a few windows in the centre. Now, they say they stop doing such things as they think the arcade provide them with much better entertainment. /^t/However, it is not only the great recreational value of video games that is emphasized. It was also proved that the games may contribute to developing a sense of responsibility which helps adolescents to make the right decisions. in the future. Games give them the chance to enjoy some responsible freedom and learn how to use it wisely. Provided parents believe their children and those are aware of the trust in them having been additionally equiped with positive values and morals, video games can really work wonders in preparing a young man for adulthood rather than cause harm. 17-year-old Mark, asked whether his parents are worried by the fact that he goes to the arcade, says that they know he is interested in playing games which provide him with a lot of fun and have nothing against it. Mark receives some pocket money every month and it is him who decides how much he can spend in the arcade. His parents really know what they do. It will be easier for Mark to become an independent adult man who will know how to spend his money and time. /^t/There is also another very crucial advantage of video games. It must be remembered that they are used in rehabilitation for developing skills such as hand/eye coordination, etc. They have been used in programmes for retarded and epileptic children, for rehabilitation of veterans in hospitals and in play therapy by child psychologists. The example of 11-year-old Kate suffering from a serious brain damage proves that video games can really teach the child to eat without help and perform some other simple actions. This way games help handicap people who otherwise would be completely dependent on others and would not know a sense of mastery and accomplishment. /^t/Computer games, being the newest invention of our computer era, have incredible recreational and educational value which should not be underestimated. Parents thus should finally realize that the positive effects of video games definitely outweigh the negative ones if actually there are any. Moreover, children not only should not be forbidden to play them but even encouraged to be interested in video games and computers as they provide a long-term benefit for the youngsters' future. It must be remembered that the games stimulate mental activity involving at the same time no real physical nor psychological danger. <0132> /^t/The twentieth century is the era of a fast technical development. There are new types of computers and software that are easily available to people almost all over the world. One cannot underestimate their role for the scientific and artistic advancement. Unfortunately not all of the new programmes are so valuable. This concerns especially video games, a natural by-product of the computer age. These games can be very harmful for children as many of them promote violance, create situations where drugs and alcohol are easily available, and make children give up other interests. Therefore, many parents of teenagers are concerned with the influance video games have on their children. /^t/The most important problem here is promoting violance. The companies introducing and selling video games are interested only in making money and pay little attention to the bad effects their products can cause. They are constantly trying to come up with new ideas, new games that would allure children. Receantly they have started producing games in which many brutal and bloody scenes occure very often. In a way they succeeded: kids love these games and are prepared to spend fortunes on them. Such games are far more harmful than T.V. or video films as they require children's respond. Playing, for instance, WOLF II, teenagers can manipulate the action. Everything depends on whether they manage to kill the main hero, or not. Young boys and girls shot "their enemies", stab or behead them, rip out their still-beating hearts etc. Moreover, they find it very amusing and fascinating and don't realize how awful and brutal it is. Such reflections upon brutality don't come to their mind even for a while. In FIGHTERS I, huge, well buit men punch through each others' chest, torture and abuse their victims. Such scenes are considered by kids as a great fun. No wonder that crime rate among youngsters is constantly rising. /^t/Another reason for that is the fact that playing video games at arcades create situations where drugs and alcohol are easily available. It is obvious that teenagers can be influanced by their peers and do things they would never do by themselves. They always try to impress their friends and, therefore, the majority of them start smoking cigaretes, drinking alcohol and taking drugs. Many young people become addicted to drugs only because they don't want to differ from their peers. Kids, who after taking drugs, play brutal games, afterwards often go out and act as vandals or even criminals. They damage cars, phone-boxes, break into shops and steel things. Sometimes they catch dogs and cats and torture them in various ways. The worst happens, however, when they abuse younger kids, kick or hit them. This phenomenon is very dangerous and, unfortunately, quite common nowadays. Every day more and more boys and girls are expelled from schools or even put into jail. /^t/It is often very difficult to overcome drug and alcohol addiction as well as all the problems connected with them. Therefore, instead of hanging out at arcades with their friends, children should devote most their free time to other activities and hobbies. Unfortunately very few kids, as well as the parents, understand this. The result is that many children can hardly read and write, not to mention other skills such as painting, typing, playing various instruments, etc. They completely give up sports. Very few of them ride a bike or a horse, swim or play football. All their time and interests are devoted to video games. It can result in very devastating effects on their health and physical as well as mental condition. Many of the video game funs suffer from back and eye problems as they are stareing at computer screen far too long. Moreover, such kids don't play outdoors, don't make friends, never meet interesting people, or reed good books. As far as education is concerned, video games definitely do not serve as a valuable source of information. /^t/All these factors clearly prove that video games can be very harmful for children. They have very derogatory influance on young people: make them very aggressive and brutal. Very often playin such games, especially at arcades, stimulate kids to take drugs what can lead to addiction. These game also make children less interested in other activities and can be dangerous for their health and general development. Children spend no time on fresh air, are not interested in studying, learning foreign languages. Moreover, many of them have problems even with their mother language. Therefore parents and school authorities should pay more attention to what their children do. <0133> /^t/Down's syndrome is known to be caused by the presence of an extra chromosome, a fault of cell division, but the question "Why does it happen" has not yet been answered. Parents of such a baby have to face many problems, the most serious of them is the decision about keeping the child at home or giving it away. The problem concerns all kinds of retardation, but Down's syndrome may serve here as a good example. In making up such a decision it is, of course, necessary to react to specific cases, but generally, placing retarded children in special institutions is better for both the family and a child itself. Widely understood financial problems, the necessity of taking into consideration other members of the family and the good of the retarded child - these are the most important reasons why parents should decide not to keep the child at home. /^t/Everyone knows that children are expensive, but those with Down's syndrome are especially so. They need a day care and cannot be left home alone, so one of the parents must give up his or rather her job, because it is usually the woman who keeps an eye on the retarded child. It is also possible to employ a baby-sitter or a nurse, but it may be even more expensive. Such a child will never be able to be independent and will always have to live in a protected environment. This is why instead of sacrificing one's life and career it is better to visit the child with Down's syndrome in an institution, as often as it is possible. /^t/Keeping a retarded child at home would mean that the whole family is strongly affected. One of the parents has to resign from his or her professional career. Also, both parents have considerably less time for other children. Although children with Down's syndrome show some mental development, the progress would be painfully slow and they will never reach an adolescent's mental age. This is why they require more time and energy. This is also why their parents may even neglect other, normally developing children to their detriment. Brothers and sisters of the retarded child may be afraid and may decide never to have their own children. Observing a child with Down's syndrome may have negative effects, not only psychological, on normal kids, and this is one of the important reasons why in most cases retarded children should be put into a public institution. /^t/The third, but probably the most serious argument is the good of the child. In a specialized public or private institution, he or she would have professional help. People who are prepared to cope with the every-day problems concerning retardation are properly educated and willing to take care of them. Parents cannot equal them, but they can visit their children as often as they want. It is also good for retarded children to meet others who have similar mental disabilities. They would not feel different or worse, just because they can not do something as almost everyone around would have the same problems. The professional help and the company of similar people would probably make retarded children feel better. /^t/Usually, when a child with Down's syndrome is born it is a great and rather unpleasant surprise to its parents. They are not prepared to cope with the situation and do not know what to do. It is not easy to keep such a child at home and spend the rest of one's life taking care of a retarded person. It would take whole life, because the prognosis for them ever reaching anything approaching normality are hopeless. Of course, the decision of giving one's own child to some institution is definitely a difficult one. However, it is necessary to realize that this would probably be a better solution for everybody. It is better for the child itself, because it would have professional help and appropiate company there, and for its family - there would be no financial problems (or at least less serious ones) and no bad effects on other members of the family. <0134> /^t/The end of the twentieth century is a time of the invasion of computers into various aspects of human life. Nowadays, the sphere of entertainment is also strongly affected by new technology thanks to video games. With enormous sums in annual worldwide sales video games have become more popular than the movies. As the great majority of the consumers of this industry are children, it is they who are the most affected by it. Playing video games can be very harmful to them and the recent concern of parents about it is fully justifiable. Children can spend a lot of their free time playing games that have no value for them, but are full of violence instead. Many of them go to video arcades, which are not very appropriate places for them. /^t/Parents, as well as many professionals dealing with childhood problems find the popularity of video games a cause of worry. Although these games are so new that their long-term psychological effects are difficult to determine, nowadays it is clear that their value for children is very limited. As far as education is concerned, few games are valuable or advisable. Most of them, unfortunately, require little creativity and intelligence on the part of the player. Also their recreational value is rather doubtful. Video games can be so addictive that children spend almost all their free time in front of their computer screens. They have no time for physical activities or other interests and hobbies. Some of them become real masters in playing a particular game but they can hardly read or write. The problem is similar to that of the influence of TV on children, but it can be more serious as playing video games is far more addictive than just watching TV. /^t/Another argument why video games can be harmful is their level of violence. Violence is a proven sales generator in this field and the majority of games on the market are action-packed games that depict bloody and cruel scenes. The most popular titles speak for themselves: "Mortal Combat", "TIE Fighter" or "Doom: Hell on Earth". In such games the images of warriors, who punch, kick, stab or impale each other in hand-to-hand combat are comparatively mild. The action is very often nastier: heads roll, arms are torn off and bodies splatter. These scenes look very realistic, especially in full motion video with stereophonic sound. Playing such games, children begin to treat violence as something natural and they get accustomed to it from the earliest years of their lives. This situation is certainly one of the reasons for the high crime rate among teenagers and this is why parents should pay more attention to what kind of games their children play. /^t/Obviously, children can be controlled by their parents when they play at home. Unfortunately, there is no such possibility when they spend their time at video arcades playing any games they like. However, playing inappropriate games is only one of the dangers as far as video arcades are concerned. Another one is that children hang out there with their peers in groups. Teenagers are very vulnerable to their peers' influence and therefore they may often be encouraged to truancy. A visit at the arcades is a strong temptation for them to miss classes. Besides, children may be persuaded by their older peers to steal money to play games. Another serious danger connected with video arcades is that they are common places of drug dealing. Children may be encouraged to buy drugs or sometimes even to push them. /^t/Video games are a natural by-product of the age of the computers. They are becoming more and more popular, particularly among younger people. They even seem to be replacing television and movies. Children spend so much time playing them that video games have become a cause of serious concern to parents and specialists. Their educational and recreational value is very limited and they too often promote violence. Besides, video arcades, which are supposed to be entertainment centres, have become places that are inappropriate to young people. With such arguments it is easy to conclude that the concern is not groundless and that video games may indeed have harmful effects on children. <0135> /^t/The claim that all people are equal is a myth, a fairy-tale that never comes true. In their everyday life people are not equal and do not enjoy the same opportunities. They differ because they are men and women, their skin is not always white and what is even more important - they do not have the same luxury of having enough money to spend on whatever they want to have. /^t/The mentioned divisions are not the only ones, but according to many people they are the most vital ones. Let's take into consideration for example the issue of so-called equality between men and women. The sexual division exists but why had societies developed adequate division in chances between the two sexes?... It is a shame to mention that just because of this difference women have fewer chances of success in their lives. It is not law but common mentality of almost every individual that does not allow women to perform certain jobs. The hidden in social subconscious opinion that women can be a lower paid worker is common all over the world and Poland is not an exception. The good example of bad treating of women is what had happened to a friend of mine three years ago. She is a very good economist. In those times she was working for a well-known company in Poland and the competition for the managing director was announced. She entered it because she knew that she had chances to win. She almost won, but unfortunately there was a man with the same qualifications. The commision chose him because he was regarded to be less tied to his family matters. /^t/Another sad division that exists in societies in the whole world is the division into so-called Blacks, Whites and people of other colours of their skin. According to this repartition people with white skin regard themselves to be superior to those coming from other human races. However, there is no justification for such a reasoning, black people find it more hard to get promotion in their lives. The American society is a good example of this situation. In the American consciousness Blacks are typically claimed to be thieves and beggers, a crowd of servants. Despite many changes in America which include the way of treating Negros, such an opinion is still alive. As a result, Blacks do not trust white people and vice versa. /^t/Apart from dividing people into sexes, different human races there is also another very painful but self-evident division into the rich and the poor. Those who have a lot of money belong to the middle class - the layer of society that takes part in deciding of the most important issues in the country. The richest create the social top brass. Both groups own houses, two or more cars and afford expensive holidays abroad. They are happy enough not to be bothered about tomorrow. But both the rich and the poor are citizens of the same country and theoretically have the same rights. Unfortunately, the poor just because of the sheer lack of cash cannot take part in taking decisions. They are able to do it when they will win adequate financial status. /^t/One can probably draw only one conclusion after reading this text: people are not equal. I would say something more: they are not equal because they are not the same. Still, these painful divisions exist. All the people carry their consequences and there is probably one thing we can do: just speak of this unjust situation. <0136> /^t/An epidemic, which as the occurence of a disease which affects a very large number of people living in an area and which spreads quickly to other people, is an extremely dangerous event. Probably the most famous for its effects was the Black Plague that killed allmost a third of population in Europe at the end of the middle ages. In order to prevent such tragic disasters from occuring, numerous steps can be taken. The crucial thing to remember, however, is the consequence in using them. They will only be succesful when applied together, each of them supporting the others. /^t/First of all, the border with the country afflicted by a plague should be closed. No people, animals and goods should be allowed to cross the border line. International trade, both export and import, routes must be canceled. No tourists travelling to or from the country where a bubonic or similar plague has occured must be let to cross the border. The ban on crossing the boundaries is crucial as the viruses and bacterias that cause the disease are most likely to dwell on people and animals. Food is also dangerous, as it is a product that has a direct contact with humans. The ban on crossing the boundaries must be imposed by the bordering countries mutually, so that smuggling would be reduced. The controlling offices should have more staff, so as to manage to check the border line more thoroughly. /^t/In exceptional cases, like that of tourists and other people travelling through the infected area, permission to cross the boundary should be granted under special conditions and restrictions. These include thorough medical control and a period of quarantine. The medical check should take place at the very entrance to the home country. The medical personel has to be prepared to handle all the arriving people. Quarantine must be set to everyone, so as to gain absolute certainty that the disease does not spread. /^t/A very important action that prevents the plague from spreading is vaccination. Vaccinations should be given to all the people who live in the area bordering the country afflicted with a plague. The reason here is that some wild animals may cross the border. It is good to remember that the Black Plague was mainly spread by rats. Citizens of large cities should be given special attention as well as the inhabitants of the border areas. /^t/Another way of preventing the disease to spread is to organize special courses for people. The courses should acknowledge the citizens with the dangers of plagues and should present ways of preventing the plague to spread. The courses may be in form of meetings, where trained medical staff would give information about the disease, answer questions and explain the nature of epidemics. There should also be TV and radio campaigns to make people conscious of the danger. /^t/The ways of preventing the plague to spread presented above have to co-operate with each other to be succesful. Fighting the danger with only one method may leave lots of holes in the system. It is no use in stopping people at the borders while leaving the citizens without any protection from wandering wild animals. It is purposeless to vaccinate people without telling them why. These methods also have to be applicated consequently. All goods must be stopped at the border as well as everybody crossing it should be examined and forced to undergo a period of quarantine. <0137> /^t/"Wanna take a ride pal? I've got some hot stuff to offer. Try it out, all right? Nice veins you've got here... it won't hurt, you'll see. You're not a chicken, are you?" In Poland even the pupils in elementary schools can purchase drugs. They may do so out of curiosity or peer pressure. Some often do not realize what the consequences of taking a narcotic would be. Neither do they know that they may become addicted. /^t/There is no rule specifying what kind of people use drugs. There is no rule telling what they are motivated by, either. Probably all the age groups have different attitude towards taking narcotics. The youngsters from poor neighbourhoods or those from broken homes are more at risk of taking a chance with drugs. However, the children from wealthy families with both educated and loving parents reach for narcotics too. They all want to experience something new, mysterious, and what is more, forbidden. Without sufficient knowledge about the drugs kids often fall into the trap of addiction. Once they become hooked up - it is extremely hard to quit using narcotics. /^t/Adolescents are more aware of the danger the drugs carry, but also they know how to appreciate the pleasures the drugs give. High school students enjoy being on high. A pleasant state of well being and ecstasy moves all their problems to the background of their consciousness. Free from the earthly worries they explore the secrets of the unknown. They experience the complete Understanding, and indulge in the ultimate Happiness and Peace. The others, more down-to-earth, and lacking the spiritual abilities to feel what their friends can feel, get stoned and have a good, untroubled time. /^t/Even more conscious of what drugs are, are the adults. Most of them know that narcotics can be divided into soft and hard drugs. They know that the first group includes substances produced of plants such as the Cannabis plant, or grass. These are smoked in form of a joint. Other narcotics from the first group are chemical substances, for example: sleeping pills, pain relievers (if taken in excessive amounts), and amphetamines, which are used as a stimulant to work harder or study longer. Many adults know that LSD is nothing more than a hallucinogenic mushroom, which should be dissolved in saliva and swallowed. Most people are aware that hard drugs have harmful effects on the body. Such narcotics as cocaine, or morphine are either sniffed in or injected directly in the vein. Apart from having the knowledge on drugs in general, people also share a belief that the addiction process starts with the soft drugs, through the harder ones, until a person becomes a fully fledged addict. And that usually is the way it happens. /^t/Those adults who have some knowledge on drugs, are able to use narcotics in a meaningful way. Artists use it for inspiration to paint, write or meditate. The images of hallucinogenic visions have helped such singers as Mick Jagger, Jim Morrison and others to create an unforgettable words and music which was later recognized accepted with enthusiasm by their fans. A famous Polish painter, Stanislaw Wyspianski, painted under influence of drugs and alcohol in order to observe what visions each of the substances creates. Most of his paintings have notes telling which drug helped in creating a particular picture. Again, as in the case of adolescents, some adults use narcotics for more prosaic purposes. They either want to escape their responsibilities or forget about failures in their lives. This group usually becomes addicted. However, some adults may experiment with drugs under the influence of literature. Neither do they look for inspiration nor escape. They are adult and they have the right to do anything with their lives. But they cannot. Drugs are illegal. /^t/Not all the people treat narcotics in the same way. Some of them abuse drugs, others use drugs, still others refuse to use drugs. Whatever their decision is, they all should be aware of the dangers and pleasures drugs may give. A sound knowledge would help them to make the right choice whether to use narcotics or not. Right now, there is too many addicts compared to people who use drugs in a beneficial way. What will it be like in the future? <0138> /^t/The end of twentieth century, in which we all live, is the period characterised by the highly developed technology and quite advanced medicine. Today, thanks to great medical knowledge people are not affraid of such illnesses as bubonic plague or other epidemic cases, which in the past used to cause a great number of deaths and deteriorated human population. However, although the specialists at present are able to make use of their knowledge and experience and can apply it in medical treatment of epidemic outbreaks, such cases should by no means be neglected. On the contrary they should be picked up and controlled as soon as the first symptoms appear, and whenever there is a danger of epidemic outbreak the preventive procedures must be taken in order not to let the disease spread out and to protect other people from other countries from the epidemic attack. /^t/If there unfortunately appear the symptoms of the bubonic plague or other kind of dangerous disease it is necessary find out immediately the source of the illness before, as it usually happens in epidemic cases, it begins to spread very rapidly and in an uncontrolled way. /^t/One of the examples of precautions that can be taken is the medical control of all people arriving from the country, where the epidemic is supposed to appear or where it was actually detected. In such case all custom services should be well informed about the danger and whenever the citizen from the country suspected of illness existance arrives, he or she should be immediately picked up and taken to hospital and tested in order to find out whether the person is a potential carrier of the disease or not. If the person is suspected of being the one to spread out the disease he or she should be isolated and the right medical treatment should be provided. /^t/Another step, which would make the applying of the one mentioned above necessary, is to provide each citizen representing the country, where the illness appeared with the medical certificate, proving that such a person had been tested and inoculated against the disease. Such a document should be a kind of insurance that a given person is in good health and carry no danger of distributing the illness further. /^t/Such procedures, however, may not always be efficient enough to prevent the disease from spreading, as the people desperately wishing to travel abroad for whatever reason, making their departure more important than the life and safety of other people, may induce some authorities to falcify the certificate given by the doctors. In this case the danger of spreading the disease raises in the moment the person leaves the country where the danger of epidemic outbreak appeared and safely crosses the border of another country consciously risking the other people's lives. /^t/The third step to take no matter if there is any danger of epidemic outbreak is the system of international exchange of information and results of medical tests and research with the statistic data, which may be very helpful in predicting the possibility of epidemic outbreak to appear. Such data may also be very helpful in making right and appropriate decisions about which precautions in which situation should be taken to stop the potential danger of any epidemic disease. Here it is crucial to remember the rule, which says, it is better to prevent than treat. <0139> /^t/A man of the twentieth century has been facing various social and political transformations. The world has become a scene of constant conflicts, wars and acts of violence. Such inhuman behavior is stimulated by 'brutal instincts' that are deeply rooted somewhere in human nature. Those instincts are easily activated by the wide range of external and internal factors. Fighting 'a rising tide of violence' has recently become a major social and political issue in Poland. In order to prevent the spreading of the 'social disease' that may only lead to tragedies and chaos, one should search for the reasons of such dramatical increase of violence. As soon as one finds out the causes of that alarming situation, one may start the process of 'healing of a society'. There are many factors that have influence on 'a rising tide of violence'. It is sufficient to concentrate on three, the most prevailing ones. /^t/It is vital to start that discussion with an issue of mass media and their impact on the increase of violence. The behavior of teenagers, who are sensitive and easily attracted to new trends, is shaped by television, radio, video-films, newspapers and magazines. No one can deny that the majority of the movies that are shown on the screens nowadays, express the most cruel and barbarian feelings. After watching such scenes of violence, brutality and cruelty, people leaving cinema forget about the valuable and positive aspects of human nature. Not even being aware of it, adolescents make an attempt to emulate the characters presented at the movie. Many teenagers 'perform experiments' on their friends to check whether the hero's brave and brutal deeds are possible to be carried out in the real life. Even at home they can watch video-films that are of a doubtful quality and that do not follow any creeds. Additionally parents devote less and less time to their children because adults are mainly concerned with earning more and more money. All that aspects lead to violent behavior of youngsters not only on the streets but also at school and at home. /^t/Another argument that is worth mentioning in that discussion is the issue of all modern fashions coming to Poland from the west. That factor is also strongly connected with the younger generation. One may not even realize how easily mind can be affected by new ideas. 'Exotic' trends from the west do influence various aspects of a society, like culture, lifestyle and attitude towards other people and towards the surrounding world. Many 'innovations' that were brought to Poland from western Europe and from the United States are harmful and act only as a stimulus for violent behavior. Avant-garde art, especially music, stressless attitudes to life, work and school are often expressed in rage, anger, resistance to any rules and traditions. Poles emulating without thinking western fashions forget about values that might form a proper background for an honest and civilized life. /^t/The third factor that contributes to 'a rising tide of violence' in Poland is a deteriorating financial situation of many Polish families. Rapid economical changes have forced the majority of people to lower their standard of living. The rate of unemployment has been dramatically increasing. It has become extremely difficult for members of lower social classes to pay for their basic needs. Harsh conditions of living, lack of money, family problems have encouraged many Poles to express their dissatisfaction in acts of violence. Some people are so desperate that they lose control over their emotions and consequently they rob, steal, rape or even kill innocent people. The government seems to be helpless because such problems as Poland is facing nowadays need long time to be solved. /^t/The alarming issue of the increasing violence in Poland is a complex and sensitive problem that should be dealt with a great care. The present situation, not only in Poland but also all over the world, means that many people are constantly getting away from tradition, religion and moral values. Some people are so depressed by the pace of life that they simply lose their goal in life. It is obvious that such attitudes do not lead to anything positive. On the contrary, they are a base for development of violence and cruelty growing in human minds. <0140> /^t/The human beings of the twentieth century are exposed to many threats such as wars, international and social unrest, diseases, malnutrition, drugs and stress. It seems that they have to face another one: the danger of lying. There are many examples of people making untrue statements in order to deceive throughout the whole history of humankind. It was thought to be something bad and awful. Lying should always be concerned immoral and should always be condemned. /^t/First of all, in situations when telling untruths becomes a way of life, moral disapproval should be expressed. It is extremely dangerous when people create a better, more interesting image of themselves by means of lying. They seem to be attractive, full of energy, and successful while in reality - without the false mask they are boring, passive and have a bad luck. Lying helps them to make experiences more amusing and their personalities more colourful. However, at the same time they show an untrue picture of themselves. Their behaviour as well as their disgusting, tricky lies ought to be condemned. Humans are expected not to tell stories created by their vivid imagination but to tell the truth. Liars would go to any lengths to achieve their goals - they would do everything to get a job they want, to find a reliable friend they dream of, or to attract a person they want to fall in love with. They would do all of that at the expense of honest, truly responsible beings whose moral values should be awarded. However, instead of a prize, they usually receive a feeling of pain and deep disappointment. Because lying hurts people. It may do a lot of harm to those who believe blindly in the deceptive stories. It is important to remember that people would feel disappointed and may even lose their strong belief in others when they have realised they were lied. Taking into consideration the sufferings and feelings of those who were deceived, lying should be disapproved. /^t/People usually have the opportunity to punish their liars. Firstly, they should not place any credit in their fabricated stories, they ought neither to believe nor to rely on those who are known as notorious liars. Those who lie may be excluded from any social group or become to be known as the undesirable members of the close circles of friends. When the truth is revealed, they should be able to bear the consequences of their actions. Liars ought to be expected to pay for their moral "crimes". Moreover, they should feel guilty and disapproved of their immoral deeds. /^t/Lying seems to be everpresent in the human course of development. It looks as if human beings are not able to find any effective ways of dealing with deception. This "artful enemy" is quite dangerous for humanity: it hurts people and gives untrue images of liars. People should always be aware of lying and should always treat it as something extremely disgusting and immoral. <0141> /^t/It is now a common practice to lie to somebody. People lie for several reasons: in order to prevent embarassement, to sell themselves, to cover their tracks or not to hurt somebody. As long as lying is not pathological, it is not immoral and should not always be condemned. Social lying is benign. /^t/Lying cannot be said to be bad for a career. Unemployment in the world makes people fight for a good job and position at work. They would do anything to defend their place at work. Lying to an employer and workers in order to hold their own position is the easiest way. If a person would tell that changes for better are impossible in the nearest future, he or she would be dismissed at once. /^t/Lying is acceptable if it is to help and protect people. Incurably ill people should not be told the truth. Doctors should tell their patients that they will soon get back to health. Never should they tell the truth. Each of us is different as far as psyche is concerned. Knowing that our lives are terminating, we may react in various ways. Some would stay calm and patiently would wait for the death to come, while others would become furious and would like to commit a suicide to prevent themselves from suffering. /^t/If there are good, solid, and decent reasons for telling a fib, lying should not be condemned. If a child does not tell his or her parents about a low grade he or she got at school, he or she does it only not to worry the parents. Such a lying is harmless and there is a likelihood that next time the child will get a higher grade and the previous one will be unimportant. So what for bother parents about it and tell them the truth? /^t/Lying is probably the best way of preventing embarrassment. Why should we experience a state of self-conscious distress if we can prevent it? It would not hurt anybody and we would be saved from being laughed at. There are such situations in our lives in which we should lie to somebody, particularly if they concern our privacy. We can tell the truth only our close friends and family, namely people whom we know quite well. We should not tell the truth about our private lives, that is we should and must lie to our acquaintances. These are people whom we know a little and we are not sure whether they can be reliable or not. Therefore, we are not obliged to telling them the truth. Lying to them about things we do not want them to know is acceptable and tolerable. /^t/Most often we lie to children. It is quite easy to lie to them because they are too young to differentiate between the truth and the lie. Parents lie to children because children are too young to understand certain things. How can they explain to a child that they cannot afford to buy a toy? The child would not understand it. Parents must simply lie and tell the child that a given toy is not for sell and buy a cheaper one. /^t/Lies are a valuable commodity. Living without them would be just impossible. If somebody tells that he or she never tells lies, he or she is just lying. People who lie should not be condemned because they do it out of their good will. We should not deplore lying that is benign and good. One should remember about advantages of lying to somebody. And there are quite a lot of them, probably lying has more advantages than it has disadvantages. <0142> /^t/The problem of lying is a widespread phenomenon. Every single individual is familiar with this phenomenon from the very beginning of his or her life. People lie because they do not want to hurt others. There are the so called "white lies" which are relatively harmless. In many cases lying brings more profit than harm. Bearing this in mind, lying should not be condemned. /^t/Lying is a part of man's nature. One gets to know lying early in the childhood. Children very quickly learn how to lie. Often a child is tempted to deceive parents or siblings when he or she wants to get something that he or she otherwise would not get. Let's say that a child is not hungry but just wants his or her favourite chocolate cake. While trying to talk his or her mother into buying one, the child resorts to lying - saying that he or she is very hungry. Apart from that, children lie to escape punishment. Having broken a window a child is tempted to lie in order to avoid being reprimanded. The, he or she hopes to be let off. A bad mark at school may be a another reason for a child not to tell the truth. Examples of a child's lying mentioned above show that lying here is not harmful and should not be disapproved of. /^t/There are situations when lying is more appropriate than truthfulness. Imagine that you have been invited to dinner by a person whom you consider an utter bore. The question arises - what is better in such a social situation - lying or telling the truth? Telling the truth would not be socially appropriate. In so doing one would sound rude and unfriendly. Lying, in contrast, could be admissible and, for sure, it would not result in unfriendliness. /^t/Of course, one could say it is not good to keep the person we are lying to in the dark about his or her being a bore. This particular situation - refusing an invitation - is not, however, a suitable one to try to make one aware that he or she is a bore and maybe suggest a change in behaviour. There are plenty of other occasions to do so. For example during a friendly chat in a privacy of a cosy room over a cup of coffee. /^t/Taking doctors into consideration one can come to the conclusion that, in certain cases, there are good reasons for doctors to lie. When a doctor treats a patient that suffers from an incurable disease, for example. Then, there is usually not much to be done on the part of the doctor. Since medicaments are not available there is almost no possibility of treatment. The doctor has to make choice - he or she can either tell the patient that nothing can be done or he or she can be economical with the truth. Telling the truth would probably result in terminally ill patient's breakdown. In the latter situation - namely lying - the doctor enables his or her patient to hold out hope. It may happen that one day science will come up with a medicine that will cure a disease that is incurable at present. Here, one should hesitate to accept lying as it definitely brings more profit than harm. /^t/There are lies that are considered benign. These are the so called "white lies". An hour before the examination, that we have once sat, a friend asks to tell him or her something about it. We know that this particular examination was hard and that it was not, at all, easy to pass it. The dilemma is whether to tell our friend the truth, knowing that he or she does not have enough time to study more or to lie. Admittedly, lying would be justifiable. First, our friend would not suffer from a nervous breakdown if we lied to him or her, whereas she or he would being told the truth. Second, being lied to, he or she could gain more self-assurance on learning that the examination is not that much difficult. Therefore there is every reason to tell a "white lie" and our behaviour in such a situation should not be considered immoral. /^t/Lies are also told as pure entertainment. Let's consider cock-and-bull stories. These are highly improbable stories told as if they were true. It is sailors who tell them sitting by a bonfire, for example. In such a case, lying is used as a device to entertain people. We know that sailors lead adventurous lives, that is why we are prone to be deceived by them. By telling lies sailors mean no harm. They simply try to make the atmosphere livlelier. Their intention is that everybody has a good time. Even so sailors' stories are not one hundred percent true the purpose behind them is not morally wrong - it is just entertainment - therefore this kind of lying should not be condemned. /^t/Everyone lies sometimes - we are only human. The purpose behind lying are various. Many lies to entertain others, to be courteous or to give somebody hope. By lying one can spare others mental sufferings. What is more, the atmosphere of hostility can be avoided owing to being economical with the truth. All in all, as the examples mentioned above show, people's lying is not immoral. On the contrary it proves to be justifiable. <0143> /^t/Not so long ago gay couples being themselves convinced of their deviation tried to hide their sexual preferences. Hardly anyone spoke about their right to get married or adopt children. Within recent years the situation has changed drastically. Many gay libs, organizations trying to make other members of the society accept gays, have been formed. As a result many homosexuals got married, clubs for gays were opened. Step by step homosexuals have gained more and more rights, and the society have learned to treat them more fairly. However, there are some areas of life from which gay couples should be banned. The right to adopt and bring up children is definitely one of these. /^t/Firstly, children should grow up in families consisting of both parents. Love, respect and sense of security are values which should accompany a child throughout his childhood. Homosexual finding difficulty in finding a partner or being afraid of loneliness often decide to live with a casual acquaintance. This, of course, brings a danger of contructing some diseases from which AIDS is the most perilous. Besides, such casual relationships are hardly ever long-lasting. On the contrary, they are likely to break up within merely a year. They also lack love, respect and responsibility which are prerequisite for creating a warm and comfortable family hearth. This means that homosexual couples are not able to provide children with security and love. /^t/Secondly, our society is composed of both men and women. The main aim of each family, a basic unit of the society, is to teach a child how to function properly within a given society. From the outset a child observing both his mother and father draws conclusions about the mutual relationships between both sexes. He also learns how to behave in relation to the opposite sex. Furthermore, children analyzing parents' behaviour identify with their own sex. Homosexual are by no means able to teach their children such man-woman relationships. They can, unintentionally cause many deviations in children's psyche, deprive them of their sexual identity and the sense of belonging to a particular group. Therefore, such children are very likely to become homosexuals who alike their parents will their life in pursuit of a proper homosexual partner. /^t/Human beings are social animals, gregarious by nature. We want to cooperate with other members of our society. Only being among other people can fulfill our basic need - the need of being accepted. Gay couples craving for an off-spring should first think whether their child will be accepted by his peers. It is common knowledge that all children are rather cruel, they are free from many inhibitions and they simply behave naturally. Therefore children having among them a peer who is brought up by a homosexual couple can bait, tease him and laugh at him. Their small victim may feel guilty and ashamed of having abnormal family. He will avoid any occasion to invite anybody to his house. He will avoid his predetators by playing truancy from school. Such situation of prolonged stress can evoke many negative feelings and emotions. In very extreme situations he can even turn to crime thus taking his revenge on the brutal society which have mistreated him so badly. Therefore all homosexual couples should think in advance whether they have right to deprive children of sense of belonging. For sure, they do not. They cannot deprive children of their excitement and joy of life. They have no right to make a child an outcast of the society. /^t/To sum up, gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children as homosexual relationships often lack basic values needed to setting up a family. Besides, they are not able to prepare children for proper functioning in the society. On the contrary, there is every likelihood of bringing up an outcast who will struggle to survive in an intolerant society. <0144> /^t/Lying is as old as history. People lied, lie and will lie, never mind the century they live in nor the devastation it may cause to their sibling, older parents or younger children. One may say that it is a never-ending process. In spite of the fact that people are always told not to lie because telling fibs is immoral they usually do so. In the present world, since we know that the times we live in are hard, it is common practice to lie to the grown-ups, the boss, the person interviewing you for a job, the welfare agency, the insurance or to the firm which wants a reference for someone you know. Lies can be divided into those that harm others and these should be condemned as quickly as possible and those so-called 'white lies' which are harmless and unable or unlikely to hurt anyone or cause damage. /^t/The reasons for which people lie are many and various. The first thing to consider, is a very common situation; overused by children; that happens almost every day, lying to the grown-ups. Children learn to lie very soon after they can speak, at the age of 18 months to two years but it is regarded as a normal part of their development. They deceive their parents or sibling if they want to get more or less food. Children also try to trick their parents into giving them what they want, especially in a family not committed to meet its needs, where what matters most to children is just possessing a toy, for example, not to mention the financial situation at home which is nothing to be proud of. Children do not notice it at all or just are too young to be aware of it. /^t/Quite frequently, we find ourselves in a situation where people lie just to make an impression of being wealthy. Some people are ashamed of their financial situation and due to the fact that they cannot afford to buy what they want to, they simply say they do not need this particular thing and try to place themselves in a higher class of society and make other people think of them as they feel inside. Equally important is the case when it comes to election campaigns, especially a presidential one where there are many candidats and each of whom wants to get to the top. In such cases, politicians dig up information about their colleagues' lives to spoil their chances of being elected. /^t/There are also so-called 'white lies' whose usage is often extensive. White lies cover all the fibs which do not do much harm as far as people not involved in lying are concerned. People use white lies owning to the fact that they want to get something. The best example may be the situation when a person stands a chance of getting a job he or she dreams of. Since we all realise that times we live in are hard, getting a well-payed job demands lying on the part of the person who needs it. All the lies which are told at schools are also counted in here, where for fear of getting a bad mark students or rather pupils make up stories in order to excuse themselves for not having done their homework. /^t/Lying is immoral and should be condemned but if it comes to covering your tracks, you make a dent in a community of which you are a part. If you lie to protect people, it is justified. Such a right mainly belongs to doctors, priests and social workers, especially if other people's lives are taken into consideration. Otherwise, every even attempt to lying should be condemned. The moderate usage of lying may be a blessing - to some extent but overusing it is certainly a curse. There are situations in which it is really better to lie than to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. On the other hand, liars ought to be aware of the fact that sooner or later all the fibs will see the light of day and it may be too late to make up for them. <0145> /^t/"If you repeat the lie a hundred times it'll become the truth". Isn't a lie a conventional phenomenon with it's limits established within a particular culture? Let's take complementing, a phrase: "..You look gorgeous" can serve as a gambit to a conversation, an expression of somebody's real judgement or simply a lie to mollify someone. Because lying is omnipresent and commonly used, one may go as far as to say that it is not always immoral and should not always be condemned. There is large enough kernel of truth to assume that stretching the truth lies may come handy are not always pernicious. There are certain instances where false statements can be excused. These are: lies to achieve certain goals, to make a better impression, and finally to protect others. /^t/In the first case one may go as far as to say it's a necessity. Judging by the high standards of the XX-th century a job applicant is supposed to be young, self-confident, well-educated and have the command of several languages. Apart from that he/she should have the experience in the required field. To meet all these expectations one stretches the truth. Because you fight tooth and nail to get the post your bluff is explicable. Lying to an insurance company, is a common practice. The company predicts the falsehood therefore embraces itself against it by exagerrating the requirements. We have to exagerrate the losses to get the money. Lying is justified as a counterattack to avoid being a looser. /^t/Another situation where telling fibs is intelligible is ingratiating oneself, for example with one's girlfriend's mother. Because women usually map out the personality profiles for their daughter's husbands, pragmatic man will use all the tactics available to impress his future mother-in-law. People lie to make friends. They often take off someone they are not. Isn't it the fact that we all want our friends to be the paradigms of success? Because the first impression has an impact o the future relationship we tend to create a better pictures of ourselves. /^t/Finally, there are lies that are considered not only moral but ever beneficial. Telling a patient, whose hopes of recuperating are receeding, that he/she has all the chances in the world to stave off the virus can work miracles. By doing so we can strengthen the immune system of a gravely ill person. Sometimes it's better to avoid saying things which might evoke unnecessary pain. Breaking the news about somebody's tragic accident doesn't have to entail all the horific details. It concerns especially people whose nerves are already freyed. Instead of saying that "his head rolled on the other side of the pavement" we can say "his body was intact". Parents who filed for the divorce do not have to reveal all the intricate reasons for doing so to their child. For example, instead of saying "I couldn't tolerate your father's back door girl any more" a parent can say "Mom and Dad decided to stay apart for some time". Delaying telling the truth until the child grows up is a safe alternative in this context. Saying untruth in such cases serves to protect the feeling of other people. /^t/Lying, or to use less emphatic statement, stretching the truth is an inherent feature of human beings. It's the necessity imposed on us and something we impose on others. We dupe in order to obtain certain goals, to create a better picture of ourselves and to protect others from getting hurt. In all of these cases it's explicable and acceptable, unless a person is a habitual lier who uses it as a means of deceiving others with no concern about consequences. <0146> /^t/Drugs, probably in contrary to popular belief of many people, are not "the evil invention", or, so to say, "side-effect" of our civilization. They have been present in some cultures for centuries. And it can be said that it is from different cultures that various purposes or reasons for using drugs originate. In general, drugs can be used as a means of relax, source of mistical or "scientific" experience, and, finally, as a remedy for different kind of problems. /^t/It is basically the Eastern culture, which have been using drugs as a means of relax. For centuries people have been smoking opium there as a method of calming down. American Indians, on the other hand, are originators of the use of drugs as a source of mistical experience. Chewing peyotl or eating mescaline they have been communicating with ghosts for centuries. /^t/The Europeans were probably the last to discover drugs. Firstly, it was used by artists as a source of their inspiration, but not only. Some, among them an English writer Aldous Huxley, treated drugs as a means of expanding our perception. In his quasi-scientific book "The Door of Perception" Huxley described his experiencing of other states of consciousness after taking drugs which allowed him to see the complete new sides of things. /^t/This mistical and, in a sense, enriching perception reasons reasons for taking drugs were, to some extent, basis for the whole generation associated with drugs, that is, Hippies of the late 60's & 70's. They took drugs as a means of showing their opposition to the accepted standards of ordinary society. At the same time they made drugs really popular. This, in turn, gave rise to using drugs by young people as remedy for all their problems. Thus; problems at school, problems at home, lack of friends and lack of some personal acceptance seem all to vanish after taking drugs. Drugs are also seen as a method for gaining friends. People who start using drugs can identify with some group of people. That is the reason sufficient for many. Sometimes, the young take drugs as they are bored with surrounding reality. They do not have any interests, any ways of spending their free time, so they turn to it. /^t/There are also people who are just interested in any kind of new experience. Those try drugs simply because of their curiosity. Among them can also be people with weak personalities for whom the only reason for taking drugs is the fact that their friends do. This process is especially apparent in certain youth sub-cultures which via for example music (grunge, or the music of 70's) are associated with taking drugs. /^t/To sum up, drugs have been present in certain cultures for centuries, both as a means of relaxation and a source of mistical experience. Thus, they have been used deliberately and with restraint. The West culture was the last to get the access to drugs. Maybe that is why it has not only broadened the uses of drugs, in fact, trivializing the role of them, but also, it still has not learnt to use it properly, without side-effect like addiction and abuse. And probably, without the wisdom of generation to come, it will never happen. <0147> /^t/When a country is going through the process of both economic and social transformation, as Poland is nowadays, one usually encounters difficulties of everyday life. These difficulties may sometimes lead to the appearance of tension and unrest in society and this, in the end, may be the cause of violence in many realms of both political and social life. In Poland one can now observe 'a rising tide of violence'. The causes of the increase of violence must be given a serious consideration for violence is one of the problems confronting the life of every society. /^t/Polish society has faced many serious social problems during recent years. The most important of them is unemployment which personally concerns over two million people being in their prime. The fact that lots of young people graduate from their schools and have absolutely nothing to do, nothing to spend their time on, is even more frustrating. They have no perspectives and try to find an outlet for their energy. This energy of youth coupled with depression and passiveness may lead to violence. As a result, the crime rate among young people increases, they become more and more brutal and, what is even more dangerous, they also become younger and younger. That change towards brutality may be due to the weakening of family ties as well as the lack of proper behavioural patterns to follow. School and parents do not fulfill their task of forming the youngsters' morale and character. /^t/The commonly known fact is that nowadays parents' authority is replaced by that of television which also sets its own patterns of behaviour. Very often these patterns are wrong and in that sense television is doing irreparable harm to the society. It exerts a strong influence on minds and imagination of people, especially young. More violence on TV may mean more violence in society, for TV images are transferred into life. Violence came to be glorified as the only means of doing away with enemies, of annihilating views and arguments different from that of the TV heroes. Moreover, violence is reflected on only in films but also in real life - each day brings about new wars and new conflicts as well as increasing brutality and cruelty of the world and its political leaders. /^t/Politics is one of the 'symptoms' of life of the society. Violence in politics may not touch common people but nevertheless it creates a world-wide image of every country. Brutalization and contempt for good (political) manners do not serve good to the country itself. This lack of political etiquette may be cause, as it is in Poland's case, by years of the Communist regime whose leaders claimed that 'all people are equal'. They also put a strong stress on disregard for proper behaviour which was then associated with the upper class (this class was severely prosecuted as there should not be any classes in the socialist society). Political leaders nowadays, regardless of their political views, fight for power and resort to all the possible means to gain it. They do not hesitate before destroying political adversaries. Political party which is in power shows lack of respect for opponents' views. This kind of behaviour is surely unacceptable in a civilized society but it is inextricably linked with the 'young' democratic system. After a few years of democracy all these negative phenomena deepened and they result in the increase of violence in politics. /^t/Violence as an extreme force existing in human behaviour and deeds causes inseparable damage to people. If this violence constantly increases then one might whether anything (or anybody) will put a stop to it. Only people are able to prevent themselves from the destructive influence of violence. Only by united action, by contempt for violent words and political gestures, for acts of violence and scenes on TV can we attempt to eliminate violence from our life or at least do not let it increase. <0148> /^t/If a number of passersby in the street were to answer the question whether lying is immoral or not, the overwhelming majority of them would probably answer in the affirmative. It appears, however, that in everyday life lying is so prevalent that in order to come to terms with it people are quick to justify certain kinds of lies. It is often heard then that, naturally, lying is wrong in principle but life creates such unconceivable situations that the whole moral code has to be reversed to judge them. Lies told to contribute to a good atmosphere at work, to spare suffering or just to survive in the world are thought to be understandable. On the other hand, home truths told in a delicate way could perhaps do much more good than harm and would definitely spare moral dilemmas. /^t/White lies are least likely to be condemned as most people hardly consider them as lies at all. It happen everyday that best friends, lovers, or family members, tell each other favorable, though not always sincere opinions concerning, for example, appearance. Some fibs are also thought to be demanded by the rules of simple politeness. It is believed that there is no other way handling an embarrassing situation but telling a fib. It is easier and much more elegant to say that one does not have time to go to a party than to say that one does not feel like it. However, telling the simple truth that someone's hair needs being done again before going out or that our present mood is not really suitable for the party can be also a good way out of a situation. What if the people involved do need to know our opinion of their appearance or the real reason of our not going to their party? /^t/Lies told in some extreme situations are treated almost equally indulgently. Cheating people who are fatally ill about the state of their health is considered to be perfectly forgivable. It is even said to be a very noble and merciful deed. It is forgotten, at the same time, that the sick people have the right to know about the approaching death and to choose how they want to spend the remaining time of their life. The reversal of the moral code can be accepted with the subject of adoption. The substantial body of opinion is that it is for the foster parents to decide whether the children should be aware that they have been adopted or not. It often happens, however, that the children, having discovered the fact, are deeply hurt that they were refused the right to know. They can bear a grudge against their parents for years and some of them have serious emotional problems later on. /^t/Another argument which is often put forward to excuse lying is the nature of reality of our times. In the rat race of the last decades of the twentieth century lying seems to be indispensable to survive. Applicants for jobs have to exaggerate their qualifications, otherwise they will be turned down. Workers cheat to cover the tracks of their mistakes in order not to diminish their chances of promotion. Producers deceive about their products to attract customers. And those who lose in the merciless world fabricate stories to convince others that they win. Perhaps lying is a method of life in the world, but the world is built by people. The reality may be so merciless simply because it is based on lie to a great degree. /^t/Lying, telling half-truths, hiding truth or simply making the boring facts more colourful seems to be inseparable from the daily existence. The majority of people agree that lying is immoral, though. It is pleasant to hear only nice opinions about oneself. Sometimes, however, it is better to hear a sincere judgement. Only then is it possible to improve. Deciding about the lives of other people only seems to be normally right. Merciful lies, be it about someone's appearance or health, can only create a sense of confusion in people around. Life in world where it is impossible to know whether a person tells the truth or a lie creates a constant sense of distrust. Lies told by newspapers, producers, acquaintances, friends and family deprive people of a necessary frame of reference. Life without it is possible but is it necessary to live so? <0149> /^t/'A rising tide of violence' is a phenomena of the last six years. Since the fall of the communism in 1989 the society has gone through major political and social shifts, which in consequence caused the rising tide of violence. Among the political changes that have contributed to the rise there are: the fall of the state run by secret agents as well as the opening of borders. The social factors that have caused the rising tide is the fact that the government as well as the citizens have become poorer. /^t/The end of the communist state in Poland was a starting point for the collapse of the secret services that had control over all aspects of life of the citizens. Till 1989 Poles had lived under a constant fear, there were accidents of robberies and other crimes, but never on such a large scale as it is now. At the time when the communists were in power it was impossible for any organized group to function without the acceptance from the government or the police. However after 1989 it all changed so quickly that the state was not able to control the process. The secret police lost its privileged status, thus no one exercised control over the criminal underground. The criminals started to organize themselves in larger groups and the mob became a great power. /^t/Another consequence of the political shift was opening of borders. The mafia in the process of organization faced the possibility of getting military equipment from foreign countries. Until 1989 it was almost impossible to get a gun, but when the borders were opened, the equipment became easily accessible. It is not only the equipment but also the international mob that has come. Poland, due to its geographical location, is a typical transit country, and both criminals from East and West met here. Recently there are more and more instances of activities of the international mob, that contribute to the general rate of violence. /^t/The rate is also being supported by social factors. The most important one is the financial crisis both in the state budget and in the society. It is the budget crisis that forces the government to cut its expenses. The governmental domain such as the police is one of those being cut. Thus the police is not able to employ as many officers as it should, the supplies it gets are not enough to buy rudimentary equipment. The police is not able to fight with criminals, who possess the newest technical devices. Also the post of the police officer is not attractive. It is not well-paid and what is more it becomes more and more dangerous. Such a debile police makes that the criminals are not affraid of being caught and continue its action on larger scale. /^t/The financial crises can be also tracked down on the level of ordinary citizens. It has become visible that more and more people live in poverty. The direct consequence of poverty is the fact that they seek illegal possibilities of getting money to survive and support their families. Stealing, robbery and kidnapping have become a constant part of the news. Showing the scale of violence rising. /^t/Violence as well as its rising tide is contributed of different factors, but in my opinion the political ones, as the fall of secret service and opening of borders, and the social ones, as the poverty, are the crucial factors in the increase of violence. <0150> /^t/Smacking is inevitably associated with the upbringing process. There are many various opinions on what methods should parents should to have 'a better child'. Moreover, discussions have been hold whether smacking a child is right or wrong and what the alternatives to smacking are. On the other hand, there are a great number of opponents who find it highly unacceptable. On the other one, the opinion that a single smack will not do any harm is widely accepted even among doctors such as psychologists, neurologists, and pediatricians. Anyway, whatever the advantages of smacking are and however beneficial in some situations it is thought to be there are also many other possibilities of dealing with children. Rather than corporal punishment, talks, physical contact, and a good example may be a way of raising children. /^t/Talking frequently constitutes an alternative to smacking. A mere remark is sometimes enough "to convert" a naughty child. Generally, children's forms of behaviour are fairly easy to master on the condition that one knows a few details about their natures. It is quite obvious that if the only child finds himself/herself in a group of several peers it will try to gain the others' attention as it is used to have it all the time while at home; such a child simply does not want to be lost in a crowd. It comes as no surprise that all children want to achieve through bad behaviour is to show off and attract the attention of grown-ups. So is there any point in punishing such forms of misbehaviour corporally? A frank talk would certainly do in this case. One more aspect of a positive role talking plays in bringing children up is the fact that while discussions they feel as mature human beings to whom things can be explained. Then the children realize somebody trusts them and will work hard not to let him/her down. Unfortunately, not always is talking the best method. Actually, there are two such instances. First of all, it would not work long after the misbehaviour had happened because punishment must immediately follow the wrong deed. Besides, talking as a means of dealing with misbehaving children is fine on the condition that they are clever enough to understand what they are being told. /^t/The case is different with little children, let's say till the age of four. Here explanations and talks would, probably, fail. But certainly it does not mean that corporal punishment should be imposed on them. Moreover, it would not do any good and would be interpreted as a form of abuse. Fortunately, there is a way out! It is known that little children perceive the surrounding world through touching or being touched. Therefore, physical contact among children and parents or people responsible for rearing them is of great importance. When stroked, caressed, and hugged they always feel safe and happy. Then they are assured everything is all right. But when the physical contact gets harsher they get impatient or nervous. That is why smacking infants could even lead to more serious complications such as mental illnesses or psychological disorders in the future. Instead of spanking, gestures as well as mimes could help if used widely. Little children's sense of perception is extremely alert so they immediately notice whether somebody is content or not with its actions. /^t/'Actions speak for themselves' - so a good example is particularly crucial. That is why it is the parents who constitute the most important factor as far as rearing children is taken into account. If the parents themselves are mature, clever, and want to fullfil their parental roles as well as possible the success is guaranteed. Such parents are, no doubt, capable of providing their children with a firm guidance. The children are not smacked but still able to recognize the boundaries and limits that cannot be overcome. Such young people provided with help develop proper reaction techniques; they are much more eager to cooperate and their emotions are easier to be controlled. Being a parent demands a lot of involvment, sacrifice, patience, and most of all, hard work. But it is also a rewarding job. The happiness is great when a child appreciates the efforts taken to bring it up. Parents must be responsible and motivated as they influence a child's nature during their formative years and teach them how to behave, what set of values to obey, which rules to follow. The right must be given to them to take a decision. And when it is necessary smacking should be accepted too. /^t/While discussing the pros and cons of smacking we must be aware of various types of characters that exist. Nearly everyone is different and therefore everyone requires 'another way of the upbringing process'. If we decide that each child must be examined separately there is no other way of doing it as to give the right to decide to parents. They will chose whether to talk, to show, or to smack. But it must be remembered that not always is it necessary to use corporal punishment in order to raise a good child. Controlling the offspring and providing them with good regulations can be done in other ways than smacking. <0151> /^t/A foreign correspondent is a person who is employed by a newspaper or television in order to report news from a particular area or on a particular subject. Very considerable number of people would like to take up this kind of occupation and live this kind of adventurous and intensive life. In spite of the fact that, the life and the job of a foreign correspondent is difficult, inconvenient, and full of reverses of fortune, however, it seems to be fascinating, exciting, and not monotonous. The main advantages of taking up this kind of occupation are: the possibility of travelling all around the world and meeting interesting people, varied sort of duties, dynamic and exciting style of life. There are also numerous disadvantages: casual difficulties of a journalistic life, uncomfortable conditions, dangers such as diseases or injuries, and the lack of family life. /^t/A person who holds the job of a foreign reporter has to become accustomed to travel a lot. Going from one country to another, sailing from one continent to another, and flying from one hemisphere to another are casual events in their work. It gives them the opportunity of visiting and sightseeing extraordinary places and recesses, furthermore, studying native cultures and customs. By travelling a lot, the journalists have also the chance of making new acquaintances. They usually take part in a great deal of meetings, discussions, and conferences. They have the opportunity of meeting public persons: politicians, musicians, and film stars and having a chequered social life. /^t/Foreign correspondents have also some "pleasant duties" to fulfil. They are to attend press conferences, make interviews with interesting people, look through and revise newspapers, radio, and television programmes in the country they work in. Moreover, they are responsible for preparing and sending correspondence to their own country. /^t/The life of foreign reporters may be intensive and adventurous. Apart from changing places and friends, they may take part in most epoch-making events. They earn enormous sums of money for their interesting and not boring work, as well. /^t/One of the disadvantages of being a foreign correspondent is facing ordinary difficulties in a journalistic life. They usually struggle with bureaucracy and inaccessibility of important news and sources. /^t/Foreign reporters expose themselves to uncomfortable and not hygienic conditions of life, especially in the tropics or in the underdeveloped countries. They may also cope with poor, non-satisfactory conditions in work, for instance: they may find difficulties in establishing contact and communication. /^t/Furthermore, they may confront serious dangers. Journalists usually endanger their health by, for example, facing deadly diseases in tropical countries. In states of wartime, they expose themselves to injuries or even to unexpected death in the line of fire. /^t/What is also important, foreign correspondents most often suffer from disordered family life or even from lack of any relationship. In their case, it is impossible to lead an ordinary, close relationship or have a usual, organised home with children. If there is no possibility of taking their family with them, foreign reporters may be often determined to choose between their family and their job. /^t/Taking into account all advantages and disadvantages of the life and job of a foreign correspondent, it is hard to say why some people decide to do this kind of job. However, it is the most popular and desirable job in the world. Each year a lot of young people seem to dream about and to be interested only in becoming the most well-known and the best qualified foreign correspondents no matter how difficult or pleasant the job will be. <0152> /^t/The sexual revolution in the United States in the mid-sixties started a process of undermining all traditional values. This phenomenon, concurrently with an extensive influence of American culture, caused indirectly a debate upon the rights of all sexual minorities. Ultimately, this discussion led to a question of children adoption by homosexual couples. As far as this issue is concerned one should take into account three basic facets of this problem. Firstly, homosexuals cannot have children because it is against the laws of nature. Secondly, if one considers homosexuals as normal people, then one should also take into consideration social consequences of an adoption and its impact on children's psyche. Thirdly, giving much rights to homosexuals means giving the same rights to other sexual minorities, among which sexual deviants are often included. Consequently, the overall answer must sound "no" - which will be proven on the following pages. /^t/As has been mentioned before one of the causes of the proliferation of the issue of homosexuals and their rights is American culture. An impression that this culture leaves on the other ones is enormous, to such an extent that almost everything that has been said overseas becomes often sacred and unquestionable here in Europe. Those who do not agree with the revolutionary views that concern homosexuals are regarded as enemies of so called "social progress". However, for an ordinary human being a homosexual relationship is already too much to stand, not to mention the adoption of children by gay couples. Those ordinary people are aware of the fact that having children exclusively by two men or two women is a little bit akward - to say euphemistically. It is undeniable that nature did not provide such couples with the possibility of having offspring. This may be sad truth, certainly unbearable for homosexuals; however, it is not possible to escape from it. Moreover, for those who are strong believers, adherents of Christianity or any other religion, the fact that God - in his divine plan of creation - did not include gays as people who could have children must be also a crucial argument against providing homosexuals with the right for adoption. /^t/Even if gay couples are given the right to bring up their own children, then immediately one important question emerges. On the one hand, this is the problem of a child's reaction to his/her parents who constitute a relationship of two fathers. On the other hand, this is the uninteligibility of this state of affairs by a child, who can compare the situation of his own with the situation of his /her peers who live in normal families. Children of gay couples, by the simple fact that they have two fathers, may be very often intimidated or rediculed. This is certainly a traumatic experience since children are not mature enough to cope with it, then first psychological problems may get into surface. Thus, is it legitimate to sentence a child to such humiliation and despair? Who should have the right to decide for this child what future he/she is going to have? The answer seems obvious. There are no such people, even if they are paragons of virtue, who could bear on their shoulders responsibility for the fate of those adopted children. /^t/Finally, there is the most crucial argument as not to allow homosexuals to adopt children. Giving gay couples the right to have their offspring, it may set a precedent which might be followed by other sexual minorities, for instance necrophiliacs. Should people also in this case take into consideration only unlimited pursuit of freedom or should they deem deviants as incapable of raising children. It seems that the latter option is a proper solution. Proper in the sense that children would benefit from it, and they would not suffer from some abnormal conditions of living. /^t/In other words, even if homosexuals have been given the right to live together and to love each other, since this is their inalienable right, they cannot be allowed - at the same time - to adopt children. Otherwise, this would be a gross ineptitude towards those children who would be brought up in such questionable conditions. However, if there are people who would not forbid gay couples to have children they must be ready as not to shirk their responsibility if anything goes wrong, notwithstanding that it might be too late. <0153> /^t/The idea of truth is not new in our contemporary world. Yet it has not been until recently that this very notion gained so much appreciation and became the crucial point for many people. For most of common citizens lying is immoral and for the sake of the pure morality it should always be condemned. Nevertheless there is yet another side of this story. Virtually all the people are sensitive to the truth which on some occasions may hurt. As far as morality is concerned, the same morality that condemned lying, it would seem unfair to hurt people, even by means of words. Therefore, not only is lying morally justifiable but also in many cases it appears to be the only possible alternative to deal with matters. /^t/Most of the opponents of lying hold a strong belief that people have a right to know the truth even the worst and the most difficult one. They would seem to see no other alternative in this respect but to reject lying completely regardless of consequences. Since, according to them, only the truth can exist in the world they have condemned lying as immoral. All in all, no half-truth or sweet lies can ever be accepted. One may argue that their point of view remarkably resembles that of the puritans or the Roman Church from the era of the Holy Inquisition when the heresy was punished by death. However, in the world of reason and humanism nobody would seem eager to die for ideology. What really counts is a human being and their needs. Now that the truth has been devaluated we cannot look upon it as the only moral attitude. More and more often we resort to lying for the sake of a person we love and for their good. It may be concluded that it is not the ideas that people should take care of but rather other people. /^t/Immanuel Kant, a great Lithuanian philosopher and writer, believed that the moral law existed in the people and not in the outside world. He once said: "The stars in the sky above my head and the moral law is me". People have a right to make moral decisions whether to lie or tell the truth in the light of further consequences. A good example of such a quite often situation when lying is more justifiable than truth may be one concerning a physician and their patient suffering total illness. The relationship between them is one of high intimacy and trust since the patient's life depends entirely on a doctor. Here, any improper work or gesture would cause a patient's breakdown and consequently even his death. Even if a physician is always expected to tell the truth he will never tell a patient about his inevitable quick death. Once he does so the further treatment will soon break down and bring no effects. It is humans who create the moral law and together with their ability to think reasonably not only can they make proper, logical decisions but also justify them morally. /^t/The idea of truth symbolises in our culture the purity and strength. It has been believed that only weak and evil ones are capable of lying and able to lie. Most of the adherents of the truth would now argue that it is fairly easy to tell a lie. A boy who has broken a window while playing football is not likely to admit that it was his fault as he is afraid of a punishment. Unless he is caught red-handed. In situations of stress and inevitable punishment people are likely to resort to lying as a way of escaping the responsibility for their bad deeds. It is a well-known belief proved by psychologists and one would find it difficult to deny it. Nevertheless there are situations in which the act of lying requires bravity and strong-mindedness. In exemplification to this point one may take all those falsely imprisoned who did not reveal the truth but used lying instead when cross-questioned. They lied in good faith since their families, friends, organisations depended on them. Though they believed in truth they used lies to protect what was precious and valuable. /^t/Human beings as the only creatures living on the Earth have an ability to think reasonably. Consequently only humans are capable of lying. As it was argued above lying cannot be damned completely and on some occasions this is the only acceptable possibility. Moreover very often it is not the truth but lying that may be morally justified and right. Nowadays the ideas and ideologies do not count as much as people themselves do. <0154> /^t/"The world is a stage, and on this stage we have to play". This sentence reflects modern society at the turn of the twenty first century: "we have to play" means we are not ourselves any more, we are actors who only perform our lives according to a previously written scenario. The truth has lost its high quotations on the stock exchange of human moral values. Why? Because the man of genius has found another substitute for truth, a much nicer one, which does not require any responsibility and is a perfect cover for the shy, cowards, toadies, for everybody - the omnipresent lie. Lying is immoral and, therefore, should be condemned. However, there are situations in which it is hard not to conceal or distort the truth. /^t/The lie has entered, with its dirty shoes, into every single aspect of our everyday lives, it is present in our houses, schools, and in offices. Moreover, lie has made itself comfortable in our everyday relationships. Yet, even being conscious of that shameful fact, people resort to deception, claiming that lies can serve good purposes as well as bed. That is why we do not tell our parents about failed exams, and we do not tell the best friend that she looks terrible in her new dress, because she is so happy to have it. /^t/Accordingly, nobody would dare to tell the teacher that his lessons are boring and uninteresting. Nor would it be wise or advisable to tell the boss that his abilities are insufficient and his management strategies bring no results and halt the development of the firm, even if it was the purest truth. Therefore, we pretend that everything is 'O.K.' and lie, lie, lie ... But lying that way we do more harm than good, both to those whom we love, like or admire and to ourselves. /^t/Sad as it is, the lie has become an inseparable part of our lives and, somehow, has rooted itself in our consciousness. Everybody lies, including parents, friends, priests, politicians, doctors. The society we live in is a band of pathological liers. People lie for fear, because others do, because it is much easier and because lies 'sound better'. Those who are 'economical with truth' will produce barefaced and outright lies either for their personal advantage or for the vanity of others. /^t/Lying can be the only way to achieving one's aims. There will always be plenty of 'nice' toadies who would take any chance to ingratiate with their principals, the only way of getting promotion. And because people are vain and like to listen to such sweet remarks of how charming and intelligent they are, they surround themselves with those 'yes-men', whereas dedicated, silent workers who sacrify part of their personal lives and most of their spare time for the good of the firm, usually remain unnoticed and spent their whole lives sitting behind one and the same desk and doing the same 'stupid' job. It is not fair, but those who claim that 'the end justifies the means' would tell that unfortunatelly, the world we live in is a world of cruel competition and there is no place for weaklings. The bitter truth is that as long as we approve of lying, they are right. /^t/People like to draw loud protest againt various violations of their rights, the right to privacy, the right to a due process of law, etc. Knowing the truth and not being deceived is also one of their rights, but they have never set up potests against those who lie to them, they have never condemned them, they have never waged war against the lie. Why? Because they are afraid of admitting that they are liers themselves, and because that would mean they would have to condemn themselves. "The truth will set you free" as the Gospel says. Maybe it's worth trying. That would be of immense benefit to the humanity and its future generations. <0155> /^t/In a contemporary, commercialized world, it may seem that people would rather search for material goods and all the comforts of modern civilization, just to place themselves on a pedestal so high, they would have to gasp hard for breath. Recent trends in the United States, however, let us think that people do not utilize all their energy looking for material consolation, but try to find a particular system of beliefs that would help them achieve inner peace. /^t/Nowadays, most of the Wall Street bank managers, as well as blue collar workers spend their lunch breaks on Biblical considerations or in shrinks of different denomination. Music shops thrive on bestselling Gregorian chants, and Hollywood writers tinge plots of their scripts with spiritual fragments. Although it may seem that people would think in terms of profit, rather than religion, it is observable that plunging into search for a spiritual path to follow constitutes an important aim for most of the people. /^t/We can not draft a concrete profile of the seekers. However, it may be safely stated that so called "spiritual mania" ranges from the lowest social classes to the upper ones. People of all classes and professions look for some inner peace and compensation for all the everyday life problems. Religion is a belief in the life of the spirit, it is a particular system of beliefs, and the worship and behavior connected with it. Religion can fill one's life, and it can constitute something to lean on. Some people search for new inspirations in old religious rituals and others look for new paths. /^t/The, so called, New Age wave and its spread all over the United States gives another evidence in support of the claim that people actually need spiritual beliefs. A ever-morphing altar with a cristal ball, and a figure of Buddha can be found in many American homes, and belief that one must become free of human desires in order to escape from suffering is quite common. People plunge into "ninira" - a state of carelessness. They reach that through a few hours of meditation, which has become extremely popular as a means of setting one's soul free from the burden of human desires. Causes of meditation and meetings with representatives of different denominations have recently become overwhelmingly popular. People attend such courses and meetings in a desperate search for solution to their internal problems. Psychoanalysts clap their hands, as crowds of people are willing to fill their pockets just to get a recipe for how to be happy. While the psychoanalyst profession is in bloom, whole societies are lost in a marathon for happiness. That is why people live with the image of some spirit looming over their minds, and it helps them survive in a contemporary world, which resembles a jungle, rather than a peaceful place to live. /^t/Old religious rituals are being transformed into new ones, and numbers of alternative denominations are being created. Seekers devote their lives to finding their own spiritual tracts. They switch from one religion to another, and finally they combine their own systems of beliefs. It is not really important what people believe in, but how it helps them keep their psyche in shape. For some, religion is only an addiction to lives their lead. For others, it fills all their existence with endless joy and peace. /^t/In a commercialized world, when people are overwhelmed with a lust for success, finding one's own spiritual beliefs is crucial. Religion, as a system of truths, constitutes a getaway from all the everyday life problems. People try to plow their worries under and look ahead; religion is something that helps them achieve peace and escape from suffering. <0156> Smacking is a very dangerous way of solving our problems with raising children. We never know how far we would go when we were under a great stress. There is a real possibility that we would lose controll over ourselves and smacking would become beating. But there is always a way out. We are civilized people and we do not have to resort to violence, we can punish disobediance in many different ways. One of the best alternatives to smacking is preventing child's behaviour. We are adults, we are the smart and experienced ones, so it should be not very difficult for us to foresee what a child would do. Very young children are not very inventive: they want to touch every thing that is hanging, that is moving or making noises. Predicting what a child would like to familiarize with we can even pretend a 'controlled experience': eg. let the child touch a hot pot or a kettle. When a child finds out itself that it is hot he or she will never touch it again. In this way we can teach children many useful things. The problem becomes more complicated when we think about older children, especially teenagers who are in the so called "difficult age". Here the problems are best visible at school. In this situation the responsibility for raising children lays on teachers. First they should try to create a friendly atmosphere and try to make classes interesting, in order so that pupils would not only have to but also want to come to the lectures. If this does not work they still can use grades to make them study, and this is quite effective a method. Smacking at school would do nothing good, contrary it would only create the need for rebellion, and the effect will appear to be opposite to what we wanted to achieve. Another solution to the problem of smacking is talking. We can use it as a means of preventing or, if it is too late for this, as a means of explaining, an helping our children to find out about the causes and effects of their behaviour. This will certainly help the both sides of the conflict: as well parents (or teachers) as the young may work out their individual patterns of behaviour, which will help them to live side by side, more or less peacefully. However this is not as easy thing to do as it may sound. Very often the sides of a conflict are unable to talk to each other, not to mention reasoning. In such a situation either one of the sides or both of them can go for help to speciall institutions which deal with similar cases. Such institutions are, eg: school psychologists, "psychologists on the phone", or very popular in the West and still gaining popularity in Poland private psychoanalysts. But, once we do not like the idea of talking to a stranger about our problems we still can go to a friend who is beyond this, and can judge us without being biased, and who may suggest some solutions. If neither of the above solutions against smacking works, we still have yet another one - punishing (excluding corporal punishment). There are many ways of punishing: from forbiding our children to do what they would like to do, to making them do something they do not like. Depending on how big was the 'crime', we can forbid them to eat sweets for some time, to watch tv, or to go out. We can educate our children through work by making them do some extra work at home like: washing up, dusting, hoovering, etc, or outside like: gardening or washing a car. This is a really effective way of teaching our children how to behave and we do not have to smack them. It is a well known fact that nobody won anything for a long time resorting to violence. Violence causes violence. Children who are exposed to it may quiet down for some time, but the emotion, the hatery which accumulates in them will blow out some day with a much greater force. The real problems will then begin. <0157> /^t/The problem of violence is nothing new in Poland, it has always existed, not only in this country but also in any part of the world since violence is a part of human nature. It may be suppressed, forbidden by law, and severely punished but it is impossible to eliminate it completely. However, watching television or reading daily papers one may easily notice that this problem gradually became main issue in Poland. Polititians, sociologists, psychologists, and police experts are working on this problem but they are also trying to find out what are the causes. The tendency among the majority of Polish society is to attribute the increase in violence to economic and social changes in Poland after 1989, mainly the influence of western culture, deterioration of financial situation of some Poles, and gaps in Polish law. /^t/For almost four decades Poles were deprived of the contact with western culture and only the things that were considered as appropriate we allowed to be seen from behind the curtain. But seven years ago the brand new world opened in front of Poles and everything that was new and so far unknown made a big impression on majority of the society. The young and the midde-age Poles were bewildered and they started to treat the western life style presented in movies as superior and deserving to be imitated. The films and pieces of news that came from the West and reached us on TV or in movie theaters started to be treated as recipes for life. First, young people, teenagers or a little older ones, took after their western equals the philosophy of spending free time and earning their pocket money. Mugging people in the streets and or younger colleques at school became very popular, to the degree that they reached the front pages of newspapers. Moreover, many Poles realized that in order to earn big money and afford a fancy house or holidays abroad one must do some illegal business as ones own or join a gang. Illegal business obviously means violence because to avoid a case in court one is forced to threaten others in order to keep them silent. Such a stereotype of successful businessman skimming their profits from some illegal business was often presented on the screen. The older comunist models favoured naive honesty and co-operation for the sake of common welfare but they had to give way to more egoistic and brutal ones which promised quick change for better as far as money is concerned. /^t/The political changes in Poland brought also a new economic system - capitalism. The new situation was highly competitive and only these companies that were able to sell their products or services survived on the market. As a result of closing of many enterprises about 20% of Poles lost jobs and this fact had a great influence on their finances. Some of the dismissed people did not manage to find a new job or they even did not try because they had not been taugh how to do it. Instead they resorted into easiest ways of earning their living. Again mugging, stealing, and smuggling became for many the only possible method to survive in the capitalist society. One may often read about brutal break-ins and murders commited when an unemployed tried to burgle a house. Moreover, people caught in poverty trap end to indulge themselves into alcohol and the abuse of alcohol is one of the major causes of domestic violence. Men who are disappointed with life and feel stressed by the economic hardships and their unability to earn their living often abuse their wifes and children and treat them as somebody on whom they can pour down their agression and dissatisfaction. /^t/Although all acts of crime are serious and cannot be neglected especially when their frequency and brutality increases individual acts of crime are only the top of the iceberg. What really became the main issue is organized crime and organized crime as well as individual acts of violence may be attributed to gaps in Polish law. The heads of big organizations of criminals are well known to the police and to avarage Poles who follow by the means of massmedia what is going on in the country. Their businesses thrive and they are at large because they are able to hire solicitors who do not have to make a big effort in order to keep their clients away from the hands of policemen and judges. Even if they are arrested it suddenly occurs that there is no article in Polish law that would allow to sentence them. Poland may be treated as a real Eldorado for chiefs of gangs because there is always a possibility of paying a bail and the bails granted by Polish courts may be easily afforded by prosperous criminals. If the solicitors are not able to protect their clients from prison bars they can be sure that after a short period of time their influencial and well-to-do clients will be put on probation. Criminals like members of the Pruszkow mafia remain at large, terrorize society and make big profits sarcastically smiling at the creators of Polish law system. /^t/So far the rate of violence has been increasing in Poland up to the point that it became the main concern of majority of society. Avarage citizens face violence everyday as direct objects of assaults, as witnesses, or simple reading about another murder in a daily newspaper. The solution to the problem is not only changes in Polish law system, punishment, and elimination of crime organizations but also some prevention programs that would suggest people who have too much time or cannot find profitable jobs how else in an honest way, they can earn their living without breaking the law and threatening others. <0158> /^t/It's hard to believe but as research shows rarely can we meet a person who doesn't lie. Lying has become ubiquitous in our everyday existance and we all seem to be drawn in "the lies' web" despite the age or profession. Both children and grown-ups do not shun lies for different reasons. And since almost every single human being seems to be involved in the world of lying an interesting question arises as to whether lying, as an inherent feature of human nature, is something we should condemn, or as a neccessity imposed by a harsh reality something we could justify. /^t/Children start lying in early childhood just after they can speak. The reson they deceive their mother is to get more food. As children grow up their lies become more and more sophisticated. They manipulate their parents, exaggerate their achievements at school to get praise, money or, for example, their longed for hi-fi. So, for instance, if asked: "How was your test?" They are likely to say with a cheerful smile on their faces that the test had been very difficult - although it had not, how much effort they had hat to put in order to get this excellent grade, though they had spent little time preparing for the exam. Lies help youngsters to create a second image of themselves that is made of "whoppers". But how can one condemn a teenager-lier for being so creative? /^t/Lying is not also alien to adults. It's now common practise to lie to your boss, the insurance agency, or a person interviewing you for a job. You innumerate your positives and virtues and tend to forget that you are a person with many shortcomings You lie in your teeth because the boss wants you to be a flawless character. And if you manage to dupe your boss or, in other words, your "performance" is good enough, you succeed in getting a job. As we can see lying skills can be of great help and since we live in very demanding times, and we are urged to be highly competative, some little, white lies can be considered as justifible ones since they can do you good and do not harm anybody. /^t/Lying is not only used as a means of improving your image but also as a successful strategy of defense. Especially children are apt to lie to avoid spankings and scoldings. They create unbelievable stories, make up astonishing excuses to convince their parents about their innocence. Even if they are caught red-handed they are prone to point at somebody else or make up a story to avoid being punished. Their line of reasoning is: "I'd better lie than own up". /^t/Even psychologists admit that lies can be very helpful for people with inferiority complex. If we wake up to the fact that lying works miracles by no means will we condemn the lying practise. By telling fibs about themselves, about their incredible adventures, experiences, meetings they can gain people's sympathy, love or arouse their compassion. They lie for fear of being devided or laughed at. They lie to cover their bashfulness, real beliefs, things that they don't want to reveal. /^t/So, since we all stretch the truth from time to time, and the fibs we tell are not harmful and destructive but many a time helpful and useful we shouldn't condemn lies and consider them immoral. Since lying is an inherent feature of human nature intensified by a cruel reality. <0159> /^t/To talk about homosexuals has always been a bad thing to do as they were considered a disease of the contemporary society and the evil of our times. Together with drug addicts and HIV positive people, homosexuals have been always treated differently, and put to the, so called, social margin. And although the movement for the rights for homosexuals has existed for a couple of years, gay couples have not yet succeeded in obtaining the same status as the one granted to every single heterosexual person. Very rarely are they allowed to get married, and hardly ever to adopt children. If we agree that in a democratic society nobody should be discriminated against, we should also see it essential to grant the same rights to all the people, including homosexuals. /^t/It seems obvious that in a democratic society, no form of discrimination should be exercised. Still, we argue to discriminate homosexuals via not allowing them to adopt children. But, if we take it for granted, that everyone should have equal rights and opportunities, then it is imposible to point to any legal ground that would deny the right to adoption, to a homosexual couple. Therefore, any gay couple that can prove its suitability to exercise this right properly, as well as the ability to meet all the conditions necessary to a child's proper development, should be given the right to adoption. Until now, nobody has succeeded in showing exactly why such a couple should be any worse than a hetosexual one. /^t/The society's view on homosexuals seems to be a diseastrous one. Gays are perceived as deviants, evil, and not human. To a common mind, a homosexual has the same profile as a HIV positive drug addict, prostitute and a pervert at the same time. With such a picture in mind, it is not very surprising that people are not in favour of entrusting children to gay couples. Unfortunately, not many people realise that this view is wrong from the very beginning. Being based on prejudice, such an image does not reflect reality and the decision not to allow gay couples to adopt children is made on the basis of incorrect data. /^t/Although it is still hard to believe, many homosexuals are perfectly reliable, trustworthy and 'normal' citizens. Many a time, they work, earn their money, and lead a life so decent that it is impossible to detect that they are "different". They behave in the same way, and its only their sexuality that differs, but this is not enough a reason to think someone unsuitable to adopt a child. Very often homosexual couples are able to provide a good living for a child, and what is even more important, after a long struggle to adopt a child, they are likely to appreciate it, and care for it in the best possible way, defending their right to being a parent. /^t/When we look at the data showing the number of children constantly mistreated by their natural parents, abused either phisically or sexually, molested, threatened or beaten, then our belief in the rule that heterosexual parents must be better than homosexual ones begins to crack. In the view of such facts it is very difficult to say what makes the authorities still eliminate the possibility of homosexual couples being as good (sometimes even better) parents as the heterosexual ones. /^t/Another fact that should be taken into consideration while deciding whether gay couples should be given the right to adoption or not, is provided by scientists. According to them, it is more than likely that our sexuality depends very much on the structure of our DNA code. This would mean that our preferences, either homo-or heterosexual, appear and develop independant of our will, or reasoning and wishes. Therefore, the fact that a person is a homosexual can not serve as a reason for discrimination and punishmen, as which the depravation of the right to 'parenthood' through adoption might be perceived. If we were to deny the right to parenthood on such a ground, considering homosexuality as a factor that disables people to take care of children, then we would have to apply this rule to all the mentaly retarded and crippled people as well, which of course would be unhuman. /^t/Therefore, in the view of all the arguments and facts, it seems reasonable to put an end to the reign of prejudice, and lack of knowledge, to open our eyes and minds even to the things seem different, and to realize that the distinction: a homosexual vs. a heterosexual does not equal the distinction: a bad vs a good parent. The facts show that such a rule, although it exists in the minds of many people, does not work, and therefore should be abolished, homosexual couples finally giving the right to adopt children, and stop being discriminated against. <0160> /^t/At the end of the twentieth century one witnesses a great deal of tolerance. There are tendencies not to ostracize people infected with HIV virus, to condemn color line and even to bear with such sexual deviations as bestiality or homosexualism. The latter one is even being legalized in Netherlands. What is more, gays have taken legal proceedings to win the right enabling them to adopt children. Yet, one has to take into consideration the results which such a state of affairs may have. Is it not bizarre when a child is raised by two parents of the same sex? /^t/Firstly, such a situation may cause indelible stains on child's character. The act of nurturing him/her by a homosexual couple may lead to some irreversible changes in his/her psyche. Young offspring tend to adopt values from their parents, many children take after the people who raise them. Consequently, if a youngster raised in a homosexual family adopts the attitude held by his parents, he may grow up to be a gay. What's more, most often the gay couples treat their relationship as a normal and regular one. So, a child raised in such spirit may take his/her parents' attitude for granted and this, in turn, may lead the youngster to mold his sexual preferences. /^t/Secondly, one should give a moment concern to the society's response to the gay couples upbringing children. Such a strange family may be exposed to the social neglect or even the phenomenon called, queer bashing. The youngster raised in a homosexual family can be a subject to ostracizing, despising remarks and even acts of violence. This, in turn, may lead to the child feeling depressed and inferior to his/her peers. Consequently, the youngster may be overwhelmed by a fervent desire to have a "normal family" enabling him to put up with peers. Yet, the worst problems may be brought about by the period of puberty. It is when the children stand up to their parents and reject many values accepted by them. In such a period a teenager may despise his/her homosexual parents for being "misfits". /^t/Furthermore, the situation when gay couples have the right to adopt children is simply a violation of nature. It has been proven that a child needs father and mother to be normal. That is why the homosexuals molding young offspring may be regarded as the breach of the laws of nature. As it has been scientifically proven, the presence of a couple of the same sex may have debauchering effects on the children's morality. /^t/Finally, it is the child who matters. One should not give the homosexuals a toy to play with. It is quite obvious that the proper upbringing of a youngster is far beyond gays' realm of possibility. Furthermore, why one has to be so tolerant and bear the brainchildren of such a small percentage of the society as gays are? What is more, all gays who want to adopt children will have to fight against the Roman Catholic Church which states clearly that such a state of affairs is not possible to be accepted. Consequently, the decision concerning homosexuals adopting children may be deferred. <0161> /^t/Poland has recently been facing a rising tide of violence. This substantial increase of violence has become a major political and social issue in Poland. There have been recently lots of debates and disputes concerning this problem on TV, radio and in Polish parliament. Those disputes and debates were, to a great extent, instigated by shocking murders of two Polish students. They were not the only victims of wanton violence, but their deaths had wide repercussions all over Poland. There have been so called "silent marches" in Warsaw, Gdansk, Kracow, whose aim was not only to commemorate their deaths, but also to demand more security, protection and efficacy from the police and government. However, to stop the violence, the causes of it should be detected. Most people find three causes: poor economic and social situation in Poland, influence of mass media, mostly TV, infused with violence, and influx of Eastern citizens who come to Poland with the intention of getting rich quickly and who often resort to violent means. Those three causes seem to contribute to the rise of violence in a reasonable way. /^t/Poland's economic situation is not good. There is a considerable problem of unemployment. Many people are out of work. However, those who have stable jobs do not feel secure at all. Wages they get do not usually allow them to satisfy all their needs. Most of the money is spent on high taxes and with the rest it is hard for an average Polish family to make both ends meet. Furthermore, the process of privatization that Poland had recently gone through, resulted in mass lay-offs which gave people the feeling of insecurity. All those problems gave rise to social dissatisfaction and anxiety both on a state and a family scale. Young people growing up in such conditions have to share their parents' worries about money. They can not afford a bicycle or a computer which the better-off families can. They feel rancour and anger. Sometimes they decide to resort to illegal means or to violence to get some money. They may be driven by the will to help their parents but also by their own desires to possess valuable things. Yet, it is not only young people who commit crimes. Also, middle-aged people who could work legally choose illegal ways to get rich quicker. Under those circumstances violence serves as means of releasing anger, anxiety and dissatisfaction. /^t/Another cause of violence in society may be the bad influence of mass media on the behaviour of, mostly, young people. Poland is flooded with films abounding with violent scenes and gory deaths. Young people have free access to such films. It was scientifically proven that after watching such a film it's much harder for a human being to fall asleep. Their brain is infused with cruel visions and the level of adrenalin stays higher for a long time. Young people being exposed to such films, try to carry into effect what they saw on TV. This resorting to violence gives them power and dominance over their friends. There is for sure a link between the rate of crimes and the amount of expousure to violent films. However, it is not only films which are source of negative stimuli. There are also many music groups like Motley Crew, Gun's Roses and AC/DC whose music has violent implications. Generally speaking, reducing the access to visible or audible violence decreases the violence in real life. /^t/The last and the most palpable contribution to violence in Poland is the influx of Eastern citizens to Poland. They come here because they want to come to wealth as quickly as it is possible. It is widely known that they are not employed here legally. Some of them trade at different markets. Still, the majority of them handles illegal procedures. They deal with car and drug-smuggling. They are organized into gangs which operate mostly in Warsaw and alongside Russian border. Those Eastern criminals apply very violent means. They attack cars in the highways taking them away from their owners. They demand ransoms from the proprietors of restaurants and hotels. Finally, they are considered by the police to set the bombs which have exploded in Warsaw. On the whole, Eastern citizens are reputed for their tendency for crimes. Their guilt is, however, hard to prove because they have wide connections and are even supctected of collaborating with Polish police by giving them bribes and sharing incomes with them. /^t/Apparently, Poland has become as dangerous as other Western European countries. Poles do not feel safe when leaving their houses both in the evening and over a day. The social outcry is the best proof that something should be done to reduce this 'rising tide of violence'. Poland does not have enough money to equip the Police with supermodern devices which miraculously eliminate the dangers. Rather, the causes should be analysed, and proper steps should be taken. Limiting the amount of Eastern citizens arriving in our country and prohibiting children from the access to violent films could be a way out of this intricate situation. In like manner the US reduced the heart-relating deaths - applying carefull protection rather than fighting the effects. <0162> /^t/At all times and in all places people have used some kind of drugs. Nowadays, nobody doubts the harmful influence they have on human organisms. Yet, the use of illegal drugs seems to be more and more popular, even among children. The main reason why people use these harmful substances seems to be obvious - like cigarettes and alcohol, they cause addiction. Once someone starts using drugs it is very difficult to stop it. Addicts simply cannot do without the thing they are addicted to. But why do people start using drugs? There are at least three main reasons. /^t/Some people start using drugs to entertain themselves or others. Especially those who have too much free time do it just for pleasure. Under the influence of drugs they feel very nice, relaxed and free from stress. They believe they can enjoy themselves better, for example at parties or concerts. Those who use drugs to entertain others are usually singers and poets. Some of them are convinced that drugs help them to think clearly and to compose songs or write poems. Therefore entertainment is one of the reasons of using drugs. /^t/A lot of people start using drugs because they want to forget about their problems. Like alcoholics, they try to escape from reality to find themselves in an utopian state of happiness. Especially people who are psychologically weak and unable to cope with life difficulties are likely to indulge in drugs. Many of them break down after some unhappy events, for example the death of somebody loved. A large number of addicts have started using drugs after being fired from work. Undoubtedly, the hope to forget about the unbearable reality is one of the factors why people seek refuge in drugs. /^t/Another important reason of using drugs is the influence of others. Many people start that bad habit because they want to accompany their friends. For example, if one went to a party where everybody used drugs, he or she would not like to feel inferior so would do so too. Especially those who do not have a strong will are likely to get influenced by their mates. Others are forced to start using drugs and after some time they become addicted. The problem arises even among children at primary schools. During breaks many boys go to toilets where they encourage one another to use drugs. Hence, the inability to resist the influence of others may lead both adults and children to the use of drugs. /^t/The more and more popular use of illegal drugs is a serious problem of the contemporary world. What is most dangerous about it is the fact that drugs cause addiction. That is why it is extremely difficult to give them up. The best solution would be not to start using them at all. However, more and more people begin using drugs for various reasons. Some of them do it just for entertainment, others to escape from their problems. A large number of people start using drugs because of the influence of others. There are probably some more reasons of the use of illegal drugs but these three ones seem to be most frequent. <0163> /^t/Questions of the above sort come up more and more frequently in the debates going on in the Western world. If they do, what is the possible reason of intellectuals' being so fervent in their quest for the answer? Why so spiritual leaders, politicians, scientists, and artists display so great ardor in presenting their views to the public, when matters of spirit are being discussed? Why has the strife come out in the open at all? Answers to these questions seem to support the view that the bare fact of their being analysed in public is the sign of the times, and the times we live in differ immensely from all the previous periods, when the basic human need of spirituality did not raise widespread doubts. /^t/The thesis is: spirituality (which is interpreted here as being synonymous to religiosity) is the requisite constituent element of human nature, in individual and societal dimensions alike. Being such, any public debate concerning the truth of this statement must inevitably pave the way for the situation in which basic beliefs are being undermined. The results of the process are two-fold: firstly, people do not devote their whole energy to resolving issues of the earthly sort (family, career, entertainment, self-improvement, etc.), searching for the "only time" religion on their own, instead of the traditional acceptance of the inherited beliefs; secondly, the danger of a socially dangerous cult taking over seems to be often imminent. /^t/But why do people need spiritual beliefs at all? Would it not be better if all religions were to vanish? Some claim that man would then be a free being, unfettered by the irrational limitations of the ages past. The arguments to the contrary turn out to be irrefutable, though, and the list of items which disprove the alleged inadequacy of spirituality at the turn of the millenium is far from being short. /^t/People do (or, at least, want to) believe because they fear death. Religions give them hope in respect to both eartly existence and life beyond the grave. They enhance human confidence and courage when people, strengthened by faith and convinced of God's assistance, face dangers which would have otherwise led to their annihilation. Religions expound on the meaning of events considered to have originated in the supernatural. Spiritual systems most frequently do not fail to provide ethical precepts which followers of their doctrines are supposed to adhere to - people are no longer in the dark as to what course of action one should take in given circumstances, need for constant ethical reflection and analysis is replaced with a ready-made set of principles. And to make the enumeration complete, the momentous world-explanatory nature of religious systems ought to be emphasized. Religions provide many people with a sense to life, they give it a purpose, they interpret life as meaningful, they often make it seem worth living. /^t/In addition to the above, let us not forget about the form spiritual beliefs might or do assume. Traditional religions are on their way out. Decline of Christianity is easy to discern. But what becomes of interest now, is the appearance of new religions (often ostensibly secular in form) which have nonethess some of the attributes of the traditional systems. The religion of human rights and tolerance, for instance, is gaining more and more ground in the Euro-American culture. Among its tenets are: fighting any forms of intolerance, human inability to differentiate between good and bad (all is relative), inexistence of truth in the world and art (sub-doctrines of postmodernism, deconstruction, etc.), democracy being an indisputable political ideal, and many others. Similar cults may be detected and described in any totalitarian society from which traditional religion has been ousted. /^t/Having all the above in view, one cannot refrain from reflecting on the potential consequences of the present-day debates on this issue. A detailed analysis of the events that have led to the state of things as they are now, is what people in high places should be occupied with, if Western societies' efforts to develop, and to maintain its dominant position in the world, are not to come to nought some time in the future. <0164> /^t/Smacking is one of the forms of corporal punishment. Most people would agree, however, that the idea of smacking does not evoke very controversial feelings and it is very often treated as an essential element of bringing children up. People tend not to associate 'innocent' smacking with strong physical violence and the notion that sparring the rod spoils the child is still very popular. Obviously, most parents want their children to be well-behaved, to have good manners and they belive that this can be achieved by means of hard discipline, based on corporal punishment. There are, however, other ways of dealing with the inevitable problems of parenthood. Those, who are strongly against practicing physical power over their children need to work out their own ways of solving problems. Such parents, teach their children discipline by means of explaining things to them and they try to base their relationship with the youngs on mutual understanding and confidence. They do not resort to corporal punishment only because it is an easier way of dealing with the problem. /^t/In order to develop further the subject, one must examine the idea of corporal punishment more carefully. Smacking is, in a way, the first step to punishing your child by means of physical power. Therefore, little children are smacked and slapped for every unproper behaviour. This way of punishing them goes on and on and does not stop until the moment they are adolescents or even adults. Smacking, however, with time is replaced with stronger forms of agression such as hitting or beating. It has been proved by psychologists that parents' agressive behaviour provokes agression in children. Hence, kids who are heavily beaten at home have the tendency to behave violently when playing with their friends and choosing the 'violent' sort of games. In other words, abused parents bring up abusive children and the vicious circle is endless. Therefore, if children are not punished corporally and are not taught the idea of physical strength they are more likely to look for peaceful solutions in future. /^t/One of the most popular alternative to smacking children is punishing them. The system of rewards and punishments is well-known to everybody. Parents choose this way of punishing their children not only because it is less humiliating but also because the punishment has a pedagogical role: it is to teach a child a lesson. Therefore, children get punished for unproper behaviour, lying, bad results at school or violent behaviour. The forms of punishment vary according to parents's imagination and knowledge of their child. In short, the time for wrongdoing depends both on parents and on a commited deed. There is a certain problem, however, concerning the issue of punishing: it is less effective than the majority of people think it is. In fact, it has a rather depressing effect on a child who feels hurt and misunderstood. The system of rewards works in quite an opposite way and is a very good motivation for better behaviour. Therefore, when talking about the effective ways of influencing children one should rather reward them for good behaviour than punish for a single wrongdoing. In the long run, it will bring more advantages since a punishment will always be remembered as something unjust and unfair which has been done to us. /^t/The last, but not least, alternative to smacking is talking to children and explaining things and problems to them. Even little children are capable of understanding a given problem and can see things they have done wrong. They do not need to be punished in any way only because their parents are too lazy to talk to them or are too narrow-minded to see other solution apart from punishment. Parents who search for understanding their children are capable of building a proper relationship with them from the days of their early childhood. Consequently, such children are also capable of forming relationships based on real feelings such as love and understanding and in the future they will not have to resort to physical violence in order to solve their problem or achieve a certain goal. /^t/To sum up, there are at least a few different alternatives of dealing with children than smacking them. One of them is punishing children in order to teach them that if they do wrong they will have to pay for it. Reasonable parents will rather choose a method of rewarding them which, in the end, leads to the same thing: teaching a child good manners and proper behaviour. The so called 'modern' way of bringing children up proposes teaching kids basis of proper human communication which is trying to understand and talking to other people. All these methods are put in the opposition to corporal punishment which is the least effective way of teaching children discipline and descent behaviour. The only thing they are really taught by means of smacking is agresion and the need for revange. Therefore, a sensible parent needs to make an effort and find their own way of teaching children what is right and what is wrong. <0165> /^t/The end of XX century has become the time of propagating ideas of widely understood tolerance towards all kinds of social minorities. This situation is used by those minorities to fight for their rights. They want to feel free and to exist without any restrictions above those applied to all citizens and regulated by law. /^t/One of the most powerful groups fighting for their rights are homosexuals. They want to have rights to express their ideas clearly, to legalize their relationships and to acquire all privileges coming from the fact of being married. These include the most controversial aspect of that problem which is the adoption of children. As giving that right to homosexuals may cause strain of unpredictable consequences, it should be considered very carefully. Several important questions should be asked and several clear facts should be faced such as the influence it may have on society and other sexual minorities and the most crucial aspect: the influence, it may have on children, as these are them who have the most to lose, and the most to win. Are homosexuals able to provide for optimum conditions for proper development of the child? /^t/One of important problems, connected with giving adoption rights to homosexuals is the problem of other groups of sexual minorities. There is a possibility that if homosexuals obtain the rights they fight for, other groups may demand the equal treatment. This may mean giving rights to people whose sexual preferences are, now regarded as deviations such as for example pedophilia. This in turn may lead to legalization of sexual practices which are now considered as crimes such as sexual abuse of children. /^t/The problem of the adoption right for homosexuals should be considered from point of view of society membership. Every human being is the member of some society in which he or she lives. As the member of that society s/he accepts the rules that this society is governed by. In many societies homosexuality is still treated as a deviation and homosexuals are regarded as freaks. They are not accepted. Often they are ignored and discriminated. Such behavior would influence a child and it could have some destructive effect on him. The child may not understand that it is noticed as someone different from others. As long as the child cannot decide on itself it should be put into the environment, that ensures it the best conditions of growing up. /^t/The most important problem, connected with the adoption right for gay couples is the problem of creating the best family conditions for the development of the child. Is a gay couple able to provide for the optimum conditions for the development of the child? There may not be problems as far as material needs are concerned, but is it possible with psychological and emotional factors? Childhood is the time during which a child is shaped up psychologically, in which it acquires some basic knowledge of the world, it gets familiar with some basic social norms. The acquisition of that knowledge takes place through the carefull observation of the closest environment. Some knowledge comes from parents, who are major authorities and sources of the valuable information. If this natural, typical environment is destructed in some way a child grows up in some unstable conditions, there is a possibility that it will take some abnormal features of the environment it lives in. It is proved that children brought up in alcoholic families often become alcoholics, and children of criminals often become criminals as well. The same may happen with children adopted by gay couples. /^t/The problem of giving the adoption right to homosexuals is complex and should be considered very carefully. Generally, however, there are some problems which seem to be impossible to overcome in such cases. Homosexual couples seem to be not able to provide children for the optimum conditions of development. These are parents who are responsible for the creating a new human being. Parents means a mother and a father. If the child lacks parents, it should be put into the environment that will influence it in the best possible way, that is to the environment which is governed by rules regarded as being normal, and typical to majority of people. <0166> /^t/Lying is a phenomenon encountered by every person almost every day. It is commonly believed to be immoral and people are taught not to lie since the early childhood. Nevertheless, at some point of time in their lives, everybody starts thinking about the ambiguity and complexity that the notion of lying carries. Therefore, it is not sufficient to state that lying is immoral. Before condemning a person who lies, one has to first take into consideration the factors which contributed to that lie. There are situations in which lying can be justified, in which it is even necessary. /^t/First of all, no one can condemn a person who lies in order not to hurt other people's feelings. There are situations in which such lying can be excused. Moreover, sometimes lying means simply not telling the truth. When one has an extremely unpleasant message to convey and there is a possibility of not doing so, it is better not to reveal the unwanted news. It is a question of not being cruel to the receipient of the message. People lie very often in everyday situations; for example, when they say that their friends look great or that someone behaves in a right way, just to avoid being unpleasant, rough, cruel. One cannot imagine a situation when every person tells the truth. It would lead to more misunderstandings, quarrels, and fights. To the type of lie told not to hurt someone else's feelings belongs also the so-called "white lie". It is a common, harmless, small lie that probably every person tells many times during their lifetimes. This kind of lie can be excused depending on situation. It is also the lie which in many cases concerns children. They lie very often about their everyday problems, or they simply exaggerate some issues because they like fantasizing. /^t/In addition to the white lie, there are lies which are told to defend some ideal of higher value. It can be religion or any kind of belief, for example, the belief in family, tradition, country, political system. This lie may also apply to protecting someone's good name from a libel. When one strongly believes in something there is no reason why he or she should be condemned or treated as immoral for lying or not telling the truth. One cannot judge such a person's actions as right or wrong, because one was not given the right to do so. Furthermore, the lying person takes the entire responsibility for his or her action and for the consequences of not telling the truth. /^t/There is one more point about the types of excused lies that needs to be mentioned here. It is the problem of telling lies in situations when one wants to protect his or her life, someone else's life or health, be it his or her beloved one or a complete stranger. Such situations are also considered exceptional as far as the notion of condemning telling lies is concerned. As an example of fully justifiable lie will serve a phenomenon common during The Second World War. Then, many people felt they had to lie, in order not to reveal the place of stay of those who were hiding from the Natzis. Of course, such phenomenon applies also to the situations occurring during peace time, when one wants to save their or the other person's life or good name. /^t/It is reasonable to say that one cannot treat all lies and the people who tell them in the same way. One has to differentiate between the lies which can never be justified, and those which can and even should be excused. Those are the small lies told almost every day by most of the people, the lies told to avoid hurting someone else's feelings or to prevent someone from being killed, and the lies told to defend some ideal of higher value. In such situations judging those who lie should not be carried out, unless there are victims of somebody's lies. But if it is not a criminal case, the lying person should not be condemned, because whether they lie is the problem of his or her own consciousness, not the problem of others. <0167> /^t/The debate whether to allow gay couples to adopt children is a very controversial one, with homosexuals and lesbians battling for the right to be allowed to create complete families on one side and with opponents who believe in the traditional model of a family putting up fierce resistance on the other. The question however, that both sides should ask themselves, instead of getting carried away with creating a "holy war" of sexual preferences, is what is best for the child in question, and whether adoption by gay couples will have a negative influence upon the development of the sensitive and vulnerable being, that a child is. /^t/One of the aspects that potential gay parents ought to take into consideration, is that no matter how loving and caring they may be, they will not be a "stereotype" family. This, of course, shall be obvious for everyone, child included. However, the enviroment may not be ready or eager to accept such an untypical family and in some countries (i.e Poland), predjudice and repugnance towards gay people are still very strong. The child adopted by gays, may come across serious obstacles which shall make the fitting into a society (whether at school, in the park etc), impossible because of reactions such as hostility, hate, intolerance and agression upon the part of other children, in turn influenced by their parents. /^t/Such obvious displays of condemnation and contempt may lead to feelings of hurt, unfairness and even agression towards the gay parents, as well as to serious psychological disturbances such as insomnia, depression and even suicidal thoughts/attempts. /^t/Yet another reason for the careful consideration of this topic, is whether the feeling of being different from other children shall hurt the adopted child. After all, when we are small we do not want to be different; we want to have the same clothes, toys, play the same games, speak the same language as our peers. A child made very aware of being different may not only be rejected by other children, he/she themselves may feel awkward, "queer" and avoid company, thus leading to shyness, loneliness and the shutting out of the outside word. /^t/To a small child, adopted by gays, his adoptive parents are what it means to have a family. He/she will of cause see the difference between his/her own family and those of other children. However, if the other families with which he has contact, are unhappy, pathological, have abusive parents, and do not have the feelings of love, friendship and understanding which are all present in his own family, the child (by his observations of the outside world), may lead himself to believe that the relationship functioning between his "parents" is the only harmonious type. During the child's young years, this will of cause lead to self-confidence, security and happiness. Yet deep inside the child's subconscious, a conviction may begin to develop, that of all the people he knows, only his own parents, who are obviously gays, are happy. This surely must mean something, according to the child's reasoning. /^t/This conviction, which was drifting around somewhere in the child's psyche, may suddenly resurface when he reaches his teenage years. During these years, a person is very influential and totally unstable emotionally, and his parents' situation may somehow affect his own sexual preferances. Thus, meaning no evil absolutely, the adoptive parents have influenced their child, without giving him any choice or possibility to "try out" other options. /^t/Yet another typical symptom by which teenagers around the world are recognized, is rebellion (whether with or without the cause!). A teenager coming from a stereotype home will go through a phase of total negation and opposition towards his parents. What about the child adopted by gays? The feelings of hostility will be stronger, particularily as his parents are so irritatingly different from others, and resentment and anger felt during this period may not go away so quickly, or may not pass at all, leading the rebel to cut off any contact with his parents completely. /^t/Yet another of the numerous aspects that future gay parents ought to consider, are other people, their feelings and reactions. For quite a few people, the prospect of sharing the floor of an apartment building, or having a gay couple as next-door neighbours, may seem uncomfortable and unnerving, to say the least. However, the same gay couple with children, may be shocking, even outrageous. I am not suggesting that we do not do something simply because Mrs. Brown from next door does not approve, but just as gay people strive to be completely accepted as regular members of society who also have feelings and needs, they must also remember that others have feelings too, and cannot be forced to accept something they do not want to. It is best to "check out" the enviroment and people beforehand, so as to avoid any unpleasant situation, and disapproval, which will also stress the child, later on. /^t/Whether it is fair or not, gays must face up to the fact, that as potential parents, they are at the very end of the waiting-list. With so many "regular" couples desperately waiting to offer their homes and hearts to a child, and much less children than there are parents, every aspect of the situation must be checked by social workers, so as to ensure the child gets the best start in life possible. With so many doubts as to gays being suitable parents, shouldn't the gays themselves ponder the topic a little bit more, and ask themselves the question: would they, as children, want to be adopted by gays? <0168> /^t/During the last decades more and more homosexual people have stopped hiding their sexual preferences. They decide to live together with their partners, they can even get married in some countries. As many gay couples think that they are able to create families, they believe that they have the right to adopt children. However, they should not have the right to bring up children. Children's psychological needs, their right to receive a proper sexual education and social acceptance play a very important role here. /^t/Firstly, every child has the right to have a normal family consisting of both mother and father. From the beginning of its life, it should experience both maternal and paternal love. Since mother gives birth to her child, the child needs to be very close to her for a long time. Then, mother is responsible for her child's psychological and spiritual development. Father should also take part in his child's upbringing. His role is to form his child's self-confidence, instil the sense of responsibility for its deeds and the ability to cope with problems in it. In a family whose both parents are women or men, the child's right to be raised by both a woman and man would be disrupted. No matter how hard they may try, gay couples are not able to give the child both maternal and paternal love. In the future, such a child would face many difficult psychological problems, let alone a serious breakdown. /^t/Furthermore, a child raised by a gay couple would not be provided with a proper sexual model to follow. It is scientifically proved that parents' sexual preferences affect their child's sexual life. In a normal family, a child watches a man and woman expressing their feelings towards each other. The child is exposed to a natural situation which leads to procreation, the basic human instinct to have children. In contrast, a child who sees people of the same sex kissing or making love would consider such a sexual behaviour as perfectly normal. As a result, the child would look for a sexual partner of her /his sex in the future. Thus, the child is very likely to become a homosexual itself. Being a homosexual would mean going through many sufferings, including the humiliation of being sneered at and rejected by many members of the society. /^t/The social factor is of vital importance for children brought up by gay couples. The children would not be accepted by peers, who impose a great pressure on them. They would be constantly scoffed at and feel ashamed of their stepparents. Therefore, they would find it hard to get their place in the society. Not being understood by others and having no friends would result in their aggressive behaviour and nervous breadowns. In addition, very sensitive children would take up alcohol or drugs, some would commit suicide. Definitely, for the majority of them, the psychological torment would be unbearable. In some cases, they would turn to a psychologist or psychiatrist as a last resort. There is no doubt, however, that the enormous social pressure exerted on them would turn their lives into nightmares. It is their stepparents that would be responsible for that.. /^t/Clearly, every child has the right to be raised by both mother and father and be provided with a proper sexual model to follow. Moreover, what results from those two, they should not undergo the all painful social experiences. As one cannot deny the fact that every child should grow up in a normal family, one should reject gay couples' right to adopt children. <0169> /^t/The history of humanity can be discussed and described in many different terms. One of the most important issues that have always been of great concern to many philosophers and thinkers is the truth - its nature and the role in human life. Different philosophical schools have managed to provide us with various interpretations of the problem. Despite the fact that there are some differences between philosophers, it is generally agreed that truth is morally laudable and desirable. However, contemporary world seems to be a constant source of tricky situations which cannot simply be described as immoral and immediately condemned. The fact that some deeds are immoral does not mean that they deserve condemnation. Such situations are probably less frequent than these in which lying is undoubtedly despicable. /^t/For the last fifty years we were witnesses of a political system in which the truth was constantly distorted. A group of people claimed to know the best solutions in the fields of economy, politics and religion. To attain their ignominious aims they built a huge system of propaganda through which every aspect of life was subject to detailed control. The self-awarded??? monopoly of the truth gave the right to manipulate it in accordance with their needs. The results of such an activity are well-known and deserve condemnation not only for political reasons, but above all, for moral ones. /^t/This issue takes us to a problem of a wider scale - the nature of politics and politicians. Politicians are said to be professional liars, nevertheless some people still expect them to tell the truth, even if it is difficult to swollow. Probably it is quite impossible to determine to what extent politicians are allowed to lie and where is a border that cannot be crossed. If we accept the fact that during election campaign politicians do not lie but express their honest plans and even after some time at a certain post, half of their promises has not been realized we must not condemn them for we usually lack hard evidence of their negligence. The situation is different when politicians lie purposefully to get a post and try to hide their additional source of income, do not pay taxes or claim to have higher education. If such cases are proved, they not only have to be publicly condemned, but also excluded from political life. /^t/There are many disputable situations in which people of certain professions lie to others, as they claim, for those people own good, for example, patients. It is generally accepted that in the course of patient's treatment, his or her mental attitude plays equal part as medical care. Therefore doctors believe that the patient's willingness to recuperation can work miracles and should not be weakened by acquainting patients with the knowledge of their real state of health. This problem seems to be extremely difficult to judge, however the intentions of doctors lying to their patients cannot be questioned and if only the results are good the permission to do so may be given. The only problem is how to evaluate doctors who have failed in their attempts to cure their patients using such a method. It may be said that if they were given the right to lie, any consequences must be accepted and obviously they cannot be condemned for they have been trying to save human life. Unfortunately, in every day life people resort to lying very often and for more mundane reasons than previously mentioned. They make a frequent use of a lie to win other people's acceptance, approval, to hide their inefficiency. They tend to create they own world in which they play the role of imposters who are unable to cope with the reality. In such situations lying appears to be a sign of cowardice and, however, any generalization blackens the problem, is really a subject to condemnation. One more instant of lying which interesting and therefore worth mentioning is a fact of children not telling the truth to their parents. It may be heard that for such a situation only children are to be blamed. Whereas, to do the justice it should be said that the fault might be found on parent's side who are not always prepared to accept the truth from their children. This is how children are somehow forced to lie to their parents. Obviously this argument cannot be used to justify any act of child's lying, but the word 'condemnation' should be used very carefully in this case. As it has been tried to prove, not every lie which is immoral deserves condemnation. The fact that some deeds are described as immoral does not mean that they must be condemned. There also situations in which it is impossible to say whether certain activity was despicable. However, lying is generally considered to be immoral, the reason for which it is deplored may change the way it is perceived. <0170> /^t/In the 20th century, modern art seems to have entirely taken the place of the traditional art. Many lovers of the classical way of painting or sculpting are strongly against the new trends. There are, however, a lot of people who appreciate modern art very much. Of course, both within the classical and modern art there are examples of good and bad works. It is easier to appreciate a good work of traditional art, where the artist's skill is visible. In order to find modern art interesting, one needs a vivid imagination, an open mind and, often, some knowledge of the art in general. If a certain work is really good though, it is appreciated no matter if it is modern or traditional. /^t/Modern art is usually neglected by the people who are not very interested in the art. They like to find in pictures representations of things that they know from everyday life. They admire beautiful landscapes and portraits in which they can recognize familiar faces. Modern art which often presents the subject matter by means of geometric shapes or colourful spots is incomprehensible for them. There are, however, some works by Dali or Picasso which, although belong to modern art, show the painters' skill. Such works are appreciated even by those who generally hate modern art, which proves that a work has to be skilful in order to be recognized as good. Many paintings and sculptures seem to have been produced only to shock people and it is not surprising that they do not receive big applause. /^t/It appears that with the growth of popularity of modern art some artists started to forget that 'visual art is visual' producing things of little artistic value only to amaze the audience. It is especially true of the conceptual artists. One of the famous representatives of this group, Michael Craig Martin, put a glass of water on a glass shelf and named it 'An Oak Tree'. He explained that although it looked like a glass of water, it had been transformed into an oak tree. Such works are based on intellectual ideas which are interesting only to their author and a small group of critics. For ordinary people who think that art should be admired for its visual beauty, works like 'An Oak Tree' are only odd and boring. /^t/On the other hand, Lovers of modern art often think that traditional paintings and sculptures are boring. They claim that traditional art has been replaced by photographs and now it is time to play with forms, colours and proportions. There is even a tendency to depreciate old masters and to critisize the oponents of modern art for being narrow-minded and prejudiced. New artistic trends have many advocates among young educated people who think that modern art is fashionable. Elderly people or not very well educated ones tend to value classical art higher because it is easy to understand. /^t/In my opinion, it is not true that modern art is undervalued. Many 20th century artists are now recognized as classics and treated with equal respect as old masters. The reason why some people do not like modern art is that they think art should reflect reality in the way they perceive it. Modern artists say that the world is nowadays very chaotic and works of art should reflect its lack of order. People who agree with them appreciate their works very much, those who do not share their views discard modern art. Not being able to understand what is presented in a picture or a sculpture, they do not like it. If a work is really good, however, it is appreciated because of the author's skill not because it belongs to a certain category. <0171> /^t/Rising tide of violence has recently become a major political and social issue not only in Poland but also in the United States. As the latest US statistics show the crime there is declining. Also, Polish criminologists do not say about the increase of crime in general, but they notice that more and more young people are committing an increasingly high number of violent offences. Although, even the most despicable instances of crime committed in Poland cannot be compared to the loathsome-beyond-description act committed about two months ago in Addison, Illinois. Polish criminals can also "boast" of violent acts that may astonish even most experienced police officers. /^t/The scale of aggravated assults is obviously different in the United States and Poland. In Addison two men and a woman allegedly killed a 28-year-old woman and two of her three children, then ripped open her womb to kidnap the fetus of an unborn but perfectly healthy baby boy. The motive was that the female suspect wanted the infant for her own. In Poland a group of young male passengers threw out of the running train a young man, causing his death. What is probably less optimistic is the fact that occurences of crime among kids under 18 are becoming more frequent, especially the instances of stabbing with a knife classmates by a teen criminal. /^t/American criminologists are already warning that the United States can expect another wave of violent crime in the coming decade, and some say that it will be much worse that the one that is now subsiding. Polish political leaders and psychologists, on the other hand, call it meekly 'a rising tide of violence'. According to psychologists a 14-year-old with gun in his hand is far more menacing than an adult. That is because a teenager will pull a trigger without fully considering the consequences; he will pull the trigger over a leather jacket, a pair of sneakers or a joke. /^t/No one doubts that the number of the teenagers committing crimes will grow substantially in the next ten years. And no one dispute that hundreds of American and Polish kids are being pushed toward adolescent criminality by neglect, abuse and just plain bad parenting. Psychologists often warn us that the image of continually recurring abusive behavior of intoxinated parents is the only memory that many children recall from their childhood. /^t/The easy access to guns and drugs also plays a significant role in the rising of violent offences. Although, Polish and American criminal systems cannot be compared, both of them tolerate drug dealers. In addition, Polish police is not able to cope efficiently with the gun dealers coming from the countries of the former Soviet Union. Lenient system of persecuting criminals, short sentences cannot be called an input to the process to their rehabilitation. /^t/The other thing worth mentioning here is comparatively strong welfare system is both the United States and Poland. As long as people are subsidized for doing nothing their "aptitude" toward the involvement in crime may be justified. Along with this goes faulty system of education in Poland, that allows children not to learn. /^t/There has been a widespread debate going on recently in Poland whether the violence promoting movies exert their influence on the increase of crime; whether or not they cause violent behavior of "super Predator", teenage boys who routinely carry guns, who have absolutely no respect for human life, and who kill and mime on impulse without any intelligible motive. Unfortunately, the answer to this question has not been found yet. If the effect of movies on violent behavior was revealed, it would probably promote parental if not governmental censorship. /^t/The one, peculiar to Americans, characteristics Poles do not seem to follow is constant improvement of their law-enforcement system as a whole. The particulary noteworthy is the fact of introducing the computer system that now allows New York police to pinpoint the location of every serious crime and focus their counter tactics. The objectives for Poles could be smaller things such as better-trained cops, more strict law and introduction of community outreach programs. That seem to be sufficient for the time being. The worst thing, however, might be acknowledging the fact that instead of legal persecution many crimes meet only with people's condemnation. <0172> /^t/There are at least three major causes of the recent increase of violence in Poland: poverty stemming from employment inequalities, violence-saturated culture and lack of institutions responsible for moral guidance of society. Poland, which during the year of communist rule was propagated as a pretty safe country, now faces the rise in number of committed murders, rapes and thefts. Violence has become the second more important problem of the country, right after economic instability. Policja, the official body responsible for keeping law and order, has lost much of its power and respect. The situation is so threatening that Polish is now working upon legislature changes which could make Polish citizens feel safer at their homes and on the streets. /^t/It seems that the whole process of turning Poland into a country where violence poses a major danger to the safety of its citizens has started with the changes brought about by Poland's transformation from a centrally-controlled economy into a market one. Although this transformation helped a few Poles reach higher standard of living, the majority of Polish people experienced either decrease in their income or poverty. Some of those who found themselves in the new economic situation without a stable source of income or, what was even worse, without any hope of employment reverted to crime as the way of ensuring them surviving. In most cases these economy-induced criminals took to stealing food and clothes, sometimes home appliances, to cater for their basic needs. Usually, they stopped here, after some time, when they got a job; but some of them joined or formed regular gangs which steal or mug for other individuals for money. /^t/The second reason for the increased number of crimes committed in Poland are the changes of the country's culture. Nowadays, violence is omnipresent in films, books and newspapers. With the influx of elements of Westerneuropean and American culture to Poland, Poles have been exposed to movies and magazines which, for want of increasing their profits, present murders, rapes or thefts in great detail and in great number. Thus, many films, especially those produced in the USA, tend to be sequences of bloodshed or other terrifying scenes where the villains are presented as individuals whose lives are worth-following. It is no wonder, that then some easily influenced Poles, who have not been exposed to many such films so far, might want to try living in a similar manner. What is more, after watching another "Rambo-like" film an average Pole may be led to thinking that committing a crime is a part of people's existence. Besides, even if an individual does not consciously follow the models set in violent films or magazines, watching them may induce in people aggression for which they are likely to seek relief. /^t/Third cause for the increased violence rate in Poland is the lack of institutions responsible for moral upbringing and control of Polish society. On the one hand, Catholic Church has lost, for some Poles, its authority and the role in giving directions for proper social life. On the other hand, with the downfall of the former communist party with its tendencies to set moral codes, some of Polish citizens have lost their source of moral guidance and support. In this situation, those who have problems with choosing proper way of living, or those who have already committed crimes have no organisation which could help them, judge what is moral and what is not. Those who took to committing crime, and are persisting in this, have nobody to turn to and help them make up for their mistakes. /^t/All the above mentioned causes for increased rate of violence in Poland are environmental in nature. All of them are tightly connected and induced by the new political, economic and social situation which Poland is now experiencing. Because so much here depends on social and economic factor, a lot of hope exists that the violence rate can be lessened by creating new job places, decreasing of the number of violence films and magazines appearing in Poland and founding an institution looking after moral education of Poles. However, the problem seems to be much more complicated since crime can be brought about by improper upbringing or, what is even more threatening, can be inherited with genes. <0173> /^t/Drugs are generally known to be dangerous and harmful for one's health. Using drugs causes a number of serious diseases and can be fatal. Drugs are often the cause of one's death. Nevertheless, people decide on taking them and there are many different reasons for such behaviour. First of all, people take drugs for pleasure. They make them feel happy and relaxed. Apart from that, people take drugs to escape the reality and forget about their problems and worries. Finally, they use drugs because they became addicted and cannot stop using them. Drugs started to be their way of living and there is no way out. Although the results are always the sam: the feeling of failure, disappointment and, eventually, addiction, people keep using drugs and refuse to stop. /^t/People use drugs because they want to. A lot of them say they take drugs because they like it. Those chemicals cause the feelings of joy and happiness in them. Drug users claim that nothing can be compared to the overwhelming feeling of freedom and pleasure one experiences having taken a dose of heroin. They say drugs make them feel like flying. Nevertheless, although people claim they use drugs for pleasure, the real reason is different. They want to feel happy and free, at least for a little while. Drugs make their lives more colourful and exciting. They can be an adventure during which one experiences all sorts of pleasant emotions. The point is, this state does not last for long. /^t/People use drugs because they need to. Drugs can be the door to a different dimension, to another world. A world of fantasies and dreams. People take drugs in order to forget about their failures and lack of success. They help them create their own reality. Thanks to drugs, people see themselves as powerful, successful and desired. Drug users need this feeling desperately. Drugs alter their perception of reality. They do not feel rejected anymore. Chemicals become the substitute for everything; family, friends, feelings of love and care. People use them because they need attention and they do not find it in the real world. Therefore, they create images and visions of their own, happy and perfect realities. It becomes their way of living until the moment comes, when there is nothing else left, apart from the need to take another dose of a drug and relief the pain. To stay alive. /^t/People use drugs because they have to. There comes the time when drug addicts have to take the drug in order to stop suffering, to kill the pain which is present in every part of their bodies. This feeling has nothing to do with the experience of pleasure and freedom. Getting a dose of a drug becomes the matter of life and death. The organism needs it to stay alive. At this stage, one cannot talk about willingness or desire. The need to take another dose is the only feeling a drug addict experiences, apart from the pain. In the end, it is not possible to state whet the reason for taking the drug is. It is no longer "a drug-taking", it is an addiction and there is no way to escape it. /^t/It is not easy to answer the question why people use drugs. Perhaps it is not even possible. Drug users and drug addicts give many different reasons. Most of them are just excuses for weakness and cowardice. Disability to face the reality, to deal with one's problems is the best and most often used excuse. People say they use drugs because they want to. The important question is why they want to. They do drugs because they want to forget about the reality; not interesting, not exciting enough. Moreover, they say they use drugs because they need to. They need to create illusions about themselves because they are not able to cope with who they are. People say they use drugs because they have to. They have to because they became addicted. They lost this feeling of freedom they had at the beginning. They lost the illusion of freedom they had later. Now they know they are slaves of drugs. <0174> /^t/Lying is a problem affecting children and adults. This phenomenon is so common that it seems almost natural. Different situations prompt people to hide the truth and make benefit from lying. People lie for protection, to make a career for oneself and to make life more interesting. But often the opinions appear that for particular reasons lying is immoral and should always be condemned. /^t/The first factor that contributes to lying is protection in order to avoid behaving despicably and not harming others. Both children and adults lie to make themselves safe. If a few-years-old child has made a hole in a table cloth, he/she will probably keep on telling his/her mother: 'It is not me who did it. The reason for children acting in this way may be accounted for by the fact that they realize the extent of the damage and therefore aim to maintain their innocence. The fact they want to remain innocent and not to be punished does not mean that they have to tell lies. So lying in this way proves to be immoral and should always be condemned. Doctors do not tell the truth very often in a situation when a person's life is in danger. A patient treated at hospital and affected with a severe illness may be not informed by doctors about his/her health. Doctors refuse to tell their patients the whole truth, because they often think it is essential not to frighten their patients. In consequence when a patient's health deteriorates not telling him/her the truth may be even more shocking and depressing. Moreover, it may bring about a nervous breakdown if he/she realises that he/she suffers from an incurable illness. So again this is the reason that lying is immoral and therefore it should be condemned. /^t/The second factor that causes lying is making a career. People in high position like politicians and party leaders induce their voters to vote for them. They try to be as crafty as possible, to make the public trust them, without having any compunction about it. The fact that many politicians appear trustworthy does not mean that they will make a good play for the leadership of the party. They just batten on to naive people at these people's expense. When such lies become known on the spot a politician endeavours to maintain that it was not his/her fault and does not want to be given to moralising. So this is another reason why lying is immoral and should be disapproved of by the public. Businessmen do business against the law and they come into fortune. They may be considered not guilty because of lack of evidence and the police connives at letting a suspect off. In this case behaving businessmen in an illegal way should be considered as immoral and for that reason lying should be condemned. /^t/The third factor that contributes to lying is making life more interesting. Not only children but also adults have a vivid imagination which allows them to build a series of pleasing, mental images to fulfill a need. Children may tell their parents about tale-tell stories. For example, a few-years-old boy admits to having seen goblins in his room. Adults try to impress their friends with their abilities, wealth, or generosity. The reason for them lying may be explained by the fact that many people are not enough approved of by friends or family and that is the reason why they try to appear superior to others. The fact that some people want to be superior to others does not mean that they have to tell lies. So this is again a bad point of lying and it should be condemned, no matter how many benefits people can derive from it. /^t/In spite of the fact that people are aware of acting in a wrong way, they still tell lies. On one hand lies may cause benefits, but on the other hand they may disappoint and complicate one's life. In some cases lies are an excellent solution if a person does not hurt somebody. On the other hand however lies may do a lot of damage to one's reputation. However good lies may be one should remember that man is a thinking creature and should decide himself what is wrong and what is right with telling lies. Even the best pack of lies may mean nothing in difficult circumstances. <0175> /^t/Not telling the whole truth or telling a lie is deeply rooted in human nature. People lie when they are small brats and lie when they become adults. In childhood small fibs can help kids to get sweets or pocket money; in adult life not revealing the whole truth may enhance the chances of promotion. Apparently lying turns out to be profitable and it is the main cause of its "popularity". To state if telling lies is moral or immoral, one has to differentiate between various kinds of fibs. Some of them, so called 'white lies', can even help people to overcome difficulties. On the other hand, there are also lies - resulting from men's innate pride, vanity and fervent desire to be the best - that can destroy other's man life. However, stating that lying in general is immoral and should always be condemned seems not to account for vast situations in real life in which lying turns out to be conducive to men's state of "well-being". /^t/Not-telling the whole truth (that constitutes one form of lying) may exert a considerable influence on an ill person's psyche. If a patient suffering from a very serious disease, for example cancer, knows that all of his/her organs had been affected by the tumor, he/she may easily break down; not divulging all the details of the sickness is likely to contribute to man's quicker recovery. Even if there is no hope of prolonging patient's life, he/she should still believe in three or four years of sharing his life with his/her family. Similiar to ill people, children should not be told the whole truth. Their mental development should define the criteria for telling them one things and not the others. It does not mean that children should be isolated from the world full of scenes of violence, brutality and famished people on the streets; nevertheless, kids should not be told about facts that may exert disruptive influence on their minds. /^t/Hiding the whole truth on purpose is another kind of lying, not necessarily described as immoral. Not mentioning some facts (the most often these facts are wrongdoings that would not be accepted by society) may rescue, for example, marriage. Everybody knows that a man has many weak points. If a man or a woman betrays his/her wife or husband it is not so easy to forgive him/her. Sometimes a betrayal can be even tantamount to a breakup of a marriage. In such a case it is better to keep silence, make a resolution that the betrayal would never happen again and try to make up for the bad actions in some other way. Not mentioning some facts can spare somebody's suffering and tears. (It seems to be obvious that this method of lying cannot be overused. If somebody never admits his bad actions and repeats them now and again than he becomes a cheater and a liar). /^t/Some kind of lying is also used in advertisements. Well prepared recommendations of products are to capture viewers' attention. People want to procure goods that are fashionable, cheap and handy. The data presented in commercials very rare come as true. In fact, everything that is for free must be in some way paid for. Although people realize of fibs in ads nobody considers them to be immoral. Ads serve the purpose of selling and this is up to a customer who should be the whole time alert and never be duped into buying something obsolete, expensive or not for use any more. /^t/There are also lies that serve the purpose of defense. Especially in Western cultures people tend to hide their feelings towards others. In this way they remain neutral, show no affection; only their close relatives know their true feelings. By maintaining a neutral attitude towards others, they seem to protect themselves against other people's vicious remarks or behaviors. Even a simple question "How are you" has become very neutral and does not demand any specific answer. In fact the person asking somebody is not interested to find out how his/her interlocutor really feels like. Saying "thank you" or "great" is just another instance of telling a small fib. People are not always in good shape, however nearly everybody seems to pretend that he/she is fine. Should we all be condemned for this? Everybody has the right to keep some secrets inside of him. Saying that one is O.K. even if it is not the truth does not mean that such a person is an immoral liar. /^t/Not all prevarications should be condemned as well as not all of them should be accepted. Similarly to justifiable and unjustifiable wars (defensive wars and wars of aggression respectively) there are also lies that can be excused and such ones that should be condemned; however, unlikely to wars that always cause suffering, there exists a class of lies that helps people to survive and to cherish hope of better life. There are lies that can make dipressed people smile and these should not, by any means, be condemned as immoral or bad. <0176> /^t/The problem of sexual minorities' rights seems to come back every now and then, each time slightly changed. At first, gay activists were fighting for anti-discrimination rights in school, work and other aspects of everyday life. Then they got the idea that "everyday life" means also the right to marry "the one and only", no matter if of the same sex, and once they have achieved that in Denmark and are getting close to that in other countries, they seem to jump to the conclusion that there is one more right to fight for: the right to adopt children. And suddenly the public opinion is acquainted with the fact that gays are human beings as well and that they want to lead normal (?!) lives, with a spouse and a couple of children running about the house. Should they be given such a chance? I believe that even if we try to be maximally tolerant, this is too much. Gay couples should not be given the right to adopt children because of numerous reasons, among which are legal, social and moral problems which such a decision would cause. /^t/If homosexual couples were given the right to adopt children, several legal problems would be created. First of all, only married people can adopt children in Poland, so first of all the whole marital law would have to be changed, to allow gay couples to marry. This would create many problems, among which only the minor one is the need to rewrite all sentences containing the words: man, woman, husband and wife, which could be really difficult, as genders in Polish are not only biological, but also grammatical, and verbs are also marked for gender. But let us suppose that this is a minor problem and that it may be overcome, and that the gay couples are given this right. And what then? The adoption process in Poland is complicated enough, and there are hundreds of couples waiting for adoption for years, and putting homosexual couples in the same long line would create a "positive discrimination" that would turn against all those husbands and wives whose only chance lies in adoption. Would it be fair? Most of the society seems to be of a different opinion. /^t/The social side of the problem is another reason why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. Although Poles have a long tradition of priding themselves in being tolerant, the truth is quite the opposite: the tolerance towards minorities (whether ethnic, religious or sexual) is minimal. Homosexuals have never been accepted, they are still perceived as being worse or abnormal, especially those who manifest their sexual orientation openly. But, nevertheless, a large part of the society have rather unspecified opinions towards gays, as they feel the problem does not concern them. Giving gay couples the right to adopt children would change the situation drastically, and all the "decent" people would turn not only against the homosexual couples themselves, but also against their adopted children, shunning them and keeping them outside social relations. /^t/Moral and ethical issues are the most important aspect as far as the question of whether to let gay couples adopt is concerned. First of all, it has to be considered what effects the adoptive gay parents would have on their children. Even the most tolerant people must admit that they are against gay adoption rights for the sake of the children. A child brought up by gay parents would lack the model of a real family, and often also the model of his/her own sexual behavior. This might bring about serious psychological problems in the future, beginning with the question: "Why don't I have a mother and a father like everybody else, but two mothers/fathers?" and ending at "Who am I? Am I also gay like my parents, or am I straight?". Being brought up by a gay couple would mean not only having doubts about one's identity and sexual orientation, but also being laughed at and shunned by classmates, and this is something the poor children definitely do not deserve. /^t/No matter how tolerant we try to be, we must realize that the tolerance towards sexual minorities cannot go too far, or else it will degenerate into intolerance towards the majority. Giving the gay couples the right to adopt children would be going one step too far, and we are certainly not ready for such a shock. First of all, as far as the legal side is concerned, our authorities have more important problems to deal with; secondly, we must take into consideration the society's opinion, which is definitely negative; and thirdly, the moral and ethical consequences would be too serious to ignore them. Therefore the answer to this question is: no. Not here and not now. <0177> /^t/People use drugs for many reasons. Some use it because it is illegal. Others use it because they are addicted. Though the majority take drugs because in doing so they participate to the ritual which has been performed for centuries. The ritual that shapes our history and each individual can take his part in it. /^t/Nobody knows the exact origins of drugs. The first accounts of drugs being introduced to Europe is through trade with China. Opium was the wonder drug that high European society hungered for. Sea merchants risked their lives while conquering the unknown oceans just so they could safely return to Europe and sell their goods. The merchants became explorers because while looking for quicker and easier routs to India and China they discovered new lands. These being later colonized. America being the new colonized continent, no longer needed to trade with China and India. Explorers had acquired the knowledge to produce their own drugs. The Southern States of America, one of them being Virginia, had perfect conditions for the cultivation of marijuana. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington not only were holders of great marijuana plantations, but they also enjoyed smoking marijuana hemp plants. The smoking of marijuana was not only fashionable and a sign of wealth but also a political tool to free one's country from tyranny. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had realized the power of the cultivation of the hemp plants and passed a law that all people had to grow the marijuana plant. In doing so they will become self dependable and will be able to release their country from the British tyranny. /^t/Hemp plant was the main source for paper. When comparing one acre of hemp plant to one acre of trees, the former produced four times as much paper as the trees did. The declaration of Independence and the first American Bibles were written on a hemp paper. But in the late 20th century the American government passed a law that marijuana was from then an illegal drug for cultivation and use. There are many theories why the cultivation was forbidden. Some people say that the big tree plantation holders, who also influenced the government through their wealth, were facing bankruptcy. In order to survive the cultivation of marijuana had to be stopped. This did not reach the public however, for it was stated to them that marijuana did harm to their bodies and in their care the government has decided to ban the use and cultivation of marijuana hemp plant. People rebelled for many lost their jobs and became unemployed. In secrecy, either to refuse to obey or simply because the enjoyed taking the drug, people continued to grow and take the illegal drug. /^t/In the 60's and the 70's the use of drugs reached its peak. Drugs were associated with freedom. An Anarchist Era. All forms of government should be replaced by system of free cooperation. No restrictions and freedom to do what ever you want; freedom to go to wherever you need. The legendary 'Route 66' was the backbone for American freedom. The Hippies who rebelled against governmental tyranny escaped from the harsh reality of being bored and drove into the unknown. The only things that accompanied them was their music and a marijuana joint. Music, beginning from the 60's, played a very important role on the youth. Legendary rock-stars such as Jim Morrison, Led Zeplin and Jimi Hendrix continuously emphasised the importance of individuality and the freedom to do what you want, even if it is illegal but does not harm others. Jimy Hendrix died from an overedose. Though his name will live on as a legend to today's and tomorrow's youth, for he has shown that freedom of expression and freedom of individuality are the most important factors, no matter what the cost is. /^t/Today's people use drugs for the same reasons their ancestors did. They associate themselves with freedom and they want to perform the ritual that they have been restricted of. People are aware of the power of the drugs and they should be free, as their heros and legends were, to use the drugs as freely as they want. The laws have to be changed for the drugs should continue to bring benefits to our society. The cultivation should be going on full scale, for this is the only way we will save our trees. The medical field should be free to prescribe marijuana if they think that this is the only drug that will cure their patient. We all must take part in forcing the government to make drugs legal, for this is the only way to make history going. <0178> /^t/Recent years have witnessed a growing tendency to renounce one's spiritual beliefs. While in the past religion was the force shaping the lives of individuals and nations, nowadays it is treated more and more often with a distance, with indifference, becoming a mere formality in people's lives. Many former churchgoers switch to other religions or become the atheists. The lack of need for spiritual beliefs is common reaction to present socio-economic situation, as well as to the development of philosophical and scientific thought. The phenomenon has various consequences of moral, personal, philosophical nature. /^t/The main causes of people's loss of religious faith concentrate around modern church's viewpoints and behavior. The present economic and scientific level of progress are often also closely related to people's personal hardships. One of the common reasons is that church's conservatism, strict dogmas and commandments are difficult to be observed and this discourages many church members. On the other hand the clergy's relaxed behavior, inconsistent with church's official teaching, leads people to raise objections against priests' hypocrisy and duplicity. When this bitterness outweighs the positive aspects of being a member of a church, one may turn away from former beliefs. Other causes of the loss of need for spiritual beliefs are closely connected with the increased standard of living. A certain level of comfort creates a sense of self-sufficiency and consequently the feeling that any beliefs are redundant. Still another reason for this new way of looking ar religion is scientific rationalism or philosophical reflection. On the basis of such branches of science as physics, antrophology, philosophy one concludes that religion is merely a cultural delusion assuming the form of a system of social control. Also one's personal suffering may enhance the existing doubts about faith which may result in a revolt against God. Thus various social, economic, ethical or personal factors contribute to one's loss of need for spiritual beliefs, loss of faith and they occur with differing intensity in various individuals. /^t/Loss of religious faith usually brings a lack of firm context within which to operate. Such suspension leads many to concentrate on the present rather than on any future happiness. At this point people behave in different ways. The vast majority decide to fully use the charms of earthly life, often rejecting any moral obligations in their contacts with others. This translates into cynical, materialistic behavior of an egoist insensitive to other people. However, for some people the result may be quite the opposite. When one rejects religion not for convenience but on the basis of certain intellectual and phylosophical consideration the lack of need for spiritual beliefs does not have to equal enhanced egoism. On the other hand, in many cases, people realize that material bond of all the living world and consequently the need to live peacefully with others. They often open to other religions, thus gaining a broaden outlook upon the world. This gives rise to conscious altruism - behavior consistent with religious recommendations, however, not determines by church's orders and prohibitions but rather resulting from one's own free will. Thus the effects of rejecting one's beliefs may vary from extreme selfishness to magnified altruism. /^t/Thus the loss of religious faith, the lack of need for spiritual beliefs may be caused by various factors ranging from the present socio-economic situation, church's position and also an individual person's plight. Its effects are not clearly defined, since rejection of formal religion does not necessarily imply the rejection of the moral code of a given culture. Although in many cases it does not result in selfish attitudes, relaxed lifestyle and the loss of idea's. For many people who do not need spiritual beliefs it may, in fact, mean the reduction of ego and greater interest in others. Therefore, there are no definite moral criteria for evaluating one's rejection of beliefs, faith. In fact the very affiliation to a religious organization does not fully determine one's behavior and it may still be accompanied by an altruistic life. <0179> /^t/The difference between men and women is one of the few phenomena common to all cultures and societies. No other division of people is as natural as that into men and women. The sooner we realize what makes the representatives of the two sexes different, the easier it is for us to understand people's behaviour. Therefore, by giving a child both a mother and a father, nature has solved one of the most difficult problems for us: it exposes a child to this opposition from the moment it is born. That is why any suggestion of letting gay couples adopt children is clear interference with the basic law of nature and should not be seriously considered. /^t/The best way of proving the irrationality of the claim that homosexuals should be given a chance of becoming parents, is by presenting the harmful effects that their decision of adoption might have on a child. First of all, the child brought up by two fathers or two mothers is exposed to a constant confusion. It begins with the simple question of addressing its "parents". The child, who hears his or her peers talking about their moms and dads, wants to do the same. Its confusion is further intensified by the tricky questions asked by others. But how can a three-year-old answer, for example, why he has two fathers when he himself does not know that? All he understands is that he is different from his friends and feels stigmatized. /^t/What is more, the situation is by no means less awkward at home. Since both parents are of the same sex, they have, more or less, the same to offer to their child. Therefore, the child becomes the object of their unceasing rivalry. Unlike in normal families, where mothers take care of the spiritual and emotional development of their children and fathers teach them to be tough, in the case of gay families both parents go to great lengths to compensate the child for the lack of faminine or masculine element. The outcome is that, trying to be both a mother and a father, they fail to be either because nature has not prepared them for this dual role. /^t/One must also remember that raising a child requires a great deal of responsibility. It means that, in order to provide a child with the sense of security, the family needs to be stable. Although formal marriage does not fully guarantee a successful relationship, one must admit that break-ups and frequent changes of partners among homosexuals greatly outnumber the rate of divorces among heterosexual couples. Therefore, all fierce advocates of giving gay couples the right to adopt children should also consider the rights of children whose pseudo-parents have become bored with playing mother and father. Besides, even those couples which do succeed in forming stable relationships should not be encouraged to bring up a child because children have been proved to immitate their parents. It would be possible then, that children raised by gay couples might follow the same pattern and start similar families when adult simply because they have not had a chance to familiarize themselves with an alternative, much more natural family model. /^t/The argument between supporters and opponents of letting gay couples adopt children in fact boils down to the question of which value is more important: tolerance or responsibility. Yet, the claim that the right of adoption should be denied to homosexuals must not be identified with calling for intolerance against them. It is simply the only possible solution in the case where the drawbacks of introducing such a right would greatly outweigh its vague advantages. <0180> /^t/We learn to lie very early, in our childhood. A small baby deceives his/her mother to get more food or pretends to be ill to make the parents focus their attention on him. With the passage of time, as we grow older our lies become more and more sophisticated. We stretch the truth to gain personal advantages, but also very often resort to lying because we want to protect other people's feelings. Deceiving is an inseparable but also very controversial part of our life and one should not treat it only one-sided as something completely bad or immoral. /^t/A good example of lying which is fully acceptable is a situation when a doctor lies to a fatally ill patient about the person's health condition. As it was well researched by many psychologists, positive, optimistic thinking and faith in recovery may be very helpful in treating even the most serious diseases. In such a situation, a doctor has every right to hide the truth in order not to deprive his/her patient of the last hope and add to his/her suffering. Such a lie which aim is to protect feelings of a fatally ill person is fully justifiable and cannot be in any way considered immoral. /^t/Another example when not being straight is considered to be right is a situation when we tell a white lie in order to prevent embarassment and avoid hurting other people's feelings. It is always more advisable to tell a fib while refusing an unwelcome lunch invitation and say "Unfortunately I can't go, because I have a very important appointment" than stay "moral" and say "I hate you. Get off my back!". Such lying, again cannot be condemned as it is stretching the truth for the benefit of other people, and is in no respect aimed at destroying one's reputation, undermining somebody or gaining personal advantages. /^t/There are also cases when we do not stick to the facts, because we want to impress other people or boast our own ego. We sometimes hold inflatables or exaggerate our experiences just to seem more worth-while or attractive. Such lies, practised mainly when meeting new people or at parties cannot do much harm and are easily forgettable. However, one should remember that the border between acceptable and serious, fully deplorable lie is very vague and easy to encroach on. But as far as the exaggeration does not go beyond reasonable limits, serves mainly as amusement and does not hurt others it is fully acceptable. /^t/To conclude, although lying is considered by many to be a very serious offence which should be totally condemned, there are cases when it is not completely immoral and deplorable. Deceiving in many situations may be not only justifiable but what is more advisable, especially when it aims at protecting other people's feelings. White lies told during a conversation with friends or at party when the only purpose of a lier is to attract attention of his fellows should also be considered as harmless. However, one should not go into extremes and accept all sort of lying as positive. There are of course situations when we use deceitful means to undermine others or to gain personal advantage. In such cases, lying cannot be approved and regarded as right. The most important thing is to not to have only a one-side viewpoint of the very complicated problem of lying and always be aware of the border between an acceptable and fully deplorable lie. <0181> /^t/Plague can be definied as an attack of disease causing death and spreading very quickly to large number of people. In the Middle Ages people in Europe suffered many plagues. At that time there were not any medicines or antibiotics which could stop the plague. People also did not have any help from the government or from the king or queen. They had to cope with the plague themselves. No wonder that almost 1/3, sometimes even up to 1/2, of the population died when a plague appeared. However, nowadays people know many medical substances which can stop almost any disease. Moreover, governments are able to take certain steps to help people in case of a plague. /^t/First of all, the government should feel responsible for taking firm actions to deal with the plague. The occurance of an epidemic makes people panic. So the first step is to reduce the anxiety and fear, as it may be disturbing while "fighting" with the plague. The government should acquaint people with information concerning the plague: what to do when one is infected, how to help the other infected person, and how to prevent oneself from being infected. People should be constantly informed about the situation in the country. Mass media should give reliable news as far as the plague is concerned. The media should inform people what steps are taken by the government to prevent the spread of the plague. One of the steps taken by the government, especially in case of bubonic plague, may be organizing groups of people who will get rid of the rats: as the bubonic plague spreads quickly from rats to people. /^t/Secondly, not only Health Department but also the whole government in case of the plague should be able to provide enough money for any medical treatment. The bubonic plague, a very infectious disease, produces high fever, swellings on the body and it may lead to death if it is not treated immediately. That is why citizens who have already become ill should be given antibiotic which is able to destroy or stop the growth of harmful bacteria that have entered the body. Those people who have not been infected yet should be provided appropriate vaccines which protect them against disease. The following statement given by the government - "We are not able to give any more antibiotics or vaccines" cannot occur in case of plague. Each and every citizen must receive appropriate medical treatment and help. Moreover, as the plague is uncontrollable, the government should organize "medical centers" to separate infected people. In these "medical centers" patients will be taken care by doctors and nurses. /^t/Finally, let us take into a consideration a little bit different situation. People in a country, let us assume Poland, find out that in the neighbouring country, for example Russia, a plague is spreading very quickly. What steps should the Polish government take in such situation? The government may put an embargo on the supply of food from the country where the plague is spreading. The government may even take a step further and it may forbid all sorts of trade with Russia. As an epidemic makes people panic, probably many people from Russia would try to escape from the country. So the Polish government may put soldiers on the borders in order to prevent Russians from entering Poland. What seems to be the most important thing in such situation is the order given by the Polish government that every citizen must be immunized against the disease. /^t/To sum up, it is possible to prevent the spread of the plague or even to nip it in the bud. However, it requires cooperation between the government and the citizens. The government, in case of a plague, should direct its attention only to this plague: how to stop it. Other political issues and problems when an epidemic is spreading should be of no interest to the government. <0182> /^t/The general truth about drugs is that people always liked to take them regardless of the conditions in which they lived and reasons for which drugs were used. Drugs are used because people need a stimulus which temporarily alters their right frame of mind and produces the feeling of enhanced emotional perception of the world, and deeper aesthetic experience. Human brain needs stimuli that activate the whole nervous system. Since alcohol is not very effective activator - it supposedly ravages man's organism and brings about huge hangover - drugs seem to be healthier and more interesting consensus. /^t/The ancient history of mankind reveals us extensive use of drugs by different cultures. The haze of opium fumes that filled Nepalese pagodas took the Buddhist monks on the everlasting trips into the Universe. Colombian and Peru Indians lazily chewed coca leaves, Pueblos devoured Mexican payote, and Northern American Indians used wide array of healing herbs. All those plants were believed to be special gifts from the gods of Earth. That is why the access to drugs was limited only to the wisest and the most experienced members of the tribal clans who, given the unnatural powers, could effectively use the mystic herbs. Shamans, who were medicine men, used healing properties of herbs and muchrooms which in great measure, consisted of alcaloids and psylocylives, the substances that caused narcotic trance. /^t/In the 1950's and 60's drug-related culture had entered its Renaissance due to the popularization of Buddhist culture across America. However, the reasons for taking drugs had seriously changed. Drug culture became a rebell against well-situated middle class American society. Even in Europe, in conservative and puritanical England, since the time of the Beatles' "Lucy in The Sky with Diamonds" which was interpreted as the description of a fascinating LSD trip, the drug boom had began. Thousands of young Americans fled their homes heading towards poor suburb of Height Ashburry in San Francisco. Pot fumes hovered over the crowds gathered at the Woodstock festival, and hippies made themselves happy listening to Hendrix's harsh narco-guitar trances. Psychedelia, the weirdest trend in Rock'n'Roll, promoted LSD and pot as factors that would free people from social bounds and problems of everyday life. Drugs were supposed to be the major creative strenght in forming free communities in which life was based on the slogan "Make love, not war". Alas! All the ideals laid in ruins, and ironically, drugs which were seen as the major vital force came out to be the most vicious killer. In 1970 alone they killed three hippie gurus: Jimmie Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morisson. /^t/People of the 80's were far more rationale in their commitment to drugs. They replaced the hippie slogan with the new one: "Make love, not children", and changed their drug repertoir essentially. New experiences and new stronger drugs were highly praised among the young generation. The use of hard drugs such as crack cocaine, exctasy, and other pills had seriously increased. People raised their egos through drugs; they believed that creativity and imagination flourished when one was on a dope. Besides, drugs became popular and widely accepted, so to get a dope one just had to visit the nearest bar or disco. Encouraged by the lecture of Burroughs' "Naked Lunch", Sukewick's and Kerouac's novels young people got themselves high at any occasion because they wanted to discover the desolate spaces deep inside their sub-consciousness. /^t/Today's young generation is slowly but continuously reducing on the hard drugs overuse. No one denies that drugs make irreparable harm to human's nervous system and that they deteriorate organism. The array of drugs has been recently changed by the young people. They tend to use milder stimulants such as herbal drugs or energizers. People want to take "healthy" pleasure from discos, or rather techno parties. That is why they have replaced crack cocaine and ecstasy with drinks such as "Red Bull" which induce the effect similar to drinking of three or four cups of coffee. The question of the legality of drugs may thus be soom invalid as the use of drugs will diminish. <0183> /^t/Bringing up a child is never an easy task. Everyday, parents have to deal with many various problems, and hardly ever can they find satisfactory solutions. One such problem is the issue of correction and punishment. Unfortunately, many parents underestimate it and often chose the simplest way of solving it - they smack their child if it misbehaves. As it is a generally accepted practice, not everyone realizes it may be not the proper one. They often don't see how cruel and contemptuous it is, and that it usually results from the parents' lack of interest and care. However, there are people who try to find some other ways of child correction that can well substitute smacking. /^t/In the first place, parents should try to avoid situations in which punishment is inevitable. It is extremely important with younger children who most often misbehave not because they are evil or malicious, but because they simply do not know the rules they should obey. For example, when a child grabs another child's toy, instead of spanking or shouting, the parents should draw the child's attention to some other, equally interesting thing. The parents should make conscious efforts to avoid conflicts and thus situations that punishment. /^t/However, there are situations when some kind of punishment needs to be applied, but it does not have to be corporal punishment. Children are extremely sensitive as far as feelings and emotions are concerned and this can be well turned into a tool of quick and effective way of correction or punishment. Certainly, this method requires (from parents) some care and patience, but its effects are worth the efford. The parents need to devote much attention to making the child respect other people's feelings. This must be developed especially in very small children who never deliberately hurt anybody, especially their parents. The child learns to be, somehow, responsible for its deeds when it sees its bad behaviour makes its mother sad or angry. Unlike in the case of corporal punishment, parents evoke positive feelings in their offsprings and through emotions get closer to them. If used reasonably, this method of child correction can be effective and well substitute corporal punishment. /^t/Another way of child correction, that partially follows the previous one, is making the child bear the consequences of its behaviour. This is extremely important with the children who can already understand the relationships between things separated in time, for example schoolchildren. The major advantage of this method is that it is closely related to the natural cause-effect mechanism of the world. For instance, if a child doesn't want to eat, it will be hungry, if it destroys a toy, it can't always be repaired, and if it makes a mess it'll have to clean it. Some additional punishments may be used to reinforce this method, such as depriveing a child of some pleasures (if a child who hasn't eaten the dinner shouldn't get sweets etc). However, these should be only supportive means. This method can prepare child for real life requirements. /^t/Finally, it's important to mention one practice that should always underpin all kinds of child correction - explanation. Parents should remember that every moment the child learns something new and the sooner they understand it the better. Every action that the parents undertakes should be followed by explanation, which works best if whispered into the child's ear. The child must learn what was wrong and how to correct itself, otherwise much of the parents efford to bring it up will be useless. /^t/Although so much have been sad about its harmful effect smacking is still a generally accepted practice. Hardly anyone tries to control and limit it even if there are other ways of child upbringing. They are at least as effective as corporal punishment and don't have that ... side-effects. Parents simply need to use and remember that they are to be guiders not the rulers and that in the long run force is less effective than care and love. <0184> /^t/The answer to this question would probably be real only if it was based on the information given by those who actually use drugs. Otherwise, one can only guess about various reasons why it happens. /^t/The enjoyment factor is definitely something which can be considered one of them. People gather together, go the parties, clubs and discos to have fun, to make their life more interesting. Having all the "traditional" leisure activities, they now want more. Especially youngsters try everything what seems different and exciting. More and more of them turn away from all the conventional ways of enjoying themselves and this is what drugs seem to provide. One can feel so happy and relaxed after a dose. People experience all these funny sensations and have such fascinating dreams. And in addition, there is always this something mysterious and inexplicable involved. What also contributes to the extent of drug attractiveness, especially as far as young people are concerned, is the fact that it is illegal and forbidden to take them. Therefore, if one has done that, they can be "proud" of themselves and boast in front of their colleagues who would probably envy them their "extraordinary" experiences being perhaps too afraid to do the same thing themselves. /^t/Some would definitely be afraid but others way as well say "why not", and here is another reason which one could call a group instinct. It is really awkward to be in a company of people who are taking drugs while not taking them oneself. Not only does such a person feel an outsider but the rest also shows him or her that they would very reluctantly tolerate anybody like that among them. That is why, people often feel compelled to join and have a go. Some would do anything to have the sense of integration with the group or with particular members of it. I personally once knew a girl who fell in love with a drug addict and trying to spend as much time as possible within his circle of friends to be noticed, she would take drugs herself. She thought, and this is what such communities make one think, she could not belong to them otherwise. /^t/There is also this overwhelming feeling of boredom and monotony which makes certain people want to somehow break it. They go to school or work, come back home, watch TV, go to bed and it is the same day by day. Many of them may not be able to afford to go on holidays, change their environment or anything else in their life. Others simply do not have enough imagination to do something to liven it up. Drugs seem then a very easy solution to that problem. They can change everything at least for a while without much of an effort. The temptation is often irresistible, especially when one knows how it feels after a bit of cannabis or a dope. /^t/Sometimes, it is a particularly difficult situation or problem which one too hard to cope with. The only wish everybody has in such a case is to forget about the reality. An escape, though only momentary, is what drugs also offer. No matter what the consequences and regardless of the fact that tomorrow one will have to face those difficulties anyway, people often resort to drugs when they just want to forget about something which seems beyond them at that particular moment. It helps but unfortunately only for a short while. /^t/Finally, the addiction comes. One stops being able to exist without drugs. It is no more a matter of indulging for pleasure or relax, it may be even a matter of life and death. Drugs become an inseparable element of an every-day living. People take them simply because they have to. Otherwise they feel under the weather, sick or sometimes incapable of performing their basic duties and functions depending on the degree of their addiction. /^t/All in all, those who take drugs, do it it for reasons best known for themselves. Therefore, as I mentioned at the beginning, the real answer could be obtained only on the basis of the information gathered from the source. Using no drugs myself, I cannot perhaps fully understand, and therefore explain the phenomenon of drug taking. Nonetheless, I hope some of my guesses were correct and at least partially answered the problem in question. <0185> /^t/People always lie. There is no way of dissuading them from that. Hard as one tries not to lie, one always fails. A lie is present everywhere: in schools, in mass media, in politics even in families, to say nothing of church. One cannot see a clear-cut border between a lie and truth. It is extremely difficult to live in a world like that, and that is why I daresay that a lie should be condemned once and for all. /^t/At the outset let me begin by saying that for many people lying to a dying man seems to be the best way of easing the pain. A lie helps to keep the ill in a good psychical state. They do not lose hope and some doctors say that hope helps people to fight their diseases. Many patients fought a cancer just because they hoped they could live. Besides, not everybody is capable of telling their mother or father that they are going to die in a few months. In that cases a lie seems to be unavoidable. /^t/I must say that I strongly disapprove of that behaviour. Relatives and doctors do not have the right of putting themselves in the position of gods. The truth about the incurable illness belongs to the ill man as much as it belongs to the relatives. Truth, even the painful truth, is always worth telling. It can make nothing but good. It lets the ill man die in an atmosphere of love and trust. That is very important for both sides. A lie creates an atmosphere of distrust and suspection, and because of that it should be strongly condemned. /^t/The next point I want to make is a government telling lies. Many people say that a government, in order to function properly, has to resort to lying. Some points concerning the military or financial matters cannot always be revealed to the public. That is because the security of the state is of highest interest to the government. We all should let them keep secrets for our own benefit. Thanks to that we can live our lives in a secure country, which can defend itself against aggressors. In this situation a lie seems to be absolutely excused. /^t/However, that brings us to the point when we let a lie rule over our lives. What is the sense - in a democratic state at least - of lying to the voters? A president, a prime minister or members of parliament, they all are representatives - the people elected to run the government on behalf of society. It means that all the citizens are equally responsible for their country. They all have right to know what is happening in it. Every lie, be it told by a government or by a casual man, has to be condemned. /^t/Last but not least is the problem of a white lie, that is, a lie which makes no harm to other people. Many of us say it is all right to lie, as long as it does no harm to anybody. Such a lie makes sometimes our lives more beautiful. We can say we are younger, taller, smarter than we really are. It harms nobody. It just helps us to feel better, to put ourselves in a good mood. It seems that there is no sense of fighting a white lie as it is indispensable element of our lives. /^t/At this point I must protest again. As was mentioned earlier, we often let a lie rule over our lives. A white lie does not make us younger, taller, smarter. It does, however, make us feel awful, when it is revealed. It does make our friends stop trusting us. The world, supposed to be more beautiful, becomes a place where nothing is real, where we cannot trust anybody. Better would be for us to avoid lying, as it makes our lives very complicated. /^t/Much can be said about the reasons why people lie. Much can be also said about the excuses they find. The points presented in this paper are just elements of a very long list of similar situations. However, no matter how many words we write or say, a lie will be always present in our lives, as long as it is not strongly condemned in all life situations. <0186> /^t/An epidemic is characterized by a large number of cases of the same infectious disease appearing during a single period of time. It is especially dangerous if accompanied by an outburst of panic. Thus, first of all, panic should be prevented. The government ought to take measures against the spread of the disease very carefully, step by step, informing the citizens all the time about the current state of affairs. It goes without saying that the high level of social awareness combined with an effective distribution of medical aid is the key to success in the fight against the possible pandemic. /^t/To start with, communication with an infected country must be cancelled. Previously, the source of the epidemic has to be identified. Reliable scientists, doctors and medical experts, should try to establish the main cause of the problem. Their duty would be to ensure if a country is endangered in one way only or in a variety of ways. In case of a state which is and island, it would be enough to cancel flights and marine connections with the country in which the disease spreads, as well as to scrutinize all the ships and planes that come from the rest of the world. Yet, in case of an inland country, such as Poland, that would not be enough. Apart from controlling seaports and airports, the government would have to seal off the borders, too. /^t/The next step consists of an information campaign in mass media joined to the distribution of a vaccine or a serum, if the disease is curable. Television, newspapers and posters placed in visible places in cities, towns and villages ought to describe the symptoms of the disease, give details about the basic preventive methods and present interviews with specialists who would advise how to avoid a risk of contamination. Moreover, trained doctors, nurses and people generally respected in their communities ought to organize meetings to talk about the epidemic. Vaccination would have to be compulsory and certificates of inoculation would need to be given so that police, the army and people working for the NHS would be able to check if everybody secured herself or himself from the disease. /^t/To ensure the success of all these actions, important, large institutions together with organizations should be asked for help. Firstly, the army would need to mobilized, as well as additional police forces. A special conscription would provide more soldiers and policemen in the streets to keep law and order, as well as transport the medical commodities, or, in the worst case, the sick to hospitals. Secondly, churches and other influential religious oranizations could call volunteers who would help in preparations. Also, international institutions, like the UN or the WHO might send money and well-trained people to insulate the given country from the deadly influence of the epidemic. Apart from that firemen too would be required to help in transportation, alongside with bus drivers and taxi-cab drivers. Secondly, rich companies would be asked to help financially the pharmaceutical industry to enable the increased production of a vaccine, rubber gloves, hypodermic syringes, disinfectants and other necessary medical articles. Thirdly, the rules of sterilization of surgical and dentistic tools should be obeyed with no exceptions and special commissions ought to check if and how they are enforced. Modern methods of sterilization, for example by gamma rays, should be made widely available. In addition to that the population should be warned that some customs may be dangerous and lethal, for example the Ganesh festival in India, which includes such elements of ritual as dancing face to face, and therefore enabled the outburst of the bubonic plague in Surat two years ago. /^t/In general, all sections, layers and classes of the society should cooperate in order to make their efforts of fighting with the epidemic effective. <0187> /^t/The issue whether gay couples should have the right to adopt children has caused much confusion recently. There is no univocal conclusion, as usual. There are many problematic questions arising with this particular issue and the foremost of these is what influence will such 'families' have on the children's psyche and future life? The most important things to be considered are not legal proceedings, precedents etc, but whether children raised in gay families will be able to lead normal life both as youngsters and adults. /^t/The first thing to be discussed in order to shed some light on the problem is: who has the right to adopt children? The answer seems pretty obvious - married couples. But what is the definition of such a relationship. As traditionally perceived, marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, however nowadays also people of the same sex are allowed to get married. In the face of the law they are married couples, therefore they have the same rights as other couples. But it is still a clearly different relationship from the traditional marriage. If the law provides us with rules that not necessarily have to be right, then what can we do? /^t/The most important question that arises from the whole issue is whether the children raised in gay families will be able to lead normal life? We all know very well that most things that children learn come from their parents. What values can a gay family convey to its child? We cannot deny that many gays are intelligent and educated people. But is wit the only thing to be handed down to next generations? What about emotional values like love, friendship and other feelings (seen in traditional way). Don't they count? /^t/Another vital issue to be discussed is the mental state of a child brought up in such a family. Are gays capable of providing the child with suitable conditions for proper mental development? As researchers proved, gay behavior is deviant. Should we then expose poor children to abnormal behaviors of their parents. Haven't they suffered enough. What sort of example for the child are two man or women kissing and holding each other, of course if it means something more than an usual hug or kiss? How can the child refer his/her family life to what (s)he can see outside home, on TV or in families of friends. It surely would put a lot of strain on this child. /^t/Next thing worth considering is whether the gay parents' influence on the child would be purely 'parental'? Gays are still in minority and they have fewer rights than others. As we know from history minorities fought for their rights by whatever means. Since we are more civilized and slaughter is a little bit outdated, what means could possibly gays use to increase their chances of becoming 'full-fledge' citizens? The first thing in all political struggles (this is also politics) is to gain supporters. Who are the supporters for gays? Other gays of course and 'their children'. In such a case it is likely that gays would 'indoctrinate' their children somehow in order to gain backers in future. In other words, if the child is told day by day that gay contacts are perfectly normal then there is no way the child could be able to function within a normal society. /^t/There are many other problems connected with the 'gay issue' one of them being intolerance of society for a kid being raised by a gay couple. Children have to go to school whether they like it or not. They may like it when they have no problem with learning and they have friends. Since children are pretty intolerant, how would the child feel if everybody around knew that (s)he comes from a gay family. This child would feel alienated and would be ostracized for sure. Not many (if any at all) of his/her classmates would be brave enought to stand by him/her. It would surely have destructive influence on the child's mental state and who know maybe this influence would be present in his/her mind throughout the whole lifetime. /^t/People have always taken care of their children and paid as much attention to them as possible. But is it the case now? What is going to happen when gays get the rights they fight for, when they are legally allowed to adopt children. Do we care about the kids or ourselves, about making our lives convenient? Well, if we give rights to gays we will not have arguments and political rights about this issue any more. But who are the ones to pay for it? Is it us? No! It's our children. They are the ones to suffer the most. One question comes to mind - are gays capable of being good mothers and fathers? Guess not. <0188> /^t/The plague is a very infectious and usually fatal disease which affects rodents, but is transmissible to humans by the bites of rodent fleas. The bubonic plague, in particular, causes headaches, fever, and painful swellings of the lymph nodes, especially in the groin area. To prevent the spread of such an epidemic, a country which is in danger of an outbreak, should take all possible safety measures. Yet, no matter how hard that country tries to stop the disease, there is no guarantee of success. But both, the government and people, have to do their best and co-operate. /^t/First of all, the government should place restrictions on, or even stop, the import of various goods from the infected country. This may lead, however, to animosities between these two nations. Consequently, it is important to assist the country in which the plague is present with some medical help. Providing medicines, along with good specialists, would do much good to mutual co-operation and health. /^t/Another thing that seems to be even more important than the previous one, is to inform people of the danger and current situation. Doctors, by means of the mass media and leaflets, should make people aware of the symptoms of the disease. Everyone even with mild signs of illness ought to be assessed by doctors and in case they are infected, they have to be isolated and given antibiotic drugs. The announcement of the danger, however, may cause panic among the population, but people's awareness of the problem is relevant to prevent the spread of the epidemic. /^t/The next step of the government should concern tourism and travelling abroad. All flights, trains, and coaches ought to be ceased. In fact, this is not always feasible. In this case, aircraft captains, for example, should be obliged to notify airports of unwell passengers and instructed not to allow passengers or the crew off planes, until such cases have been assessed by doctors. /^t/An additional problem arises when the infected country borders on the one that is to protect itself. Then, it is not sufficient to tighten the safety measures and close the borders, since many people may get into the country illegally through the so called "green border". Therefore, soldiers placed along the frontier could resolve this matter. /^t/One final thing that a country can do to prevent the spread of the fatal and infectious disease is to raise the public hygiene. In this matter, a co-operation among all the population is indispensable. Each person has to keep clean not only himself or herself but also the surroundings. /^t/To sum up, it can be recapitulated that the plague is a real disaster. If no safety measures were taken, the disease would take lives of millions of innocent people. Therefore, the government, the mass media, and other institutions play a great part in fighting the epidemic. Yet, taking imports and tourism into control is not an ultimate guarantee of success. In spite of many developments in science, at any time, people can be faced with an "enemy" which cannot be defeated. <0189> /^t/In the era when most people are engrossed in quest for the career, money, comfortable life and satisfying some basic desires hardly anyone would worry about violations of inalienable rights of every human being, about rejecting moral values, virtues that have been accompanying humankind from the word go. Nowadays, when almost everyone turns a blind eye on eccentricities, idiosyncrasies, or else procedures that are against nature, the right of gay couples to adopt children will not probably be questioned. Although in the Netherlands both homosexual and lesbian marriages are legal and will shortly stake their claim to have adopted children, I would be resolutely opposed to allowing them to be parents as a family of this kind is against nature, it can pervasively influence a child in the course of the years, and it is widespreadly rejected and discredited by the whole society. /^t/Firstly, it should be stated that gay families violate the law established about four thousand years ago. Obviously, people get into pairs not only for a pure procreation, as there are marriages that because of various reasons remain childless, but still, as the Bible teaches, the only families that have the right to exist are those consisting of heterosexual adults. /^t/Secondly, being the 'offspring' of a gay couple may have a far-reaching effect upon the child itself. Every child has an implicit faith in its parents and for quite a couple of years they constitute the only authority or a paragon of virtues for it. No one would claim that a homosexual or lesbian marriage can be a perfect model to copy. Unquestionably, children should have a female mother, as only a woman is bilogically programmed to have a baby and to take care of it with an innate affection, patience and love, and else a male father, with his sense of discipline, external strength and being the head of a family, because only the family of this kind can properly contribute to the undistorted mental and spiritual development of every child. Although there is no irrefutable evidence that homosexuality runs in the family, some young people, brought up by gays, may inexorably end up as lesbians or homosexuals. /^t/Lastly, gay couples that think of adopting children should take into consideration not only their own wishes and desires, but also the society their 'offspring' will have to face both while living with them and then after spreading their own wings. In Poland people are very conservative and intolerant, and a particular model of a family is deeply-seated in the tradition they cherish. They will not only condemn the homosexual parents but they will also ostracize their children. Not only adults may be so merciless, kids brought up by gays may be, as well, bullied and shunned by their school mates, which can consequently lead to alienation and unhappiness, and which is not the situation considerate parents head for. /^t/From the foregoing it can be seen that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children maybe not because they are devoid of certain characteristics that can make them good parents, but because their martial status is not generally accepted and consequently has to bear this burdon. It invokes the outcry of criticism of not only old goody-goody women, in fact their opinion is of little importance, but of theologians, psychologists and sociologists who see possible dangers in implementing or inflicting a homosexual point of view, misunderstood concepts of tolerance and a subjective, specifically oriented outlook, and thus, exerting a great influence on very valnurable and susceptible young people. <0190> /^t/The 20th century has been the time of continual progress taking place in almost all spheres of life. The inhabitants of today's world have been facing those changes, either accepting or disregarding them. Most of the new ideas have been accepted and used by people but there are still some new ideas that do not appeal to them. One of such ideas is the concept of modern art. It seems that, although, the 20th century has seen some truly great art, most people have not learnt to appreciate it. /^t/Art is the expression of what is beautiful, whether through music, literature or painting. It is suppossed to evoke in its lovers unusual feelings of admiration. From art, people expect something extraordinary that would help them enter a different world. Unfortunately, most people very often think of art in terms of simplicity and usefullness. Therefore, they seem to disregard things that recquire more intellect and understanding from them. And since, modern art involves something more than only looking and admiring, it has been unfairly treated, even by many art lovers, as odd, trivial, obscene, boring and useless. People have the right to dislike rotting heads, walls smeared with chocolate or cans covered with bananas, which are the fruits of a very controversial conceptual Art. But they disapprove it at once, after the first glance, without trying to understand the meanings hidden behind those, as they say 'unaesthetic' works. People always ignore the things they do not understand and, therefore, modern art is not fully appreciated. It should be, though, because modern art is not only about those cans and heads, that almost everybody thinks lack talent, skills and effort, but also about true, fantastic and very skillfull works like, for instance, those created by Salvador Dali. /^t/Dali's imagination and talent has been admired by many and appreciated even by those who are not so much interested in paintings or sculptures. The fact that he was a truly great artist is hard to deny. The examples of his mastery and genius may be the painting from 1937 called 'Metamorphosis of Narcissus' or the other one called 'Swans reflected in the water as elephants'. Both pieces show not only vivid imagination of the artist, but also his undeniable talent and ability to change his thoughts into breathtaking pictures. And also the fact that he and his works are known all over the world proves that modern art is useful, valuable and unique. /^t/There are some more facts that make modern art climate, and especially the controversial art of the 90s, unique and worth to be appreciated. Firstly, the range and originality of the art being produced is enormous. The number of the artists working now is greater than at probably all other periods in history put together. There are 1,200 graduate in fine art every year in Britain alone. Secondly, attendances at public museums are higher than at any time in history. More people visit galleries than attend football matches. Thirdly, tabloid newspapers report almost weekly on some aspect of art policy, so that people are aware of contemporary art to an extent that has never previously been the case. Another fact proving the usefullness of modern art is that avant-garde is now institutionalised in education. It is taught and emerges from art colleges. It is also institutionalised in public funding and has become the supported style in Britain. Furthermore, the art of the 20th century stimulates the mind, moves the imagination and provokes thinking, which is not usually the case with old art. A modern art sculpture made, for instance, from a few dentures joined together with plaster might be a mountain covered with an avalanche for one person and a tree of life or a cage for someone else. Such a piece of art is focused on spectators. The spectators complete the picture with their imagination, intellect and become artists themselves. While old art pieces, especially paintings, are usually unfaithful reconstructions of reality. When people look at them they see the same things. It is difficult to create a list of endless interpretations of a painting that shows a war, a room or a person. /^t/The arguments presented above irrefutably prove that, although, modern art have many opponents it should be appreciated. As everything changes in the world the concept of art has to change as well. Many people think of modern art as boring and I think that it would be boring, if we had the same kind of art all the time. We would not be able to compare things, to find, among all those different works, something for us. The art of this century has been very creative and meaningful. The fact that it has been more intellectual and more difficult to comprehend just adds charm and value to it. The most important thing is that it has been exploring new areas and introducing new possibilities to the present and the future world of art. <0191> /^t/The increase of violence has recently become a very serious issue for Poles. Sociologists, psychologists, politicians and also the Catholic church representatives are trying to find the reasons for it and, simultaneously, solutions to stop the phenomenon of 'a rising tide of violence' in Poland nowadays. Generally speaking, three major causes of the increase of violence can be distinguished. The most obvious one is the pejorative influence of television on people's attitudes and behaviors. Another observable reason is the phenomenon of conspicuous consumption in Polish society, in which not moral but materialistic values are becoming predominant. Still, sociologists associate the increase of violence in Poland with the influx of people from the former Soviet Union and Romania. /^t/Television is often to blame for the increase of violence in Poland. First of all, it has been proved, that television exerts a very significant influence on people's attitudes and opinions. If, then, the opinions presented and favored on television are offensive, rude and instigating, people's opinions and attitudes become the same. That this is really true is conspicuous in attitudes that many Poles have towards clergy and people connected with the Catholic church. Priests and nuns, despised by the majority, often become victims of various acts of violence like robberies, assaults or even rapes. This rule is also applicable as far as Poles' attitudes to other public people and celebrities like politicians, lawyers, actors etc. are concerned. What television says about them is visibly reflected in people's opinions and attitudes. Another significant cause is related to the fact that films presented on television show a great amount of violence. This, first of all, make people indifferent to it. Brutal scenes are now not as shocking as they used to be. They have simply become a natural and normal part of people's lives. Furthermore, as proved in numerous sociological experiments, violent programmes make people violent. The tension, that such broadcasts evoke, is cumulated and sooner or later, has to be released. The rising rate of violence is, then, explainable. /^t/The western phenomenon of conspicuous consumption is now recognizable also in Poland and it has been linked to the problem of the rising rate of violence. By definition, conspicuous consumption is a wasteful spending intended to attract attention and show one's wealth and high social position, especially done by people who have recently become wealthy and want other people to know it. In simpler words, conspicuous consumption is associated with the dominance of materialistic values over spiritual ones. Since the political system in Poland changed, Poles have become more affluent and they have started to follow the western lifestyle. Simultaneously, the access to drugs and weapon has become easier, which is tightly related to the increase of violence in Poland. On one hand there is, thus, the access to drugs and weapon, and on the other hand, there is the decrease of the significance of moral values. Spiritual matters have become minor or obsolete ones. For many Poles words like honesty, truth, fidelity and patriotism have lost their meanings and importance. The crucial question now is what you have, not what you are. Unfortunately, in Poland violence has become one of the means to strengthen the 'have'. /^t/Dealing with the issue of the increase of violence in Polish society, sociologists have found another significant explanation of the recent situation. Namely, they have observed that this phenomenon is also related to the influx of people from the former Soviet Union and Romania. A telling number of crimes has been lately committed either by Russians or Romanians. Russians are to blame for smuggling of weapon, drugs, gold and many stolen goods to or through Poland, whereas Romanians are responsible mostly for robberies and assaults. The "Russian" problem is extremely serious, since it also involves contacts of Russians with Polish mafias, gangs and individual criminals. This is one of the reasons why Russians are involved in the majority of crimes committed in Poland in recent years. Interestingly enough, many criminal cases presented on Polish television in programmes like "Cops" or "997" have something in common mostly with Russian but also with Romanian people. /^t/The problem of the increase of violence in Poland is, thus, a very significant and up-to-date issue. Roots of that situation are very complex, but they can still be recognized. To find causes is, however, much easier than to find applicable solutions to change the situation in Poland. Fortunately, some steps have already been taken. There are more police officers in the streets, now. Laws concerning both juvenile delinquents and serious criminals are becoming more and more strict. Politicians are paying much more attention to the problem of how to decrease violence in Poland. On the other hand, however, the majority seems pesimistic and evaluates the process as irrevocable. It appears unfeasible to reduce violence on television, to stop materialism and, simply, to change man's nature. Only time will tell, whether 'a rising tide of violence' in Poland finally stops. <0192> /^t/I am deeply convinced that the question whether gay couples should have the right to adopt children is of great importance not only for the homosexual minority and the children they adopt but also for the whole modern society. I think that if this right will be given to gays it will involve many social changes that will soon prove harmful. In this essay I will try to give motives for my opinion that gay couples should not have the right to adopt children. /^t/During thousands of years of history of mankind our civilisation has shaped a model of family. It is true that it undergoes many changes and is not unequivocal, e.g. the number of children in the family still varies according to social status, race and other factors. However, the image of parents stayed the same - father and mother. Up to our times no one ever questioned it but the twentieth century society has become more and more permissive and willing to grant liberties to various minorities. As a consequence of that, some countries allowed homosexuals to marry and adopt children and thus introduced a complitely new model of family. /^t/In my opinion, the state which gives the gay couples the right to adopt children acts against its citizens. Namely, by doing so it propegates a totally different model of family. It is my conviction that such family cannot happily function in the society. The child is forever deprived of the care of the mother, the one he or she needs so much during the first years of life. I am sure that it must negatively affect the child's psyche as no father can ever make up for the loss of mother. /^t/Secondly, I am afraid that children brought up in gay families will also tend to be homosexual and, as far as their family life is concerned, they will follow the footsteps of their parents. I doubt whether a child who was brought up by homosexuals and stayed in their circles for a number of years can still be heterosexual. For example, the very notion of what women are like that a young boy whose parents were gay has in his mind must be different from the way children from normal families treat women. Thus, the number of homosexuals will increase and, as the ratio of violent deviant behaviour is higher among gays than heterosexuals, soon we will have to face an increase in deviance. /^t/Thirdly, the introduction of the new model of family is likely to cause serious demographic problems. At the turn of our century the developed world faces a decrease in the number of births which will further be speeded up by gay couples whose only way to have offspring is adoption. This is another reason why we cannot afford the new changes to be made. /^t/I think that giving gay couples the right to adopt children means acceptance and, what is worse, propagation of deviation. Granting homosexuals new freedoms certainly strengthens their position in the society. It is likely to result in a decline of moral standards because of the model of the libertine that gays encourage to follow. In fact, our whole culture may change its face as new values will be introduced. I doubt whether society will pass the test of tolerance and gay and heterosexual families will happily coexist together. Finally, the break of the family will surely lead to the break up of society. That is why I am absolutely against giving gay couples the right to adopt children. <0193> /^t/In recent years minorities of homosexual orientation have been fighting for their legal rights. In response to their demands, authorities in Denmark for example have allowed gay couples to get married. What is more, some of such couples in their struggle to be treated equally with others, demand to be legally allowed to adopt children. The issue is now discussed in several countries. However, there are several reasons why homosexual couples should not adopt children. Gay couples still in most of the countries are not allowed to get married. Thus, they, as a family, would not profit from social protection. Also, they would not be accepted by most of the society and may be subject to discrimination. Finally, homosexual parents cannot provide children with models that would not break the rules of nature. /^t/The basic reason why gay couples should not have the right to adopt children is that in most of the countries they cannot legally get married. So, the first thing to do would be to pass a law allowing such couples to legalize their relationship. However, it is very unlikely to happen because of social unacceptance towards homosexuality. Thus, gay couples could only adopt children without being married. Such an informal family would be deprived of certain benefits of a traditional family with married parents. They could not profit from social protection, for example they could not receive a child benefit. Also, they do not get a holiday or a travel discount. This is particularly important in case of less wealthy gay couples when lack of social protection can make their financial situation very difficult. /^t/Another thing to consider is what people's attitude towards homosexual parents is because it might strongly influence the life of such a family. Most of the people are intolerant towards homosexuality as such, not to mention allowing homosexuals to get married or adopt children. As the consequence, children brought up by homosexual parents may be alienated from their environment, teased by their peers, and called stupid names. This results in depriving these children of the basic need, namely this of social acceptance. /^t/One more objection against gay couples adopting children is that they cannot provide children with traditional models of a female mother and a male father. Parent models being the same sex breaks the rules of nature, and the image of a family children would have would be based on their own families. Besides, homosexuality of their parents may lead to some abnormalities in children's sexual development such as transsexualism, bisexualism, or homosexualism. /^t/There are in fact some supporters of the law that would give gay couples the right to adopt children, being mostly homosexuals themselves. However, what should be taken into account first is not the prospective parents good, but the children's good. A homosexual couple can still be a happy one without children, while children brought up by them are very likely to be unhappy. Firstly, because they lack social protection. Secondly, because they may be unaccepted by society. Finally, because they are not provided with traditional parent models that would not make their mental and sexual development proper. <0194> /^t/The plage itself is nothing new. It is said to be one of these old enemies that can retreat but never entirely disappear. The first incident of the plage epidemic, which had been recorded, killed thousands of its victims in China. It was about 3000 years ago. Since that time, there had been many other epidemics, for example in the Roman empire, Lybia and Medeival Europe. Nowadays, there are not only the old plages coming back with vengeance. The present science and medicine have to face new diseases, the most dangerous of which is probably AIDS. However, it is not only medicine which is concerned about the problem. Every government should realise the danger and find the right way of preventing a country from any epidemic, which is a difficult task. /^t/In order to decide the methods of prevention, we should ask ourselves if we realise what the plage is. How could we fight with something that we do not know? The plage is an infectious disease spreading quickly among the masses of people and, if not cured, killing most of them. Any government, intending to prevent a society, ought to make sure that in case of an epidemic there would be no panic. It is hardly possible to reduce the danger of panic entirely, but certain measures can help. There should be introduced some additional information concerning the prevention as well as the symptoms and the treatment. The social awareness of this kind is very important. Thus, the government should cooperate with the media. However, television, radio and newspapers should not exaggerate and hype up the danger, as this could lead to panic. Education at schools should also include the general knowledge about the plage. In this way, the society can be prepared in case the plage spread. In addition, the politicians should not forget that the cooperation at the international level is equally important in order to stop the plage. /^t/Pneumonic, bubonic and septisemic plagues are the three plagues which are considered to attack most often. The pneumonic plage is the disease of the lungs but it can also alter into the bubonic plage, which is named in this way because of the buboes swelling until they become as big as chicken eggs. The septisemic plage is the most dangerous of all the three. It infections blood so fast that its victims die very quickly. Because of the respiratory problems, people's bodies become deep purple. There are also other infections such as cholera, malaria or tuberculosis which are all microbal. In the last twenty years, entirely new diseases have emerged as well. Have we, or rather our governments, have any chance of defending us? Every plage has its cycle. On the example of the bubonic plage, we can see that the disease is spread by the rodent fleas circulating among wide rodents. How it happens then, that it can be transmitted to men? When most rodents are killed, the fleas search for other hosts which are usually rats living on refuse or in sewage systems in the urban areas. People who appear in such areas are in danger of being bitten by them. Therfore, every government should be caucious about the public hygiene, especially in the critical situations such as earthquakes, political upheavals, war or famine, when people are generally less resistant and weaker. There should be more acts and bills passed, concerning constant vigilance as the most sucessful weapon against the plage. /^t/What to do, how to react if the nightmare became reality? If the danger was in, the possible epidemic centre hosts would have to be identified first. Then, the government, or rather, a special committee, should analize all the possible ways of transporting the plage to the country. To reduce the danger, all the rats should be killed, particularly these arriving on ships from an epidemic centre. If the situation was very serious, all the borders should be closed or at least both the air-craft passengers and the crews, as well as other foreigners, should be checked up. People, previously informed about the symptoms, should seek medical advice in case they felt not well or had even mild symptoms. In such a way, the hosts would be identified. The contracted individuals should be separated immediately, put in bed, fed with liquids and easy digestible foods, whereas medicine doctors should work all the time, searching for a possible antidotum. /^t/The evolution did not stop. We should not forget about it. There are still new diseases waiting to ambush modern man. All bacteria multiplay furiously and, according to Darwin and his theory of natural selection, make more and more new mutations. Thus, every government ought to help and appreciate the efforts of scientists searching for still new antibiotic drugs which are to protect us from various diseases. However, this is not enough. Because of the growing population, especially in poorer countries, the danger of contracting diseases gets bigger and bigger. The biologists can feel delighted to discover so many interesting viruses and bacteria but a sociaty should press its health authorities to be more caucious about the constant care of public hygiene, which appears to be the most effective weapon in fighting against the plage. <0195> /^t/"A rising tide of violence" has recently become a major political and social problem in Poland. Violence in Poland started to be noticeable about three years after the collapse of the communist regime. The collapse of the communist regime caused the change of the political system, which gives more liberty than it used to give to the citizens. Opening of Polish borders gave the Poles almost free access to the smuggled weapon, and to contacts with foreign organized crime. The Polish legal system after over forty years of the communist regime is not prepared how to deal with the organized crime. Many people are very eager to use the loopholes and unstable economical and political situation to become rich very quickly by all means. /^t/Imperfect Polish legal system provides criminals not only with the opportunities to commit a crime, but also with the opportunity to go unpunished. Polish legal system is not prepared for fighting organized crime. There is not enough fund to employ the sufficient number of policepersons. Moreover they are not trained appropriately to chase, and finally catch dangerous villains. Very often they quit chasing for fear of their own life. The lack of good preparation and modern equipment makes chasing armed, prepared for the worst criminals impossible. All these factors bring about the inefficiency of Polish police, which are surely a part of Polish legal system. Very similar is the situation in the courts of law, where judges and prosecutors are paid very badly. Small salaries and the fact, that a judge makes a decision by himself without any interference of the jury, make corruption inevitable. What in the consequence let the criminals go unpunished. /^t/The change of Polish economical infrastructure, switching from centrally organized economy to the free market, at the lack of strict and clear regulations gave an occasion to use loopholes and trade illegally, which is like every illegal activity connected with violence. Having been given such an opportunity "professionals" try to get richer in the shortest possible time, eliminating their enemies and obstacles. A typical example was the situation in the coal-mines, where coal was sold from one city in the south to the other one also in the south via a city in the north by the dealing corporations to the companies existing only a day or two. The coal disappeared, but the coal-mines never got their money. All such transactions were possible only because of the decision given by the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General in one person: Mr Jaskiernia. /^t/The collapse of the communist regime, which caused the change of the political system, brought about opening both eastern and western borders. Not only did it enable Poles an easy access to those countries, but also caused a great influx of foreigners to Poland. The consequence of free moving: is an easy access to weapon, drugs. Thanks to it Polish criminals are better and better armed, which makes them more dangerous and more violent. The contact with other organized crimes give them even more power and control. /^t/The fact of opening the borders, and all the same an easy access to foreign cultures and patterns, and excessive amount of freedom as compared to former years has caused the increase of juvenile violence in the streets. Tearways are now present everywhere, especially after dusk. They have the habbit of beating others without any particular reason. It is not enough to say, that they are exposed to constant violence on TV or at the movies. Stating this may be very trivial, but this sentence carries some truth. The stereotypes in Poland have been changing all the time. Teenager are no longer shown only one side of the world, they are shown many sides of life, and they simply can't choose. They subconsciously need patterns to follow, but they are no longer a generation which was shown the patterns to follow. Now their heroes are film characters from "Natural born killers", "Pulp fiction" or "Heat" who steal, kill, take drugs. That is why they are cool. Violence seem to be fashionable now. "A rising tide of violence" has really become a major political and social problem. Polish society seems to be overwhelmed by the amount of liberty, after such a long period of having been kept in curbs. The criminal activity is blossoming because criminals realize, that Polish legal system is inefficient and imperfect, and very often lets them go unpunished. The imperfectness of Polish legal system makes Poland an attractive market to commit crimes and perform illegal trade. <0196> /^t/Since the very beginning of the human history people have always needed spiritual beliefs and on the brink of the twenty first century they need them as well. As a matter of fact, the search for spiritual values is acquiring a new importance in the face of the quick development of civilization and science. People being deprived of spiritualism need it even more in order to achieve a balance between materialism and the desire for lofty experience. Furthermore, people need confirmation and explanation of their existance not only on this planet but also after their death. /^t/First, the human civilization has been developing rapidly in the present century. The science and technology are used as tools for penetrating the world and discovering the secrets of nature. Moreover, the technological development allows for conquering and inhabiting all areas of the world as well as catering for the increasing number of humans living on earth. Materialism has become a new philosophy and style of living. Furthermore, the society requires one to join the manic run for money and goods as well as to make career and gain a prestigious social status. Although materialism seemed to provide people with everything they needed it turned out to be not so. Humans feel lost in the chaotic modern world and need some spiritual comfort. Next, people long for something that would cut them off for a while from their jobs, technology and business creeping into their lives in every possible way. So they are looking for any kind of spiritual forms that could help them escape from the world - religion, cults, meditations, magic and others. As an example, the 'baby-boomers' generation in the States, now in their 40's, arrived at the point of the midlife crisis and started questioning the materialistic philosophy they were taught. The group of successful and confident managers is becoming aware of the mundanity of their lives and the fact that they by means of no technological device can stop the process of aging and finally death. Therefore, they are taking to spiritual practice in order to find comfort and relief. /^t/Second, humans are the only creatures that are so highly evolved as far as consciousness and psychology are concerned. So it is innate in the human nature to question the sense of existence and finding an answer. As a matter of fact, the answer lies in the spirituality, the belief in the sacred. Furthermore, every human being suffers from psychic traumas, mental pains and alienation and is often stuck with disappointments and failures. Most people are not so endure so as to face all the predicaments and they need support. As a result, the majority find the mental strength in faith or in any other spiritual beliefs. Moreover, the beliefs build a fundament to people's lives, indicate what way humans should take so as to live properly and get the best from life. As a matter of fact, a great amount of people convert or seek spiritualism after they have recovered from severe diseases or accidents as well as from nervous breakdowns. /^t/Finally, despite human civilization is developed on such a high level, people are not provided with all the answers they want to have. There are many unexplainable phenomena existing with which people are fascinated, such as telepathy, spiritism, astrology, prophecies and others. These are denied by science, taken for granted as figments of imagination, but they seem to be rather not unreal but just unsuitable to the existing laws of science. Further, the most intriguing for people item is the problem of life after death. Humans have no verified proofs that they will exist in any form after the death of their physical bodies. However, there are a few premises gained from the so-called 'dead-liners' - those who survived the clinical death. Consequently, the unknown question of death stirs people's mind and frightens them. However, the fear and anxiety can be quickly fought when one is a firm believer. /^t/As a conclusion, it can be said that people as sensitive, intelligent creatures do need spiritual beliefs. First of all, spirituality helps people to escape from materialistic, industrialized world they have created. Next, faith helps enormously to survive and surmount difficulties people face. Moreover, through spirituality people discover sense of life and serenity. People do need to believe in order to fight the fear of death and the predistend end. As a matter of fact, as recent indications show, the spiritual beliefs, which have been so far on decline, are gaining more and more popularity and attention. The phenomenon in turn reveals that people need to believe and they are trying to do so. <0197> /^t/The recent years have brought some new ideas about freedom and independence, and along with them new problems as far rights of various minorities have arisen. Misunderstanding of democracy has eclipsed its real meaning. Taking advantage on the mess around the new Polish Constitution gay organizations (as for example 'Lambda') call for including their rights in it, namely they want to have their constitutional rights to getting married between gays and to adopt children. Although gays present themselves as faithful, friendly, altruistic and kind fellows (see 'Northern Exposure') the truth about them is diametrically opposed to this image. Many researches have been conducted in this field, that have revealed the naked truth about gays' sexual practices and percentage of crimes commited by gays. Regarding the results neither should gays be allowed to marry one another nor children be adopted by them. /^t/The examined gays admitted practising various kinds of sex acts. Anal and oral sex is very common between them and practised nearly by each of them but some gays are more imaginative and to increase their sexual excitement take up more sophisticated attempts as sado-masochistic or orgiastic activities of which children could be in danger. But gays go even further and in their fancy they have worked out such awful acts as sprinkling one another with urine, fisting that is thrusting a fist or a whole arm into the onus and at last paederasty. Who can guarantee that an adopted child will not be forced to take part in sexual activities of its 'parents'? Who, then can protect the child from mental and phisical harm caused by 'parents'' sophisticated practices? /^t/Moreover, the data collected by the researchers showed that lots of crimes have been commited by homosexuals. Considering the number of gays (fortunately they are still in a minority) in comparison to the whole society and the number of criminals among homo- and heterosexuals it will turn out that the percentage of criminals is much higher among gays than among heterosexuals. Eight out of ten 'the greatest' murderers in the USA and the former Soviet Union were homosexuals and the number one in this ranking had killed over thirty people (including children) and has raped some of them and eaten parts of their bodies. /^t/Although gay organizations try to conceal the truth about homosexuals there are those among their members who confess the principles presented in the Paederasty Manifesto compiled by a Mr. Swift. In this document they claim to introduce the new system, the new sexual order. They say that they shall seduce boys freely, they will turn them into homosexual. But I do not really understand why do they want to marry one another or adopt children if in the manifesto the call a family a sprawling ground of hipocrysy. They proclaim to ridicule heterosexual relationship. They admit they want to have sex with children. 'Sex before eight otherwise may be too late' they shout and 'Too much is not enough for us'. /^t/Where will the march of freedom stop? Should we allow them to get married and adopt children? What will they ask for next? In my oppinion asking for a regulation the Constitution is a foot-in-the-door technique to gain more and more. But we can't allow the minority to dictate general laws and we can't legalise depraving our children by exposing them to all those homosexual practices. <0198> /^t/Most people nowadays are used to the fact that the age of fatal pandemics belongs to history. The present medical knowledge enabled mankind to control plagues and made them feel safe about it. However, the bacteria causing epidemics are mutable. They adopt to any circumstances and are ready to attack again: stronger and unknown to medicine, as happened in India recently. Thus, in case a country suffers from a plague the countries in its closest neighbourhood and those far away should take certain steps to prevent the pandemic from spreading to their homelands. /^t/The most important move to avoid infecting a healthy country would be to make all the citizens aware of the situation. The best way to do this is to involve mass-media in the process. They should first inform people about the possibility of the pandemic to be transmitted to their country. Of course, it ought to be done carefully and in a tactfull way so that no panic is spread and people do not feel endangered. Besides, each citizen should be made obliged to notify any people who seem to have contracted the illness. In this way, the unwell ones would, immediately, undergo check-ups. These, in turn, would help in detecting the disease at its very beginning. What is more, their lives could be, perhaps, saved. Since any plague starts when public hygiene collapses, cleanliness ought to be another thing demanded of the citizens. There is no chance, then, for rats to breed and, as their fleas transmit the illness, spread the epidemic. /^t/Another essential step to be taken by a country facing a danger of a plague-transmittion is introducing severe controls on tourism. First of all, in-coming planes, ships and cars or coaches returning from the infected country should be sprayed along with their cargoes. Then, all the tourists who lately visited the plagued country (even before the epidemy) ought to be thoroughly examined and assessed by doctors. The latter, should be provided with lists of symptoms to be able to recognize the illness streight at seeing a patient and prescribe the right antibiotic. /^t/A temporary stop of trade between both countries would be advisable in such a situation. No goods should be brought in or out the diseased country, as there is a risk of bringing infected rodents with them. Besides, the lives of the drivers are at risk if the fatal bacteria enter their blood through flea-bites. /^t/The situation is much more difficult if the cautious country borders on the infected one. Safety measures should be, then, tightened. Both borders ought to be closed and remain under continuous surveillance. Should panicing people want to leave the plagued country and cross the borders, the soldiers would stop them. However cruel it may seem to be, this is an efficient way of avoiding the country to be infected. In fact, there is a possibility to help the neighbours even if the borders are closed. Of enough help should be cargoes of antibiotic medications thrown down out of planes. /^t/Although they seem to be extinct, pandemics still exist. They may have been repressed from our lives for some time but they are coming back with vengeance. Every country should be aware of that fact and prepared for such a situation. The best way to avoid spreading the illness to a country from abroad would be for it to remain clean. Spreading the news and making the citizens cooperate, done via mass-media, would also help. Apart from this, if tourism and trade between the infected country and the healthy one are under severe safety measures, there has been done enough to prevent the plague from spreading and to save millions of peoples' lives. <0199> Bubonic plague is a contageous, usually fatal disease which was once endemic only to India. However, it has rapidly spread to other countries. Its outbreaks occur in the wake of the deteriorating sanitary conditions and are a cause of hundreds of deaths. So far bubonic plague has not been a danger to some countries. Nevertheless, those countries must be vigilant and alert so as to prevent the spread of this fatal disease on their territory. There are three important issues that have to be kept in mind if a country wants to escape a danger of the spread of bubonic plague. These issues are: awareness of the symptoms and ways of contracting the disease, knowledge of how to fight with it and the policy of the country's "isolationism". The plague spreads first of all in places where hygienic standards are low. Therefore medical and paramedical personnel should be trained in how to create and preserve all the necessary sanitary conditions in order to avoid contracting the disease. They also ought to be made aware of all the possible sources and symptoms of the disease. The medical staff should in turn educate the public by giving short informative lectures or distributing leaflets. People should realise that adhering to the rules regulating hygienic standards is the best way of preventing but also combating the disease. They should also be obliged to report to health centres if they notice any of the symptoms (swelling in the armpits and groin area, fever or delirium). Necessary drugs can then be administered to them. The country's government and health service should be well informed about current affairs in other countries. They should keep a watchful eye on any reports concerning the outbreaks of bubonic plague anywhere in the world. Contacts with contaminated countries ought to be reduced to the absolute minimum. If any citizen wants to travel to an infected region, they should either be stopped or inoculated against the plague. Such vaccination must be made compulsory and a person trying to defy it ought to be liable to a fine. Establishing health points at every airport in the country is essential since visitors coming from the infected areas must be subject to strict health checks on the border. Should any symptoms of bubonic plague be noticed, a person who has developed them must be isolated and given medical treatment at once. If a danger of bubonic plague to a country is considerable, compulsory vaccinations of all citizens ought to be introduced as a last resort. They would take place in schools, offices, factories and all health centres in the country. To sum up, it can be said that preventing rather than curing bubonic plague ought to be the aim of every country. However, it is not always possible to stop the disease from breaking out and spreading. So if the danger arises, awareness of the sources and symptoms as well as maintaining hygiene will hopefully help to nip the plague in the bud. <0200> /^t/One of the main problems of modern societies is the changing structure of family. If one compares the present day state of affairs with that of the beginning of the century she/he will find out that the number of conventional families decreases. There are more and more unconventional units of society that claim their rights to be called families and have the same rights as traditional ones. Most of the discussion is around the question whether gay couples should have the right to adopt children the problem itself is many-sided and controversial. There is fierce discussion between those with conservative beliefs and the people who are more tolerant and liberal in their attitudes towards homosexuals. Both groups would certainly disagree with regard to moral, religions, social and legal aspects of the problem as well as they would consider humane element in the matter. /^t/Defining a gay couple would be of importance for further discussion. Such a couple consists of two people of the same sex whose relationship is based on love, friendship and comittment. The main problem for many people is the sexual aspect of such a relationship. Such a couple is thought to have negative, demoralizing effect on society. Those people would be unwilling to call it a family nor would they approve of its right to adopt children. It would be unbelievable for them to have gay couples raising adopted children, teaching them moral values and preparing to set up their own families. /^t/Moreover, these people would consider homosexuals incapable to become responsible parents, to provide for their children and devote themselves to them heart and soul. There would always be suspicion the gays adopt children for some secret purpose. /^t/More tolerant and open-minded people would be in favour of granting such a right to gay couples believing in their good intentions and considering their humane feelings, needs and instincts to become parents. Homosexuals in their opinion would be just different not bad or demoralized human beings who, undoubtly, would be able to take care of children and create home-like atmosphere. Nevertheless, these people would see many problems with regard to that issue. /^t/First, as its generally known people who decide to adopt a child have to meet very strict requirements. The process of adoption is time and money-consuming and the decision requires considering the matter very carefully. The couple has to have its relationship legalized and the lifestyle of the people should be respected by others. Many people would accuse gays of immoral behaviour, using drugs or drinking alcohol, or even being emotionally immature to shoulder such responsibility. There would be less problem with the financial aspect. Only those who are able to provide financially for the family can claim the right to adoption. The institution granting such rights wishes to make sure the people adopting children will devote themselves to treat those as if they had been their own children. /^t/Another aspect of the problem is the attitude of priests and church in general toward the issue. Priests seem to be sceptical about the positive effect of such couples on society and the argument concerning the Holy Family would be the one they would often use to state their negative attitudes. /^t/Next, one should look at the problem from the perspective of a child. The child has no right to state his/her opinion in the matter for obvious reasons. It is babies who are adopted and taught to treat their caretakers as biological parents. The child, however, grows and learns about families. One can wonder how the child would react disovering that he/she was adopted by gays. How would such a child feel living among peeps having traditional families? Finally, what sexual education would look like in such a different family?, (if it can be called a family). Some people would not hesitate to do so and would see positive aspects of such families. If gays are mature, responsible and sensitive people they are, no doubt, able to provide home-like atmosphere, respect the needs of the adopted child. /^t/On the whole, the problem is many-sided and difficult to discuss because of the humane element involved. Besides, the issue is controversial in many societies. Some would think it is a good sign that people start talking about the problems that others have and try hard to understand what other people feel and how they want to be treated. One would be of the opinion that there is no simple answer to the question whether gay couples should have rights to adopt children. Undoubtly, there should be some compromise reached in this matter. <0201> /^t/Since Poland experienced a serious political and social upheaval in 1989, a rapid upsurge in violence has been recorded. While this is true, it must be strongly emphasized that Poland before 1989 was by no means free from violence. Violence did exist before that time but it was a taboo subject. Directed by the socialist propaganda, people fostered a firm but false conviction that they were secure. On the contrary, in democratic Poland violence is a public issue, and as such is widely and exhaustively discussed. At present, people have no illusions about the fact that violence does exist and is widespread. Yet, it cannot be denied that a deep transformation of the state has really contributed to the increase of violence. This fact comes as no surprise because the transformation have triggered off great differences in the standard of living. The changes have given much scope for initiative, and, in fact, have opened the floodgates as many people have decided to start up their own businesses. On the other hand, scores of people have lost their jobs, which has deteriorated their social status to a considerable degree. In addition, Poland has become open to the western culture which is often infested with violence. /^t/A huge discrepancy in financial status of people in Poland has inevitably led to major social inequities. A sprinkling of people has seized wealth while the conditions of others is not enviable. Great fortunes evoke the feelings of anger. Unfortunately, those fortunes spring quite frequently from defrauding and corruption, the fact which can only deepen social dissatisfaction. Affluent people have become the target of violence and crime. They are robbed and intimidated. Their wealth is a great promise for criminals as one theft brings an appreciable haul of valuables. /^t/Next, massive unemployment, unprecedented during the socialist regime, has also sparked off the upsurge in violence. Having lost their jobs, many people have got severely disappointed as they now verge on poverty, live from hand to mouth, and are forced to resort to social charity in order to survive. Those people are often of low education; consequently, they stand a very slight chance of finding a job, let alone a profitable one. Therefore, they often choose crime and violence as the only possible way to get some means for living. /^t/Further, the mass media bear the blame for a recent spread of violence. Unlike sex, violence is not curbed at all, and a subject to no censorship. Films, especially video films, quite often contain innumerable explicit scenes of violence. Moreover, they are not seldom made specially to show and promote crime and bloodshed, which is really regrettable. It must be remembered that the minds of young people are very impressionable; hence, youths are particularly susceptible to employing violence and inflicting it on other people just in order to emulate their heroes. Needless to say, violence is a real plague among those young people who, having abandoned their schools and being able to find only odd jobs, hang about with plenty of time to spare. Bearing in mind violence shown in movies, they form gangs and involve in crimes in order to create and maintain their tough image. /^t/The problem of violence, although difficult, is definitely not insoluble. Primarily, parents and school should take on a heavy responsibility for the crackdown on violence. They ought to instill into young people the social norms of good conduct. Young people must be spured on to constant progress in their education in order to ensure that they will acquire professional skills and will be able to obtain lucrative jobs. This, in turn, is likely to redress the balance in social and financial status within the society. At the same time, some censorship with regard to violence should be introduced. There certainly are some appalling movies that must be decreed unsuitable for children and youths. It is simply unreasonable to expect young people to restrain from violence while their minds are continuously corrupted by hard scenes of bloodshed. <0202> /^t/The list of the causes why people use drugs is very long and differentiated. Most people start with using "soft drugs" out of curiosity, for pleasure or excitement. Later on, however, drugs become the essential part of their lives and they become drug addicts. This concerns mostly "hard drugs", like heroin or cocaine. People's using drugs is the result of psychological or emotional problems of some kind. Relying on drugs, in their opinion, brings them relief, pleasure or a means of escaping from these problems. This, of course, is a falacious delusion. /^t/Nowadays many young people have an easy access to drugs, as even in schools drug trafficking is proliferating. This is the direct cause of teenage drug addictions. Young people usually use soft drugs such as hashis or marijuana just out of curiosity or for pleasure. They think it makes them feel better and at ease and relieves the atmosphere at parties. Many take drugs simply for fear of being rejected from their peer group. Some of the young people take drugs because they have different kinds of emotional problems, usually at the puberty stage. They try to eliminate these problems from their lives by means of drugs. Still others have problems at school, which they find too difficult to deal with and taking drugs is the way of forgetting about them. In a vast majority of cases, however, taking drugs is not conditioned by any definite reasons, as far as teenagers are concerned. /^t/The situation is quite different in the case of adults. Nervous breakdowns caused by too excessive or too demanding work, loss of health or physical fittness, stress, death of a relative may result in very serious psychological problems, which have a negative impact on these people's mental health. In some cases, they may feel so overwhelmed by the sense of being unable to recover from the state that they just give in seeking help in alcohol and drugs. Also people, who have emotional problems are very likely to become drug addicts thinking that drugs will help them to make up for the abilities they lack. As concerns more practical purposes of using drugs, they are applied as very effective painkillers (ex. morphine - a drug made from opium). Adult drug addicts are mostly people who have weak, or no mental power by which they could direct their thoughts and actions, and this lack of strong will leads them to a despair and to the dangerous addiction afterwards. /^t/Both teenage and adult drug addictions constitute a very dangerous and widespread social phenomenon. More and more people, not being able to keep pace with the modern way of living, resort to drugs. Drugs seem to many people to be the best remedy for stress, sorrow, complexes, pain and other problems and misfortunes. This is so because drugs decrease people's sensitivity and strain. People, however, do not seem to keep it in their minds that the delusion is temporary and that when the drug stops working it is even harder to accept the reality. <0203> /^t/Polish Scouts' Association struggled for independence of communist indoctrination for the forty-year period of Polish People's Republic. The communist "morality" was, however, omnipresent and nobody could help it. The only law that resisted the indoctrination was the one that was supposed to be a guidance for younger boy-scouts (Here, in Poland they are called "Zuchy"). People who were the leaders of the teams of scouts could pride themselves on their independence. One has to admit the uniqueness of the situation in communist Poland. Nowadays there is a growing tendency to shift the activities of such organizations towards religion. Is it necessary to introduce the denominational element to the status of the Association? What is the rationale of denominational scouting? /^t/The very obvious consequence of this process is limited access of people to the organization. Atheists would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible at all, to join the Association. The members of ZHP (this is a Polish abbreviation for the name of the Association) all now obliged, under the oath, to praise the name of God. Nobody shows regard for the feelings of those, who simply do not believe in god. Atheism is undeniably a philosophy, and its followers deserve the same respect as Catholics or Protestants. Tollerance should not be excluded from the principles on which scouting is built. Denominational scouting means crossing out tollerance from the list of its principles. /^t/The universal meaning of the formulation "God" and the possibilities of its various interpretations are often proposed as the arguments for denominational scouting. Such a path is easy to follow for educated adults. Is it possible to present the highly abstract idea to the children at the age of eight or nine? First of all, it would probably destroy their image of the only, omnipresent and omnipotent god. That is certainly the picture that was drawn by their priests and teachers of religion. The introduction of religious element to the status of ZHP may lead its younger members to confusion. /^t/The introduction of denominational element will probably result in paradoxical situation. Those, who decide to follow "the path of tollerance" would have to act against the status. People, who are in favour of denominational scouting would contribute to its exclusive character. The neccessity of choosing between the tollerance and the respect for the law is an absurd. /^t/Drifting towards religion proves the incompetence of the leaders of Polish scouting. The synthetic, complete status does not have to be based upon a concrete philosophy or denomination. It is possible to construct the system of principles, such as: love, respect, patriotism, courage without relating it to Catholic catechism. The "denomitional" way is the most convenient one, unless one want the tollerance to be included in the bunch of principles. /^t/We have to try to perceive things in a wider scope. People in Poland were learned to distinguish between black and red, the communism and the Church. It is about time to change it. The spectrum of colours have to be widened. What is not black does not have to be red and the other way round. We should avoid getting blinkered, especially when making the law is concerned. <0204> /^t/It is supposed to be an enlightened age and women have won their independence years ago. After a long, bitter struggle they now enjoy the same educational opportunities as men in most parts of the world. They have been given a right to vote. They have succeeded in any job you care to name. They have already proved to be as good as men as politicians, soldiers, directors, lawyers, bus-conductors, scientists and presidents. Apart from these achievements men continue to treat them with the old celebrated gallantry: greet them with admiration, kiss their hands, help with their coats, usher into a room, offer flowers and pay compliments. Thus, one may ask, taking all of it into account, how the question if women are still treated as second-class citizens can even be asked? /^t/Unfortunately, one may not only ask it, but answer in the affirmative, as well. Below all the things mentioned there is deeply rooted inequality expressed by either light-heartedness and the pervasive air of masculine condescension or even by hostility and contempt. Both attitudes are not those ones which we use in regard to friends. /^t/Not to remain groundless, an example of such men's light-heartedness are some tired jokes about women drivers repeated day in, day out. They not only present women as stupid persons whose abilities are really limited but they are not supported by any evidence. Women, in fact, cause far fewer accidents than men. They are too conscientious and responsible to drive like maniacs or to drive after drinking. /^t/Still, there is much more serious proof of women being treated as second-class citizens. Men go on maintaining the fiction that there many jobs women cannot do. Top-level political negotiations between countries, business and banking are almost entirely controlled by men. Women, they say, are "more trouble" - they have babies and will not devote to work completely. Besides, they are unrelaible and irrational. They depend too little on cool reasoning and too much on intuition and instinct to arrive at decisions. Although there is no evidence for this discriminating opinion, it is almost impossible to go through the middle-management level. It is a rule than men would rather promote a third-rate man than a first-rate woman. However, even if, in spite of all these obstacles, she finally gets to the top, she will have to say the price which a man never does. First of all, she will be made to feel guilty as a working mother, because there is nothing wrong when a man neglects the family, but when a woman has bigger ambitions than only to bear and rear children she is seen as an irresponsible and insensitive person. Besides, she will have to work not only harder but what is the worst she will be paid less than a man in the same position. /^t/Finally, there is one more clear evidence that women are in inferior position to men. In otherwise enlightened place like Switzerland, women still have not been given the vote. Thus, at the end of the 20th century women are treated as a "decorative sex", as creatures who cannot self-decide. There is nothing more offensive. /^t/To conclude, although, as Napoleon put it, "society is nothing unless ladies are present", there is still a long way for women to go, in order to achieve an equal position to men. The recognition of presence as such is not enough. Men should realise that the time has finished when women were only bearing and rearing children and taking care of a husband. There is no more such thing as men's rights or women's rights. We are equal, thus, let's share both rights and duties. Society is nothing unless partners are present. <0205> /^t/Earth is being polluted in many different ways and it would be rather difficult to find anybody who would claim otherwise. World has become too loud. Man, from his very beginning, has been surrounded by sounds; the are crucial part of his natural environment, just like visual signs or tangible objects. However, something went wrong in this balanced system, and sounds, together with the other elements of human environment, are turning into waste. Although people do not deny having destroyed ecological balance, they refuse to admit that noise is a part of this dangerous process as well. "Noise pollution" is an awkward term for many. It is neither visible nor tangible, so it is neglected. Meanwhile noise is in attack. There are virtually no quiet places nowadays. Days and nights people are exposed to hum, buzz, thump, crack and every other imaginable disturbing voice. They intrude everywhere and cause stress and nervousness, let alone harm to ears. Especially dangerous as the fact, that a person does not realise that, e.g. the incessant humming of the fridge is distracting and tiring. Drilling or zooming of a plane are easily recognized as horrible, so one can at least try to avoid them. However, the noise that does not draw attention immediately seems to be much more dangerous, because it is neglected. Those are all the sounds that go on and on constantly and human ears get used to them. Traffic is unbearable, but only when one thinks about it. So are children shouting, dogs barking, quarrels next door and music. /^t/Music? How can music be subsumed under the same heading as police siren? It is completely diffrent; noble and refined. It is true, but now, as almost everything deteriorates, so happens to music. Once a source of aesthetic experience and entertainment, it now adds to the harmful and unnecessary noise people receive all the time regardless their will. In all kinds of public places: shops, pubs, restaurants, even offices some din is played incessantly. Originally it was probably thought as an entertaining and relaxing device for customers. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. /^t/First of all, background music ceased to be background. Opponents would say it is very unlikely, that some quiet, distant and blurred song should disturb anybody. However, the problem is that this "mild entertainer" is becoming louder and louder. It is a common practice now among cafe or shop managers to play their dins nearly full blast. Maybe it is because the music itself became aggressive, so it requires an appropriate aggressive volume. In result, what was once hardly audible, now managed to push to the front. /^t/Certainly, music creates the atmosphere of a pub. It is an important part of such places. Some claim, that people choose a bar because they like the music played there. Of course, it may be the case sometimes, but more often it is not so. Moreover, such an unasked-for irritant may be enough to discourage potential guests. Human endurance is flexible, but what is the pleasure of having a cup of coffee accompanied by some ear-sore? In result, there are certainly more people put off rather than attracted by Muzak. Surveys carried out by various authorities support this stance. /^t/This leads up to an often raised argument: "It is a free choice; if one does not like the song one can always leave". Everybody has a different taste and this is true of music, too. The question is: whose choice should pub managers follow; their own or their customers'? What if each of them would like a different tape to be played? In short: it is impossible to find a bar with exactly the sort of music that suits one. That is why even a juke-box is better than a din from a centralized source, as there is at least some choice in it. /^t/However, there is the more serious side of the same problem. There exist places that people cannot simply leave when they find the music disagreeable. Muzak is going on at airports, in trams, on train stations. Few things are more irritating than this. It was probably meant to make the long hours of waiting less boring, but honestly; nothing will make an airport terminal cosy. Everything that disturbs people should be banned in public places. After all, personal stereo was invented to help in such situations. One can listen to whatever one wants leaving the other passengers in peace. /^t/People go to pubs and other places of this kind not only to drink and eat, but also to meet their friends and talk. Maybe sometimes nice music promotes a nice chat but most often it keeps people from talking. If it is too loud they would simply have to shout, but even if it is quiet music still disturbs. Subconsciously one feels that it will make up for the necessity of conversation. Why should people talk if the space between them is already filled? This way background music prevents socialising and weakens the bonds in societies. However it may also create an addiction. Young generation especially seems to be unable to talk, save work, without some acoustic support. They got used to it to such an extent, that they cannot function if deprived of music. Paradoxically, at the same time those people do not appreciate music as art any longer. It is only a jingling wallpaper to them. Therefore music became greatly cheapened now. /^t/"What is all that fuss about if nobody really listens to background music? - one might ask. "Nobody in fact cares for it". True, many people seem to be indifferent; they do not notice the problem. Fortunately there are organizations of those who do care. What is significant, famous musicians join them and everybody must agree that such people know what true music is. Fuss is worth making exactly because nobody listens to background music. It is ignored and therefore even more dangerous. The harm it does is neglected but not negligible. It is hidden and this makes the need for some action even more urgent. /^t/Certainly, nobody is out to ban playing music. It is important to make it distinctive from unnerving buzz, and to respect people's right to silence. There are places created for the sake of music alone. These are concert halls as well as discos. People visit them out of their free choice, because they like the music. Music - not Muzak, which is like a dripping tap: sometimes it is difficult to turn it off. <0206> /^t/It is almost unbelievable that the Swiss once used to be the champions of warfare and the only remnants of those times are the guards at the Vatican. It is also unconceivable that we consider ourselves a civilized people but we are unable to solve problems in a reasonable conversation. After all, we are thinking creatures so we talk instead of spitting in an opponent's face and unsheathing a sword to prove being right. We all want peace but to desire it is not enough. The first step toward achieving it would be getting rid of the permanent armies and as a result banning conscription. Thus, in other words, a compulsory military service should be abolished in all countries. /^t/There are, of course, opponents of such an idea. Some of them maintain that all countries need soldiers in case of war. Others say that combat may be a good school of life for young people. /^t/However, for certain vital reasons these both view-points can be easily refuted. /^t/First of all, nations do not need ample regular forces as the times when a country's strength was in numbers have long gone by. Nowadays we have so-called "push-button" warfare thus unskilled manpower has become insufficient, if not completely redundant. /^t/In addition to this there cannot be any "in case of war" statements. Today's wars would be nothing but tilting at windmills. Either side would win. In fact, the score could be only a total extermination of the world. Thus wise leaders, ubiquitous television showing horrors of a prospective combat and ominous experiences of the nearest past should contribute to the abolishing of obligatory military service. /^t/In reference to the other view that opposes the suppression of compulsory military service one can beat it easily setting forth even more arguments. By maintaining that combat may be a good school of life for young men, this group of people prove their ignorance and smattering of the subject. /^t/After all, no one can, in a mere two years or so, be trained and ready for the requirements of modern combat warfare. What is more, this period may be considered a desruption in life that does not provide such a compulsory soldier with any useful experience with regard to his future career. /^t/This service can also turn out to be a waste of time, a spell of unrivalled boredom and the only dubious skills that be acquired are smoking and toping. Besides it is often a source of cheap labor power for the military. /^t/An additional disadvantage of military service is that it does not build up human character; on the contrary, it can warp it. It may also be the cause of the loss of one's own identity, all in the name of discipline and patriotism. The obedience to superiors' orders is "one up" on soldiers' own moral values and sense of justice. It is enough to mention that the notion of "free choice" does not exist in military language and being pushed about and bullied is not a rare case. /^t/And finally it must be strongly emphasized that barracks are not a suitable place for striplings who are at large and treat war and guns as fun. It is a place for mature, educated, and sober-minded volunteers who want to be professional soldiers. /^t/To conclude, let me hit the point hard that a compulsory military service be invalidated. Quite a number of reasons could be presented in favor of making this statement. The most important of them is that such action can result in the achievement of widespread peace. So let us not hesitate and allow others to push their highly ideological, obsolete opinions. Let us abolish the compulsory military service in all countries. <0207> /^t/For years women have been trying to gain equal rights with men. After a long, bitter struggle, they won their independence and proved repeatedly to be superior to the sterner sex in almost every aspect of life. Hence modern Polish women are not only of better wealth and condition than men but also of greater dedication to work and home. /^t/A great deal of medical surveys indicate that Polish women are not so feeble as they are hastily described, thus in contrast to men, do not die untimely, are not vulnerable to illness and susceptible to stress and depression. Consequently, in nowadays common stormy times threatening people with job losses and lack of prospectives towards better living conditions, it is man not woman who becomes mentaly broken or commits suicide. Female simply realizes that her death and her yielding to despair won't bring any solution or help to the unfavourable predicament of her family. To make the long story short, modern Polish women desisted from relying solely on their men, what they used to do in the past, and learned to cope in circumstances seemingly inextricable. /^t/At present, when women have attained access to almost every occupation and can sue the company, not very willing to employ them, for sexual discrimination, ladies became workoholics. In fact, they are engaged on two posts. As a result, modern Polish women work not only as regular and traditional house-wives to such extent, that even if the household activities are approximately fairly shared with husbands, women still have one and a half hour less on their hobbies than men. And while men only earn money and then desire for, in their opinion, due relax and fun, women's dedication to work and home is appearent in female's emotional involvement in performed activities and humane approach towards other people that make even willing to relinquish pleasure and free time. /^t/Modern Polish women are, consequently, appreciated for their feedback, widespread response on people's problems. Additionaly they are thought not only to be perfect organizers but also caring mothers and thus desired wives all over the world. But apart those minor advantages of modern Polish women, their essential sway is glamour, determination, self-confidence and common sense which make them not shunning real competition, thus succeeding brilliantly where men have failed for centuries. <0208> /^t/There are a lot of changes in daily life that have been caused by the information and technology revolution. Thanks to television, computers, faxes and telephones, one can do almost everything. They make it possible to roam around the world without leaving home, communicate with people and, primarily, become brilliant with information of every kind. There is a question that arises in the face of such progress, however, if man is still able to control the way these changes shape his life and to preserve all the important traditional values. Unfortunately, it seems that he is not. Modern life has become rubbish and this can easily be observed in the loss of human-to-human contact, the way children are brought up these days and the departure from traditional method of learning. /^t/No one can deny that before television and computers there was a stronger sense of community and a greater attachment to neighbourhoods and families. People used to write letters, organize get-togethers and talk over a cup of tea. The decline of human-to-human contact is apparent around the world now. Even public places such as cafes and bistros are going out of business or are closed earlier in the day. Television and computer screens have simply glued people to their homes and increased the isolation of human beings. It is said that the Internet pushes life beyond the old barriers of time and space and this is true. However, virtual reality can never fully replace the physical one. Meeting face-to-face will always be more valuable than corresponding electronically. People simply need that contact. Unfortunately, most people prefer, for example, buying things via television or the telephone than going to the shopping centre or working at home, which is possible in the era of computers and fax machines, than working in the office among people. Anyway, people who have gone computer mad or become addicted to television deprive themselves of a real social life. It is scary that children are taught this is the way they should live. /^t/Television and computer games should not be the ultimate entertainment for a child but sadly they are. Additionally, they are also the worst "teachers". Today average child sits in front of the tube for about thirty hours a week. A great percent of the programs children watch are adult television. As television offers endless sagas of terror, chase and murder, children learn how to hit and hurt from watching. It is in the same way they learn how to count and read. It may be even worse when a child who sees a world full of violence will accept it as a normal one. Computers also breed laziness among children. Instead of learning mental thinking children grow up believing that machines will do everything for them. What will happen, one may ask, if technological innovations like wireless, palm-size receivers become available for everyone. At the moment they are too expensive for most people but soon they can deepen human dependency on electronic machines. Children are taught that it is better to calculate, pay bills and shop with the aid of computer and telephone. These items have become indispensable even for children, as they work and think for them. One may wonder if it should be a consolation that kids can still read and write. /^t/It also seems that in some way high technology spawns illiteracy among people. Many of them relate more intimately with electronic screens and are unwilling to read anything of substantive length requiring concentration. So far books have been the traditional source of wisdom and information of all kinds. Now, electronic dominance over print is increasing. Sales of electronic encyclopedias, for example, exceeded sales of printed ones. The same may be with hypertext books - they may replace written ones. They offer mosaic plots as every reader in the Internet can add new material. They do not have a given beginning, middle and end, everything is to be chosen by the reader. This makes his way of thinking very subjective and does not allow him to learn what other people think. No hypertext novel can achieve what the brain does naturally and what man can find in printed books, it seems. Many people, however, especially young ones, are fascinated with these innovations. Thus, they deprive themselves of certain traditional values which books represent. /^t/It is well known that modern technology represents the future and those who resist it can be left behind. Nevertheless, man should not believe that machines will think and feel for him or replace his social life. There are so many other things he should appreciate more as, for example, contact with other people and traditional and often more effective ways of learning and obtaining information. Man cannot let computer and television control his life because in this way life would not make much sense and would become a complete rubbish. <0209> /^t/Modern life seem to be very chaotic. Everyday rush makes people speed up the rhythm of their days. People have no time to stop for a minute and think about themselves, about their feelings, let alone their cultural identity. As a result of it, the whole nations loose touch with their roots. It is so in case of Greeks who nowadays have hardly a thing in common with their ancient ancestors, as the A. Cowell's article "In the Shadow of the Acropolis, ..." shows. Poles are also loosing their identity. This phenomenon can be shown by the fact Poles disfavour their own native products and tourist market, they are frequently using another language in place of their mother one and by the fact that young Poles today seem to know very little about their cultural background. /^t/Among the most distressful phenomina in todays Poland is the Poles' tendency to disfavour their native products. Many Poles refuse to buy Poland-made products. These Poles are not only snobbish, but narrow-minded as well; once they adopted a negative opinion of Polish products and they hold it, as if they were blind to all the changes Poland and its trade undergo. The result is, they don't give a chance for development to their native market. They purchase Swiss watches, Japanese audio-video equipment and jeans of famous American marks. Apart from that, some Poles also deminish the beauty of their country and spend vacation in Italy, Greece or France, that is anywhere but in Poland. /^t/Poles not only disfavour their trade and tourist market but also belittle their Polish language. More and more often they mix it with a lot of foreign vocabulary. Linguistic purists may excuse the borrowing of technological words, but not a great deal of English, French and German common words. It is enough to take a walk in a street of an average Polish town to see "butiques", "super markets" and "shops". Polish captions are not fashionable. Moreover, Polish musicians write lyrics for their songs in English. It's really distressful, the more that having turned on a Polish-channel in a radio, one is highly likely to hear a song in a foreign language, English, French or even Swahili. Consequently, youngsters in Poland, who can see and hear foreign languages everywhere, have a very poor Polish vocabulary. They simplify the outer and their inner world as they are unable to express what they experience. Wishing to put into words their emotions, they swear - in English. This way Poles annihilate their language. /^t/Besides, Poles seem to be generally ignorant about their cultural past. They are so as they don't know Polish folk music and are unaware of their history. This phenomenon refers mainly to young generations. Students in primary and secondary schools don't read their obligatory reading, but just short summaries of it. Having neglected the masterpieces of Polish literature, full of national Polish elements, young people have nothing to identify with and have no basis to build their Polishness on. Therefore, Poles today feel no connection with their past, with their ancestors. /^t/Generalizing, Poles are loosing their identity as they are unaware of their roots, belittle their language and disfavour Polish trade market. They are on the way to self-destruction. While in danger, they can gather and protect their national heritage (as the history shows), but when safe - they annihilate their Polishness. If these trends continue, Polish society may face a national disaster. <0210> /^t/Every day in our life is fraught with danger. You wake in the morning, rush to the window and take a deep breath but you can only breathe the air polluted with lead from petrol. Then, you make your way to the car knowing that today you or one of your nearest and dearest may be involved in a car accident. In the evening you use your old hair drier realizing that you may inhal quite a few azbestos particles from it. Civilization is everywhere, but are we much that happier in our technological world with its new-found knowledge than our ancestors who knew nothing of these things? Probably not. One can notice today that automation and high-technology equipment cause more problems than they solve. A good example of this equipement is television and computers. Because of them there has been an increase in violence, in laziness, dehumanization and in terrorism. /^t/Television is a most visible, ubiquitous device to have entered our lives in the last 40 years. Today, television is almost in every house and it is on in average household for some seven hours a day. Violence on television leads to the agressive behavior of children because television does influence some kinds of behavior. Today, an average child sits in front of the tube about 20 hours a week. Most programmes kids watch is the adult television that offers endless sagas of terror, chase and murder. A child learns how to hit, cause pain and suffering, it can learn nothing but agression. Although television has been created in order to entertain people, one has to remember that it has also helped to increase violence in the last 20 years. /^t/Computers are even more alluring than television, but they cause a lot of problems as well. First of all, they breed laziness and discontent. People are unwilling to read anything of substantive length requiering concentration. Interactive multimedia books offer seamless sequences of words, images and pictures instead. The sales of computer encyclopedias exceed the sales of printed ones. The computer generation assumes that it is better to calculate, tell the time, work out your holidays and even shop with the aid of computer. Although a computer is a good device for such things, it causes a decline of human-to-human contact because, before computers, people had a stronger sense of community, a greater attachement to their neighbourhoods and families. /^t/A computer is also a good device for a terrorist. In the past, a terrorist could affect only a tiny section of a city, say - by leaving a bomb in a building. Today, with little more than a keybord and some technical knowledge, that same terrorist has the potential to cause immense chaos and threaten thousands of lives. By shutting down the telephone exchanges of a major city, for instance, he is able to stop all the communication to and from and within that city. The disruption would bring all business to a stop causing millions of dollars of loses. The most dangerous, however, is the threat of human lives. Consider the consequences if, for example, a terrorist were gain access to a traffic air control network. A terrorist understands the potential of high-technology equipment as a terrorist weapon. With the aid of computers terrorist have become more efficient, more ruthless and far more lethal. /^t/Our modern world is today, in almost every respect, in the grasp of technology. High above the earth, thousands of satellites orbit the globe. Some control the world's radio, television and telephone transmissions; other from a global positioning system tell ships and aircraft exactly where they are at any given moment. Below, on the ground, countless numbers of computers keep our water running, our electricity flowing, our transporting moving - in short technology keeps our society operating more efficiently than it has ever done in the past. However, the adventages we enjoy as a result of technology come at a price: increased violence, dehumanization and the dangers of high-technology terrorism. Advanced technology brings a lot of adventages and should be continued, but it also should be, at least to some extent, controlled. Then, people would not have to afraid of what they created themselves. <0211> /^t/A young woman wakes up in the morning, turns the radio on and hears about a new invention. A genius has decided that people wait too long at supermarket check-outs, and so he has developed a considerable computer to make people's lives easier. It all involved weighing, tearing off special little tags from each item one buys, and feeding them into a machine and weighing again. This information recalled the woman a time when there were a few long queues in supermarkets and people got more pleasure from shopping. The woman started to think about the price of progress and came into conclusion that automation causes more problems than it solves. The woman could think about three main problems caused by automation: isolation from society, laziness and wealth differences. /^t/The first problem seems to be the most important one. Thanks to all new technology people can roam around the world without leaving their homes. The age of software offers games, home banking, electronic shopping, video on demand and a host of other services that unplug people from phisical contact. The decline of human-to-human contact is apparent around the world and corresponding electronically becomes more valuable than meeting face-to-face. The need for skin contact is no longer precious if people can buy clothes, make new friends, conduct business transactions without going out. Television, computers, Internet have glued people to their homes, isolating them from other human beings. Before television and computers, people had a stronger sense of community, a greater attachment to neighborhoods and families. Now most of the communities become less intimate and more isolated. /^t/Another very important problem is that automation makes people lazy. People prefer to handle their business without leaving their comfortable homes. They can do everything in pajamas at any time they want. It may seem very convenient but, in fact, destroyes people, dehumanizes them. Laziness causes that people stop to function in a normal way. Their lives no longer resemble real ones. Laziness bred by computers and all new technology is, at the beginning, is very harmless and innocent but later it possesses people's minds and deforms them. People can no longer imagine they can lead their previous lives. Everything from the past appears to them as trivial and boring. /^t/There is yet another problem connected with automation, namely an increase in wealth differences among the people. Not everybody may afford technology inventions such as computer or fax. For many people these devices are too expensive. Only a part of the society have an access to Internet services and fax communications. Although many of those devices are already on the market, not many people can buy them. It is because not all the people are wealthy enough to keep abreast of the times. This boils down to emphasizing wealth differences among the people. The poorer see the richer who can afford computers, faxes and it makes the poorer feel more depressed. In this way the poorer realize that there are richer members of the society who can lead better lives thanks to enjoying a privilege of using the technological inventions. /^t/The above statements confirm that automation causes more problems than it solves. The problems caused by automation are isolation from the society, laziness and wealth differences. <0212> /^t/A couple of months ago my father came home very upset. He had not caught his bus although he had not missed it either. My father had not managed to get into the bus because he did not know that in order to do so he should have pressed a button so that the door opened. Here comes the question: is progress a good thing without any doubt? It appears that automatization causes more problems than it solves. It is so because it makes our lives more difficult, contributes to rise in unemployment and imposes limits on relationships between people. /^t/First of all, surprisingly enough, though automatization is meant to make your life easier, it is often the other way round. Computer may be a good example. The fact that it gives you plenty of advantages, such as saving your time and your brain, is unquestionable. However, only if you are familiar with this miracle of our century and are able to operate it, can you enjoy its conveniences. Knowing nothing about computers together with realizing that you will not get a job unless you obtain the ability of operating them very often turns out to be a paralising mixture: people are too scared of the new and the modern to get accustomed to it. /^t/Secondly, automatization contributes to rise in unemployment. In order to live, you need money; in order to get money, you need a job. That is why a good and, what is more important, stable job means so much. Unemployment has been a serious problem in Poland fore some years, especially in small towns and villages. In such places there are usually only few companies or factories providing the inhabitants with jobs. Automatization of these companies or factories means there are less people needed to do the same job, so cuts in employment follow. It is profitable for the owners but not for emploees. Plenty of people losing their jobs and the source of means at the same time are too high a price of progress. /^t/Finally, the most alarming fact about automatization is that it imposes limits on relationships between people. Long time ago, the only kind of entertainment and source of information was talking to each other. A stranger visiting your house was given a warm welcome since he could tell you about different places, countries. Nowadays you do not have to leave your room to get touch with the world. It is enough to turn the TV on. People spend more and more time in front of their TV sets. Why is it so disturbing? Because they prefer to watch a film than talk to a friend, they know everything about the Carringtons' problems but nothing about their relatives' troubles; they watch fictitious people living but are absent in their own lives and in the life of their family. Automatization makes people more lazy in maintaing relationships. /^t/To sum up, it is a fact that automatization causes more problems than it solves. Progress is created by humans and should therefore stay under humans' control. Automatization must be in the service of man, not the other way round. <0213> /^t/John is just 15 years old boy, extremely talented in maths and computers. He knows very well not only tasks which are discussed during a class but he can easily help his father to do difficult calculations. At first, his parents were fascinated by the amount of information he was familiar with but then they came to the conclusion that he behaves like an adult not a teenager. He didn't enjoy his life. Such a case is not strange at all. It is no longer a mystery that automation causes more problems than it solves. A brief look at the shape of relationships, health and human illiteracy will explain it. /^t/On of the biggest problems automation has caused is the decline of human relationships and human contact. More and more people start making new friends by using Internet or going to cyber-cafe. There is no need to meet with a friend eye to eye in order to talk, when a person can sit at home, drink a cup of tea and talk by Internet. Fewer and fewer see any use in writing letters, for which we must wait quite a long time but they are much more intimate than e-mail. By using computers or TV-sets we all lose a sense of community, we don't know our neighbours and family because we spend our time mostly in front of the screen. From day to day, because of automation, people are becoming less and less human, losing values which are typical only for human nature, including the power of touching. They are not able to enjoy their lives any more. /^t/Automation not only isolated people from each other but also worsened their health. It is not difficult to notice that all people who went computer-mad are more lazy and discontent. An average person spends 30 hours a week watching TV and using a computer, while in the past he or she could devote all that time for practising sport. It is not strange that the number of fat people is growing very quickly and more of us complain about some heart diseases. Computers and TV-sets discourage people from leaving their homes as they provide us also with virtual reality, thanks to which we can be almost everywhere, just sitting in the armchair. Therefore, it can be said that automation has the influence on both physical and psychological sides of our personality, causing that life seems to be boring for us. /^t/Another problem which is connected with worsening our abilities and health is human illiteracy and inability to use one's brain. A constant habit of using a computer and reading all the information through computers causes that people are no longer interested in books. They have everything on discs, therefore there is no need to read newspapers or books. The same applies to solving mathematical tasks because, nowadays, children in primary schools are not able to solve even a simple task without the help of calculators. We all are becoming illiterate and unable to use the quadrillion of connections of nerve cells in our brain. /^t/Now, the case described in the beginning our essay doesn't seem to be unusual or very strange. The introduction and development of automation causes really a number of problems, which, however, do not concern only young people, but everybody. The decline of human relationships, worse state of our health and illiteracy with books do not make our life easier in any way, but are rather a kind warning that our age is the age of dehumanization. Let's hope that in a few years we will still be able to find some qualities, characteristic for human beings. <0214> /^t/"Have mercy on smokers" - tried to persuade M. Domiter in the December's issue of the "PROLETARIAT" Convincingly enough, he managed to explain and show in a very sophisticated & persuasive way, his attitude towards the new Act of Parliament, putting a ban on smoking in public places. /^t/Now, Poland is facing lots of different problems, smoking, undoubtedly, is one of them, so as. The percentage of Poles addicted to cigarettes keeps on growing in comparison with the previous years. Under such circumstances, the Polish Parliament decided to undertake any precautions, in order not to allow smoking become the national habbit. After moths of fierce debates, the Parliament reached agreement and solution. Since November the 1-st, 1996, smoking in public places was forbidden. Undeniably, the Act of Parliament devided the Polish society on two "fighting" (opposite) camps, namely: on those who smoke, and on those who aren't addicted to smoking. There is ample reason why smokers met the Parliament decision with a strong criticism, whereas the non-smoking part of Poles expressed their profound approval and support for the ban on smoking in public places, established by the Parliament. Both sides try to show and support their claims. /^t/There is evidence, according to the smokers that the Act of Parliament, putting a ban on smoking in public places, is, in every respect, an affront to the democratic rules - freedom of choice constitutes one of them. Majority of the smokers admits that smoking is their free, conscious choice, a sort of pleasure, pacifier out of which they don't want to get rid. In their opinion, a cigarette (although stuffed with tar and nicotine) doesn't cause more harm than a cup of coffe, which isn't forbidden. Asked about his attitude towards the Act of Parliament, imposing some restrictions on smoking, a young man holding a ciggarette (he stood in the bus stop that is a public place! gave such a response: "There is so much distance in the Polish society today, so why on earth, make one more division, based on those who smoke and who don't". He also added that the smokers don't want to stuff others (non-smokers) with nicotine, they don't want to poison those who feel disgust at the cigarette smoke. All they want from the rest of society is just simple acceptance of their addiction. The facial features together with the man's gestures seemed to shout: "Have more mercy on smokers. Please!". /^t/What about the other side rights? (Bear in mind that the non-smokers consist about 65% of the Polish society.) A few of their rights are predominantly convincing. The first is that the non-smokers don't wish to breath in being in the smoker's presence the huge dozes of nicotine and tar, instead of pure oxygen. Smoking, as they think, is also highly contagious, so they wouldn't like to become infected just by the simple contact with the cigarette smoke. Cigarette addiction, is for them, the way of slow dying. Apart from these, it's also worth adding that smoking is much more dangerous for the so called passive smokers (or non-smokers as you like) than for those who are accustomed to, through years, to it. That's why the non-smokers express their opinion that it was high time smoking in public places was banned. They animously claim that they don't want to completely deprive the smokers of their "pacifiers", all they need, in exchange, is that they wouldn't like to be poisoned. /^t/In sum, looking at the data a conclusion arises that smoking really presents a national problem. Will the Parliament decision, putting the ban on smoking in public places, manage to solve it? The question will probebly be unanswered for long. <0215> /^t/Undoubtedly, even a casual observation of the modern world shows how much imperfections and cruelty is in it. Let's set an example. Last week, a bloodcurdling piece of news from Wroclaw (a town in the western part of Poland) paralysed and shocked the Polish society. Two fifteen-year-old girls stabbed to death their friend, just because, as they later explained, they didn't like her. With no remorses of consciousness, they made allowances to deprive her of what she had the most precious - her life. /^t/Life is the most precious gift from God, as a token of God's love, commitment and care over man. This makes that life should consist of nothing, but God's blessings. Unfortunately enough, it's not so. Life, apart from being too short to enable man to fullfil his or her dreams and duties, is stuffed with a variety of problems. Among these problems, man continually has to cope with, are: the growing violence, intolerance and the predominant, undeniable role of money. Bearing that problems in mind, there is ample evidence, why the life in the modern world is so thoroughly stuffed with rubbish. /^t/Undeniably, violence is one of the crucial factors that make the modern life so difficult. The gradually growing violence rate confirms that together with the growth of progress, the modern world can be depicted as less & less safe place to live, where the relations between peoples keep on deteriorating, and getting less & less humane or friendly. Moreover, people bear almost any, respect and beliefe in each other: majority of them, are of the opinion that a friend of theirs can as well be their enemy (opponent). It's hardly possible, to see, let's say on one of the Poznan's street, a man, whose face is decorated with a smile. People, no doubt, are extremely scared that they can, similarily to the girl in Wroclaw, be the victims of somebody's morbid imagination. They are aware that the accident in Wroclaw consist only a margin in the criminal register. Who should be blamed on being so? Television, peers, parents, approaching millenium or something else. This has to stay unanswered. /^t/The modern world is characterized not only by the growing violence rate, but also by the complete lack of tolerance and strongly rooted prejudicies against any differences. People, by and large, try only to keep appearances of being tolerant, whereas they at heart, are fierce opponents of everybody who is different in political, social or sexual orientation. Being different, means for them, being worse. So, there is no obstacle to look down on homosexuals, single mothers, people of different political and religious beliefs. Let's set as an example people's attitude towards homosexuals. Are they accepted? No, of course, they aren't. What's even more pessimistic, the gays couples have no chances of a better treatment in future. Taking this into consideration, isn't it only an outdated, hypocritic theory that people are tolerant? /^t/The role of money in deteriorating the relations between people & blurring the image of the perfection in the modern world, stays undeniable. It's no longer man, but rather money that is the architect of the life in the modern world. If one desires to live on a decent level, all he needs is money. Nowadays, money is a must as an accelerative factor in making career and facilitating life. That's why people are so absorbed in collecting them. Money, as it was proved, unfortunately is the necessity of the life in the modern world. People need money at the expense of friends. /^t/Looking at the above examples supported by casual observations of the cruelty and imperfections of the modern world, that should be confirmed that the modern life is, in every respect, rubbish. <0216> /^t/One day, my mother, who is a teacher at a primary school, came home from work very irritated. - "They don't want to study multiplication tables" - she said. - "Who?" - I asked. - "The kids, they say they find it useless while everyone owns a computer which can count for them.." Probably, some people would consider this situation very funny, but I think such problems cause a very frustrating assumption. The assumption that automation and progress causes more problems than it solves. Certain factors seem to prove such a thesis. Automation separates people from one another, causes the increase of unemployment and, in a way, deprives artists, creative people from respect. /^t/First of all, there are more and more people who complain that they can't find themselves in the modern era. Sociologists claim that the increase of loneliness, depression and frustration, in a vast degree, is caused by the "automation of life". Computers, TV sets make people stay at their houses. Thanks to Internet they are able to meet somebody from the second end of the world, while they do not know a neighbour living next door. Less and less people find it necessary to visit their friends or relatives while they can easily use the phone. That is why so many people hate automation and would rather stop the progress. /^t/Another price people have to pay for automation is the increase of unemloyment. Computers, by the fact of their having released man from labour, have also managed to deny him employment and the means of earning his living. Those, who lost work because of this fact feel useless and redundant. There is a strong possibility that the increase of violation and the number of suicides is caused exactly by the automation of life. /^t/The following, probably most important of all disadvantage of automation is strictly connected with the previous one. The popularity of computers, machines make professions like an artist, a nurse, a teacher less paid and less important. People concerned in social work are aware of their choice: either they will shift over their job, or they will always be underpaid and overworked. Moreover they realize, their work will never be appreciated and respected. They warn their children against making similar mistake and encourage them to choose a more affected job. That is why young people ignore their artistic abilities in order to earn their living instead of thinking how to make ends meet. It is very likely that there will be plenty of rich businessmen in the society but what is society worth without artists? Can it last long? /^t/By looking at all the disadvantages of automation it can be concluded that if some measures are not taken to eradicate this problem the situation can only get worse and escalate. It seems that it is about time a human being thought if the price for progress is not too high. <0217> /^t/My parents have always been the heavy smokers. One day they noticed that me, their small child turned white and chocked when she smelled a cigarette. Uneasy about this fact they took me to a doctor. The diagnosis seemed to be terrible to them. It turned out that I was allergic to smoke. My parents gave up smoking, but my future could be deplorable taking into consideration the fact that Poles used to smoke "everything and everywhere". Feeling intuitively what kind of judgement was passed on me I became a zealous advocate of the idea of banning smoking in public places. /^t/It goes without saying that such an act of law is necessary in a society which claims to be called modern and healthy. It is obvious that this law will not only improve the situation of allergics or co-called passive smokers, but also reduce the number of potential smokers and, first of all, it will help people to give up their addiction. /^t/First explanation of the advantages of the new law springs from the results of many tests which give evidence that both active and passive smokers suffer in almost equal degree. Smoking damages hearts, lungs and other body organs of non-smokers, it prevents them from normal working or life in general. In the USA, for example, smoking is thought to be the cause of 350000 deaths every year. The cases of passive smokers compose a vast part of this number. It seems that this fact shows to what extent this law can change the life of people who suffered unnecessarily. /^t/Another advantage of the banned smoking in public places is the possibility of saving potential smokers from being addicted to nicotine. When people talk about the beginning of their bad habit it looks as if everybody started in the same way. He or she was treated to a cigarette once or twice, usually by a friend at work. They did not refuse because of the lack of strong will, or, because they did not want to make a friend feel offended. That is why the elimination of such situations will cause the elimination of future smokers. /^t/The most important aim of the law, however, is to help people already addicted, to give up smoking. The results of experiments on the psychology of smoking and the chemistry of nicotine seem to confirm, that it is possible to achieve this aim. The explanation why people continue to smoke is that once their bodies become dependent on nicotine, it is painful not to have it. But the results of the studies show that smoking only 10 cigarettes a day can give a smoker enough nicotine to prevent the pain of the nicotine withdrawal. What is more, the reduction of the number of smoked cigarettes usually motivated a smoker to give up the habit completely. /^t/Although many people find the new law useless or even violating the privacy of smokers, all the good points of it seem to make up for the inconveniences. It is very likely that the near future will dispel all the conceivable doubts. <0218> /^t/Once upon a time smoking was a typically manlike activity. A cigarette in female mouth was unquestionably unproper. Nowadays there is hardly a month in which a cigarette would be a shocking view. Men and women, adults and teenagers, even children - they all smoke. Somethink should be done about it. There are people who believe that ban on cigarette advertising would change the situation for better. However, there are arguments that cigarette advertising should not be banned. It is because of its profitability, objectivity and harmlessness. /^t/First of all, like any advertising also cigarette advertising is profitable. At it is not so for the company advertised only but, what is of greater importance here for the institution advertising. There is nothing wrong in taking advantage of cigarette advertising if the profits are to be used for more laudable aims. "The end justifies the means", doesn't it? The more so as "the means" here are not so harmful as it may seem. /^t/Secondly, cigarette commercials seem, surprisingly enough, rather objective. None of them says that smoking will make you healthier, more beautiful or rich. They just try to attract you but do not promise anything. Such an attitude is, with no doubt, much more fair than the one of cosmetic advertising, for example. There are plenty of shampoons advertised on TV which are supposed to make your hair look soft, shiny, silky, strong, healthy, great looking, thick, naturally beautiful and whatever else you want them to be. Only if you are naive enough to use them can you find out that the truth is not quite so. Your hair may become shiny, but you can get dandruff at the same time; you might succeed in getting rid of the dandruff, but then your hair is not so shiny any more and it may even come out. This can go on and on. The conclusion is: there is no reason why we should prohibit cigarette advertising, one of few kinds of advertising which do not provide false information. /^t/Finally, the simplest and the strongest argument against ban on cigarette advertising is that it would not stop people from smoking since it is not a commercial that makes you addicted to nicotyne. Although millions of people see Marlboro cowboys every day, and most of them, especially women are attracted by such a view, nevertheless hardly any of them would go and start smoking, tempted by the commercial. Cigarette advertising may influence a smoker to choose a particular kind of cigarettes but it seems hard to believe that it may influence anybody to become a smoker. /^t/To sum up, ban on cigarette advertising is a rather odd idea. There are much more serious problems connected with smoking, such as smoking in public places or lung cancer, and they should be dealt with first. <0219> /^t/It is a well-known, yet horrifying fact that Polish educational system has found itself in a critical situation over several recent years. Despite appreciable and profound changes which took place in all fields of social life, it failed to keep pace with them. According to the reliable evidence, from 1989 on, the dominant policy of the government toward education was to increase the number of available university places for those evincing interest in higher education. This resulted in constantly growing number of students enrolled in colleges and universities throughout Poland. Nowadays, the findings report, there are twice as many university students as there were in 1989. Simultaneously, within the compass of four years, the government has reduced still by a half meagre funds reserved for purpose of education. In consequence of the instanced disposal most Polish universities are confronted with serious financial problems calling for reasonable solutions. /^t/Thus, in connexion with the existing situation, great attention should be paid to the process of setting Polish higher educational system on feet again and let the universities improve their financial situation acting on their own. This, in turn would require putting forward sensible solutions and laying down appropriate provisions which would help Polish universities to overcome their financial problems. /^t/First of all, with a view to intellectual development of the nation, the government should offer more of financial assistance to the higher education institutions. It goes without any saying that wages of academic workers should be raised adequately to their high competence. People who encounter seemingly perpetual financial difficulties gradually withdraw their interest from areas of academic matters focusing it on somewhat more profitable, nonacademic spheres. Education unquestionably will not benefit from presented situation. /^t/To say nothing more of an issue of the regular, substantial aids which should be granted by the government, on the other hand, the universities should be able to self-finance themselves. Above all, a resolution is needed which would allow the universities to become more autonomous and to eliminate their traditional stiffness, so that they could raise money they are in short of, in great part, by themselves. In a large measure, this could be obtained by levying on students tuition charges. Payments should be required of full-time and part-time students alike. They would have to pay fees and living costs, but every student should be guaranteed to receive from the local authority of the place where he or she lives a personal grant or a loan, high enough to cover their full costs including lodging and food. This would be necessary since in case fees are introduced, many students coming from poor families would not be able to afford studying. As far as loans are concerned, these would have to be payed back in instalments by a student after his or her graduation and taking up regular employment. /^t/Still there is another solution worth being taken into consideration by those universities which need to be helped out. This would require to address a number of selected university departments to engage themselves in profit-making activities. Such as departments of foreign languages can make a source of considerable, regular income provided they would assume a task of organizing postgraduate or other extra-curricular paid courses intended for students as well as nonstudents willing to better their professional qualifications. They would include, for instance, such domains as legal advice and marketing as well as management training, computer operating or courses of foreign languages. /^t/On the other hand, preliminary steps should be taken in order to introduce legislation which would foster Polish industry to cooperate with the higher education institutions, which should be more responsive to the economic needs of the nation. Such cooperation would involve, for instance, carrying out research work, providing scientific description of technological processes or producing economic analysis for the industrial utilization to order, as well as arranging legal consultations for firms. Institutional activity of this kind would provide a source of considerable income for the universities engaged. /^t/Another way of helping the higher education institutions to cope with financial problems could be encouraging them to take up some ancillary commercial activities. In order to put into operation the plan under discussion, the universities would have to keep, for example book-stores, publishing houses etc. as well as to let out on hire, for various purposes, their lecture halls and other rooms. /^t/There is little doubt about it, that in present situation, Ministry of Education should concentrate its attention mainly on providing help in realization of mentioned suggestions. The universities supplied with sufficient funds could be to decide on further action leading to their full-scale development and, at the same time, development of higher education in general. This idea incorporates modernization of laboratories, educational equipment, complement of library collections, extension of scientific research field, etc. Moreover, such situation would result in graduates better prepared for their future jobs. The majority of presented proposals can be successfully carried into effect by the universities thanks to help and support of Ministry of Education. Nonetheless, on the other hand, such a plan would require from the people involved their mental reorganization which process, definitely, does not fall within the Minister of Education capacity. <0220> /^t/The twentieth century has introduced some revolutionary changes which liberated women socially and politically. Looking at the three most important domains of woman's life: home, work and social and public life, one can observe serious differences between position of modern women and a position of their grandmothers. /^t/A great number of modern women still set home and family at the first place, but their duties in this field slightly differ from those women had in the past. Some time ago home was the only proper place for a woman. Rising children and running a house were her only responsibilities. Making important decisions about family belonged to a man. He was woman's only master whose commands she has to obey. Today woman in contrast to those from the past are not confined to a home any more. They are not only nice knick-knacks with no voice. They has right to decide about themselves and their families. Moreover, they know how to subordinate men who seem to like this more than anyone could expect. /^t/Earlier women were devoted only to their families unlike modern women for whom being a housewife is not enough. Work gives every woman not only money but first of all freedom and equal rights with man. Work means life which is more than home only. It can also fulfil women's expectations and aspirations. One can find women of almost all professions while their grandmothers, those who had to work, could have been only servants or plain workers. Now menial work is conceded only to not educated or not bright people no matter what their sex is. /^t/Not only can modern women hold high positions in their professions, they also participate in public life. While the women in the past had no right even to vote or take part in the elections, modern women become leaders of political parties, deputies or ministers. In such countries as Great Britain, Island or Poland women were heads of governments. Their sex does not matter, what really counts is their intelect and strenght. /^t/Modern women also hold different place in social life. In opposition to the women of the turn of the century, for example, they are not slaves to the etiquette, social conventions or fashion. They do not need any company to feel comfortable in the public places, they do not have to wear hats outdoors. They can smoke in front of other people and wear men's clothes. What used to seem to be impossible for them now is perfectly normal and does not impress anybody. /^t/After centuries of subordination and decades of struggle for freedom women are eventually equal with men and free from social slavery to which there is no return. <0221> /^t/There are several factors in almost all people's lives that affect them and in a certain way direct their lives. These social factors can be people or institutions and they can influence somebody in a positive or negative way. They can be found through people's whole lives. /^t/The first factor that influences one's life appears at the very beginning of childhood. It is parents and I would tend to say it is the most important and the most influential one. Very often parents want to realize their own desires and plans "by" their child and they expect him or her to do things or to be like they dreamt to be themselves. They impose their child a school and later a branch of studies or they would like to choose friends for him or her. School is another institution that affects children and youth by its expectations. In case of school it is well seen that influence can be positive or negative. When high expectations for student learning are embodied in the formal structure of a school very positive effects can occur for at-risk youth. High expectations can encourage one or stimulate to work more. However sometimes school destroys one's individuality by forcing to giving up a subject one is interested in and imposing other ones. In such case school or teachers negatively affect pupils by imposing something instead of only directing and leaving the right to choose. /^t/In adulthood one encounters other expectations that affect his or her life. It is one's work very often. Supervisors' too high expectations may cause someone to become too ambitious. Then a desire to be perfect in carrying out one's duties may appear and may destroy one mentally. But when expectations are sensible, they can stimulate an employee and give him satisfaction with his work. In a marriage it sometimes happens that a spouse, similarly like in case of parents, wants the other one to be just like he or she would like to see him. Then the first one tries to direct the other one's life, destroys his individuality or unables to achieve the other one's goals by imposing his ones. A negative influence can also appear in case when a spouse wants to dominate over his wife or her husband. In a positive sense of spouses expectations they mutually stimulate themselves, invigorate and give strength. /^t/As one can see, the society's expectations accompany people all over their lives, both at school and at work and one's own home. However it is very remarkable that there are some people (although certainly only few) who are strong enough to oppose the society's expectations. They are great individualities (not neccessarily in a positive sense, but in the sense of great mental strength) and they are usually rejected by the society. They're considered to be "outsiders" not accepted by others. <0222> /^t/Non-public schools started to arise in Poland a few years ago as a result of parents and teachers' disappointment with the existing system of education, which they are critisizing and rejecting. Having in mind often bad memories of school years, they want to provide their offspring with a school where the purpose of teaching is not to cram children's heads with facts. Rather, to encourage them to develop their natural abilities and interests in their own way, teach them to raise questions and seek answers. /^t/However, the teachers and parents want to concentrate only on intellectual progression of the importance of the emotional development, too. This aspect of education is highly neglected in the hierarchy of aims in state schools. That is why in non-public schools so much attention is paid to create a friendly atmosphere of tolerance, trust and respect, no matter how gifted a pupil is. In state schools the lack of concern about this part of human development often leads to frustration or even neurosis, particularly among the pupils who are mentally weak. /^t/Furthermore, state schools in Poland, especially in big cities, are in most cases large - they are attended by 1500-2000 children. Classes seem to be overcrowded - the number of pupils rarely drops below 30. Whereas in non-public schools one of the basic principles is that a single class should consist of no more than 15-20 pupils. This principle provides satisfactory conditions for learning and teaching. It is easier to draw attention of a smaller group of children and make them concentrate on the subject. Also, introducing new material or explaining questions arising in the course of the lesson, seem to be less problematic when there are fewer pupils. /^t/One of the major ambitions of non-public schools, in contrary to typical state schools, is to create the place where children come willingly and work at their own pace. They are not afraid to ask the teacher for help. As stress is laid on good relationship between the teacher and the pupils, children feeling secure, act spontaneously and creatively. Sometimes they come up with amazing ideas, which is a reward for the teacher's work. /^t/Another important factor contrasting these two types of school is that state schools have to face financial problems. A constant shortage of money holds up any redecorating works or buying new teaching aids. Creating a language lab or a computer studio is absolutely beyond their means. Not to mention the teachers, who are generally underpaid in state schools, frustrated and tired because after work they often take up an extra job to make both ends meet. They hardly find time and motivation to study latest methods of teaching. /^t/In non-public schools a monthly tuition is about 400 zloty; they are additionally subsidized by the government, so their financial situation is a bit better. In these schools much attention is paid to the general appearance of the school building. Classrooms are usually small but nicely decorated - walls are painted bright, happy colours. They look cosy and inviting. Headmasters, trying to attract parents, spend a lot of money to assure their clients the comfort of learning and teaching. /^t/Teachers are selected in the course of a competition. They are better paid than in ordinary schools so they feel motivated to perform their job as well as they can. They are also encouraged to present their individual programmes of teaching, which seems very challenging for the ones who are ambitious and creative. /^t/But what really makes these two types of school different is the relationship between the school and parents. In public schools parents are often an inevitable addition to pupils teachers have to cope with. Especially, when the parents expect the teachers to do some extra work to improve the results of teaching or change their attitude towards pupils. What is more, parents turn up in the school building only when their child gets either bad marks or his/her behaviour is unacceptable. If there are not any major problems with the offspring's general conduct, parents are supposed to collect their child's school report twice a year, at the end of each term. The contact between parents and school is usually formal and unpleasant to both sides. /^t/In non-public schools parents constitute its important element and participate in school life very intensively. First of all, parents meet the class master once a month not to be reprimended for misconduct of their children but, being presented with the problems, to try and find a way how to solve them. Parents sometimes spend their free time together, during weekends or school breaks by organising trips, parties and theatrical shows. In my school every autumn parents prepare the Roast Potato Festival, somewhere in the country, for the entire school to play, dance and have fun. In winter a long awaited sledging cavalcade takes us deep into the forest to enjoy sausages roasted in a bonfire. We can go together even for longer trips. Last year a group of forty pupils and their parents went with two teachers to visit London! /^t/Non-public schools have a short tradition in Poland and there is a lot to do to improve them. Nevertheless, opponents of these schools warn that they are creating a class of snobs, who think of themselves as superior to others only because non-public schools are paid. Also, that the teachers, whose existence depends on parents' good will, cannot assess objectively their pupils' work. That's why sometimes they may even give higher marks than pupils deserve, just to please their parents. /^t/It is not a main ambition of non-public schools to produce an educated elite, rather to help children to achieve their intellectual and emotional capability. It is not my intention to persuade anybody that non-public schools are better than state ones. Actually, there are no bad schools, there are only bad teachers. <0223> /^t/Nowadays, as industrial development extends its range, there are less and less typical countryside regions. Instead, there are more small towns which used to be villages not long ago and a number of big cities is also increasing proportionally. However, the conditions of life in those areas differ in many terms, having adventages and disadventages on both sides. /^t/The most important factor, that causes a series of differences between the two, is an amount of people. A high number of inhabitants of a city is strongly connected with the development of industry, which is to suppy basic human needs and give jobs to those who look for them. On the contrary, small towns do not offer so many possibilities of work, mostly because the range of their local industries is relatively small. This fact can make towns be in danger of unemployment, with no perspectives for the future. /^t/Another very important difference is that of the access to education and culture. Youth living in a city can profit by all the courses offerred by universities and high schools. They do not have to worry that besides providing them with food and clothes their parents have to give up high life-standard in order to pay for their children's shelter. At the same time young people living in small towns frequently face a series of obstacles before they became university students. First of all they are forced to move out of their family houses and should get used to the idea of living on their own. Very often they have to match studies and work because their parents can not afford to pay for their living. Besides, life in a city gives a possibility of combining education and entertainment, which is offerred by numerous and theatres. Unfortunately, these institutions are rarely met in towns. /^t/Medical service is also a crucial point while talking about differences. Again, big cities are able to secure the best medical equipment and specialists indifferent fields of medicine. While small towns usually suffer from the lack of well-qualified staff and modern technique. /^t/Another differing factor that should be taken into account is the state of the environment. In this case the situation is in favour of a town, where limited traffic and small-scale industry do not harm the environment strongly. However, the same thing seems to be a great problem for many big cities. /^t/The last, worth mentioning difference is the crime rate which has increased a lot during the last few years. The situation is much worse in cities where being an anonymous person seems to be obvious and lots of criminals take a advantages of the fact. Small towns are rather closed communities whose members know each other pretty well and very few of them dare to act illegally. /^t/Concluding, I want to repeat that both big cities and small towns have their adventages and disadventages which differ depending on the point that we choose. <0224> /^t/Although life has changed so drastically recently and a lot of people say there are no differences in living conditions between the country and the city, there are still some crucial distinctions which make people migrate from countries to cities or (not so often, however) vice versa. /^t/The first difference and the most important for numerous is connected with education and science. Those living in the country usually end their learning at primary school or, at best, at vocational one. Few acquire secondary or higher education. For most of the countrymen primary school seems to be sufficient because their expectations are usually closely connected with agriculture and, for the most part, they end up cultivating the soil as their parents and grandparents did. Living in the city gives more opportunities in choosing future proffession. Universities, Collegies and Academies challenge young people to strain every nerve in order to keep pace with the developing society. Getting a degree means a better job and higher income. But even for those who do not have higher education, jobs are still easier to come by in the city than for those living in the country. /^t/Another difference which makes the life in the country unbearable for many people is the lack of the run of entertainment and art. In the country there are neither cinemas not theatres, no museums, no galleries, and the only thing which is accessible is the disco in the fire-station or in a Farmer's Club. Big cities tempt us to visit their exhibitions, admire the treasures of art hidden in numerous galleries and museums; Philharmonic Orchestras invite us to listen to symphonies and cantatas; there are ballets and cabarets, botanical gardens and zoos, night-clubs, pubs, cafÚs and cassinos. So if you want to have an evening out, you will have plenty of different attractions in the city and, for sure, you will have a good time. /^t/Nowadays, more and more people seem to perceive and appreciate another difference between the country and the city - the healthier way of life. The air people breathe in cities is polluted by smoke and fumes from factories and motor vehicles. Those, who are aware of the danger connected with the pollutants try to hide themselves in the country and get some fresh air. Living in the country is not so stressful as living in the city. Countrymen seem to be closer to the nature. The four seasons mark their way of life. In spring, they are busy sowing corn and vegetables, in summer and autumn they collect the fruits of their work, in winter they seem to sleep bracing themselves up for the spring awakening. Big cities are not so favourable for people who do not have time for winter sleep, being constantly in a hurry. They hasten to catch a bus, do shopping, take children out of the kindergarten or school. No wonder, they often dream about countryside with meadows strewn with cornflowers and poppies, about fields full of wheat or barley, about murmuring streams, peaceful woods and pure air. /^t/The cost of life in the city and in the country differentiate as well. In the city one should have a good salary in order to live as one wishes. Even the most fundamental things such as grocery items cost much more than in the country. Clothes are pricier too, which is often connected with the exclusiveness of a shop rather than with the quality of a dress or shirt. One can buy a nice item of clothing in the country not paying for it enormouse sums. City transport is contributive to the cost of living as well, as in the country you do not need a bus or a tram to get from one place to another. A bike, or just one's feet are enough to visit the neighbours living in the other corner of the village. /^t/As it could be seen, both the city and the country have their own adventages and disadventages. Those who appreciate most healthy and unstressful way of life, would choose country as they home; those who found success and higher standard of living the most imortant would never settle in the country, sacrificing their own peace and health for "the higher" purposes. <0225> /^t/Video games are a natural by-product of the computer age. They are very popular, especially with children. The number of different video games still grows and grows as well as the number of video games players. A lot of video games are bloody and brutal but children are interested in games of this kind. The more violent such a game is, the more fascinating it is to young people. Are games like these bad for kids? There is no definite answer to this question. On the one hand, video games may promote violence in children. These games also engage teenagers so much that they usually give up other interests and hobbies. On the other hand, video games may be used for children's recreational and educational benefit. /^t/It is common knowledge that a lot of video games are really brutal because they show violence and death. One can consider the example of Mortal Kombat, America's top arcade game last year. One of the characters from Mortal Kombat, Johnny Cage, kills his victims with a bloody decapitating uppercut. The other one favors electrocution. Sub-Zero likes to tear his foe's head off. Unfortunately, not only this game is so realistic and rough. There are many many others. They actively engage teenagers in violent acts. Morover, video games communicate the message that the only way to be empowered is through violence. Some scientists even suggest that these games make children not only more aggressive, but also more tolerant of aggression. /^t/One cannot help noticing that many children are so fascinated with video games that they spend too much time in front of a video screen. They give up other hobbies and interests in order to play video games. As a result, young people do not read any books. They do not play outdoors, they do not make friends. The games absorb teenagers so much that many do not even want to do anything else. Of course, this is not good for young people because at their age they should also develop other skills. They should go out and meet new interesting people. They should spend much time in the open air playing different outdoor games such as football, tennis or volleyball. Playing video games cannot be their only kind of entertainment. /^t/However, many professionals claim that video games pose no threat and are actually valuable educational tools. They interviewed hundreds of video games players in the last two years and have found no evidence that playing the games makes children violent. Furthermore, video games do have recreational values. They serve to relieve aggressions that otherwise might take the form of destructive acts against society. Even educators argue that video games release aggressions rather than create them. Some teachers organize video games activities for their students and the students never hit one another while playing the games. Video games have even been used in programs to help epileptic and retarded children in hospitals for rehabilitating patients and in play therapy by child psychologists. Thus, video games enhance physical skills, improve hand and eye coordination and stimulate mental activity. /^t/To sum up, the problem of whether video games are harmful to children or not is very controversial. There is some evidence that these games are not good for young people because they promote violence and aggression. It is also obvious that kids devote to much time to playing video games and as a result many abandon the other interests such as reading or meeting friends. On the other hand, it has been proved that video games are helpful and children may use them for their educational and recreational benefit. <0226> /^t/For most people, a rock band must still consist of a vocalist, a guitarist, a bass player and a drummer. It is unthinkable for classical music fans that their favourite sounds might not be produced by living musicians. "Machine" music - composed, produced & performed with the use of synth. or even c. is v. often seen as soulles & artificial, simply not a genuine art. However, more and more of such music is being produced nowadays and with the growing popularity of the trend the stereotypes concerning it are beginning to change slowly. /^t/Saying that "machine" music is soulless is a manifestation of inability of more or less objective thinking. At present, it is completely impossible to distinguish between "human-produced" and "machine" music. Therefore, the claim that "you can tell it's a computer" is untrue. There exists no proof that a composer who uses a computer or synthesiser to write his or her music does it with less passion than the one who simply writes it down on a piece of paper (such a musician cannot usually perform the whole of the piece anyway which is possible with the use of machines). /^t/Those who claim that machine music is artificial simply do not realise that, in the modern world, even "live" music is under a heavy influence of technology. Apart from symphonic orchestras, most other bands are "electrified" to a greater or lesser extent. This makes possible all kinds of tricks - from multitrack recording of the vocals to "sampling" - the practice of incorporating parts of other work into one's own recordings. Modern music is as a result heavily processed - many of the supporters of the superiority of genuine music would be deeply surprised at the gap between the, one mite say, input and the material that eventually leaves the studio. /^t/It is enough to look up the ethymology of the words "art" & "artificial" in a good dix. to arrive at the obvious conclusion that they have much in common; by definition, "art" is "artificial" - so, is there a contradixion? No. /^t/Another important advantage of machine music allows us to dismiss the argument of its being not genuine art. People who claim that using machines for writing and performing music turns it into a mere craft are badly mistaken: it is the other way round. A machine musician is not dependent on those who will perform his music and their interpration. He has total control of his creation, just as a genuine artist should do, and does not have to rely on the craftsmanship of the performers. It is worth to note that most of virtuoso's are not genuine artists - they a just craftsmen able to play their instrument incredibly well but not able to create (maybe interpret - yes...). /^t/Moreover, technology makes music available for many more people: today, music is entering the Internet, and without the advent of electronics it would not have been able to reach as many people as it already does today. /^t/Machine music will occupy more and more "space" within its branch of art. In my opinion, it is a definitely positive phenomenon: machine music can reach more people, gives more control to the composer and is no less a genuine art than music performed by people. In my opinion, it is better. /^t/Machine music with its versatility and flexibility will occupy more and more space within the niche of music as a whole. This we cannot escape or avoid: more & more people will be attracted to it by the control it gives over its content. This, in my opinion, is a very positive phenomenon. Technology has already made it possible for music to reach more people than ever. With the advent of new inventions, this trend will develop. Machine music is a thing of today and, all the more so, a thing of the future. <0227> /^t/Visiting a foreign country always entails a culture shock. Wherever we travel, we find ourselves startled by the "oddness" of the natives' culture and forced to adjust to it. As we do so, we undergo several stages of the process. The pace at which we pass from one stage to another varies; it depends on our age and on the duration of our stay. Generally speaking, children adapt quicker than adults, and those of us whose stay is short adapt faster then those whose stay will be long. Nevertheless, whatever our age, and however long or short our stay, on visiting a foreign country we all inevitably go through the same adjustment cycle. /^t/The first stage in the adjustment cycle takes place before we even leave our own country. The moment we learn we are going to travel abroad, we start preparing ourselves for it - psychologically. We envisage that the country of our destination is going to be different from our own. We imagine what it looks like, what the people are like, and how they will perceive us - the strangers. We wonder what sort of cuisine they have, and how the spend their free time. We start adjusting to the other culture before we even come into contact with it, thus lessening the shock we experience on arriving at the foreign country: an Eskimo coming to Nigeria would have been in a great shock indeed if hadn't known about the differences of temperature in the two countries beforehand! /^t/On arrival, we reach the second stage of adjustment, during which we become used to the newness of the physical reality: our immediate surroundings, the landscape, the climate, the people. Thus an Australian visiting England is no longer surprised at the perpetuall rain, and an Englishman in Australia starts perceiving the thousands of kangaroos hopping around as an everyday view. The Pole in Africa becomes accustomed to seeing black people exclusively, and the African in Poland to being surrounded by whites only. And once they do, they can pass on to the third stage in the adjustment cycle. /^t/This is the stage of adjusting to a different lifestyle. However similar our economies & towns, our lifestyles are always disparate. A Japanese person in Italy would find it very hard to get used to the relaxed pace of working there, to the afternoon siestas and informal nature of contacts between the boss and the employee. Any European is bewildered by the frantic life style of the Japanese. Still, once we accept the natives' lifestyle we are well on our way to fully adjusting to the foreign culture. /^t/The last stage in the cycle of adjustment is that at which we start understanding the natives' way of perceiving the world. Every nation thinks differently, behaves differently, and thus often finds the behaviour of other nations incomprehensible. A foreigner coming to England must become aware that many "polite" sentences uttered by the English just sound polite, but their meaning is very impolite indeed. Many Englishmen cannot understand how Polish men can give one another flowers on their holidays. And it is exactly understanding the way of thinking in the foreign society which enables a foreigner to accept the natives' culture or even incorporate into it eventually. /^t/Going to stay in a foreign country means experiencing a culture shock and gradually getting over it. The cycle of adjustment consists of four stages which we all undergo: first we become accustomed to having to come into contact with a different culture, and then, on being in the foreign country we have to adjust to the newness of the physical surroundings, then the lifestyle, and finally the mode of thinking. And it is only once we pass through all the stages of adjustment that we may fully enjoy our stay abroad. <0228> /^t/Our grandfathers would not eat an egg unless it were fried in bacon grease. Their meals were huge size. They drank and smoked heavily without any serious consequences to their health. What is more, they exercised with a knife and fork pretty often. Today, however, we emerge determined to revise the old lifestyle. We try to cut smoking, drink moderately and stick scrupulously to a diet high in fibre and low in fat. We do so, because we realise how dangerous the wrong patterns of eating are to our health. /^t/For decades doctors have been trying to prove conclusively that the reduction of fat consumed in daily diet can completely prevent heart diseases. This is the reason why the threat of choresterol dominates dietary thinking nowadays. Accordingly, if you eat too much saturated fat, the kind found in meat and dairy products, your body will in turn produce too much choresterol, the kind of fat made by the liver. The choresterol is then supposed to accumulate and clog up arteries, making people more liable to suffer cardiac illnesses. As a result, dieters are encouraged to apply new cooking and eating patterns. If necessary, they resort even to such methods as hypnosis or aversion therapy. /^t/Extremely dangerous an improper diet is for the people who are susceptible to getting fat for genetic reasons. These individuals should especially take care of their lifestyles. It is very important that they should avoid stress, smoking, or drinking alcohol - all the factors which may contribute to the increased blood pressure. Additionally, these people have very often a high level of choresterol in the blood, which is their inborn trait. In such cases, a greasy diet or alcoholic abuse may completely annihilate their cardiovascular systems or even jeopardise their lives. /^t/Surprisingly enough, in spite of the promotion of healthy diets, a lot of families still put an emphasis on substantial breakfasts, dinners, and suppers. For many of them a good meal is a big meal containing soup with flour cream as a thickener, stuffed dumplings in rich souce, a huge size goulash dish and numerous ingeniously prepared potato creations. Add to that a generous portion of bread and finally creamy desserts and... you shall feel fully satisfied! Indeed, there are several occasions in a year, such as Christmas or Easter, when people gorge themselves on huge amounts of food forgetting about the health problems it may bring. Of course, we are very sentimental about our tradition, but is it not high time for us to finally change it?! What is more, we had better think about the harm we do to the younger generation introducing to them the bad eating patterns. Let us come to our senses! Let us not allow our children to blame us for the wrong approach to healthy diets which can only help young people keep fit! /^t/Truly, not plump, but a slim figure is a source of health and strength. Of course, eating is very important for all of us, but we should always match an appropriate diet with the lifestyle we lead. Additionally, the individual features of our organisms play a crucial role here. But anyway, a motto that is extremely worth of memorising for anyone is: Don't live to eat, but eat to live! <0229> /^t/No form of illiteracy is so widespread as ignorance about the dangers of alcoholic abuse. This lack of a basic understanding of its harmful impact on the human condition is costly beyond calculation. Each year the unrestrained use of alcohol is making psychological cripples and chronic sufferers out of millions of people all over the world. Statistical evidence demonstrates that alcohol disables more human beings than cancer and afflicts in different ways almost every second family. Equally distressing is the fact that despite occasional anti-drinking campaigns carried out in the mass-media, the consumption of alcohol shows no sign of abaiting. The question is: What are the dangers of alcohol on our lives? Why should we stop drinking? /^t/At present, we have become a population of notorious hypochondriacs who treat the slightest failure as a tragic disaster. Especially, people with lots of responsibility are easily susceptible to stress, thus tend to abuse alcohol. For them, an intoxicating drink is often the only infallible cure to relieve nervous tension. Alcohol was, in fact, man's original tranquilizer dating back to prehistoric times. Unfortunately, it alleviates stress temporarily without eliminating the real cause of the anguish. To make matters worse, the natural tendency of the human organism is towards stability and balance which alcohol invariably upsets. As a result, it affects in the long run virtually all aspects of human psychology. Additionally, it destroys both the inner organs and the central nervous system. /^t/The gourmets of fine food and drink claim that with a nutritionally good diet, alcohol is not capable of doing serious harm to the organism. But, is this really so? Recent medical research proves that food slows to a high degree the absorption of alcohol into the blood. Such sustained presence of intoxicating substances in the organism exerts a long-term effect on the mind. Consequently, this may often result in a considerable impairment of concentration, memory, and learning abilities. In this respect, strong alcoholic beverages are extremely dangerous, for they interfere with the basic metabolic processes inside the brain. /^t/But, not only is alcohol harmful to mental health. Many doctors also link to it such diseases as heart attacks, liver disorders, and ulcers. According to the specialists, alcohol causes a progressive weakening of the heart muscle. Additionally, experiments conducted have proved the directly toxic effects of alcohol on the liver. Instead of harming its normal fuel - fat, the liver accumulates it and burns redundant alcohol. This process is extremely detrimental and does irreparable harm to physical health. /^t/Whisky, vodka, beer or wine are said to be social drinks. Can you imagine a party without a single toast of brandy or martini? Unfortunately, for many, alcohol helps to get involved in a social conversation which would otherwise never come about. After a few drinks, even two strangers or enemies can easily communicate with each other, defending all the restraining barriers. In consequence, we are becoming a population of alcoholics who inevitably doom themselves to death. Because of the abuse of alcohol we are constantly breaking moral, social and humane norms. This, undoubtedly, has got an immediate and disturbing impact on the younger generations. No responsibility for our behaviour! No sober reflection! /^t/Surely, the time has already come to make knowledge about alcohol an important part of the social education. Making people alcohol-conscious could be used to counteract the growing terror of the abuse of alcohol. Although alcoholism strongly affects our lives, we should still try to cure this social disease. Let us prove that the frequently repeated statement: Habit is man's second nature, need not always be true! <0230> /^t/The story entitled "Eleonora" is divided into two parts; the first part contains an introduction and the picture of the Valley of Many Colored Grass. The second part refers to the strange city where the narrator suddenly found himself. This novel is filled with avowed allegories so remarkably developed by Poe. The effects obtained show his quality as a refined writer. In "Eleonora" he applied a technique which I consider a typically gothic one. To gain a dramatic effect, Poe moves artistically from strangeness to the point of abnormality, and from sadness to the point of horror. The beauty of his writing is strange; at the same time it is poetically sad. Surprisingly, the story contains no "character", no traditional protagonist, who is always the pride of any "normal" fiction and whom an average reader may expect. But what is most surprising is the absolute inhumanity of the personages occurring in the story and absolutely inhuman way in which Poe sets them. /^t/The chief personage is the narrator himself. He is depicted here as a very sensitive person, maybe even a dreamer. At the very beginning of the novel, he gives his own definition of madness. According to it, a mad person is the one who dreams not only by night, but also by day. <*>, admits the narrator. The narrator-protagonist tells his readers that <*>, and he is not entirely opposed to this idea. After all, is it wrong to be a dreamer? /^t/Furthermore, the narrator-protagonist talks about two distinct conditions of his mental existence. The first condition may be defined by his <*>. The second one is more shadowy and casts doubt on the present adult phase of the narrator's life. Therefore, he wants us to believe in what he has to say of the earlier period of his existence which he considers the more pristine of the two. /^t/Gothic stories were usually set in the past (often in the medieval past). Poe's novel is no exception here. The author sets the action in a very incredible landscape; one may even say that it is a description of a true dream. The colorful nature depicted so convincingly by the author plays a very important role. Namely, when we read about it and think of it, we have something pleasant in our minds - peace, harmony, joy, happiness, etc. In addition, the plot hinges on suspense and mystery, involving the fantastic and the supernatural. /^t/Reading Poe's novel I had an impression that the valley of the Many-Colored Grass, where the story-teller lived with his beloved cousin, Eleonora, and her mother, received human feelings and was somehow personified. For example, the moment love entered Eleonora's and the narrator's hearts everything changed: new and strange flowers of different shapes appeared, the color of the grass deepened, the golden and silver fish haunted the River of Silence. Beside the white daisies and the purple violets there were also the ruby-red asphodels. According to Greek mythology, those were the flowers that covered the Elysian Fields. One may ask the following question: Isn't this valley simply Heaven? If it is not heaven, surely it is a place (or rather a mental state) of ideal happiness. /^t/Of course, ideal happiness cannot be eternal. With the sudden and unexpected death of Eleonora the <*>. The picturesque surroundings disappeared, and what is worst, the ruby-red asphodels <*>. The metaphorical element of earthly human happiness suddenly vanished. Instead, what was left were the narrator's memories of those beautiful days in the valley. Something passed away, something was lost for ever. So, after Eleonora's death, the narrator found himself in an unknown city. He claimed that it was depicting his present state of mind. What connects the past with the present is the vow which he made to Eleonora before her death. He said that he would never bind himself in marriage to any daughter of earth. It is a truly weird and fantastic picture of life. /^t/The valley of the Many-Colored Grass may symbolise the paradise, its innocence and beauty. In the image of the "valley" I see the state of childhood slowly changing into adolescence (the moment of first infatuation) and then the last state of adulthood (the moment of sad reality). /^t/In my opinion, Poe wanted to show the beauty and innocence present in a man's beginnings, who at a certain point of his life inescapably leaves his childhood and youth behind. He will always remember this time of his life as filled with laughter and a first and innocent love, but the sense of reality is overwhelming and finally wins. I consider "Eleonora" a great and convincing psychological story, an imaginative study of a growing up man. <0231> "He is mad, she is mad," acquaintances say. Something has fallen him or her on the eyes. Neither explanations nor pointing out to the beloved's crooked legs or rotten teeth help, since a person in love can see and hear nothing. Therefore it was rightly used to be said that the person was given some mysterious herb and lost senses. /^t/If symptoms like euphory, lack of breathe, compression in the throat, shaking of limbs, or a sudden paleness at the mere sight of the beloved get the other person, as well, it is an infallible sign, that the famous Platonian halves of soul have met; perhaps unnecessarily for the whole life, but nonetheless for a short while, uncommitted in the previous incarnations. One can live by such a beautiful moment in time and nourish the inside with it till the end of one's days. Scientists treat the state of being in love as a chemical process taking place in the limbical lobe in the brain, thus devoiding it of the romantic mist. /^t/According to brain chemists, the "sensation of stupefaction" is nothing more than the effect of production of hormones, which, released by the human brain, evoke the feeling of enamourment. There originates a chain of successive chemical reactions in the organism, which cause euphory and make a man commit great nonsenses in the name of the overwhelming love... Still, a mighty army of chemists, biochemists, biologists, neurologists, psychiatrists and psychologists, despite of being equipped with modern appliances, have not quite explained why one is subject to the state of "amorous infatuation." The factors responsible for it, according to them, could be: psychics, genetics, the smell or even the color scale of the object's outfit, as well as his or her eyes, hair, or complexion. /^t/Some other support is supplied by psychotronics, who talk about the importance of aureoles and biofields; they hold that if the right plus meets the right minus operating on the same wavelenghts, their bearers cannot pass each other indifferently. Under the influence of energetic or vibration encounter, only when it has affected the invisible subtle sphere, and then the physical body, does a signal reach the brain. The amatory madness begins, excited by the influx of hormones coming from the organism. The constant presence of the partner brings about some attachment similar to drug addiction; such mutually affected a couple will not part easily. /^t/A danger comes when one of the partners needs a lasting state of amorous feeling. Then, the hormones having ceased to be excessively produced, which is only after two or three years, he or she begins to look for another love, splitting up the relationship. The reason for such a behavior is that a steady bliss does not any more satisfy a person craving for constant euphories. Searching for new stimuli, however, leads to an earlier exhaustion of supplies provide us by the nature, as well as to the impairment of the nervous system and, consequently, getting lost in life. Wise men say one should taste every moment in time, appreciating both ups and downs. Only then are we capable of comprehending what feelings are. <0232> Silence is something more than just a pause. It is the enchanted place where space is cleared, time is stopped and the horizon expands itself. In silence, it is often said, people can hear themselves think. It is much truer to say, however, that in silence people can hear themselves not think and so they sink below their selves into a place far deeper than thought allows. In silence it is possible to listen to something behind the clamor of this world. The world's noises are constantly attacking human consciousness and senses. Most of the inhabitants of mega cities do not even realize that they live in constant noise. Meanwhile, silence is where people can truly distance themselves from reality and either reach the state of ease or find some long-searched-for conclusions. Unfortunately, silence is so much unappreciated today, that few people know its real value and its importance in human life in terms of spirituality, stimulation and relaxation. Silence is the tribute paid to holiness. It is no coincidence that places of worship are places of silence. Thus, if idleness is the devil's playground, silence may be the angel's. It is an ecumenical state, beyond the doctrines and divisions created by the mind. If everyone has a spiritual story to tell of his life, everyone also has a spiritual silence to preserve. A MOMENT OF SILENCE is the highest honor that people can pay to someone. It is the point at which the mind stops, words run out and feelings rush in. A VOW OF SILENCE is for holy men the highest devotional act. People hold their breath, hold their words, suspend their chattering selves and let themselves fall silent while falling into the highest place of all. It often seems that the world is getting noisier these days. In Japan, which may be a model of the future, cars and buses have voices, doors and elevators speak. A walkman has become an indispensable piece of equipment of the modern generation, ensuring that people need never be without the clamor of this world. Meanwhile, more and more people have difficulties with concentration and hearing. A threatening number of youngsters cannot stand a short period of absolute silence without getting nervous or hyperactive. White noise becomes the aural equivalent of the clash of images, the non-stop blast of fragments that increasingly agitates the human mind. In silence, greatest ideas were produced and solutions to many serious problems found. Most wonderful pieces of literature were created in peaceful environments. Nowadays, however, people seem not to notice the low hum of their computers at work or even the never-ending noise of passing cars or planes. They rarely use the wonderful power of stimulation that silence brings. There is of course, a place for noise, as there is for daily lives. There is a place for roaring, for the shouting exultation of a soccer match, for hymns and spoken prayers, for orchestras and cries of pleasures. Silence, like all the best things is best appreciated in its absence. If noise is the signature tune of the world, silence is the music of the other world. Certainly, the greatest charm of noise is when it ceases. In silence, it seems as if all windows of the world are thrown open and everything is as clear as on a morning after rain. Most beautiful commitments are expressed in silence, people usually sleep in silence and in silence they admire the wonders of nature. Thus, even though they often do not realize it, humans are accompanied by silence in the most wonderful and peaceful moments of their lives. It is a well-known fact, that words are treacherous and that they are often used to cover embarrassment, or emptiness, or fear of the larger space that silence brings. Words commit people to positions they do not really hold. They are what people use for lies, false promises and gossip. People talk with strangers but with intimates they can be silent. They MAKE CONVERSATION when they are at a loss but UNMAKE it when they are alone or with those so close that they can afford to be alone with them. Silence then, could be said to be the ultimate province of trust. It is the place where people can trust themselves to be alone and where they can trust others to understand the things they do not say. Silence in human life, is this indispensable sacred space that may either stimulate action or allow to rest. <0233> /^t/For centuries the importance of marriage has not been questioned. It was the best way to bind two people together for life. One usually met somebody of the opposite sex, (preferably) fell in love with him/her, got engaged, and finally, consumated the relationsip in marriage which would last "till death us do apart". The sexual revolution of the 1960s and the 1970s brought about totally different approach towards the concept of marriage. Since the times of the 'Flower Children' some of us are convinced that marriage is obsolete and useless. Although it has been so frequently criticized over the past few decades, the position of marriage certainly remains firm, which proves it to be certainly not an outmoded concept. /^t/The opponents of marriage claim that marriage is not one and only way of having a relationship. Nowadays many possibilities are available from cohabitation to homosexual and bisexual relationships. Thus, marriage is not one and only solution to establish warm, firm relationship. Some of us claim that the idea of marriage is obsolete, regardless the fact that marriage is the basic unit of all modern societies. Living without the martial status is not an easy undertaking today. Everything goes fine until the moment when they would like to open common bank account, ensure their belongings or claim some type of benefit. Then it turns out that their martial status is of the paramount importance. Law in modern nations protects the interests of the married couples, which phenomenon is fully understood. Marriage makes stable basis of all modern societies all over the world. /^t/Another argument very often expressed against marriage is that marriage is a risky undertaking, a 'love trap'. Once you get married, you are trapped till the end of your life. Monogamy, especially in Roman-Catholic Poland, is considered as a demand imposed by the Catholic Church, customs and parents. Scientific research to prove polygamous nature in man has become very much 'in vogue' in recent years. But if we were constructed in such a way, how did we ever come up with such an idea as marriage? The experience proves the truth; we have innate need to pair-off, and we certainly do not accept promiscuity. Not many of us would like to share the lover with others. Thus, it is not surprising that over 60% of divorces are caused by extra martial liaisons. Additionally, break ups and divorces are most often made to start another new (and hopefully, better), monogamous relationship. So, marriage certainly cannot be considered as an emotional or sexual trap imposed by the church and contrary to our human nature. It is our expression of the natural need to devote ourselves to the person we love. /^t/Nowadays most of people do not get wed because they have to (e.g. as a result of an unwanted pregnancy), but because they want to. And although we sometimes feel very sceptic about the institution of marriage, we certainly admire and oftentimes envy those couples who found their way to a happy mariage, such as, for example, Demi Moore and Bruce Willis, Magdalena Zawadzka and Gustaw Holoubek, to name only most famous ones. What is more, social minorities such as gays and lesbians are fighting nowadays for their right to get wed legally. Marriage is generally valued nowadays, since it is considered as true expression of love, loyality and devotion. /^t/Marriage is certainly not an ideal option for successful relationship today, but defenately the best known. It fulfills both; our need to devote our life to somebody and the need to give and receive love. Even though many centuries have passed since the first couple married, the institution of marriage cannot be called an outmoded concept. It is the most valuable of all traditional institutions and will certainly be cultivated for many centuries to come. <0234> /^t/The most incredible evening of the year is coming! Everybody must be happy and have a good time tonight. It happens that preparations last for over a month before we celebrate the fact that everything is one year older from from now on. New Year's Eve is a blissfull time of carnival, parties and joy as long as alcohol is provided. But in the privacy of my own mind I thank God that this new year stuff is all over for the next twelve months. Because I hate New Year's Eve. /^t/Actually I suppose I am not alone with that feeling. The night of December 31 traditionally became the synonym of having fun and great time. During that night it is a prerequisite that everyone goes to a party or invites guests to his or her own appartment. If not, s/he is either an extremely unsociable person or a freak - the third possibility is that s/he is on duty. So instead of enjoing the onset of new year and new opportunities the home-alone person is frustrated and bitter and, more than ever, aware of how lonely s/he is in the world. Because of that the majority of people tries to place themselves somewhere where the party is on. This is a tradition. But this does not mean they enjoy it. /^t/Our first mistake is that we assume we have to have a good time. And how can a man be happy when his partner requires him to put on his evening clothes and dance all night when he prefers sitting in his living-room and watching TV? And how can a woman be happy if she can see that Miss Jones wears a dress worth nine hundred zloty, and Mrs. Harris lost ten kilograms and looks like a model while she has had difficulties in fastening her five year old dress she is in? And how can she enjoy herself when she constantly has to control who her partner is talking to? Here arises the question of all those pathetic singles. How miserable that they were not invited by anyone. Now they are a danger for all unfaithfull or vindictive spouses. Of course our vicious remarks can destroy their good mood /^t/Certainly there is no better time during the whole year for stores selling alcohol than these few days before New Year's Eve. Even those who do not drink alcohol at all have some during that celebration. Liters and liters of it provide atmosphere of joy, detachment from all problems and bliss of ignorance. From teenagers to octogenerians, many try to achieve 'happiness' through intoxication. The point is not to overdose, but "tonight is the night" and next day we cure a huge hangover. The most wonderful memories of New Year's night can be counted by the number of per cents of alcohol in blood, likewise the amount of money we lost for a few hours of celebration. Was it all worth it? /^t/Jo Brand from The Independent points at a surprising phenomenon of huge gatherings at main city squares during New Year's Eve. People come there to celebrate this unspeakably happy event which is the turn of the year. By doing so they risk being crushed by the mob, burnt by fireworks or hit in the head by an empty bottle of champaigne. Anyway they come and cause a lot of trouble for police forces and cleaning brigades. Also doctors on duty have the opportunity to see some extraordinary cases during that night. Fireworks and alcohol are responsible for the majority of indispositions. Happy New Year! /^t/An encroaching new year may evoke melancholic thoughts. How much of last year resolutions were we able to fulfill? Which wishes did come true? Was it a good year? What can we do to improve our life? And after all, is not the time flying too fast? Now we are one year older, we are more experienced and more disillusioned than a year before. /^t/So my point is that New Year's Eve is not as happy night as we pretend it is. For many people it is a distressful and frustrating evening which thwarts them into another similar year whose only distinctive feature is consequtively higher number. Tradition makes us organise huge festivals in honor of new year, and most certainly we follow it. For all those who may doubt it, I was at a party and I am not an abstinent, but I do not think I like the idea of being older. <0235> /^t/Smokers have become a prey for various health organizaions and non-smokers in the last few years. In the name of the slogan "Smoking offends non-smakers" People who smoke are driven out of public buildings, restaurants, railway stations etc. No one seems to care that smoking is an addiction and smokers should be treated as addicts. If one takes a look at the European history of tobacco, one may notice that those people have not gotten addicted quite willingly. They underwent a careful, planned operation conducted by tobacco industries but in order to prove it one has to go all the way back to the 16th century. /^t/Tobacco had been smoked by the native Americans long before Christopher Columbus made his terrible mistake and called them Indians. His another mistake was loading Tobacco leaves onto his ships and taking them to Europe. It was the beginning of the astonishing career of this plant. At first smoking was the domain of courts because of its price and since that time a myth of smoking as a symbol of one's position in the society has begun. However as tobacco was getting cheaper and cheaper, it was getting more and more common and its status evaporated like a puff of smoke. /^t/This situation has changed in the beginning of the 20th century when the tobacco industry has become a very profitable business. Members of the governments, who either had shares in tobacco companies or accepted huge bribes, gave way to free promotion of cigarettes. Probably the biggest actions were performed during World Wars I and II. Tobacco companies were generously giving cigarettes to soldiers as their "participation in the victory". Therefore nobody even suspected their hidden aim. By the time most of the soldiers, who were given ten free cigarettes a week, went back home they were addicts for life-time. The business was easy: millions of dollars spent during both wars resulted in billions afterwards. Unfortunately the companies were still looking for new clients. /^t/The invention of television has created a perfect opportunity for a new addictive operation. Hollywood was of great help for tobacco industry. Television created raw-models for people so it was enough that some youngsters saw Bogart in Casablanca or any movie with James Dean and the society ended up with thousands of Dean-like young men buying Lucky Strikes or Camel and following their "guru". /^t/This type of advertizing cigarettes has not changed since the 50's until late 60's. The first cigarettes ads presented smoking as very fashionable and what's funny - healthy. Later on, in the 60's, together with arising flower-power movement in San Francisco and freak movement in L.A., the campaign has changed. The model of a rebel young man on a Harley-Davidson, smoking a cigarette was created by media to adjust to the situation. In the 70's and 80's the ad-campaign changed again. This time the model of tough guy like Marlboro' cowboy or Camel's lonely adventurer was in fashion. This model is still present in the 90's but an interesting conflict has arisen in tobacco industry recently. /^t/In countries like Poland, tobacco industry is run by the government and brings billions of PLN every year. However, the same government has passed the bill limiting smoking, thus cutting the income to the budget. Unfortunately, the people who suffer the most from this conflict are smokers. They are forced to smoke outdoors at the temperatures below zero. Should they really be treated in that way? They are not the ones to blame, they are sick people that deserve some respect and tolerance. Perhaps instead of just putting bans on smoking, separating smokers in more human conditions would be better solution. <0236> /^t/People who have lived abroad find that the adjustment to returning home is more difficult than their adjustment to the foreign culture. We usually expect to have some difficulties when we speak a different language, or learn the rules of a different culture. In a foreign country one may experience both psychological and physical discomfort due to one's mind and body's disorientation by an unfamiliar enviornment. But in their own culture, natives know the language, all the ways of doing things, non-verbal behaviour, people's values and ways of reasoning. They do many things automatically and understand what is happening around without thinking about it. Yet, after being gone for a period of time, people experience a re-entry culture shock. They do not realize that their expectations and views on familiar culture have changed. Therefore, their re-entry adjustment is more complex than their assimilation into another culture. /^t/In a foreign culture, a culture shock comes after encoumtering new ways of doing, thinking about, or valuing things that are different from one's own culture. Built up from a series of small events, a culture shock evokes the feeling of unhappiness and frustration. It is a natural part of adjustment, and the more active involvement with another culture, the easier it will be the adjustment to it. People returning home also undergo a re-entry culture shock. Although, everything looks familiar to them, they feel there is something out of place. They idealize or criticize their own country, and their new experiences don't sound as interesting and important to their relatives as they are to them. Thus, people feel depressed, upset and lonely because no one understands what they are going through. The ignorance about a re-entry culture shock makes this normal part of adjustment more difficult than working through culture specific customs. /^t/People's expectations play a major role in re-encountering their own culture. Those who have lived abroad expect to have a higher salary, nicer house, better job, greater responsiblities at work, more opportunities for professional development when they return home. One of the myths is that things will work better back home. People believe, they will not have any adjustment problems because it is their own culture. Another fabricated opinion is that everything will be the same as it was when someone left off. Also people's new views on their own country delay the re-adjustment process. People try to integrate their new knowledge with the way things are done traditonally. They try to change the way people do things, only because they saw a "better" way. This claim carries a strong conviction about invaluability of one's new experience to the local community. /^t/Paradoxically, the adjustment to returning home requires more effort and patience than going through a culture shock anywhere else. In such a process a heightened sense of awareness helps to understand changes introduced during one's absence in a home country. Recognizing and giving value to things that didn't have any value before, is a part of re-adjustment. Rather than by fooling themselves that everyone will be interested in hearing about their exciting experiences, people should make an effort to think about their feelings, and talk to others about them. A re-entry culture shock takes time and the closest relatives must be aware of it. One should be sensitive to others people's feelings and reserve critical judgments upon their customs, behaviour and beliefs. The re-adjustment proceeds more smoothly if one's expectations are realistic, and one is prepared to meet them. <0237> /^t/Growth in consciousness is among the most sublime tasks of both the humanity and an individual human being. The further from the bucolic times of the Golden Age, the less idyllic and equivocal reality gets. The twentieth century witnesses a dramatic duality of human activity; the realm of lofty cultural, technological, scientific accomplishments co-exists with the pictures of bulging-bellied children, ruined environment, and slaughter houses. Such drastic phenomena are the indicators of a decline in sensitivity and consciousness of contemporary men. The adoption of a coherent set of values providing a spiritual basis as well as practical answers to pains and inglorious aspects of human activity seems to be necessary. Offering revitalisation of morality and philosophy of life, vegetarianism constitutes a solution to a number of moral, economic, and ecological problems. /^t/While the twentieth century man is preoccupied with his rights, vegetarianism reminds him about his duties towards the world, and his moral potential. The philosophy shatters meat-eaters' hierarchy of values based on acquisitive conquering, man's dominance and superiority. It makes people aware that common sense and compassion for suffering creatures are essential for profound spiritual and mental development. Man's responsibility to animals stems from the fact that the nervous system of animals reared for slaughter is developed to a degree that allows them to experience all negative emotions caused by husbandry and slaughter. Since responsibility is a privilege, human cruelty towards animals cannot be rationalised. Vegetarianism frees man from the burden of egoistic superiority over the nature, and the guilt for consciously inflicted unnecessary suffering. It also provides grounds for the alternation of one's philosophy of life according to the laws of nature, and its universal moral code. /^t/The only answer to the demographic avalanche and the instances of hunger in the world is a complete transformation of food-industry and food-habits from the ones presupposing meat-consumption to more economic vegetarian ones. The present system of the world's food industry based on high meat consumption constitutes an extreme example of prodigality of natural food resources. To obtain 1 kilogram of protein from animal produce one has to supply live-stock with 25 kilograms of protein obtained from vegetable produce, 50 per cent of which consist from the most valuable for man nutrients like soya, cereal, corn, and bran. To feed the hungry one has to assign the vegetable produce for direct nourishment of people not for fodder. /^t/In the face of dangerous ecological effects of the type food industry, vegetarianism is the only possible system of nutrition conformable with the laws of ecology. Chemical stimulation of the quantity of crops conditioned only by a necessity to supply live-stock with fodder lead to the contamination of the environment. Not only is the soil used for pastures extensively exploited but it is also treated with insecticides and weed killers which accelerates the erosion of soil, and upsets a natural balance in the environment. The amount of live-stock excrement constitutes another ecological menace, as it is high to be used as compost and too expensive to be transported. As a consequence, the contribution of the animal husbandry to water pollution is three times higher than the one with industrial wastes. /^t/Since food and food ways are among constituents of culture and tradition, they are very resistant and immune to change. For many questioning them tantamounts to the impairing of authorities, shifting values, shaking standards, norms, dogmas. However, the eality provides us with great many impregnable arguments in favour of the change, such as regaining biological balance in nature, improving quality of food and the state of health of non-vegetarians, solving humanitarian problems. <0238> /^t/When people watch films in the movies there is a kind of magic evoked which cannot be produced in any other place in the world. What produces this magic may be partly indefinable. However, one may try to depict at least some factors which are involved in creating it. Before going to the cinema we make specific arrangements. The special attitude we adopt at this time will influence our later perception of the film. Another factor is the big screen which facilitates the way we experience a show. Finally, feelings induced in us during watching a film intensify because we share them with a crowd of people gathered in the theater. /^t/Before going to the cinema we have to make special arrangements. They concern selecting the time of a show, and, what is sometimes even more valid, selecting a theater we want to visit. We try to choose optimal conditions for a show to take place in. Some people prefer watching films late in the evening, others cannot do without a particular theater, and will not watch a movie when it is not projected in their favorite one. Another crucial thing is the choice of the company with which we want to spend our time in the movies. It is obvious that we would like to share our feelings and opinions aroused by films with the people whom we like and whose judgements we take into account. The preparations we have done before going to the theater evoke the state of excitement and from this moment the magic spreads. /^t/In the theater itself the big screen makes the magic continue and increase. The size of the silhouttes of both people featured in a film and objects surrounding them contributes to our better perception of the movie. The contribution does not only concern the very physical capability of seeing, but has its particular psychological aspect. Since people in the film are, more or less, of the natural size we are prone to believe that what is happening to them may actually be happening to us. Our experience is no longer a vicarious one. The borderline between the audience and the movie characters becomes blurred, or even disappears. /^t/One of the intrinsic features of the idea of theater is that we are not alone while watching a film. There are many people around us who are, to a certain extent, engaged with what is happening on the screen. We share with them certain feelings induced by the movie. It happens very often that this sense of sharing intensifies our reaction, no matter whether it is laughter, crying, or fear. This is the moment when the magic reaches its peak: people who most often meet by chance, only on this particular occasion of watching a film, encounter magic thanks to the unity of experience. /^t/People are not sure what produces the magical atmosphere of the movie theater. There are still a lot of factors involved in creating it that are too ephemeral to be spotted. However, what people are certain of is that some of them will keep on going to the cinema to find the magic. It will not matter to them that they will be unable to preserve this special atmosphere after leaving a theater. They will sit in front of the big screen, happy to find themselves in the completely different world. <0239> Nowadays, people who have been searching for the sacred in their lives or for any religious absolute truth in vain are in danger of getting trapped in a sect. These groups, brought along with any other religious movements by the New Age era, lead to a complete destruction of personality through taking advantage of some psychological techniques. The leaders of sects, who often suffer from mental diseases or sexual deviations, have right to abuse members of the group. In addition, they are worshipped as gods. Their ideology is the only true one for the group and it is a factor that separates the sect from the world. Hence, sects must be considered a very dangerous phenomenon of the turn of the twentieth century. /^t/There is a three-stage psychological technique of personality alteration used by sect gurus. The first stage is referred to a so called love bombing. A sensitive person who feels lost in this world, or somebody who needs a material support is beset and cared after by the group members. The sect can offer e.g. food, clothes, or a ticket to the cinema. Then, the person moves to his/her new family's place and takes part in various rituals, lectures, and discussions led by a guru who often is an experienced psychologist. As a result, the person commences to perceive the world in a completely different light than before joining the sect. Furthermore, he/she is forced to obey rigid rules of the sect and to accept its ideology as an absolute truth, which is destructive for human personality. The third stage means "reconstruction": they make a voluntary slave out of the person who can be abused by everyone. Undoubtedly, these techniques are harmful for a human being. /^t/The leaders or those high in the sect hierarchy have right to abuse and even maltreat the sect members. They impose certain sexual behaviors on their followers, e.g. group sex, or a sexual intercourse with juveniles. Moreover, women are forced to prostitution in order to earn money for the sect's purposes. Sect members also have to abstain from eating certain kinds of food or even fast for a long time. This may result in a prostration, apathy, and losing self-control that lead to indifference to being abused. /^t/The group wants its members to break up relations with their families and friends because they may disturb the development of the new personality. The leaders engraft in their followers an idea that relatives and friends do not know real God and that their lives are evil. At first, the sect members are told to restrain from talking to their parents and to keep out from their friends. Then they move to their new family's place. They are afraid to escape from the sect for the fact that they are threatened there with tortures of both body and soul. This makes the sect disciples totally dependent on the guru and his/her helpers. /^t/In conclusion, the phenomenon of religious sects is undoubtedly harmful for today's world. They offer a warped understanding of existence and may contribute to mental distruction of human personality. What is more, the leaders, often being psychopaths, maltreat their worshippers in order to attain welfare or to fulfil their wicked desire of becoming a demi-god. It is our concern to fight against these usurpatory swindlers through giving notice of their practice to mass media and law authorities. Otherwise they may remain a real danger for our own or our children's consciousness. <0240> /^t/The Fool plays quite a significant role in King Lear. He was a typical "all-licens'd fool serving at King Lear's court and he was supposed to entertain the king. He functions also as a moral teacher and instructor to Lear and other characters in the play. Without knowing it, the Fool was Lear's "alter ego" in his folly and madness. Finally, in addition to these, the Fool played a role of the ancient chorus, as being a commentator he informed the readers of the events of the play. /^t/As an "all-licens'd fool" he was entertaining everyone with his funny jokes and songs. His position at Lear's court was very strong, he was practically able to do whatever he wished without being severely punished. The King could not banish him from his court, because it was deeply rooted in the tradition that every monarch had to have a fool. Our Fool was permitting himself to be rude to his master, saying that he is better than him: <*> King Lear liked his Fool. He did not have the heart to punish him for his audacious words, however insulting they would be. The Fool was threatening him with such words as: <*>, but he never really meant them. When his Fool calls him a fool (his speech about "bitter and sweet fool" in verses 155-162), Lear does not give him any punishment: <*> As A.C. Bradley puts it, Lear <*> Our Fool was an incredibly smart fellow, his lessons were always very important. He was Lear's instructor and the king knew that the Fool's words were true. The Fool loved his master and he did not wish him any harm; his moral lessons were tough but good. One of his speeches to the king was quite significant: <*> He teaches Lear a lesson about his daughters and about his divided kingdom. He says that Lear broke an egg (he divided his kingdom) in two parts and he did not leave anything for himself. The Fool also shows the King that he is permitting his daughters to give orders to him: <*>. Then, he compares Lear to a few weak animals: a snail, an oyster and a crab in order to remind the King how weak and helpless he had become when he gave his kingdom away. The Fool did not teach the king only. He offered his coxcomb to Kent, when he heard Kent's proposal to become Lear's servant. In Fool's opinion Kent must wear it if he wants to be able to understand King Lear and his actions. When Kent is imprisoned in Gloucester castle, the Fool laughs at him and gives him a proposition: <*>. As Bradley rightly noticed, our Fool was not a sane person. He would not be able to stand Lear's folly if he were not a fool: <*> In the first act King Lear is so lonely and desperate that the only person he calls for is his Fool. He looks for comfort and help. He expects him to judge and explain the whole situation to him. Sometimes we even have the feeling as if Lear turned to Fool not only for compassion, but also for guidance. <*> But suddenly, in the third act the roles of Lear and the Fool change; it is the Fool that turns to Lear for help. He is weak and frightened and his jokes are not as accurate as they were before. He enters the hovel and what he sees inside scares him so much that he runs from it crying, <*>. Then, later he adds, <*>. The Fool becomes alter ego of Lear. Bradley calls the three men in the hovel (King Lear, the Fool and Edgar) insane, but he also emphasizes the fact that our Fool was a hero: <*> Finally one touches the subject of Fool's role as a chorus. Through his very accurate words the audience could imagine Lear's condition and feelings. <*>, according to Knight. We see that the Fool treats the whole situation as a matter of joke and he is not all wrong. According to George Orwell, the Fool <*>. Also, he points out that: <*> The function of the Fool in King Lear was major and one cannot forget it. As Bradley puts it, <*>. <0241> /^t/Fast food restaurants have been unknown until recently in Poland, but they have been popular all over the world. The most popular restaurants of this kind are those which are McDonald's. Last year a McDonald's restaurant was opened in Moscow, this year the McDonald's chain entered the Polish fast-food market. This fact can be very beneficial for Poland. However, the inauguration of McDonald's in Poznan has stirred up a lot of controversy and there are those who oppose the arrival of this chain. /^t/The opponents of the presence of the "golden arches" in are of the biggest Polish towns, cite many reasons for their opposition. They think that McDonald's is a fiercely competitive firm against Polish products and is incongruent on the Polish market because it undercuts Polish business. They also point out that the food sold in McDonald's is unhealthy and fattening. Finally some people believe that fast-food restaurants are a Western tradition, which should not be emulated in Poland. /^t/In response to the argument that McDonald's is dangerous for Polish market, are can say that healthy competition is inevitable and necessary for every business. McDonald's provide a very high standard of service and, being competitive, they can help to eliminate the worst kinds of food from the Polish fast-food market. Apart from this, McDonald's restaurant does not pose a threat to domestic food production. They want to cooperate with Polish farmers and buy products from them. In this way French fries and hamburgers sold in McDonald's will be Polish potatoes and meat prepared by Polish staff. In other words they do not want to compete with a weak Polish economy but invest their money into it. /^t/People who claim that food sold in McDonalds is unhealthy, certainly have not eaten anything in kiosks or bars, which is often of for worse a quality. During the last few years numerous cases of salmonella poisoning have been recorded in Poland. They were the results of the consumption of hot-dogs or rolls with mushrooms which were purchased from kiosks. Food in McDonald's is fresh and tasty, although it may be fattening if eaten in excess. But nobody eats only in McDonald's, so they can supplement or enrich their diets at home. /^t/The argument that fast food restaurants such as McDonald's or Burger King are a typically Western tradition, strange in Poland, could be accepted if they did not prove their quality and efficiency all over the world. Apart from this, fast-food restaurants are not strange, but rather underdeveloped in Poland. The Polish fast-food business is represented by kiosks and bars. In kiosks people can eat quickly but uncomfortably - standing near narrow tables. In bars, on the other hand, they have to wait for food for a very long time but are able to eat their meals comfortably. McDonald's will perfectly fill in this gap, because in their restaurants people can eat both quickly and in pleasant surroundings. /^t/Fast-food chains are part and parcel of the capitalistic way of life that Polish people try to adopt in Poland. McDonald's restaurants are very famous and prosperous in the fast-food business. So the Polish consumer should take advantage of their presence on the Polish market and learn something from them. <0242> /^t/Desmond Morris in his book "The Human Zoo" presents a very controversial view that human is a kind of a sophisticated animal and city-dwellers can be compared to zoo animals. He points out many similarities between humans and animals namely, the same physiological needs, similar ways of satysfying them and thus similar patterns of behaviour. However biologically humans belong to the animal world, they are something more than only sophisticated animals. Arguments to support this statement can be found by studying the motivation of human behaviour namely feelings or free will, or such complex results of human behaviour as culture or tradition. /^t/First thing that places man above animal world is the fact that people are able to develop culture and tradition. None of the animal species can paint, write books, design buildings or teach. People have been doing it for thousands of years and in this way created their own culture and history, which animals do not have. If one of the animal species dies out there will be no trace of them left on the Earth. /^t/An argument that man behaves like animal could be accepted if we took into consideration only some results of human behaviour. But one should think also about human motivation, which, unlike in the case of animals, are often feelings namely love, hatered, jelousy or any other passion. Animals are influenced only by instinct and sometimes memory. They do not like or like someone because this peson treats them wrong or right, but they are not able to develop feelings like humans do. Every physiological process of animal is connected with some instinct, whereas human often acts as he or she feels. /^t/Second difference between human and animal is free will, which is also a kind of motivation of human behaviour. Animals are determined by their survival instinct and environment. They have to adopt themselves to the conditions around them and try to survive. People not only are able to choose the conditions of their lives but also whether they decide to survive or not. There are no suicidal tendencies among animals, whereas humans, unfortunately often decide to commit suicide. /^t/Although humans share biological features with some animals and have the same needs namely: procreation, food, rest, they have a lot of features that place them outside if not above the animal world. They are able to develop civilization and create history, they are able to place their feelings above their instinct and have free will which enables them free choices. Unfortunately people often forget about these advantages that they have and that makes them look like their biological relatives - animals. <0243> /^t/Film is the most influential form of 20th century mass culture. Moreover, it is the most American one. European cinemas and TV screens are flooded by Hollywood productions, with which Europeans find themselves unable to compete. The reaction to this phenomenon is quite histerical: many Europeans fear that the American film industry posits a threat to their entire culture. Nevertheless, cinema is only one element of culture; thus, the domination of American film productions does not posit a threat to other facets of European culture: to literature, music and their national heritage. /^t/In the field of literature, Europeans have higher achievements than Americans. This may be, of course, historically explained: after all, European culture has existed far longer. Nevertheless, even current European writings are valued. For example, take the Nobel Prize in literature and you will find that it is mainly Europeans who have won it in the last couple of years. Thus, as far as literature is concerned, Europeans do not need to fear American domination. /^t/Another aspect of culture which is not overpowerlingly influenced by American is music. Again, the Europeans have the advantage of history over Americans: the latter do not have the musical culture that Europeans have created over hundreds of years. However, even if we consider modern - popular - music only, we cannot argue that this is an Americanized scene. American music is popular in Europe, but it is not the only one. To the contrary, the general trend is that Europeans prefer to listen to their own music, although at the same time they do not neglect American influences. Therefore, we may state that the two cultures are equals in the field of music. /^t/Finally, the one aspect of culture in which Europeans excell Americans is national heritage. History has provided Europeans with a number of monuments that Americans will never be able to possess. This gives Europeans culture a different quality, a certain consciesness of their own roots, which Americans lack. /^t/Cinema may be the most impressive constituent of the 20th century culture, but it is not the only one. Therefore, although Americans dominate Americans in that field of culture, the claim that it is a threat to European culture is ridiculous. Europeans possess a hundreds years old culture which may be superficially influenced by the American culture, but will never be dominated by it. <0244> /^t/Some children are a real relief for their parents. They sleep a lot, smile in between sleepings, play alone for hours, they never cry. Sometimes, it is hard to notice that there is the child at home. Some children however, are true devils. They do not want to sleep, play alone, they are always on the run being a real torment for their parents. They are often punished, scolded, put as the worst example for other children. It seems though, that such behavior of adults is the biggest harm for these children. But, due to the proper attitude of parents, hyperactive children may usually grow up to become very intelligent and talented people. /^t/Active children do cause many problems. It is difficult for them to concentrate on one activity, they are so filled with energy that they cannot sit and get down to any kind of work. They are often histerical, some even try to harm themselves by, for example, banging the wall with their heads. However, most of the children may simply need more care from their parents; more time should be devoted for them to adjust to regular activities. Understanding and patience are the key words here. Children shouldnot be forcively made the ideal of their parents. Talents, usually noticed by them, but considered unimportant, need to be fostered by activities, proposals, arranging of time of children. Parents very often think they know what their children feel and need, and try to arrange their children's life in an adult manner. However, what seems necessary in such situation, is free space that should be alloted to the children, their imagination and their own decisions. For example, if a child has a unique spacial orientation, he/she should be allowed to play with blocks, solids, flexible materials, along with the parents. Parents' role would be to advise, help and award the child not only for the effect, but for the amount of work spent on the project. Punishing the child for possible disorder is one of the most common mistakes of parents. Adults should understand that a hyperactive child reqires much more time and care, especially since, time spent with children is never the time wasted. /^t/It should never come to the situation in which a child is put as the example of bad behavior for other children. It is true that kindergartens help to socialize and temper children which can be considered bad-tempered. But, instead of reproaching and punishing, teachers may easily make troublesome urchins leaders of the group. Yet, teacher's role is to stand for the minority of the group, and to influence the majority in such a way as to accept the different temperament of others. Of course, any kind of phisical pressure of the active ones towards the less active must be disallowed. /^t/Results of the bad treatment of active children are varied, and perhaps only a sample of them is mentioned here. Usually, instead of temperance reproaching results is stress and frustration. Very often badly treated, not understood children become agressive and get involved in many conflicts. The great chance of allowing talents to bloom is wasted irrevocably. Sometimes, active children never get socialized, and consequently become social or even mental outcasts. /^t/Psyche of a man cannot be framed in statistics; there are no unaltered patterns. However, the ancient methods of upbringing, with a notorious use of a stick, have turned out to be in efficient. The methods has become more child-centered now, children are allowed much more that ever before. Yet, it seems that in the case of hyperactive or just active children some prejudices still exist, causing much harm both to children and adults. Thus, for any parents who want their child to become a talented, friendly person, the above-mentioned issues should be thoroughly considered. <0245> /^t/Sleeping is one of the basic necessities of human life. Usually people sleep at night, some prefer an additional nap during the day, and still others sleep all day long because they decide to sacrifice the night for other activities but sleep. It is little probable, however, that before falling asleep anyone thinks about the essential factor of a good and sound sleep, namely about eating. Scientific research as well as individual observations prove that eating habits have a great impact on the condition of the human body and soul and, consequently, on rest, sleeping and even dreams. Therefore people should pay more attention to what they consume. /^t/There are a lot of people whose sleep is sound and deep. They wake up in a good mood and are ready to spend the day pleasantly. However, there are also such people who cannot fall asleep and even if they eventually reach this peculiar state, their sleep is shallow and unpleasant and when they wake up they are most often in a bad mood. Fortunately enough, the latter group of people may be in a way helped. The annoying lack of sleep may be caused by the lack of food, because, as researchers prove, those who feel a need for food cannot sleep well. On the other hand, those who do not find a reasonable modesty in eating, fall asleep easily and instantly but they cannot remember their dreams and on waking up they have a feeling of digesting that is still going on. The simplest solution would be then to eat a light meal before going to bed, not forgetting, however, about the risk of overdose. Nevertheless, the success at falling asleep easily will not be achieved if people neglect the potential influence of coffee on the human organism. Coffee, however tasty it would be, will not help to bring sleep, it rather defers it. Therefore, countless coffee lovers often notice with astonishment that despite being in bed and wishing to sleep, they would rather take up any mental activity except for sleeping, because their brain is so highly stimulated that their free will cannot overcome it. Such an influence of coffee upon dreams weakens with time, which is an inevitable sign of the beginnings of coffee addiction. Fortunately enough, there are meals that should bring sleep. Connoisseurs, if they wish to sleep well, should concentrate on milk dishes, salads, poultry, fruit and vegetables. /^t/Meals, however, not only feed the body and stimulate the brain, but are also a source of energy for human imagination and as such they constitiute a considerable factor that influences dreams. Although scholars tend to perceive dreams as a product of electromagnetic brainwaves, it can be safely stated that regardless the actual causes of dreams, food shapes and enchants them to a certain degree. Generally, all "exciting" meals bring dreams. The term "exciting" refers to dark meats, pidgeons, ducks, game, asparagus or flavored sweets. Lately, scientists have been concentrating on the cases of people who seem to lead double lives: one in reality, the other one in their dreams. They dream about places they have never visited in reality, they recognize faces of people they do not know, and the dreams make up a whole series. Recently, Polsat Television presented an interview with a woman who experienced such dreams regularly in her youth. Every a few years she visited a far-away planet on which there lived only women. She felt as if she had been bred by somebody. It is probable that she had eaten a well-done meal before falling asleep. Additionally, judging from her happiness, good humor and outlooks, the interlocutor must have been a keen connoisseur. /^t/Unfortunately, there is no simple recipe for bringing sound sleep and colorful dreams, since they are phenomena that no human force can take control over. Fortunately, experience backed by countless scientific observations lets us think that proper dieting bears positive influence on sleep and dreams. That gives people a slight hope that there may exist a way to shape their most intimate reality: dreams. <0246> /^t/Although you are an adult and you know how to take care of yourself, you are constantly being reminded that you should avoid alcohol since it constitutes the number one enemy of your health. You will certainly be surprised then at hearing that the newest research on alcohol drinking refutes the traditional pessimistic view concerning the subject matter. Many scientists now agree that alcohol no longer has to be perceived as a health-threat. Quite on the contrary: if taken with moderation, alcohol can actually attribute to your good health. In other words, if you imbibe one or two drinks a day, you will certainly stay less susceptible to such serious diseases as heart troubles and cancer than absolute non-drinkers. What is more, you will find it easier to retain your good mental health which is so important in today's stressful world. /^t/The first significant benefit of alcohol drinking is that it reduces the risk of heart problems by fifty per cent, and it does so in a few ways. Any kind of alcohol, taken in regularly and in small amounts, helps keep your arteries clear by decreasing stickiness of certain blood cells which tend to attach themselves to fat molecules and block the arteries. With your arteries clear, you are in no danger of a heart attack. Moreover, alcohol increases HDL, the so called 'good' cholesterol that has a desirable cardiovascular effect. Alcoholic beverages, wine and beer in particular, are especially recommended to middle-aged and older men and to postmenopausal women who altogether constitute a group of high risk of heart problems. It is obvious then that besides healthy diet and an appropriate exercise, alcohol should become your partner in fighting heart diseases or in keeping them at bay. /^t/Another argument in favor of imbibing of intoxicants is its contribution to cancer prevention. Alcohol contains a group of antioxidants called phenolics that fight cellular defects which can cause cancer. Since medicine has not found any effective cure for cancer yet, you will agree that it is reasonable to drink a glass of wine or beer a day in order to avoid cancer. /^t/Alcohol drinking helps you retain good mental health as well. Since alcohol works as a stimulant it reduces stress and tensions and gives you new strength to encounter everyday problems. A glass of champagne can simply cheer you up leaving no place for worries. You need not feel guilty for enjoying your drinking since already the Bible encourages you to treat alcohol as a remedy for sorrow: 'Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts'. Furthermore, drinking contributes to your good psychic condition in a way that it increases your self-esteem, makes you more open and friendly and thus facilitates your contact with people. At last, a drink a day produces certain clarity of mind thus stirring your imagination and helping you make right decisions. It is certain then that by cheering you up, helping you maintain friendly relations with people and giving clarity of mind, drinking contributes to your good mental health. Is it not worth reaching for that bracing and arousing liquid then? /^t/You may include a glass of red wine in your menu now without a danger of being rebuked by the experts on the side effects of alcohol because the data on alcohol drinking is to your benefit. You do not have to fear anymore that a bit of alcohol daily inevitably shortens your earthly existence. What you can do instead is consider all the benefits derived from drinking your recommended daily amount of alcohol: a sound heart, cancer-resistant cells and joy of living. <0247> /^t/Young Polish people graduate from high schools and apply for universities. Some of them pass entrance exams and are accepted. They are very contend since they believe that from now on they will be studying only those topics they are interested in. That is the myth. /^t/In fact universities in Poland offer their students a number of subjects which are not exactly necessary or even irrelevant in a given course of education. Moreover, almost all the classes are obligatory and there are very few optional lectures or seminars. Thus Polish students in all universities have to study topics imposed on them by departments with very small possibility to influence their stream of studies. For example: students of geography, apparently interested in geography, must add to their main body of classes, lectures in psychology or sociology, which are not especially connected with geography. Students of architecture must attend lectures in philosophy as if it really were connected with building engineering or urbanisation. Those are just examples but such cases are characteristic to the majority of universities and colleges in Poland. Besides, none of them offer students enough optional courses. /^t/As a student of English on Poznan University, I have no right to choose courses and lectures, I want to attend. All the classes are compulsory and must be fulfilled by all the student in the department (except few pro-seminars and MA thesis seminars). Regardless of particular interests all the students are trained to be teachers with the skilful use of practical English and also knowledge of linguistics, translation, history and culture, literature, psychology and philosophy. Nothing strange, thus, that this knowledge turns out to be fragmentary. Besides, students' predisposition are not taken into account, and in fact very few people show the teaching talent. Much more students prefer to become translators in future. Fortunately, the translation course is on the curriculum, as well. However, the most important topics in the UAM English Department, next to practical English of course, seem to be linguistics and historical linguistics. The problem is that very few students are interested in researching these fields. A lot more of them would be grateful to spend the time that linguistics courses take them, on training practical English or doing research in literature or culture of English speaking nations. Unfortunately, literature and culture are treated somehow marginally in Anglistica Posnaenesia. During three semesters of English literature course and one semester of American literature neither of these very wide fields of studies can be even roughly presented. Moreover, two semesters of history and two semesters of English and American culture course are ridiculous for students interested in these topics. /^t/The broadening of the courses would not be the solution here since a person's mind is overt. Not everyone of the hundred students of each year must be a school teacher and at the same time an expert in linguistics, translation and literature. It would be better to develop each student's skills, talents and interests separately, because it is better to have consistent and concrete knowledge in one fields than fragmentary information about various topics. The best way to achieve such a situation is to create a new curriculum including the minimum of obligatory courses and plenty of optional ones. /^t/Each university student should be required to fulfil just few basic courses compulsory to a particular department, and given a chance to choose a number of additional courses which he or she is interested in. For example in the English department those obligatory subjects could be such components of the practical English course as speaking, pronunciation, grammar and writing. The other topics on the English department curriculum should be optional. Courses such as: linguistics, historical linguistics, comparative linguistics and many more in this area would be, thus, available to students interested in language research. Various courses of literature containing a whole bunch of aspects of literary works would create possibilities for interesting studies for literature - oriented students. Moreover, historical and cultural courses could be as diverse as those in literature and give as many opportunities for history - freaks. Besides, students dreaming of a teacher's job could choose courses among methodology, psychology and different practical teaching techniques classes. At last those who would like to be translators would be given a chance to attend courses like: translation, literary translation or consecutive translation. The only requirement should refer the minimum number of hours that students would have to spend on those optional classes. /^t/Such a system reflects the one developed in American universities and colleges. So, there is a pattern which has been working usefully in the U.S. for a long time, and now it can be followed in Poland, as well. The problem is that along with such radical reforms in curricula a certain reorganisation in departments' works and stuff would be inevitable. And this is the thing that tutors and professors are afraid of most. However, Polish students should fight for changes because they have the right to study what they are interested in. The period of learning anything imposed, regardless of predisposition and interest should be finished along with the graduation from a high school. <0248> /^t/Television has grown all-important in modern man's life. We can hardly do without it. It provides entertainment, informs and teaches us, raises our kids. If it were all it does television would by all means be a most laudable invention ever made by humans. Unfortunately, it is not the case. Television does much more. It steals our time, puts our health at risk, and finally, brainwashes us. This makes TV sets the least recommendable accessories in our homes. If one does not want to ruin one's health and degrade one's IQ one should shun any contact with television and preferably dispose of the TV set altogether. /^t/First of all, television is responsible for our permanently being short on time or having no time at all. We speed in our cars in order to get home on time if anything that interests us is on, thus quitting otherwise pleasureable activities. We do not eat but rather swallow our food in order to rush to the living-room, sit back in front of the evil screen and immerse in our favourite program that is about to begin. If the accidentally turned-on TV succeeds in captivating our interest we are certainly bound to neglect our duties, snub our beloved, and totally forget about the whole unimportant surrounding world. What is more, fanatic viewers are so busy watching television that they have long ago forgotten theaters. Books are unknown to them. /^t/Another offence of television is far more serious. Our mental and physical health is at stake here. When a thrilling program is on we turn into sponges that imbibe all what is coming from the screen, forgetting about the passage of time. We do not even notice that our eyes get sore, our backs get stiff, our digestion processes disturbed due to the squeezed stomachs. Vile television literally cripples us: the abdomens grow bigger, the muscles grow thinner, the joints grow stiffer. Nothing can salvage us from the powerful spell television has cast on us. We go on watching, merciless for our bodies. Not surprisingly, our mental health is not immune to the medium's perils, either. Virtually within minutes television can arouse, depress, frighten, or force to shed tears. Human sanity is unable to endure that. /^t/If the crimes against human health are a serious offense the crimes against human intelligence are a mortal sin. Television distorts the perception of reality. Having watched a number of bloody crime stories, a woman is scared to death when passing by a clump of bushes in her neighborhood after dark anticipating a psycho-killer in ambush there. A school bully is not capable of treating his victims as human beings, having been exposed to all the violence, rape, and murder on TV. Still worse, people's attention span and aptitude are influenced. Excessive television watching makes a person unable to concentrate on a speech exceeding several minutes. Grammatical complexity of language and sophistication of vocabulary become an insurmountable barrier for an ardent sit-com lover. Writing skills are on the decline, reading becomes unpopular, deep thought is endangered - that is the price the human intellect pays for the invention of television. /^t/The tendency to neglect danger is a trait that humans are born with. "Car accidents? Yes, they happen but not to me." Wrong! The moment your vigilance is gone you hit another car or run somebody over. Certainly, television does not take our lives away. In a sense, it is still more perilous, however. Television deprives us of our free time and will, liveliness, and intelligence. And there is not much to life if we become crippled brainwashed slaves. Thus, save yourself and... turn off the TV set. <0249> /^t/V-chip is a new device invented in America to finally put an end to a destructive influence of television on children. At least that is what American propaganda says, including the President of the United States himself. The device is designed so as to be built in the ordinary TV-set in order to encode and/or block certain television broadcasts, especially those considered by the adults unsuitable for children. To facilitate the whole process the television stations would send an additional signal together with a TV program that may be regarded as for adults only. /^t/The whole idea is being propagated as an effective solution to a constantly growing problem of demoralization of American society especially young people, but here comes the question: is this really going to solve the problem? /^t/According to the social scientists, engineers and some politicians it is a complete misunderstanding. Some would even call it a joke. /^t/Social scientists say there is no better way of preventing children from watching adult programs than the parents themselves. They have to carry the burden of bringing up their children, shaping their character and deciding what is right and what is wrong. They cannot substitute it with a computer chip. In the long run it will not do any good. /^t/The best v-chip is a parent who says "hey, you don't watch this or you're grounded for a week" says dr. Graham Temple from the University of Illinois. /^t/Engineers claim it will take decades to eventually make it happen. For the best performance of the system there should be a v-chip installed in each and every household in the US. It is virtually impossible to make it. Every American family would have to buy a new TV-set with the built-in chip. Connecting the device to your video equipment externally would be obviously unsuccessful as every self-respecting child would by-pass the system easily. The manufacturers of electronic devices such as Sony, Philips, Aiwa, General Electric say "we give them what they want". They are going to equip the television-sets with the chip if the national policy requires it, but they don't believe in this enterprise. /^t/Finally some politicians dare to say that somehow the v-chip became a political issue. The president of the U.S. himself endorsed the program, not necessarily because it is so helpful, but because he wanted to boost his presidential campaign in the eyes of his potential electors. If this is true it certainly does not make the chip more reliable. One could even think that the v-chip has only been introduced to create an image of a strife for a better society and better future of American teenagers, while it is only a tool for politicians to gain power. /^t/In the times of rapid technology advancement and civilization progress one could think of better ways of making use of our knowledge than of introducing a device of such a questionable value. Especially, if it was just an electoral manipulation in order to impress the world or pretend to care about the society. The stands taken by the experts speak for themselves. The v-chip is not to be successful soon. Indeed, it may be an attempt to make a better world, but the chances are it became an issue for strictly political and economic reasons. <0250> /^t/In many countries all over the world now, people strongly object to the fact that different foreign firms come to their markets, calling the process 'cultural imperialism'. The opponents of this 'cultural expansion' accuse American or British firms of ruining the culture and certain values of the 'invaded' countries. People tend to protest when McDonald's opens a new bar, an American film appears on TV or in cinemas, and the Polish Roman Catholic priests are even condemning the MTV station's programmes. Other people are of the opinion that in today's world we cannot avoid contacting different cultures or values they represent - it is not possible to close all the borders for foreigners and forbid watching television. Everybody lives in a 'global village', and that cannot be denied. Is then this 'cultural invasion' a real threat or just a healthy extension of choice? /^t/The opponents of the process claim that Western European countries force their ideals and values on everybody. Young people, who usually look up to their peers from the United States or Great Britain, would do anything to be like their ideals, even if it would entail rejecting the ideals or values of their own nation. And that, say the opponents, simply has to be stopped. But the fact is that nobody forces anybody to do or eat any particular thing. It is true that young people are easily influenced but it definitely does not mean that they do not have their free will or cannot behave as they want. They are just given another possibility to choose from. They, and only they, are to decide what to do, watch, or eat. Besides, sometimes a Western bar is not really a threat but rather it fills the gap between the most unhygienic street vendors and the coffee shops in the five-star hotels, as it was the case with the Wimpy bar in Delhi. What is more, Indian bars are being opened in Britain, and they become very popular. Nobody accuses India of attacking the British values or eating traditions. Conversely, the British recognize the advantage of this extension of choice, and simply enjoy Indian food. /^t/Another arguments of those against the process, namely that people entirely ignore their own country's products or programmes, does not hold true, either. Certainly not everybody rushes to eat American food or watch MTV all the time. Some people do it from time to time, and for them the wider the choice the better. After some period of eating one product or watching only one programme people are likely to get bored, and they come back to their national cuisines or programmes, or, hopefully, choose another possibility which does not have to come from their own country. Indeed, people from the countries where there is no choice of what to do or wear besides their own products are not satisfied with it and want to have some choice at least, as it was the case in Poland several years ago. /^t/But how can we forget about the fact that the foreign firms constitute competition for the national ones?, ask the opponents. In fact, this competition is highly profitable for the client. Because of the competition, the clients have the possibility to buy things of higher quality and cheaper prices. The quality of products and services is maintained on a high level, or even improves, just because the firms bear in mind that they have competitors on the market. Not only the clients, then, profit from the existence of a competitor or competitors. Their products and services improve, which entails having more clients and making greater profits. People simply feel they have the right to choose from a wide range of different products. It holds true especially when the people experienced queuing for everything and having to accept the services which were imposed on them without any chance of choice. /^t/Generally speaking, the much protested against process of 'cultural expansion', especially of Western European countries, in fact does not have place. Although some people hold that the United States or Great Britain force their values and ideals on the inhabitants of other countries, nobody forces anybody to do or eat things they do not want to. Young people, although easily influenced, by having yet another possibility simply have the chance to choose from more options. Western societies, or the societies who experienced having no choice at all, recognize the advantages of having an extension of choice and simply enjoy them. What is more, not only the clients profit from a helthy competition on the market by having lower prices and better quality of the offered goods and services. The interested firms, by maintaining or improving the quality of the offered goods or services, attract more clients and make greater profits. Having all this in mind, it is obvious that everybody profits from and nobody loses because of having a healthy extension of choice, and the cultural imperialism does not really exist. <0251> /^t/The penal code dating from the 6th century BC and invented by Hammurabi consisted of many laws concerned with crime and punishment. According to that great king, whose policies I firmly approve of, people who committed certain crimes should be punished by imposing on them the penalty equal in quality to the criminal offences those people were charged with. In other words, if someone took out someone else's eye he/she should become the victim of the same cruelty. /^t/The times have changed since then and the range of crimes has definitely extended but the methods of dealing with the offenders have become less severe. The most typical punishment for most of the offences is the prison sentence. However, seeing the growing number of crimes this does not seem to be very effective. That is why I'm for the death penalty to be introduced or even against abolishing this kind of punishment wherever it already exists. /^t/In my opinion if somebody is able to kill, to murder, to rape and is found notorious for committing such crimes we should not analyse his deeds from the legal point of view and wonder whether we can legally kill him or not. Although some people think this is not human to kill murderers in this way my view on that very matter is totally different. Why shouldn't we have the right to impose the death sentence on a person who murders innocent people with cold blood consequently depriving others of their beloved parents, wives, husbands or children? Why should we have mercy on people who unscrupulously rape and they ferociously torment their victims until they finally die? I would say that it would be more inhuman to let those monsters live and walk freely on the earth they contaminated with their infamous actions. /^t/Besides, the capital punishment really helps to decrease the number of violent crimes. If we have a look at the data coming from America and going back to the 80s when the death penalty was reintroduced we can easily notice that during only two years the crime rate dropped by one fifth. This means that the danger of being executed frightened the criminals and made them realize that continuing the same "profession" is not a trifling matter. /^t/Another thing which would support the idea of imposing the death penalty on criminals is the situation in prisons. As we all know, the prisons are overcrowded nowadays and the money being spent on them comes from nowhere else but the taxes paid by people. Besides, the prison system is constructed in such a way that very often it lets many prisoners out before their sentence is finished - because they, for example, behaved well. Consequently, the vision of being sent to prison creates no fear in the criminals and allows them to commit the same offences over and over again. <0252> /^t/The Word "Work" Carries a very general implication. That is why the subject will have to be treated from many different angles. "Work" seems to mean something totally different for different people. Although it is always connected with some physical strength or mental power it may connote various aspects. Whereas by some people it is considered to be the only way to survive, the so called "last resort" or a kind of responsibility, for others it is only pleasure to kill their time. Whether it is a blessing or a curse depends on how it is treated, what our expectations and aims are. /^t/Blessing is always regarded as something very positive. It is something that brings happiness into our lives. Very often it is understood as God's favour and protection which means it is something holy we have to care about and make use of, otherwise we will get punished. This is just the way we view work very often. We treat it like a valuable gift from a merciful God who enabled us to use our skills and abilities, who provided us with the good source of getting money in order to support ourselves or / and our families. The unemployed being on the dole will certainly consider any sort of work as a miracle they have been looking for ward to. A businessman who has started to build up his career will not reject any proposal, no matter how much hard work and effort it would require from him, to buy a better car, a larger house and so on and so forth. In other words he would regard this opportunity as even a double blessing. /^t/Work, however, is not always seen as a blissful experience. It can cause a lot of disagreement between people, it can make people dependent on it to such an extent that they finally neglect their health, family and other vital things. Very often very hard work, either physical or mental, which is not bound to lead to any success may be a curse for people performing it. /^t/As far as I am concerned I look upon work as a blessing in the full meaning of this word. Although for many different reasons I would not be obliged to work hard or even take up the least demanding job, I would get bored to death if I didn't have anything to do. /^t/The idea of idling does not appeal to me at all. Sometimes I do have a feeling that I need a break, that I need to run away from all the earthly duties and worries connected with my job. On the other hand, however, I could not spend a single day whitout referring to my job, school assignments or worrying about when I will get some time to clean the windows or to have my house decorated. Therefore, being able to work means a lot to me. I would never like to be deprived of this gorgeous experience. <0253> /^t/The present century stands on the edge of a threating transformations in human environment, largely because of the impact of immoral practices of manipulation of genes - cloning. Though cloning may be best described as "civilised destruction" there is another aspect to it with totally different aims and results and without potential menace to humanity. /^t/We do not fully understand that what seems to be challenge to ethics is part of our every day life, not so frighning yet starting the whole idea of gene manipulation. Cloning has been doomed for its intervention with evolutional nature of man, which may prove one day destructive for the whole kind of man. However, some of its practices has been employed on everyday ground with much reduced threat as those practices do not endanger humanity. What I bear in mind is that we regular cloners. Every green-thumbed housewife clones cutlings; every agriculturist "twins" fruit and vegetable without a fear of what this practice may develop into. They fiddle with genes reproducing them sequentially and create mirror reflection of all bananas, oranges or tomatoes we eat. And we accept this method - we admire cloned flowers, we buy cloned plants - we are "accessories after the fact". /^t/Although I treated this aspect of cloning in a rather humorous way, its another connotation is not that amusing. Man has been entangled in age-old dream to improve biological and mental nature of man. However, this improvement frightens even the most optimistic. This enterprise promoted under a pompous shield of helping humanity at braking through commonplace echoes with its double morality. Everyone is perfect from the biological point of view and artificial enhancement of positive elements may cause inadevrtable changes not only in human organism but also in human psyche. What ethics questions is the operation on the individual who deprived of his own self is mutated into apparently "perfect" organism. His construction of genes is violated and replaced by an artificial set of new ones. The scientists claim that this is the best way of relieving our society of individuals of "average" capacity, to condition higher form of existence, but actually something more is hidden there, which partakes of insanity and badly understood perfect harmony. Through cloning it is possible to outmanouvre the nature, to control the populace and eventually to create machine like. It is thus not difficult to gather from those points that cloning does not only mean alternation within human body or the natural condition of human sort but mainly the shift of hirarchy of values through designing easy to controll earsats of individuals. Fortunately our century has not been witnessing so advanced manipulation of genes and that cloning particulary refers to innocent alternation within "consumption products" and future distopian vision of humanity. Although this vision is merely based on prediction one must bear in mind that there is only one little step from cloning bananas to cloning a man. Hence we must ensure ourselves against the nightmare of the forthcoming century by rulling out the manipulation of genes and accepting the nature of man developed over the millenniums. <0254> /^t/Rapid development of new technology is the most important characteristic of the 20th century. But are we slaves to technology or masters of it? /^t/One of the most widespread pieces the new technology offers is television. It is thank to TV that a mass transmission of information takes place. the TV viewers may enrich their knowledge quite easily by watching information and educational programmes. thus, television, if used properly, may make it easier to develop communication and consciousness of the whole society. Yet there is almost always a threat that this will take place according to the thought of people in charge of mass media who have a great influence on what is shown on TV, and that is why a critical attitude of the viewers is vital. But this sometimes also may be not enough, because TV techniques influence people's unconscious, and the growth of the number of commercials makes it difficult to take completely free decisions. Most often, the differences between good and evil are effaced which results in changes of moral code, whose primary purpose was to guarantee everybody's freedom. This is particularly dangerous as far as children and youth are concerned. Moreover, one can easily become addict to television, watching one programme after another, beginning from the first minutes one enters home, and ending late at night; watching rather than reading or listening, which is claimed by some people to kill the art of conversation. /^t/Radio is very similar to TV in that it makes the flow of information easier. the only vital difference is that it does not provide us with visual stimuli. The information passed may also be influenced by people in charge of the radio. Thus the advantages and disadvantages of it are mostly the same as those which concern TV. /^t/For many people radio means music. And what radio teansmits is all kinds of music. Here one can observe the development of technology producing new sounds and modulating the sound track or human voice. Music can be a means of relaxation, helping people with rest, influencing their aesthetical experiences. Yet this can also become addiction. The use of modern technology in music may facilitate manipulating people by transmitting false attitudes, which again is most dangerous as far as the youngest part of the society is concerned. /^t/The development of technology always brings the destruction of natural environment and health. Polution takes place in spite of the fact that technology is to improve our living on earth, and that is because there have always been more means causing destruction rather than those harmless ones. It is worth mentioning that the emission of harmful gas and dust into the atmosphere damages forests so quickly, that it is impossible to preserve them as it taskes much longer until another forest grows. /^t/The development of technology in medicine makes the service better and more efficient. There are medicines for many illnesses which used to be fatal, and there are more and more ways of preventing them too. Yet there are also some bad points about it. First is addiction to medicines, especially trasnquilizers, which is quite obvious. Second concerns bacteria and viruses which develop better, more complex and more immune forms which are difficult to fight with. It is like a chain process in which better cures are required as a result of which "better" bacterias develop. It seems that there will always be diseases which cannot be cured no martter how far technology in medicine is developed. /^t/Cloning is another sphere of the development of technology which plays an important role in whether a human will or will not become a slave of his own inventions. It certainly may be good if it is used as a means of getting better races of breeding animals or plants so that man can easier get food. Yet if we use this kind of technology to clone people, we may soon become slaves to some "higher" race of people created in this way. /^t/The development of factories and machines causes the services offered are better, the quality of goods produced is higher, and the process of production takes less time. Yet it also requires better qualified staff as a result of which people who used to do simple manual works or were assembly line workers lose their jobs. /^t/The development of transport and communication is a great progress in technology. It lets people move fast from place to place, makes travelling easier, and contributes to people's growth of knowledge concerning the world. It also has a great influence on the development of buildings and takes the space which can still be used. Yet it has a great effect on the natural environment which is becoming more and more devastated in this way. /^t/The branch of technology which is definitely going in wrong direction is that which concerns armament. The fact that efforts are made to make bombs and other equipment better and better does not help people in becoming masters. They are just gradually becoming slaves to fear of an unexpected war and early death. This branch of industry makes it easier to destroy the life on earth completely and, what goes with it, the human race. /^t/In general, the development of technology is needed, and it is a natural result of the development of thought. The condition that must be fulfilled is to try not to become a slave to everything that was invented. As the above arguments show, the new technology can be treated in two ways. And it depends on the people themselves whether they decide to stay free or they become slaves. Everybody has to decide for themselves, and it is important to be aware of it throughout the time of our lives. <0255> /^t/Nowadays most people consider work as something they could not live without, something that makes them men of worth. There are, however, some dark sides of this phenomena from which I shall begin. /^t/The last two decades brought about a considerable change of attitude towards work.. It is clearly visible in the present day business world, demanding, full of stress. Here, for example, it is a jungle in which the weakest go to the wall. Only the strongest withstand this tough competition. Their motto is to be at the top of career no matter what it takes. As a result of such thinking, they began working over fourteen hours a day and after some time they can become workaholics. Such people spend most of their lives working, finding it impossible to relax and rest, no matter how tired and overworked they are. They spend their weekends in the office (their native element) or at least take home some urgent work to do. Their social life is ruined. Their spouses and friends abandoned them long time ago and they have no time, or even will to make new acquaintances. Apart from workaholics, there are many people who work also over fourteen hours a day, but the purpose of their work is purely financial. Often, they are the only ones who can support the family. Such people are always tired, they have no time to talk to their children about their little school problems, or to the husband or wife, not mentioning that they do not have any time for themselves. They begin to feel alienated from the surrounding and sometimes start to be treated as errand boys. /^t/Work, however cannot be treated as a curse only. It has some good sides. First of all, thanks to work, people make both ends meet. They can satisfy their ambitions and become independent, cherishing every moment of the work. They are aware what effects it may bring. Above all, people live to learn. By their hard work they learn how to be responsible, how to appreciate others' work and finally, how to live a good life. /^t/Work can be considered both a blessing and a curse. On one hand it can make people behave in a way that doctors interpret as pathological and name workaholism, on the other hand, however, it has plenty of advantages. Working and learning at the same time we, human beings grow up to become worthy people who can not only earn a livelihood but also find a proper place in the society and learn how to be positive and optimistic. With these, our life will be much more easier in today's busy world. <0256> /^t/Death penalty - the most severe capital punishment for breaking the law (usually for committing the most serious of crimes, that is, premeditated murder). This kind of penalty is used rarely, and in not all countries, only in cases of ruthless murderers and heavy criminals, for whom life of other human beings does not count. /^t/In my opinion, capital punishment should never be abolished. It ought to exist and help to keep our world free from violence, vengeance, rapes, murders and all terrible kinds of crimes committed with cold blood. The criminals must be separated from the society as quickly as it is possible but I think, they should not undergo any rehabilitation. Firstly, it does not help to change their rotten minds into minds of sensitive, righteous people. Secondly, this costs a lot of money to keep them. After a long sentence they would come out of jail as better professional murderers and more depraved maniacs. Then they would be more dangerous for the society than they had been before. /^t/To present my point of view even more clearly, let me consider such a case. Two 23 years old degenerate men rape and kill a 10 years old girl. At first, they tie her up so hard that her thin legs and hands are bleeding. They hit her head many times, then they rape her. Those drunk men almost tear her delicate body apart. When it is finished, they throw beer cans using her as a target. She is lying unconscious all in her own innocent blood. As if this would not be enough, they make a loop on a rope and try to hang the girl on a tree. The branch is not strong enough and it breaks. The girl is not dead, she is breathing which makes those two men very angry. They throw her down from a bridge nearby. She is falling 40 feet down to be killed on sharp rocks beneath. They did it for fun killing her in a sophisticated, thought-over way. For them the law should be merciless. They are useless for the society and when at large, they are very dangerous, heartless and pitiless criminals. There is no hope for their having any remorse or scruples about committing the same or even worse crimes in future. /^t/Therefore, the most threatening barbarians, killers should be given the life sentence and removed from the society at once not to let their sick minds rule, threaten and destroy our world. I believe in justice and safety which should be ensured by the law. <0257> /^t/The advocates and opponents of death penalty have been arguing for a very long time. Although there are still fervent followers on both sides of the argument, in the contemporary world one of these sides seems to be gaining advantage over the other. /^t/Countries which are often - and justly, I think - referred to as the most advanced, the most civilized ones, have moved radically away from death penalty. All over Europe this kind of punishment is considered both inhuman and inefficient, and was cancelled more or less recently. As for the United States, it is still valid in some states but is rarely implemented and - even in such a crime-ridden and violent society as America seems to be - often harshly criticized. /^t/The conclusion we are fully entitled to draw from this tendency is that it is what has been constituting our European culture that induces us to abandon death penalty the idea of which clashes sharply with our humanist tradition. This tradition, after centuries of controversy, seems now at last firmly established in our societies, calling upon us to scrap this kind of punishing people for good. /^t/The argument stated above puts death penalty and the need for eradicating it from our lives into a larger, more general perspective. It is fully vindicated in itself but there are also some more substantial grounds that may further reinforce the point we make. /^t/First, those who favour capital punishment believe that it exercises a deterrent effect upon would-be offenders. However, if we look at the statistic data we will see that those deeming so cannot find there any confirmation of their views. Surveys carried all over the world show clearly that the threat of punishment by death neither lessens the number of crimes nor makes those committed any less brutal. /^t/Secondly, we must keep in mind that having sentenced somebody to death and having administered the sentence we cannot rescind it; it is absolutely irrevocable. And what if all of a sudden it turns out that the judges who passed such a verdict were wrong? That there occurred a mistake in the evidence or in the procedure? What if some factor which was hidden or simply overlooked crops up and alters the entire situation? This may always happen. Yet if it does, nothing can be done just because the person who was regarded as guilty and who now appears to be innocent is already punished; in other words - dead. In such circumstances all we can do, apart from chasing the real criminal, is to announce to the world that the person who was sentenced and punished was in fact blameless but by doing so we hardly do justice to him or her as we simply cannot bring them back to life. This is obvious. But let us try more to see the obviousness of things also before, not only after, we have decided to act. /^t/Our third point, unlike the two former ones, does not belong to the sphere of the statistically factual and the immediately verifiable. Thus, it is not so easily observable. This does not mean that it is in any degree more negligible or lacking in urgency. It appeals to our sense of what is and what isn't morally proper, and stems from the ability to feel empathy towards other people, no matter who they are. It boils down to the conviction that it is not the same to be murdered unawares in some dark wood or street and to be put to death in prison. A victim of a murderer might have hoped that he or she would be saved miraculously or would manage to escape, and this hope may be cherished almost to the very end. He or she does not know when exactly (if at all) they will be dead. This is a blessing; it saves an enormous amount of distress that comes from expectation and certainty in these matters. But the prisoner sentenced to death is not spared this knowledge and consequently has to bear the anguish resulting from it. He or she knows for sure that (and when) their execution will take place. This must be unendurable. The position of the prisoner waiting on death row is therefore incomparable with that of, say, somebody who is shot down in a hold-up or knifed or strangled in a marital quarrel. The state must consider carefully what it does to its citizens, even if those in question happen to be criminals. Naturally, wrongdoers have to be punished. But punishing them one must avoid all pain and suffering that is unnecessary, superfluous. And the practice of death penalty causes far too much of such suffering. /^t/Considering the above factors we find it deeply absurd that there are countries where death penalty is still legal. <0258> /^t/Advertising became a kind of a business at the beginning of the 20th century, mainly in the United States. Henry Ford produced his first Model T, women started to use lipsticks and smoke cigarettes, there were more and more goods which had to find the customers to buy them. Advertising gave work to many people: models, photographers, copy writers, etc. It also helped newspapers and magazines to survive the competition on the press market. /^t/Nowadays it is hard to imagine our world without advertisements. We are exposed to many kinds of them almost everywhere: on TV, on the radio, in all kinds of newspapers, on our streets, on buses and trains... We are bombarded with words, songs, "poems", pictures praising all kinds of goods and trying to convince us that we need these goods very much and without them our life will lose all the sense. And we often believe the producers that their products are the best as they do not save money on advertisements. /^t/There are people who love watching advertisements on TV. They consider them as short film-stories full of good action, good music and good actors. They believe that when they buy the advertised cream they will become as beautiful and attractive as the models. Such viewers consider the advertisements as a piece of art. /^t/There are still others who in turn consider them as a trash, which only draw our attention from the more important aspects of life. They say that advertisements try to persuade us to buy a given product, as well as they decide what the healthy way of life is like, what coffee you will drink from now on, what the up-to-date housewife needs for her kitchen and bathroom, what cosmetics every handsome man uses, and what toys your children dream of. Good films or programmes on TV are constantly interrupted by the ubiquitous advertisements, so it is hard to concentrate on the action and problems shown in a film. What is more, there are the same products being advertised over and over again and this fact can become very irritating for the viewers. /^t/There are good and bad advertisements and this depends on the product, on money spent on the advertising and on the people who work on it. It is generally assumed that all the films about the washing powders, sanitary pads, and washing-up liquids are of poor value. But there are a few (or rather few) very good advertisements which are a piece of art, mainly those concerning high quality perfumes. There is good music, chiefly classical one, which accompanies the picture, interesting surrounding, and the film itself creates beautiful scenes. /^t/True art does not intrude itself upon us. We are free to decide whether to listen to some kind of music, to look at a given picture, to admire some piece of a sculpture, or not. True art does not tell us: "Look, I am the best and the most beautiful piece of art. Buy me, taste me, listen to me". True art lives forever. Advertisements act quite opposite: they are noisy, showy, officious. They will not be art as long as they are produced mechanically and they concern the trivial things of everyday use. <0259> Art is the only one invention created by mankind used to make human life prettier and nicer. Art has always been a kind of human caprice dependent on a creator's mood and sensitivity, part of spiritual life and production of boundless human imagination. Man has never tried to make art as something needed in everyday life, its only aim was to express a creator's visions, ideas and show people a complex world of human inside. /^t/As a product of imagination created in human mind art should not have influence on people's life because of its unmaterialistic values. I think it has a marvellous effect on our imagination and sense of taste, which is connected with everyday life. Art can be a powerful force, although it does not work directly. Throughout the long centuries, art has become one of the goods which people value and want to have in their houses, not because of precious materials, but because of the fruits of human genius. However, art has been always present as a silent guard of a good taste or a trashy product for the general public. /^t/Now in the decline of the twentieth century we can ask the following question, do we still need art in our life, and what is art nowadays? There is the endless question if we can create something really new which will be needed only to make life more aesthetic and more beautiful. Some people would probably say that modern inventions of our age can be art as well. /^t/Today's generation does not really bother about the artistic part of its life. It is not like a hundreds years ago when people delighted in art going to the museums, theatres, or galleries, at present time our life is extremely dynamic, so on the one hand people have no time for admiring art and on the other, they are simply lazy, especially young people. They are rather fascinated by the latest inventions of science and technology. The mobile phones, computers, fantastic cars, TV sets have dominated our life and what is more, they have become its inseparable elements. We can observe that more and more people try to outvie each other buying the superb equipment, for many of them it does not matter what kind of person they are but what is their financial position and social status. They do not care about their intellectual or artistic development at all. Instead of going to the museum, opera or to the cinema they prefer staying at home and watching everything without any reasonable selection or thinking. For them the beautiful paintings of Monet, Van Googh or Matejko are completely unknown things. /^t/Generally speaking art, which is music, literature, sculpture, ballet is something strange, old-fashioned and useless for the man who lives in the twentieth century, in the age of colourful advertisement, loud music and commerce. <0260> /^t/Death penalty is definitely nonsensical. Nowadays we notice a rapid deacrese in inflicting capital punishment, which is indicative of the general loss of belief in its purposefulness. The fact that death penalty ceases to be popular is caused by a hightened awarness of the value of human life. After so terrible experiences as the two world wars we seem to be more cautious and hesitant when considering taking man s life. /^t/The strongest argument that can be levelled against death penalty is its inhumanity. Unlike other punishmenys, this does not have any educational function, at least for the convict. The only, though very doubtful, value of capital punishment is its role as the deterrent of potential criminals who premeditate committing a crime, a murder in this case. Thus the significance of the punishment, if we assume that punishment can bring any positive results, is shihted from the individual to society. The individual is sentenced to death penalty not to be prevented from committing further crimes but to threaten the community against repeating his grave mistake. Yet, as we fortunately managed to observe, killing the murderers have never been a successful method of getting rid of them. Quite the opposite, cruel laws always produced ruthless and insensitive people who, living under harsh rule themselves, disregarded the universal and undeniable value of human life. Severe laws do not educate society but deprive people of their intrinsic moral sense, and thus create a vicious circle. /^t/Crime cannot be eradicated by laws because they do not concern the motives but the effects of offensive behaviour. Although for society it is much easier to threaten individuals than to promote humanistic values, we should not limit our efforts in crime prevention to mere negative measures, but we should also try to positively influence the system which gives birth to criminals. /^t/It should be considered whether killing, or to state it more eupheministically, liquidating murderers, deserves to be called a fair punishment. When a murder has been committed and the murderer is in the hands of justice, he is no longer dangerous to anyone. Closed in a prison cell, he is completely defenceless and helpless, even if he realizes his mistake and repends it. He is not given a chance to make any resolutions. He cannot make amends. Thus if we kill such a person, we are not better than he and our killing is as ruthless as his. Accordingly, executing a capital punishment on a helpless person is tantamount to a premeditated murder. /^t/Still, assuming that death penalty is an appropriate punishment for murderers, we can never be sure what motives underlied the crime, whether it was premeditated or accidental, or whether it was committed consciously or in a state of irresponsibility. The evidence is often too vague or even contradictory, which does not conduce to impartial judgement. Insisting on justice, we can easily make a fatal and irreversible mistake sentencing to death an innocent person. /^t/Finally, we can question our right to put ourselves in the position of masters of life and death. Life, especially human life, is still a great mystery to us. Man is not capable of fathoming this mystery and creating life on his own. Therefore, being completely ignorant of the origin and aim of life, he should not destroy it. <0261> /^t/In my opinion advertising cannot be regarded as a form of art. I will try to prove that they differ in many respects that is why they should not be treated equally. /^t/Firstly, I think that for most of us art is connected with the word beauty. Since it is a very personal matter it depends on one's individual taste. Therefore, we react to the same piece of art in a completely different way. We may, thus, say that a painting or a sculpture is beautiful or ugly. However talking about advertisements we usually use the expression of what somebody likes or dislikes. We rarely say that a given advertisement is beautiful. /^t/Secondly, as there are no rules which may show us what is beautiful and what is not - it is only our own choice and nobody should impose it on us. Unfortunately, it is exactly what advertising does. Especially advertisements on television become high-pressure ones. They attempt openly to influence us. The hair shampoo, washing powder or toothpaste advertisements play on fears of unhealthy hair, discoloured clothes or teeth decay. However, even children are perfectly aware of the function of advertisements and they do not believe what even their favourite ads, say about the product. /^t/Thirdly, advertising is regarded as purely entertainment without any value but even this role is not fulfilled properly. Advertisements become more and more pervasive. They try to play an important role in our lives. Although we see and hear them almost everywhere the effect is quite opposite. We are bored and tired with them. /^t/Next, art differs from advertising in this way that it still surprises us, evokes some emotions and carries some additional values. Although the high culture, that for centuries has been the pride of each nation, has stagnated, there is a new generation creating an alternative culture. Examples of modern art can be noticed in public places. Differently shaped forms stand in parks, outside buildings and shops. They may look strange but it is their massage - they are to shock people emotionally. /^t/Graffiti has become a popular art for a growing number of young people whose messages are on the walls. Graffiti art takes a number of forms. It can be an individual scribble or something which is much larger - like a mural. For some artists, graffiti is a reaction, while for others it is thought-out expression. The motivation behind a piece of graffiti can be happiness or sadness, frustration or relief. However, graffiti is regarded as low culture it still has the personal stamp on it. It is an expression of somebody's feelings which advertising absolutely lacks. /^t/Lastly, art exists for art's sake. The styles of art are as diverse as people who nowadays are less sure than ever about their own culture. Most of the artists proclaim in their art how bad they feel about everything, but it is still interesting to walk through galleries. Art is important simply because it is art, and not because it makes money or has any practical use. Advertising, however, is not for its own sake. It attracts people's attention, deceives them in order to gain profits. It is not connected with art in any sense - it is only business. /^t/All the examples mentioned above prove that advertising is only practical and not beautiful, it is pervasive and it does not carry any additional values. The most important aspect, however is that it is only a vital source of income - that is why in my opinion it is kitsch. <0262> /^t/The media are full of advertising that we are deluged with every time we turn on TV or radio. They are also present in virtually every newspaper and magazine. These advertisements are of various kinds and quality and they are made in different ways therefore, it may be difficult for many people to state objectively and unambiguously whether advertising is art or kitsch. /^t/In my essay, I am going to take into consideration only television advertisements because they are commonly widespread and known best. From my point of view, at least half of advertisements on TV is kitsch. They are in poor taste and they simply cheapen the quality of life. Moreover, it may be claimed that some adverts are an insidious form of brainwashing, using the same techniques, such as certain slogans and catch-phrases. I suppose that people who prepare and make such adverts often follow the line of least resistance, for example, adapting western commercials in which only dubbing is changed. /^t/As far as promoted goods are concerned, they also become a problem because the question arises how to make art from things which are mostly connected with all kinds of housework, such as cleaning, washing, or for example, with eating. Where to find art in washing stained clothes or cleaning a dirty cooker? Thus, the most kitschy adverts are those presenting washing powders and washing-up liquids or margarine. First of all, a scheme of doing such adverts is always the same. I have an impression that in all those commercials only the name of a given product and a woman advertising it are different and the rest remains unchanged. Another very significant example of kitschy commercials are those encouraging women to buy a certain type of towels. The adverts are often claimed to be embarrassing and formulated too directly. Surely, one might say it is extremely difficult to make art from a washing powder, a towel or margarine but the point is to make less such adverts but in better taste. /^t/Certainly, apart from bad advertisements, one can also find good ones, though they do not necessarily have to be called art. They are, for instance, advertisements of Levi Strauss jeans or Polish commercials of Magia juices. The former are made very professionally and people are interested in them. The latter are simply funny. Nevertheless, the well-done adverts form a small group in comparison with the poor ones. /^t/The next point to consider is the fact that advertisements are not produced just to satisfy an artist's overwhelming desire of creation. In this sense they are not art either. They have a particular function - mostly an informative one -and they are to attract people's attention to the particular products. Therefore, commercials must be made and presented in such a way as to get to every receiver and to satisfy his or her average taste. Accordingly, the world and its characters created on this particular occasion must be always beautiful and the advertised "hero" is always the best. In other words, it is nothing more than pulling the wool over people's eyes. For this reason, how can one call such advertisements art?. /^t/In my opinion, advertising is the simplest and the most primitive kind of art if any art at all. I agree that advertising may be useful, interesting or funny but in fact, it is a big industry promoting things and making a great deal of money but certainly not art. <0263> /^t/It is unbelieveable how much modern technology has dominated our world and influenced our lives. With its positive as well as negative effects it has entered our homes and institutions. It is present at work and after work, even in the most private spheres of life. /^t/Not so long ago, I happened to have a romantic date with my boyfriend in the place which I believed to be beyond the reach of the whole world. Unfortunately, my assumption turned wrong. The intrusive ringing of the cellular suddenly disturbed our passionate kissing. It was his mum who forgot to ask him to buy some butter on his way back home... /^t/However, some positive results of ever-present technology can be noticed as well. Let's have a quick look on how the methods of bringing up children have changed nowadays. Up-to-date parents do not beat their children for bad marks at school, they do not frighten them with ugly monsters, neither they make them kneel in the corner in case the kids behave unproperly. The problem has become much simpler. It is enough to use one sentence with no shouting, no arguing, no nerves. One sentence that has the power of a magic spell. In case of any trouble with your children just say quietly and calmly, If you do not do your homework, tidy your room, eat dinner, etc. (it is universal - works in all cases), I will not allow you to play computer games this afternoon. Try it with your own kids. I guarantee you will be successful! Aha, one detail - the method is absolutely free except for one payment you have to make at the very beginning. It will cost you some 3500PLN for a computer for your kid. And one side effect - your child will soon become a computer slave, suffering from computer addiction. But this should not worry you too much. It is the norm in the nowadays society. /^t/Whether things like that have become the norm or not, we sometimes call back the pieces of our reason and ask ourselves the question: Is new technology freedom or slavery? It turns out that the answer is not so easy. So, let's consider some pros and cons of the wonders of the modern world. /^t/Certainly, the world's technology goes forward - no matter that sometimes in a wrong direction - generally we make progress. No doubt, the achievements in the fields of science and medicine are great. Thousands of people's lives are saved, incurable illnesses cured. Surgeons make complicated operations using the laser beams and computer screen. Sight is brought back to the blind, etc. Simply speaking, impossible becomes possible. We can feel safe in new cars, planes and buildings - all constructions are constantly tested and improved by computers. The field of entertainment also offers new attractions. Special effects used in films can take the audience to another dimension and guarantee lots of emotions. However, before you go to the cinema, think it over - it is not always a relaxing kind of entertainment. /^t/But all in all, I am not aiming at depreciating the value of new technology. Even I, a simple student working on my diploma paper, appreciate the fact that thanks to one click on my PC I am able to travel all over the world, visit all possible libraries, gather the information I need, gossip with my e-mail friend from Australia, and admire the world's masterpieces of art in the most famous museums and galleries. Thank you Mr. Internet! /^t/The possibilities are unlimited fascinating, and... dangerous. Apparently, they give us lots of freedom and save plenty of our time. We can easily get in touch with people who are at distant places, and it takes us no more than a few minutes or even seconds. In our expensive cars we are able to survive the whole afternoon traffic jam and be as comfortable as at home. Thanks to the cellulars we do not lose contact with the outside world. Using the lap-top we can easily prepare the raport for tomorrow's conference and write five important business letters. The music from the car CD player will calm our nerves. We do not even have to change the records - the machine is wise enough to do it by itself. Even when we are hungry, we do not need to get out. Mc Drive offers full service. /^t/Delighted with the freedom, comfort, and economy offered by all "children of technology" we become so busy with collecting them that we do not notice the alarning changes in our behaviours. In fact, the freedom of technology can be very deceiving. Having collected all its wonders, we stay surrounded by them, and gradually we lose the need to meet people, to have friends. Why make so much effort and go to the cafe if we can have one at home chatting with our intelligent computer? It is even better because the machine will always support our opinion. Why go to the cinema if we can have it in much more comfortable conditions at home. I could mention hundreds of similar examples. We stop going away for holidays because the equipment collected at our homes is too expensive to be left without the guard. We do not go out in the evenings as we are afraid that our BMW or Mercedes can be stolen if we take out from the garage. Sometimes however, we decide to appear in some expensive cafe either with a model-like girlfriend or at so called business meeting. We take coffee and before we even start talking to our partner, the cellular announces our presence and importance to everyone around. /^t/From all my observations I can draw the conclusion that it is not the question of whether technology is freedom or slavery that we should consider. The problem lies not in the machines but in their owners and their treatment of their expensive toys. We are the creators of them, and after all, we are those upper creatures. Unfortunately, we often forget about that and we make gods of the machines that we have created. We tend to serve them faithfully, losing our human feelings, behaviours, and good manners. <0264> /^t/Thousands years ago a human started producing a sound. It was probably accompanied by some gestures, body language or facial expressions. The other was observing, watching and imitating and suddenly he realised that he could understand the meaning. After many changes, improvements and trials human speech was born and it started to serve people as the very basic means of communication letting them express their thoughts, feelings and various ideas concerning the reality on their own. /^t/The reality of a human being on his early stage of development was everything which surrounded him. He used to live in a very close contact with nature and he knew what was dangerous or pleasant because he had an opportunity of checking everything on himself. There was nobody who could explain him all these phenomena which used to scare him or get interested in. That was why he had to be very careful and suspecious about anything which seemed to be new or unknown. /^t/Since those times our whole human race and nature have undergone considerable evolution. Along with our evolution the means of communication have changed. The simple speech of primitive cultures has been replaced by the never ending run of information and notions reaching us by the help of television, radio, satelitte, the Internet, newspapers, posters and the most modern technic appliance of the contemporary world which is perhaps (hope not the last) a computer that I am using right now to type this essay for your research. /^t/With such a wide range of information sources to benefit from, we do not have to be afraid of any unknown phenomenon any longer, because nowadays we can obtain the answer for any question we ask at once. This modern mass media serve culture, education and any further development of the mankind. But is it the whole truth? /^t/Discussing the vast and deep subject of contemporary mass media, we have to remember about a large army of people who have immense influance on us. They show us what they want us to see. They have a real power over masses of people who need some information as well as entertainment. /^t/Television both native, public and international "sattelite plates" is the leading medium of today's world. Plenty of people spend incredible amount of hours and their whole free time in front of their tellies (so called eye-squered people or couch patatoes) so it is nothing strange that they sooner or later become addicted to it, its style and start imitating presented examples of behaviour, fashion and even the way of thinking promoted on the glass screen. We can even say about such a heavy addiction to television that can be comparable to alcohol or drug habits. /^t/Television fills every cell of our brain (because our brain perceives information more visually than audibly, we are not Mozarts with an ear for sound living in a baeutiful Barouque epoch) with flickering, moving pictures, different opinions, sounds, flying colours, making our minds emptier and emptier at the same time. /^t/Deprived of any kind of own opinion man can became an easy victim of political manipulation, propaganda, widely used before any elections, a victim of stupid advertisments offering illusions on condition that some or other product is purchesed, or finally... a backword watching again and again the same Brasilian, exotic soap opera which has nothing to offer except the same motionless clip with the main actor repeating all the time in funny Spanish <*> sending endlessely carta de amor to another main actress. /^t/The younger viewer the worse. Children are engaged most as far as watching tv is concerned. They always treat everything seriously and cannot tell the difference between the right or wrong, true or false and that is why everything which happens on the tv screen is simply the true life for them. /^t/Unfortunately, in this matter people responsible for tv-programmes seem not to notice such a visible and serious problem. Television propagates cartoons for the younger audience but they are primitive, ugly, full of rage, violence and teach nothing good in this way. /^t/As far as films go, there is nothing better, either. Producers and film makers tend to reflect our deepest but primitive desires in their films, subconsciously imposing certain models of living and behaviour on us It is always the reason of frustration in people, who wish to imitate those models without any criticism. It is also one of the reasons of increasing violence and crime on our streets. It is a patently obvious sign that mass media can affect our approach to reality. /^t/Actually, they can even affect our communities or the whole nations. But all those people who want to manipulate the others, using mass media, might at last become the victim of their own manipulation - secret, unrevealed media wapon... /^t/What can we, as common viewers and bread-winners, possibly do about the whole problem of mass media? /^t/We should probably either learn how to choose the most valuable pieces from among a flowing wave of rubbish, following our own judgement, or just accept everything which mass media want to push into our brains (or pull it out..?) and become credulous, passive, will-deprived objects of global manipulation. <0265> /^t/The public's right to be well-informed is one of the most important principles of a civilised society. The task of informing people about world events and current issues is accomplished mainly by mass-media. However, nowadays' polls are demonstrating the public's increasing dissatisfaction with the level of violence, brutality and aggressive sex present in press, on the radio and TV. What is more, many people accuse mass-media of manipulating the public opinion, influencing the way of thinking or changing their outlook upon life. The question whether mass-media affect our approach to reality seems to be complex and difficult to answer immediately since it can be looked at from several points of view. /^t/It is often said that more and more people spend their leisure on insane and thoughtless watching television or listening to the radio, not realising how great impact it has on their minds. The ones who are especially susceptible to the negative influence of this cheap form of entertainment are children and youngsters, perfectly satisfied with such a passive enjoyment. Unfortunately, nobody makes families more aware of what their children should watch or read. They often bloom into juvenile delinquents, who - often unaware - follow ineptly in television heroes' footsteps, forgetting that reality and fiction differ in great measure. /^t/Apart from silly cartoons, violent films and newspaper articles full of burtragous gossips, children and adults might be affected by trashy commercials, deluding themselves that everything may be effortlessly accessible and easy to achieve, which in reality causes superfluous and needless disenchantment and embitterment. Many techniques used in advertising are psychologically motivated and appeal to basic human instincts, like greed, vanity or fear, persuading people what they should buy, how should they live and behave. /^t/On the other hand, media are businesses and have to make a profit by commercials and advertisements. Those who are critically disposed towards the media and use them in a reasonable degree neither can be exposed to a danger of being addicted to then nor have to worry about losing their level-headedness, Furthermore, there are special bodies and committees established to control mass-media therefore it is not so easy to be manipulated. /^t/The media explosion has created a number of possibilities to express various political views, to present religious beliefs and cultural values, thereby has helped to transform the world into a global village, where many people watch the same films and shows, read the same articles and listen to the same broadcasting programmes. If those who are responsible for publishing and broadcasting turn to be careful and ethical professionals it will not be difficult to prove that the media have enormous educational possibilities. /^t/The problem whether mass-media influence the approach to reality cannot be solved in terms if generalisation. For some people they might be just an easy, cheap form of entertainment, an important source of information, while for others, who boundlessly believe in everything that is imparted, a real threat of losing their own philosophy of life. <0266> /^t/Poland, since 1991, as well as the other Central European countries is a front runner for future European Union membership. Our country has got a very uncertain geopolitical position between two different political systems, the West and the East, which influences constantly clash causing political and social problems. The situation deteriorated in 1989 after the political transformation and the only chance for a great improvement in living standards and economic situation in Poland is joining the European Union. /^t/European Union, established in 1993 under the treaty of Maastricht, is an economic association that gives its members the opportunity for economic development and prosperity protection. This organization integrates the countries leading their nations to more prosperous and secure future. The rightful members of the association are obliged to pay a certain fee and then they have an equal access to all the funds of the union which promote economic transformations. /^t/International Bank of Reconstruction and Development accommodates the members with a loan or emergency credits designed for the realization of investments projects and for the reduction of budget deficits. Increase in investment together with a new larger market allows to keep the prices down, stabilizes the state of the market and arrests inflation. The other funds of the union, International Monetary Fund and European Currency Union facilitate the increase of international trading that causes the tightening of foreign exchange and the reduction of the fluctuation of currency. The further goal of these funds is the introduction of European Monetary Union that will create free single market for all the members of the association. Common Market with free movement of goods, services, capitals and labour will reduce the costs of transactions, custom rates and exchange-rate fluctuation. Sharing the single market and a set of economic rules will allow businesses to plan investments, set prices and sign long-term contracts that will stabilize the economic status of the country. /^t/The association offers not only the programmes of the funds but also suggests a common social and employment policy and initiates actions which head for the improvement of working conditions and social security systems. Canvassing of poorly developed regions, firm employment market and introduction of obligatory social funds influence the reduction of unemployment and improve living conditions of nations. /^t/European Union stimulating economy makes it easier for its members to adopt to new conditions of a world-wide economy and facilitates coordination among the industrial powers that consolidates the members' contribution to create the Europe's stability. /^t/Despite all the advantages of the union there are people who oppose joining such a powerful organization as the future members are forced to make several structural changes to meet Maastricht target. Becoming a rightful member is not automatic and requires the fulfilment of the key Maastricht Treaty conditions like reduction of budget deficits to 3 percent of gross domestic product, low overall debt, low interests rates and partial exchange-rate stability which are impossible for most of the countries. The opponents also argue that the countries so closely connected will lose their independence and the essential national sovereignty. /^t/Considering the advantages and disadvantages of being a member of the association it is obvious that the union gives poorly developed countries the opportunity for economic development and stability. For Poland, where people are still confused and frustrated by massive systematic change, it is the chance for stabilization and standardization that will ensure our success in Western Europe. <0267> /^t/"Why join the European Community?" In Poland one of the most debatable and vexed questions of the last years. To some extent, the question is quite ambiguous. The European Community primarily consists of countries the language, tradition and history of which grew out of the Latin culture. Poland has always been a part of this culture, at least for the last millenium and has never abandoned the western system of values, even after The World War II. That is why, here in this essay the term "community" refers to a political, economic and even military alliance of some European countries rather than to the whole family of Latin, European nations, because (as it was mentioned above) Poland does not have to join them as if "again" or just "from scratch". /^t/In the case of such and similar debates there are rational (but sometimes emotional or even demagogic) arguments for and against. This essay is going to be a sort of analysis of at least some of those points of view. /^t/The collapse of communism in the Central-European countries remained them in a terrible economic condition. Some of those countries, Poland among them, started a painful process of economic, political and social reforms. Those changes received ardent support from the European Community, at the turn of the nineties then called yet the European Economic Community. This support was noticeable in, for example, unequal access of Polish goods to the western-European market and vice versa that is: at least for some period of time certain trade barriers were being consistenly and more quickly removed by the common western market whereas the Polish ones were, and some of them still are, to remain unchanged for a longer period of time. This is a concrete element of authentic support from the side of the European Community, the support in protection our national, Polish industry and to fierce competition as well. /^t/But actually why join the European Community?! Would it be profitable decision if Poland joined the European Community? /^t/Definitely it would. In Poland there are many areas of the economic life that have been seriously neglected and should be deeply reformed and changed, among many others: the retirement system, agriculture, heavy industry and so on. Poland as a country does not have enough money and experience to carry out all necessary reforms only by itself and just like many other European countries (in the past also comparatively poor and backward ones, for example Portugal, Spain and Greece) would benefit much from joining the common market and, first of all, the Union budget as it happened in the case of countries mentioned earlier which "stood on their feet" joining the European Community. Also the Union would find a new, large market for its products, instead of having "a poor neighbour" endlessly knocking at the door of rich and safe Europe. A forty-million nation in the heart of the continent just cannot remain outside the European system of trade, finance and mutual cooperation. So, in order not to stay on the margin of historic changes of the nineties, Poland should join the European structures as quickly as possible, the structures that (according to some declarations...) are open to everyone who is able to fulfil certain, quite strict, conditions of membership. /^t/Another important advantage of joining the EC is the ability to travel all over the countries that belong to the Community. Citizens of those countries even do not have to possess passports to move freely from one country to another. Possession of an ID card only often turns out to be sufficient to be regarded as the citizen of the EC. There are of course many more advantages of being a member of the Community. The whole system of safety in Europe is built mainly on NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and this alliance in turn is based on two main pillars: the USA (with Canada) and countries the large number of which belongs to the Union. So, the membership not only in military terms but also thanks to its economic and international interests in which Poland should be firmly anchored to be perceived as a stable and reliable partner. By the way the NATO, the membership in the European Community would facilitate enormously our application for the NATO (which is another crucial element of Polish foreign policy) and, of course, the other way round. It is worth mentioning here that the status of a member in the European Community is somehow inseparably connected with the memmbership in the NATO. Although it is not always "the case", just in the case of Poland it is especially notable. But coming back to the main plot, being only a market of the cheap labour force is not an encouraging perspective. A situation like that is quite likely to happen, to become true unless Poland becomes a member of the EC. /^t/Now, a few remarks about disadvantages of Polish membership in the European structures. Some critics of this membership say that Poland will have to hand over elements of its national, state independence to an international organization: The European Community. For those critics, Brussels (as the centre of united Europe) seems to be a real menace to Poland its tradition, national religion, culture. But, on the other hand, is it possible at all nowadays that an average country may be fully independent in the world of mass-communication high technology and trade? And what about the consequences that are the result of the international cooperation and mutual obligations? Is there a country (apart from superpowers) that can rely only on itself? Besides, can Poland afford to remain in a "buffer zone" between the rich West and the poor and politically unstable East? The answer seems to be obvious. /^t/While analyzing the pros and cons of joining the European structures it is visible that there are more advantages than disadvantages as far as the question of the membership is concerned. But everyone has the right to express their opinions in a referendum that must be held before the final decision whether to join the EC or not is taken. Really, much depends on an individual point of view, on individual choice. For the time being, the majority of Poles are for rather than against the European Community. But to join the Union and reap the profit of the membership the whole nation must make great and painstaking effort to achieve national dreams about prosperity, military and social safety and universal wealth as well. Is it only a dream? Undoubtedly, the future will give an answer to this question. <0268> /^t/The question 'Is it better to be poor and well-educated than rich and ignorant' has been asked by both philosophers and ordinary people since time immemorial. There have always been people for whom being poor is a virtue and people who use their wealth excessively. However, education has always seemed to be valued. Education gives you possibility to understand the world, to benefit fully form the achievements of science, culture and art. A well-educated person is not naive and superstitious. For example, observing a comet in the evenig sky he or she admires this wonderful view instead of waiting for a war or a plague as my sister-in-law did after having seen Hale-Bopp Comet. Education helps you gain self-knowledge which is really important in our life as you can understand and accept yourself and other people. /^t/On the other hand, an ignorant person does not experience all these existencial fears and questions 'Who am I, 'What is my place in the universe' which bother a great number of educated people. It is said in the Bible: 'Blessed poor in spirit' and sometimes during a long night when my thoughts prevent me from sleeping I think that it is much better to be ignorant. You lead a simple life and do not think about all those complicated things. You are forgiven because you do not know what you do. It is my knowledge that causes my pangs of conscience and my longings for something impossible. /^t/Moreover, education without having enough money is like a big but closed window. You can see the world through it but you cannot enjoy it fully. For example I have always been interested in ancient cultures as those of Mexico and South America but I have no money to go there. What is more, if you are poor you sometimes cannot be well-educated because nowadays studying at a university is more and more expensive. On the other hand, if you are rich you do not need to be educated. Nowadays in Poland there are a lot of people who are ignorant but well off. But the rich sometimes do not know how to use their money because they do not see the opportunities the contemporary world offers them. I have a good example in my family. My uncle is very rich but neither he nor his family enjoy it fully. For example, they do not go for holidays and his only entertainment is buying new cars. /^t/I must admit that money gives you the feeling of security. You do not need to think where you will get the money from to buy food, to pay a rent, to send your children to a iniversity, etc. You have a big and comfortable house, a good car and all the things which make our life easier and nicer. If you are ill you can pay for a better treatment which sometimes may save your life. There are kinds of diseases like leukaemia and other kinds of cancer in which you must have a lot of money to have a chance to survive. I have read an article in 'Newsweek' about a new combination of medicines for AIDS which causes that HIV cannot be detected in a patient's blood. It gives hope but only to the rich because those medicines are very expensive. However, when you are poor you are not affraid of being robbed, kidnapped or maybe even killed because of your money. /^t/The choice is very difficult. Fortunately, in the contemporary world the opposition between por and well-educated and rich and ignorant not always has justification because nowadeys well-educated people who are good specialists, especially in economy, business, law, computers and who know foreign languages are wanted and they can earn a lot of money. Moreover, the rate of unemployment in Poland is the lowest among educated people and they are more willing to qualify for a new job. It means that education gives more possibilities in life. /^t/I am not rich. Of course I would like to have a lot of money but not at the cost of my education and intelligence; I would not like to be rich but ignorant. I hope that I will earn more money in the future thanks to my knowledge. <0269> /^t/Through the centuries the man's behaviour and deeds have been dependent on a certain pattern, 'gurus' who or which have set the moral and social limits. They told people how they should act, speak, dress or even feel. Our 'gurus' changed with times and people. They were conventions, traditions or, simply, institutions which imposed a certain lifestyle to make money on it. /^t/The twentieth century man has the opportunity to choose among many different 'gurus'. He can be a churchgoer, a moneymaker or a naturelover. He may be each of them separately or all of them at the same time, but besides all of his 'likes' and 'loves' he certainly is a TV watcher. Almost everyone is ensnared or possessed of the one 'guru', 'the guru of all the gurus', which suitably to its influence is called mass media. /^t/It is enough to look at children. Having watched hundreds of American films, they dress, behave and speak like their American contemporaries. The American behaviour is not foreign or strange for us anymore; we adopted it and it became our own. Watching an American movie we are less surprised by the characters' behaviour than watching a Polish film. Even the American sense of humour, which is said to be so difficult to translate, is more comprehensible than the one of Germans, Czechs or Russians. The American culture, probably thanks to its variety and versatility, has entered our TV sets and our minds without any murmur at it. /^t/We watch the colourful TV, we read the colourful magazines and suddenly we realise (or not) that we do not fit the model of the life they present, that we are not up-to-date having unfashionable clothes and haircut and driving an old Polish fiat. Thus we want to look like Cindy Crawford or Antonio Banderas (dependable on sex and liking), drive a snazzy new Ford, Toyota or Mercedes and live in a luxury penthouse flat. We do our best to reach the ideal. We get rid of the old car, worn out clothes and an old-fashioned haircut but, in spite of all those efforts, we are still far away from the perfect. /^t/The inability to gain the model of beauty and to live a 'TV' life causes our depression. We are unhappy for we were not able to become the 'mass-media-model citizen of the world'. We feel dissapointed and lost, but first of all, useless and weak, we start to feel like a total nonenity. /^t/The only consolation for us is the spirit-raising thought that our outlook on life has widened and that we (or at least some of us) become more open-minded and unprejudiced. A magazine reader or a TV watcher do not look at African people's dance and cries and say, 'abnormal', 'weird' or 'evil' any longer. Now they say, 'fascinating', 'beautiful' and watch it with a tolerant curiosity of a homo sapiens who KNOWS, or is, at least, INFORMED. /^t/This may sound trivial and funny but all those ads and commercials make us citizens of the world. We do not need to be ashamed of living in a not very well-off and not very well informed country. The mass media allow us to be trendy, fashionable and aware of the world's most important events. /^t/So do not go out though the sun is shining, do not go to the forest or to the mountains to admire the treasure of nature because you may get sunburnt or you may fall off the mountain. It is dangerous. Do not go out; it is everything right here for you in the small 'playing box', on the black screen or on the white page in front of you. You do not have to move! Stay with us! <0270> /^t/English is an easy language to learn - there are some arguments for and against this statement. In my opinion looking at this topic we must take into consideration personal attitude of the learner to the language and difficulties which he or she can find during the process of learning. /^t/English is the most popular language in the world. Nine hundred and fifty million people speak it. Now we can hear it almost everywhere. We turn on a television set and we can notice that advertisements, songs and films are full of it. There are a lot of books, magazines, very interesting articles we want to read and without knowing the language we cannot do that. First of all it mobilizes us to learn it. It is obvious that such good intensions and positive attitude towards the language are helpful and very important. English is very pleasant for an ear - that is another thing thanks to which people like and want to learn it. /^t/That occurence of English in our everyday life helps to familiarize with the new language. For example children know a lot of words, idioms without learning it at school and when they start to learn it the pronunciation, some vocabulary are not new for them. It is quite a good beginning for these learners. /^t/There are a lot of publishing houses that print really very good books to learn English, which are suitable for different age and levels of students. /^t/The lack of conjugation and declension is also a good side of learning this language. /^t/Of course there are also difficulties during learning the language. They are caused by large differences between English and Polish grammar. I am going to show only some examples of them. For instance we do not have as many tenses and it is hard to understand when we should use them. We have three tenses: past, present and future. The most difficult English one is the Present Perfect, because translated into Polish it can be present or past. But when you understand it, the stable constructions make it easy to communicate. The normal structural word order of an English sentence is: subject-auxiliary-main verb-direct object-prep. indirect object. /^t/There are a lot of things you have to learn by heart, for example multi-word verbs which can have literal and idiomatic meaning, idioms that differ a lot from Polish ones. There are also a lot of irregular verbs. /^t/English spelling is not phonetic. Students have to learn separately pronunciation and spelling of each word. /^t/Because the stress in English may fall in so many different places in the word, naturally the rules of stress assignment have to be more complicated there than in Polish. /^t/Students have also problems with articles that there are not in Polish language and with prepositions that cannot be translated word-for-word. /^t/In spite of all problems you can find during learning this language, I do not think it is a difficult one. English pronunciation and vowels can be troublesome but comparing it with Sedong, a Vietnamese language, that has the largest number of vowel sounds - fifty five in total - it is very simple. There are also languages which spelling is much more difficult than English, for instance French, Chinese or Japanese. /^t/I think we can find a lot of much more difficult languages and some easier ones. It depends on which group of languages your native language is from: Germanic, Slavonic, Romance or others. /^t/If you like the language and your attitude towards it is positive and you can see an aim in learning it, it is not difficult for you to overcome difficulties and to learn it. <0271> /^t/The power of the media has been recognised early. They're regarded as the most important source of information and television has become the single most significant leisure-time activity in developed countries. Together with the spreading importance of the mass media, some questions have been asked about their role in shaping the world around us. Do the media help to understand our life or not? To what an extent do they affect our approach to reality? Do they change the world around us? /^t/It's common knowledge that the media are extremely effective in moulding public's opinion and setting moral and aesthetic standards. Advertisers delude people with miraculous products. Proprietors of journals include opinion and information sympathetic to their business and personal concerns. In dictatorships and communist countries the party in power suppresses all inconvenient facts and opinions making people misinformed. Although in democratic countries television and radio aren't supposed to take sides and support one political party rather than another, they still influence and manipulate people. For example, when the war broke out in Vietnam it was the press photography and TV reports that had the strongest effect on organising anti-war demonstrations in America. The power of an image is sometimes underestimated but it has much more considerable impact on us than we suppose. /^t/The public's increasing dissatisfaction with the levels of sex and violence on TV also proves that the scenes we see affect our thinking and change our outlook on life. Violent images permeate the minds of young people who afterwards have problems in distinguishing between fiction and real life. They're so used to aggression on TV that they transfer it into their lives and treat it as a way of living. /^t/The recent film by Oliver Stone Natural Born Killers describes such a phenomenon. The whole film can be treated as a satire on the media which can do whatever they want with the viewers. It's a warning against the brainwashing of the media which can persuade people to believe that white is black and can make murder and crime an exciting experience. /^t/Fortunately, not all people are TV-maniacs. There are some people who realise that the media don't reflect the reality so perfectly. They're aware of the fact that some people smile in the midst of disaster because they know they are going to be on TV soon and that others tend to distort suffering or pleasure in the drama of interview. Many newspapers have a credibility problem and people consider some of the content as 'entertainment' rather than 'news'. /^t/The influence of the media is enormous. However, according to the recent polls in Poland, the young people over fifteen are mostly influenced by their peer groups and family. It's the nearest environment that imposes most values and is responsible for our behaviour, attitude towards life and our way of thinking. The mass media aren't the only element of culture. Other aspects of culture such as methods of education or religious doctrines also contribute to our way of seeing the world. Some religious people find the mass media destructive and threatening to their own believes and values and they are highly selective in what they absorb from them. In other words, they don't allow the media to become dominant in their lives. /^t/Another fact is that the media which shapes our reality also have to reshape itself. For example, people nowadays expect amusing features in the press, radio and television and the media have to fit the needs. It means that the public's taste influences the structure and form of them. We can see, then, that both the media and the society can manipulate each other in a very subtle way. /^t/I think that modern civilisation experiences sort of fascination about the media. It's manifested by the arrival of Internet in the mid-1990 which has revolutionised mass communication. The constant development of the various means of communicating information to the public is undeniable and is a feature of the modern world. I don't regard the media's influence on people's lives as undesirable. They are part of our reality and we simply can't ignore them. <0272> /^t/Few people nowadays can imagine their homes without a television or a radio. Either as a source of entertainment or information, mass media undoubtedly plays an important role in our lives. If we take into consideration how much time we devote to watching TV or listening to the radio we must admit that they do influence us considerably. The fact, then, is unquestionable. Yet, the basic question concerning the subject is: does mass media have a good or bad influence on us? /^t/Let's start with advertisements. Generally they are very useful. They serve as a kind of guide what to choose from a huge assortment of goods on the market, so they have a clearly informative purpose. But, on the other hand, don't they mostly have a stupefying effect on us? "Persil washes whiter" says the voice over and over again and millions of housewives are absolutely convinced that it does, so they rush to buy it. Advertisements breed a materialistic attitude to life, employing tempting pictures of paradise just within the reach of your hand. The only thing you have to do to feel absolutely happy is to buy a bar of "Bounty" or a packet of "Always Classic". /^t/It is almost a slogan now that thanks to mass media the world has become a global village. There is a quick exchange of information, ideas, cultures. It makes people realize that however we differ, we share some common problems and some common features, and being familiar with other people's opinions, cultures and habits we become more tollerant and more open. But there is one danger in it. When millions watch the same programmes, they become the same. They watch the same films, listen to the same music, wear the same clothes, eat the same food and have the same opinions. Thus, mass media unifying force kills individualism. Countries lose their identities, native cultural values which are dominated mostly by a commercialized, noisy, skin-deep American lifestyle. /^t/Mass media is a cheap source of information, education and entertainment. It is not just a slogan that it broadens our mind - it really does. News provides you with information on current affairs in the world, numerous educational programmes bring closer the world in all its aspects with its strange phenomena, wonders but also problems. And finally there are a lot of films and programmes which keep you amused after your hard workday. Some people argue that it is us who influence mass media and not vice versa, meaning what we watch on TV, hear on the radio or read in a newspaper reflects our nature. Since we are just humans, this means we are both: good and bad, so we can experience both having access to mass media. On one hand, then, there are endless images of heroism, good, grandeur, charity and loving, but on the other hand mass media emulates darker side of our nature employing pictures of violence, unpleasentness, evil and cruelty. It is all right if pictures of hungry children in Ethiopia evoke in you sympathy and willingness to help. But what if a picture of a blood-thirsty warrior from one of these action movies will make some youngsters take a gun or a knife and follow him? /^t/The next slogan is that mass media is a splendid medium of communication. Thanks to sattelite TV, for example, in no time you may learn about what happened thousands of miles away. You feel a citizen of the world. Switching one small button is enough to be well-informed, sharing or rejecting ideas from all over the world. But paradoxically this belief that mass media improves communication among people is just an illusion when you realize that it is just the contrary. You may feel happy to know a lot from an interesting TV programme about some uncivilized tribe in the Borneo jungle, but don't be surprised if being too preoccupied with a silver screen or with a piece of paper, soon you won't be able to communicate with your wife or children and you won't know what's going on at home. <0273> /^t/We are living in the highly developed computers, ubiquitous radio, television and press era. It is the time of the great development of various means of both data transmission and processing. /^t/But do the press and radio or TV stations meet the social needs and requirements? Are they faithful and do they transmit reliable information and serve the public? /^t/At the beginning I would like to draw attention to Michael Medveda's comment that he gave three years ago in "Pro Familia" programme on Channel 1TVP. He claimed that the twentieth-century mass culture determines anew social needs, both material and sexual, and defines violence and promotes "world-famous" styles and conventions, and the power of mass media consists in indicating what is "normal". It does not specify what is to be accepted but it determines things that people should expect. /^t/It follows that experts on this field are aware of harmful influence of mass media which appears to be one of the most significant problems of the contemporary world. According to the latest statistics an average Pole spends about four hours a day watching TV and during weekends even more. Such high ratings mean that watching TV takes more than twelve years of our life. Mass culture seems to enjoy the "play" of multiplying the varieties of offers. More and more often the public is shocked by some of them. In March 1993 in Liverpool two ten-year-old boys committed the horrific murder of a two-year-old child. The investigation revealed that the juvenile murderers modelled themselves on the film they had seen. Polish children quite often play at being barbarians and bandits. In January 1994 in Chorzow two teenagers wanted to see how a real death looks like. So that, they organized a kind of "crime show". They killed a young boy by pricking his body slowly and carefully, with great precision. Young children, teenagers and adults try to imitate protagonists seen in films or known from comics. Despite what the media "say", things we watch have a harmful influence on us and they create our attitudes. The loads of money spent on advertisements would be the proof of that. Death and scenes of brutality are more and more frequent in programmes meant for children, who are highly susceptible to the harmful effects of crime and violence seen on TV. Young viwers of both the big and the small screen fiction are prone to employ the screen ideals to solve their own problems. Their ability to criticize, and defensivness have not been fully developed yet. /^t/Looking through the TV programme I saw some quite interesting items of the Educational TV that show promise, but unfortunately, they are on from 1.00 to 3.00 p.m., when most young people are still at school. Nevertheless, apart from unsophisticated soap operas some more ambitious offers can be found as well. Producers attempt to justify the necessity of soaps on the air, as they are appropriate for relaxation after long hours of hard work. I will not exaggerate if I say that many Polish people are likely to get abased and depressed after having seen screened Americans that lead a life full of luxury and comfort. Fortunately, there are a few words of consolation. Michael Medveda claimed that American films hardly ever reflected a real American life. Actually, it is full of common problems. /^t/A lot of doubts appear while considering the influential power of mass media. Are not propaganda tendencies prevailing in political and communication transmission over reliable information? Press and news bulletins are often full of false facts that have been distorted by special manipulative dealings. Contemporary sociology uses perfect techniques to shape social consciousness, so that people not be able to make their own choices even though they belive they would. Not being aware of that they follow subconsciously the guidelines laid by media. Another technique of manipulation is "cliche". It consists in the camouflaging simplification of the description so that it was shown only in one particular light, for example, some faults are emphasised while the good features stay in concealment. The media present their points of view as the reliable, obvious and generally accepted ones, using such statements like "Everybody knows...","It is generally known..." or "It is undisputed that...". Therefore those people who "dare" to have their own opinions are considered to be eccentrics and individuals. /^t/The analysis of the influential power of the media appeared as quite a difficult and complex task. The essay is rather subjective and it includes mainly the negative aspects of the problem as they take the lead and I find them the most significant for our civilization. We are living in the information and picture era which creates great opportunities of high personal development and the media themselves are not a menace to public. However, the danger are the people who use the media for their own purposes. <0274> /^t/For over 50 years, since the 1940s, when Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann first dreamed of connecting the coal and steel industries of France and Germany under a common authority, every phase of the integration of Europe has been accompanied by the cries of those who said: "it'll never happen". And the globalization has gone on irrespective of that. The integration of European countries took up almost four decades. In 1957 the European Economic Community (EEC) was established. In 1967 there was created the European Community (EC). And finally, in 1992 after signing the Maastricht Treaty the EC became the European Union. /^t/Poland is one of the countries that rank as front runners for future EU membership. What are the basic reasons for such a situation, why should our country join the European Union? First, the countries of the EU signed the Single European Act that provided for the creation of the Single European Market. Such Single Market, established in 1993, began guaranteeing free movement of people, goods, capital and services. And taking part in such a market would give Poland the chance to progress economically by leaps and bounds. Second, those who live in that Single Market decided to establish the European Monetary Union (EMU) and eventually to create a single European currency. Stage one of EMU provided for full liberalization of capital movements. Stage two of EMU established the European Monetary Institute. Stage three that will take place in 1999 will start monetary union. And, probably after the year 2000, Euro notes and coins will replace national currencies over a six-month period. The two factors (Single Market and single European currency) that have already been mentioned and a shared set of economic rules would strengthen the ties that bound Europe together. Those ties are very important as far as the third reason for joining the European Union is concerned. Our nation which crawled from the wreckage in 1945 had seared into it the memory of a Europe that had twice sacrificed millions of its people. Poles have long joked about their uncertain geopolitical position. Poland is "a country which is east of the West and west of the East", said playwright Slawomir Mrozek. Because of this the Polish government understands that the best way in which we can guarantee European peace and at the same time guarantee the security for our nation is to bind the ties of friendship and economic unification between the European countries. The next positive factor in joining the European Union is the chance of cooperation with other Union's members in different fields of everyday life. The countries can help each other financially, they can discover new technologies in the field of corporate environmental management, they can develop the policies concerning environment, health and economics. /^t/Apart from all the advantages of joining the EU that have been mentioned, there are some disadvantages as well. As some say these are: losing independence instead of joining an association of sovereign nations, being swallowed up into a federal European superstate. Some say also that instead of the reduction of deficits in fields of health care and education, the EU is meant to be nothing more than economic power, an union interested only in the way of doing business. /^t/Joining the European Union is a necessity for Poland and other countries in Central Europe. Those of the Central European countries who support the single Europe also support a "deep" Europe with clear values and very ambitious targets accepted and pursued by all its members. This is of primary importance if the European Union is to be the everlasting Union and not an illusory and short-termed way of unification. <0275> /^t/Massive broadcasting information has become popular and extremely necessary during the last period. A modern man while being deprived of the access to the latest news feels like trapped and cut off the outside world. In the past such an access to the information was rather limited taking into consideration slower and less developed system of communication. Nowadays, modern inventions, e.g. Internet make it possible to get or pass certain information almost immediately after it becomes available. Moreover, being in possession of the important news makes a particular person or group of people capable of taking the control over its diffusion and the way of presenting it. Undoubtedly, such ability to control gives enormous power, that can easily be exploited and used to manipulate people's opinions and reactions. The question arises whether it is really possible to change people's way of thinking having better access to the information than others, and presenting people with the artificial view of reality. /^t/Everyday's life is filled with listening to news on the radio, watching news on TV, reading about it in the newspapers, or just hearing it in the shops, on the bus. Those apparently disconnected fragments join together in our mind creating the certain picture of the world around. In fact almost no one thinks about whether those pieces fit the factual situation and do not contradict one another. On the one hand, we are convinced of being able to select among that abundance of news and choose the true one. On the other hand, hearing the same information in the two different news broadcast we become less sure of what is real and what to believe. Finally, after trying to find out the truth we become confused and we cannot get rid of the feeling of being manipulated. As a matter of fact mass media have developed an extremely sophisticated system of informing the society about the latest events. Furthermore, news can be diffused in the way that best suits the interests of the particular group. In other words, everything that accompanies the presentation of the certain information is important, i.e. speakers appearance, his/her gestures and mime as well as the very tone of the speaker's voice. Today's news broadcasts are tightly filled with various reports and announcements. It is not so difficult to make an important information disappear among such abundance of news or help it to become more visible when necessary. There is no doubt that all those factors influence our subconsciousness and greatly contribute to our later attitude towards particular phenomena. They create an artificial world controlled as in Orwell's '1984' by the Big Brother. /^t/To thoroughly illustrate the influence of mass media on our life one more examples should be given. It concerns the astonishing art of advertising. It surrounds the average inhabitant of almost each country from everywhere spreading the imaginary world of beauty and happiness in front of his eyes. Seeing beautiful girls and handsome men presenting a new product one starts believing in its miraculous power and tends to live in that non-existing world. The real world is no longer the suitable place as the different and apparently better dimension seems to exist, even though it is at first inaccessible. /^t/The above examples present rather pessimistic of the contemporary world manipulated by the powerful mass media. In fact, no one is able to escape from that system being at the same time a part of it. Being aware of the danger of losing control over one's own life and submitting to the rules set by media may help in saving at least a part of reality. <0276> /^t/Much has changed in the Old World since 1945. From rubble towards prosperity, democracy and even unity - this is, in short, the way Europe has gone through. As it approaches the millenium, the Continent is alive with energy. Not only do the West Europeans, who have always been one or more notches above their Eastern 'compatriots', enjoy unleashed freedom. Self-confidence, free-market economy, the possibilities of entrepreneurial growth, a sence of radical change have also affected the fledging democracies of the former Soviet-bloc countries. /^t/It is not, of course, that europe is a Promised Land once sought in America. The echo of the Yugoslavian genocide reverberates throughout the Continent. Growing unemployment, aging population, racial misgivings and the highest social expenditures seeem to be ineradicable from the European 'paradise'. Yet much has been achieved. The atmosphere of unity is almost palpable on the Continent. /^t/Despite the initial little enthusiasm about the Maastricht Treaty and a European Union, it remains the most attractive economic club and many countries wait to join it. Though the idea of the common foreign policy broke down during the Yugoslavian conflict when Europe's role in reaching an agreement was almost insignificant, more and more European countries acceede to NATO, an organization which proved to be an effective peacemaker. With the exception of the Balkans, regional conflicts do not burden Europe as much as other countries. Still they do emerge occcasionally and then the co-operation with other countries may turn out to be useful. European nations are very much diversified, the historical-cultural diffrences being deeply rooted in the past and as shown in the former Yugoslavia, if not tackled appropriately this may result i unending fraticidal feuds. /^t/Although the nuclear threat is no longer a problem it is more reasonable to be a member of any military alliance so as to ensure oneself adequate security policy and credible defence. It must be remembered that the admission of Russia is one of the E.U.'s priorities and judging by the steps it has already taken, especially Russia's acceeding to the alliance "Partnership for Peace", its final integration with the Union is no longer a wishful thinking but a question of time. Then both those who back the integration with Russia rather than th E. U. and those who favour splendid isolation may find themselves equally wrong. /^t/We are, willy-nilly, heading for a new unified Europe. The large market, if governed by common budgetary and fiscal policy will offer many possibilities for the assembled members. More importantly, non-members will be eliminated from the marketplace, which is already the case. Those who are against joining the E. C. ofthen fall back on the argument that it will ruin home economy, especially the state-supported agriculture. They also resort to the old cliche about promoting home products and their superiority over foreign merchandise. The very argument is as often used as abused. For an average consumer it is freedom of choice that is vital and this is ensured by compatitiveness. /^t/Finally there is a problem of culture and identity. Should diversities be kept or should there be cultural homogenity? It seems that gradual homogenizing is unavoidable, but those who argue for hightening Europe's diversity of culture often combine it with cutting off from E.C., whereas the two are not mutually exclusive. We are not indiscriminate. We are the choices we make. The European legacy with all its richness is obviously something to be preserved. It makes the attractiveness and uniqueness of our continent. It is an incentive to the growth of the European turism. If we want to participate in it, it is only through th E. C. /^t/Why join E.C.? Ask yourself: Why not? Oscar Wilde said,(The best way to resist temptation is to yield to it" <0277> /^t/The election campaign begins in a few days time and all the political parties are trying to get electors' votes by presenting their opinions about the policy that Poland should pursue in the next four years. They differ in many aspects, however, most of them generally agree in one - that our country ought to join the European Union. /^t/Joining the European Union means joining the European Community. I'll try to argue whether it is profitable or not. But first I'd like to characterise the European Community shortly. /^t/The European Economical Union was established in 1957 in Rome, by six countries: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg. In 1973 Denmark, Ireland and Great Britain joined it, and in 1986 Spain and Portugal were also admitted. A few years ago the EEC developed into the European Union which today consists of fifteen countries. /^t/In 1999, some of them/ the ones with the lowest inflation and the biggest economical growth/ are planning emission of Euro - the common currency - as a replacement of their national currencies. It is to stabilize the economy and decrease inflation, which means that prices would not go up very often. /^t/It is often said the joining the EU will bring us prosperity and money. I think that whether it is so, we will see in some years time. /^t/In my opinion there are some advantages and disadvantages of joining the EU. I will present at least some of them. I'll start with advantages. /^t/After joining the EU Polish law would have to be similar to the ones in other European countries which would make our country the place where foreign businessmen could invest their money and the result of it would be the increase of economical growth and what follows it, creating new workplaces and at the same time reducing unemployment rate. /^t/Another advantage of joining the EU is that we would have 'freedom of movement' provided by the Shoengen treaty signed by the EU countries two years ago. There would be no borders in Europe in a few years time/for members of the Union/. This means that the EU citizens will be able to travel, work and settle down anywhere they'll want to. They will be able to travel and visit countries without any passports, visas, etc.. /^t/These are the advantages but there are also some disadvantages of joining the Union. Although Polish products would be exported to other countries without any duties, there would also be a problem of uncontrolled import. Because our country is hardly competitive with western companies and this would cause many workers to be redundant what would raise the unemployment rate. /^t/Another danger connected with joining the EU is that if we did join it, maybe not in the first years of the pact but in later ones our economy, budget would be dependent on Western economy. This might lead again to the increase of unemployment. /^t/And the last but not the least disadvantage is the possibility of losing of Polish culture, heritage and tradition. Won't they be forgotten when we 'join Europe?' I am afraid that our identity as a nation may vanish. /^t/Most people who are asked whether we should join European Community will probably say that yes, yes of course but are they really aware of not only advantages but also disadvantages, I am not so sure. /^t/I think that we all should realise that there are not only advantages but also disadvantages of joining European Community. /^t/But I am an optimist and I think that this decision may bring us relatively more profits than loses. Poland and other European countries are joined in common business and the connection should be developed by our joining European Community. <0278> /^t/Life in modern world has become accelerated with abundant information circulating so that each day one is overwhelmed by a huge flow of words and pictures broadcast on TV, radio, or printed in newspapers and magazines. As all these except for providing information also serve educating and entertaining, they are constantly existent in almost everybody's life in various forms, therefore it is obvious that they have certain influence over people's minds. /^t/One of the components mass media comprise is advertisements aiming at convincing both watchers and listeners that what they see or hear is best and they should 'try it and buy it'. Some people claim that, being immune to commercials as ridiculous and exaggerated, they treat them purely as a means of acquiring information about new products. One may notice, however, that this 'immunity' is finally broken so that one purchases what they never wanted as a result of permanent audible and visual bombardment, one of psychological tricks used by creators of advertisements, of which a man in the street is completely unaware. /^t/Among things produced by visual mass media and affecting human opinions and attitudes, hence altering the perception of reality, are also films, in particular action films. On the one hand one might oppose this idea and state that these are quite harmless. In fact, they depict the world as the one of dehumanised people with their only priorities in life being money and violence, whereas things such as law, moral codes, or family values are ridiculed or abandoned as helpless. /^t/Less serious, yet still disturbing, is the affect of soap-operas, mainly on elderly people who, watching the slight representation of existence carrying inconsiderable or none psychological truth and realistic reference, become addicted to and emotionally involved in them, thus approaching the characters and events as part of their own life. Both types of films prove a significant impact on human minds displayed by lessening distance to fictitious matter and apparently blending it with reality. /^t/Portraying life in this mode is extremely dangerous in case of young and susceptible people whose immaturity and lack of critical view may (and so often do) cause them to accept the screen fiction as factual of which a direct outcome is employing certain behaviour patterns in actual life. Accordingly aggression and alienation (not to mention the desirous attitude to money) become common phenomena and lead to calamitous effects when, for instance, a teenager kills their friend accidentally merely because they cannot judge their own strength, the consequences of a fight, or solely out of curiosity. /^t/Discussing the influence of mass media over people one may not disregard the problem of everyday news becoming more and more sensational by presenting war atrocities and crimes as if they were a normal thing to observe. Although justifiable to some extent (as a piece of important news) no one can ignore the fact that it is destructive to the psyche, especially of children and adolescents who, exposed to much cruelty, become callous for suffering and pain of others. /^t/Another conspicuous aspect associated with mass media is politicians in whose hands they are a forceful weapon they use to spread and 'sell' their views and policy to achieve support. Though one should not deny their good intentions it is frequently so that plenty of what they say is just what they want people to know and believe. As an average person is unable to verify credibility of their words they are limited in their judgement when deciding mainly according to what they are told by politicians. /^t/All the above examples show that mass media form our opinions and alter our attitudes to life even though many people would assert that they never allow a person or thing a to influence their views. The reason for this is that most of the changes that undergo in their minds people are rarely aware of and, furthermore, scarcely find time to halt and think whether the things they perceive in mass media are valuable or vile, or at least reliable. <0279> Since the time mass media, generally understood as newspapers, TV, radio, entered our lives they have played an important role in our society. Why? Let's start with newspapers since printing is the oldest invention among the three ones. Before Gutenberg very few people were literate and few works of art were created, let alone newspapers. The development of printing fostered the flow of information, general education flourish and people started to read and write for a variety of reasons, such as to exchange ideas, information, to learn something or for pleasure. Nowadays at every newsagent we can choose from a wide range of newspapers and magazines; the quality of which, however, differs very much. How does it affect us? We read regional newspapers and know what is going on around us; we read national newspapers and learn about our country's affairs; we read international newspapers and find out about other countries' actions. As a result, we not only feel more connected with the local environment but we are also able to think globally at the same time. The same applies to TV and radio, although they combine different ways of communicating. In the case of radio sound is what counts more and TV adds vision to it. Mass media keep us informed which enables us to stay abreast of time and take proper measures whenever necessary. To illustrate it, let's recall the latest earthquake in Iran. The international aid was organised very quickly mainly thanks to mass media which desplayed the tragic situation of the survivors soon after the earthquake and passed on the request for help around the world. It must be firmly stressed that any information should be presented to us objectively and in a reliable way, otherwise we are manipulated and our images of the world are artificially shaped. The best example of it are commercials which overwhelm us from everywhere. The world they present is very colourful and wonderful, people are happy and successful because their problems are solved by the advertised goods. While watching any commercial we should treat it as a source of information about a product but we should not be too gullible and believe in everything it says as it is usually very catchy but tricky too. Films have a great - not necessarily positive - influance on us, especially serials as they are on TV for a long time. They set certain stereotypes about the people they are about, their lives and the society they live in. The problem is that we usually do not see them working or studying but only enjoying their lives. Their principles are not so easily applicable to our situation so when youngsters follow the values of well-to-do young people from Beverly Hills they lose their own genuine personality, they become similar to each other as they bear themselves the same way. They assimilate with the characters from the films so much that they find it difficult to accept and understand Polish realia. Any educational programme, either on TV or the radio, any specialised article in a magazine is a means of learning for everyone, including students, teachers or people keen on something specific. There are many magazines specialising in one realm, for example "Poznaj Swiat" in tourism and geography or "Wiedza i Zycie" in science and sociology and there is a so-called educational television broadcasting specialised programmes on various subjects. Thanks to them anyone willing to broaden his\her general knowledge of the world has an easy access to useful information. All in all, there are many ways in which mass media affect our approach to reality and they are, by no means, all positive or good for us. We should beware of being easily taken in by the images of the world they create and we should be critical towards the information they present to us. <0280> /^t/European Community is an organisation which consists of many European countries which together constitute one big construction, based on unifed army and foreign policy directed towards the countries which don't belong to them. They also have the same currency and production strategies. /^t/The E.C. membership is a ticket which gives wider access to culture and new technology to a country which aspires to be one of the accepted countries. Incorporation of Poland into its structures would mean that we will be able to make use of all those things in future. A concrete military system would guarantee a considerable level of safety under the umbrella of its members, for if any of the members is atacked, the others must take the measures in defending the country. The E.C., which has got an easy access to dollar funds, launches every year many developmental programms for the benefit of the less developed ones. It would be a great chance for Poland to make use of such funds. The E.C. also would give Poland a free access to European market (the members don't pay taxes on the borders for imported goods). /^t/It would be an uncomplete picture of the union if we were to consider only the advantages of belonging to it. Poland's E.C. membership would mean further reduction of independence for the European Government. Poland's foreign policy and military systems would be dependent on the Government's directive and Poland would not be supposed to act individually. All decisions will be passed with the mutual agreement and the member will have to obey and carry out established programm. As far as agriculture is concerned, cheap food coming from the area of E.C. is going to be a major threat for Polish economy. The costs of production of food in the Union is much lower than the costs of production of it in Poland. So far the Polish government have set heavy taxes on incoming food from the E.C members but the time we are accepted into the E.C structure, Poland will have to abolish the taxes and allow the foreign products to be present on the Polish market on the same rules as the Polish ones.350 It would mean the further deterioration of agriculture in Poland. The prices will go up and Polish food naturally will be much more expensive than the incoming one. At the end one third of Polish farms may stop to exist due to the described process. There are also many other questions to which Poland doesn't know the answers. Is it possible to leave it? On what final terms are we going to be accepted? What will hapen to our independence and cultural values? We can of course multiply the number of questions which we may ask but one thing is true that we won't get the answers right now because it is simply impossible. But for sure, our culture will undergo an intensive permeation of foreign negative values which may in fact topple Poland's fragile state of things. Even now, wider contacts with Europe give a slow rise to higher criminal number of crimes and robberies commited by juvenile wrongdoers. When E.C. will be closer to Poland it may result in further deteriorration of Polish community. Also Poland's condition of economy may suffer from isolation formed by the economic frames of the E.C. We will benefit from the trade with the organisation but at the same time other countries may stop trading with us because of our involvement in the structures of the E.C. /^t/I think that Poland shouldn't join The E.C. because it will reduce our political and economic independence and position in the world. In addition to it I would be very afraid of cultural and economic influence which may change Poland for worse. <0281> /^t/We all realise that mass media are immensely powerful. We are given access to all sorts of information through media networks, sophisticated computers and satellite system. Nowadays people don't need to leave their house to obtain information or to experience some kinds of events. The present day world has become a global village. /^t/Undoubtedly mass media affect our approach to reality in many fields. For some, there are manly advantages in having broad access to information. For instance, the great power to educate. People are able to learn about things they will never see or experience themselves. Live broadcasting on television or radio gives us fantastic possibility to witness events happening at the very moment not leaving our comfortable armchairs. Furthermore this advanced technique enables people to control all world's affair which seemingly should help to govern them. Fast transmission has not only informative benefits but also gives people the chance to immediate reaction in case of accidents, calamities or wars. Help and rescue could be organised instantly after receiving the bad news. /^t/What's more, mass media are a cheap form of entertainment. The only cost is that of the electricity. And again people can watch the most significant cultural or sport's events. No matter where they take place or how expensive the are, we are able to take part in these happenings. But is it a such a good idea after all. /^t/Before the era of television people had to leave houses to pursue entertainment, excitement or just to experience the world. They used to meet together in order to play. Now the television gives us universal entertainment which seemingly should unite audience all over the world. However such a situation divides people or creates overwhelming alienation as no longer there is a need to gather. What's more, also family life is considerably suffering because of ruling television program. Members of family lost the ability to talk. Lack communication is a still growing problem of contemporary society. The most scary fact is that parents instead of intimate talk with their children, and surely time consuming but how creative upbringing just leave this work to television. Unless there are always naive children's story with a moral we don't need to worry. But the reality is quite contrary. /^t/Let us dwell for a moment on this problem. Giving up upbringing to television is extremely dangerous for the whole society. The fact that children don't know how to communicate, how to share and express their emotions in acceptable way. But they have definitely learnt from silly, violence packed cartoons that crashing using a gun, a laser weapon or even the superpower enables the immediate termination of an opponent. Cinderella is certainly out of date. The present female hero for little kids is a sexy superwoman with fully exposed tits or to cut the long story shorts, she is a mirror reflection of a "call girl." There is no longer clear distinction between good or bad. All characters are equally vicious. Such a dire situation has already brought up the insensitive, callous generation. The term fabulation used by post-modern fiction has found it's equivalent in real life which is so called murder fabulation. The border line between reality and fiction has become very thin. What's even worse the symptoms of reverse syndrome have become very frequent. But the new breed of television is not capable of understanding that we can't reverse the lost life or the harm done. Unless we do something about it our children will become telly addicts and puppets in hands of virtual reality. /^t/Indisputably mass media affect our reality. What's more, skilfully influence our opinion. Specialist on advertising and many others with great competence transform and shape information and also television picture as to convey the wanted effect. For example a disliked politician will be shot through such a zoom as to expose his ugly bits. Which may most probably influence our feeling towards him. We all know thousands of such manipulative examples. /^t/Although we are aware of this fact we still allow mass media to form our opinion, tastes and styles. Generation grows up bombarded with commercials. As a consequence the individualism is out and magacorporate labels are in. The television imposes on society certain model and many of us desire to fit the matrix. So girls want to be skeleton skinny and look like Pamela Anderson. Boys hunt the paragon of macho killer or other demigods. Presumably in a few years all our social customs would become mere imitations of American movies. /^t/In my opinion mass media should be just another form of entertainment. As long as we are aware of the dangers mass media can cause it shouldn't be harmful or addictive. Invasion of culture or habits ought not to outweigh our own historical, cultural and other experiences of our society. Therefore we all should be conscious of the importance to set up a healthy pattern at the start. <0282> /^t/As nowadays mass media especially radio, television and newspapers are widely spread and available almost everywhere, they became the commonest and the simplest means of communication. These characteristics make them indispensable in everyday life and substitute for other kinds of information. People reading newspapers, listening to the radio and watching television form their opinions on the basis of the news delivered. /^t/Firstly, I would like to discuss newspapers. At our market we can find a great variety of newspapers as well as magazines. Everyday newspapers are usually broadsheets whereas periodicals occuring once a week, once a fortnight, or each month have a form of a tabloid. Former ones inform us about current political affairs, sport achievements and about cultural events both national and international and they are the foundation on which we create and base our opinions. On the other hand, every week or month there are periodicals which are colourful and quite extensive. These supply us with more detailed information, which, I suppose, replace reference books, encyclopedias and dictionaries. We are given further reviews of cultural events, comments on political movements and even parts of popular novels. There are as many sorts of magazines as there are areas of knowledge, so specialistic periodicals are published. Some of them can be offered to everyone but at the same time, there are ones which are bought and read only by professionals. In this situation no special books are needed. People buy enough newspapers and they do not have to use any other kinds of written knowledge. /^t/The next widely accessible way of communicatin is the radio. It was the first and remains the most known although not the most often used kind of transmitting information. It is the best as far as the way in which we can use it. Its main advantage is that it can be listened almost in all kinds of conditions. It also provides us with various news and there are stations which specialise in some areas but here one of the main aims is to make each kind of music popular. /^t/Last but certainly not least means of communication is television. This is the most known and the easiest to receive. Television has the privilege of supporting the facts by visual aids. More and more people depend only on the output that is given by television. All they know derives from watching news, documents, films and entertaining programmes. Addicted spectators lack various aspects of knowledge, which makes their vision of life limited. /^t/Reasumming, I would like to say that the statement mentioned in title, proves to be true. Mass media play a significant role in people's lives. First of all, they enable us to communicate, share opinions and exchange experiences. /^t/Secondly, we are well informed and connected with the outside world. We can take advantage, and listening to other people's judgements we can form our private convictions on crucial affairs of human life. <0283> /^t/One may recognize that mass media play a vital role in the contemporary world. As a source of information, they are at the heart of the process of communication. Therefore the very presence of radio, the press and television can have a tremendous impact on human life. The questions arise: How can mass media affect our approach to reality? Is it a positive or negative influence? /^t/Mass media are the means through which people acquire information about the world and through which they derive their knowledge and perceptions about current social and political matters. We can say that they build our awereness of the existence of certain problems and provoke our reaction to them. No wonder that mass media, as they provide us with a discovery of scientific and cultural fields, have a great educational value. By developing of various skills, as for example learning foreign languages, cooking, sewing etc, they display the potenitials of human being and teach people how to improve their qualifications, their level of living. Moreover, they create a feeling of community with people all over the world and through a different kind of entertainment, they allow us to forget about daily problems and to explore another, more colourful world. /^t/However, taken from the other point of view, the influence of mass media on our approach to reality appears to be a negative one. As mass media are very often central to the way we shape and define our lives, they turn out to be a danger to our personality. One effect that most concerns us about mass communication is that any individual derives so much of his view of environment from the mass media. Thus, they can deprive us of the creative thinking and ability to preserve our own world of values. As far as mass media are concerned, one cannot forget about the question of objectivity. There is no doubt that television, radio and the press are not objective. They do select materials and direct our thinking to specific areas which they define as important. They bombard us with images and information concerning particularly crimes, disasters, wars. The results seem to be two-fold. They not only decrease our feeling of security but become a model of bad behaviour as well. It comes to the question: How far can the media direct an individual's actions? All of us have seen children and young people imitate the people on television. This is innocent enough when it encourages fads in language or clothing, but it is far from innocent if - for example - it presents models of violence. The quick, incessant flow of information, similar films, similar political campaigns, all that seem to overwhelm us and contribute to the feeling of some kind of emptiness. /^t/One cannot doubt that the mass media culture has become a dominant feature of our times. As we have noticed throught that discussion, radio, the press and television can influence our approach to reality either in a positive or a negative way. The point is that we should protect our personality and remember that mass media are not irresistable forces. In fact, they are merely potent tools and we have it within our power to use them as we decide. <0284> /^t/The omnipresence of mass media in our everyday life seems at first to be harmless and of minor importance. Nevertheless, all its components, i.e. TV, radio and the newspapers, indisputably distort our picture of the world. /^t/As far as television is concerned, it is commonly referred to as the most manipulative medium. Moreover, almost each national broadcasting corporation is merely a tool in the hands of the ruling political parties. In general, all TV programs are said to be apolitical by nature, yet then how is it possible to explain that after new general elections the management of public TV is quite often radically reshuffled. Furthermore, in news reports some events are completely neglected, while others only briefly mentioned. Besides, the news actually broadcast are carefully selected according to various social, political and economic factors, thus giving us a partial view of the world. One of the most "conspicuous" elements of this biased treatment of certain themes and problems is almost complete lack of programs devoted to minority groups. /^t/An average citizen of any European country spends daily several hours watching TV. There is no denying that common people start following the trends and behaviour observed on TV screens. Although the programs are in a way unreal and commercials present an artificial and ideal picture of a happy family life, people always eagerly devour all novelties, scandals and more or less "biased" news, as if they wanted to forget about their own problems. In fact, one of the famous philosophers once said that happiness is merely escape from reality, and nowadays television seems to be, at least for certain social and age groups, the best substitute of real life. /^t/More or less the same concerns the newspapers, however their impact on our understanding of the world is more subtle and more difficult to notice. Let us imagine that five different daily newspapers in one of the European countries published articles devoted to the same event. In all likelihood the information will be presented according to the specific character of a given paper. /^t/I should ask now if there is a medium which is free from bias and manipulation, even in the country where censorship is no longer a threat to personal freedom. The answer is Internet. This new international network of communication allows us to free and uncontrolled exchange of information. As a matter of fact, we can function in WWW sites both as the addressee and the sender. Unfortunately, even though it remains uncensored, there is a hidden danger in it. For the first time in the history of mankind each of us can send any message (composed of text, pictures, films and voice altogether) to anyone in just a few seconds or minutes, thus making it possible for the would-be terrorists and other criminals to communicate freely and prepare their plans in utter conspiracy. <0285> /^t/History of humankind has been marked by political events of different kind, from the disastrous ones, like wars, for example, during which millions of people lost their lives, to the glorious ones which gave the evidence that there is a possibility of agreement between narions, even the hostile ones. The founding of the European Union is with no doubt an example of the latter. Since the year of 1989 which historically marks the boundary between communism and democracy in many eastern-European countries, it has become an issue of primary importance for them as to whether or not join the Union. Poland is not an exception here. On the contrary, our politicians have been doing their best to bring the date when our country joins the EU nearer. Here, the question arises: why is it so important for us to join the organization? /^t/First of all, there are some economical arguments that give no other possibility for Poland but to join the Union. No matter if we like it or not, without the EU we have no chances, if any, to catch up with better developed countries. Some experts in economy estimate our economival lateness for about 50 years. We can be certain of one thing that we will have to work hard in oreder to be accepted as the member of the EU. Yet, the price we will have to pay for the integration, even if disposed for a couple of years, will be less than the advantages we could gain. One of the advantages will, for example, be a new market accessible for the products of our factories or agriculture. Another question is whether Polish farms are ready to compete with the European ones. /^t/Currently, around 20 percent of Polish people find their jobs in agriculture, while in Great Britain, for instance, this so for 2.2 percent, in France - for 6.7 percent, and in Spain - for 9.2 percent. It becomes clear now that the percentage for Poland is too high and thus a lot of the Polish people living from their farms will have to change their job, especially that one third of the farms, as the experts say, will not be able to cope with the European standards. However, the experts also estimate that 30 percent of Polish farms are already at the European level, with another 40 percent being just about to reach the standards. In spit of these optimistic estimations the current picture of the Polish countryside causes concern and sympathy with its mostly dilapidated farms, ruined barns, ancient tractors and farm machinery, thousands of hectares of untended land. Willy-nilly, our agriculture has to undergo some thorough reforms even if we have not got integrated with the EU. The integration will just speed up the outset of introduction of the reforms. /^t/Our becoming a member of the organization will also bring about some dramatic changes in the labour market, mostly in maining and heavy industry. By the year of 2,000, the number of employees in these branches of industry will have gone down from the present 250,000 to 195,000 people, especially that the rate of productivity of Polish mines is low. However, it will cause the productivity to grow up and it will help to change the mines into economically profitable institutions which will not need, as it is now, to receive the financial aid from the State. Moreover, the money spent currently on the unprofitable mines could enrich the budget for education spending, for example. /^t/The changes in the labour market will inevitably cause more fequent migration of people. It is from generations in our society that once got a flat or built a house, we settle down in one place, with no regard to the fact if we are really satisfied with our work or not. The experience of moving from place to place in a search for a better job, which usual for the average European citizen, seems somewhat strange for the average Pole. However, what is important about a migration is the fact that it causes a man to become not only more self-reliant or self-confident, but also more open for the surrounding world and other people. Such a person will find it easier to adapt to a new situation, too. Thus, it will all positively contribute to a change within ourselves and our mentality, which, to tell the truth, is of the xenophobic character. /^t/To sum up, our country has no other path to step onto but the one that will lead us to the European Union. However, it will not be an easy way to get through as it will cost us some hard work and thorough but still inevitable reforms. But the reward at the end of the path will be the achievement of the European standards not only in economy but in law by our country. And what is more it will also mean putting a definite end to post the second world war political order on our continent. <0286> /^t/Until recently I used to associate the word mass media with the news and entertainment mainly. What comes to my mind now are advertisements and commersials. They are ubiquitous: on TV, on the radio and in the newspapers. It would be difficult for the media to exist without that source of income, because those who advertise their products pay huge amounts of money for it. /^t/All in all advertisements exert enormous influence on people. They are a nuisance to many of them, but in Poland at least TV programmes or films are not interrupted in the middle like in western countries. Besides, while commersials are broadcast you may always go to the kithen and make a cup of coffe and come back after several minutes. Thanks to ads you get a lot of information. For instance, you can find a job or offer it to someone. You may buy or sell a house, a dog, a car (newspapers) or you can purchase the whole range of other things. Some people claim that good quality products do not need to be advertised, but how could you know about them without advertising? Besides, you have a free choice. You don't have to buy anything if you don't like it. Your watching ads on TV doesn't mean you make a purchase. /^t/The latter is not the case of my grandmother. She is the best example of how media affect our approach to life. She firmly believes that what is advertised is the best. She buys almost everything she sees on the telly (exept for more expensive products). She has different sorts of shampoos, soaps, washing powders, food, etc. They say 'Ariel' is the best or 'Vizir' is perfect, so my grandmother buys them both and then she cannot decide which is better. There is something wrong with that their perfection. Every time a product is being advertised it appeares slightly improved later on and it is still the best. How can it be the best if it was supposed to be so the previous time? Coming back to my grandmother, she is very childish. Whenever she watches a soppy film she cries like a child. She experiences the heroes' adventures as if they were hers. When I was younger I myself used to weep about poor cats, dogs or horses. That is not a harmful habit. It is sometimes good to pity someone. /^t/Nowadays, there are so many rubbishy programmes and films full of sadism and cruelty. Films with Sylvester Stallone or Arnold Schwartzeneger for example. They are both very physically fit, strong, muscular and 'brave'. Boys like watching them. They want to be the same as their heroes. They play at war, shooting and killing, trying to imitate famous actors. They bully their younger friends. Very often children have problems distinguishig between fiction and reality, because of television's influence. In this case television is very pernicious for it warps children's psyche and behaviour. /^t/Finally television makes people indifferent and insensible to man's detriment. It is impossible to watch the news without seeing terrible scenes of violence from Bosnia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Angola and other parts of the world. People are in a way fed up with all this. They have seen so many crimes that it seems nothing can take them aback any longer. /^t/Mass media play an enormous role in the life of adults and children. If you don't know where to buy or sell something think of all-powerful media. TV, radio and newspapers provide good source of information and entertainment. Maybe the news is not always good, but so is life in the contemporary world. <0287> /^t/People all over the world learn foreign languages. One reason, why they do it is international communication. It is English that seems to win the competition for primacy among the languages round the world as it is believed to be the easiest one to learn and the most widely used. It is however disputable whether English is in fact the easiest language to learn and there are obviously different opinions in that matter. A number of certain factors should be taken into consideration in that case. First of all we should take a closer look from the point of view of the learners. We cannot of course forget comparing learning English to learning other languages from the point of view of linguistics as it seems to be the key point in the whole discussion. It is obvious that any two languages have different grammars, vocabulary and syntax. /^t/We may try to ask the non native learners of English the question whether it is easy to them to learn the language. It seems to be common among them to approach it from the side of its grammar. Frequently we can hear that English is very difficult because you must learn a number of tenses, conditionals, passives, modals or irregular verbs, what seems to be a lot more than in other languages and in this way much more difficult. Another point of view may assume that English is difficult because of strange pronunciation rules or sometimes rather their lack. Frequently the teachers can hear questions like 'Why is this sequence of letters read in a different way in these two words?'. These difficult to answer questions definitely influence student's motivation and that in effect makes learning more complex. /^t/We should also take a closer look at English from the point of view of linguists. Here we will apply the most common way of exploring the language which is based on comparison with a number of other languages. Shortening the whole procedure we will base on obvious facts which are known even to ordinary people with a little linguistic experience. It is widely known that most European languages in their grammars have genders, complicated inflection of various parts of speech connected with it, various types of declination and different word order rules. When we compare those factors with their equivalents in English it is clearly noticeable that in English they are much simpler or sometimes nonexistent. Best example could be the fact that there are no genders in English except a few nouns which have feminine or masculine character like 'actor (actress' or 'man (woman' which however do not influence declination of any parts of speech. Linguists will also point out certain regularities in grammar which are simpler than in any other language like: 'All progressive tenses have verbs with ing ending.'. They will probably claim that the rules are easy to understand or even sometimes unnecessary but it is enough to remember a few certain schemes. These arguments surely support the claim that English is an easy language to learn. /^t/The division introduced here between the learners and the knowers was intended to show contrasting attitudes towards English and its learning. It should be admitted that there may be some opinions that this division is inadequate to the real situation but the author based his opinion on his own experience as the learner and the teacher at the same time. Concluding we could state, basing on the linguistic point of view. that learning English is at most aspects easier than learning other languages. <0288> /^t/With the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Communist rule, the European Union prepares to open itself to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. It is likely that in a few year's time Poland will be incorporated with the EU. Now the issue of the EU integration is being extensively discussed. People in favour of the idea of integration believe that Poland will benefit from Union membership. However, at the same time there is a considerable measure of scepticism about joining the European Union. /^t/Supporters of integration with the EU declare that unification of Europe is very important and Poland should take part in the process. Participation in common defence, foreign and social policies will guarantee prosperity and position in the world. Those with pro-Europeans views support political, economic and social ties with the European Union. They claim that Polish economy will be spurred on by prospects of the access to a huge market and free movement of goods, people, services and capital. The drive for EU integration will fuel investment. Besides, Poland will be given financial assistance to promote economic and social development. A high level of employment and social protection will be ensured. As a result a standard of living and quality of life can be raised. Moreover, supporters claim that EU integration will help to keep the peace in Europe. International co-operation in Western Europe has proved that nations can live and work together, that they can solve their differences. If they are able to do so they will forget that they are, in the ways that make men kill each other, 'different'. Therefore, no more wars will be ever waged. /^t/People who are opposed to EU integration claim that the European Union does not respect national traditions and social practices. They say that country's personality will be destroyed. Polish language and culture, that have been preserved for over a thousand years, can decline in a very short time. This is one of reasons that accounts for anti-Europeanism and a lukewarm attitude towards the European Union. Besides, opponents say that the prospect of compromising Polish independence in favour of the union with other European countries is not attractive. They are hostile to the idea of the supranational integration that will mean sovereignty being transferred to a level above the nation state. The transfer of power from Polish Parliament to Brussels will mean too much control from abroad and a gradual decline of political and governmental institutions in Poland. Moreover, opponents of European integration are concerned about a bad influence upon Polish economy. It can cause serious domestic problems: increase in prices, taxes, unemployment and inflation in consequence of equalizing prices and costs with those in Western Europe. /^t/Both supporters and opponents of European integration present convincing arguments and want to protect affairs of Poland. Nevertheless, the final decision about the joining the EU should be taken soon. It remains to be seen if Europe will become a United States of Europe according to the wish of Winston Churchill or will be still divided into the West and the East. <0289> /^t/Nowadays mass media play an increasing role in shaping our tast as and opinions. It is the TV-box - the most important invention of the twentieth century which attracts a vast majority of the contemporary population. /^t/When mass media started to develop at the begining of our century their main function was to inform people and bring them close to the world by means of broadcasting a variety of programmes such as: news, political discussions, press conferences, football matches, documentaries or business bulletins, which as they expected were supposed to interest people. When we take into consideration Polish mass media of the 70s, 80s and 90s, we can easily observe significant changes of their function eg. from the informative one into the impressive. A stiring example of this kind is commercials in the present-day TV or radio splitting almost every programme at least three times. Apart from these irritating features of our TV, we are also bombarded with omnipresent quizes, wheels of fortune, audio-tele stuff or "telephoniadas" encouraging us to take part in them and win millions of prizes if only we know whether two plus two makes four. Such stupifying effects are caused predominantly by TV, which found its place in every household to which it sends all sorts of soap operas and long running sagas, watched intensly by housewives. The next aspect of a Polish mass media of the 90s is the amount of violence, sex and crime presented everywhere and very often easily available to children on whom television has its maximum psychological effect. The access to such programmes becomes still easier as parents taking part in the "rats-race", leave their children with a TV on to unburden themselves of their tiring presence. In this context we can put forward a question whether children see what they like or like what they see? We should point out that a younger generation is more curious, better informed, and TV - has been for them a window to the world. However, most television researchers state that television brings a child face to face with adult problems long before he normally encounters them, this tends to give him a view of adult life that is often distorted. For that reason many children may learn from television crime programmes how a holdup is committed and a few children are likely to make use of this information. Secondly the argument that for most children, television is a pleasing experience, a relaxation of tensions and relief from pressing problems does not hold since they are entirely unable to separate the fantasy world of television from the real one. Western sociologists say that such incidental learning from television plays a large part in causing delinquency and crime although the roots of criminal behaviour lie far deeper than television itself. Actually, television only contributes to that gruesome state-of-affairs. It stimulates the sense of terror, lowlessness, and despair. Let us take a drastic example: the four six-year-old boys from Sweden disguised as villans killed a younger girl. Similary the same happened with the two eleven years old boys from Liverpool who often watched their favourite film: "A murder doll Chucky". They kidnapped and killed a two-year-old boy. In the film the Chucky-doll painted blue dies on the railways masacred by his oppressors. A two years old boy was found by a railway station with his head wounded and the whole face coloured blue. This is the extent to which children desire the same effects as in TV programmes. /^t/It points us to sad conclusions that one is ruined by possible effects of all violence on TV. It leads me to believe that mass media may trigger off acts of delinquency by feeling a child's aggresive nature. It may encourage delinquent behaviour by implanting an unreal idea of the importance of violent behaviour in solving human problems. All in all, the TV has two options: either to change or disappear. <0290> /^t/I think that this is a very brave statement. I would not say so and I would be very careful to make such a comment. Personally, I believe that there are no easy or difficult languages. If you want to master a language and if you want to be really good at it, you must take tremendous effort to achieve it, and English is not an exception here. I am convinced about it especially that English is not the only foreign language that I've learned. I have also had some experience with learning other foreign languages. In addition to English I have studied Italian, Russian and German. When I compare these languages I do not consider English as an easy language, although, I do admit that I have noticed some things that are easier about English than about the other languages that I had the chance to learn. But, on the other hand, I have also come across some things that, I think, are more difficult about English than about Italian, for example. Let me explain why I think that English is neither very difficult nor very easy to learn. /^t/There are some arguments that decide that English may be considered an easy language. One of them may be the grammar. When I started to learn English I got the impression that the English grammar was very simple. I am not the only person who thought so. Many people that I talked to about it thought the same. In my opinion the grammar of English is quite simple especially at beginning and pre-intermediate levels. The situation changes once you reach intermediate and, especially, advanced levels. Then the grammatical structures begin to become more and more complex and the level of difficulty can be compared with other languages. Still, I think that, in this respect, English may be regarded as simpler than Italian or German, for example. /^t/Another reason why one may consider English simple to learn is the fact that English is ubiquitous and the access to it is very easy. It's so common that one can find a wide range of English textbooks, newspapers, magazines as well as films or music almost everywhere. We can observe a real influx of British and American cultures. It's enough to take a walk along a street, look carefully and count how many English names or words one can find. I'm sure that the number will be big. So, in this sense, we can say that English is an easy language to learn - we are exposed to it all the time which makes the learning process easier as far as vocabulary is concerned. /^t/These are real advantages for learners of English. Unfortunately, English also has its "dangers" and "traps". One of them is the pronunciation. From the point of view of a native speaker of Polish I find the pronunciation of English much more difficult than the pronunciation of Italian, for instance. And there are also other disadvantages about English. English spelling seems to have no rules. One has to learn the spelling of each single word by heart. As I mentioned above I think that in general the grammar of English is simpler compared with other languages, although, it also has some difficulties such as: irregular verbs or the numerous tenses. It usually creates big problems to many students. Another difficult part are many accents and dialects of English. Only a very small percentage of British people speak with the RP accent that is considered standard and that is taught at schools. /^t/I think that it is really hard to judge whether English is difficult or easy to learn. Like all the other languages it has its difficulties as well as easy parts. There are many important factors that decide upon our success with learning any foreign language. It depends on our natural abilities, age, purposes for learning and our motivation. I am also convinced that our native language has some influence on whether a given language is difficult or easy to learn for us. I know that a Spanish learner would say that Italian is easier to learn than English. A German learner could say that English is simpler than Spanish. It's understandable as English and German are closer as they are Germanic languages whereas both Spanish and Italian belong to the group of Romance languages. /^t/In general, maybe English really is slightly easier to learn than other languages but it is not as simple that one can learn it overnight. It is possible to learn it, as any other language, if one really wants it but it's not "a piece of cake" for sure. <0291> /^t/Would you like to be well - informed, keep abreast of current events, researches, discoveries, gossips? If so, watch TV, listen to the radio and read papers. To keep up-to-date in fashion you should wear the jeans and smoke the cigarettes advertised on hoardings or in papers. Everyday mass media draw upon myriad images and words which bump up against us, impinge upon our senses forcibly intruding upon the mind, moulding our perception of reality and influencing the way we live. /^t/The media are ever - present in our lives, they constantly communicate messages, for this reason, they are the main source of knowledge about the world. Catering for a variety of tastes, writing and speaking about everything on earth, they broaden our horizons, make us create our awareness about all aspects of life, teach us how to make things and murder in cold blood as well. /^t/Undoubtedly, the media are a great transformer of minds. They affect the swing of pendulum, manipulate and after our opinions, preferences and expectations resorting to a variety of expedients: creating a pretence of truth, using fear, pseudo-science, man's desire to be different, and the like. Some journalists tend towards a minimum of truth and a maximum of disinformation; the principle once expressed: "comment is free but facts are sacred", is not so widely recognized. They prowl on fruitful grounds to find anything enthralling for their programmes and articles and manipulate the facts in order to ingratiate themselves with their viewers and readers, as a result, we are stupefied and our views on life are largely distorted. /^t/The media bring about the changes in our life-style. The latest surveys say that Poles watch TV more than two hours a day. We are becoming armchair experts in sport, politics and film. Our way of life is also affected by a deluge of American values (American movies for outnumber Polish and foreign ones on Polish TV) which we incorporate indiscriminately into our own system pretty quickly. /^t/Warped media values are accused of contributing to the process of dehumanization of people. Killers become celebrities seen on the covers of papers (O.J. Simpson in Newsweek) and films, which are luridly packed with shotgun blasts, fighting, bloodshed, aestheticize violence and glamorize the coldest people. The media make us shallow, acquisitive, less responsible, indifferent, cold about life and death, help us acquire a precocious taste for sex, drugs and excitement. They glorify the culture of consumption seduce young people, make them impatient with parental discipline. Not only do media corrupt youngsters directly, but also undermine the family by constantly raising the definition of a standard of life. /^t/There is, however, some amount of evidence from psychologists and sociologists that the media really do not affect people. The more we see or read the less any single bit matters and we know the difference between the fictitious world of films and true life. Moreover, watching TV, for example, is a passive activity which requires no creativity and produces no results. The media do not brutalise people to the point when they cannot grieve the loss of a relative. /^t/The majority of us are not so eager to suspend our belief and do not take in and take to everything what is being said in the media. For most of us watching TV or reading a magazine is a way of spending our leisure time with no impact whatsoever on our approach to reality. It is the influence of school, home, friends and books that is more prominent in shaping our outlook on life, rather than, what one reads in papers or sees on screen. Furthermore, in each society there is a number of people who steer clear of TV or papers. /^t/I personally believe that the media do affect our approach to reality. For some people they are a curse, for others a blessing, and although, it is impossible to define whether they do more good or more harm in our lives hardly anyone nowadays can imagine life without a TV set or a paper. <0292> /^t/English, the language that is currently being learnt by the approximate number of 2 million people all over the world, has undoubtedly gained similar importance as Latin in the Middle Ages. As it has become the international code of communication both in computing and business, no wonder that more and more people commence learning it, usually not as a means of reading Shakespeare's works in the original but simply by necessity, such as enhancing their career opportunities or doing deals with foreign investors. The world seems to have chosen its universal language, but has it made a good choice, at least as far as the degree of difficulty in learning it is concerned? /^t/It is usually the case that the first encounter with English, for both the adult and teenage learners, is very rewarding. Everyone who takes up learning is acquainted at least with several phrases or well-known words they have come across in their everyday life, watching satellite programmes, playing computer games or simply from their mother tongue, which is replete with loanwords. The fact that English nouns on the whole are not subject to inflection and verbs do not conjugate makes the beginners feel confident and motivated to learn such a language that appears to be 'much easier than Polish and Russian'. For those who are risk-takers speaking does not pose any problems at all, as they simply make use of the scope of vocabulary they have acquired so far and try to make themselves understood. Once the learners have overcome the fear of mastering the infamous sixteen tenses and the rules governing articles, over which every beginner loses sleep, they come to the conclusion that English grammar is digestible and even comparatively easy. Another argument supporting the alleged effortlessness of mastering English, or at least the ability to communicate easily in it, is the abundance and accessibility of pedagogical material, both authentic and inauthentic, designed for teaching this language. Taking advantage of the comparative studies of English and Polish languages enables teachers to predict and eradicate possible errors made by learners and thus facilitates learning. /^t/However, one may justifiably wonder why ever learners spend so much time, even several years, before they can honestly admit they have mastered the level of proficiency in English and even then can still be taken by surprise with a phrase or word they have never seen or heard before? This can of course be true of any other language, but is it not striking that it so frequently happens to learners of English? The reason for it is, unarguably, the remarkable richness of the English vocabulary, with the multitude of meanings one word may have, its figurativeness and innumerable idioms and phrasal verbs. Therefore the longer one is bent upon English the more they seem to realise what a difficult and painstaking task they have undertaken. When we take into account the problematic spelling and not so easy pronunciation and intonation, the whole matter appears to be far more complicated than at first glance. /^t/Fortunately, the estimation whether English is an easy language to learn or not still remains a matter of individual approach and attitude. Even though someone finds it extremely complicated does it necessary have to produce a discouraging result? But it may be advisable to bear in mind the optimistic opinion about this language and console oneself with this thought in hard times, as one thing is certain: there is, and definitely will be, no escape from English whatsoever. <0293> /^t/Some people may claim that the title statement seems to be hardly arguable, as for most of them it constitutes an example of truism. The question to be taken into consideration is then rather the way mass media affect our approach to reality. Naturally, opinions differ as far as the issues of positive and negative influences are concerned. Discussing mass media as the vehicles of shaping our perception of reality will require introducing those two opposite conceptions. /^t/Strangely enough, the advocates of the thesis that the means of mass communication positively affect our approach to reality are in minority. Their antagonists maintain that mass media shape the picture of the external world in our minds in an undesirable way and that the whole process resembles brainwashing. It can be even presumed that those clever mechanisms aim at subconscious imposing and then adopting certain standards of thinking, patterns of behaviour or particular attitudes. Yet, to be honest, people who are subjects to the continuous flood of overwhelming power of information are not totally helpless. Fortunately, this gloomy picture is somewhat exaggerated - at least as long as the above-mentioned subjects can switch off the radio or a TV at any moment they feel like doing it. There are still people who hardly ever watch television and, what should be emphasized, it is caused merely by referring to their responsible freedom of choice. They are able to judge and control their perception of reality independently. Moreover, they treat mass media as a collective indication of "the way of the world" or foundation for working out their personal judgements rather than direction-setter, let alone worshipped authority. /^t/Nevertheless, it must be admitted that there are numbers of individuals who, after having been strongly attracted by the form and accessibility of the means of communication, became truly addicted to the manners of transmitting and absorbing information and knowledge, which are offered by mass media. As a matter of fact, the urge to knowledge should not be disapproved as such. /^t/But frequent being a subject to mass media's operations requires frequent employment of critical perspectives and one's common sense. As far as adults are concerned, in case of open-minded, sagacious and thoughtful individuals there is usually a slight chance of manipulation being successful. On the contrary, a problem emerges when considering mass media's influence on children and youngsters who, as it is commonly claimed, are susceptible to propaganda. Thus, as for the grown-ups, it may be assumed that their approach to reality is affected by mass media only to a limited extent. On the other hand, we must realize that the youngest generation's perception of reality is closely connected with the picture of the outer world they are provided with by television, radio, newspapers and, last but not least, Internet. /^t/The tempo of contemporary life and the requirements and specificity of the ways in which humans function within modern society justify the exceptional role and significance of mass media. Whether we like it or not, mass media make the world go round. The fact is that they contribute to the development of international ties and affect trends in culture, technology and education. So, the unifying function of mass media should not be overlooked or underestimated. /^t/Mankind have realized that the future of modern societies is seriously connected with expanding worldwide communication which, consequently, has become the unique mission of mass media. There is no doubt that it is through the media that the general public gains a knowledge of other countries. Keeping balance, however, is of an outstanding importance as the manner of presentation of news may keep all sorts of prejudice alive. The influence of mass media is often accentuated by that of school textbooks, because of the fact that they tend frequently to describe historical events, industrial development and cultural achievements without adequate explanation or simply in an unbalanced way. Perhaps there is a grain of truth in the supposition that neurosis, tension and violence are inseparable elements of electronic media functioning. We are, in a way, sentenced to the world stuffed with media's presence. It is worth remembering then, that what we need is some distance and a bit of scepticism. /^t/However, despite all of those above-presented arguments, isn't it difficult to imagine a contemporary man doing without mass media? <0294> /^t/Mass media have a great impact on people's perception of reality. In order to reflect reality as it is, one should be entirely objective. Unfortunately it is not always the case if we take into consideration the work of mass media. Generally speaking, if we assume that mass media affect our approach to reality in a positive way they must be objective, otherwise, the reality is not genuine, what can be only seen as a negative influence on us. /^t/The moment we turn on a TV set or a radio we witness the process of informing us about the field of politics, diplomacy, economy, education, fashion, entertainment etc. On the one hand we are thankful for quickness of information with an easy access to it, but, on the other hand do not we sense danger of being controlled, told and at last forced to accept only one unshakeable reality? This rhetorical question is controversial as people differ in opinions. Thus, some people who attribute objectivity to mass media stated that reality is such as it is presented by them, whereas others adopt less optimistic point of view towards credibility of mass media. We are all aware that air time is limited, so that some amount of information must be neglected for the sake of 'precious air time', what results in incompleteness and superficiality of our approach to reality due to selectivity of information. We tend to justify mass media for the lack of considerable time devoted to some issues allowing them to decide for us which current affairs should be dealt with. Moreover, if we hesitate how to interpret some events, there are always mass media 'ready' to do it for us. Interviews with people whose opinions you would like to be familiar with are broadcast so to make you fully aware of some new reality in a very short time. The press proposes solution to this problem offering profound articles pertaining to current issues. However, one cannot be sure that the articles are not written according to some trends, imposing on a reader certain points of view rather than being objective. Television has not been with us all that long in comparison to the press, nevertheless, it has the greatest impact on people. It is responsible for the discovery of many new playwrights, actors and musicians and shows their creative talents to the best advantage. However, in the past we used to read more books and lead more active social life, but now, we choose to spend a fine day in front of a TV set instead of going out into the world itself. Not only does television encourage passive enjoyment but it also makes us content with second-hand experiences. Thus, little by little, it cuts us of from the real world. /^t/Whole generations are growing up addicted to mass media. If we admit that mass media affect us in a positive way, we must control our lives. Thus, we must know and decide what we want to watch, hear or read in order not to lose touch with reality. <0295> Is English an easy language? I would say yes. That opinion is also shared by my fellow-students from the English Department who brush up their English and are certainly proud of its acquaintance. The same question asked in a classroom of teenagers in a primary school will not trigger such as an unanimous response. Well, first of all, any foreign language taught institutionally has to be learned, tested and graded. Naturally, those musts will deter some of the 'less-gifted' language learners from even hearing English. Attitude and character seem to be here one of the key concepts. Therefore psychologists maintain that extroverts are more apt to acquire second language, while introverts are not expected to make an astounding progress due to their timid disposition and the ascribed lack of communicativeness. Supposedly, a mediocre but conscientious person whose attitude towards English is fairly favourable intents to learn that language. What facts will he have to face? English may seem difficult to grasp due to its, as it may appear, boundless vocabulary of 500.000 words and 300.000 technical terms. However, a student of FC level needs 5.000 words to be communicatively efficient. The pronunciation might be one of the problems our tongue will have to wrestle with. English [(] and [(] do not have their counterparts in Polish, so only more gifted learners would be able to utter those sounds in the way that will neither resemble [d] or [ t] in the case of the latter and [f] corresponding to the former. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet and 45 sounds. That fact discourages Polish native speakers who use 32 letters and produce 37 sounds. That disproportion of sounds and letters in both languages at least partly explains the apparent discrepancy between the English spelling and pronunciation. While pronunciation and large English lexicon constitute disadvantages, simplicity of form may easily outweigh them - Polish, Spanish, German or Greek operate on the basis of inflections which indicate singular or plural, person and tense. One of the examples supporting that statement would be the conjugation of the English verb in Simple Present Tense. Adding -s or -es endings in the third person singular seems to be an easy task in comparison with the same procedure in Russian or German. There are seven cases in the declination of the Polish noun and the chore becomes even more complicated if adjectives precede the noun. In English, adjectives do not change according to the noun. Another characteristic for the benefit of English is its flexibility. The same word can operate as different parts of speech. One of many examples is the word paper. We can drink from paper cups, read a paper and paper a living-room. The free acceptance of foreign words made English, or more so its American variation an international language. Coupon, kindergarten, graffito, desperado would be instantly understood by the French, Germans, Italians and the Spanish respectively. Although the pronunciation or the spelling of some borrowings may change, they will be easily recognised and used. English is the most widespread language with 400 million speakers. It is also recognised as the second official language in 60 countries. Do the given facts support the statement that English is an easy language to learn? In some extent yes, but we must admit that literature written in English and mass media build up its strength all over the world. Owing to the latter, we actually acquire English and its omnipresence facilitates learning. American films and songs performed mostly in English have worked their way into the cultures of both post-communist and EEC countries. English is easy to learn in the free-market economy environment. Unlimited access to the variety of English textbooks, magazines, correspondence or interactive courses should please even those choosy or 'less-gifted' learners. <0296> /^t/Plains, trains and automobiles have through their usage brought the world closer together, but nothing has shrunk the world more in the twentieth century than the new developments in mass media. With the click of a button and a change of a channel information can be relayed from all parts of the world into people's homes. Everyone wants to be well informed about what is happening in the world. That information is necessary for the development of opinions and free thought. To deprive an individual of all information but one resourse is to limit that person's true awareness of events necessary to form accurate opinions. Information is after all derived from facts. People responsible for transmitting information that is journalists, editors, producers and writers, are influenced by their own opinions thus adultering truth into individual truth. The result of this can be benevolent or malevolent depending on the diversity of available information and probity of the people who are responsible for the mass media. In a sense an opinion is like a piece of clay flexible, pliant and supple. Mass madia have the ability to sculpt these opinions to suit a specific purpose or to provide insight and create a proper sense of understanding of their society and the world around them. /^t/Until recently the government, here in Poland purposly distorted or fabricated information through censors then distributed it on to the masses. The ability to do this suited the purpose for the government who wanted its people to understand a common belief that the government was effective and was infallible. When this is done goverments can controll opinion of the masses concerning unpopular beliefs. Within living memory, newspapers were reporting that the low yeild of agricultural crops was due to American bombardment of fields with the infamous potatoe beetles. This "information" not only diverted questions concerning better planning of agricultural resources but also augumented resentment of the "decadent imperialists". /^t/When the media are independent of censorship, they are answerable to noone. This provides a medium to relay information they may or may not be popular with governments or other authoritative organizations. When this is achieved, the people are not stifled by limited or biased information but are only influenced by the opinions of the journalists. The term "freedom of the press" implies that the press / media are unrestricted by censorship and the press is only limited by its editors own perceived truths. When this occurs, no single topic becomes beyond reproach and they may offer perceived truths no matter how unpopular they may be. /^t/Now that information is so easily available with a wide spectrum of opinions from all over the world the media are closer to conveying truth more accurately than ever before. However, diversity of information is essential to the individuals' educated opinion and it is that opinion that a person relies on when he views his surroundings and the world in an attempt to understand reality. <0297> /^t/Yes, but one condition must be fulfilled in order to confirm the credibility of the above statement, namely that people watch television, listen to the radio and read newspapers. Only then we can assume that mass media can exert any influence on us. Actually, this is our choice whether we want to be affected by them or not. One thing is certain, before we admitted mass media into our homes we used to have more time to occupy. We had hobbies, we listened to music, we read more books, we used to go out for amusements to the theatre and the cinema. But all that belongs to the past. Now our free time is regulated by mass media. We rush home from work, or eat our meals hurriedly to be in time for this or that programme. We do not have time to visit our friends as there is a political debate on the radio. /^t/More and more we rely on what was shown on TV, said on the radio or written in a newspaper. Mass media largely shape our opinions and decisions. We buy products advertised by them regardless of the price and quality. These things are irrelevant. The eye-catching labels will do! We become passive and satisfied with second-hand experiences. It doesn't matter that our creative talents are limited, that we depend on pictures and words. Mass media demand and obtain our absolute attention and approval. Kids and teenagers, for example, watch a lot of TV. Consequently, they follow blindly their idols and heroes. They talk and act like them, they wear the same clothes and they have the same haircuts. I'd rather not consider violence and cruelty that some TV programmes offer to our children. That is horrifying! Then, however, we should not be shocked seeing a child with a toy-gun pointed in our direction. /^t/Women, in turn, spend vast sums of money on fashion magazines as they want their hair-styles, make-up and clothes look dated. They shrug at the thought of going out in clothes that are out of fashion. Thus, most of their free time is spent on watching television fashion shows or reading fashion magazines. Dictatorial conditions are imposed by mass media and we have to follow them! /^t/Do we? Nobody imposes mass media on us. If we do not like the programme or the article, we neither have to watch it nor read it. We just switch the TV off and put away the newspaper. We go for a walk instead. That is preposterous to claim that mass media affect our approach to reality. If one thinks that they exert negative influence on us, he should know that there is still a considerable variety of programmes, articles and broadcasts. The choice is ours - we select and decide about what we want to read, to watch and to listen to. Even if we spend much time with mass media, we do not have to act or think according to what is offered by them. A sensible housewife will never buy products only because of their eye-catching labels or because they look appetising. She will consider both their quality and prize. One thing is certain however: we must watch TV, listen to the radio and read newspapers in order to be well informed. Mass media provide us with indispensable information about significant political and cultural events without which we would find it difficult to live. Whether all these things affect us in any way depends exclusively on us. <0298> /^t/About ninety per cent of our population in Poland have a TV set in our homes and according to some experts, we rarely turn it off. In fact, it is proved that the average Polish viewer watches as much as twenty-five and a half hour a week. Nobody can actually tell how much time we should spend on watching TV because it mostly depends on our personality, needs and the way we see the world. There is no ready answer to the question about the influence of television on our life. Yet, mass media still provokes endless controversy not only in our society ut it is of great concern to the whole world. /^t/We can obvously say that TV does undoubtedly have its bad side. Whilst any links between on and off screen violence have yet to be proved, few can deny that when we see too much fictional brutality it can desensitise us to real-life horrors. Especially children are under bad influence of some TV films and programmes. They are mostly full of admiration for cartoon heroes and film villains. They try to imitate them as if they were living in the world of fantasy, which is a great harm from the psychological point of view. /^t/Furthermore, even when programmes contain neither sex nor violence, it is not a good thing for families to spend whole evenings glued to the TV box. It is very often treated by the members of the family as a way of relaxation after work. Some primary school teachers complain about children's inability to concentrate during lessons and their need to be constantly entertained. It would seem that too much TV is to blame. /^t/Surely, television does not only affect the younger part of the society. It can result in the lodger syndrome, when some husbands come home after work, flop down in front of the TV and just do not talk with the rest of their families at all. Instead of discussing, exchanging news and solving problems, we can observe a communication gap and lack of understanding between people who live together. /^t/On the other hand, we should admit that there is another side to the picture. Mass media can also bring entertainment and television can be a friendly face for somebody who is lonely or elderly. It is also quite cheap and convenient form of spending spare time. /^t/Of course, entertainment is only one of the big and useful branches of mass media. There are times when it can be informative and can provide a source of good family conversaton. It is proved that television has helped to popularise some games and hobbies. To many people it gave the possibility to see the impossible. /^t/Finaly, over the past few years, mass media has played crucial role in disaster relief. It has helped in collecting money on important issues by reaching many viewers through the screen. Many people benefited from television and its being so popular, especially children, the homeless and cancer victims. /^t/Informative, useful, entertaining and relaxing, sometimes banal and boring, mass media are all of these. Mass media is us because this is what we create. However, we should be selective otherwise, we have only ourselves to blame. TV can be and should be a part of our life making it more interesting and challenging. But when it becomes all of it, maybe that is time to reach for the off switch. <0299> /^t/The way people perceive the world is not perfect. It is impossible to see and hear everything simply because it is impossible to be everywhere in the same time. Therefore, mass media seem to be a reasonable idea of an extension to our senses. Without even getting up from bed they provide an opportunity to learn the news or recall the past or view the future from a different perspective. /^t/According to Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language mass media is "the means of communication... aimed at the largest possible audience". It usually refers to television, radio and newspapers. The fact that mass media are easily accessible and affordable to most people results in their large popularity which has a considerable influence on our approach to reality. /^t/The social influence aristocracy used to have on creating lifestyles in the past has presently been taken over by mass media. It is them to designate fashion and to promote lifestyles. An example of that is the recent transformation in the so-called post-communist countries. People's perception of reality changed thoroughly, with a great help of mass media. In an instant newspapers started winning over their readers by tempting them with various prized competitions. A few businessmen invested their capitals in private radio and television stations, encouraged by the new way of raising money: commercials. Thanks to commercials and consumer lifestyles, and obviously their promoters the newly born citizens in post-communist countries highly invigorated their national economies. /^t/Besides non-verbal communication, mass media first of all uses language in both its forms: written and spoken. Huge changes can be noticed also in this field. Since the beginning of the media, there has been developed a special jargon called journalese that is used by journalists, i.e. people of the media. The characteristic features of the jargon are its conciseness, a great number of abbreviations and a specific use of syntax or morphology. An important thing about it is that like any other jargons journalese has its dictionary. /^t/Apart from the influence of journalese, language has also been affected more directly. A lot of new idiomatic phrases have been created either by editors or recipients. An example of such an idiom is couch potato describing a person constantly sitting in front of the TV. In the air comes directly from the radio terminology but is used more universally. It means <*>. /^t/Television is probably the most influential of the media. It is the only popular medium that can use all the techniques of communication and whose viewers are in the same time readers and listeners. As the most powerful tool, it plays the greatest part in affecting people's perception of the world. Unfortunately, it makes a great contribution to brutalization of manners by showing contemporary movies a great majority of which depicts violence, war, crime and world's injustice. As the biggest and the most powerful one, American television creates images of falsified reality that are adopted or even transplanted into other national cultures. The reckless way of dressing, consumer lifestyles, machoism, feminist movement, the overdose of sex and the omnipresent image of rich, famous and constantly smiling people created by the media constitute a picture of "a better world" which the consumers of mass culture are sold. /^t/As regular people with very limited access to the original information, we obtain it via mass media. However, the practically unlimited possibility to create reality makes the media a powerful tool of socio-technique. The great number of sources of information is probably the reason why we give credit to our informers and whether we want it or not, take for granted that we are not manipulated. <0300> /^t/Following the dictionary definition of mass media one may come to the conclusion that they perform a very useful service to the community and remain an integral part of modern life. Perhaps it would be interesting to examine the nature of mass media and discuss their effect in relation to human perception of reality. Generally speaking, the influence of mass media may be considered as three fold, namely: the influence of sound, picture and written word. For the purpose of this essay. However, let me put them into two groups: the effect of picture and the effect of word, written as well as heard. /^t/The hand-written information for masses which can be treated as early counterparts of today's press appeared quite a long time ago and from the very beginning news was marked by the conveyor's perception of the event. Nothing has been changed up to now due to the simple fact that man is not capable of achieving total objectivity in imparting information. Thus, there is no point in accusing the press of being subjective as it cannot be altered but the most threatening while considering the reliability of newspaper is the exaggeration in news presentation or bending the facts to serve given purposes. Extra-explanation, strange commentaries are on-going process so needless to say we are constantly bombarded with a mass of suitably transformed information. Following this phenomenon our genuine perception of reality, in-born abilities of individual interpretation of the events, our concern about "fidelity to life" or chance of understanding the world's matters with "unspoilt" eyes are highly limited or even more. The ready-made reasoning, dishonest opinions concerning people are presented to us and remain within the reach of the "lazy-minds" who wouldn't spend a while on sensible thinking but absorb everything that comes. To put it simply, we are told what we are supposed to think. /^t/Not only do ambiguous comments affect our approach to reality but also visual "aids" that crafty publishers or TV producers use with such a mastery. All the visual tricks that flood both press and television serve as eyes-catchers, which in turn play a dominant role while establishing ratings of a given TV program or circulation of a newspaper. A potential reader or viewer, when shown a significant amount of suitably chosen set of pictures, absorbs them before the proper "perusing" an article. The "before picture" intended to facilitate the reading process, evidently shapes understanding of a given text and narrows the area of possible opinions or interpretations. Similarly to appropriately fabricated comments, the photos, pictures or cartoons propose a kind of deformed reality, usually in a highly exaggerated degree. The problem appears to be worse when falsified comments or pictures fall onto the susceptible grounds of not finally moulded child's mind or rebellions soul of an adolescent. Nothing strange that, when being exposed to the above "facilitators" of viewing or reading, the youngsters obtain a false image of the world. The adults should also realise that the effect of this exposure doesn't apply only to the youngsters, as it is popularly believed that constant and massive contact with untruth results in taking it as truth. /^t/Summarising the above consideration on media's influence on people's approach to reality we may conclude that each invention including press, radio and television is valuable and good as long as it fulfils its basic and honourable intentions. Any kind of exaggeration, fabrication on deformation of reality or evil adjusting information to fulfil a given aim threaten the genuine purpose of mass media and have a substantial impact on our perception of the world. So when the evil of mass media eats into our life so well that it makes us unable to see the reality and truth, weakens our sensitivity and replaces sensibility with repeatedly used slogans, maybe it is high time to reach for "the off-switch". <0301> The means of mass communication are one of the important, if not the most important, factors shaping our outlook on life. By controlling them skilfully one can influence public opinion. Usually they are the object of the struggle between the political groups aspiring for holding the authority. In the totalitarian communities the media aid the governing party and the organs controlling country's inner life. Poland about twenty years ago could be an example of such a situation where all organs of public opinion were owned and fully controlled by the state, so that the flow of information was restricted to the pieces not imperilling the governing party. The interpretations of the facts were also imposed by superior authority so their understanding was only one sided which meant incomplete. What is the reason of such a strength of the media? First and foremost they are the only source of information for people and they are omnipresent in our life. Their most important role is to pass information, on the basis of which everyone creates his own vision of reality. However the accumulation of facts is so huge that their selection itself is conducive to making the picture of the world a little deformed. The media claim a right to influence our opinions, mainly those concerning the politics. Political debates and proclamations made by leading politicians serve that purpose. They are broadcast more often just before important political events like elections either presidential or parliamentary. The media affect not only our political point of view but also shape our opinions concerning all fields of our life. They do that using one of the most influential medium - commercial, which is undoubtedly the most effective way of forming or changing our liking. The strength of commercial is enormous but it concerns only marketing so it does not have any serious consequences. The media are also able to affect our music preferences by creating a sort of fashion for a certain kind of music. They do that by broadcasting specific programmes or records performed by a given group of musicians. A similar situation is with the role of the media in shaping our art tastes. The means of mass communication are able to create the image of the arts by taking patronage over it. The same is with the ethics, the media have slowly begun to change our moral principles and overrate various concepts, which happens without our approval or sometimes even unconsciously. Nowadays it would be almost impossible to live without the media. We are addicted to them as they provide us with entertainment and news. People usually trust the media, especially when their reliability is being confirmed. That is why we more willingly let the media affect our life. But we need to be aware of the danger that the media cause, particularly in political matters. When one political group gains control over the media it can turn out to be hazardous. That is why it is so important that the media are free and independent and people are able to be objective and critical towards everything the media present. <0302> /^t/There have been many attemps to create a universal language which would bridge the communication gap between people of different nationalities. Among the languages that have been created, Esperanto has been the most successful. In reality, However, English has been the lingua franca around the world. It is obvious that nowadays, English is fast becoming the most widely accepted language all across Europe. /^t/At present, according to statistics, English is spoken by over 775 million people around the world as either a native language or a second language. It is also the official language in 68 countries. So it is quite reasonable to talk about the "boom" of this language as being the standard of advertising, aviation, finance, business, computing, consumerism, multi-media, pop music, medicine, science and sport. /^t/The reason for its popularity is that English has "pop-speak" appeal. Many European artists and bands make recordings in English or besprinkle their lyrics with catchy words (hey, baby, love, happy). It is the language of pop music not only because of rock'n'roll's influence by such famous artists as Elvis Presley, The Beatles, and hundreds of other groups, but it is also the nature of the language itself: short, rythmic words are a perfect match for pop music. All of Europe is constantly bombarded by English words. At the street level we can see "fastfood, bars, striptease, and checkout". Besides it is not easy to find substitutes for these words in many European languages. It is estimated that in languages such as French and German, one twentieth of everyday vocabulary words are English. /^t/Thus, people who do not know English yet are trying to learn find that they know quite a few vocabulary words from their daily lives. Linguists conceive new, more effective methods of teaching language all the time, some very strange indeed, like the "Silent Way", in which the teacher says as little as possible, or "Suggestopedia" with its Baroque music. An enormous and extensive variety of English textbooks are being published with all kinds of supplementaries to them. In the newsagent's we can also find all sorts of British and American publications that are not only an excellent source for articals and interviews but that also give you information about English language courses. /^t/Because of Hollywood movies and the popular nature of English, people are sometimes overconfident in their knowledge of the language. They think that because they understand slightly, that it will be simple to understand English fully with little study. However, people quickly find one surprising paradox. The enormous popularity of English has resulted in a gradual deterioration of the quality of the language as spoken by foreigners. Most people are able to communicate but the actual knowledge of the language is far from perfect. Moreover, the standard of teaching is drastically low in remote parts of the world mainly because of the lack of qualified teachers to meet the demands of the market. It generally seems that secondary school teachers do not do their jobs properly. They do not follow the approach to English teaching which is taught to them in training colleges, in-service courses, and which is embodied in the prescribed textbooks. The assumption is that if only teachers could be persuaded to put this approach into practice then the problem would disappear. /^t/It is great that the world is arriving at a language that can be universally used for business, entertainment and mass communication but, people need to understand that English is a complex language full subtleties and nuances that a beginning English student can find discouraging. <0303> /^t/As tv vievers and readers of newspapers we want to think that the reports we get are faithful and reliable source of information. We also assume that they give us a complete overview of what has happened in the world. We simply need a reliable source of information telling us what is going on. /^t/As far as the reliability of media is concerned it is important to say that the freedom of press is essencial if we really want to talk about possible influence the media might have on our approach to reality in the free and civilised world. It is enough to say that during the communist rule the whole media were subjugated and their role was reduced to providing applause to anything 'postitve' from the point of view of the only leading party. There was a very efficient system of censorship that took care of any attempts of serious journalism. It is widely known that every totalitarian rule, should it be communism or nazism, is bound to use restrictions and propaganda in order to prevent any changes and to mould people's minds from the youngest age possible. This is how in an extreme way the media may be affected by the politics of the state. It rises the question whether nowadays, with the so called 'free press', we are given an accurate, unaltered, faithful report of events or are we again misled into believing one or the other political side. /^t/As far as political influences are concerned most people in Poland would agree that Gazeta Wyborcza and Trybuna are politically biased so they report the same events in a relatively different way. If we adopt one or the other point of view we are no longer objective, since the newspapers mentioned earlier affect our approach to the political reality, or in other words our approach to reality is affected inasmuch as we believe that the reports presented are unmediated truth. As the argument goes further it is advisable to say that real events are subject to selection, so that is why newspapers vary in the content and that the very process of selection may be politically or regionally biased. Apart from that the mere fact of existance of the process we can draw a conclusion that the view of the world we receive is only partial and that we cannot fully rely on it. /^t/On the other hand there are still people who hold that the media do not affect their approach to reality at all or that their newspaper is unbiased. They claim to be fully aware that some newspaper may be politically influenced but they think it is rare. The point they make is that in the era of multimedia and immense technological possibilities to send, receive and verify different items of information it is only slighty probable that a politically influenced editor of a newsapaper would have the nerve to publish false or biased information. Reliability, they say, is what newspapers value the most. In fact they assume the possibility of complete neutrality and competence in rendering events into the language of the press. What follows is that the people who claim their approach to reality to be free from any possible influences generally believe what they are told in the news and this, in the long run, could lead to making no attempts at verifying if by any chance the picture of the world they receive thanks to the media is not distorted. <0304> /^t/When we say mass media we tend to think about the 1radio, the presss and television. These means of transfering information have a great influence on lives of many people. Thanks to media we are aware of the changes and get information about events happening in distant regions of the world. /^t/Press always provides us with political, economic and cultural news. We follow gossips about famous people day by day. Reading newspapers and magazines, we get to know about the latest news in fashion, business, researches and discoveries. Mass media help us to shape our views, make us think over different, very important problems. We can develop our hobbies, for example, we can collect information or pictures from newspapers or magazines. We must read papers, listen to the radio, watch tv in order to be well-informed. /^t/Television gives us a considerable variety of programmes, we can select what we want to see. Television is a continuous cheap source of information and entertainment, it gives enormous possibilities for education (tv broadcasts a lot of educational school programmes). Mass media provide outlet for creative talents, many playwrights, actors, singers etc. emerged from television. Mass media are the unifying force in the world. They have one common, nowadays very popular, component, that means - advertisements. /^t/Adverts introduce us to products or remaind us of the existence of ones we already know about. Lots of people pretend that they never read or watch adverts, but it is hardly possible not to read them these days. We get information about household goods from advertisements. We buy a new microwave, a washing machine or an iron on the basis of adverts. They affect our life all the time. /^t/We have to be careful and balance the information and select them, because mass media have disadventages as well. As far as adverts are concered there are so many products that we cannot afford to buy everything. They are sometimes an insidious form of brainwashing, using such techniques as slogans or catch-phrases. It creates the demands for things we do not need. We are encouraged to buy insurance, cosmetics or eat more than it is necessary. Good quality products do not need to be advertised. /^t/Mass media occupy our spare time, constant watching tv does irreparable harm. People stop going to the cinemas or theatres, they even stop reading books. We used to have hobbies, entertain friends, go outside. We have even given up sitting at a table and having a meal together with family, exchanging the news of the day. Whole generations are growing up addicted to the telly. It is now standard practice for parents to keep the children quiet by turning on the tv set. The children are exposed to the rubbish comedies, sadism and violence. The creative talent is limited. Everyday tv consumes vast quantities of creative work. Thanks to television the whole world becomes a village because millions of people watch the same programmes and the society is reduced to the pre-literate stage. Watching tv is a passive enjoyment. It may be a splendid medium of communication but it prevents us from communicating with each other. /^t/The only and reasonable way out is to balance the information and choose everything what is important for us. We mustn't give up our views in the sake of being on the top. We can get to know a lot of interesting things but we have to observe the world as well and draw logical conclusions. <0305> /^t/Mass media are ever present in our life - this is incontrovertible fact which probably nobody will try to contradict. Thousands of people listen to the radio, watch TV, and read newspapers every day. They take in a great variety of significant as well as inconsequential information. And a question arises in this flood of facts, data, numbers, etc. 'served' in a form of more or less edible articles or programmes influence the readers, listeners and viewers. /^t/Many years ago, George Orwell in his book '1984' pictured mass media (especially TV) as a powerful tool of political indoctrination. His characters were surrounded by large TV screens and posters showing their leader. The words 'Big Brother is watching on you' reflected dreadful reality in which people were totally deprived of the right to form and express their own opinions. Mass media were on guard of the only one 'true' ideology. One can say that this extreme situation is a fictitious one, intended to show dangers of a totalitarian state. However, when we take into consideration the political conditions prevailing in East Europe up to 1990s, we soon realise that Orwell's fiction was put into practice. Mass media played then remarkable role in imposing on people the beliefs of the governing (lite. Now we have democracy but politicians endeavour to influence our approach to reality by means of the media. /^t/Mass media often, if not always tend to affect, or even shape our tastes. Fashion magazines dictate what is in vogue at the moment, film magazines tell us which films we should see and which films are not worth seeing at all, music magazines advise on new records. If a person who is susceptible to trust the press reads the review of 'The English Patient' and this review describes it as a long boring tear-jerker, this person will give up seeing 'The English Patient' or will go to the cinema to confirm their expectation. That is the way the media create in people certain images as well, and this is especially true when advertising food and drink. What the food looks like is more important than what it tastes like. Sophisticated advertisements easily seduce people. /^t/There has been recently a lot of discussion concerning violence shown on TV and its harmful influence on the viewers. Some eminent, psychologists and sociologists stated that films such as 'Natural Born Killers' evoked aggression in young people, who, impressed by the main characters of the film, tried to adopt similar behaviour. There were also several cases of murders inspired by the movie. /^t/Children are more easily influenced by TV than the adults. The Rambo violence they witness is not only TV violence, sufficient to itself. It brutalises them to the point where they cannot grieve the loss of a pet, or be shocked at some minor playground violence. A year ago two seven-year-old boys bit to death their five-year-old friend as they were pretending they were Ninja Turtles. /^t/There are numerous arguments in favour of the opinion that mass media affect our approach to reality, but is it always the case? We should realise that there are also other sources of influence, often much stronger than TV or a newspaper. /^t/If we analyse the behaviour of a seventeen-year-old skinhead, we soon come to a conclusion that he is more affected by peer pressure than by the 'RMF' radio which he continuously listens to. /^t/What can we say about a person who reads 'Zycie' and 'Nie' at the same time? Are they pro-clerical or anti-clerical? /^t/It is a common practice for many people to turn the radio when they come home from school or work. While the radio is on, they do all kinds of things paying no attention to what the speaker says. Do they really listen to the radio? Actually, they can hear something but they do not concentrate on it. Such inattentive listening does not affect their approach to reality at all. /^t/The XX century has been dominated by mass media and undoubtedly the influence they exert on people is tremendous. It is not surprising if we take into account the fact that they function as a source of information about the world. As we are exposed to their impact on the time they simultaneously affect our approach to reality. However, we should bear in mind that we are subjects to other influences as well. <0306> /^t/We live at the turn of the century of outstanding advancement of technology, establishments and collapses of political regimes and above all a rapid exchange of information. Scientific breakthroughs, including the invention of a printing press, telegraph, telephone, radio and television widened the range of informational availability and contributed to a formation of what we now call mass media. /^t/Despite a recent critical attitude towards them which, strangely enough, has become extremely popular among mass media themselves there has evolved a new bold interpretation of the impact they have on contemporary societies. /^t/The word "affect" which has been often used in variety of programmes and essays devotedly blaming television and the press for their irresponsibility does not necessarily have to carry a negative meaning. Mass media have been accused of a popularisation of bad manners, art verging on the kitch and defying accepted moral code but the influence can not be only corrupting and deplorable. /^t/Many years ago, a long time before Bell's invention, man was prompted to take advantage of gifts from nature and, to save time and energy, employed pigeons to forward messages and orders. Not once did a folded piece of paper prevent a serious military conflict or a cry of anguish from the lips of a frustrated lover. And even in that age of bloodthirsty knights and ruthless kings, unhygienic conditions of living and a high death rate of children people did not have to discover a remarkable charm of gossip. /^t/Indeed, now, to be called a blabbermouth is not considered a compliment that can be accepted with good grace which is quite understandable since gossiping is often described as immoral and wicked. /^t/But is it really so harmful and disastrous for people? /^t/It is true that every single conversation could to some extent be categorised as gossip as most of the information we have is based on assumptions or comes from official, often unchecked, sources but unless it is a deliberate lie and intensely hurts one's dignity gossiping denotes a natural human tendency towards portraying reality. /^t/One could question the relevance of linking poor chattering with an elaborate representation of reality but it would be unwise not to agree with the hypothesis that we experience the real nature of things through our senses of sight and hearing. /^t/The amount of news a man's mind absorbs every day has stirred up a great controversy but is it not the human drive for knowledge and understanding that provokes our trust and attachment to mass media? Simple rumours and stories may teach us how to distinguish between good and bad, honesty and dishonesty and we are lucky to learn by the mistakes made by others. The flow of information moving freely between people creates a fixed vision of reality and determines our view on the contemporary world and its formidable problems. Processing a great deal of data we have a chance to observe and analyse every day life seen by the eyes of a number of people all over the world. Different and frequently unrelated perspectives establish our outlook and way of approaching reality. /^t/Mass media are an inseparable aspect of our highly advanced civilisation and as long as we persist in the aspiration to achieve an overall perfection we should understand the role of mass media in formatting our character and accept their strive to draw us nearer to the factual world. <0307> /^t/English has for many years been an universal language. It has become the language of business and communication. Millions of people use it everyday as a native tongue, for other millions it is a necessary tool for their work. It is an immensely popular means of interaction. What are the reasons that stand behind its extraordinary dissemination? In my personal view, they are of twofold kind. First, strictly geographical an historical reasons - former English colonies have retained the language of their rulers. As the colonies consisted of the territories in North America, Africa, India and Australia, they occupied vast areas inhabited by many peoples. The geographic layout made it favourable for the English language to spread. Second, English is comparatively easy to learn, which enables many people to acquire it. Let us have a closer look at the second option. /^t/Comparing with other languages, English differs from them in this respect that it is practically devoid of any noun declensions or verb conjugations. The only remnant, the Saxon Genitive, is not serious enough an obstacle to deter people from acquiring it successfully. Other languages seem to be obviously more complex in this aspect. When we contrast it with Polish, for instance, the distinction is clearly visible. Polish phrases such as bia³y stó³, bia³ego sto³u or bia³ym stole have only one English equivalent, that is white table. This sole fact makes it greatly easier for foreign learners to acquire the English language. Apart from this, the sentence pattern, after apparent initial problems, proves to be quite comprehensible. The formation of tenses proceeds according to certain archetypes, and after passing a particular stage in learning the learner is capable of working out the system of rules deductively. /^t/Next, with English being so widespread, it is easy for individuals to meet it on TV, radio newspapers, advertisements, etc. In this way we can subscounciously remember certain phrases and lexical items, thanks to which it is possible to continuously develop our knowledge. /^t/Of course, there are also drawbacks. Many people find numerous aspects of English difficult - E.G. the articles (abhorrent to majority of students), prepositions, the multitude of tenses, vast number of vocabulary, etc. Of course, we cannot generalise. The level of difficulty, to a lesser or bigger degree, depends on the learner's native tongue. German speakers find it certainly a lot more convenient to learn English than speakers of Hungarian or Russian. This is perfectly understandable since both of the former belong to the same group of Germanic languages. However, the increasing number of successful learners testifies that the above-mentioned hindrances are finally overcome. Also, the opinions of students learning several languages at the same time confirm that the language of Shakespeare is one of the easiest to master. <0308> /^t/The statement that mass media effect our approach to reality is very true and indisputable. Television, newspapers and radio have become irreplaceable and powerful mediums in giving information, teaching and amusing. Can anyone imagine our world without an access to them? I doubt. But since they are so important, dominant and even omnipresent, several questions may appear: Are they reliable? How do they show the outside world and problems of humanity of the end of the XXth century? Can we trust them? Answers to the questions seem to be rather complicated and not so explicit as we are so influenced by these sources of information with their leading force - TV. Sometimes this strong influence does not allow us to state if the world we perceive is a real world. Our perception is manipulated at times and we are not aware of it. /^t/First of all mass media offer a huge variety of information, knowledge. The knowledge is given in an interesting, attractive way. It can be easily absorbed. Apart from listening and reading, we can watch moving pictures, experience sounds and colours (maybe smell in the future). While sitting at home, in a comfortable armchair, one can learn new things without going out. Nature, economy, different civilizations have not got any secrets for a listener or viewer who has undertaken these persistent attempts to find out something new. What is more, mass media help us to learn foreign languages (satellite television). Instead going to the cinema or to the theatre plays and films can be watched on television. As long as it is done professionally, we can use it to our heart's content. The problem is that by sitting in a room and in front of the glass monster we passively subject ourselves to the second-hand experience, we are actually off from real world. Mass media cannot replace our own experience. Of course, it does not mean that everybody must travel along the length and breadth of the whole world. Needless to say it is impossible and would be disastrous for our planet. But we have to follow all the information with criticism and with remembering that a camcorder does not show us everything. /^t/Mass media play a special role not only in giving information about the world, politics, social relations but they also mould opinions about these issues. If they are conformed to one political force and they completely depend on it, it usually has a terrible consequences. It is an extreme case, of course, but not so rarely do we have a feeling of being manipulated by others' attitudes. It is true that thanks to mass media people seem to be very close to what happens even in the most distant places of our planet. We all have got used to it; conversely, if our heads are crammed with comments coming from different, sometimes extreme sources and different people, we have a kind of mess. How to express our own opinions, thoughts, attitudes with reference to difficult, worrying the society problems? It is not easy to notice this subtle manipulation but it really exists and sometimes offers a false picture of the world, the picture which is suitable to some hidden mysterious power. Exposing this dishonest game is impossible for an average reader, listener or viewer who can easily and unintentionally swallow the hook. /^t/The last problem I would like to discuss and which concerns this inexhaustible subject is the amount of programmes which are addressed to an average person. This average person is not demanding in terms of artistic presentation, creativity, originality. Therefore most works in mass media are tasteless, of poor quality, without high artistic level. If it the result of giving as much satisfaction as possible to as many people as possible. Watching the world through the most powerful medium - telly gives rather horrible and false picture of our beautiful, fascinating, various world. It is an attempt of putting the whole world originality into standardization which I really hate watching. /^t/So should we use that mass media offer? I am afraid we have to. But selectively, critically, not too much and without allowing ourselves to be put into this common trap of vagueness, trashy stuff, a real mish-mash of everything. <0309> We are exposed to the influence of mass media from the early childhood. Children are very fond of watching cartoons. Cartoons nowadays are full of violence. Some people think that children should not watch such cartoons because it makes a strong impact on their psyche. A child sees characters fighting with one another using different kinds of weapons. The young, especially, are susceptible to advertising. The commercial, which is usually between cartoons, advertise various kinds of armaments for children to play with. Murder becomes something common for children as a result of playing with such toys. They become completely indifferent to violence and killing in the future. Other people believe that children should not be protected from the contact with violence because there is a lot of violence conduct in the world. Children should be aware and prepared for it. When they become adults they will be forced to live in such a world. However isn't it because of the amount of offensive material present on television that there is so much violence in the world - say the others. /^t/When the child becomes a teenager he has already got used to the violent behaviour. Although teenagers stop watching cartoons, they begin to watch films. The amount of offensive material they are exposed to in films is excessive. Some people believe that scenes of sex and brutality are sometimes necessary to tell a story. According to others those scenes are unnecessary and simply inserted in the film to appeal to the basic human instincts. Teenagers are assured that this is the way they should behave so they try to imitate it. This imitation of actor's conduct very often leads to juvenile delinquency. /^t/Nowadays more often we hear about children and teenagers killing their coevals. Some people believe that there is a connection between violence on television and violence in real life. Therefore they are for immediate actions to reduce level of television violence. Teenagers as children should be protected from the corrupting influance of such scenes. Teenagers lose contact with reality and they are no longer able to distinguish between good and evil. They are exposed to the films showing as many problems as the director could think of. Teenagers could be taken an advantage of as a result of living in the world of illusions. On the other hand there are those who says that it is good for teenagers to see the life and problems of others exaggerated on television because it will help them avoid making the same mistakes. However critics of these attitudes say that on television partners are changed quite often and infidelity and adultery are very common things. Therefore teenagers could follow those examples. It is very likely that they start sexual intercourses very early what especially for girls can end with pregnancy and lead to abortion. Children can be influenced almost entirely by television whereas teenagers can be influenced by television, radio and press. Teenagers like listening to songs. Songs can be as influenced as films. Many young people committed suicide because of lyrics. On the other hand songs can have positive effect on youngsters such as give them self-confidence or encourage them to learn. /^t/Those children and teenagers one day become adults who should be aware of all pros and cons of the influance of mass media. <0310> /^t/Our world seems to have shrunk to a unified territory ruled by rampant influences of mass media. The intensity of the process appears alarming and gives rise to doubts and fears as to whether this onslaught of radio, television and press should not do humanity more harm than good. However, alike any human invention they can work both ways, just as knife might serve to slit somebody's throat or cut a slice of bread. These two contradictory aspects call for a closer insight into the situation and for an attempt to decide in which direction mass media work their way. /^t/Nowadays we could hardly manage without news, at least to avoid ignorance of disinformation. Vital political issues, forewarnings of natural disasters should not pass unheard. Otherwise it may cost individuals, communities or even nations dearly. On the other hand such important facts can be easily manipulated, distorted, magnified or blurred so as to rise anxiety, cause panic, arouse international or domestic enmities, or lead people to overlooking or ignoring issues that are to determine their future. /^t/Since people become increasingly addicted to television, video and heavily dependant on press, they are more and more exposed to alien views. If these were formed objectively and without emotional tinge, if advertisements turned out useful and true-to-life the impact of mass media might be termed wholesome. However, widespread liberty blatantly favours controversy and scorns morality. Thus listeners and viewers are bombarded with images positive and negative alike. Ready-made interpretations of various, often crucial events, colourful ads permeated with sexual impulses make the viewers dizzy and reach deep into the subconscious. In that way society is pushed to indiscriminate consumerism which flourishes and lays spiritual values aside to rot and deteriorate. /^t/Politics and religion take up a lot of space in media. Objective transmission of that kind of issues is capable of making citizens act and decide in unison for the benefit of their country. Media may improve Christian missionary work as well as make broadcasting religious events extremely appealing and true-to-purpose. But the eye of a cameraman has a power to catch and prepare in advance such a set of images as might agree with the policy of ruling circles. The art of fabricating reality is a mighty weapon in the hands of those who want to sway public moods and opinions. And what is worse, the public blindly believes in whatever national television says and is immune to any criticism against officially promoted propaganda. /^t/Documentaries and scientific programmes may be of excellent use in education. Advertisements may prove invaluable in informing kids what toys are available. Nevertheless, this flood of images frequently dulls students' imagination and keeps them away from books and genius - promoting strenuous self-study. The young generation has been ensnared by the fantasy world of media from which there is no escape. Children from a very young age crave for colourful toys which the screen so alluringly advertises. /^t/The few examples prove how well mass media have become implanted in our reality. It is impossible to curb this monstrous industry, which is free to penetrate and wreak havoc on human psyche. More sensitive individuals often turn to murder, rape, suicide or go insane through continuous exposure to manipulative work of media. We ought to beware what is being instilled into us. Otherwise we shall fall prey to a sort of slavery which mankind has never experienced before. Our reality is in danger of being modelled exactly on what media dictate, a mirror - like reflection of their fairyland utopia. <0311> /^t/It seems to sound almost like a truism to utter a statement that mass media exert an immense impact upon our attitude towards reality. And yet many people do not realize that. Nearly at the close of the twentieth century, the phenomenon of mass media communication has become so widespread and so common to everyone that we tend not to attach too much attention to its vitality. Since this kind of communicating among human beings is nowadays reality full of power and able to influence quite forcefully the minds of viewers, readers and listeners. Thus, the problem of mass media's significance is worthy to be considered and looked at closer. /^t/Naturally, there would emerge two outlooks, basic and contradictory at the same time, the arguments of each of them carrying almost the same "load" of importance. /^t/According to one of those viewpoints (it is difficult to establish any order in that case) especially discernible in terms of strength of voice in some countries quite recently, the bearing of mass media on people's minds is totally negative, or at least very destructive. Some truth must be found in such utterances. /^t/Everyone would agree and everyone knows from their everyday experience how many acts of violence result from viewing films full of brutalism, destruction and power comprehended in an improper way. That point is undeniable. Mass media bear a certain responsibility for the growing waves of criminal acts in the world. /^t/Besides, our view of the surrounding world and, consequently, our inner standpoints concerning reality as such, are to a great extent distorted by the information we get from TV, radio, or press. Then everything seems to us to be organized in a peculiar way, we are prone to treat every token of reality as the further example of that organization and order, whereas deep wisdom teaches us that our lives are rather composed of ideas - incoherent, often conflicting, and difficult to grasp, and actions ensuing from these ideas. So such kind of attitude (connected with perceiving the world as well-organized and predictable) constitutes the evidence of psychological immaturity and inability to create such a society in which every member would be free to exist according to their inborn and specific only to them, features. What's more, the mentioned attitude could inevitably lead to a society of automatons, and the similar voices can be heard with a growing force. /^t/Society, full of violence, and unable to develop itself - such is the picture resulting from the arguments presented so far. However, there exists the other side of that matter, although it is difficult to state whether it can be a good counterbalance to the previous one. /^t/Owing to the incomprehensibly complex and overlapping nets of mass media, our world has almost become "one global village" according to the famous formulation of a scholar. Each point on the world's map is so closely connected with the other points. /^t/Actually, bits of information from the remotest parts of the globe reach us in an instant. Human beings can eventually feel as one great family, but only in certain aspects, for as far as real good relations among countries are concerned, it is still a matter of distant future. But the unity, in some respects at least, could be expected. /^t/What's also worth considering, we live in the world of people better and better educated, possessing deeper knowledge concerning both science and humanities. And that, to a certain point, is also the merit of mass media. We often happen to watch good programmes on, say, history of art, or astronomy, or geography, or the life of endangered species, etc., all that adds up to our general knowledge and forms at the same time our mental view of reality. /^t/And so, reaching a conclusion, one can state that the influence of mass media upon our approach to reality has twofold nature: either evil or good. But as in case of any matter of great importance, it is almost impossible to decide as to the weigh of counterarguments of each side. Certainly, because of their impact, the media would make our world full of manifold dangers, also society might even turn to one we could not live in. On the other hand, the bearing of the same means of communication could as well contribute to the growing need of unity, present in people's minds and hearts, and could help us to be versatile and learned. /^t/As usual, time will show us which side will prevail. <0312> /^t/As readers of newspapers and viewers of TV, we readily assume that the articles we read and the programmes we watch consist of faithful reports of events that happened "out there", in the world beyond our immediate experience. At a certain level, that is of course a realistic assumption: real events do occur and are reported - a coach crashes on a motorway, a housewife wins the pools, a cabinet minister resigns. But real events are subject to conventional process of selection: they are not "intrisically newsworthy", but only become news when selected for inclusion in news reports. /^t/We must realize that the vast majority of events are not mentioned at all, and so selection gives us only a partial view of the world. Furthermore, different newspapers and broadcasts report differently, in both content and presentation. Selection is accompanied by transformation and different treatment in presentation according to numerous political, social, religious and economic factors - this becomes obvious when you start reading or listening to the news carefully, and discussing the news media with other people. The world of the Press and TV is not the real world, but a world distorted and judged. /^t/Anyway, one can observe the decline of the newspaper empire. What is the reason? In developed societies with a growing population and with supposedly better educational standards, why are fewer people reading newspapers? One cannot deny that increasing prices discourage people from buying more than one title; retirement and unemployment also mean that there is little money to spend on any newspares at all. But most people seem to offer the same single reason: television. /^t/Yes, television does undoubtedly have its bad side. Few could deny that even when programmes contain neither sex nor violence, it is not really a good thing for many families to spend whole afternoons and evenings "glued to the box". Most teachers keep complaining of youngsters' inability to concentrate and their "need" to be constantly entertained but, of course, it is not only children whose life can be affected by television: very often husbands come home, slop down in front of TV sets and simply do not communicate with their families at all. In some homes soap operas even seem to have become a substitute for real life. /^t/Yet, we must not forget about another side to the picture. We must remember that for the lonely, elderly or disabled, television usually is a blessing, being a cheap and convenient form of entertainment. It does not just entertain, of course: there are times when it can be extremely informative and useful. Over the past several years, television has played a crucial role in a disaster relief. It seems that, for example, the huge fund-raising efforts of Band Aid in 1984 might have had little impact without the world-wide link up of millions of viewers who donated their money to the fund. /^t/A lot is heard about the harmful effects of programmes on children. We are afraid that all that nonsense they watch might desensitize them to real-life horrors, make them vicious, shallow, less responsible and generally sloppy about life and death. But is there any convincing piece of evidence that television really affects our psyche? It is claimed that children spend more time in front of TV sets than in the classroom and that their heads are full of TV - yes, but that is all, just TV! Sport, news, shows, thrillers and soap operas - these seem to occupy us only for as long as they are on. The violence children watch is Tv violence and I believe it does not brutalise them to the point where they cannot grieve the loss of a pet, or be shocked at any real acts of violence around them. /^t/Informative, useful, entertaining and relaxing - and, yes banal and boring - television is all of these. But if we are not selective, surely we have only ourselves to blame. The sad truth is that awful programmes far outnumber the good but there are also gifted people working in television. Anyway, however good or bad the programmes are, they usually are quickly forgotten and the longer we watch the less any single item of a programme matters to us. And a final point: for heavy viewers TV seems to have only two meaningful states - on and off, so if you think that watching it has replaced your real life, maybe that is simply the time to reach for the "off" switch. <0313> The phenomenon known under the term of massmedia has been undergoing a vigorous growth since the beginning of the 20th century. They are a very complex and difficult to define or analyse problem, evading different attempts to classify it. /^t/In the mind of an average person, when he or she hears the term, usually automatically associates it with two main mediums; namely television and press. Their main purpose is to inform and entertain the public. However, when we think about the role and effects of massmedia upon the society, we shouldn't underestimate them, though, on the other hand, people are mostly unconscious of the subtle influence TV and press have on them. /^t/The massmedia are a powerful propaganda weapon, mostly due to their availability and both conscious and unconscious influence they inflict. All dictators and totalitarian systems know about it perfectly, thus trying to control them and the societies through them. However, even in democratic states massmedia, which are supposedly free, can be, and often are a means of subtle control and indoctrination of the society. /^t/One thing is certain, massmedia do affect our approach to reality. Though there is a rule in journalism which recquires objectiveness, and in this way a separation of the news from the comments, there are many methods, known by the conversant, how to use the media for achieving some specific purposes. Those ways are often used, either by whole institutions or individual journalists. Attentive viewers, who take everything critically and try to analyse everything they read, hear or see, are well aware of it, and everyday find examples of gentle manipulations. Taking TV newsflashes as an example, when it lies in someone's interest (i.e. in the government's interest) that certain information should pass unnoticed and without unwanted public reaction, it is not visualised and often given at the end. In such a way it succesfully escapes the attention of an average viewer. /^t/On the other hand, however, unimportant news, often even trivial, which could be treated as a mere curiosity, has a thorough film coverage and quite longish comments. Our attention is in this simple way successfully distracted from the really important issues which otherwise might be a matter of concern. Umberto Eco in his "Everyday Semiology" calls it a Gioconda Effect. It originates from a picture, in which there is a cinema full of people splitting their sides with laughter. Only after a very careful look can we discover Gioconda, who is just slightly smiling, sitting among the laughing audience. There are, of course, many more techniques of manipulation. /^t/However, the effects the massmedia inflict upon the society, are not only different ways of manipulation. The informative aspect of the massmedia plays a huge role. Under no circumstances should we take it for granted that everybody and everything tries to indoctrinate or control us, since there is a growing struggle for objectiveness in the journalistic world. When we don't know something, haven't got a firm opinion or just hesitate, various informative and educational programmes can be of a great use to us. Then we can change our point of view, fortify our stand or simply learn something more about what interests us. A perfect example could be any electional campaign, especially when we don't know yet who to vote for. Then, following the electional debates we have a chance to verify our stance, basing on more complete data or even change our minds completely. /^t/It is impossible to contain all the aspects of the massmedia, and the ways they affect us in a short essay. It is also difficult not to become influenced by the massmedia, though the scale and sort of the influence depends largely on the individual. The best way out would be to approach everything with a certain consciousness and a big dose of criticism. <0314> /^t/Those who are not educated and poor are often said to deserve it, as they should have learnt when they had the opportunity to do so. Those who are well-educated and rich are admired and envied as everybody would like to be in their position. Given the choice between these two groups, anyone would give the answer without hesitation. However, the choice between being poor and well-educated and rich and ignorant, on the other hand, is not so simple. /^t/It might seem that it is not worth struggling for better qualifications if it does not mean to have a better-paid job. The situation of physicians in Poland is well-known as it is often discussed on mass media. It cannot be denied that those who enter the medical profession are not well-educated after six years of hard studies. What is more, they constantly improve their knowledge through reading specialist publications, participating in different conferences; actually they study all their lives. Neither can it be denied that they work hard enough to be paid good money. Very few people do not appreciate their work and refuse to admit that they definitely should be paid more. However they are still underpaid and there are little prospects for the situation to be improved. There are numerous examples of depressed doctors giving up their professional careers and starting others which secure more money. /^t/Another group of this sort are teachers. They, like physicians, never stop studying and being one of the best-educated groups in the society deserve respect and what is connected with that adequate payment. In fact, they are among those who live hand to mouth existence and are laughed at and looked down on by many of their pupils, children of rich although poor-educated parents. /^t/Therefore it might be concluded that it is better to be rich and ignorant. A lot of people who are really rich make money hand over fist just because they are lucky. As an example we can take many people who made money using the economic situation in our country a few years ago. Now, they enjoy their lives spending their money on cars, expensive clothes, posh furniture etc. They go to expensive restaurants and stay at luxurious hotels. Rarely do they go the theatre and even if they do they go for first-night shows to show off and not because they feel like enjoying the play. The more to spend they have the happier they are and they do not realise how funny they are trying to show off with their money. Little do they know about the world but they do not seem to care. They are quite happy because they do not even realise that the lack of education disqualifies them from being regarded as genuine high class people. /^t/However, the most surprising fact about the situation is that such people often want their children to become well-educated people, send them to the best schools, pay a lot of money for their education. The controversy is obvious enough for anyone to see. If education does not give money and if it is quite easy to make money without studying for many years what is the point in having the children educated. There is something in the fact that even ignorant people appreciate knowledge and education even if they refuse to admit that. /^t/In conclusion it can be said that despite the above mentioned disadvantages, it is better to be well-educated as there are always prospects for wealth, at least theoretically, and making up for the lack of education in the future would be much greater problem. <0315> /^t/Joining the European Community brings the advantages for the new members but also have some disadvanteges. Nevertheless, the governments of running for membership countries are trying very hard to make this dream fulfil. /^t/Poland, as many others, is going to be one of the European Community members. Many of us think that joining the E.C. will help to develop Polish economy. To be one of European countries means to be one of these countries, which products will have the same value as French or German ones, and that will cause higher number of products exported from Poland to Europe. The E.C. countries do not have any political, economy or tourist borders. That will be another good point to join the E.C. The people can live and work in any country they wish. If they decide to stay in their native country, they can travel and tourist whenever they want without passport and long queuing at the borders. A chance to get better job or any job will be for many Poles a chance to improve living standards. The E.C. countries have the same prices for the same products that means the competition is maximally reduced. If Poland will become one of the E.C. members, our products will have the same prices and will be as good as any others. That's why there will not be any problems with outlet. Free flow of capital will be possible between Poland and the E.C. countries and then we can receive more money for developing the weak points of our economy. The co-operation in medical, scientific, cultural area will be much higher than so far. Many interesting and important experiments are carried out but lack of capital cause stopping experts from going on with their work. A lot of artists cannot improve their abilities because the local governments are not able to finance cultural events. /^t/To be realistic we cannot forget about disadvantages of joining the E.C. Despite of many pluses there are still some bad points of doing that. Poland will be found on worse economic position according to European countries. Not only Poland will be exporting products to the E.C. but European countries products will be existing in Polish market and there will be many of them. /^t/Opening the borders will let European companies to start working in Poland and this time some small business companies may be ruined. /^t/One of the weakest points of the Polish economy is agriculture which is not able to compete with other European countries agriculture and may collapse. /^t/There is a danger of cheap workers coming from Europe to Poland and taking the job devoted to Polish workers. It may cause higher unemployment in Poland. /^t/Another danger is flowing of half made products from Europe to Poland which can be a reason of weaker popularity of Polish products. Next point against is the same currency for all the E.C. members which might be very uncomfortable for economy of the richest members. /^t/To sum up, the good points are growing in number but the bad ones are still making us a little bit confused and the question of joining the E.C. or not will be still unanswered until the dream will come true. <0316> /^t/Some of us, Poles, state that Poland doesn't need to strive for being part of United Europe because it has always been European country. They mention invasion of the foreign capital and perverted culture, they warn us against the work of the bureaucrats from Brussels. The others persuade us of freedom of choices as far as place of employment and residence are concerned, public happiness, peace and welfare. It's vital to present all the advantages and disadvantages that European Economic Community brings about and than formulate our opinion. /^t/The most sinister apprehensions mentioned by polish Rights are a little bit exaggerated. We shouldn't be afraid of the loss of our traditional nationality. We, Poles, are conscious and proud of our cultural heritage. The real danger lies in a false assumption that Poland will become a member of EC automatically with all the drawbacks, after quick referendum in which most of us will vote "yes". It's quite easy to predict what will happen soon after. The prices of food and many other articles will run low. Unfortunately, after several months it will become evident that inflation goes up, it's hardly possible to reform social insurance system, zloty is still not interchangeable and falls in value. There will be little likelihood of incorporation of Poland to The Monetary Union. Huge plants which didn't manage to find any investors or western partners, will begin strikes because they will be unable to rival with cheap and modern articles of foreign consortiums. Farmers will begin to block the roads in order not to let agrarian products produced in other parts of The United Europe on polish market. Such a situation will cause immediate effects - social support will decrease, public discontent will increase, powerful rightist and nationalistic groups will appear on the political arena. /^t/Luckily, such a situation is rather unfeasible. EC will not take such a burden on it shoulders. Unfortunately, our country as well as economy are unprepared for it. It's quite evident that our efforts should come before detailed analysis of the current conditions and consequent introduction of the free market reforms as well as changes in educational, social insurance systems and health service. We need the membership in EC in consideration of some political and strategic aspects. Poland is not a small, out-of-the-way country, so we cannot be neutral, we can't stand peacefully face to face with uniting Europe. Poland can't afford neutrality - we are not a rich country, we haven't got enough funds or sources of the internal capital. The membership in European structures is the only sensible solution at the turn of the century. /^t/In my opinion, the membership of Poland in the United Europe structures can't be perceived from the extreme positions, we cannot fall either into Eurofanaticism or Europhobia. It should be pointed out that membership countries will not take OUR interest into consideration, the most important are their own profits. We should analyse not only what Poland will get from EC but how we will contribute to it as well. /^t/Being European may be enjoyable but being still a Pole - proud of his/her traditions and feeling sure about the future is pleasurable as well. As a result, I incline towards the idea of "Europe of motherlands" - uniting and magnifying other countries rather than "European motherland" consolidated and standardised without any sense of national character. <0317> /^t/There is no doubt about the fact that we are all exposed to the influence of mass media. New newspaper and magazine titles appear constantly, new television channels try to attract viewers' attention and the range of radio programmes one can choose from seems to be infinite. /^t/Although all kinds of mass communications claim that their primary goal is providing people with news and information, it is extremely easy to realize that the manner in which they do it may affect the information and its reception to a great extent. I would not like to suggest that conscious manipulation of information is a common feature of mass media. However, such cases are far too common to be easily forgotten. Mass communications have become a weapon in political struggle between opposing parties, an arena on which every side tries to highlight its own qualities and the weaknesses of the opponents. It is only up to the viewer, listener or reader to decide what the real message hidden in the abundance of unnecessary words is. /^t/I have deliberately started describing political issues since it is in that area that people tend to form their opinions mainly or even exclusively on the basis of the attitude presented by mass media. Such a situation is hardly surprising when we take into account the fact that many politicians and parties seem to be able only to flatter and beguile people with cheap talk and apart from that are incapable of any action in real world. /^t/However, politics is not the only area where the way in which mass media affect our approach to reality could be observed. Practically, we can assume that mass communications shape the way we perceive every sphere of life and reality. Extensive coverage of bomb explosions, aeroplane crashes, earthquakes, floods, famines and other disasters makes people think they live in a highly dangerous world, but on the other hand it causes certain insensivity towards the victims. Since it is impossible to prevent the death of so many people, there is no use worrying about it. Television reports have accustomed people to horrific scenes of violence. The improportionately large amount of violence presented by mass media may render us thinking that our planet is a much more dangerous place to live in than it really is. /^t/Another aspect in which the role of mass media cannot be overestimated is the change of people's attitude towards money. Watching films and reading articles in which limousines, mansions and unimaginable fortunes are indispensable elements we gradually come to a conclusion that the respect you get depends solely on the number of figures in the statement of your bank account. /^t/It would not be objective to discuss only the negative way in which media change our approach to reality. There is the other side as well. For example, mass media are not likely to stop their concern about the problem of pollution. We are taught to care about the future of our children and not treat the planet like a rubbish dump. People become more aware of the risks connected with the disposal of some chemicals or nuclear waste. /^t/Taking everything into account we must admit that mass media have become an oracle for many people. We are apt to accept the situation and treat it as normal. However, opinion polls conducted to measure the reliability of mass communications reveal that there are sceptics, too. That is a good symptom as it shows that still there are people who can think independently and not accept someone else's opinions and beliefs as their own. <0318> /^t/When I think of the world 'reality', several definitions come to my mind. Deciding to choose the most adequate one, I come to a conclusion that reality is everything that surrounds us and everything we are sunk into. Human thought and its products - culture, literature and technology, plus the inevitable and powerful factor of nature and events it puts us through - are the components of reality. Mutual dependence and innumerable connections between the aforementioned phenomena create the world we live in. Thus, anything that comes from this world does affect us, people, and our life. For this reason, I strongly believe that mass media, deeply rooted in the reality that surrounds us, have a great impact on the way we perceive it. /^t/The most obvious argument for the above thesis is just the very presence of mass media in our lives. In the contemporary world, they accompany us from the first moments of our childhood to, frequently, the day when we die. Whether we want it or not, we are constantly being exposed to press, radio and television. This impossibility of avoiding them (we do buy newspapers, cannot go by a newsagent not glancing at the headlines, we listen to radio broadcasts at home or hear them on the underground, we watch 'Wiadomosci', 'Sky Worldwide Report', or 'NBC News Update') influences and shapes our views, opinions, emotions and feelings concerning the world we live in. Mass media (regardless of whether we 'inhale' them more or less consciously) make us think about the messages they carry; we start to formulate judgments and views on the basis of what we have just heard, seen, or read. In this way, our perception of reality is distorted (or maybe enriched?) by the things we learn from mass media. /^t/Besides, as an integral part of today's reality, mass media are, in fact, the most powerful and the most frequently used channel of exchanging information and showing us what the world is like. It is via television that we learn what films the Japanese make, what were the results of an earthquake in Iran, or what Mr. Clinton said about the US Army last week. It is via the Internet, the latest invention that, in my opinion, can also be called 'mass media', that we gather information on any topic we want to. It is via radio that we listen to music and, often, let it influence our mood. And, finally, it is in magazines that we see what the top models of the world wear nowadays. So, we listen, observe, read, and react - we formulate opinions ('Well, the US Army is really powerful.'), make decisions ('They write interesting things about 'Heavens Gate'. Why not try to join it?'), change attitudes ('This music makes me cry and feel desperate.'), and imitate ('I must have a blouse like the one that Cindy wears!'). Our behaviour (judgements, decisions, moods and individual actions - in other words, our approach towards the world and reality) is full of 'impurities' coming from the power of mass media. /^t/There are opinions that mass media have an enormous influence on society and that they, in fact, control our lives. I do not agree with such an extreme view, but I admit that everything that we see, read or hear in mass media does change the world. We vote, invest money and look for solutions in accordance with the information we are given. In this way, mass media really are a powerful tool, and, if they are not truthful and reliable, they will not only affect our approach to reality but also do a lot of irreparable harm to the world we live in. <0319> /^t/We live in an environment partially shaped by the opinions, sights, sounds and values presented by mass media. Some mass media have developed into systems that can reach masses of people in a very short time. Because of this ability media such as television, radio, newspaper and film are commonly called mass media. Today one person with access to mass media can reach several hundred million people in a matter of hours. /^t/The author of this pepper would like to focus on the controversial question, whether mass media such as television has a negative or a positive effect on today's society and how it can influence the behavior of the young viewers. /^t/Most people would admit to the fact that television is perhaps the most easily accessible type of media in the world. Some people argue that television is the greatest invention of the twentieth century. While others claim it is a drain of valuable time, an evil influence on the our nations. There are those who blame television for teaching violence and encouraging young viewers to imitate the fictional criminals or even popular cartoon characters like Tom and Jerry. They say that children are most vonruable to images presented to them on television, they sometimes even try to imitate their heroes, not being aware of the consequences. There are also those people who practically became addicted to watching television, just like some get addicted to drugs. Those individuals are commonly known as vegetables, who are able to do little more than sit and watch the tube all day long. The reason for this addiction is obvious, watching television does not require any physical involvement intact it is very passive, all the viewer has to do is to sit and watch. This problem is not so serious in our country, however in the United States this has recently become a major risk. Television offers many programs and adaptations of films which most children prefer over reading books. /^t/The above mentioned examples show that television as one of the most influential mass media can in fact have a harmful impact on today's society. /^t/Still others see television as history's most effective educator, allowing every one to seize all the wonders and knowledge of the world. Such education was only available to the wealthy who could afford to travel and see different parts of our planet. There is no question about fact that education programs have a beneficial influence on the development of today's younger generation. Children today seem know much more about the world than their parents and grandparents did at the same age. /^t/Television plays a major role in informing people about the latest news and current affairs. It is easy to switch on the television to find out what's happening in the world of politics or get prepared for the incoming storm heading your way. Nowadays most people have an access to television through cable or satellite, in cases where the newspaper or radio can't reach television certainly can get there first and inform the people about the current news. /^t/When discussing mass media such as television and trying to reach the conclusion whether it is an affect or approach to reality one must keep in mind that it is a controversial subject. Some will always argue that mass media is an important part of our society and we all can benefit from it. On the other hand others will strongly oppose this argument and say it is in fact harmful and has a negative impact on our society. <0320> /^t/Among the three branches of mass media - the press, radio and television - it is the last one that affects the most of our senses, the sight and the hearing, and consequently, is regarded to have the strongest influence on our perception of reality. In this situation, sociologists and psychologists dispute its effect on the viewers, whether it is positive or negative. Some of them highlight its leading role in informing and educating people but others stress the fact that too many programmes are used to mislead and manipulate them. /^t/The supporters of television point out that it is one of the fastest ways of transmitting the information. The BBC or CNN news programmes get the viewer closer to the issues from the furthest places all over the world in a very profassional and objective way. In a minute on the telavision screen, we can see the French farmers protesting in the streets of Paris against the import of Spanish vegetables to their country or we can be the witnesses of the socio-political revolt in the Republic of South Africa. As a result, television makes the world a small village where information is spread with the lightning speed. /^t/On the other hand the opponents of television emphasize that the speed of the news transmission should not be so important as its value. According to them the debate - Walesa versus Kwasniewski presented on Polish TV before the last presidential election has proven to be the political demagogy overflowing with empty promisses, which were only to attract the electorate and persuade them to vote for a certain person. Moreover, some of the Polish news programmes are accused of being too subjective or one-sided. For example, The News, broadcast at half past seven every evening on Channel I, is to blame for showing too much information advocating the Democratic Left Alliance. As a consequence, public surveys have shown that 45% of the electorate would vote for this party. In these circumstances the problem of political propaganda on television arises and its influence on people cannot be ignored. /^t/Commercials are another battlefield for the supporters and the opponents of television. For the previous, the adverts are the source of the firsthand information about the goods available on the market and the way of saving time as a housewife does not have to look round to purchase the most suitable washing powder. In contrast, the later criticize the commercials for addressing to the basic emotions not to the mind. For instance, after having watched several advertisements of X, Y or Z washing powder, the every of which had been claimed to be the best, the housewife will choose the one presented by more charming lady or the one having more eye-catching slogan. Consequently, the opponents of television underline the fact that in this way the medium takes part in the highly unethical manipulation of the public. /^t/However few examples were described above, it is clear that the strong influence of television can be easily noticed in every social group of any country. Nevertheless, one must remember that it is an individual that should be examined here carefully, as different persons react to the magnetism of the medium in a distinc way. Some of them will credulously believe in most of broadcast information and become the easy material to be moulded. Whereas, others will not take everything on trust or just turn off the set. However, looking at the problem from two points of view, the positive and negative influence of television on our approaching reality, nobody can imagine the world without this medium. <0321> /^t/The influence of mass media on our life is enormous. We are not even able to imagine our existence without television, radio and newspapers. Mass media by all means affect our approach to reality. They inform, teach and entertain us. But at the same time they may be also harmful. /^t/Let us have a good look at television for example. Somebody wrote that "it is a continuous cheap source of information". We watch it in order to be well-informed. There are plenty of informative programmes that tell us what is going on in the world. For people who do not have time to read newspapers such lasting fifteen minutes programmes are real benefits. /^t/Television provides us with a considerable variety of programmes so everybody can choose whatever he wants. Enormous possibilities for education are created by television. We can learn languages thanks to TV. It also enables us to broaden our knowledge as far as specialised subjects such as biology, geography and history are concerned. School broadcasts are very helpful while teaching and they make monotonous lessons more interesting and motivating. /^t/Television also entertains and amuses us. After a hard day spent at work we relax sitting in front of TV and watching comedies. It is television that taught us the quickest communication is via satellite. If we plan to make a career we think about TV for many famous people emerged from it. If we have health problems or problems with our children we can always rely on TV because there are special programmes offering advice. /^t/We should not forget that the admission of "the one-eyed monster in our homes" has also bad consequences. Instead of spending some time with friends, going to theatres, cinemas, restaurants, riding a bike or jogging we prefer watching TV. After all staring at the telly is much more cheaper than dining out. <*>. /^t/Books and films based on them are another negative aspect of television. Why should we waste time on reading books when a film based on the book lasts only an hour and a half. And masses of illiterates live happily without bothering to open a book. /^t/<*>. We live between soap operas and mini series. <*>. Horrors, crime stories, violence, blood, fightings, guns, massacres appear on the screen and teach our children how to become teenage monsters. TV affects their approach to reality that is turned into battle fields. /^t/Both television, radio and newspapers play an important role during such events like the elections. They make us aware of certain aspects and open our eyes on things we had no idea about. But the influence of mass media can be also negative. We are bombarded with opinions and ideas that almost deprive us of the ability to decide by ourselves. /^t/Radio broadcasts and newspapers are also a source of information about the world affairs. But sometimes some information can disturb people's privacy and ruin their lives. Famous people are followed by reporters and their moves are immediately described in newspapers. On the other hand, however, we look forward to reading about some piquant details from film and pop stars' lives. /^t/We should also bear in mind the significant role of mass media as far as advertising is concerned. <*>. Large, colourful posters presenting girls drinking coca-cola or smelling expensive perfumes beautify our railway stations and buildings. Thanks to advertisements we can find a job, sell, buy or rent a house, announce birth, marriage or even death. /^t/Mass media do affect our approach to reality. There are both positive and negative aspects of this influence but the former ones are more significant. <0322> Ever since communication and information become widely available, if it was print or television, there were people whose interest was in using communication media for their own puropses and benefits. As access to media is, at least formally, controlled it takes to have money or/and power to use them in a way which is absolutely not susceptible. Information that we get from media are chosen from vast resource of news, information, stock reports, coverages of main world events. Manipulation of our consciousness starts at the level of source. Who decides where to send the reporters and what is unsignificant? Do we? It is someone's interest that we watch/read/hear only information that we are desired to. Out of sight, out of mind - that ole' truth finds its allies in media. We do not need to know that someone is rioting somewhere in Africa, because it makes us think: Why they riot, how they are treated, and - oops! - It happened to me last week. If we are shown scenes from some uprising we cannot trust what we hear because interpretation is what gives the facts the meaning. We are offered some easy-to-swallow explanations of events, which we accept without hinking. We want to be cheated and the world is cheating us. For instance we can see that most catastrophes, acts of kidnapping, riots, wars and other disasters happen in "politically incorrect" or poor countries of Africa, Asia, South America. Commentary ensures us that it is "normal" situation in those countries. Opposed to that rich countries are shown as oases of safety, beauty and fun. Greece, Spain, Portugal - oin TV sun, sand and surf. In reality economic problems, areas of low income, unemployment, ethnic conflicts and regular citizens. Crime rates are higher in United States or Germany than in Algeria or Vietnam. The poor and the weak are an easy pray - they cannot defend themselves. And masters of manipulation are able to make us think like they want, by constant repetition the receivers of such information start to believe that. Of course it also works in "positive" sense. When Poland was announced a "low risk" country investors started to crowd in. Commercials, along with politics, are the best examople of manipulations of our brains, and therefore our lives. They are made to make you buy things you do not want to buy and as such are contrary to free will. They are more subtle, or opaque, than politics. They use carefully chosen images, phrases, colors and anything you can think of to affest your will. They are prepared with psychologicians who know what happens in our minds and therefore can plan precisely our reactions. All charity concerts are thought of that way. Their main purpose is to give profit to organizers, to sell records and videos with pictures of starving children on cover. Media do not say a word that those children starve because the fields of wheat has been transformed into cash crops like coffeee or tea for rich people in the West. We are manipulated all the time by media. Of course it is not only evil manipulation, brainwashing. But all in all they teach us not to think, just to trust those who select information. And their intentions may really be frightenning. Manipulation done in media may have some appearance of innocence llike showing a controversial movie about abortion at 2:30 am. "Sorry, you could as well watch it!". Reality is not what we see on TV or read in the paper. We should think when we use media. It does not take much to deceive us. Just some color, chicks and nice words. "TV lies". Always. <0323> /^t/Today, when English is one of the major languages in the world, it requires an effort of the imagination to realize that this is a relatively recent thing. In Shakespeare's times, for example, only a few million people spoke English, and the language was not thought to be very important by the other nations of Europe, and was unknown to the rest of the world. Judging from the world statistics, which say that around 400 million people all over the world speak English and also relying on my own experiences throughout my learning years, I find English a language easy enough to be learned by every potential learner. /^t/To start with, I would like to go into certain historical details to some extent, although the paper is not supposed to cover this area of language study in the first place. However, it is a pure fact that Old English, like modern German, French, Russian or Polish had many inflections to show singular and plural, tense, person, etc., but over the centuries, words have been simplified, which is a spectacular facilitation for the learners of English. As a result English verbs now have very few inflections, and adjectives do not change according to the noun, contrary to Polish, where the number of inflections and forms compared to those of English is unbelievably high. Thanks to the loss of inflections, English has become, over the past five centuries, a very flexible language. In relation to its flexibility and simplicity I would like to present some evidence. Without inflections, the same word can operate as many different parts of speech thus facilitating vocabulary development. Many nouns and verbs have the same form, (which in Polish never takes place) for example: swim, drink, walk, kiss, look and smile. We can talk about water to drink and to water the flowers; time to go and to time a race; a paper to read and to paper a bedroom. Another substantial simplification is that adjectives can be used as verbs, for example, we warm our hands in front of a fire; if clothes are dirtied, they need to be cleaned and dried. Prepositions too are flexible, e.g. a sixty-yerar old man is nearing retirement; we can talk about a round of golf, cars, or drinks. What's more, English is an incredibly open language for the admission of new words and easy creation of compounds and derivatives. On the other hand there are many learners who believe English to be a very complicated language to master. Quite frequently, as a reason for such an opinion they mention the wide range of English tenses, which indeed may seem an obstacle at the early stages of learning. More to it, some learners hate the English pronunciation and spelling systems in which there is hardly any regularity. However, in my opinion, these obstructions can be overcome easily through sufficient dose of practice. Besides, I think that English shows absolute logic in its grammatical assumptions and although it is a Germanic language, it resembles Polish in many linguistic aspects. One more important issue connected with English is its omnipresence in every branch of our lives and an exceptionally easy access to it, especially through mass-media. /^t/English is the language of business, politics, sport and science nowadays. However, its becoming a world language has not been merely due to its easiness and simplicity of form but also to its establishment as a mother tongue outside England, in all the continents of the world. Statistically, one person in seven of the world's entire population speaks English. Surprisingly enough, 75 % of the world's mail and 60 % of the world's telephone calls are in English. Isn't it impressive? Having presented all the facts and arguments I have had at my disposal I think I am not left alone with the opinion that the English language is not complex, in fact to me it is a pleasure to learn. <0324> /^t/When we have to make a choice we are often in trouble or we hesitate at least. We ask ourselves many questions and try to find answers that will satisfy us. Unfortunately it is not always as easy as we would like it to be because sometimes it is simply impossible. At first sight it seems that everything is clear and nothing has to be thought over: it is obvious people prefer to be rich and well educated then poor and ignorant. Some of them think that a lot of money can make you happy and you do not necesserily need to be an intelligent man. The other ones claim that wealth is for nothing if you are intellectually poor. /^t/Nowdays in our country being well educated is sometimes not enough to be happy or just to enjoy an average standard of living. If your work gives you only satisfaction it may lead you to frustration. There are of course madcaps who do not bother about money but they are in minority. They used to say that money will not give you happiness but the truth is you cannot live without them. /^t/There is a group of people in Poland which emerged after the era of communism. They are the owners of big firms or corporations and they can afford many things that a typical common mancan not even dream about. They did not have to be well educated but they won because they appeared in an appropriate place and time, having the right ready cash. /^t/Money is useful when you want to buy a fast Ferrari and genes are said to be useful when you want to be intelligent. But having a fast sports car does not automatically make you a good driver. You may have a powrful car driven badly: someone else may have a more humble car driven well. The horsepower and engineering of the car provide the "potential". It is the skill of the driver that puts this potential into operation. In the same way intelligence or education is the potential of the mind and the way this is put into operation is thinking skill. There may be powerful minds used badly and more humble minds driven well. /^t/Ignorants are not always aware of their faults and may be that is why they feel good. Nevertheless I cannot unmistakably say which option is better. It depends on us and our attitude to life: whether we are poor and well educated or rich and ignorant we can be happy. <0325> /^t/For many many years the nature and the mind of a man have been a mystery and the subject of research for many scientists, especially psychologists and sociologists. Today everyone may admit that the nature of a man is highly sophisticated but on the other hand it is so weak and plain that can be easily controlled in the contemporary world where things got used to be under the influence of computers, artificial food, cloning and... omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent mass media. /^t/Nowadays, whole generations are trapped in the middle of a triangle consisted of television, radio and press. These are the mass media which are the creators of the world, which provide us with its picture: a mixture of admiration and violence, honesty and corruption, love and death, the good and the bad. We are exposed to the opinions and views presented by ubiquitos journalists, which are, in majority of cases exaggerated and irrelevant to status quo. Isn't it stupifying? In the kingdom of television, radio and press a man is not able to differenciate distinctively the border between the truth and the imagined reality. He is not able to protect himself from the flood of western negative norms of behaviour, the flood of films - instructions of killing, stealing, bribing and fighting for a promotion. "Where does it lead to?" - a psychologist may ask - "to frustration, aggresion, irrational fears?". We have not heard about teenage-killers, satanism and sadism before we had admitted "the one-eyed monster" into our homes. /^t/Bearing in mind the weakness of a human nature, a man passively acquires any information without any desire to study, to find something new or to come to his own conclusions. Our approach to reality and the way we perceive it is exactly the same as that presented to us by mass media. We take over the same opinion about any actors, politicians or other prominents as we hear on TV or radio; we read a film review repeating and presenting it as ours. Whatever we do and say we refer to television, radio and press. /^t/There is also one more thing worth mentioning, namely our addiction to television. It encourages passive enjoyment. We become content with second-hand experiences. It is easy to sit in our armchairs watching others working. Little by litlle, television cuts us off from the real world, from our friends, hobbies, interests and amusements. We get so lasy, we choose to spend a fine day in semi-darkness, glued to our stupifying sets, rather than go out into the world itself. /^t/Television may be a splendid medium of communication, but it prevents us from communicating with each other, subordinating us to the two most primitive media of communication: pictures and the spoken word. On the other hand our vocabulary and knowledge about the world would have been very poor and plain if there had not been mass media. These are the TV and radio programmes or articles which are the basis for meetings, further discussions and exchanges of different opinions. Fortunately we become aware how totally irrelevant mass media are to real living when we spend a holiday by the sea or in the mountains, far away from civilisation. In quiet, natural surroundings, we quickly discover how little we miss the hypnotic tyranny of "King Mass Media". <0326> /^t/The rapid growth of enterprises reporting news and spreading information has led some social commentators to believe that a quiet revolution, or at least an upheaval, has taken place in recent years in connection with the news media. It has broken down both class and regional boundaries and also geographic and cultural barriers among viewers all over the world. However, much of the concern is centered on the feeling that the mass media have become too powerful, particularly as a result of their overwhelming presence. Hence, we can ask whether viewers use information gained, for instance, from television, an if they act as the persuaders would like them to act. /^t/There is no denying to the fact that television plays the most essential role as far as participation in our life is concerned. The process of its influence begins early in childhood as many children begin viewing as infants. Children can and do watch television programmes that tell them about the secrets of adult life and introduce them to themes they normally would encounter much late in life. Young children are exposed to the news almost every day. Most so-called family programmes deal with themes with which children would not have been familiar even 25 years ago. Through mass media we know and develop intimate and sometimes intense relationships with public figures of all kinds. The stars of television ranging from announcers to rock performers to politicians have become pseudo-intimate acquiaintances. Seeing political events, the expression on faces, and the use of hands or eyes during an interview adds some dimensions to political figures and influences the way we perceive them. Therefore, television seems to play the essential role in the development of attitude, emotion, and social behaviour, and intellectual functioning. Since television is filled with dramas about human interactions-about family life, love, sexuality, emotion, and problem solving-viewers use some of these messages and images in their own interactions with others. People, including children, respond emotionally to TV content, but those responses differ, depending on the characteristics of the responder. Polish TV contains a great deal of violence. There is extensive evidence that television violence can influence aggressive attitudes and behaviour. There is little explicit sexuality, but there are many indirect and suggestive references to sexual behaviour. All of this has played an important role, along with other factors, in weakening traditional ties of church, ethnic group or neighbourhood. Our earlier ties to family, church and appropriate patterns of behaviour have eroded. /^t/It is difficult to separate out the effect of mass media as an instrument of communication from the fact that it is a commercial enterprise. Television, far more than newspapers, radio or movies, provides its audience with a feeling that what it views is the truth. Stories, documentaries, even drama take on reality with which other media cannot compete. The events are seen 'as they happen'. The written word can be discounted, as can the spoken word, but pictures seen in the privacy of our homes are too compelling. Even if we know that they might not be accurate, it is hard to escape the perception that we are viewing reality. /^t/Although there are media like books, motion pictures, newsletters and comic books that are not generally thought of as a means of promotion, advertising has actually become involved in all of them. It is a powerful presence and unquestionably makes a substantial impact upon the Polish psyche. These frequent and repeated messages tell us to consume. They advocate for making our lives easier, more enjoyable and encourage us to accumulate more possessions and new experiences. Advertising teaches us to take pride in outer appearances and in the way we present ourselves to others. The human relations depicted in advertisement are positive with conflicts shown only in the most enjoyable form. Superiority, pricing, quality and service are greatly valued. There is an emphasis on the material comforts of life that are available in a wealthy industrial society. Advertisements also remind us of the possessions that we do not have and of the privileges of those who do have them. They promote products, but simultaneously they urge us to acquire more things and therefore they coerce us to work harder, to achieve more so that we too acquire products. In some cases the advertisement creates the idea that possessions are so important that they must be acquired by any means. /^t/However, it cannot be omitted that newspapers, magazines and television give the public what it wants to a far greater extent than is realized. Some newspapers, just like politicians, use polls to determine what their readers want-and do not want. It is hardly surprising that newspapers, magazines and television stations should be influenced by the public. After all, they are business enterprises which seek a profit. This, then is a proof of the two-way flow of information. The media influence public opinion and is also influenced by it. <0327> /^t/Language is one of the most useful tools we have as humans. Without it we could not think thoughts expressible to others, nor could we engage in the activities that commonly take place in the societies we build for ourselves. In recent years English has become an international language and, as a consequence, more and more people undertake the task of learning it. They hope they will manage to do it in a short period of time, holding a belief that English is an easy language to acquire. Let's see how it works in practice. /^t/The complexity of human communication makes language learning one of the greatest challenges for people. Bearing this in mind some people may claim that learning English (or any other language) is extremely difficult. They realize that learning a foreign language is done from zero. However, as their opponents might say, the zero is not absolute because the foreign language learner as a speaker of at least one language, his first language, knows how it works. When we embark on learning English, it first seems to us that the mastery of the pronunciation of English will come naturally after we have learned how to pronounce individual vowel and consonant sounds, which gives the impression of being a piece of cake. However, there is much more to the pronunciation of English than its individual sounds. How these sounds are organized plays a greater role in communication than the sounds themselves. In order to master English pronunciation we must learn two major organizing structures, rhythm and intonation, which may pose problems. The moment we begin writing in English we are immediately shocked by the discrepancy between the writing system and the pronunciation, which makes its orthography far from phonemic. We get mad seeing that a single phoneme may be represented by a number of spellings, for example /f/ may be represented by f (fill), ph (philosophy) or gh (enough). Vowels can present even more of a problem. On the other hand, some people point out that in spite of all these inconsistencies in the spelling-pronunciation relationship, it is possible to master English spelling quickly by role-memorizing it. Nevertheless, we should realize that being able to spell and pronounce a given word does not mean knowing it. Even if we know the meaning of it, still it is not enough. In addition, English learners need to know what other lexical items it is usually associated with and whether it has got any grammatical characteristics. But it is not the end of our journey through the kingdom of English vocabulary. The knowledge of phrasal verbs, collocations, euphemisms, synonyms etc. still remains to be gained - we are not out of the woods yet. What is more, English has become a number-one borrowing language with the wealth of foreign items that add zest to its already rich lexicon. As far as English grammar is concerned, some people believe it is easy to learn for it is intuited, understood through what people say, without having to use structural exercises. Their opponents, however will argue that we have to learn how grammar rules work for accurate language. Of course, sometimes it can be done by comparing the rules of English grammar with our own ones (native language rules), taking advantage of all the similarieties that facilitate our learning. But on the other hand, the discrepancies may make it difficult. Although, English grammar is fraught with a lot of problems which the learner has to overcome (tenses, countable and uncountable nouns, conditionals, the article system, the possessive apostrophe.....), it can be mastered by systematic work on it. Learning English also involves learning how to write in it. Of course, the learner cannot be expected to master all the different varieties of the written form of the language, many of which would not be relevant to their needs. However, it is not enough to learn a kind of "neutral" general purpose form of written expression. As in speech, they have at least to be able to select an appropiate style, formal or informal, and to present their message to the reader. Although it cannot be said to be easy, many of the difficulties which the learners have in this area can be overcome by systematic practice. We learn English to be able to communicate with other people by using it. Some may claim that after having spent plenty of hours pondering over all the traps in English, engaging in real communication will be like falling off a log. However, even if we are able to produce correct sentences, lack of sociocultural, factual and contextual knowledge of the target language can present an obstacle to communication. /^t/Learning a foreign language creates a lot of problems and causes our headaches. English is not any exception. The knowledge of it is not handed to us on a plate. So if we want to make headway, we had better get used to burning the midnight oil and working round the clock. Hard work and systematic practice are the only means of overcoming all the problems we are dogged by, and finally becoming fluent English speakers. <0328> /^t/Man differs from all the forms of life that exist on our planet in one respect namely he is endowed with intelligence and ability of reasoning that gives him unimaginable power. The ability of drawing conclusions from experiences, gathering them and recording for the generations to come made it possible to move constantly forwards in all sorts of advancements. The accumulation of knowledge has led to discoveries which changed man's reality out of recognition. Simple life that could be appreciated by our ancestors is no longer in existence. Being surrounded by modern devices in almost every sphere of our life, there inevitable rises the question whether the progress exerts any influence upon man and if it changes our approach to reality. /^t/Mass media and in particular television and computers are among these inventions of the present world which occupy most of our time. They have become indespensable as clothes or cutlery without which we are unable to perform any other actions. From our childhood we sit in front of television and watch all sorts of programmes that teach us about the world. The growing commonness of TV or computer understood as the amount of time spent with them changes the way we perceive the world. More and more we learn who we are, where we are and what is our destination from a film, a programme or information we get from computers. The evidence that mass media affect our approach to reality can be given through analysing children and their response to the phenomenon of television. Children learn how to behave through imitation, what they see they take as a pattern without considering its good and bad nature. As their system of values is not fixed yet, they hardly understand the difference and what is bad and repugnant often becomes good and enjoyable from their perspective. Television is a great source of behaviours ranging from moral to evil ones. Unfortunately the predominant part of what we see in it is socially unacceptable and immoral, moreover it does not reflect real life. On the basis of what we see today in the streets we may draw the conclusion that films do not tell about life but they create life. What is going in the film seems to find its realization in one or the other form in the streets. Directors do not care about the impact of their films upon human psyche, they force into films a lot of murders, violent attacks and cruel behaviours in order to make them more attractive and easier to sell. To support the claim that films or in general mass media affect the reality I can enumerate many examples that would prove its truthfulness. Violence which we often encounter in our daily life is in many cases generated by what was seen or heard in mass media like television or cinema. Especially young delinquents when asked to give their motives say that they only wanted to imitate film heroes or see whether it is such a great fun as it was in a film. /^t/We must realize that all forms of communicating ideas whether it is through computer games or most down to earth documentary films possess the power of affecting our mind and with this our reality. A child or even adult exposed to destructive force of director's imagination must find himself in a situation where his sensitivity and set of values change bringing altered behaviour. The threat of imposing evil patterns of behaviour lurks in the sophisticated devices of the present world. Mass media have become our teachers who considerably shape our mind. It is not the question whether they should function or not. The most significing dilemma facing man is how they should function. Mass media must serve man giving him help in more and more complex world and not safeguard their own interests at man's expense. <0329> In the present world the influence of mass media upon man is surely bigger than it was ever before. We are constantly bombarded and overinformed with news presented on TV, radio and press. The information given there makes influence upon us that we are even unaware of. Therefore, it is worth having closer look at it. The values at the turn of the millenium as well as the style of life varies considerably from the ones in the past. From the early childhood we are taught to learn what happens around us. There is an unwritten principle that if you do not know what happens around, you are old-fashioned. Therefore to be up to date you have to listen to the news, watch TV and read the press. Lots of people stick to this principle, buying newspapers every day, having radio or TV set on for the whole day. All of these makes them sure that they are up to date. Some writers, however, warn against such approach. Thoreau, for example wrote in his Walden /^t/<*> Benjamin Hoff in his excellent book The Tao of Piglet uses the phrase Negative Mass Media stating clearly that we are informed about problems we can do little or nothing about and what is more few of them have much of anything to do with our lives. One fragment is particularly scoffing. /^t/<*> Apart from overabundant "Negative News" mass media are overfilled with advertisements that take advantage of the attracting and magic words like: new, improved, wonderful or phrases like: "it is more than you think", "designed especially for you", "proved correct in practice" etc. All of these are designed to fiddle-faddle us to buy what is being advertised. As a result we are left with the feeling that we want to buy what we do not need, that we have to earn more, that we have to do same extra work, that we have to spend less time with our family, that we are overworked, exhausted, depressed, grumbling for the mere sake of keeping up with the Joneses. Fortunately, we have freedom of choice as far as the kind of newspaper, the channel on TV and the broadcasting station are concerned. We do not have to know everything about the surrounding world and posses all we can find in mass media. The more we realise about the influence of it the more concerned we will be about the choice of things suitable for the development of our interest and personality necessary for enjoying our life fully. <0330> /^t/In the today's world of the global village it is impossible not to notice the widespread effect of mass media communication. Whether we take television, radio, newspapers or the latest and most technologically advanced medium - the internet, it is obvious that thanks to them we have much broader horizons than the generations before us. /^t/All the media present us every day with the latest news of the world. We get information from the most distant parts of the world at the same time as news from the city we live in. /^t/The most powerful medium - television, covers all major world events, by bringing them instantly right into our living rooms. We can visually participate in all important political meetings, see soldiers dying in front of the cameras, hurricane striking distant cities, or volcano exploding on a small Pacific island. World wide mass media make us feel like the citizens of the world. We watch or read that the same problems we have exist all around the world and that the people cope with them in the same way as we do. /^t/If we look more closely at the headlines of newspapers, or titles of television programmes we will easily notice, that they promise the reader or viewer something shocking, sensational, something that people nowadays want to see. We get, however, very quickly accustomed to things that used to shock us not so long ago. The war between the former Yugoslavia republics was at first extremely appalling with all its atrocities, but as it went on people got used to seeing dead bodies on the streets, no matter young or old. /^t/This constant flow of information has a very widespread impact on all of us. It can, however, vary in intensity an final effect. This constant flow of information helps us to be more objective and well informed, more tolerant towards people having different religion or skin colour. /^t/We can distinguish two groups of people who are influenced by mass media. /^t/The first group are people who are very much influenced by mass media communication and information and cannot live without them. They tend to lose interest in seeing the world outside on their own, being satisfied with the vision of world presented in television, radio or in the newspapers. They become dependent on the coverage of the world done by mass media. Some of them are also influenced by the stereotypes of personality and ways of living shown in mass media, especially in advertisements that are now present everywhere. They feel urged to follow them, because they also want to be rich, beautiful and always young. In this way mass media can blur the reality and make people believe in what they see. /^t/The second group that can be distinguished consists of the people, who are not at all prone to be influenced in this way. They treat mass media as an additional source of information about the outside world. It increases their interest in the world and encourages them to explore it through their own eyes. /^t/In the today's world it is practically impossible to escape from the contact with mass media. In every corner of the globe we can contact with the world and the world can contact with us. We should, however, never believe in everything we see on television or read in the papers, because what is presented there is a vision of the world seen by the journalists. <0331> /^t/The effect of the media can be appreciated by the fact that in many countries freedom of the press is practically abolished. It is not by accident that a coup's first victim is often a television or radio station. Restrictive governments must needs permit only domestic channels. This is unarguable, as many examples testify, but we must ask, "Do mass media shape our approach to reality? If so, how?" /^t/When a child sees Donald Duck rolled down a hill in a barrel, he quite probably considers it a plausible event in real life. We also hear of "copy-cat" crimes by adolescents. Consequently, we conclude that all of "art's" representations are echoed to a grater or lesser degree within the spectators and perpetrators, blurring their concept of existence from life's start. However, some sociologists say that it is the parents not television that we must blame. That children are not taught to distinguish between right and wrong. /^t/The older the child becomes, the wider is his exposure. Minors are said to be specially prone to advertising. They pester their parents, as the advertisers well know. Violent cartoons give way to sexual innuendoes of teen-directed magazines and e-mail. An impression of normality is lent by the sheer volume. A variety of conclusions emerge from the plethora of surveys conducted. Everybody is having sex; there is a happy end to every problem; skinny bodies are most desirable. Popular music adds to the false impressions, and the rock star has his disciples absorbing the message that sex, drugs and violence give an escape from our sometimes humdrum existence. Hence, young girls go on a diet and at the extreme develop anorexia or bulimia, and most youngsters desperately try to keep up to date with the trends. Yet, this is not always the case. In spite of the fact that five million people had seen "Crash", statistics showed no increase in the number of traffic accidents. Furtermore, television often broadcasts films like for instance "Trainspotters" which shows negative results of heroin addiction. /^t/And can grown-ups tell the difference between mass media life and the real one? Perhaps they are even more profoundly affected than the younger population is. It is enough to mention the suffocation of the 39 members of Heaven's Gate, recruited and instructed through Internet. As the life pace accelerates, people come to desire for escape from reality. Men, watching sports matches, are incited to mindless violence. The newspaper's political hack is often believed. Those housewives who watch soap operas yearn for true romance. Watching films of high society life, we want to have a bigger house or car. As a result we are never satisfied with what we have. /^t/All in all mass media destructively influence the approach to reality of those youngsters whose parents do not devote enough attention and care, and the adults whose inner life is depleted of the eternal values. But there are still others who use common sense in their lives and do not surrender to illusions of mass media. <0332> /^t/A generic term mass media refers to the means and vehicles of transmitting information and entertainment. The impact of mass media and the influence they exert on our lives is one of the most characteristic processes in the development of our civilization. The expansion of mass media, among other things, manifests itself by the amount of money spent on modernizing them as well as making them more effective. Apart from television, radio and newspapers, there are also brand new media of communication which seem to be taking over. What I mean are computers and the whole system of computer networks. /^t/To some extent mass media serve the purposes they were meant for. Their main function is to inform and spread the information. Apart from this, mass media are also used as a means of entertainment and education. Thanks to modern inventions and technologies the abundance of information as well as the access to it is constantly increasing. The flow of data makes it possible to exchange ideas, and in doing so stimulates the development of science. In this respect the role of mass media can be seen as a positive one. /^t/However, despite the above mentioned benefits, the role of mass media may at times assume dangerous forms. It is common knowledge that the system of values we adhere to is influenced by the quality and content of information we are exposed to. Consequently, mass media can be used to promote certain ideas and patterns of behaviour. /^t/It has been observed in the recent years that the crime rate is constantly growing. What is more, the crimes are commited by the younger and younger perpetrators. The methods they apply as well as the motives of their misdeeds suggest that they immitate certain patterns. Unfortunately it is mass media to blame. The number of films and advertisements which propagate violence is dramatically increasing, which consequently is reflected in the crime rate. Frustrated and disappointed, the young find an outlet for their agression in breaking the law. It is very often mass media which teach and instruct them how to do it. /^t/Mass media can be used to manipulate people's minds. Previously in our country they were successfully applied by the politicians to propagate the political system they ardently supported. Nowadays the tendency have changed. Politicians have been replaced by foreign and local companies which by means of mass media try to manipulate people's decissions concerning such issues as doing shopping or using various services. /^t/We are constantly being bombarded by a flood of commercials and advertisements which usually in a very primitive way try to appeal to our basic instincts. The process is dangerous as the people involved in advertising realize what our weaknesses are as well as how our needs can be satisfied. Moreover, advertisements are frequently aimed at defenceless children, which very often assumes immoral forms. Whether we like it or not we subconsciously accept what we are exposed to, which is reflected in the selection of products we purchase. /^t/To recapitulate, although mass media are useful and beneficial for mankind, they can also be dangerous. Whether for or against the purposes mass media are used for, most people should agree that their use need to be controlled by some kind of watchdog body in order to discourage the more blatant cases of manipulating people's brains. The final conclusion one could arrive at is that massmedia affect our reality to a great extent. Although their role is constantly increasing, what we should bear in mind is that we mustn't become slaves to them. <0333> /^t/The topic itself is very difficult to discuss as there are quite a few aspects that should be pinpointed. Because of the fact that the statement in the topic presents two different criteria, there cannot be found a straightforward answer as to which position is better, that of a poor or a rich person. We should now see certain advantages and disadvantages of both positions and maybe then there would come some kind of solution. /^t/Before mentioning the pros and cons of life of the poor and the rich, it would be also interesting to consider the meaning of education. It can be discussed from two perspectives. The first point of view would be of the poor, educated person and the other of the rich and ignorant. An educated person would probably put an equal mark between education and life, meaning that those people see sense of living in their education and development of it. On the other hand there is the rich person who doesn't feel any need to learn, study any subject - therefore ignorant. The materialistic side of life fulfils their days determining his or her goals of life. /^t/A very common opinion that one can notice among people is that, it is much more prestigious to be well-educated even if we put off the economic side of life. And it is true, we would probably agree that education meets some kind of respect from others. However, is it only the respect educated people spend hours reading and studying for. Every well-educated person would supposingly answer - No. Although such people gain some level of self-realisation, there is always something they desire to see, to study closely, etc. But here comes the most perceivable drawback, that is money. This inability to widen one's horizons because of pure financial reasons, may be for many educated people disappointing. Such a situation permits only theoretical development which can be satisfactory only partially. /^t/Much more comfortable situation, one could think, have those with money and seemingly no problems. Lack of general knowledge can be much more problemous than lack of money. Not only must those poor ignorants find themselves among people living high life, but also they have to be 'someone'. In order to do so they have to compete, but how to impress others when they have one track minds. The only thing they can discuss, enjoy, be interested in, is money. What if they lose their money? We cannot even mention a happy family life as in their minds the distinction between materialistic and emotional life does not exist. /^t/The prestigious life of an educated person without money is senseless to the rich. It is meaningless to observe the wild life of nature, environment if there is nothing to spend money on. Without such elements like hotels, bars, casinos, etc., life is worthless. /^t/As we have seen both situations have positive an negative sides and that is why it will be hard to decide which is better. To be prim and proper we should state that being poor and well-educated gives more satisfaction, enables to live in agreement with the environment. However in the world full of agression, fight for positions, for simply survival, where everything is counted with money, we tend to forget about priorities such as education and try somehow to live, meaning very often be ignorant. Probably the best solution would be to have enough amount of money which would enable us to educate ourrselves for as long as we wish. <0334> /^t/Why are some students successful at language learning while others are not? /^t/Why is the foreign language sometimes easy for one group of people and difficult for the other at the same time? /^t/People involved in language teaching often say that students who really want to learn will succeed whatever the circumstances in which they study. The biggest factor affecting their success is the motivation that students bring to class. Motivation is some kind of "internal drive" that encourages somebody to pursue a course of action. /^t/If we perceive a goal and that goal is sufficiently attractive, we will be strongly motivated to do whatever is necessary to reach it. Language learners who are motivated perceive goals of various kinds; short-term goals and long-term goals. /^t/In general, strongly motivated students with long-term goals probably learn easier than those who have no such goals. /^t/Apart from the motivation, physical conditions have great effect on learning the foreign language (not necessarily English). When people get older their speech organs are stiffer. It would be much easier for children to develop pronunciation skill than for adults. In general, English is easily and willingly learned by children. It is very good for children to start learning English at the age of six or seven. /^t/The English grammar rules are not very complicated, especially at the beginner's stage, so they are very easily learned by the students. /^t/Success in learning English as a foreign language depends on the learner's nationality. It is very important what the learner's native language is. For Chinese, for example, English would be more difficult than for any other European because these two cultures, Chinese and English, are very distant. Germen, on the contrary, would be better learners at English because these two languages are not very distant (some words are even similar). /^t/Although Polish grammar is different from English one, Polish students don't have bigger problems with understanding and acquiring the English rules. /^t/English has a special position since it has become the international language of communication. It has become very fashionable as well. You can meet English everywhere: TV, radio, computers and even in the street. /^t/Nowadays, especially in Poland, everything what comes from America is the best. When you go to the cinema you can see mostly an American film and hear real American accent, on the radio most songs are in English but not necessarily singing by an Englishman or an American. A lot of songs are written in English because they sound better and more people could understand them. English is present also in computers so if you want to operate the computer you have to know the language. /^t/As I said English is present everywhere now because it has become extremely popular these days. Everybody wants to learn it and know it as it's the most fashionable language in the world. It sounds nice and it's easy to learn. If compared with any other language (Polish, for example) I must say that it's not complicated at all. <0335> /^t/One of the basic laws of our society is freedom of speech. Everyone may present his own opinions and exchange views with other people. Moreover, everyone has the right to be informed about significant events talking place in the country and in the world. The public's right to know is one of the central principles of each society. The means of communicating with very large numbers of people, such as press, television, radio and cable TV, are called "mass media". They are the major sources from which people get the news, they also provide entertainment of every kind. An ordinary man is surrounded by information from the time he wakes in the morning until the time he sleeps at night. Mass media accompany the man in his everyday life and he takes this for granted, so it seems obvious that media influence his attitude towards people, life and the real world. Is it really like that? /^t/First of all, mass media provide instantaneous coverage of major events throughout the world, they make our life more colourful and increase our knowledge about the world, people and traditions. Radio and television, for instance, have enormous educational possibilities. They offer a wide variety of educational programmes and numerous courses, for example, in cooking or gardening. The means of mass communication unify the world, as they bring people a common and shared experience - the same news, the same entertainment, the same advertising. they also help reduce regional differences and customs. Under the influence of mass media people exchange impressions, express their feelings and perceive some important changes in the world. Some opinions and judgements of famous people are very helpful while making important decisions. It happens that we form our own philosophy of life adopting some moral values of people we admire. Talking all this into consideration we must admit th at media affect our approach to reality in a positive way, as they shape the values and culture of the society. /^t/However, on the other hand some negative effects can be observed. For example, television has very negative impact on children who are exposed to violent detective stories. Some brutal scenes and acts of violence, such as murders, fights. rapes, appear on TV quite often. Children and teenagers follow the examples what often leads to dangerous accidents. Adults also remain under the influence of TV. There are cases when people commit suicides, because they cannot stand the pressure of a political debate, for instance. Fortunately, these are exceptional situations and such tragic events occur rarely. Another negative influence of media is connected with advertisements. Every few minutes the programme is interrupted to give a commercial advertising. People are influenced by trashy commercials and tempted by junk food or products of the lowest quality. Buying advertised products often destroys images and hopes. As a result people become distrustful and disappointed with reality. /^t/Thus, mass media seem to be a very powerful force. They can perform both a good and bad service. Much depends on us. Now, the question arises: Do mass media always affect our approach to reality? Most certainly not. There are some people who stay indifferent to ideas presented by media. They stick to their opinions and they will not change them under the influence of public opinion. These people are individuals and they do not believe in all information published in press or broadcasted on TV. Sometimes they feel superior in knowledge, take into account all aspects of a given issue and observe everything from a certain distance. Such people live in their own world and seem to ignore most disasters and misfortunes. The borderline between reality and fiction is clear for them. They watch political debates without deep emotions, they do not treat advertisements seriously, because in their opinion the media are commercial and have to make a profit. They complain that journalists are always emphasizing the negative, the sensational and the abnormal rather than the normal stories. Such people will not accept a new style of life presented on TV, as they perceive it as one more illusion and they are "realists" and they will not allow television to change their "vision" of the world. Staying uninfluenced helps them create a strong sense of identity. They are strong individuals. /^t/Whether people are influenced by mass media or not, depends on their personality and character. If we admit that they affects us, we must control our lives. In other words we must know and decide if we are subject to many influences. It is difficult to ignore mass media, as they are the essential part of our everyday life. /^t/Generally speaking, only strong individuals keep distance to things which put them out of patience. The group of individuals in the society is not large. There are more people who admire and uncritically accept everything what the means of mass communication pass on. Thus much depends on personality, character, social background or even age. Mass media perform a useful service to society if we can use them in a reasonable way. <0336> /^t/Poland, the former communist country which is fairly well advanced in reforms of free market economy, has aspired to join European Economic Community (EEC). After the fall of communism all European eastern-block treaties, both military and economic, were dissolved and since then Poland has been looking for new economic and military partners to affiliate with. Apart from Poland aspiration to eventually join EEC, it is respectively interested in joining North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and has already become a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). /^t/According to Cambridge Encyclopaedia European Economic Community is essentially a custom union with a common external tariff and the common market with the removal of barriers to trade among the members. Majority of Poles approve of Poland strivings to eventually join EEC, however, some protectionist trends opposing the idea, are noticed. Reluctance to eventually join The Common Market is namely caused by fear, disbelieves, inferiority complex, short-sightedness or even nationalistic and xenophobic tendencies. If Poles fend protectionist trends, work hard and believe in successful, beneficial integration, EEC membership will secure further, deeper reforms and development of free market economy. More to the point, Poland will gain new export markets, reach European standards and make up for years it stayed behind strangled by Communist Regime. Progress, co-operation, new pride, exchange of knowledge and experience are what Poland, as a EEC member, is hoping for in the next millennium. /^t/One of the strongest arguments for joining the EEC are financial and economic. As a EEC member Poland is bound to receive financial help. In this respect, it is worth mentioning the financial help Portugal, Spain and Greece received when they joined. In all cases, it considerably helped their economies grow. Experts claim that even less financial help than the amount each of latest EEC members has received will be a great and very welcomed help. /^t/Becoming the EEC member will lower the investment rate-risk and consequently attract more foreign businessmen willing to invest in Poland. For the time being, Poland has only been third in regard to foreign investments in post-communist European countries between 1989-96, with namely Czech and Hungry having lower investment rate-risk, and therefor better than Poland conditions facilitating foreign ventures. Polish bureaucracy and obsolete law; two remnants of communism, considerably impeded the flow of foreign money in the early years after the liberation. Xenophobia and the fear of imperialistic capitalism, a part of communist propaganda, were still many people's subconscious attitude and way of thinking at that time. /^t/Further and deeper privatisation of Poland would bring greater economic stability. Several latest EEC members have experienced it and increased their annual budgets, as has been the case with Portugal, Spain and Ireland. If only Poland uses their experiences and is able to learn from them, the EEC integration will not be as painful and fearful as its opponents fear. /^t/Apart from an apparent economic growth Poland will develop, there will be even more important changes which have already started taking place in Poles' hearts and minds. The iron curtain limited considerably the exchange of ideas, experiences and knowledge between Poles and their western counterparts. There have already been an increasing co-operation and communication in business, science and culture between Poles and other European nations and it will only tighten and blossom after Poland's integration with rest of Europe. After 50 year of separation majority of Poles are willing and eager to learn from and teach their western counterparts. /^t/Many post communist countries, including Poland, have a high rate of unemployment. EEC integration opponents fear it will grow even higher as a result of modernisation and redundancy in industries which will try to reach comparable EEC standards and offer competitive products. It is quite likely that modernisation will increase the number of unemployed, however, the on-going further privatisation and set-up of new foreign enterprises will create many real jobs and, at least, make up for the job-loss, if not produce more. The latest EEC members' experiences provide knowledge Poland should learn and draw conclusions from. Whereas, Spanish government did not manage to prevent the rise of unemployment within the first years after unification, Portugal, by contrast, experienced its fall from 8,7 to 4,0 per cent! As it seem mounting unemployment is not an inevitable consequence of reforms. /^t/Many EEC sceptics fear competition and do not believe that Poland could catch up with European standards. They should be warned that underestimating of one's ability, lack of faith and stamina is blame for no progress, or what is even worse regress. As a EEC member Poland will have no other choice but to become an attractive trade partner, just like Ireland, Spain and Portugal had to. Trying to reach European standards will revolutionise Poles' attitude to work, duty and responsibility which should improve. Shops, museums, petrol stations will not close when their workers fall ill but still stay open and have competent crew able to take care of business. As many claim there is no better motivation than competition and challenge and that is exactly what Poland will face as a EEC member. /^t/Integration of Europe is a consequent, irrevocable and definite reality in the era of global exchange of information via internet, fax machines, phones and satellite. Poland can not choose to be excluded lest it should lose its autonomy and national identity. European Union is, first of all, a common market and customs unity of individual European countries and it by no means deprive them of their national identities - it neither intends nor was created to do it. The fears EEC opponents have are unjustified and seem to be a creation of extreme nationalism, dangerous megalomania and isolationist attitudes. Broadening minds, learning about other cultures and opening up to the world will, ultimately, help us resent these attitudes which for some nations have proved destructive, as was the case with Bosnia and Herzegovina.. /^t/Among all arguments for joining the EEC; which happened to cover different aspects of nation's life such as: economy, finance, trade, science, lifestyle and culture; continuation of further reforms and changes into free market economy is undoubtedly the most important one. Joining EEC guarantees Poland what striking majority of Poles hoped for at the fall of communism and therefore it should be a determining factor while considering Poland aspirations. <0337> /^t/The technical devices known as mass media - television, radio, record player, and magazines - have greatly extended the speed and distance over which people can communicate. They have also enabled the transmission of information to huge and widely dispersed audiences. The most influential and time-consuming form of communication is probably television. /^t/Television has changed a "vertical" division of people (according to a place of living and family ties) into a "horizontal" one (according to age). Youngsters from different countries, having watched the same television programs for teenagers, and, therefore, having a similar world-view and idols, find it easier to understand each other than to understand their own parents. Generation gap has become very obvious in many countries. /^t/Since television focuses our attention on the exciting and quickly changing present, people have become less and less interested in the past. News about Princess Diana's divorce, or the birth of Michael Jackson's baby are for many television viewers more interesting and relevant than information about their own past. /^t/Television shapes the way we relate to other people. It plays an important role in the development of social behavior, emotion and attitude. Many viewers, often subconsciously, carry over some images of human interaction seen on television into their everyday lives. Experiments show that watching violence on television encourages aggression. Explicit sexuality increases callousness toward women and acceptance of sexual violence. On the positive side, numerous studies have shown that watching programs that emphasize sharing and cooperation encourages prosocial behavior. /^t/Many people do not realize that the world shown on television is not real. Even the news is not just a matter of what happened on a particular day. Since there are too many events that could be of interest to viewers and so many different perspectives a reporter might take, TV editors have to serve as cultural gatekeepers by determining what fragments of the day's happenings will be aired. Therefore, they are enormously influential in shaping our world-view. An often-heard sentence, "I know it's true/good because I saw it on television" shows how uncritical toward its programs we are. It also means that we are not fully aware we are being manipulated. /^t/The boundaries between public and private spheres of life have also been changed by television. It is particularly visible in talk shows where people talk openly about their family problems or sex lives (often pretending that they find it easy to discuss it). The minor health problem of a lesser-known Brazilian singer is of concern not just to his family or to Brazilians but also to many people around the word who can watch him on television. /^t/Since a large number of people expect television to be entertaining it often happens that education, politics and other important issues are fashioned to make them amusing. The blurred distinction between show business and serious public problems prevents people from taking important public matters seriously enough. /^t/People can learn about the world directly, observing it and having face-to-face contact with its people, and indirectly through the eyes of others by watching TV. The former method is much more valuable because it gives people more adequate picture of the world. <0338> /^t/Worldwide rapid technological development allows easy access to information through mass media. The word has become like a small village thanks to satellite service, full of information, commentary but also of gossip. Radio and television flood us with different types of programmes, films and bewilder with their variety. In consequence these mass communications have gained power to affect and shape people's fashion, style of living, the way of perceiving themselves and even their ideas. It is of great importance to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of their impact on our lives. /^t/Television, radio and newspaper have become our family members. They entertain, instruct, inform and if they are boring you can switch on another channel or turn the page over. They are less troublesome than your cousins who visit you in the least convenient moment so that you try to make up a credible excuse on the spot. The simplicity of starting TV has made us so extremely lazy and passive that we are simultaneously 'switched on' to attentive but involuntary listening and watching. Children, teenagers and even adults can't do without this magic box which is an adviser, a friend but also a curse and addiction. /^t/Television is a giant media that is one of the flagrant purveyors of violence (The X-Files), ill-mannered humour (The Simpsons) and sex. One of American series Married... with Children which is in its heyday in Poland is full of dirty, scurrilous language and bickering. It forms an obtrusive stereotype of an American middle-class family; an unscrupulous mother, a dumb father and oversexed children. Other soap operas which are blockbuster films like Dynasty or The Bald and the Beautiful try to impose a picture of too beautiful and too spoiled people who are mainly preoccupied with plotting and spending money. However not all soap operas can be accused of being 'antifamily'. The Bill Cosby Show is about a friendly, well-educated, black family where parents and children coexist together wonderfully, working out all the problems with a smile and humour instead of irony and sarcasm. The same happens with periodicals addressed to teenagers. Some of them are full of features stressing the importance of having money, fashionable clothes and a perfect figure. No wonder that the girls who don't fit that ideal picture end up with inferiority complex. /^t/Mass media apart from shaping family life and young personalities, exert considerable influence on political life. Television is a mighty weapon in political strife such as general or presidential election. Parties competing in general election take into consideration opinion polls which tell them about their advantage over their rival parties. The results can be greatly biased by television debates and radio speeches. The same applies to presidential campaigns. Candidates are likely to get all undecided voters after their final debate on TV and in most cases the effect may be a landslide of the winner of the debate. /^t/It is hard not to mention advertisements which constantly flash on TV screens just willy-nilly. They are indispensable part of mass media's image and financial side of the business. Their main task is to decoy the biggest possible number of viewers, listeners or readers and convince them about the quality of advertised goods. Various techniques like catchphrases, play with language, rhyming verses or beautiful models are used to achieve it. Since commercials cannot cause ennui they startle with their diversity and creativity. Some of them are mini-comedies, or they perplex with a beautiful setting or bodies, enshrouding any side effects of the product and some just entice in a straightforward way. Their aim is to ooze minds and subconsciously affect possible purchasers who are easily taken in and lured by those tricky 'intervals'. /^t/Everyone, at some point, will suffer the affection of mass media and notice lack of space for individual development. This is the price that has to be paid for this improvement on communication. The question whether it is worth paying or not is open to viewers, listeners or readers. <0339> /^t/The approach and integration with the European Community and NATO is one of the most significant and political task for todays Poland. An access to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is of a supreme importance and constitutes a primary cooperation and participation with the European structures, but above all it affects the safety and security of our country. /^t/Having been entirely subjected to the Russian power for almost three hundred years Poland has altered military and political trends after 1989 and became orientated towards the pro-Western system. The participation in NATO will consolidate the feeling of national safety, protect the Polish sovereignty retrieved after dozens of years of Russian domination and will guarantee a contribution to a common European democracy and free market. However we can not forget about good political relations with our all neighbours including Russia itself which definitely opposes the Western expansion of NATO to the East. Therefore the members of NATO do not want to affiliate new participants to the organization which bear the burden of anti-Russian spites and indisposable prejudices because such attitudes would distort the positive connections between the West and Moscow. /^t/Quick integration with the European Community will allow Poland and the Central-Western European countries to terminate all civilization delays which arose in the course of the iron curtain. /^t/There are numerous political, social and economic advantages and profits contained in a government document called "The National Integration Strategy" which are to be very lucrative for our membership with E.C. All costs that have to be born do not reflect the financial dimension exclusively. The objectives made in this document concern the economic and legal adjustment, foreign affairs, aims etc. Critical look at the Polish habits, culture, national customs not only positive but also negative will be very meaningful element of integration. /^t/Reconstruction of the national consciousness, the adjustment to the cooperative norms of the united Europe nations is a much more complicated task than building a new legal system adapted to the rights the nations and countries constituting the European Community govern. /^t/Poles in major part opt for the integration with the Euro-Atlantic structures. They consider such operation very profitable however they seem not to worry about the negative outcomes and costs this fusion bears. A list of profits is very long and cover a very wide range of economic, political, legal and social matters. /^t/First of all it will reduce a distance between Poland and developed countries provided that this political, social and economic transformation is to be fully carried out. Our economy has to correspond with so called Maastrich criterion which concerns inflation reduction, budget deficit, public debt, stability of currency rates and bank rates. In order to fulfill such conditions Poland has to be widely open to a foreign capital without which it would be difficult to carry out the modernization of economy. The influx of foreign capitals, access to cheap credits, up to date technology will stimulatingly influence the investment development, trade turnovers and eventually the export. A free approach to a Polish market for union countries goods will be reciprocally lucrative when the abolition of tariffs will let foreign goods flow into the Polish market and the other way round. Our membership will also cause a flow of people and various kinds of services and will create a great chance of the rapid progress. It will initiate a new era in technology, micro-electronics, bio-technology industries but also the implementation of achievements in telecommunication, computers and modern technical appliances and machines. It will result in a growth of needs for new, highly educated professionalists and give an opportunity for science and educational system to develop. Nevertheless it will be necessary to bear some consequences and costs that will constitute a real threat for open-border Poland. Cheap foreign goods will be competitive for Polish producers, big level of unemployment in Western Europe might be a sort of hindrance that will restrict high unemployment in Poland as well. Lack of protective system for small business may lead to its end and impoverish a large part of society and that is why the Polish market has to effectively defend against the prices imposed by Western markets. The investment reductions applied by some administration of a commune councils against the foreign investors may turn out to be a negative aspect and excessive growth of import, services investments and its advantage over the export will cause a negative trade balance. Hard economic rules and regulations will temporarily compel Polish society to relinguish its excessive social-welfare claims and trigger a slump of living standart levels. Foreign settlement including the rights for land purchase may endanger Polish sovereignty. It is implied that the Polish economy will be sold out by foreign capital and the Western culture destroy Polish spirit and values cultivated for centuries. Though such fears are highly exaggerated we can not ignore them. Both politicians and journalists will take responsibility for a great and profound national education to make the Polish society conscious of the European integration objectives and the advantages resulting from such operation, which are definitely predominant over the negative sides of this epochal process. <0340> /^t/As it is claimed that mass media are probably the most valid factors which influence publics opinions considerably, it seems to be essential to take certain major questions into consideration. What are the consequences of this influence? Is it possible to develop a significance of individualism in the contemporary age and define it as an independent as well as a distinctive way of thinking and behaving or is it mainly a copy, a continuation of the picture presented to us by newspaper, radio, or television? The real answer lies in their major purpose as well as the role they fulfil in the whole nation. /^t/As nearly 90 per cent of any civilized society have television and radio sets able to receive at least several channels, it becomes certain that there is no quicker method of providing the public with the essential pieces of information. The fact that we are able to perceive the reality around us and that of distant places has made us accustom to the sources of this knowledge. Nowadays mass media are no longer regarded as the extraordinary discoveries but rather the way society may acquire the main political, social, economic, religious, and cultural features that are of great importance in any country. Not only do mass media create fundamental basis as far as the education and the improvement are concerned but also they produce various kinds of, so-called, "light entertainment" programmes such as music, sport, or children programmes. /^t/However, what characterizes mass media undoubtedly is mostly their invariable, inner emptiness for the motives which inspire to such an immense development of newspaper, radio and television in the course of the 20th century are for the most part financial profits. This is why the choice of the presented material is very carefully selected and given to public according to these themes which are of grear interest to the majority; majority who is often uneducated and would rather watch "light entertainment" programmes than those which require knowledge and thinking. Another aspect, that should not be neglected, is the innumerable amount of advertisements. There has been a tendency lately to buy only these products which are advertised all the time. Such is human nature that even a person who claims to be able to resist the temptation subconsciously does want to possess all these things. This is mainly because the general ability of any human being is to think, judge, reason, and analyze every single aspect of any problem. The results, however, remain always similar - one prefers products which are advertised to those which are not. /^t/Summing up, one may answer the questions and state, there is no doubt that the contemporary world is defined as a sceptical age, but although our faith in the material which is presented to us by mass media has weakened, our confidence in the enormous power of newspaper, radio, and television remains continously stable. However, the fact that we are not quite certain what information is of greater importance does not prevent us from finding our concepts of particular ideas or situations as well as from developing individual abilities to solve puzzles and problems of various kinds. <0341> /^t/There is a common saying in Poland that it's better to lose something in the company of a wise person rather than to find something in the company of an ignorant one. /^t/There is an opinion that the majority of illiterate people tend to be narrow-minded and have a short-sighted attitude to life. The illiterate are likely to spend their money unwisely. When dealing with business, they often are likely to break down or are deceived by sharper minds. Tracing the lives of people who win fortunes, we can easily find the rule that the less educated spend the money they have won more irrationally. In consequence, they very quickly run out of money as they do not have enough imagination how to handle it. /^t/Surpisingly, ignorant people seem to be even happier; they have the necessities that can be rather easily fulfilled, they have fewer demands and their expectations for success are relatively low. They often do not realize that they are ignorant. Somebody whose aim is to have a greengrocery shop can dream of it for many years, as well as a scientist dreaming of discovering a new form of life, and they have a completely different opinion on happiness and richness. The greengrocer can often feel fairly well-off and be highly respected by the society he lives in, whereas a scientist will conceive new problems accompanying his discovery that would disturb him. It must be admitted that the feeling of being rich or poor is a relatively subjective feeling. We tend to underestimate other people's abilities and we often subconsciously envy and criticise somebody's succes. In that way we somehow want to lessen their validity. Therefore, people prefer to claim that most of the people are rich and ignorant as we do not want to admit that they are simply wise or have a stroke of luck. /^t/As the uneducated are by and large said to be less imaginative or predictable it is seldom realized that ignorant does not always mean an unintelligent or not clever. Furthermore, to be educated does not have to imply to be intelligent. To prove that we find the examples of great thieves who, although not well-educated, were clever enough to outwitt the most ingenious protective devices in order to get into posession of treasure. They usually have a well organized plan that provides for possible mishaps while robbing banks, houses, stc. But these are the extreme examples that make a false picture of the inseparability of ignorance and richness. /^t/Education broadens people's minds; it spurs them to more intensive thinking and to perceive the problems which have not been seen before and which could have been a hindrance to making life more interesting, more fulfilling and better-off. What is more, those who are not highly educated often spend more time on their work than the well-trained. In consequence, the untrained are generally not able to earn more only due to the lach of time. The well-schooled can devote then their spare time to either self-development or doing some extra work or which they will be rewarded. /^t/As a rule, post graduates do not earn much at the beginning. They are often bewildered when they compare their wages to an old schoolmate's who happens to be a greengrocer. But the more experienced the trained become in their jobs the better they will be paid and soon they notice that they have overtaken the greengrocer, if they ever are still in touch with one. People tend to work and be surrounded with others like them. That is why there are social groups or classes which gather people of similar professions like teachers, businessmen, artists, etc. If you unite with a certain group and mix with wise people you can be stimulated to raising your level and to your self-development. /^t/For these reasons it is better to be well-educated rather than ignorant. Being provided with education can mean being provided with decent bread and butter and we cannot forget about that. <0342> /^t/There are several languages on the world. Some people says that all languages are equal and there is no such a thing as a more or less difficult language to learn. This idea might be true but only when we talk about learning language as a mother one. It makes no difference for children if they learn Polish, German, Japanese or English. They just acquire the language. They listen to it and after around a year they start to say a first words. They cannot say if this language is more difficult than the other because they cannot compare it to other languages. And as it is known children have a gift for languages. So talking that one language is more difficult or easier may have a sense when one takes into consideration so called second language learning process. There are several areas, it is good to analyze before one decides that a language is easy or difficult to learn. This areas of language are: vocabulary, phonology, and grammar. Before one start to analyze a language he or she has to decide what language will be. In this work a language that will be analyzed is English. /^t/To start this analyzes let's start with phonetic and phonologic system of English. As it is know the sounds of English are quite natural and easy to produce except th sounds, and a sound called shwa. People who are learning English usually do not have problems with other sounds. However, learners have a real problems with a vocal representation of written word. It happens because there are only 26 letters in English alphabet and around 36 sounds1. It may surely cause some problems especially because there are no strict rules connected with reading. We can say that -oo- is read as /u/ but we have words like door /do:r/ or blood /bl^d/ as some of the exceptions, the same happens with other rules. /^t/The next area of language I am going to present is grammar. People are afraid of grammar. When they hear that there are 16 tenses in English, sometimes they give up. They compare it to Polish situation when there are only three: present future and past. But this group of people who decide to try after a while finds out that it is not as difficult as it seemed. What it is know about English grammar is that it is quite regular. It means there are no many exceptions. There are also not many rules to remember, so if we put on one hand a simplicity of grammar and on the other 16 tenses, what sounds for some people like a nightmare, English grammar is simple and easy to learn. /^t/The last part I am going to analyze is English vocabulary. This is very difficult task because it is extremely different from Polish one. Almost all words have to be learned, without any similarities to Polish. But on the other hand the same rule works for many other languages such as German, Spanish, French, Hungarian and all other except Slavonic languages. English vocabulary is very reach, colorful, and expressive. It is easy to describe in English, even though in Polish it makes it difficult. The only problem connected with vocabulary is that most of English words have more than one meaning. So very often it might happen that one finds a word but the meaning do not fit to the one he knows. However the advantage of this is that knowing one word in English you can express the same while using three different words in Polish. /^t/Taking into consideration all these aspects I can say that English is an easy language, not only to learn but also to speak, however before anyone starts to use this language he or she has to spend many hour learning it. <0343> /^t/It is difficult to say whether it is better to be poor and well educated rather than rich and ignorant as nowadays the world we happen to live in is unfortunately governed by the overwhelming power of money. As far as I am concerned, I would say that the best thing is to have both, money and good education, unfortunately not too many people manage to combine those two things, and people who were able to achieve that are quite often said to be really lucky. /^t/A man whose attitude towards life is purely consumptive, could be said not to seize the day. This kind of a person simply keeps his body and soul together. He is not able to appreciate art. An uneducated man is quiet often thought to be, but not necessarily of course, ignorant without any interests which could develop his inward, spiritual life. Strangely enough though, he is not aware of it as compared to other (poor and possibly educated) members of a society he lives in, he has got 'everything' that others might only dream of: wealth, a good car, a beautiful house, and what is obvious - he does not have to worry about basic necessities for he can afford everything he needs or wants. Therefore he can lead an easy life, not being stressed by lack of money which not rarely leads to various frustrations. /^t/If we look at some professions in Poland, for instance teachers or doctors, we can immediately reach the conclusion that it is far better to have money not good education. If one wants to become a teacher or a doctor, he has to devote at least nine years of his life for studying to obtain proper qualifications to do his job well (including secondary education which some operative and rich people do not have). After such a long period of studying, his salary is one of the lowest possible in the whole country. This situation seems to be really ironic, as in their hands is the future of a country. Teachers are responsible for education of our future generations. /^t/Departing from the financial matters, there are various things a well educated person excels the others. People whose education is really good are the core of each society. If it had not been for them, the world would not have made any headway. Scientists, inventors despite the fact they quite often lived in poverty, they used their minds and knowledge for the sake of the entire humankind, placing their personal lives aside. Educated people care for spiritual and intellectual development, during some social meetings one can always have a chat with an educated person on what is currently going on in the world, politics, science, whereas ignorant people do not care about anything but expanding their wealth. /^t/Having money has its advantages as well, and even if you are uneducated you can lead quite an interesting life. You may not appreciate the beauty of the pyramids and their complexity, but at least you can afford to see them like many other places. In the world ruled by money it is better to be rich and maybe less educated, I guess. <0344> /^t/Poland should join the European Union because it may give us many advantages concerning politics, economy, education and culture. /^t/In order to discuss this topic properly one should concentrate on different points of view which might be significant for the new member of the European Community. Having that in mind I have selected a few, in my opinion important, ways of approaching that topic, namely politics, economy, education and culture. Of course, I am neither professional politician nor economist to go into details and numbers, I will just try to express my opinions and hopes which, I think, are shared by many young Poles. /^t/As for politics, joining the European Community would have one, for Poles, undoubtedly significant impact that is improvement of security. Joining the EEC would give us both internal - public security and the international one. The first would be assured by law regulations and standards which Poland would have to obey when joining the Union. The second one would be guaranteed by the EEC's international agreements which would include Poland as its regular member. /^t/The next advantage of joining the Union is that it would cause the increase of Polish political significance. Poland would seized to be called "second world's country" as it used to be a few years ago. /^t/The first and unquestionably the most important economic reason for joining the European Union is full access to the market. It means that if all customs restricting trade were abolished the prices of goods imported to Poland from the EEC would be reduced. It would also increase export to the EEC helping many Polish firms sell their cheap and good quality products. /^t/The second reason is the economic growth and the scale of production advantages. In simple words it means broadening of abilities of a country to produce goods and services desired by customers. In present situation it is limited by lack of access to new technologies, resources in proper amount and quality, and also insufficient accumulation of investment capital and savings. /^t/The third factor is the standardisation of quality of services. It means that all of the EEC requirements concerning, for example, information, communication, transportation, accommodation, maintenance or repair must be met. What is tightly connected with that is the quality of products. In order to be competitive, firms must comply with the EEC regulations. Many of Polish firms will have to introduce new quality standards such as ISO in order to be able to enter the European market. For Polish customers it simply means the improvement of quality products. /^t/Entering the European market will have one more significant impact on Polish market, namely it will increase competition among producers and service suppliers. Of course some of them especially Polish monopolists having exclusive control over the manipulation of prices will loose but customers will gain better choice of products at lower prices. /^t/The next but also very crucial for Poland aspect is the reduction of unemployment. It depends on the economic growth and the scale of production of a country. The bigger economic growth and scale of production the less unemployment so indirectly it all depends on joining the Union. Moreover, being a member of the EEC would improve the natural balance in the exchange of work force and specialists. It means that specialists from the EEC would be more eager to start a job in Poland or run a business here and vice versa. /^t/The next economic advantage of entering the European Union is the improvement of the standard of living. In order to be able to join the European Union Poland must assure a certain standard of living in the country and this would undoubtedly be improved if the above mentioned factors were fulfilled. /^t/As far as education is concerned Poland will, first of all, have a chance to unify its standards of the schooling system with the European one. It means that Polish university diplomas will be recognised and accepted by the European authorities. It also means a better co-operation not only among Universities but also among secondary schools. Moreover, Polish students would have access to a wider range of universities in Europe and if they chose they could study abroad. /^t/Being a member of the Union gives us also many advantages related to culture. Having full access to the European culture would result in bigger number of cultural events in Poland, and more artists would be willing to visit our country. /^t/The aim of this essay was to answer the question "Why join the European Union". In my opinion the arguments stated above briefly enumerating and explaining various advantages of becoming the member of the EEC answer this question sufficiently. Poland should, therefore do its best in order to achieve it. <0345> /^t/The statement that English is an easy language to learn seems justified when we first hear it. Many people know some English words and expressions without even realising that they have learnt them. They have just picked them up. Such words as "hamburger", "hot dog", "Coca-Cola", "love" "snooker", "shop", "sex", "need" are known world-wide. They can be heard while watching films or listening to English songs. Because of a great variety of American and English films being presented on the Polish television and cinema as well as an easy access to English and American songs on the radio beginners usually have the advantage of already being accustomed to the sound of English. /^t/There is and has always been a need for everybody to speak at least one foreign language. The reasons for this are various. A foreign language is necessary for communication, business, making travel easier, making education widely available. What governs learners' choice of language to learn is its popularity because it is human nature to follow trends. Therefore English usually is their first choice and most people want to learn a language such as English which is already widely spoken and because it is so popular it continually attract new learners.. /^t/English is usually very easy to learn for beginners both adults and children. Similar vocabulary i.e. common expressions and names of everyday objects is taught to both age groups of beginners. At this stage, if not for pronunciation problems, quick progress is usually observed. Children usually are better imitators than adults while adults are better motivated (when for example they expect this will help their professional careers). /^t/But there is another side to this picture. After the initial state of euphoria learners of English begin to encounter some difficulties. With a certain scope of vocabulary they have difficulties in expressing their ideas and thoughts clearly in a grammatically correct manner. There are a lot of learners having basic knowledge of English unable to make further progress and to master English. They perceive English as very different from their native tongue, which is well understandable as language is a part of culture - its people, traditions, even modes and thoughts. /^t/English is difficult to learn with its spelling, articles and irregular verbs. English idioms and phrasal verbs discourage those learners who tend to learn a language in a "word-by-word" manner. English is very dynamic and it is changing almost daily. New words are added or adapted (e.g. "personkind" "salesperson" - adapted to avoid male dominance in language). Slang develops and new words (e.g. "pizza", "kebab" etc.), are borrowed from other languages and incorporated into English. /^t/English is especially difficult for students using English for academic purposes, both in Poland and abroad, because they lack the insight or at least the confidence created by a native speaker's competence. They are also expected to use different register when writing projects or other written papers. They tend either to combine both formal and informal register or to use informal language without being aware that it is not appropriate. /^t/In conclusion we can assume that although difficult to some extend English is still the first language of communication in the world, which means that it is easy enough to be the first choice for the learners, not mentioning the fact that that it is really enjoyable to learn. <0346> /^t/Let me commence the inquiry into the mass media as well as the inquiry into the way they shape reality with the reminder of Alfred Schutz's philosophy. Schutz - a twentieth century Austrian philosopher and sociologist put a premium on the existence of parallelism of reality. He maintained it was possible for two realities to coexist. For the sake of simplicity, one might label these realities as lower and upper respectively, the realities where human beings dwell during their earthly existence. There are different worlds made of political systems or philosophical views, therefore, why should not be there different but still parallel worlds created by the mass media. /^t/It might as well be said, paraphrasing Milan Kundera's statements that the mass media generate reality of what they show to people, one reality being the world of lightness, the other one being the world of heaviness. /^t/This introduction serves us to put forward the following question: the condition the mass media have found themselves in and, subsequently, what is the relation with reality the mass media create? Do they derive from the world of lightness or heaviness? Does shallowness of the former makes the existence domesticated and down-to-earth or deepness of the latter forces us to grasp the outer and uncoceivable galaxies, the ones which are really difficult to get the hold of. /^t/It has been proven beyond any doubt that people are used to absorbing the everyday life reality, the less sophisticated one. In order to get to the upper level of reality people migh need training. Is that not obvious that simple cartoons are much easier to comprehend than, for example, some highbrow programmes, the meaning of which seems to be obscure and looming far away on the horizon? Not everybody is entitled to grow up to the upper reality, they remain in the world of soap operas, sit-coms or low budget science-fiction movies which make people nothing but rejected, the worse ones, the second category citizens. /^t/Furthermore, watching the above mentioned "rubbish" does not require a great deal of concetration, a person moves on the save ground without the traps of meaning, ambiguities of sentences. There is no need to think deeply. In such a case, people exist in "unreal reality" created by the mass media. People do not bother they are deceived. They lack the willingness to reach the upper reality - the real one, where Socrato's thought and Plato's idea shapes people's world, their approach to it. But, as it was pointed out earlier, it takes pains to be a human thinking not a mere human being. /^t/However, it takes hardly any pains to see that passiveness of absorbtion has far outstripped activity of thinking and conclusion drawing. In contacts with the mass media, the blunt programme watching, radio listening or article reading makes our senses dull, which is a frightening prospect and may have a negative outcome as far as perception of reality is concerned. /^t/I truly believe that the audience prefers to watch MTV or read qossip-columns rather than watch Bunuel's or Bergman's films on TV, which leave a viewer crammed with vulnerable feelings, being at a loss for words, not knowing what to think. Therefore, people usually choose escapism to the illusionary world of fictitious characters and events. <0347> /^t/<*> /^t/ /^t/Should we join the EEC? When asked most people in Poland would say - yes. At the same time the majority of Poles do not even know some basic facts about the Union. We do not think about the costs connected with this agreement, nor possible dangers, like unemployment, that may result - all we really want is to catch that train no matter what the fare is. This phenomenon can be explained if we consider that Poland was for almost fifty years an isolated satellite country of the USSR. /^t/In 1989 after years of living behind the Iron Curtain, the majority of Poles desperately wanted to belong to Europe. It seems absurd, that while living almost in the very centre of the continent, we wished to "enter Europe". In the average Pole's mind Europe meant freedom and hope for better life. Not so long before, a visit to a western country was, for an ordinary citizen, almost impossible. We all remember those endless queues at passport bureau's, filling-in kilometres of forms, waiting for the day of announcing the list with names of those lucky people who were given the passport. If we were among those happy citizens of PRL (People's Republic of Poland, now Republic of Poland) we had to start queuing again, this time to get visas and then foreign currency. After all this, is it so difficult to understand that Poles dream to be real Europeans? /^t/We hope that being a member of EEC, everyone will have the right to choose the place to live and work. Polish law will change in a way allowing it to comply with EEC regulations. Poles will finally be able to live suitably and work for fair wages. The membership will allow us to use rich experiences of better developed European countries, which within few years after the II World War were able, not only to restore their powers but also, to develop it in industrial economic and agricultural areas. /^t/We do not seem to notice that we will have to modernise our economy in order to meet European standards. Our products should be competitive on European market and for the time being only everyday goods are of comparative quality. /^t/The majority of Poles think that we are an ambitious nation, who very fast match their foreign equivalent. More and more of us graduated from the universities and have the highest possible qualifications. At last well educated and qualified people will not have to escape from their home country in order to get a fair payment for their knowledge and experience. Being a member of the EEC means to belong to a great family and not only live in Europe. /^t/Anyway these are just hopes and dreams of our citizens, but the cold truth is that we have no other choice than join the Union for every price. We as a nation and a country are too weak to face the United Europe alone, we need help from developed countries, we need their capital and know-how, let us just hope that in this process we will not loose our national individuality. <0348> /^t/Is it really true? Is everuone convinced of it? Do we all think the same? To answer these and many more questions we have to carry out an open disccusion and consider all the pros and cons. /^t/At first I would like to point out my opinion that if we take all the languages into considerations including Japanese, Chinese, Hindu or Swahili and maybe also Polish everyone, who have studied and learned some English, would say without hesitation that English is really very easy language to learn. If we look closer at, for example, Polish grammar we will quickly find so many differences that they will convince us strongly in favor of English. Many foreigners or students from other countries who study here in Poland and also visitors notice at once different and strange sounds and pronunciations which occur in Polish. If they want to try to say even simple words and phrases they find out that they just cannot pronounce these words. As for English grammar there are not verbs that are so often conjugated or even nouns which are all declined in Polish. /^t/Of course there are many factors that affect learning second or foreign language such as English. If some of the conditions, upon which learning is based, are not executed learning even the easiest language in the world may be very difficult. There are many points to mention about presentation of the language itself and of course about the learners themselves. Many of the teachers believe that learners have certain characteristics which lead to more or less successful language learning. For example, teachers are convinced that extroverted learners who interact without inhibition in their second language and find many opportunities to practice language skills will be the most successful learners. In addition to personality characteristics, other factors generally considered to be relevant to language learning are intelligence, aptitude, motivation and atitudes. There is also another important factor which is the age at which learning begins. There have been many studies which reported the link between intelligence and learning a foreign language. The studies show that intelligence is important but it is related to certain skills such as reading, writing, language analysis and vocabulary study. It is not related to listening comprehension or free oral production tasks so it seems that intelligence does not play the most important role. Another factor which appears here is aptitude. Aptitude tests which were carried out show that aptitude helps in memorizing new sounds and words and in figuring out grammatical rules from language samples. Although results of the tests are in no way conclusive it is thought that learners will be more successful if they have these abilites. There is another factor which affects language learning that is personality. Studies show that success in learning is highly related to personality, it has been suggested that inhibition discourages risk-taking which is necessary for progress in learning. Despite all the inconclusive results and problems involved in carring out research in the area of personality, many teachers and reseachers believe that it has an important influence on success in language learning. As for intelligence, aptitude and pesonality affect learning the most important factor for me would be motivation. I am now English teacher in primary school and from my experience I can say who will be good learner and who will be very poor. When asked to come to the blackboard and do some exercise they just say "Why? I don't want to do that - What for? I don't need this stuff." They are surely not motivated they do not see the purpose for learning this or that. The overall findings show that positive attitudes and motivation are highly related to success in second language learning. If the learner's only reason for learning the language is external pressure, for example parents want their child to learn it, their internal motivation will be very low and general attitudes towards learning will be negative as it leaves the learner with no success. As for age which is also very important the studies show that there is certain age of the students when they should start their learning and when they will be the most successful. If the children start earlier they will be more successful because as the time passes they are getting used to mother tongue habits that are so difficult to lose and forget. That's why adults are often worse students than teenages for example, because they have already aquired some many habits concerning their mother tongue that it is difficult for them just to switch from one language to another. /^t/Summing up this whole discussion my personal opinion is that English is an easy language to learn if you just want to use it while shopping or when you want to talk about the weather but when it comes to serious matters like writing an academic discourse, reading professional magazines, translating different texts or just to speak fluently on every topic with English natives it appears to be quite hard. If we think about all those grammar tenses and their usage which for Polish learners are quite confusing, when and where I should put these articles "a", "an" and "the" only if you are English you have no such problems. So many idioms, irregular and phrasal verbs to remember, countable and uncountable nouns how and where to put them? Those are difficult questions but one good proverb says: "Everything is difficult before it is easy". We must remember that nobody is perfect there are lots of intelligent and highly gifted people but not everyone is prodigy and for some people not even English will be easy but Chinese or any other language in the whole world. <0349> /^t/For a long, long time human beings were alone with the world. All their knowledge about things, different phenomena in the surrounding reality and other people was collected individually and on their own. Their judgements and views were also their own, based on what they had seen and experienced. They could have been verified later in various situations and prove right or wrong. The opportunity to get to know somebody else's opinion occurred very rarely and in particular conditions. Such a situation was very difficult but shaped intellectual independence and responsibility. This had lasted for ages, until the media were invented, which happened not long ago, at the very last minute, in fact. Homo sapiens appeared on the Earth in 200,000 BC, in 10,000 BC people started to cultivate the land, in 776 BC the first competitors entered the ancient Olympics, and thanks to Johann Gutenberg the first printing machine appeared in circa 1445 AD. Even if the printing technique were considered to be one of the media its influence on the history of the mankind has been relatively short. The history of the radio and television is much shorter but their importance can be compared to nothing. It is disputable whether the effect is positive or negative but nobody denies its power. /^t/The critics accuse the media of imposing unified views on people and depriving us of our independent opinions. Transmitting the same content the media universalize the culture leading to its impoverishment as they make the cultural differences fade away. The rush of information carried by the media causes increasing tiredness, stress and frustration. Fictious pictures capture human imagination covering up the difference between fiction and reality. The most powerful media, using the sound and the picture brush the receiver away from the books and in this way contribute to the rise of the phenomenon of functional illiteracy. Finally, the objectivity of the picture is illusory. Appropriate choice and editing of photos gives the authors the chance to manipulate the audience. Extremal cases show how easy it is to completely distort the reality. /^t/On the other hand, the supporters argue that the media show a great variety of dissimiliar ideas, enabling people to choose consciously and think independently while analyzing the input they would never get in such an extent without the media. The information can reach every corner and every inhabitant of the world in no time at all, which wonderfully serves the purpose of making cultures widespread and well-known. Using special effects the moving picture develops human imagination and introduces people to the world of fantasy. Radio and television are not only quick in spreading the information but also very attractive drawing attention of millions and influencing millions. /^t/Concluding, I would like to state that a discussion concerning media seems to be endless as both sides are able to bring up a great number of the pros and cons. This only proves that media do not differ much from other human inventions: having their strong and weak points they can be helpful in the development of individuals and societies as well as destroying. Their role depends on our attitude and our making use of them. If every one learns to select the information and distinguish between valuable broadcast and pure junk, media will turn out to be acceptable and useful for everyone. <0350> /^t/About one in every five families has a dog and may be easily puzzled by a simple question: why did they get one? After a few seconds of hesitation they would answer that they thought it would be useful, it would guard the house, take care of the children, bring their slippers, come to comfort them at difficult times, etc., all the stuff that the books and films present. That is idealistic indeed but can be true if only the people would care do devote some time for the training the dog. Now they probably know that having a dog is rather falling over their bitten shoes, having rugs stained or being violently woken up from an afternoon nap by a vicious barking, etc. /^t/However the most frequently mentioned argument by the family is that it was for their little loved ones and then the advantages for the child follow. Such as: the child will have a wonderful companion and can at the same time learn what responsibility is, if only we let him / her have the dog just for themselfs. They also hope that the very fact of being in charge of the dog will make the child feel more important. Nothing can be more misleading since for the dog relations with humans are the same as their ancestors had within a pack. Therefore a child is for a dog merely a playmate not a leader it would obey. Now, the child is frustrated by the dog's disobedience and the dog is not trained wen there is the best time for it. /^t/It seems that the only good reason to have a dog for a child is to let them play together. Unfortunately that situation is also hopeless since the ways children and dogs play are completely different. Dogs by playing learn how to fight, latter they play to let the steam off and children learn to socialise. In the end the dog is almost socialised after being ridden in a pram (or in other ways of treating it as a teddy bear) and the child sometimes minorly bitten or scratched. Of course you can threw sticks for a dog but first you must teach it to fetch them and that is not a job for a child. Finally the whole situation strongly resembles two children taking care of each other, in case of a young dog (or puppy) or child nursing an adult in case of an older dog. And that is not what the parents wanted to achieve. /^t/Another argument risen by the family is the one of dog being an excellent teaching aid in rising the level of child's sensitivity to other living creatures. That task prove to be very difficult as the children learn to respect the ones at the same or lower level of hierarchy last (and the dog for them is barely a toy). It can be easily seen in their vicious and intolerant behaviour to other children and that situation should be taken care of first. Than the sensitivity to animals will follow and useful teaching aids (instead of the dog) are books about animals. /^t/Concluding we should see that taking a dog to a family means almost the same as to have another child to bring up and later another family member living by slightly different rules. What is more, the whole family must know the rules just not to let the dog to dominate. The best solution probably is to avoid bringing up children and the dog at the same time. One should decide to complete one thing first and only then proceed to another. lM9y personal choice is to train the dog first, as it takes less time, and only then start to think about having children. <0351> /^t/The recent achievements of the Scottish scientists in the field of biotechnology has almost caught us off guard. The succesful cloning of a now "most famous sheep" in the world Dolly, gave way to a stream of speculations concerning the possibilty of cloning humans and at the same time imposing on us the question whether cloning humans is ethically juistified. Considering the opinion of Rabbi Moses Tendler, professor of medical ethics at Yeshiva University in New York, "In science, the one rule is that what can be done will be done.", the issue is vital. We have to think of the problem before the scientists eventually accomplish their pursuits to clone a human. /^t/There are several arguments for and against this issue. Let us start with the advantages. First of all cloning humans will provide a unique opportunity to advance medicine and therefore will become a huge stepping stone to improve human health. The benefits of such advancement seem undeniable; a duplicated human could become an excellent source of replacable organs saving the lives of many others, a genetically engineered clone would be free of any abnormalities or incurable diseases. Secondly, this technology would finally solve the problem of infertility; instead of using a donor sperm or a substitute mother, a childless couple could clone themselves preserving the "pure" and original family line. Thirdly, each generation would be provided with a unique opportunity to hear Mozart's sonatas played by the maestro himself, Van Gogh would go on producing splendid works of art, Einstein's genius would help to advance technology with the speed of light. /^t/These achievements seem to be undeniable in value; however, we also have to think of the consequences of cloning availabilities for society as well as for individuals. We cannot deny certain drawbacks that put the idea of the whole experiment in question. Firstly, breeding people just for replacable organs deprives them of a basic human right, namely the right to live. Secondly, just to give an example, not every woman with a gene responsible for breast cancer will suffer from an acatuall disease if the appropriate precautions are taken. Thus the need of eliminating genetic abnormalities through cloning can be doubted. Moreover, the chances of eliminating all uncurable diseases and producing a perfectly healthy human are spare. The slightest mistake in the procedure may result in fatal defects. Playing with genes is not that easy as it may seem and despite an advanced technology, still involves much risk. Thirdly, a duplicated human being, a priceless gift to the infertile couple, may be subconsciously reduced to a status of a product not a geniuine individual. It may also result in complete rejection of family and marriage as necessary for procreation. Fourthly, if cloning Mozart, Van Gogh, Einstein will be possible so will Hitler, Stalin, and Jack the Ripper as well. And besides, it takes more than just to duplicate, to have another Edison. I dare say that if he had been born to a parents of some primitive tribe he would have never invented a light bulb. A genius needs an appropriate environment and attention that trigger into growth whatever talent he posseses. /^t/The opportunities that the modern biotechnology may provide in future are definitely tempting to consider. But at the same time we have to make up our minds whether gaining the mastery of human life is really desirable and what costs we as society and individuals are prepared to pay. Do we really want to live in a world of carefully bred superhumans where the intrusion of science into private lives will become a norm leaving no room for spontaneous nature? Do we really want to play God? Are we ready for it? I think not, with the recent war in Bosnia and Hertzegovina, the Muslim-Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel, famine in North Corea and other regions, the tests of nuclear power on the Pacific there is still plenty to do let alone cloning people. <0352> /^t/Riding a bicycle has become a very popular and fashionable activity. Sales of new bikes has outstripped cars yet again, and this fact makes some people very happy whereas the others are worried. There are boom times for the cycling industry but it is so little done to make cycling safer and more pleasant. The answer is rather simple: for some people cycling is advantageous event, for the others it is the source of difficulties. /^t/First, riding a bike is the means of transport which helps almost everyone get to a destination much more quickly. This especially refers to people who live in the cities, where traffic jams are very likely to happen. A bike is, then, the only way of reaching a certain place If we say about the cities, it is necessary to mention cycle routs and special facilities which are sometimes well established and incorporated. The networks of cycle routs create excellent conditions for pleasant and safe activity. But as we cow, in some towns much must be done to satisfy fans of this sport. Second, bikes do not cause pollution. People want to live in the areas where the air is clear and healthy. Their attitude towards the environment is strongly positive and this is the reason why cycling plays such an important role for them. The next significant point is associated with the health, too. It has been known for ages that constant and reasonable activity makes people feel well and relaxed. Cycling provides healthy exercise, makes everyone slimmer, increases blood pressure, incites the work of muscles and doubles human stamina. This form of entertainment is considered to be one of the most popular ways of spending free time. It relaxes tired people and keeps family together. The cyclists very often set up the cyclist clubs or local groups. They encourage the others to take part in different trips, organise meetings, and try to solve the cyclists' problems. These encounters awake the feeling of belonging and being useful. /^t/Apart from the supporters of cycling, there is a large number of people who go against this form of activity. It is sad but true that cyclists are not generally popular. First, pedestrians are annoyed by pavement riders. They say that walking is no longer safe and exciting, for they see the perils in meeting some furious cyclists. Second, the problem refers to the motorists. Most urban cyclists ride on main roads and cause a very serious threat of crashing. Sometimes, cyclists behave awfully and try to force drivers to stop. They are very brave, but at the same time they are very unreasonable. The next weak point of cycling is its uselessness in the winter or during rainy days. It is not good and even healthy to ride in a cold or wet weather or a law temperature. Cycling is also considered to be unhealthy in the cities. Who wants to ride in pollution coming from the cars. One who looks after his condition and lungs would not like to breathe harmful air. Cyclists are also a real problem to many counsils. The representatives of the local authorities are constantly asked for better cycle routes, parkings and facilities. Sometimes, it is very difficult to discuss with cyclists and persuade them that there is not enough money for these investments. The counsillors, being irritated by stubborn and conceited riders, very often treat cycling as irrelevant. /^t/To sum up my observations, I would like to point out that growing popularity of cycling is the reason of pride but also of many problems. Positive features of cycling are unquestionable, and, without hesitation, this form of activity should be supported and improved. The close contact with nature and environment is very important for human health and condition. The weak points of cycling, although exist, are likely to be overcome. Unreasonable cyclists should be punished and learned to maintain respect to drivers and pedestrians. Counsillors should gradually introduce traffic programmes and cycle schemes. They also ought to think about new investments and facilities. Cycling develops and there will be a special place for it in the future. <0353> /^t/Nowadays medicine offers numerous opportunities to conquer problems of people who are handicapped in various ways. The wonders of this science are amazing and thanks to them more and more doors open. They open also for those whom nature bereft of the possibility of having children. Reproductive technology and particularly in vitro fertilization has changed their situation. But behind the scientific advances lags ethics with a question: how far should we push mother nature? /^t/Fertility clinics help sterile couples fulfil their dream to have a child. They may choose a donor of sperm or an egg to be either a member of their family, or a friend, or an unknown person from a catalogue. Such catalogues are issued by sperm banks. They specify height, hair colour, eye colour, religious and educational backgrounds, even IQ. It seems to be fair, as donors and recipients should be matched as closely as possible. But it would mean that we have entered the era of 'designer babies', where future parents 'order' a child with certain features. Sometimes it occurs to be controversial when, for example, a black mother (using donor eggs) gives birth to a white child. Then, perhaps it should be regulated that the race of parents and their child should be the same. But what about age restrictions? Is there any upper limit on the age at which women can bear children? Many women in their forties or fifties delayed marriage and childbearing to pursue careers, only to discover how difficult it was to conceive. Seeing a chance of experiencing motherhood thanks to artificial insemination they resorted to it. /^t/Whether it is safe for older women to bear children is a matter of argument. Some experts claim that the average physical state of an older woman requires an unordinate vigilance to ensure that she can carry her baby to term. They also argue that such children risk having weaker immune systems. However, there are also authorities on gynaecology who do not find evidence that children born to postmenopausal women are subject to any higher risks. They are not abnormal or pathological. It is true that older mothers face grater risks to their own health than young ones but most in vitro fertilization programmes screen out candidates with heart conditions, hypertension, etc. Besides if there were the age limit applied on motherhood, perhaps women who have cancer, or AIDS, or who smoke, or drink heavily also should be forbidden to have children. Most doctors are concerned that older mothers will not have the energy to cope with bringing up a child. But aren't there thousands of grandmothers who raise energetically their grandchildren? Besides, couples with financial means to pursue in vitro fertilization can probably afford a nanny and give more security to their baby than teenage parents who are not prepared emotionally to have a child. /^t/Each country regulates individually the question of in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, experimentation on human embryo, etc. Governments enact laws which implement limits and restrictions specifying whether older women, unmarried couples, or single women can have children by means of new reproductive technologies. But are these laws strong enough to confront a powerful law of nature - the woman's desire to give birth to her baby? <0354> /^t/Advertisements have become naturalised into Polish reality and we all have got used to them. They are now treated as a fixed element in the architecture of any city, in papers' layout, television and radio programmes, etc. Advertising as such seems to be a useful phenomenon; nevertheless, it has some drawbacks which make it a constantly controversial subject. What does change however in this field is different aspects of controversy. It is no longer the "To be or not to be" question but rather how much time and space should be given to commercials and whether their quality should be censored. /^t/If one wants to introduce limitation to anything it means that the phenomenon in question may carry harmful effects. It is certainly so with advertising. No one is immune to the great power of commercials. Especially children are very responsive to the colourful pictures presenting wonderful things, above all toys. As they are trustful, they believe that a great fun is possible only with a toy seen on TV; Barbie is a good case in point. If parents cannot afford it, it is difficult to explain to their daughter that she cannot have this doll because she does not see any obstacles on TV. Ads' task is to show only the positive sides of products, which is obvious to adults but not to children. They accept everything uncritically, not thinking that those products can, for instance, damage their teeth, as is the case with all kinds of sweets. Considering those bad points, some people postulate that advertising toys should be banned, as it is with guns and drugs. But, personally, I think it is hardly possible in a free market reality. /^t/Leaving aside children's question, commercials should be limited just because they are irritating. Breaks during a film are sometimes useful, e.g. to make a cup of coffee or a short telephone call, not missing the action, on condition that they are of reasonable length and frequency. What is also annoying, but unfortunately often practised in TV is introducing breaks not only in the middle of a scene but even in the middle of a sentence, which is unacceptable. Television producers should pay more attention to televiewers' rights and keep to the time limits established for commercial breaks. /^t/While the time and space intended for commercial breaks are measurable, no one can tell to what extent advertisements influence our minds. One might argue that he or she had certain reasons to choose between two products but I am afraid we let ourselves be unconsciously manipulated. Competition requires using more and more sophisticated means to gain new buyers' approval and it is not enough to say that something is the best. Specialists appeal to our unconscious needs to feel important and more worthy, and to belong to the elite. We can do nothing about this aspect of advertising but as for others we are not helpless. It should be controlled that TV stations obey the time limits and censorship should ban immoral and discriminating ads. Apart from that, my personal wish is that the artistic level of them were higher. <0355> /^t/Astrology means the art of observing the position of the stars in the belief that they influence human affairs. Astrology started to develop in antiquity, flourished in the Middle Ages. Now it is very often neglected and treated as a pseudo-science. It was astrology that helped astronomy to develop as priests in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt were so much interested in observing the stars and planets. Nowadays astrology has been using what astronomers have learnt about the heavenly bodies. /^t/Today the signs of Zodiac are what an ordinary person attributes astrology with. Although we do not always believe the assumption that the twelve signs of Zodiac may convey the truth about the features of one's personality in fact we usually know our signs. There are as many interpretations of the signs of Zodiac as pseudo-astrologers so there is no point in taking all the revelations too seriously. In fact all people seem to share similar traits of character, no matter what signs they belong to. The world is full of ambitious and resolute persons who are at the some time reliable and sensitive./^t/From knowing one's sign of Zodiac it is only one step to cast him a horoscope. We come across them everywhere. Horoscopes are present in various magazines and newspapers, even on television. Almost everybody has attempted to read at least once what 'stars' tell about the future: what we can expect at work and whether we will have any problems with health. Even if we read horoscopes for fun, good predictions set our fears at rest. People's desire to satisfy curiosity is a gold mine for many fortune-tellers. Professional astrologers claim that in a correct horoscope many facts must be taken into consideation. It is necessary to know not only the birthplace but also the precise time of birth. There are not many genuine astrologers, mainly because astrology demands extensive knowledge from different fields such as psychology and medicine. The learning is arduous. However, astrologers maintain that it is a worth-while effort as it allows to acquire the knowledge of the world's inner harmony into which man is mingled. Astrologers stress, and it is worth remembering, that horoscopes are more or less probable but they never prove correct completely. /^t/All things considered, one should not take to heart what he or she has read in a horoscope. We cannot forecast future events. It is better to rely on common sense, work or even intuition than on predictions. On the other hand we must be aware that despite the development of civilization a lot still remains unknown. It refers to astrology causing so much controversy. Little do scientists now about the influence of the planets and stars on the world and that is why astrology is so often held with contempt. This may, however, change with time. <0356> /^t/The average age of people who decide to marry is constantly lowering. There are many reasons for that, the most frequent is the desire to demonstrate maturity. The situation does not look optimistic as young persons are very often unprepared to set up a family. /^t/Marriage means resorting to compromises which young persons often find difficult to accept. The wisdom comes later with age and experience. On the other hand some people claim that younger persons are more likely to adapt to new situations, changes and give up certain habits for the sake of a mutual agreement. Young people quite frequently misinterpret mere physical attraction as true love and that is why going out with the first girl- or boy-friend often ends in the wedding. Too little knowledge about the partner usually results in conflicts in marriages. The considerable number of marriages is contracted because of unwanted pregnancies. Such a short-sightedness and lack of responsibility usually makes a young person abandon the hopes of any life career. The situation differs, however, if a couple decided to bring up children first and to come into effect their long dreamt of careers later on. Also, scientists have found out that various deformities occur more often to babies born by older mothers, so younger couples have bigger chances of giving birth to healthy offspring. The decision to marry young often results from following the patterns observed in an adolescent's family: a young man is then convicted that it is better to marry very early. Sometimes families exert pressure on a young person to marry. Also, if some of the young man's friends have already been married, he or she hastens the decision, in order not to feel worse. In such a situation a young person does not usually think of all the possible consequences of the decision. This presages an unsuccessful relationship. /^t/The biggest problems newly married couples face are usually financial ones. They feel lucky having steady jobs and when they can afford renting a flat. Although the majority of young couples prefer to live in their own houses, sharing a flat with parents is sometimes inevitable. That may be a source of family quarrels, as especially mothers-in-law are apt to interfere with all arrangements or, what is worse, impose their way of life on young spouses. But if parents are well-disposed, they may give good advice and help to solve problems. /^t/The decision to marry should be well thought over and all aspects of future life must be taken into consideration. In extreme situations if there is no possibility of saving a marriage a divorce is the only solution but it is usually not easy as the children's lot and costs of splitting are concerned. It is better to think twice before saying 'yes'. <0357> Before 1989 we had known only one kind of commerce: small shops in which you could hardly find anything to buy. We had not known that there might be more brands of coffee than just one, imported from the USSR. However, with the collapse of the communist regime this established situation changed rapidly. People would take advantage of economic freedom as well as of the gaps in regulations and would open shops. This tendency was very good for the state of the national economy. Small family enterprises absorbed those people who were made redundant as a result of large-scale cutbacks. They also stimulated people's initiative and largely contributed to the economic growth. /^t/Nowadays the market is glut with small stores. Therefore, the new ones have to lower prices artificially to attract customers, which is of course self-destructive in longer perspective. The competition becomes stronger and more ruthless - shop-keepers cheat either customers or tax-collectors (and most frequently both). What matters now is the price and some buyers are even ready to run to the other part of the city to save a bit. /^t/It may be useful to quote the economic calculation of both the large and small enterprises. Strangely enough, what is good for individuals is bad for the state. Big supermarkets are extremely effective in making large profits with relatively low costs. They offer low prices and a great variety of goods, the factors that are essential for ordinary buyers. However, at the same time they eliminate small shops that do not have so much capital and are not competitive enough. As a result, unemployment is increased and the tempo of economic growth is slowed down. /^t/The economic calculation quoted above seems to favour small-scale commerce. The personal calculation of each customer is diametrically different. Apart from low prices, supermarkets offer also a wide range of goods and kinds of the same product grouped under one roof. Also, customers have much easier access to goods than in small stores, which is very important for many of them. All these factors constitute the unimaginable comfort of doing shopping in huge shops, which is one of the most important advantages of this type of commerce. /^t/As is proved by the statistics, people try to spend their money as effective as possible, buying cheaply in huge places. As much as 90% of all customers share this attitude. This tiny 10% is mostly old conservative persons who find it difficult to adapt themselves to the new reality and look suspiciously at all novelties. /^t/Amazed and fascinated by colourful wrappings and unbelievably low prices, we are not aware of the fact that big supermarkets are the worst thieves of our money. Advertisements persuade us to buy things we do not really need. They force their way to our subconscious so that, willingly or not, we buy advertised products only because we have heard them to be better than others. The whole teams of psychologists and sociologists, studying human responses to different stimuli, invent various tricks to ensure customers that they get good value for money (when in fact they do not). All kinds of promotions, extra gifts, package purchases are just clever ways of making profit by cheating people. /^t/In small traditional shops one cannot come across such improbably good bargains as at Hit or Leclerc, but one can at least enjoy his independence. After all, he may buy what he really needs and not what the business tycoons want to get rid of. /^t/It is interesting to analyse the actual relations between large- and small-scale business. The owners of small shops feel threatened by giant enterprises. They rightly assume that eventually they stop making profits as a result of the unfair competition. They fear that the big business would try to monopolise some areas of the market using the advantage of great capital. /^t/Of course small firms do not just wait passively for what would happen next. They are not going to accept the conditions set by giant corporations. Therefore they organise themselves into unions whose purpose is to defend their common interests, to fight monopolistic actions and to help one another to survive in the market. /^t/The fight between these two totally different approaches to trade reminds vividly that between David and Goliath. Huge companies do not treat little ones seriously, being sure of their own firm position and of the superiority of wholesale over retail sale. On the other hand, small firms realise that only by a fierce struggle they can defend their position and save jobs of thousands of employees. They already do their best to be more competitive: they cut down unnecessary additional charges or try to eliminate middlemen. Luckily, customers would decide which one of the two types of trade should remain in the market. /^t/As can be noticed, the two opposite approaches - small family shops and giant supermarkets - have very little in common. The relations between them cannot be much better than an open war because to survive they need to take over the enemy's share of the market. The main problem is that they both compete for the same circle of clients and there is no other way out of this problem except for close co-operation and fair competition of both sides. /^t/At present there is only one side which really benefits from this struggle: we customers. We can feel the power of our money and choose stores that offer the most favourable conditions. We have learnt how to do shopping in a reasonable way or how to pay attention to the best-before dates. The great variety of shops has made our lives much easier. Both small and large ones are necessary and in some respects more useful than others. Which one to choose depends only on us - the free choice is one of the greatest benefits of market economy. <0358> /^t/The life in the modern world is practically impossible without constant getting hold of, retrieving and up-dating information. At great speed of today's life, there exists the continuous need for reliable information, presented preferably in the quickest possible way and in maximally condensed form. Advertising, as one of the media serving that purpose, becomes one of the strongest forces ruling the market today. Those, who cannot afford advertising campaigns led on a large scale, have no chances of achieving success in any kind of business. /^t/The aim of this essay is to present and discuss some most obvious benefits and unquestionable evils connected with modern advertising. Is that phenomenon more harmful or perhaps its advantages prevail over disadvantages? The answer to this question will be offered in that work. /^t/The phenomenon of expansive growth and virtual omnipresence of advertisements has become noticeable only lately (in the last few years) in Poland. The appearance of the new kind of market and changes in Polish economy brought about the boost for foreign investments and, what is connected with it, the strong competition between companies manufacturing similar products. To gain customers and to tie them to a particular firm (and product), advertising campaigns were initiated and led by skilful, young people with bright ideas. The rivalry between such companies as Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola becomes here almost proverbial. When one of them launches a new product, the other one presents something very similar. The choice customers make depends on the quality of TV commercials, the frequency of their appearance on mass media, etc.. Huge sums of money are being invested in advertising campaigns but it is the matter of survival on the market these days; the product not advertised does not exist for customers, which means it brings no profits. /^t/Advertisements fulfil a very important informative role. They appear almost everywhere: on television and radio; they are printed in the papers, hung in shop windows or underground subways in the form of posters and so on. The omnipresence is their greatest advantage. They act as a kind of a guide in the mass markets, promoting new articles and reminding of the forgotten ones. Otherwise, without proper advertising, new goods would pass unnoticed and a customer would have to make guesses (not always lucky ones). /^t/Moreover, the TV commercials present the latest trends in fashion, make-up plus trendy leisure activities. They answer the dilemmas what to eat, how to eat, where to eat and with whom. Sometimes, when an unexpected and seemingly difficult problem crops up, one is given a ready and unusually simple solution. More than that: commercials offer practical pieces of advice to housewives (how to bake a good cake; cook a wonderful dinner; wash the husband's colourful shirt to become snow-white?), present the latest cinema productions, help to choose the best things available on the market at present: a new car, a new washing machine, a new girlfriend. /^t/However, it is not possible to speak about advertising in superlatives only. The main objection is the fact that it creates the demand for things that people do not need. The mechanism of creating such artificial needs is simple: showing a woman /man becoming more attractive for the other sex through using certain cosmetics, drinking certain brand of coffee or eating kind of sweets. The effect is even stronger if a commercial is repeated over and over again, according to the rule that a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth. Those factors persuade guileless people into buying products they would not even think of buying before. Of course their life does not improve or change at all, but for several zlotys less in the wallet. /^t/Some commercials appeal to basic human instincts as family, fear or greed. Thanks to this technique people buy consumer goods or insurance, fashionable clothes and cosmetics, they eat more than necessary. /^t/Another disadvantage of modern advertising is the use of stereotypes. It is true that in each culture there are some criteria of beauty according to which a man must be tall and muscular, while a woman must be a fragile blonde. Such characters appear in commercials and appeal to potential consumer by the power of archetype. But in the reality nobody is perfect and will not become ideal by using advertised products. /^t/The most dangerous of the techniques used by advertising agents are the operations performed directly on the psyche, outside the control of the consciousness. People do not realise that in some commercials there is a message which they unconsciously absorb. Very often they repeat slogans and clichés and gradually come to think that all those words are true. That is perhaps the most dangerous of all the influences advertising exercises upon us. One is not able to control one's subconscious actions. /^t/On the other hand, however, there are advertisements which have positive effects. There are certain artistic qualities present in TV commercials. Witty dialogues, humorous story, interesting idea, good music or visual effects, etc. - those components would make any advertisement a pleasure to watch and digest. /^t/To sum up: the omnipresence of advertising in the modern world is unavoidable. As a result of competition between the companies it serves noble purposes: to satisfy the customer with the best products. Unfortunately, this noble idea got corrupted on its way to realisation and potential customers are attracted by the product not because it is good but because of the persuasive way of its advertising. Sometimes it is hard to resist the temptation and not buy a product that is said to be the No. 1 in Europe. /^t/The power of advertising is undeniably very strong. It demands much psychical strength and common sense so as not to fall under the spell of the fake world of non existing perfections. One has to make wise choices and be moderate in watching commercials as well as in believing in them. <0359> /^t/Nowadays the issue of homosexuality is treated with much more tolerance than in the past. However we do remember the past times when homosexuality was a deviation banned by law, a kind of 'social disease'. The people who happened to fall victim to this shameful disease were persecuted. As an example we can point out to the case of Oscar Wilde who was tried for being a homosexual and, having been found guilty of sexual contacts with men, was sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour. It was the maximum sentence, most of which Wilde served at the Reading Gaol, where his health was badly damaged which in turn put an end to his literary career. /^t/Fortunately these times are now over. In the present people seem to have developed a more lenient or even indulgent attitude towards homosexuals, and homosexuality itself is no longer treated as a disease. Now there is much more acceptance of homosexuals and we can sometimes see couples of the same sex in the streets or hear about marriages between homosexual pairs. Now it is generally accepted that homosexuality is not a mere deviation. It is a special condition when people are sexually attracted to the people of the same sex. Homosexual people are not worse than heterosexual just because they are a minority. Their sexual needs result from their psyche in the very same way as the needs of the heterosexuals. Still, the homosexuals seem not to be treated equally with the heterosexuals. /^t/In my country there is no chance for a homosexual relationship to be legalised. Most often homosexual couples share the flat, which brings them a lot of problems. In the case of a regular heterosexual couple there is a certain set of rules which apply to most couples at the moment of their marriage. These rules concern the ownership of a house or flat belonging to the couple, the using of credit cards or bank accounts. In the case of married heterosexual couples all that the spouses own is common, provided there was no legal division of their belongings before or after the marriage. Homosexuals however have to fight for the application of these rules on the legal way, which is not easy. Another thing is that in the case of death of either partner of a heterosexual marriage all the property possessed by the dead partner almost automatically goes to the one still alive, on condition that there was no testament left by the dead husband or wife. Homosexual couples again meet with difficulty just because they are not allowed to marry. If we accept the fact that such couples do exist, why do we not allow them to marry? We agree that homosexual people are not either ill or in any way worse than heterosexual ones. We may admit that 'two husbands' or 'two wives' is a weird concept but still we have to enable these people to live as most people do. If we agree that they are normal people it more or less means that they deserve equal treatment and we should ensure them such. /^t/In some countries homosexual marriages have been recently legalised, which of course gave rise to many protests. There are still many people who think of homosexuality as of a deviation which can be cured. They seem not to understand that homosexuality, as well as heterosexuality, is psychologically determined, at least partially. I personally understand the protests of priests for instance, because homosexuality is against the laws of the Bible. I think, however, that secular marriages should be open to all couples, no matter homo- or heterosexual. /^t/There is however one thing that I would deny the homosexuals - that is having children. This is of course unavoidable as far as lesbian pairs are concerned, because one of the women may have an in-vitro conception, but I would never approve of adoption by homosexual couples. We know very well that children need both parents - a mother and a father. This is the best condition in which a child can be brought up. Two mothers or two fathers is not a good way out. By accepting the existence of homosexuals we do not mean that we want them to grow in number. Children brought up by the homosexual pairs would themselves be potential homosexuals, because it has been proved that there are two main factors that determine sexual orientation. These are some processes taking place during the foetal life of a human and the environment in which this human is brought up. This is one reason for which the homosexuals should not be allowed to have children. Another reason is that it is better for a child to have a normal conventional family. There is a higher probability that a child having two parents of the same sex will be orally abused and humiliated. Thus if we want to make children happier we should not allow for them to be brought up by two mummies or two daddies. /^t/Homosexuality is still a problem of some kind and although it is now treated less strictly there is a lot of things to be done about it. Many people still hold conservative point of view and they do not want to accept homosexuality in any way. Others treat homosexuals as equals and they try to do something for them, like for example achieve changes in the legal system. If we do not want to agree for homosexuals to marry maybe we should think of some other solutions concerning such issues as inheritance or common property. Some changes should be made to make the lives of the homosexual couples easier. If it is not going to be the legalisation of their marriages it could for instance be a special system of registration which would guarantee them the laws that the married couples have. Homosexuals should be treated equally to other people but with one exception. They should not be allowed to bring up children. <0360> /^t/Fast food is very quickly becoming the modern way of eating. It reflects basic changes in our society: our faster pace, the increase in working parents, and the availability of ready-to-eat foods. These changes are taking place all over the world, not only in highly developed countries. Traditional family meals are being largely replaced by fast-food snacks. But the question is: do our health and well-being benefit from these changes? Has not convenience crept too much into our lives? /^t/Certainly convenience speaks most strongly in favour of going for fast food. Traditional meals prepared at home obviously take much more time and labour. Today's society has created the model of a family with both wife and husband professionally engaged. Therefore, they often have not enough time for eating meals at home, let alone preparing them. The easiest way of appeasing one's hunger is to pop in for a hamburger or pizza. However, that is also a quick way of loosening family ties. It is generally acknowledged that eating meals together unites people, especially members of a family. /^t/Taking health into consideration, it seems hardly possible to find any advantages of fast food. One of the major problems is that restaurants and fast food outlets are not actually required by law to disclose the ingredients in their dishes. A majority of fast food snacks contain unacceptable amounts of additives, fat and sugar. And that means loads of calories. Some people claim that you do not need to think about healthy eating until you are older. But actually any nutritionist will tell you that developing healthy eating habits when you are young is the best investment you can make for the future. It has been proved that a human body needs various sorts of foods to stay in optimum condition. Nutritionists stress the importance of foods rich in starch and fibre as they are filling without loading on too many calories and are a good source of vitamins. In a majority of cases, this cannot be said about fast food, which provides empty calories at the cost of necessary nutrients. However, there are some healthy options available, although most of us do not realise that. Instead of buying a hamburger or Chinese takeaway we could choose, for instance, healthier baked potatoes with light toppings. /^t/The most visible effect of one's diet is their body. "Eat your way into great shape" is not just a slogan. A secret to a slim figure, which is a dream of many, surely does not lie in fast food. Many top models reveal their love for junk food. Linda Evangelista, for instance, loves the way McDonald's burgers taste but at the same time admits that she only allows herself that kind of food a few times a year. However, there is one advantage of eating outdoors, i.e. you get some walk. Exercising is the second important recommendation for keeping fit. There is some hope that during your way back to work, unless you go by car, you will burn some fat you have eaten. /^t/It is necessary to look at the problem from one more point of view, namely from the standpoint of environmentalists. The most noticeable thing about fast food places are piles of rubbish from packaging and leftovers thrown all over the street. It is not a secret that those packaging and wrappings contain chemicals which contribute to the greenhouse effect. Moreover, tropical rainforests are cut down to make room for cattle in order to produce more beef for hamburgers. However, one might argue that this does not concern fast food only. /^t/To sum up, fast food has become a cheap and easily available way of eating. However, when we consider all the pros and cons of fast food we will certainly arrive at a conclusion that it is not an ideal way of eating. <0361> /^t/The issue concerning animal testing has always been controversial. Many of us think that such test should be banned. But in the same time, a large number of people is "for" animal tests. The truth and the point of agreement seem to be somewhere in the middle. /^t/On one hand, we realize that medicine research has saved the lives of millions of people so far and surely will save many others. We must accept the fact, that if we want new medicines and medical advances, these animal tests are an important part of it. /^t/There are plenty of treatments we still do not have, for example, for HIV and cancer. Animal studies provide the best guidance for what will happen when we give the treatment to humans. They ensure that the risks have been minimised. Tests carried out straight onto humans would involve unacceptably high risks to people. /^t/We have to realize that saving human lives is a good enough reason for proper, controlled research. Besides, all these animal tests save also the lives of animals themselves. /^t/All the above arguments are advanced by people who think that animal studies should not be banned. The research ought to be continued, according to them. But there are human beings who think otherwise. /^t/Those who are against animal testing say that we have no right to inflict suffering on animals. Besides, in their opinion, animal tests are not a valid means of research. This is because, animals are anatomically and physiologically different from human beings, so we can not just apply test results to human beings. That is why, drugs that have been passed as safe after animal testing have sometimes turned out to have horrible side-effects on humans. /^t/One should also take into consideration another important fact. Namely, for many years people have been led to believe that diseases like scarlet fever or smallpox declined because of animal experiments. However, history shows that the decline was due to better living standards and personal hygiene. Besides, it has been proved that cancer is mainly related to factors such as smoking, too much alcohol, overeating, over-exposure to sunlight and environmental pollution, and could be avoided. So, in case of this disease, animal testing seems to be completely redundant. /^t/As we can see, the issue concerning animal research is not unimportant or trivial, as some people claim. In fact, it is a matter of great importance and we should all think of the best solution. <0362> /^t/In our times, the number of very young people who decide to marry seems to be on the increase. They are usually determined by some rather unavoidable necessity. Namely, the main reason for marrying young is very often not hot, passionate love between two teenagers but the simple fact that they are going to have a baby. Thus, in most cases this is the unwanted and unexpected pregnancy that leads to the marriage of young people. And that is why I am strongly against marrying young. /^t/The consequences of such a decision are quickly visible and they are not so happy as we could expect them to be. The main factor behind such a situation is the fact that teenagers are not as mature as they would like to be in the eyes of the world. Usually, they are simply children themselves. As a result, such emotionally immature and inexperienced children are forced to bring up their own baby and they have to deal with everyday problems. Suddenly, they have to play the roles of mother and father, as well as these of wife and husband, or it would be better to say - they have to learn quickly how to play these roles. This situation frightens and overpowers them and the by-product of it is increasing unhappiness, disappointment and bitterness. /^t/Sometimes the situation of such a young couple is even much worse when they can not bank on help of their parents and other close relatives. Nowadays, it is quite a common phenomenon that the family of young people is not very eager to help. Sometimes they even disown such a young couple. In this situation young people have to depend on themselves. They are forced to be careful of every penny they spend and they hardly keep their heads above water. /^t/Of course, the unexpected pregnancy is not the only reason for marrying young. Sometimes such a decision is also influenced by the fact that teenagers do really love each other and they feel very mature. They want to live on their own, in their own house for the simple reason that they are no longer happy living with their parents under the same roof. Young people want to become independent as soon as possible, since they have already been bored with constant "good pieces of advice" from their parents, with their permanent warning against everybody and everything. /^t/I have to admit that these couples often lead a very happy life. However, the majority of young marriages turns out to be a complete disaster for the simple reason that they represent the first example I have mentioned above. /^t/Young people very often realize that their marriage has always been an awful mistake, but unfortunately it is usually too late. That is why I am strongly against marrying in haste. <0363> /^t/A cyberdoc is the name of a phenomenon which is inevitably spreading among Americans and gaining more and more supporters. It is widely known that the word 'doc' is short for 'doctor' and the prefix 'cyber' suggests that the thing will be connected with computers, especially with sending messages on the Internet. The phenomenon proves that another sphere of our life is being invaded by computers, which is an inevitable trend with technology apparently getting out of control. That is obvious that computers cannot replace conventional medicine, but Americans are quietly remaking their medicine. Aided by doc-in-a-box software programs and by online databases, they are managing their own health in ways that were recently unimaginable. The new tools are of course meant to supplement standard medical care, not replace it. But their role in the health system can only grow, for they are improving people's lives even while reducing their medical bills. Needless to say, this unconventional medical care is bound to have its advantages as well as disadvantages. Let us try first to pinpoint some obvious good sides. /^t/The first advantage is that such a digital medical program will answer all your questions and will make your doubts vanish. Majority of cancer patients feel confused and isolated after having been stricken. They found themselves alone, taking some noxious hormones or undergoing chemotherapies devastating their organisms, or nursing some painful wounds from, for instance, a radical mastectomy. Frequently, such people do not know anything about cancer and do not even know what questions to ask. This however may change with a personal computer being set up in such people's houses and linking them to a special network which will answer their questions. Secondly, the computer will put them in touch with scores of fellow patients suffering from the same diseases, helping those people to stop feeling isolated and abandoned. Another advantage is the round-the-clock access to a library of medical information as well as the fact that "the doc-in-a box" will devote you as much time as you only wish and not just ten or fifteen minutes. /^t/Besides, with the computer you may ask questions you would be too embarrassed and ashamed to ask a doctor. This seems to be one of main advantages of the medical care in question. It happens very often that people are ashamed of some embarrassing symptoms and they feel awkward having to reveal them to a stranger. Sometimes they hide some embarrassing symptoms, reveal them partially or simply do not visit a doctor being so paralysed by their shame. It is being observed that patients are much more comfortable talking with the computer than they are with their own doctors. As you would expect, people feel freer to detail their sex practices or drug habits when the interrogator is a machine. That is natural since computers like any other machines are nonjudgmental, which means they do not think and do not make judgements about people who consult them. That encourages people since when they suffer from some embarrassing disease and have to visit a doctor, the thing they are most afraid of is the fact they do not know what the doctor will think about them. They are afraid of doctor's sight because they feel as if they were being humiliated. /^t/Besides being nonjudgmental, computers are less biassed, if at all, than doctors. A man suffering from, for instance, prostate cancer may get radically different pieces of advice from three different urologists. The reason why there are such considerable differences among doctors is the fact that like all people, doctors tend to be subjective and are influenced by a number of factors, very frequently irrational and personal, that make them prefer one treatment to another. But by sitting down with one of those medical software programs, one is sure to obtain an impartial and objective assessment of one's case, not to mention the fact that having answered a series of questions asked by computer you are provided with a list of possible treatments you may follow, together with a detailed register of good and bad sides of each treatment. /^t/Incredible as it may seem, the phenomenon is bound to have some self-evident disadvantages. /^t/Firstly, one must be dazzled by the novelty of the phenomenon if one does not seem to show the awareness of the liability dangers connected with people's own management of their health. Patients appear to ignore the instructions of manufacturers who incessantly stress that their products are intended as educational tools and not as do-it-yourself diagnostic kits. It should be natural that before deciding on one of treatments suggested by computer you should visit a doctor and ask him for his opinion and assessment of the computer's suggestions. One should never dismiss doctor's advice as untrustworthy. It is vital that one should realise that the choice of treatment from a whole range of possible ones may depend on some specialistic tests that must be carried out before the final decision (such as blood tests etc.) and undoubtedly, your computer is not capable of performing it. /^t/On the whole, the effect that may ensue seems to be decisively dubious. I would dare to say that the thing is likely to cause more harm and troubles than it may apparently seem. What should be advised to potential users of such programs is a good deal of moderation and caution. <0364> /^t/It is not unusual to hear students complain about the amount of books they have to read for their classes. It is very easy to get an impression that the obligatory reading list is what they despise most. They try to put off the moment they will have to go through one of the obligatory items as long as possible. Most students try to read a 300 pages long book during one night. And the result is rather unsatisfactory because in the morning they can hardly remember the names of the characters. What makes students and people in general so unwilling to read books? I think that the key word to this problem is 'classic'. /^t/Classic is a book or any work of art that is regarded as being a very fine example of its type and having lasting importance. But it so happens that for some people it has only a pejorative meaning, they can give strange equivalents of the word 'classic' such as boring, uninteresting, time wasting etc, which may seem very shocking for book lovers. Such attitude towards classics is characteristic of uneducated people. The fact is that in our society the number of book readers is decreasing and as you cannot get education without books the circle goes round. /^t/The painful thing is that these are mainly old people who are book addicts and the number of young people who regularly read books dwindles. For a modern man whose actions are money motivated it is enough to read a daily newspaper and a bridged version of a well-known novel to regard oneself as a well educated person with great expectations. /^t/But those who were lucky enough to get to know the ethernal verity classics along with their charm and magic can only be sorry for those who feel satisfied with the bridged versions. Those people are in a way mentally inefficient because they know who Shakespear was but they have not the slightest idea where the roots of his popularity are and what is so special about him. /^t/Observing the growing number of bridged versions and those who consider them a real blessing it is easy to draw a conclusion that classics reading is already antiquated. /^t/However, it is very unlikely that classics will soon be forgotten. There are still plenty of die-hard readers who know perfectly well that classics cannot be replaced by newspapers, harlequins or shortened versions. There are still parents who can appreciate the value of classics and try to bring up their children aware of it. Also teachers play a very crucial role in persuading their students that the word 'classic' should be an encouragement to get to know such books. /^t/We cannot say that classics are underestimated in our society, along with the number of bridged versions the number of unbridged publications also increases. And there are always people who are ready to pay any amount of money to enlarge their private library with some new items. /^t/It is true that classics have lasting value, there is no possibility to forget that they lie at the base of our education. They let us expand our horizons and give a new insight into the world and its rules. Although, there are people who cannot appreciate their real value, those who can will not let it be forgotten. No matter how many bridged versions are yet to be published they will never replace the original text. <0365> /^t/Television has not been with us for a long time, but we are already starting to forget what our life was like without it. We used to do a lot of exciting things, we had a great number of wonderful ideas how to occupy our spare time and we never found it difficult to live without television. /^t/Some time ago we used to enjoy various kinds of entertainment, we would have hobbies, go outside to theatres, cinemas, restaurants and sport events. It is hard to imagine but we even used to read books and listen to music. Now, instead of going out and socializing we prefer sitting at home and being isolated from the external world. Television makes us the prisioners of our own homes. All our leisure time is controlled by "this monster". People can not even eat their meals in peace and together with the whole family because some of the members rush in order to be in time for this or that programme. Television remains a very demanding, time-consuming pleasure. /^t/What is more, this civilised pleasure demands complete silence and attention. So when some member of the family swears to open his mouth and say something during a very fascinating programme, he or she is immediately rendered harmless. /^t/Whole generations are brought up by television. Especially young people get addicted to it extremely fast. They often do not sleep, do their homeworks, but neglect school and social relationships. It is television that becomes their best friend, they no longer need the company of other teenagers. Moreover, children, when left in front of a TV-set on their own by their parents, are very much exposed to the spectacles of violence and the scenes of sex. /^t/Another very important argument against television is that it limits our creativity. It doesn't really matter that the quality of a wide spectrum of programmes is bad, we still watch them any way. /^t/What is more, television encourages passive enjoyment. We become intesely lazy, it is so pleasant to sit in our armchairs for hours watching others working. And in this way "our monster" cuts us off from the real life. The fact is that we choose to spend a really fine day at home instead of going out and taking some physical exercise. /^t/And finally, television causes that we are not able to communicate with each other any longer. We choose to sit in front of our TV-set in complete silence rather than talk about problems surrounding us. /^t/But we can mention several argument in favour of television as well. /^t/The most important one is that nobody imposes it on you. You are equipped with your free mind and if you don't like TV, you simply do not turn it on. /^t/The next important advantage of television is that it enables us to be witnesses of creating the present history. You watch TV because you must be well-informed, you want to have access to the most powerful source of information. Television offers a lot. It makes it possible to take part in such important events as the Olympic Games, political events and great entertainments. /^t/What is more, television creates enormous possibilities for education. It proposes a whole range of educational programmes, in almost every field of science. Thanks to television you may also master your language skills. In this field we, as the learners of foreign languages, owe TV a lot. /^t/Another thing is that it encourages real art to be created. Although one may say that a wide variety of TV productions are made only for the commercial purposes, there are, however, numerous programmes of the higher lever, the rays of art with the big "A". Television continues very good tradition of theatre productions of classical plays and thanks to it many directors, actors have the chance to perfect their creative talents and to popularize drama among wider groups of audience. /^t/All things considered, one must be very careful when dealing with such a complex subject as television. I am sure that a lot may be said about it: both good and bad points may be found but on the whole it does not really matter. You can notice advantages and disadvantages of almost every item you care to name. One important thing is that one should use TV with moderation, otherwise it may become a dangerous "monster". <0366> /^t/In recent years there has been an obvious increase in interest in restrictions concerning cigarette smoking in public areas. Not only has the problem been largely presented by mass-media but it has also been discussed within government circles in many countries. /^t/As a result, numerous rules prohibiting cigarette smoking appeared in places of public transport, cinemas, bars, and restaurants. Little has been said, however, about the idea of total prohibition of the sale of cigarettes. /^t/Although it seems reasonalbe as it might reduce the cause, although not the effect, of smoking, the idea mentioned above still remains one of little interest amongst government officials. Yet simply because most governments tend to omit the issue does not mean that there are no arguments for or against it. The supporters of a ban on the sale of cigarettes claim that it should be implemented in exctly the same way that many countries enacted bans on the sale of drugs. Proponents argue that if both drugs and cigarettes are considered harmful, then cigarettes should be illegal like drugs. /^t/Furthermore, drug users argue that they are being discriminated against since most drugs cause harm mainly to those who use them while cigarette smoking endangers the health of passive smokers as well. /^t/Moreover if making money at the expense of human health is considered illegal and inhumane, tobacco corporations should not have the legal right to make fortunes selling cigarettes while drug dealers are seriously prosecuted. /^t/Essentially the legal sale means easy access to cigarettes, and perhaps most disasterously, it makes them easily available to young smokers. Thus the total prohibition of cigarettes seems obvious and it would probably have been implemented years ago if not for the arguments of opponents on the ban. /^t/Firstly they would say that there is no point to treat cigarettes and drugs as equal dangers to health. It has been proven that drugs are much more harmful to health, particularly for psychological reasons. Drugs strongly influence mood, personality and the state of consciousness. Secondly the implementation of a ban on cigarettes would mean leaving thousands of people without jobs. In particular this would have to happen in the United States, where a lot of people benefit from the cigarette trade. Thirdly there are too many people addicted to smoking and no matter what they would always try to buy cigarettes. /^t/As a result of peoples' desperate search for cigarettes, there would be a black market. This would be a tremendous opportunity for the Mafia to make a lot of money by selling cigarettes illegally. The potential appearance of a black market seems to be the main reason why the total ban on cigarettes has never been implemented. <0367> Modern advertising has developed greatly for the last decade and appears everywhere around us so we do not often realize its strong influence on our lives. Now the question arises whether its influence is harmful or beneficial? Our letter-boxes are flooded by enormous piles of colourful leaflets publicising new products. Driving a car our attention is attracted by huge eye-catching advertisements on hoardings by the sides of the roads or by immense posters on walls of the houses. We cannot watch TV or listen to the radio in peace and quiet because the programmes are usually interrupted by commercials or advertisements. They are hung in shop windows, printed in papers or magazines or even on covers or jackets of the books we read and so on. They seem to be ubiquitous and meddlesome so we may feel to be cornered. On the other hand, it informs the customers about the variety of new products and reminds them of the presence of the old ones. Moreover, it helps create mass markets for different products, therefore, some claim it saves the consumers' precious time and makes goods be cheaper. It is claimed that the destructive influence of advertising is obviously seen in the native language. The use of slogans and catch phrases makes children imitate them instinctively and emasculate the language they use. They often repeat what they do not understand at all. Moreover, the phrases or slogans are wrongly translated from foreign languages and keep on encumbering the native language with errors, incorrect structures or foreign words. On the other hand, it is affirmed that the commercials stimulate young generation to learn foreign languages and make them feel the citizens of the world. Whenever they go they see and hear the same names of different brands of goods. The harmful influence of advertising on parent-child relationship may seem to be unquestionable. Parents often find it hard to convince children not to eat only the products they watch on TV. Furthermore, children suspect parents of cheating or lying because they watch or hear that all advertised products are the best - so what's wrong? On the other hand, the colourful advertised products help parents do the shopping and expand their children's diet. Furthermore, they do not have to spend hours encouraging their children to eat the advertised goods because children usually eat them eagerly. Many people, who object to advertising, stress that commercials appeal to basic human instincts. We all want to be fit and healthy and look young and beautiful. That's why only such actors and actresses appear on the screen, even if they advertise cigarettes or alcohol. Owing to them no product can be harmful to us. Moreover, we find it necessary to buy more than we need because of our vanity to imitate famous people who encourage us to that from the screen. In contrast, what's wrong in watching young, beautiful or even famous people in attractive surrounding and listening to good music? We must admit that many commercials are small masterpieces of art and their artistic and aesthetic level has increased for the last few years. In addition, people have always wanted to possess more than they really need so advertising cannot be blamed for that venial sin of human beings. Those who are against advertising claim it distorts the truth, thus it should be banned by law. TV commercials especially operate on contrasts and show a particular product before and after using it, pointing out its marvellous effects. A deeply wrinkled face becomes young and smooth after applying an advertised cream. In contrast, consumers should rely on their common sense much more and look around why there are so many "wrinkled faces" or fat people among us. It should be obvious to adults that a single jar of face cream or even a pile of shimming tablets cannot do wonders at the age of fifty or with 60 kilos of overweight. On the whole advertising cannot be regarded as being only harmful. As everything in our lives it has advantages and disadvantages. Everything depends on the way it is used. If we do not go to extremes and treat it as an integral part of modern life but not too seriously, it may be useful or even fun. <0368> /^t/Abortion is one of the most controversial issues of the present decade. It causes vivid debates in political, social, medical and theological fields. In the USA people who are against abortion organize marches to protect the rights of the unborn. On the other hand those who are for abortion fight for freedom and a woman's right to decide. While this moral war rages on from 50 to 60 million unborn casualties lose their lives each year. Taking it into consideration we can ask ourselves some vital questions. Firstly, is it a woman's fundamental right to decide? Secondly, is an abortion justified under any circumstances? And finally, when does life begin? /^t/To answer those questons, first we must realize that there are many different situations in which women decide on an abortion. A 15-year-old girl may be desperate because her boyfriend called her stupid for getting pregnant, and left her. Another woman whose husband is out of work and who is expecting her fifth or sixth child may ask herself how they can possibly care for another child. Some women's material situation is very good but they say: It couldn't have come at a worse time. They are so absorbed in their careers that they think they wouldn't have time for a baby. /^t/But people who are against an abortion would easily find weak points in the reasoning of the women described above. First of all, in the case of very young women an abortion can cause some serious medical problems. After the intervention sometimes they cannot have children at all or they must remain under medical control for long months. Of course poverty is a certain obstacle in bringing up children but the argument that it could be a reason for abortion also seems to be unfounded. A family's economic situation can improve but an abortion is this kind of a decision that cannot be withdrawn. Those who come from families with many children rarely regret that they were born. Much more often they appreciate the fact that they can live. And those who give up having a baby because of their professional career are considered not having natural parental feelings even by those who are undecided in the abortion conflict. To sacrifice a life of man on an altar of professional success is outrageous and disgusting for many people. /^t/Some clamour for aborton rights for pregnant victims of rape and incest, or when the mother's health is at risk. How to behave in those situations is really a serious moral issue. Nowadays it is also possible to know the baby's gender quite early and his or her possible birth defects. People who are for an aborton claim that when a child is mentally or phisically ill or deformed, the mother should also have right to decide to get rid of it. Such people usually emphasize the possibility to choose or freedom, and it gives them many supporters because in this age where freedom is appreciated or even idolized who would not favour choice? /^t/But then again, who would not be for life? Those who are against an aborton not only want to protect their own babies but they want to guarantee the unborn a legal right to live. They would like a state to be a protector, too. They are sure that no circumstances justify commiting murders on the difensless little people. They probably know that only a tiny porton of those seeking abortions do so for very extreme reasons as illness, deformation, rape or incest. For example from 86 thousand abortions in the former Czechoslovakia only 22 were for rape. And in the USA only one percent of those seeking abortion do so because they are told of some possible defect in the foetus. /^t/The abortion adversaries also point at a moral aspect of the problem. They agree that legalizing of abortion may make the practice somewhat safer medically, but it may also create a fertile environment in which moral desease can flourish and some people could treat abortion as a kind of contraception. /^t/Some women justify their decisions to remove their babies saying: It is my body! But is it really? A professor of foetology explains that genetically mother and baby are from conception separate individuals with two different sets of chromosomes. The Hippocrotic oath, respected by centuries by doctors, says in part: <*>. Is the oath still remembered by all modern phisicians? Of course sometimes they work valiantly to save the life of a premeture baby but they also end the life of a foetus who is only a bit younger. The law may allow them to kill a baby inside the womb but it is a murder if the baby is outside the womb. Taking all the pros and cons into consideration every person can decide how to behave and what to do. But the question whether abortion should be legally permited or not is still going to be argued by its followers and adversaries. <0369> /^t/The opinions differ. While television supporters claim it entertains, informs and educates, critics condemn it as a drug which is producing a nation of morons. There is no denying the fact that apart from keeping us informed about significant political or cultural events, catastrophes, accidents and providing entertaintmen of every kind, such as interesting films, comedies, shows, sports programmes, nowadays television is also the source of violence, bad language and casual or forced sex. /^t/Let us now analyse the results of a research published in "The Guardian" in 1994 by the Broadcasting Stantards Council. The research indicated thad the rate of violence on British television had increased markedly over the previous year, from 2.9 scenes per hour in 1992, to an average of four scenes an hour in 1993. The increase was atributed to a greater proportion of violent scenes in news and factual programmes and to US films. The research also showed increases in the frequency of bad language and sex on television. Incidence of bad language increased from 6.9 incidents per hour in 1992 to an average of 7.6 per hour in 1993. The number of sex scenes rose from an average of 0.5 per hour in 1992 to 0.7 per hour in 1993, although their average duration was shorter and less likely to be explicit. Standing face to face with those facts some questions are arising in the mind. Are these scenes necessary? Do they make us feel entertained, educated, relaxed or happy? Do they improve the quality of television? /^t/Surveys show that most parents believe their children learn a great deal from watching television. Information of all kinds broadens the mind, increases their knowledge about the world, people, their culture, traditions and so on. On the other hand, what sort of impression do the television scenes of violence make on children? Do they grow up believing that this is how grown-ups behave? Many of the scenes that are witnessed on television would never happen in our homes - swearing, disrespect or brutality - so why invite them in? Do misguided directors think this is what the public wants? I believe that they are thrust upon us, and that standards are falling and will continue to fall until somebody does something about it. /^t/Television as a powerful force of undeniable influence should keep pace with the demand and maintain high standards. Instead of that, television appears to be jettisoning them. Nicola Tyrer is one who supports that argument. In her article entitled "The downhill slide of our children's TV", she expresed her criticism about the quality of children's TV. She pointed out that the average British child watched well over 21 hours a week. Some research put it as high as 30 hours. Nikola spent a week watching children's television with her son and daughter and found it, with few exceptions, a depressing experience. What most disturbed her was what she didn't see. She said <*>. It also struck her that much had been said, in the debate on equality, about the need for women to be inspired by successful role models. Nikola thought this was surely even more crucial for developing human beings. However, she did not see any role models on children's television, any uplifting heroes or heroines - young people having adventures or making something of their lives. Instead of them, she noticed a wealth of talentless young presenters. Many not only affected the dropped aitches and glottal stops of the yob, but behaved like yobs. /^t/It is difficult to estimate to what extent television influences the viewer's life but it really does. It seems impossible to believe that images of explicitly violent or sexual scenes do not remain in children's imaginations. In addition, repeated watching of brutality and violence dehumanises, brutalises and empties the viewers of natural compassion. But these unpleasant aspects are not the only argoments. Not only do children waste their time watching silly cartoons or violent detective stories which do not teach them anything, but they are also easily influenced by trashy commercials and tempted by junk food, candy or expensive toys. Of course, some people may argue that we can turn off "the box", but we all pay our licence fee. We have the right to demand not only satisfactory quality of favourite television programmes, but first of all the appropriate quality of them, which seems to be not as high as it could be. <0370> /^t/When one is faced with a question like that it is necessary to determine at least some of the items mentioned in it. This however is to be done by the person asked before giving any answer. When one has already finished solving that intellectual task, one is ready to present one's point of view. I consider myself to be one of the people asked and I am going to write about my opinion on the topic mentioned above. /^t/As far as Polish state television is concerned I would say that it is generally of bad quality. It is mostly true when I am to judge Polsat - the first Polish commertial television broadcast. I am not considering satellite television programs because I happen to not use these at all. One might start wondering why I am that strict ( sharp ) in my opinions. I am simply dissatified with the general level of the programs I have mentioned so far. There are several reasons for that. One is unappropriate time of emission. It means that programs that I would like to see are presented too early or too late and I am simply missing them due to my coming back home after the program or, what is even more unconvenient going to bed being not able to wait any longer. Another is the lack of time to watch television; it leads to only fragmentary knowledge of the merit matter. Anyway I do feel like able to produce and utter my opinion on TV. The third argument against is about changing the broadcasting hours. As soon as I get used to one hour they tend to change it, what is even more painful is that they actually do that. Usually the new hour does not suit my time schedules, so I have to give up watching one of my favourite programs one by one, knowing that I will not get anything else in return. The next one is about the amount of commercial spots on television. There is too much time waisted because of these. It is especially true while talking about Polsat. They even divide programs and broadcast some of the spots while one is nervously waiting to watch the following part of the program. I am sure that they have lost the proper time proportions. To make the long story short I am not fully satisfied with the quality of TV programs but on the other hand I am happy when I can spend some of my free time watching television. I would like some of the weak points become strong points. I would like to be sure about the high quality of television programs; as far as I know I am one of their sponsors. <0371> /^t/Recently, the issue of education has been of interest to the educational authorities and experts, public at large and, of course, students themselves. Each group is concerned with a different aspect of this issue while being aware of dissimilar sets of priorities there. Previous problems tend to reoccur but also the new ones await their evaluation. The interest in what the students are taught seems to 'compete' with many other topics; among them the problem of the number of students in class and students' rapport with their teacher. The tendency here is twofold. Namely, the one is towards guided individual study and the other one is towards the class study at schools. /^t/The guided individual study enables the teacher to devote more time and attention to the student himself / herself so that the teacher has the possibility of a more thorough perception of the student's needs and interests. Seeing the way the student behaves or his / her responses, the teacher is able to adjust his / her teaching techniques and strategies more efficiently. Here, the teacher constantly communicates with the student. Thus, the teacher is able to get to know his / her student better, his / her different learning styles and be able to respond quicker and more efficiently to arousing problems. Through the adjustment on the part of the teacher and the closer contact between the teacher and the student, the former has the opportunity of explaining the topic of the lesson more thoroughly and the latter is able to receive answers to the questions which spring up. As the result of this, the course of study may be adjusted or changed according to the student's interests. Furthermore, the student learns at his / her own space in a nice, unstressful atmosphere, which is particularly crucial when the student is of low intellectual ability or is retarded, and the teacher uses the most suitable methods and activities thereby. But, on the other hand the close student-teacher contact only, eliminates the student's contact with his / her peers, which is of a vital importance for a developing young individual. This type of interaction provides the student with, not only, an opportunity of sharing his / her hobbies with others, but also with an opportunity of developing socially and psychologically, thus learning to live in a group and how to deal with different types of people. /^t/But, in a class environment the student is given lesser attention by the teacher. In other words, the teacher devotes less time to a given individual. The student himself / herself is no longer seen as an individual but as a member of a group. What is more he / she finds himself / herself under the influence of his / her peers, thus loosing the ability to develop the skill of deciding solely for and by himself / herself. On the other hand, classmates may act as facilitators but, on the other hand as inhibitors. A strong personality will overcome the difficulties and go along acquiring new skills but the weaker personality will not find coping with the difficulties an easy task. For example, a stammering student will not take part in discussions. Subsequently, the teacher will have to be the one with high class-management skills, which will enable him / her to predict and solve appearing problems or deal with brand new situations. Moreover, if the classes are big the disadvantages tend to increase as Hubbard at al. puts it: <*> /^t/All in all, the question whether to replace classes in school with guided individual study appears to be open to discussion. Each way of teaching and learning is of greater or smaller advantage to a given person, be it a student or a teacher, according to their needs and the situation in which they find themselves and, perhaps, the question of money and organisation involved here on the part of boards of education, parents students and teachers. <0372> Advertisements are a part of our daily life-we can meet them everywhere:some of them are printed in newspapers and magazines, others broadcast on TV. Although the average man is usually annoyed by all the advertisements, the impact of the whole advertising industry on a single person is immense. They play a vital role in our lives. /^t/One of the functions of advertisements is to inform.Thanks to them people can learn a lot about household devices, cars, building materials, electronic equipment, cosmetics, detergents and food.Advertisements introduce us to new products or just remind us of the existing ones. /^t/Another function of the advertisements is to sell. The products are shown from the best point of view and a potential customer, when enters the shop unconsciously chooses the adverised ones. They buy certain goods because TV commercial convince them of the best qualities of the products. /^t/Since the majority of advertisements are printed in our press we pay less for newspapers and magazines. /^t/Advertisements seen on street hoardings, railway stations and buildings make our cities look more cheerful and our life more joyful. What's more, all those smaller advertisements in newspapers concerning employment, education and 'for sale and wanted' columns help people to find job,to buy or to sell their second-hand things and find services, or learn about educational facilities, social events such as, theatre, plays, matches, and to announce births, marriages and death. /^t/Apart from all the adventages advertising has got its drawbacks. We are bombared by the advertisements which try to persuade us to buy a particular item. Even cigarettes,sweets or alcohol are associated with the good values of human life such as joy, freedom, love and happines,and just those associations make a person choose the advertised products.The advertisements often influence our point of view so that we can't evaluate objectively what is exaggerated and select the really good products unless we buy the goods and check for themselves.Advertisements brainwash people into buying certain things convincing them that their success depends on purchasing these things. Being under the impact of the advertisements people spend their money on items they don't need but they are sure that for them they're necessary. /^t/Children are a good example as they usually want this particular kind of chocolate or toy. The toy industry makes full use of the power of television..Television programming for children is usually flooded with toy commercials using fancy camera work, special effects and evocative music, the commercials make dullest of toys seem magical, exciting. Although most adults can see through such manipulation, younger children believe that commercials are telling the truth.Such programmes are designed to sell a toy rather than to educate or enrich the lives of children. Children exposed to commercials nag their parents to buy the products advertised. /^t/What people find annoying about advertisements is that they appear several times during an interesting film or programme they are watching. They find it disturbing when an advertisement occurs suddenly in an unexpected moment and interrupts watching. /^t/Although people are dissatisfied when they're bombared by all the advertisers information we must admit that commercials do perform a useful service to society, and they are an essential part of our everyday life. <0373> /^t/The issue of paying or not full costs of university education is a highly controversial one and still arises strong feelings. Since the economic situation in our country is rapidly changing and new needs emerge, more and more people realize how important it is to study in order to fit in the new image of the more developed country. The main obstacle,however, that they may encounter is covering the full cost of the studies. /^t/Many people claim that such a rule would be fair because in this way universities could earn the money necessary for their maintenance and become independent of the government's assistance as far as equipment is concerned. While it is all true, we shouldn't forget about the fact that such a situation might result in uncontrolled enhancement of university fees. /^t/Another line of argument is that paying full cost of university education would make people appreciate the value of studying and increase the overall quality of classes. Such reasoning, however, is wrong, firstly because of the fact that when you pay for studying you think of future prospects rather than the value of studying itself, and secondly because reality shows that paying for studies doesn't necessarily mean the improved quality of them. One might expect to be provided with necessary books or materials when paying huge sums to be admitted to a university. Far from it! It is for example a common procedure among the lecturers to demand money even for xero copies, let alone additional materials. Besides, there is legal standardization of the university teachers' salaries so it can hardly be considered an incentive for them to work better. /^t/The supporters of the idea also put forward a claim that if we really want to join other more developed countries, then Poland should follow the example of Western countries, where the cost of university studies is to be covered by students. Naturally, it is tempting to think that Poland might have a similar educational system as in highly developed countries but on the other hand it must be noted that we still don't have the whole system of scholarships, subsidies and sponsorship of the studies as it is in the West. What is more, nowadays we may observe a popular trend among young people who prefer to choose the departments which will guarantee a very well-paid job after graduation. Last year, for example, in departments like foreign trade, business management or marketing there were 10 or even 15 candidates per one place, while some polytechnics or universities with departments like physics or mathematics had to announce free admission in order to attract candidates. /^t/Furthermore, such system would divide society into richer people, who could afford studying, and the poor, who couldn't. This, in turn, might lead to the emergence of elites of rich educated people who, in the long run, could become the only ruling class. Such a situation would be hightly unfair because many talents would be irreversibly lost, which could slow down the development ot the country. /^t/Summing up, I am convinced that paying full costs of studies is not a good idea. It is quite short-sighted to believe that in this way universities will benefit because in fact they would only turn into money-oriented institutions and the system would be highly divisive. The only reasonable solution, I believe, is to maintain government subsidies at least for some university programmes while for those more popular some admission fees mingt be charged. <0374> Comparing the conditions of living in suburbs with living in cities and villages in Poland, living in a suburb seems to be the healthiest and the most comfortable. First of all, facilities like, for example, lower and higher education are the most accessible in suburbs and cities. People living there can go to various kinds of schools without changing their place of living unlike inhabitants of villages. Regarding this fact, the facilities of people from the suburbs are on the same levels as the ones of living in cities. Another convenience of people living in cities and suburbs is good transportation. Even if someone lives in a suburb he can get to every institution, place, or district of the city quite easily by tram or by bus. If someone wants to have greater comfort he can take or call a taxi. If someone wants to get to a different city he can go to the station and take a train. But in villages the situation is different. It is good when there is a bus, or railway station nearby and the passengers can reach a big city but usually there are not any and travelling causes some problems. The lack of noise is one of the factors which make our life easier an the inhabitants of villages and suburbs have this convenience. They do not suffer from continual sounds of cars and trams passing and, what is closely connected with cars - pollution. The clean environment and not destroyed nature are indispensable for people's life. In villages there are many green lands, fields, and woods which people can enjoy at will. But in a suburb people can enjoy a green belt, for example, they can go for a walk with a dog to the nearest wood, or fields. They can also visit some more 'civilised' forms of nature like: parks, lawns, botanical gardens, arboreta, et cetera. In the light of these factors mentioned above, living in the suburbs is better than living in the cities or in the villages because one can take advantages of the facilities of a city and of the facilities characteristic of a village as well. <0375> /^t/Nowadays, most of people in developed countries live in towns. Only a small percentage of the population lives in the country. It is said that living in a town is more interesting and easier than living in the country. But actually, towns are very different. Life in a big city differs a lot from life in a small town. Same people would say that small towns resemble more the country than metropolis and life is dull and hard. For others small towns have many advantages and they do not want to move to noisy and polluted metropolis. But are the advantages of living in a small town greater than the disadvantages? /^t/Many people say that life in a small town is slow and boring. In a big city it is more interesting because there are many opportunities to spend free time. There are the cinemas, theatres, pubs, discos, art galleries and so on. When people feel like going out in the evening they can choose from a great variety of possibilities. It is true that there are not so many places to go out in small towns, but it does not mean that their dwellers must be bored. Actually, to have a good time we do not need many pubs and discos but a group of good friends, time and a good humour. People in big cities usually suffer from lack of time and friends because life is very fast and they work very hard. In small towns life is slower and their inhabitants have time to enjoy themselves. They can organise something, for example a concert or carnival and have a good time in a group of friends, because in small communities the people usually know each other. /^t/But the last factor can be also a drawback. Many people complain that in small towns people know everything about others. They are intolerant and always poke the nose in someone's private affairs. Everybody who is different from the rest has a very hard life. City-dwellers seem to be more tolerant and they also have more freedom. But on the other hand many people in big cities feel alone because they live in a huge anonymous crowd and sometimes even do not know their neighbours. In small towns people do not live in such an alienation. /^t/But probably the biggest disadvantage of small towns are less opportunities to make a career. Statistics say that unemployment is usually bigger in small towns than in big cities. There is not such a big variety on the work market. It is obvious that it is a serious drawback but, on the other hand, although in big cities are more opportunities and more varieties of jobs, there is also much more competition. City-dwellers have to work very hard to be on the top, or just to make a living. If you have a good job and you are a professional, you can have a good easy life in a small town, and you do not have to work so hard. But of course you never know what will happen in the future and if you lose your job it is much harder to find another one in a small town than in a big city. /^t/It is really hard to say if the advantages of living in a small town are greater than the disadvantages. It just depends on people, on their characters and way of life. Some people prefer "fast" and "noisy" life, others would rather live in a quiet and close to nature environment. It would be perfect if everybody would choose where to live, but unfortunately not many people can really do it. We have to live where we are and accept the advantages and disadvantages. <0376> Not every town is a big city. Not every town is a huge urban agglomeration. Not every town is a massive concentration of factories, plants, shopping malls, roads, intersections, flickering lights, a big number of schools and universities, turmoil, noise and hustle. Not every town has its own underground, and finally not every town houses hundred thousands of human beings. We all know those big cities. We admire and are attracted by them. Everybody would like to see New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco. They fascinate with their power and uncommonness, unique atmosphere and interesting sights, luxurious and modern hotels, banks, offices towering above the city, numerous restaurants and colourful shops. They become challenge and provoke emotions. They make you feel tiny but they always remain incredible. Then, not everybody lives on an urban island. Most of us prefer living in small towns which also struggle with their own problems. The same time, day and night brings joys and sorrows, satisfaction and disappointment. We can say that small towns live their own lives full of ups and downs. Those who belong to the town council authorities live next to those who are governed. Successes of small towns belong to their inhabitants. Problems and difficulties become also their problems. Nevertheless people know one another here, they participate and are actively involved in more and less important events of their community. Are they really happy? What prevents them and make them stay in a small town? Some are happy to live far from big cities full of concrete, steel and glass. Little traffic in narrow streets isn't so strenuous. There is no need to go shopping outside in big department stores because you can buy almost everything in small shops as well. People enjoy their gardens next to private premises. A local newspaper provides the latest news. Small distances let you visit some interesting places during one evening. Little delinquency makes dwellers feel safer in such places. Parents aren't afraid of their children, elderly people enjoy a free time walking in parks, and children play in safe surroundings. However, still they are people who would admit without hesitation that it is not easy to live in a small town for many reasons. People know each other and are often nosy and malicious. Privacy is confined by interests in private matters. Children go to the same school, their parents work in the same plants and everybody meets at the same doctor's surgery where you can hear all local gossips and rumours. If you want to express your own opinion in a small town, you must have more courage than in a big city. Many young people want to leave small towns and move to big cities. There are many problems with education because of few schools and less possibility to choose a good profession. It is a great problem to find a good and suitable job and the unemployment is really high. Small towns don't fulfil expectations of their inhabitants. One or two cinemas are considered to be the main cultural centres. Some complain about a lack of theatre and opera. Besides, in case of serious medical disorders, people have to go to a big city to be hospitalised or to see a specialist. Many people ask the question - what to do in such a place? Like everything, small towns have their own advantages and disadvantages. Not everybody wants to live there, some move to a big city and never come back. So is our life. We gain something losing something else. Therefore, in spite of all those disadvantages many people love their small towns and cannot imagine living somewhere else. They just claim that life in a small town has a different quality. <0377> /^t/In the recent times there has been an open debate about assuming the responsibility for care of the aged by the government. The matter is still at issue as there are many voices for the proposal but there are still many against it. /^t/<*>. Of course the government does not perceive the cases like this one and the problem of elderly people discusses only from the financial point of view and taking care of the aged means a loss in the budget. Members of our government do not know what a hunger means so they are not able to understand hungry people. Of course they do not know what homelessness means as they live in huge, comfortable apartments usually with three or four bathrooms. They dare to ask "who will pay for it" but noone dares to ask who pays for their beautiful cars, huge apartments and holidays on Hawaii. The expenditures on arms have been increased three times this year so it seems that the government has got plenty of money but does not want to spend them on the aged. Another and probably the most important argument for the proposal is that refusing care for the aged means breaking the basic human rights. Everyone irrespective of the age and profession has the right to live and if we refuse to take care of the elderly people we will simply let them die. /^t/However there are still many people who claim that the government cannot take care of every single elder man in our country as it is simply impossible. Firstly because it does not have enough money and secondly because there are other organizations which are responsible for care of the aged. The insurance companies get money from the people for their whole life so they should guarantee the care when these people are no longer able to work. Of course there are some people who were not able to pay their insurance policy so they would not get anything from insurance companies, but there are many charity organizations which would take care of them. Besides the government has so many problems to deal with nowadays that adding another one is simply an exaggeration. In the first place they have to help people who lost their property during the flood and later they have to solve the problem of a very high unemployment in our country As we see the government has plenty other things to do, so it should be someone else who would assume the responsibility for care of the aged. <*> /^t/The discussion is still continuing. The government does not want to assume the responsibility. People do not want to give money. And poor old people ask for help. Let's hope that the problem will be somehow solved in the nearest future. <0378> /^t/Advertising is a way of persuading and encouraging people to buy certain products. Advertisements appear on television and radio where they are presented between different programmes; they are printed in papers; hung in the form of posters everywhere. So, as we can see they are unseparable parts of our life. Their presence enormously influences our existance on this planet. But is this influence beneficial, or maybe harmful? /^t/Ads create consumer awareness. They give information about a range of products present on the market. In this way an ordinary person is able to get the information concerning the new product appearing. On the other hand, however, we - the consumers - get different brands of goods which turn out to be different only in name. As a result we waste our precious time on deciding which brand is better. /^t/What's more, some advertisements appear during TV programmes. This might be very useful for some people, who can simply get up, straighten one's back, or even prepare something to drink. However, some people think that commercials on TV interrupt programmes and are very annoying. /^t/The idea of ads in newspapers and magazines is also something to consider. We may find out that ads keep their cost down and, moreover, many magazines wouldn't be able to survive without them. This is the case in the press, but things are different when we concentrate on the cost of goods on the market. They are usually more expensive due to the costly advertising budgets. For this simple reason, not only do the customers have to pay for the product, but also for the cost of an ad. On the other hand, the existance of advertisements very often causes competition among the companies, thus keeping the prices down. /^t/Another very important thing concerning the ads is that they sometimes distort the truth, thus being very harmful. There is this frequently used slogan, for example, "makes you look younger and takes years off". That kind of promise cannot usually be kept. This is obviously a lie. In this way the customers may be deceived. /^t/A different thing is that very young people can be harmed by certain advertisements, for instance, by the ads of alcoholis drinks or cigarettes. A young person can be easily influenced, therefore, that kind of ads should be avoided. However, there are advertisements which are very nice to look at, and can be even considered as pieces of art. They are no harm for anybody because everyone enjoys looking at beautiful landscapes or listening to good music. /^t/Among the people who hate ads there are some who claim that they are very offensive. As it happened in the case of the poster produced by United Colours of Benetton. There was a group of people against it because they felt it could cause considerable offence. But we also have to look on the other side of this problem - The world would be dull and drab without amusing and colorful posters, wouldn't it? /^t/Taking into consideration all the points mentioned above I came to the conclusion that the advertisementc can be very harmful. Nevertheless, we cannot get rid of them entirely because too much depends on them nowadays. That's why, in my opinion, they shouldn't be banned. It would be enough to censor them somehow not to upset some people. It all depends on our good taste. <0379> /^t/The question of advantages resulting from living in small urban environments has become a widely discussed issue recently. Today, many people move from small to large cities in search of employment or education, while others looking for peaceful and quite life settle in smaller towns. The problem whether living in small town brings more advantages seems to be dividing the poeple in equal numbers into those who support the argument that small towns are better places to live, and into those who do not share this point of view. /^t/There seem to be two main aspects, which many people would intuitvely agree with, regarded as being beneficial to those who live in small towns. In the first place, small towns are recognised as places where living is easier, and where qiuetness is more available if compared to larger cities. Generally, little towns are less overcrowded and polluted as a result of a smaller amount of factories, cars and less developed city transport. Small towns are also assumed to be safer since the people know each other. There are less newcomers, and those who come are being quickly recognised and have a more difficult task in commiting a crime. Especially nowadays, when life has become very nervous, noisy and dangerous many people might highly appreciate this advantageous role of smaller towns /^t/Another assumption favoring small towns is that the costs of living there seems to be lower. Not only are the rents cheaper but also local taxes, since they do not have to cover the same number of expenses, as it is in case of larger cities. In addition, there are less expensive, widely advertised, atractive-looking shops offering product for much higher prices. The food and everyday-goods are more often directly purchased from the local producers which makes their prices lower, due to the fact that there are less poeple participating in the profit. In fact there have been some researches made resently which show that families with lower incomes more often complain about the high cost of living in large, develpoed and idustrialised cities than it is in case of smaller communities. /^t/On the other hand, small towns offer life which is often assumed to be boring when compared to the opportunities associated with large towns. There are few, if any, theaters, cinemas or museums and that makes the range of possible ways of spending one's leisure time rather small. In addition to it, there are always the same people meeting each other on the streets, talking and working together. In small towns life seems to be more monotoneous without new experiences and people to meet. This certainly makes the life in larger towns more attractive, particularly for the young people. /^t/Also, the life in small towns lacks the benefit of greater employment and educational opportunities. Usually the educational institutions are limited to elementary or high schools. There may be other schools but they do not offer any degree, and the universities or colleges are rarely located in small towns. Similarly, there are not many places offering jobs, both for the better and less educated, since small towns are naturally less devoleped in the idustrial and, as mentioned, educational sense. It causes the life in a small town to be more difficult for people who look for jobs, or education. Those are forced to move to larger towns. /^t/To sum up, it can be said that the advantages or disadvantages of living in small towns can not be exclusively stated. There are some benefits which seem to be particularly appealing to people enjoying calm atmosphere and peaceful life. The disadvantages, on the other hand, may be apparent to young, or active people who appreciate variety of experiences rather than quietness. Therefore, the opinion and choices between quiet but somewhat boring, and more interesting though dangerous and expensive may depend on particular interests, life objectives and the age of people. <0380> /^t/Nowadays, there seems to exist an opinion that small towns are something inferior to the big cities. We often label them as "god-forsaken holes," which, of course, brings out bad associations immediately. However, we can also observe quite a different tendency, viz. leaving the gigantic metropolises and settling down in the "sleepy" boroughs. We may issue a point, what makes some people love those tiny towns and, on the other hand, what causes others to hate them. Why some of us long to live in a small town while others want to leave them as soon as possible? Finally, we are to pose a question, what are the advantages and disadvantages of living in a small town. /^t/Silence and peace, together with pleasant atmosphere can be surely found in small towns. Since they are usually situated off the beaten track, we can benefit from being close to nature. We have the possibility to go out for a walk to the forest nearby or to the riverside. /^t/As far as buildings as concerned, in boroughs beautiful residences, surrounded by gardens and orchards, predominate. Children have got a lot space for their recreation. The pollution is not so big as in large cities and, apart from that, small municipalities are usually more tidy and clean in themselves. /^t/Life in a small town is plain and easy. Time seems to pass slower so one is rarely in a hurry or feels nervous. Besides, it is said that inhabitants of small towns are more friendly and kind-hearted than big-city dwellers. There is a kind of family atmosphere, as people know one another. Just imagine a nice chat with ever-smiling shop assistant or with your neighbour. Can you think of short conversation with your neighbour when you live in a skyscraper composed of 30 floors and hundreds of flats? You must admit that you hardly know who lives next door to you. Living in a city is similar to existence in a huge labyrinth; one is trying to find a way out of it, but is condemned to stay in forever. In a megalopolis, lots of people live in a state of solitude, while in small towns there is always someone to cheer you up. /^t/But, is the atmosphere of a small town that nice indeed? We should keep in mind that such a place is often filled with air of spreading rumours. Everybody knows almost everything about anyone else. Unfortunately, and yet unavoidably, nearly each family keeps up with Joneses. Youth do not have much entertainment. Theatres and cinemas, clubs and discos are rather typical for inner cities and can rarely be found in boroughs. That is why so many young adults seek an opportunity to throw away their hometown and live in a big city. In fact, small towns do not have much to offer if we look at them from this point of view. /^t/Further, lots of inhabitants have to commune to job, which is very frequently situated far from their dwelling-place. The commuters have to waste their time standing in traffic jams. Moreover, we should be aware that unemployment is more common in small towns than in cities. Lots of shops, hospitals and schools are distant and thus less accessible for people from outside the city. It may be a reason why these people are often less educated. /^t/Generally, boredom could be a pretty nice word to describe small towns, where feeling of being excluded from the mainstream life of huge cultural and industrial centres causes people to think that their oblivious towns are hopeless and dry-as-dust spots on the map. /^t/Summing up, it is rather difficult to state unequivocally that living in a small town has more advantages or disadvantages. All in all, we may say that there are as many pros as cons of the existence in a borough. We have a right to say that it all depends on individual preferences. From the objective point of view, a petite town can be either the most horrible or the most wonderful place to live in. Finally, we may claim that, instead of criticising small towns or big cities, we should choose a place in the world where we feel just good and enjoy our living there. <0381> /^t/By speech we design great bridges and fight wars, we express our deep feelings and our spiritual aspirations. We can talk, we can talk about talk, we can talk about talk about talk and so on forever. Language is a specific treasure of our race. It is an instrument possessed only by men. Each nation has its own native language. In order to learn something about countries we are intrested in or we want to cooperate with, we may read books, magazines, watch TV programms or we may 'employ' a translator. However, there is also other way of 'getting' the knowledge. It is nothing else but learning the language that is spoken in the country of our intrest. Of course, everything depends on us. We have to decide which source of information is better. Some people would say that learning a foreign language is wasting of time whereas others would think that it is a great idea. The objective of my composition is to present different arguments pro and against learning foreign languages, and to convince the reader that being able to speak foreign languages is really valuable thing. /^t/Why do people want to learn foreign languages? Is it for pleasure? Is it because they want to understand Shakespeare? or maybe they want to earn more money? There are a number of different reasons for language study and the following list will give an idea of the great variety of such reasons. /^t/There is no doubt that knowing a foreign language 'brings' a lot of profits and offers a chance for advancement in professional lives. Everyone knows that it is very difficult these days for a young person to find a well-paid job. It often happens that even if someone is well educated but can not speak at least one foreign language she or he has a lot of problems with finding the job. If somebody does not speak any foreign language he has difficulty in communicating with foreigners. He is in some way 'restricted'. When we know a language we may travel all over the world. We have a chance to meet interesting people and to make new friends. It is wildly known that, people study a language because they are attracted to the culture of the target language community, and they want to know more about the people who speak it, the places where it is spoken and the writings which it has produced. Being able to speak a foreign language makes us feel confident and, in some way, better than others. It also helps us to get independent information. We may rely on ourselves, we do not need a translator. We have no problems with under-standing songs, books, TV programms, etc. We have a chance to make business and cooperate with different nations. Simply speaking, knowing foreign languages makes people's lives easier and much more interesting. /^t/Although there are so many advantages of learning foreign languages we have to remember that there are some drawbacks, too. First of all studying a language takes a lot of time. It is a very hard and sometimes boring activity. It means, that we have to study many hours, trying to remember difficult grammar rules, sophisticated vocabulary and complicated pronounciation patterns. We have to revise newly acquired material several times in order to remember it better. There are many things that have to be learned by heart. However, we have to be aware that hard work does not guarantee the success. Even if we study for many years we have no guarantee that we will be perfect foreign language speakers, and that we will possess full mastery of a language. Besides, it is very difficult to become a fluent speaker if there is no possibility to go to the country where the language is spoken. In order to speak fluently we have to have contact with the 'real' foreign language community. Language is like a flower, if you do not water it and do not take care of it, it will become weaker and weaker and after some time it will fade. The last but not least reason that is against learning foreign languages is connected with money. Everybody knows that 'studying' costs a lot of money at present. Student's books, dictionaries, like also private lessons or language courses are very expensive. We may say that much depends on our financial situation. In other words, not everyone can afford to learn a foreign language. /^t/We have seen that there are many different reasons pro and against learning languages. Some of them are more convincing others are less. However, I think that people should learn languages and that it is not 'worthwhile' activity. Of course, not everyone is able to learn a foreign language. Much depends on his aptitude, personality, motivation, financial situation and many other important factors. But I think that everyone should at least try. Knowing a language gives us a chance to communicate with other people living abroad, having completely different culture and habits. It 'gives' possibility to interact with other nations in international trade, diplomacy, conferencing and entertainment. It opens the 'door' to the world. We may travel to almost every place in the globe. We are independent people. Simply speaking, foreign language study is worthwhile. <0382> /^t/All over the world people learn foreign languages, and many reasons could be found to support this statement. /^t/For some people language is fascinating. They argue about it, reminisce about it, watch TV programmes based on word games or they buy word-puzzle books. There must be a universal need for language competence which explains the usefulness of a foreign language study. /^t/The very obvious reason for which people decide to learn a foreign language is a chance for advancement in their professional lives. Perhaps they will get a better job or qualification with two languages than if they know their mother tongue. Majority of language learners choose English as it has become the international language of communication. In France people talk about 'la weekend' and 'le drugstore', in Greece you can put your car in 'ena parking', all over the world people call trousers made of denim 'jeans'. These examples show that English has had a major influence elsewhere, and that is why English is considered to be worth studying. /^t/The fact that the language is on the school curriculum seems to be easily explained. Some people are interested in acquiring language competence while others not. But what about people who do not want to study a foreign language at all? Perhaps they do not look ahead and they are reluctant to find any reasons for that. After a couple of years, however, they may face the opportunity to make a carrier and the lack of language competence will be an obstacle in carrying out their plans. /^t/Having in mind that learning a second language is the key to success, one may explain another reason which is learning for pleasure. From this point of view, learning a language which has become a hobby may not be as important as it is in the case of making a career. Certainly, it assists a long term learning, but we do it for pleasure and enjoyment. We can even start learning two or more languages at the same time, but we do not need to worry about the results. This is exactly what you wish to do for pleasure and nothing else. In future it may turn out to have been a good choice to study the language. You have acquired the language and there is no need to study the language again, especially if you are going to use the language at work. Also, when visiting a foreign country you may not be afraid of coming into contact with other people. /^t/Some people say that nobody is able to predict future. What will happen to you if you go abroad and you will need the language which has not been studied by you? Many people make a decision to emigrate and then they are forced to come back to the native country, because of the inability to communicate in a foreign country. /^t/To conclude, in my opinion the universal need for language is the key to success and communication. On one hand people learn foreign languages because they need it, but on the other hand it gives them pleasure and perspectives for future. Therefore, we can definitely admit that the foreign language study is worthwile. <0383> /^t/According to the latest surveys over 80% of Poles admit that advertisements irritate them. What is modern advertising like? To what extent does it influence our life? Is it harmful? /^t/One of the people that gives an answer to above questions is Oliviero Toscani, a man that for a long time has been designing advertisements for a famous Italian concern - Benetton. In his book on advertisements he accuses them of selling a false model of happiness instead of products. Toscani claims that ordinary people, whose life is a constant worry about making ends meet, about being dismissed and many other things, get frustrated by watching perfect life presented in advertisements. Giant street hoardings and catchy jingles on television brainwash them into believing that they can realise their ambitions quickly and easily, whereas in reality it is different. /^t/The next point is, that advertising quite often make use of shocking pictures or issues in order to catch people's attention. It is enough to point out, how much controversy hoardings of Benetton have aroused in the past. Pictures presenting a white and black hand wearing handcuffs or coloured condoms were displayed in many countries for a very short time. On the other hand, sociologists say that the aim of shocking pictures is to make people think about such serious issues like racism or AIDS and make societies think about them. /^t/Nowadays, many countries try to solve social problems by advertising. For instance, in Sweden the public was educated about AIDS a few years ago, in India they made women aware of the problem of cancer of the breast. In Germany the emphasis was put on dealing with the pollution of the environment. As well as in other countries, there is a special agency in Poland called 'Outdoor', which specialises in that sort of advertising. There have been already several campaigns held by 'Outdoor'. For example, against violence in families or to collect money for victims of the July floods. /^t/Talking about advertising there another issue arises - do they lie? For over one hundred years there has been used so-called 'half-truth in advertising.' It means, that while talking about qualities of a particular product there is nothing wrong in colouring and exaggerating them. On that account, sociologist say, advertisements make us believe we know something about a product whereas, in fact, the only thing we know is, that it appeared on the market. /^t/How about cigarettes advertising? Every year tobacco companies in the USA and Europe spend around $ 8 billion on advertising. Every year 1 million Europeans and Americans die as a result of smoking and the number is still rising. Cigarette companies claim the adverts do not encourage people to start smoking but aim at those who already do this in order to make them change brands. Although, for example, cigarette advertising was banned in Italy in 1962, smoking has increased there by 30%. On the other hand, in Japan they show this kind of advertisements even on children's television. What is the result? The Japanese are the heaviest smokers in the world. /^t/Let's come back to the question - is advertising harmful? /^t/Sociologists claim that it can be harmful if we try to follow examples shown in them too much. Furthermore, there is no doubt that cigarette advertising is harmful. On the other hand, would it change anything if cigarette advertising was banned? It is human nature that people are attracted by things that are banned. Besides, each of us has a right of choice. /^t/Somebody might say that advertising is harmful because it lies. In fact, it gives 'half truth' and it is obvious that if a mature person wants to obtain a certain product they cannot rely on an advertisement only. In other words, although advertisements are informative they cannot be treated as the only source of information. /^t/Another thing is, that modern advertisements contain hidden messages trying to exploit our secret dreams. They present only attractive people living in a perfect world. It can be frustrated, but what about American soap operas that show the similar world? They are quite popular and nobody says that they are harmful, do they? /^t/By and large, I would agree that advertising is harmful but only to some extent. Actually, the truth about it, is in between. We should not forget that advertising is a means of communication like any other. Advertising increases demand, stimulate industry, creates competition on the market, so keeps prices down. However, the fact that they are ubiquitous and bombard us from all sides may lead to a nervous breakdown. <0384> I wish it was free, but is it possible? Considering the problem of free education, on different levels seems to be very questionable. Of course if we start our consideration from discussing this problem generally we notice that there are many countries all over the world where the problem of payment for school, seems to be obvious. In the USA and in the West European countries even exists certain gradation in such schools and the schools which possess really high standard of education are those ones where fees are required. Of course another thing is how and why do they produce such high standard. In Poland the alternative, free and paid education is something new and it is really complicated. Talking about complexity I mean that several years ago there were only 'free' schools in Poland, on all the levels. Nowadays, more and more schools require some fees, which let them exist and let to better quality of their students knowledge. But we are not sure in this moment are they worth to be paid or not. Paid college education in Poland would cause another problem. It would be considered as one of the privileges of the upper class. Probably only the richer people would pay for college education and only their children would have better chances for the future. It would be different if the governments presented suitable attitudes to this problem. Maybe a system of credits should be created, or something like that, which could help the poorer students to continue their education and solve their financial problems. In this respect only clear and determined attitude of the governments and its priority would be able to solve this problem. I think that Polish education, specially college education, follows to be paid. There are many reasons. First of all, the main one is that Polish education, generally, has never been financed properly. It caused many difficulties, for example; too small buildings and classrooms, old fashioned equipment, and so more, low salaries of the teachers and many more. Another thing is that our system of education and its programs are irrelevant to our life and the future needs, too. Without any exhageration I can say that it is irrelevant to our life and our expectations, and probably to expectations of people living in Poland and all the European community, too. The one more reason that college education will not be free is that it is hardly possible to get really deep involvement of our governments, which are being exchanged so often. So more they are not interested in developing and improving of state of mind its society. Frankly speaking, it is hardly to see that our governments are really interested in problems of college education. Probably the state of consciousness of the society is not so important for them. In my opinion, the best solution would be make it possible to choose one suitable option, either free college education with some obligations or paid education without any obligations. Of course the rules should be more detailed and clearly specified. In this respect one thing is important, the system should encourage people who want to learn. It is both easy and the only reasonable solution. Isn't it??? <0385> Proponents of living in a small town would never admit that living in a big city may have advantages, and vice versa, big city dwellers have always treated those living in small towns as inferior - less educated, less cultivated and, on the whole, less wealthy. Despite different arguments in the past, on the surface, it seems that the latter are right. Therefore, not until recently, there was only one direction of migration - from the country to the urban areas. However, as the turn of the century approaches, demographers in some countries have noted a reversed tendency. More and more people are trying to combine positive sides of both kind of life styles by settling down in the so-called satellite towns in the closest vicinity of big cities. Here are some of the reasons. A small town offers peace and quiet as well as cleaner environment due to less traffic (there are fewer cars, lorries and buses around) and scarce industry (it is almost always located in the urban areas where labour and specialists of various types are more easily available). Thus, inhabitants of small towns have a much better chance to breathe in cleaner air and drink tastier water. What is equally important small communities are more natural for the man who has always been part of social or family groups over a few thousand years of the history of mankind. Living in big cities has loosened or even severed those natural ties, which results in loneliness and anonymity. This is one of the reasons why people in big cities are more likely to develop depression and other mental disorders. Another aspect of the issue is that connected with law and order. Small towns usually show lower crime rate and less violence. It simply seems that people living there are under weaker pressure of everyday life. And they feel there is no reason for the inferiority complex any more because of easy contact with the outside world. Fast means of travelling on the one hand, and ground and satellite TV, telecommunications or the latest hit the Internet on the other, have shortened distance and enabled easier access to education and culture. The civilization and cultural gap between a small town and a large city has narrowed substantially in this century. There are some disadvantages, of course. For the ambitious there are usually fewer opportunities for a successful career. It is big cities that attract business of all kinds - industry, service and financial sectors and cultural institutions. There are plenty of places where really big money is involved - banks, stockbroker offices, insurance companies and so on. Staying among the influential people means to be better informed and, thus, to have more chances to achieve a high social status. It is also in big cities that government and state power centers are located. Big business and politics have always cohabited there, boosting development and enhancing importance of the already mighty cities. Living in a small town also means that children and teenagers may find it more difficult to find a good secondary school and get themselves admitted to a university. More difficult access to first-quality education reduces their chances to become wealthy in the adult life. Finally, being in touch with fine and pop arts requires a stronger will and determination. Though the disadvantages of a small town are obvious and quite many, it does not change the overall impression, that there are much more positive aspects of living there than in big cities. <0386> This is a very broad topic which can be analysed from different points of view. If we, for example, take an ordinary viewer who come back home after a hard and long day at work and s/he wants to watch television to relax s/he will not be glad to see the never ending chain of advertisements. It is the first step to become irritated and to lose the rest of your humour. It is even more frustrating in case when we watch an interesting film, which instead of lasting one hour lasts at least two as the advertisements are presented in every fifteen minutes. I can understand that this is done for a specific purpose, which is to make as many people as possible aware of existing a new product on the market and to encourage them to buy it. Anyway, enough is enough. Let's back however to the poor viewer. Why poor? It is obvious. Believing in everything that has been said about a product s/he goes to a shop and buy it spending sometimes lots of money for which s/he had to work very hard. How disappointed s/he is when it appears not to be as good as s/he expected it to be, simply useless. In such situation s/he loses confidence in advertisements and treat the information cautiously. Moreover the advertisements are often in a bad taste and very primitive. There is no creativity in some of them. How many times are you able to listen to how good and effective the washing-powders are?, and always in the similar way. Or imagine what would happen if someone tried to do a trick presented in an advertisement, like in the advertisement promoting a super glue. You just needed to spread a little of it on your shoe soles to stick to the ceiling. According to the advertisement it was impossible to fall down. I myself would not advise anybody to try to do this. The consequences might be catastrophic. Furthermore many children watch television. Seeing all these fantastic things they want their parents to buy them. What if their parents do not have enough money. They do not know how to explain the fact to the children. Children will not understand. They just want to have this or that and that is all. A child way of thinking is simple. If the children on TV have a computer game I want it too. For some people this argument may appear to be funny. But we have to remember that children are very sensitive and it is easy to hurt them. There is also another fact which I would like to focus on. It is a destructive effect of some advertisments, the ones of alcohol and cigarettes. It is forbiden to advertise them on television but not in the cinemas and in the streets. The headlines such as 'taste it and you will find yourself in a wonderful world' etc. encourage young people to start drinking and smoking. Very often the advertisments are badly placed so that they do not look aesthetically. On the other hand the advertisments have got some advantages. First of all they are very informative. We can get useful information about a new product on the market. If the product appears to be good it gains popularity, which means increase of its sale. Consequently the producer earns more money and supposedly provides more jobs. A well and skillfuly designed advertisment is funny and interesting so you watch or look at it with pleasure. What is more, the owners of newspapers, televisions and the land on which an ad is placed get lots of money for that. In my opinion we have to learn how to treat the advertisments, when to treat them seriously and when to wink at them. No matter what has been said above the advertisments have become a part of our life so it is difficult to imagine it without them. Nevertheless I agree that they are shown too often and some of them are really destructive. <0387> /^t/Is life in the suburbs a good life? It is not easy to answer this question as it has many advantages as well as disadvantages. A lot of people would sacrifice a lot to have a house in the suburbs but there are also people who prefer living in a block of flats in the town centre. I will start with arguments for living in the suburbs. /^t/Firstly, you live in a quiet, peaceful neighbourhood far from noisy and always crowded town centre. You can relax after work either in your house or in the garden and nobody is going to interrupt you. You do not have to listen to your neighbours' family quarrels unlike the people who live in a block of flats. Secondly, you have much more space, both in the house and in the garden, that can be used in many different ways. What is more, you have much more freedom. You can organise parties or listen to loud music even late at night and it should not disturb your neighbours. In summer people can spend their free time in their gardens. Another important argument is that suburban areas are much safer. It is connected with the fact that these areas are mainly inhabited by wealthy people. Police usually have much less to do there than in central areas where delinquency is much higher. The fourth point for this kind of life is fresh and clean air. Unlike people living in the town centre where air is heavily polluted you can breathe safely. You can go jogging and you do not need to think about smog. /^t/On the other hand there are many arguments against life in the suburbs. Firstly, you live far from your place of work, school, shops. Public transport is very often not well developed in those areas so you have to own a car. Parents have to drive their children to school because commuting by bus on their own may be dangerous, especially for young children. Getting to the town centre by car can take a lot of time, especially in big cities where you have to spend hours in traffic jams. Secondly, living far from the centre in sometimes boring. When you live in a block of flats you are much closer to your neighbours and you visit one another quite often (if you get on well with them). Social life is better developed central areas. All the theatres, cinemas, clubs, etc., are located there. /^t/Even though there are some arguments against living in the suburbs I think that it is a good life because there are more advantages than disadvantages of it. I belong to people for whom real freedom, safety, and a lot of space at home is much more important than transport problems or social life. For me it is not a problem to go to the cinema or to visit my friends by car. When, on the other hand, they want to visit me I have plenty of space where we can have a good time. <0388> The economists define advertising as a not personal form of promotion of an idea, product or service paid by a particular sponsor. The information can be displayed by all means e.g. in magazines, on TV, by street posters or mail. The more sophisticated the advertising methods become, the more people discuss the role they play in human life. However, psychologists emphasise the harmful character of modern advertising. The number of examples of its injurious influence is rising. One of the most serious problems caused by the fraudulent adverts is insufficient or false information. Taking into consideration very important matters like health or life, one should remember that the dishonest producers may hurt somebody and their ads may lead even to illnesses. Such advertisements can expose danger to people e.g. swallowing pills not proper for them or buying a "safe" car that turns upside down instead of taking a turning. One of very popular products "Red Bull" is widely considered to be only sweet and tasty drink, while many people do not realise that it contains a huge amount of sugar and energetic additives, suitable for exhausted sportsmen, but not for an average thirsty person. Even purchasing some washing powder, customers risk, because the product sometimes turns to be good for nothing, e.g. does not remove stains. The producers of adverts say that customers always take a risk buying anything at all. However, if we choose a particular product on our own, we decide to shoulder all responsibility, but selecting advertised goods we feel like sharing it with others. We trust the ads, and search for some comfort and certainty of choice. But we are cheated. The people who are most deceived by advertising are obviously children. They treat all information very seriously and are not able to differentiate between truth and false. After watching some ads they desire flying "Milk Way" bars or speaking corn flakes, and since it is impossible to get those stuffs, they feel cheated. What is more, they do not understand a lack of money, because a mum on TV always buys everything that a child wants. A real mum has to refuse purchasing all dolls from the shop, and the child is hurt and feels pain. The creators of such fairy-like ads may argue that they develop children's imagination. But, psychologists emphasise that if children are not given any clue how to perceive ads they may loose a sense of reality. Advertising is harmful also as far as the code of behaviour is concerned. There are many ads presenting an egoistic child not eager to share a teddy bear with others, stealing some crisps, or being jealous because friends have some chewing gum. The examples warp children's personality and give distorted view of life. Hence, instead of human values children are exposed a bad, sick and diseased world. As the psychological magazine "Charaktery" (no 2/97) informs the 8th European TV and Films Forum, held in Amsterdam in March 1997, draw its attention to the fact that some producers of advertisements can influence on children's sub-consciousness or even, under the pretext of some competitions, gain personal information about their parents. The participants of the Forum advise the introduction of a special courses into schooling, which will give the youngest some knowledge of advertising tricks and prevent them from being abused. The idea of advertising is theoretically interesting, but the problems appear when the way of realisation is taken into account. Some producers overuse its influence and, sometimes unconsciously sometimes intentionally, mould garbled opinions or strange way of perception of the world. They create modern people as machines with no free will and thinking by recollecting the internalised advertising slogans. <0389> /^t/Television was invented about 70 years ago. At the beginning TV sets were very simple or even primitive. But in the course of time the "magic boxes" have constantly been improved. Today's TV sets are extremely complex and complicated appliances. Their quality has undoubtedly raised. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same about the quality of the programmes television broadcasts 24 hours a day. /^t/Contemporary people cannot live without television. For many of them it has become as necessary as the air is necessary for breathing. They treat television as the only source of information, knowledge and entertainment. Before television was invented people used to read a lot, meet friends, visit museums, lead an active social life. Nowadays TV rules our lives. It influences our opinions and shapes our characters. I am not afraid to say that it is overwhelming with its presence. /^t/Lots of people consider television an attractive, colourful, talking companion which fills in the bore and emptiness of their everyday lives. They have their eyes glued to the TV all day, and switching from channel to channel, indiscriminately watch everything what is on the air. What do they watch? In 80 per cent it is rubbish, among them commercials in which they try to convince you that eating margarine is the only way to stay alive or that using tampons you will get rid of your inhibitions. Another "offer" are endless Brazilian or American serials and soap operas, like "Bold and Beautiful", which deal mainly with love affairs, betrayal and revenge. But that is not all. We cannot overlook stupid comedies in which we are shown the moments we should laugh at, poor detective stories or police investigations full of blood, shots, car races and crashes. Next, we have got deadly boring and usually incomprehensible political debates about nobody knows what. /^t/However, the greatest harm is done to children. Our television is full of programmes unsuitable for young viewers. Recent researches have shown that in both channels of our public television and Polsat brutal and aggressive scenes appear around 15 times per hour. Children spend approximately 1800 hours a year watching television. In programmes for children violence occurs 8 times per hour. Batman and Ninja Turtles are their favourite heroes. Scenes of crime, rape and murder may cause irreversible changes in their psyche. Watching these "highly educational" programmes they learn how to rob, torment and kill others. What is most terrifying they more and more often put it in practice. Our reality is full of such examples. /^t/Somebody might say that it is parents that are responsible for their kids and what they watch. It is true, but the quality of TV programmes is still unsatisfactory. The proportion of good educational, sports, music or historical programmes is low in comparison to those showing violence. Everyone knows that today the power of television is almost unlimited. Thanks to satellite stations we can participate in the extraordinary events in the world, for example Olympic Games. Without leaving home we can go to the bottom of the sea, visit wild animals in Africa or even travel to Mars. /^t/Viewers do not always realise that giving their money on television they have a right and even obligation to decide about the contents of TV programmes. They cannot be only the passive viewers, but they have to be demanding. It is their right and moral obligation. <0390> There are as many opinions about the educational system in our country as people in Poland, maybe only the youngest inhabitants, who can't speak yet, haven't stated their opinions but soon they join the majority. Those opinions are different as different are people and their personalities. There are positive ones, which consider our educational system as good and effective. Finishing the education ordinary Polish people are properly prepared for the future life, possess general knowledge of different subjects, and their knowledge is more versatile than people from different western and eastern countries. There are also totally different opinions according to which the school system should be changed immediately, the subjects, syllabuses are overloaded with unimportant and unnecessary details. Because of such programmes students are overworked, they don't like school that does not prepare them for the future life, does not allow them do learn what they like and need for their jobs but forces them to remember uncountable number of details, dates, geographical names and chemical elements. Two different points of view however there is one common truth. Classes are too numerous, students have to study the material selected for them according to their age not the intellectual qualities, and individual studies can be found but mostly with students who have problems and need more lessons and repetitions. Could the situation be changed by introducing guided individual study instead of classes? /^t/Maybe the idea is worth analysing. Individual guided study allows the children to choose subjects they want to study at schools, to choose problems they are interested in and want to learn more about them. A special questionnaire carried out in primary and secondary schools in one of the cities in the south of Poland showed that young people receive better marks and are more eager to learn those subjects which they consider to be useful in their future jobs. So with the individual choice of problems the results of learning would be higher. Individual study decreases the number of subjects so the students are not so overworked as nowadays. According to the same questionnaire an average Polish student spends 4-6 hours a day doing homework and preparing materials for the next school day. Classes are too numerous, there are 30 to even 39 pupils in one class, the situation which unables the teachers to treat students individually. Sometimes the teachers do not know the names of their students so how can we ask them to know students real problems and needs. Again individual study solves that problem and gives the possibility to concentrate on an individual person, to adjust the syllabus to his rate of learning, to choose the proper methods, techniques and materials. That way of study gives fantastic possibilities to intelligent and really gifted students who can acquire the knowledge at their speed "running" through its stages and not being obliged to wait for the rest of the class. Not very clever students are able to study slower and are not stressed or laughed at by others. /^t/Individual guided study allows the children to choose subjects they want to study. Very young people are not able to do that because they do not know their preferences. 6-year-old children in a kindergarten in Cracow were asked: "What do you want to be or do in the future?" Almost all children wanted to become policemen or policewomen, firemen, Hercules or Zorro. What is the most appropriate education for the future Zorro? With very young people that way of study seems not to be very adequate. At the first stage of learning very general abilities should be taught and practised. The child and his parents should have time to find child's interests and preferences. Another drawback of an individual study can be found, namely almost each student should have his own, adjusted to his needs, syllabus. That sounds rather improbable and can cause a lot of trouble and a great amount of additional work for the teachers. Children can choose subjects for themselves and they can specialise on them. The idea sounds nice but the results are rather unpredictable. Students can find themselves in the situation that they possess only narrowed knowledge without being familiar with even basic information from other subjects. Having the freedom of choosing school subjects some children can choose such subjects as craft, music, art etc. and after the graduation they are not able to write or read properly. At the same time they have the same school diploma as those students who study chemistry, physics or maths. Too much freedom can sometimes be as dangerous as the lack of it. /^t/There are many positive aspects of guided individual study however there are also negative ones. The most difficult problem is to balance them. Some changes must be introduced to Polish educational system but we cannot say that everything in it should be changed. It should be only modified. To positive aspects of our existing system good features of guided individual study should be added and with the mixture of both we can probably receive the educational system which can come up to our expectations. <0391> /^t/A few years ago advertising was not much popular in Poland. We did not have any street hoardings or catchy jingles on television. The very notion "advertisement" sounded strange and unfamiliar to us. We used to associate various advertisements with the western culture and its richness. Nowadays we are almost bombarded with different forms of modern advertising. Locking through magazines and newspapers or watching TV our eyes are easily riveted to coloured pictures presenting something that "will brighten up our lives". But the question is: to what extent is modern advertising useful? /^t/Let us start with business. Can anyone imagine a successful company without any form of advertising? Such a company would exist only for itself but it would not make much profit as far as money is concerned. The more people know about a certain product, and its usefulness, the more eager they are to buy it and the better opportunities for success. For example, how does GSM company make us buy its product? Simply through wide advertising in the media especially on TV where we can see (sometimes several times a day) a tall, dark handsome man talking to somebody on the telephone somewhere in the centre of the city. If he is so happy why not buying such a useful gadget which, what's more, is very fashionable. In this instance, the advantage of advertising is obvious - the more people believe in such a slogan the more money the company gets from selling the product. /^t/And what about average man? Does he not have the right to choose which product to buy? Certainly he does as it is advertising that tells us about useful new products. And here are the adverts which give him an ample opportunity to compare the competitive products. For example a man who is exposed to adverts for a few hours a day subconsciously decides which product he would buy and which not. He saves his precious time doing shopping as he does not have to ponder on which washing powder to choose, for instance. He saw a well-known person advertising it on TV so he takes the advertised one, though more expensive, on the principle that "it is quality not quantity that really counts". /^t/No matter how informative the advert is we should remember that it also contains some hidden messages which gave a potent influence on our behaviour or lifestyle. For example when we watch all those fast-food adverts on TV with a happy family eating calorific hamburgers and chips and drinking Coca-Cola or Pepsi, which one of its components is gum arabic, we feel a growing need to be there and to experience that happiness. In the rush for "being cool" many of us forget about the danger of such advertising. What it really advertises in unhealthy way of living! Furthermore, it gets us to believe it is the other way round! /^t/What about the adverts' influence on children? Let us imagine a child having not much affluent parents who is watching a film on TV and every fifteen minutes he sees the adverts of a new Barbie set, up-to-date model cars, computer games, etc. What makes the toys attractive is their bright colours which catch child's attention. It is important for a child to have the latest toy model as he does not want to feel worse among his friends. And what is more, he does not care that his parents hardly make ends meet. Hopeless parents, standing in a queue to spend the last money on their child's new whim, keeps cursing the whole advertising as it is the only thing they can do. /^t/Advertising does not only brainwash children's dreams. Many adults believe so much in the quality of advertisements and their infallibility that they seem to be a bit addicted to them. For example a Ms Green, who is rather plump, tries a new wonder making slim-fast. How astonished and disappointed she is when she looks in the mirror and sees herself, not that slim pretty woman from the advert. Now, even more desperate, she keeps searching for another "remedy" through adverts till she understands they have brainwashed her mind. /^t/Another example of adverts which gave a negative influence on people, are those which advertise alcohol or cigarettes. If such an advert is well done, with an easily remembered slogan, and is put down in a visible place, then it is obvious that we fell the need to check ourselves if the product is as good as in the advert. What are the results? Children start smoking and drinking. Why? Because they want to be on top; be the same kind of person as the pretty woman or the handsome man in the picture. The strange thing is the company which advertises cigarettes or alcohol never shows the other side of their products - bad effects on health, diseases caused by such addictions and death rate. Why do people who smoke forty cigarettes a day or alcoholics not advertise the products? Would it not be much more realistic? /^t/A good advertisement should be first of all objective but not misleading. A professional advertising should not exploit us into believing that we realise our ambitions easily or achieve success and happiness. This cannot be done simply thorough buying any advertised product. Still, however, many people tend to trust advertising and for their own sake we should be honest and tell the truth: advertising is harmful! <0392> /^t/Many people are tired of the city life and dream about living in a peaceful small town. But before you decide which place is better for you, you should consider all the variables such as your age, family status, job and what is the most important your lifestyle preferences. Generally speaking living in a small town is a good choice for older people and children who enjoy a peaceful rural setting and a contact with nature. Older people prefer closer relations with their neighbours and they are really happy when everyone recognizes them in the church. They can chat with everyone they meet in the street or in the shop. They know everything about others and feel safe in such a small society. For married couples with small children such living can also have many advantages. Their children are safe when they play outside. There is no big traffic, no strangers who could pass unnoticed. The air is not so polluted as in cities so it is much better for growing up youngsters and people with poor health. These advantages can be easily noticed especially when you compare this calm life to the city life. People there are always in a hurry, rushing to work, to the shops, to their homes. Although there are so many people in a city they are so busy that hardly ever do they find time for others. Many people feel very lonely and there are much higher rates of suicides and nervous breakdowns in cities than in smaller towns. Nonetheless important are economic reasons as living in a small town is much cheaper. For the same price you rent a one room flat in a big city here you can rent the whole house with a garden. Food and other products you need for your everyday life are also less expensive and the advertising is not so aggressive so if you are easily influenced by the modern way of selling things or if you have children you can save a lot of money. The other advantage is that you do not have to go far if you want to spend a nice weekend with your family. Even if you are bored with barbecues in your garden (do not forget that working in the garden is very good for your health) you can go somewhere farther without spending half of your free time being stuck in traffic jams. /^t/But not everything is so fine. There are many problems with finding a job in a small town. Many people have to travel to work for many hours a day. Not only is it expensive but tiring as well and if you have a family you should spend more time with your wife and children than just a few minutes in the morning and even less when you come back home. But it is not the middle aged but the young generation that complain most about the town life. Young people are often fed up with the boredom of their surrounding. For them everything there is too peaceful and calm. They hate it that everyone knows them and gossips about all they do. If they do not behave like others they may feel not accepted by the small community. They want to spend their life in a different way, finish school, find an interesting and well-paid job and most of all leave for a big city. For them living in a city is exciting and interesting, as there are so many things they can do there. They can make many more friends and spend evenings as they wish at the very moment. Young people feel more independent and free in a city where even neighbours living in the same block of flats do not know one another and the only place they sometimes meet is a lift. Many people like this anonymity especially when compared to the feeling of being spied upon one can get in a small town. All the advantages and disadvantages of the life in a small town I mentioned above should be treated as generalisations. Every person is different and not all the people from the same age group like the same things. What is also important all people have a tendency to complain so for those who live in a city living in a small town may seem like a dream and vice versa those who grew up in a town may be lured by the complexity of the city. <0393> In recent years more and more people have left big towns and cities in order to settle in the suburbs. What are their reasons to do so? Is life in the suburbs a good life? Is it, in fact, a better life than the one in the city? On one hand those who choose living far from busy centres appreciate peaceful surroundings and admit that such environment is essential for their existence. It is true to say that as far as natural conditions are concerned living in the suburbs has many unquestionable advantages. To begin with, the problem of all sorts of pollution is believed to be less severe. A fewer number of cars, no traffic problems and therefore limited amount of harmful fumes, that are otherwise emitted in the air, is indeed an important aspect which is worth considering by those who are thinking of choosing a permanent place to live. What is more, the suburbs are very often void of large industries which certainly cause a lot of damage to our environment, not to mention how ugly they can be and how terribly they can spoil the view. In addition, the amount of noise being delivered to our ears is undoubtedly much greater in cities than it is in the suburbs. This is caused by many factors, one of which is a problem of traffic and a great number of cars and other types of vehicles roaring down the streets at any time of day and night, but there are of course other factors, just to mention crowds of people, all sorts of noise made by factories, loud speakers, sirens and many more equally undesirable types of noise that damage our hearing. Another good reason for living outside a big town or city is financial. The prices of accommodation are considerably lower in the suburbs than they are elsewhere. The rent for a two-bedroomed flat might be similar to the one paid for a two storey house. This definitely increases the cost of living of an average family. Furthermore, the rate of crime is higher and it is believed that living in urbanised societies is less safe than in a neighbour-hood where people know each other. It is well known that urban areas are full of muggers, rapists and thieves who frequently attack their victims and often get away with it. In addition, such environment which is full of violence is, as psychologists say, highly unsuitable for bringing up children. On the other hand, however, there can be a number of disadvantages to living in the suburbs. Firstly, there is a problem of commuting, as most people living in the suburbs do work, in fact, in cities and towns where all the main industries, factories, offices and all the town facilities are situated. Those who work far from their homes have to spend a considerable amount of time travelling to and from work, often spending hours on buses, trains or other means of transport. Secondly, it might be important to note that those who live in the suburbs have a very limited access to main shopping areas, leisure facilities, cinemas and theatres as well as schools, hospitals, banks and many other conveniences that a big town or city has to offer. Of course they can travel, but again they will suffer a lot of inconvenience as they will have to waste their time and money on public transport, and even if they decide to travel by car, the problem with traffic is inevitable. In conclusion, it seems to me that living in the suburbs has many advantages as well as disadvantages. Considering all arguments for and against I think that life in the suburbs is a good life, and it can be a happier and healthier one than that in the city. Given a choice I would definitely settle in the suburbs. <0394> /^t/Considering factors such as the access to education, a perspective of finding a good job or attractivness of life, it can be assumed that advantages of living in a city are greater then the disadvantages of living in a small town. In other words, advantages of living in a small town do not seem to be very convincing. First of all, living in a small town is good for older people who seek for peace and quietness. However, young people who want to get educated, have to leave a small town and move to a city with a college or university. This means, of course, that the cost of living will increase rapidly, because everything is more expensive in a city. Studying costs a lot, but is necessary if one wishes to have a good job in the future. People living in the city have a better perspective of getting an interesting and well-paid job. /^t/Another important thing is attractiveness of the place people live in. A small town does not offer a variety of cultural evens, whereas a city has many attractions. There are lots of places to go to for entertainment and relaxion. The city is interesting for its cosmopolitan atmosphere - foreign restaurants, different languages, international companies. In comparison with that, a town life seems to be boring and grey. In a small town people know each other, so you cannot be an anonymous person. Anonymity has both good and bad sides - it gives you freedom and protection, but it later leaves just loneliness. /^t/Living in a small town has some advantages, too. For instance, pace of living is slower. It is very important, especially for people who are tired of being in rush all the time. People who have some health problems will also appreciate living in a slower and quiter way. City life causes lots of stresses and strains. The various pressures of urban life cause cities to breed crime. It is safer to live in a small town, then. There are not so many murders, accidents, etc., whereas in a city there are districts that a crime is committed a few times a day. Another problem of city life is pollution. In a town pollution is not so bad -usually air is cleaner than in a city, and water is of higher quality. Traffic is not so heavy. In a town, there are not as many cars as in the city, so the streets are not so crowded. On the contrary, in a city lots of people commute to school or work. They use different means of transport and they often have to struggle to work through the rush-hour congestion. As cities still enlarge, and people have more cars, the problem of traffic in the streets seems to be more and more serious. Considering this problem, it is definately better to live in a small town where people do not get nervous or waste their time in traffic jams. And last, but not least: people in a small town are closer to nature. They have a better opportunity to spend their free time far from the city centre. They do not live in high blocks of flats, and they live in cleaner environment. They do not have so much stress, live in a quiter way, and - generally - they are healthier. On the whole, it is difficult to decide if it is really so good to live in a small town. Older people will surely choose such a place to live. Some of young couples with little children will also apreciate healthier and quieter life in town. However, young and ambitious people wishing to make a career will be drawnby the lure of the city. <0395> /^t/Every week hundreds of advertisements appear for the very first time. We are bombarded by them everywhere and at every time. When I go to work huge billboards tell me that it is "Time for EB", when I open a magazine I am informed that Always is super-disrete. On television they tell me that Mentos is a fullness of life and a nice voice on the radio assures me that if I want to make real friends I have to dial number 0700 11 543. Sometimes we are fed up with the advertisements ( for example, I always switch off my TV the moment I see another comercial dealing with any washing powder or margarine) but we cannot deny that advertisements have become inseparable parts of our lives. /^t/However, all these advertisements are not entirely harmless. They influence people's mental life in a negative way. Advertisements mislead us but they do it in such a clever way that we even do not know about it. /^t/First of all, they misrepresent the products they are advertising. We often hear about products who, "according to well-known specialists", are the best. These statements may be true, a well-known speccialists may really examine the product. But what is not added in the advertisement is that those people examine only the product that is advertised. Logically, the product becomes "the one and only in the world". Quoting a famous authority in a particular field is a common way of manipulating people. As we can see, advertisements take advantage of this trick. /^t/Another misleading slogan which we often hear is a pledge to "take years off our life". It may suggest that the more we use the product (for example, a cosmetic), the longer we will live. Such a promise of eternal youth is much exagerrated. /^t/When we look at travel agency brochures we can also find much distorted information. If a brochure advertises a hotel as being "five minutes walk to the forest" it often requires an athlete to do it in this time. The phrase "overlooking the lake" may as well mean "backing onto a stinking pond". /^t/Furthermore, there is another way of misleading us. In the world presented by advertisements there is always a certain type of protagonists. They are good-looking, well-groomed, and slim. They are also smart and care for their health. They are perfectionists in all their actions, use a mobile phone, fax machine, and operate the computer with ease. The advertisement heroes live in luxury, comfortably and safely. They are successful in everything they do and even if they have problems with dandruff or stomachache, they quickly get rid of it. Advertisements suggest that if we buy the products we will be like those people. And when we take it the other way round, they imply that if we do not do it, we will not achieve that. Therefore, tempted to be someone better, we buy all this "junk" and for a moment we feel like kings. Reality, however, brings disappointment; despite using Clerasil we still have acne, and the stains on the shirt do not come off even if we use Vanish. /^t/Finally, advertisements easily manipulate us by playing with our emotions. Who is not moved by a sweet baby smiling to its mother or a happy family eating breakfast together? Who is not affected by a young couple in love? When people, particularly women, see a handsome, muscular man climbing a mountain (a real man!) their hearts immediately start beating faster. Advertisements present a world of our dreams and desires - a happy relationship, family, success at work, and on the other hand, adventures and follies. That is why we are often "trapped" by them and we buy these "happines-bringing" things. /^t/Therefore, we have to be very careful as far as advertisements are concerned. They are created by very good psychologists who know how to move the most sensitive parts of our inner being. Sometimes it is done by means of wit, sometimes by means of shock but nearly always an advertisement moves us. The enormous impact of advertisements on our lives can be seen in case of children who are particularly sensitive and open. I think that the most harm is done to them, as their thinking cannot diferrentiate between real and imaginary world, yet. /^t/Sometimes some advertising slogan or melody "sticks" to my mind and although I want to ged rid of it, it is still in my head. An advertisement specialist would say that it is surely a good slogan, because the aim of slogans is to stick to people's head and make them choose just this advertised product when they are shopping. However, in my opinion it is breaking of our right to freedom. Superficially, it looks as if we had a choice but in reality, the intrusive advertisements shape our way of thinking. Therefore, let us be ourselves and let us not allow advertisements to manipulate us! <0396> /^t/It is widely acknowledged that the polish educational system becoming worse and worse. It is therefore that there are some who argue that guided individual study should replace classes in schools. As will be cons which should be taken into consideration before making a final decision on the subject. /^t/The first thing to be considered ( in a favoure of the arguments ) is the physical condition of Polish schools which can influence the learning process of the pupil. As it is known, both pupils and teachers tend to complain that the classrooms are overcrowded, stuffy and obscure, which makes the students feel discouraged. Of course, one might mention that, as far as their surrounding is concerned, a lot of that depends on the students and teachers themselves. Nevertheless, it is obvious that if you were to choose between spending two hours with a pupil, sipping tea during the breaks and teaching noughty children for six hour a day, you would choose the former. Moving on, psychologists warn that it is high time to reduce the number of subjects. According to them, pupils are not able to acqire so much knowledge, not to mention the fact that they are obliged to do their homeworks and to be prepared for every single lesson. Consequently, the children are overtired, which leads to truancy, as well as to various mental diseases, or in extreme cases even to suicides. /^t/As it was stated above, there are too many subjects to which too litle time is allocated. As the result, the tuition is not as efective as it should be, which shows that the school does not serve its purpose. To take the argument further, you may say that the major difference between school tuition and individual study is that, in the latter, the teacher draws his attention only to one student, whereas in the case of school, the teacher devotes his time and energy to the whole class, consisting very often up to thirty five people. /^t/On the one hand, the idea of replacing schools study by individual study seeme to be reasonable, but on the other hand does it not sound like utopia? Let us now examine the opposite arguments. First of all, it is beyond doubt that being at school means being under the teachers' pressure and control. Thus, the pupils seem to be more orderly and obedient, which does not happen in the case of individual study. Secondly, the teacher is not able to compare the results of the students. For this reason it is very difficult for him to state precisely whether a pupil made any progress or not. What is more such a student does not have any opportunity to check his own abilities against the group. As stated by American psychologists the competition among students is a very positive phenomenon as it couses a pupil to increase the level of knowledge. Thanks to rivalry, children are able to see that the life in a community consists not only of success and achievement but also of defeat. which one has to face. Consiquently the teenagers are well prepared for their future life. /^t/It is widely known that teachers are inclined themselves to use a modern, colourful and interesting books which contain various activities among which pairworks and role plays are the most popular ones. Doubtless, these activities can not be practised while working with only one student, The teachers' role is to control the pupils' task rather than to participate in the activity. Being among peers gives the student the chance to compare his level with others which is impossible in the case of individual study. It is tempting to suggest that the most and perhaps the most conuincing argument against replacing schools is the fact that living in a community is the best teacher of life. And is not the school the perfect place of different ideas, opinions, experiences which people can share with others? One of the students, who had been given individual lesson, compared such an education to being on a deserted island. <*>, he said and added <*>. /^t/Personally thinking, the idea of replacing schools by individual study seems to be reasonable only in one case - namely in case of the handicappted. This special group pf students should be treated differently as it is extremely difficult for them to assimilate with others. Besides it is immposible to do so many exercises with, for example a person, with hearing difficulties. One can say, of course, that it is up to the parents to pay the teacher a lot of money only to boast how well educated a child they have. But I wonder if these parents realise that the school institution has been existing for hundreds of years and that neither unsatisfied parents nor students have a right to put an and to it. <0397> /^t/Among the three most widespread branches of mass media - the press, radio and television - it is the last one that affects our senses - sight and hearing - the most, and consequently, is regarded as the strongest influence on our perception of reality. In this situation, sociologists and psychologists dispute its negative effects on viewers. A great many of scientists investigating TV programmes stress the fact that too many of them are used to mislead and manipulate people. /^t/It must be firmly stressed that that any information should be presented to us objectively and in a reliable way, otherwise we are manipulated and our images of the world are artificially shaped. The ever-increasing ratio of commercials in the whole body of TV production proves to be the case in point. These frequent and repeated messages tell us to consume. They advocate making our lives easier, more enjoyable and encourage us to accumulate more possessions and new experiences. /^t/Advertising teaches us to take pride in outer appearances and in the way we present ourselves to others. The human relations depicted in advertisments are positive with conflicts shown only in the most enjoyable form. Superiority, pricing, quality and service are greatly valued. There is an emphasis on the material comforts of life that are available in a wealthy industrial society. Advertisments also remind us of the possessions that we do not have and of privileges of those who have them. They promote products, but simultaneously they urge us to acquire more things and therefore they coerce us to work harder, to earn more so that we could purchase more and more products. Commercials may create the idea that possessions are so important that they must be acquired by any means. /^t/It is especially children who are affected by trashy commercials deluding them that everything may be easily achieved, which in reality causes superfluous and needless disenchantment and embitterment. /^t/Most people may claim that, being immune to commercials as ridiculous and exagerrated, they treat them purely as a means of acquiring information about new products. They do not realise, however, the fact that the creators of commercials use various psychologically motivated techniques like catchphrases, puns, rhyming verses or even go as far as bending the facts to serve given purposes only to instill into us a demand for advertised products. Advertising spots appeal subconsciously to basic human instincts like greed, vanity or superiority. /^t/All the above arguments show that advertisments do form our opinions and, what is worse, they will exert an harmful effect on our psyche breeding a materialistic attitude to life. <0398> /^t/Modern advertising is doing more harm than good. It is especially clear and obvious when we observe the spread of advertisements on our market. Let me come clean, though. I like advertisements. I truly enjoy watching those little masterpieces for their humour and wit, their beauty of images and technical virtuosity. The trouble is they constitute probably less than 1% of the total output of advertising agencies. And they cannot be seen on Polish television (with the only exception of Levi's adverts). /^t/However, the remaining 99% of advertisements are an insult to aesthetic values and common sense. And even this would be less dangerous, if were not even more harmful on other levels. Hardly anybody can deny the fact that adverts constitute an insidious form of brainwashing. It operates on various levels thought the result is basically one: creation of demands for things we do not really need, and, as a consequence, the creation of consumer, throwaway society. Let's face it: how many times have we bought something we did not really need, but went on buying it only because "it could have been useful?" The answer to this question is, I guess, many. /^t/It is astonishing how frequently do we find adverts prey on our lowest desires and fears, our vanity and greed. We buy insurance partly being persuaded by advertisements; we buy the most advanced lipo-system facial cream to improve our look; we buy another exotic souse just 'to try it..." /^t/Advocates of adverts will probably argue that advertisements are not 'compulsory' - you do not have to watch them or read them. But it is a silly point. It is physically impossible to skip ads as they are ever-present whether you want them or not: just before The News on TV, right after the film you've just watched, in a shop, everywhere... Seems that ubiquity is advertisement's permanent feature. /^t/Another half-truth heralded by the acolytes of advertisements states that adverts provide customers with information, thus offer them choice. Well, I guess there is nobody who can authoritatively say why this particular washing powder is in any way better than the one presented "two adverts before". And if one is to believe the slogans, we buy "the best washing powder available" only to discover a year later that the very same product "has been improved". How can one improve the ideal? /^t/Advertisements though have one quality that makes them interesting. They function as a kind of looking glass where our present life and world are reflected. Advertisements constitute the mirror we look into and see our own fears, weaknesses, phobias and desires. This would be OK, if we didn't have art which does the same. Only much better. <0399> /^t/Every day we communicate with each other in many different ways. We talk to each other, we write letters or notes and we use the electronic communication systems. The new form of passing on information is connected with the media of mass communication, such as television, radio, satellite telecommunication technology, etc. /^t/These non-verbal means of communication affect the way we see other people. Moreover, the world of entertainment and the world of business depend on these developments. /^t/After more than fifty years of television, viewers have seen a lot of different programmes which could make them draw various conclusions. It is very difficult to say if the quality of television programmes is as high as it could be, because there are as many opinions as many viewers are. Taking into account the society, we can see that there are a great number of different social groups which include people who have a lot of interests. Some of them like scientific programmes, other talk shows, and the others sports programmes. /^t/All in all, television proved to be the all-purpose means of communication, above all eagerly watched. /^t/Thanks to satellite television the world is getting smaller. We can watch a lot of interesting programmes about other cultures, customs and traditions. After tiring work people can rest watching television quizes or talk shows. The news flashes are very frequent and full of important information, which makes people's knowledge concerning other parts of the globe better and better every day. People can listen to journalists all over the world reporting news events on the television as they happen. If an earthquake takes place anywhere, we hear about it straightaway. /^t/Above all, more and more programmes are full of useful advice how to cope with problems. Such programmes are broadcast especially in the morning and in the evening, because of women, children and old people who spend their free time on watching television. /^t/On the other hand, television bombards viewers with commercials which are subliminal messages, persuading people to buy more and more. The quality of this form of advertising is sometimes very bad and watching a good programme may be broken by stupid eye-catching commercials. Nowadays, we are witnesses of many political changes in Europe. As a result, there is an enormous variety of films which are bought by television authorities from western countries. They often turn young people to violence through watching how to shoot, rob and kill. The signs of the effects of such bad films we can face every day. /^t/The television authorities have to do something to counter act because we should think about clever future generations that will use technology to teach better things, which could stop creating a vast passive audience drugged by soap operas and films which are full of violence. People who are resposible for the quality of television programmes should employ better and more strict watch-dogs that would limit violence and offensive language which accompany the programmes. /^t/Nevertheless, there are some signs which make us believe that the quality of television programmes will be better in the coming future. <0400> /^t/Advertising became a very powerful means of telling people about products and making them seem attractive so that people want to buy them. The products are advertised in different ways, it may be an announcement in a newspaper, on television or on a poster. Advertisements can be found everywhere, they are present in everyday life of everyone. But the most aggressive and powerful, and at the same time the most effective, are commercials broadcast on television because people exposed to visual and auditory stimuli are more susceptible to persuasion. /^t/Commercials introduce a specific style of life. According to them everyone should buy advertised products in order to reach certain social level, "to keep up with the Joneses". The style of life presented in most of the commercials differs from that of an ordinary man or woman. In those commercials people are always young and beautiful, and the world surrounding them is like from a fairy tale. People are told that they will reach the same standards of living, a wonderful look by buying advertised goods. People, who are not strong enough, go and buy things they do not really need. Sometimes they find, to their surprise, that what they bought is useless and very often of a bad quality. It causes frustration, but again they go and buy, because they do not feel satisfied, as the desire of possessing is stronger than their will. /^t/Advertising also makes use of symbols and myths. For example, in commercials where food, washing powder, etc., are presented we can always see a good housewife in a perfectly clear and well run house. Here the symbol of good mother and wife is being used in order to evoke desired reaction. Another symbols used in advertising are sometimes connected with biblical myths as in the case of Reanult campaign - "Renault Clio straight from paradise". In this commercial two people pretending Adam and Eve are tempt this time not by a snake, but by a car. It again evokes certain feelings connected with this product, which according to this commercial is perfect and made only for you. Another controversial symbol very often used in commercial is sex. Soap, shower gel, perfume are often advertised by a beautiful young women and tough, strong men, often very scantily dressed, and often found in quite provoking situations. All those symbols are sometimes abused and that is why, some people may feel offended by the way something is advertised as it hurts their feelings, it is not appropriate for their culture or religion or it touches "taboo" matters. /^t/Another aspect of abuse in advertising are slogans. They are very often very catchy and well constructed in order to call the attention to the particular product. However, they are sometimes too colloquial or they are only understood by certain generation of people, they are directed to. Not only commercials but also ads in newspapers and on bill-boards make use of foreign languages, which is rather useless and sometimes it causes misunderstanding. What does a phrase like "Menthos the freshmaker" mean for an ordinary Pole, who does not know English? Another example is from an advertisement of cigarettes - "Taste the West". People get accustomed to those catchy slogans but at the same time they are not aware of a linguistic abuse. /^t/Modern advertising is very aggressive and powerful but at the same time it is harmful, because it makes people feel uneasy and convinced that it is unimportant how much they try, because they would never be able to live like it is showed by means of advertising. The pursuit never ends. Moreover, especially commercials broadcast during films, when people are relaxed, have much stronger effects on a viewer that advertisements in newspapers, and very often the viewer is not aware of it, especially children and young people who follow the latest fashion and they are open to any influence, both good and bad. <0401> Speaking foreign languages is very fashionable. Almost everybody would like to speak at least one foreign language fluently but is it worthwhile? Probably most of people would answer "of course" "yes", for sure we would find the group of people who would ask the question "what for". What is more they would give an argument that they live in Poland they are not intending to go abroad and they do not need the knowledge of a foreign language at work. Finally they may even say if foreigners come to their country so that is their problem to know how to communicate in Poland. Luckily not everybody thinks in that way, otherwise we know just nothing about other nations. Knowledge of a foreign language also gives us an opportunity to acquaint with a culture of foreigners. The ability of speaking a foreign language is also a possibility of talking to people of different origins and at the same time it enables us to know the culture of a given nation. What is more we can talk to people without an embarrassment that we don't know any foreign languages. So we may assume that speaking foreign languages is knowing more about the way other people think. As Goethe says: <*> That means "the more languages you speak the more man you are" [translation mine, J.L.] That is true. Acquaintance of foreign languages gives us an opportunity to read books, magazines, articles in their original form. It also allows us to gain more information in a branch that we are interested in. Apart from that we may know variant points of view of different people. Generally speaking it leads us to broaden our minds. Having a greater knowledge and ability of speaking a foreign language is definitely connected with receiving a better job. That means a person may have a greater possibility of going abroad and at the same time broadening his minds. What is more he may have a chance of getting to know the style of people living abroad and he may improve his ability of speaking a foreign language. On the other hand you may find the job you will not need the knowledge of foreign languages at all. Was it worth to spend so much time learning vocabularies, grammar, doing many exercise?. It is hard to say it depends on your future. Perhaps after some time you will get the job where the knowledge of a foreign language will be necessary. But again after too long break you may easily forget what you have learned for such a long time. There is also a danger of acquiring a language that is not needed in your job like for example you speak and write English fluently but you may find the job in German company and your knowledge of English occurs needless. The question is whether a foreign language study is worthwhile if we may not take advantage of this knowledge in future. The most suitable and the shortest answer would be it is worth to study. For simple reason you can never predict your future. <0402> /^t/The nineties can be seen as the particular period in the end of the twentieth century. This is the era of computers, high-developed technology as well as space and medical researches. It seems that the world we live in has become more open, people more friendly and united in fighting poverty, diseases and war. One can easily observe that verbal communication among people has become a significant element of the present life by means of which conflicts among nations are solved and businesses are done all over the world. /^t/There is no evidence showing to what extend foreign language study has influenced this situation but the number of people wishing to master one or more foreign languages is still growing in all countries of the world, which implies that it must be a very worthwhile process. And it really is. /^t/Nowadays foreign language study is both fashionable and necessary, especially in those countries where none of Western European languages has been learnt so far. However, it does not mean that people living in English, French or German speaking countries do not learn foreign languages at all. They have been learning foreign languages for many years as they know that it is a useful process. Regardless of one's nationality, the advantages of foreign language study are the same for everyone. /^t/Undoubtedly, foreign language study develops our personality and broaders our horizons. It provides us with certain knowledge about the world, especially about customs, habits, culture but also about different practical or economic matters native speakers of a foreign language have to deal with. Reading foreign language press and good literary works, as well as watching television programmes broadcast by foreign television stations, gives a great amount of information about the language we are interested in. /^t/However, whereas this passive study of the foreign language develops one's mind, there are practical benefits resulting from foreign language study too. First of all, people with a good command of one or more foreign languages can make sightseeing visits to other countries without the fear of being misunderstood in case of any difficult situation. It is also said that such people acquaint with foreigners more easily, especially on social grounds. They meet a wide variety of people, they often identify themselves with foreigners' problems and it makes them more sensitive and tolerant towards those of different appearance or views. /^t/Furthermore, an "in-depth" study of the foreign language makes people aware of the existence of some linguistic processes operating within the language in common speech and explains how the language has been formed for thousands of years. This background knowledge causes that people start using foreign languages more consciously, at the same time being good observers of some linguistic processes occurring in their native languages. /^t/Another sphere of man's life in which the advantages of foreign language study play an important part, concerns one's career. It occurs that in the contemporary world the knowledge of at least one foreign language is indispensable to find any job, not only good and well-paid one, which is quite different from what it used to be in the past. The changes of political and economic systems in many countries have contributed to the sudden increase of demand for specialists of different kinds who use foreign languages. In fact, most companies prefer to employ people having a good command of foreign languages. Of course, this ability is not the only one to be taken into consideration but it is well to have it. /^t/The innumerable number of job advertisements appearing in local newspapers shows that there is still the shortage of people speaking foreign languages, because in each of them this ability is required. /^t/Finally, it should be mentioned that the persistent study of foreign languages creates a lot of possibilities of professional development and improving one's qualifications. At present most large companies offer a wide range of language courses for their workers with special attention paid to professional vocabulary. The aim is to encourage people to foreign language study and help them to become more qualified, competent and experienced workers. Most people attend those courses as they realize this is one of the most essential, but also obligatory, condition to keep their jobs or be promoted in future. /^t/To sum up one can surely say that foreign language study is a worthwhile process. There is no doubt that it is a very complex process deserving a lot of effort, time and persistence form the learners. Advantages of foreign language study are of great importance and they concern both personal and professional matters. /^t/I myself believe that when people appreciate the importance of foreign language study their life will change for better; it will become easier and full of possibilities. <0403> /^t/In order to answer the above question one should reflect on what advertising is and what influence it has on our life and behaviour? /^t/Advertising appeared in Europe at the beginning of the 17-th century. The first country was England. In Poland its initiation dates from the latter part of the 18-th century. At this time advertising in Poland was simple and not very effective. It was based merely on displaying something in shop windows or putting it over the front door - additionally only during weekdays. /^t/Nowadays great agitation in the world is caused by modern advertising. It is, therefore, necessary to think about such questions like: Do we really like and tolerate advertising? Do we remember that it has an effect on us - on our thoughts, beliefs, opinions and attitudes?... - that it causes us to act and behave in a particular way? /^t/The last research shows that the majority of people being asked for their opinion - that's 80% - think advertising makes them nervous. /^t/I myself believe that advertising is the main and one of the most important factors contributing to the fact that there are now more and more people who are frustrated and at the same time convinced they will never be able to live like it is showed by means of modern advertising. That is why, we are easily persuaded to follow the latest fashion. We get rid of good things and equipments only because something else and something new attracts a lot of publicity. /^t/The height of fashion is now - among others - so called "Techno" music. Thanks to it, the experts in advertising try to attract, especially young people in order to make them do something, for example buy simultaneously fruit juice and a computer - emphasizing at the same time that as for these computers this is the new generation of them. In this way "Techno" does not mean solely a fashionable music style but it becomes more and more popular teenage or youth subculture. /^t/Go further, advertising is very often dangerous because of its content including: themes, symbols or idioms and phrases it uses. There are advertisements which cause to hurt one's feelings of religion, when for instance symbols connected with Church are taken into consideration and put into use. /^t/Undoubtedly one should value and enjoy good qualities of those many modern advertisements which are devoted to social problems. What is worthy of praise and deserves mentioning here is the Aid Operation for victims of a flood organized by different institutions. In the streets it was possible to see large bill-boards with the notices saying: "Help"; "Help us to take a step to live our life - according to what is usual, typical or average" and dedicated to people suffering from autism. /^t/Coming to the end with all these considerations, we can admit that advertising is harmful. Everybody knows how large is the power of language, sounds and pictures. With the help of them it is possible to influence one's deeds, attitudes, emotions, experience and opinions, especially when taking into account those who are inexperienced, like: children and young people. They are open to bad influence of modern advertising in a particular way. The fact that advertising is neither good nor harmless is also emphasized by psychologists. /^t/Finally I would like to quote a statement from the book: "Language for sale" by professor J. Bralczyk: "The whole content of advertising is not exactly to suit the principles of truth but to turn an addressee's thought to values being used in a persuasive way and introduced by the use of appropriate, well-associated words: key words. Advertising makes us be under the illusion that we know something" (translation mine, E.T.) <0404> /^t/By the term modern fiction I understand not only the literature but also movies and mass media in general. In our everyday life we are exposed to violence and rottenness of our society. They are elements of our modern culture. The role of fiction is to emphasise some aspects of cultural and social life. The question arises whether the emphasis is not too strong and whether this does not cause harm. /^t/Modern fiction can endanger the public as a whole through harmful propaganda spread quickly across the nation or by exceeding the accepted moral standards. Our society consists of different people. There are not two persons who will be affected similarly by the same piece of literature or film. For example, an intellectual may not be disturbed by watching or reading a tragedy. He or she might derive extreme pleasure from a release of emotion while others may be strongly influenced in the wrong direction. Especially children, teenagers and people who are emotionally sensitive. Because the majority of persons in this group cannot define where the imaginary ends and the real begins. As the literature and movies are ubiquitous, people can be intrigued, influenced, or induced to commit actions against the public. We all can remember stories about children who tried to fly like 'Superman' or who tied each other up like movie characters being tortured. /^t/Literature and mass media should emphasise those aspects of our life which are positive and worth imitating. Our existence is full of everyday problems, rush and violence. We are fed up with observing cruel and vicious behaviour of our neighbours, acquaintances or just random people. Inhumanity and heartless deeds are the main topics of everyday news and our conversations. We do not need fiction to plunge us. Human beings desire a bit of positive thinking. It is the role of fiction to create such an affirmative view. Literature and movies should be our way out, our shelter and sanctuary. Modern fiction should give us the opportunity to forget about the rottenness of this world and to improve ourselves. /^t/On the other hand modern fiction should portray our society as it is. If people see the undesirable aspects of our life they can fight them, knowing exactly what to fight. Rottenness does exist in our society and it will always exist until people clean it out. We are forced to live in the world as it is and not as we would like it to be. If enough people do not like things as they are, they have the alternative of changing them. To get enough people interested in changing something, they have to know what needs to be changed. If people are forbidden the knowledge of what is, how should they know what needs to be? If our life is full of violence and depravity we have the right to know that. Literature should not disguise the real face of our life. Maybe this is the only way to improve such a phenomenon as violence. /^t/People have the right to create what they want. We should not be forbidden to present dark sides of our life if they are painful for us. Who has the right to tell us that violence and cruelty should not be talked about. Nobody is forced to read or watch these pieces of work. People are free to chose the type of literature they like and they should not be deprived of having free access to it. Avoiding a problem does not eliminate it. Sometimes it is quite the opposite. If violence is emphasised in modern fiction it means that such is the demand of the society. We are to decide what is worth reading or watching and what is not. /^t/The style and trends of a given society is always reflected in temporary fiction. Such is the role of literature and media. If we do not like the fact that fiction is full of roughness and brutality maybe we should thoroughly consider the way of changing the society and firs of all us. <0405> Apart from a few peculiar cases of people living at sea, in isolation or on a desert island most of us live in villages, towns and big cities. These seem to be the three options we have got. And which is the best one you might wonder? There is no doubt about that - it is living in a town, preferably in a small town. Let me explain it to you why this is so. Living in a big city is connected with facing many problems that you do not find in small towns, at least not to such an extent. The most serious one is pollution. The air is mixed with fumes and the smoke from factories. Many streets and buildings are dirty with soot. A great number of cars can create and usually do a lot of problems. First of all, there are parking problems, especially on weekdays and particularly in the city centre. Heavy traffic is another big problem because of the horrendous noise it creates, and on top of that there are numerous car accidents. A big city because of its vastness quite often makes us commute for long hours to and from work. A twenty minute jerky ride on a dirty overcrowded bus in the morning rush hour is quite enough to get you depressed for the rest of the day. One might try going in their own car but that wouldn't help because of the problems I mentioned earlier. In a small town you could walk, not so in a big city unless you happen to be an early bird getting up at 5 am. In a small town you could even cycle. In a big city it is too dangerous. Another thing is that after a long day at work when you want to relax, let's say go mushroom picking or walk in a meadow to smell flowers or go fishing or anything like that, the same problem crops up. You will need at least half an hour to get out of the city to the countryside. Even if you are not very physically active and reading a book in a shade of an oak tree is perfectly enough to make you relaxed, still you will need some quiet place to read your book. Just a half a century ago parks used to be such places. Today no matter where you are in a park even in the middle of it you will not get away from the traffic noise, ambulance sirens or to be fed up with each other's company. Social indifference has already gained ground in big cities. some teenagers listening to their portable stereos. Finally, when considering living in a big city we should not forget about social problems, which become more noticeable. The crime rate is much higher than that of small towns. People are afraid of being robbed, raped mugged or otherwise abused. Frequent burglaries are just a part of everyday life. People do not help one another is it is the case in villages or towns. Living in blocks of flats they quite often do not know their immediate neighbours. They seem to be fed up with each other's company. Elderly people often feel alienated. Social indifference has already gained ground in big cities. To sum up, living in a big city entails a lot of problems. They can be avoided by living in small towns. Then, not only can you still benefit from what cities have to offer, but you can also enjoy quietness and fresh air of villages. A city and a village are as different as chalk and cheese. Living in either of them will sooner or later make you dissatisfied. So why not move to a small town and enjoy the best of both worlds. <0406> /^t/With a birth of the nineteenth century capitalism people created labour unions in order to protect employees. But what do these unions protect from? Do they really fulfil their role? Who is the one to benefit from their existence? These questions could be partially included in another one: Are the labour unions not becoming too powerful or maybe they need to be higher in the political hierarchy? /^t/Let us try to find out whether labour unions are really able to influence governmental decisions in order to support workers. In fact, the government is in charge of making decisions, which must be accepted by the Parliament. These two bodies are always elected - sometimes indirectly - by majority of a society. Thus, no minority - of which a labour union is a representative - will have impact on the representative of a majority. This is a rule of any democracy. /^t/Furthermore; unions created to fight with capitalistic exploitation, are somehow socialistic in themselves. Money collected from members does not come back to them. It is paid to union's authorities so that they can open their modern offices and in fact, exploit those who are not clever enough to care for themselves. Unions pay back only with promises which obviously cannot fulfilled. Such organizations then, will not be powerful /^t/Finally, union's power is restricted by common sense. There are probably as many unions as professions. If, say, doctors claim higher wages and succeed in it, immediately teachers, miners, drivers and God knows who else, will demand the same. It would disorganize the state, so the government is not very likely to meet those demands. This shows incapability of steering the gevernment by labour unions. But do they not have any device to do it? /^t/there would be no point joining labour unions if they had no power. Their strength lies in numbers. There are many of them; a few having many members. As we said, if thousands of people are trying to enhance their situation in a country, it must destroy order. Although it is common sense that dictates them to limit their demands, sometimes - especially in Poland - unions may not be reasonable (no offence). Our history proved that in this regard the unions are very powerful. /^t/Since Poland was mentioned, it is worth noticing that the largest Polish labour union got involved into politics by occupying seats in our Parliament. Now it is a political party which is in charge of making decisions. This process shows a dangerous tendency. Due to ambition of a union's chairperson, an organization created to protect employees, became a strong political wing, representing interests of one group of the society. /^t/After all we must add that union's weapon is a strike with all its kinds. It is playing people's emotions and feelings when focused on by media, it can help to influence the government or change it, or even destroy a political system. Unfortunately, they like using strike, which is dangerous and leads straight to bankruptcy - hopefully of a company only, not a state. /^t/If all arguments mentioned above do not give an answer for the question in the title, we should accept the fact that labour unions exist. But we also have to keep them under control and we cannot let them develop their power any further. Although they may support employees, their strength can also blow up order in a country. <0407> /^t/To learn or not to learn? - that is the question... Private lessons of a foreign language are an expensive luxury and despite that we pay, we have to study very hard (even the best teacher will not do if the student does not learn). /^t/Besides, learning a foreign language takes much time and patience. It is impossible to speak a new language fluently at once. We have to cover a lot of boring grammar and learn vocabulary by heart before we start to form, in the beginning, childish and later on, more developed sentences. /^t/Some people claim that it is worthless to learn a foreign language. They say that when they need help they go to a translator. Some go even futher with their claiming saying that foreigners should learn our language rather than we should learn their language. Others say we will never be able to speak a foreign language perfecly so it is no use learning it. /^t/However, those arguments are only partially true. Firstly, it is better when we talk to our foreign interlocutor direcly, without any'mediator'like interpreter who is hardly able to express exactly what we wanted to convey. Secondly, it is saving of money when we do not have to take an interpreter or translator because we can do the translation ourselves. /^t/Besides, speaking in the language of your guest from abroad is like saying to him: "Welcome to our country! Feel at home." It makes us look more hospitable in the eyes of a foreigner. /^t/Speaking a foreign language broadens also our horizonts. It opens our eyes to the other country's culture, mentality of its people and different styles of living. It is amazing how much the language can tell us about the country it is spoken in. /^t/For example, British are said to be stuffy and reserved. That is why they avoid committing themselves which can be seen by the language they use when expressing opinions. They prefere to use such phrases like: it seems to me, I believe or it is said while for example, open and strightforward Polish express their opinions in a more direct way. /^t/Furthermore, while learning a foreign language, we master our native language. We have an opportunity to compare the two languages, draw conclusions and highten our native language awareness. /^t/Sometimes, for example, when translating foreign words we can come across the word which meaning we even do not know in our native language: so we broaden the vocabulary of both a foreign and our native language. /^t/Language determines also our perception of the world. For example, the more adjectives we know for describing a given object the more ways in which we perceive it and the more details we notice in it. By learning other languages, we get acquinted with other ways of looking at some phenomena. It is like discovering the world again. /^t/A good example can be here, the language of Eskimos which contains much more words describing snow than other languages do. Getting acquinted with all those words, we notice various exciting details which we did not notice so far like, for example, the shape and size of snowflakes. /^t/Learning a foreign language is worthwhile. It is like being born again. Through the new language, we discover the unknown sides of the world. It does not matter if we cannot speak like native speakers. What matters here is a constant development. It is like the endless trip which is the more exciting the more'unknown land'we have to cover. <0408> /^t/Some people prefer to live in the suburbs, whereas others are lured by the colourful lights of a city centre, but the real choice of place for living seems to depend on the contents of one's wallet. Nowadays, centres of big cities serve mainly as places of work for thousands of people, while the suburbs perform a function of large "bedrooms". In fact, there are different kinds of suburbs, for instance, one can distinguish between residential areas where usually rich people dwell, and the slums which are inhabited by the poor. These are, obviously, the extreme views. /^t/Generally speaking, the suburbs are much less polluted than a city centre, which undoubtedly makes living there more healthy and pleasant. Moreover, the traffic noise is not so excessive, and thus not so tiresome, which is another advantage. Apart from that, the pace of life on the outskirts is slower and less stressful, which influences people in a positive way. This is also a possible justification for the fact that many people, especially in western countries, incline towards living far from the centre. /^t/But every coin has two sides. Living outside the centre involves long-distance commuting which might be very time-consuming, especially during peak-hours. Besides, the outskirts often lack such forms of communal entertainment as cinemas, theatres, cosmopolitan restaurants, etc., which makes life boring in a way, particularly for young people. It seems that the suburbs are suitable for the retired, as one can freely enjoy peacefulness of life there. However, life in the outlying districts might not be a bed of roses, particularly if one takes into consideration areas of poverty where living conditions breed crime and despair. An example of this sort can be Bronx - one of the five major boroughs of New York. /^t/To sum up, it can be seen that it is possible to view living on the outskirts from two different perspectives, which, in turn, leads to quite diverse conclusions. Outskirts might be oases of calm, but life proves that it is not always the case. <0409> /^t/Advertisements are everywhere. Radio, television, newspapers, large posters put up all round the town, or bright-coloured neon sings encourage us to buy an article or to take services offered by various firms. And in spite of the fact that we often know little or even nothing both about the firm publicising itself or about its products, we buy them because we are encouraged by a colourful, attractive label and an effective advertisement. And after some time it appears that the thing we have bought is not so good as we had imagined. Have we been deceived, then? Well, no. Nobody is responsible for what we had imagined. Can we avoid such disappointments? Yes, on the condition that we watch advertisements attentively. /^t/First of all, we should accept advertising and remember that its role is to present the best qualities of an advertised product in order to sell it in the best way. They do not say in vain that advertising is a lever for trade. Its unquestionable advantage is the fact that is appears to be the best and most effective means of popularisation of various goods and services. To bring them closer to a potential client, advertising agencies vie with each other to make more and more good adverts. Their ingenuity is impressive, indeed. Very often they use frankly the powers of persuasion or, more indirectly, they hide it cleverly behind both the information and pictures presented. The latter is a particularly elaborate kind of advertising and requires great professionalism. Sometimes, however, it also involves dangerous trickery. For instance, all bad or even unwholesome features of an advertised product are usually omitted. What is more, an advertisement informs us that the advertised article has been attested to. Unfortunately, that adjective is very often abused, especially as far as some handbills are concerned. The truth is that an advertisement does not say who has attested to its qualities. If we ask a producer or a seller about it they are usually embarrassed and they are not able to answer this question clearly. It may testify to something... Besides, it seems that there is no institution in our country which deals with checking the credibility of information given by advertisements that are spread by the media. And we should pay attention to the fact that it is the customer who must pay the consequences of this annoying situation. /^t/Now, let us look at an advertisement in regard to its visual valves. Usually, adverts are very attractively composed, with an abundance of colourful, tempting and eye-catching accessories. Well organised, with an expressive voice and vision in the foreground, they are often impossible to resist. Not surprisingly, for many people they become a 20-second stepping-stone from their colourless and monotonous lives. However, we should be aware that in the vast majority of cases advertisements are worked out by teams of experts who know how to from consumers' opinion. This is why TV commercials show smiling, happy, charming models and handsome actors. Sometimes, in contrast with them, a commercial presents a stooped, sad person who "does not take advice given by that advertisement." /^t/Have we ever wondered how photographers manage to take such wonderful pictures of food? Who has not drooled with pleasure at the sight of the photograph of sumptuous dishes that seem too good to be true? We have been fooled again. That delicious food has been painted with glue so that it does not change its state, it does not melt and holds its glaze and shine. And what about the steam rising from a hot, tasty dish? It is cigarette smoke. Now we know the secrets used by food stylists who are able to produce better results than the real thing. /^t/Finally, attention should be paid to some characteristics of advertisements, namely music and the use of superlative forms of adjectives - everything is: "biggest", "best", "cheapest", "most useful" and so on. And that is another reason for trifling with advertisements. /^t/As far as music is concerned, even if it is meant to be the background for a given advertisement, it may have the power we are not aware of. Many people are easily influenced by it. They hum, for example, the Lipton Tea advert melody so often that finally... they go to buy the famous tea. /^t/Although, television and newspapers sometimes issue advertisements with a didactic force to make their recipient sensitive to environmental pollution, children abuse, AIDS and other problems of great importance. They are a minority, however. It should be remembered, then, that first of all advertising is based on business and its task is to maximise a number of potential buyers and consumers rather than communicate the truth about the world we live in. Let us not allow advertisers to make us be a part of their world in which everything is right, beautiful, with no problems; a part of that beautiful but artificial world. <0410> /^t/In this essay, I will discuss the situation of education in our country and consider the problem of whether it should be free or not. I will concentrate especially on college education since this is the major point of concern. I will start with the present situation of education. Then I will focus on arguments supporting fee-paying schools and balance them with arguments for free education. Finally, some conclusions will be drawn from this discourse. /^t/The problem of education, especially that of financing it, is a very important issue in our country. It seems obvious that everybody should have easy access to studying. However, the situation is not like this. Our constitution clearly defines the principles concerning education. We can read in the article No. 70.1. that 'everybody has the right to studying.' Besides, 'studying is compulsory between the ages of 6 and 18'. It means that our country must provide every citizen with free education in primary and secondary schools. As for college education, we read in the constitution (Art. No. 70.2.) that 'public schools are free, but some colleges can be fee-paying'. So here the young people who want to study face the financial problem and in many situations this is the main factor which decides about their further education. More and more colleges require a tuition fee to attend them, e.g. all extramural studies are fee-paid. Nevertheless, it is the country that should provide every citizen with free education if we want to have really well-educated people. It will pay off in the future. /^t/On the other hand, there is little money spent on education in our country and if all schools were funded by the state, some of them would have to be closed because of reductions and the lack of money. Also no schools would open and this would mean the decline of the whole educational system. The only way of going out of this crisis is to introduce private schools. Many people are willing to attend them because they think it is worth investing in their studies. /^t/This means that well-off people are in a better situation as far as studying is concerned. If schools were free, there would be equal chances for everybody to learn, no matter how much money they had. It is sad that money decides almost about somebody's life - whether people can continue studying or just stop education because of their lack of money. In this way, we are returning to earlier times where attending schools was only the priviledge of rich people. /^t/On the other hand, if somebody wants to study he or she will do it, regardless of any obstacles. Introducing private schools does not mean that they are only for people who have money. Nowadays, there are many ways to get funds for studies. Students can take part-time jobs in the afternoons in order to save up for their studies. It makes them more responsible and careful about spending money and teaches them to respect hard work. Other ways of getting money are student loans for the time of studying. They are paid back after finishing studies. When the students attend paid schools, they have the right to require a high level of teaching and professional teachers. They pay money so they want to get as much knowledge as possible. /^t/To sum up, the present situation of our education reflects the situation of our country. When a country is rich enough, it should have free education but if it does not have the money to meet the basic needs of its people, it is necessary to introduce paid schools in order to keep education on a high level but in the same time only for rich and industrious people. <0411> /^t/Recent changes in the Polish social, political, and economic system have raised the issue of how schools and the whole educational sector ought to be maintained and who should pay for education in our country. If particularly concerns pupils and their parents: Are they supposed to cover the cost of the education they receive in public schools? If not, who then? As the topic being discussed involves some serious consequences, it is now a matter of considerable public concern and debate. /^t/One of the main argument in favour of schools being paid for by the parents of the pupils comes from sheer logic. There is no doubt that in the free market economy one must pay for goods or services one receives or benefits from. Thus, whenever we go shopping or to the hairdresser's we must have some money on or a credit card in hand. The situation here is quite simple: no one looks around for anybody to pay the bill. Schools, likewise, should be maintained by those, who attend them and learn or study. As far as children are concerned, it is their parents that are supposed to cover the cost of their children's education or the young themselves. /^t/Moreover, such an arrangement of payment may also make results of learning and teaching more effective. Well paid teachers and professors living in good conditions would not have to look around for additional work and they could pay full attetion to their teaching. Being respected and better paid might encourage them to do their best to achieve the best results possible at work. Similarly, pupils and students who are aware that their own money is being spent on their education will take school activities more seriously, supervised either by parents unwilling to spend a penny in vain or by their own reason. /^t/Another argument in favour of payments covered by pupil's parents and students is colecting additional sums of money that could be spent on new equipment and teaching or learning aids. It is not a secret that today, schools and universities suffer from a lack of resources that could help them restore old buildings or supply them with modern facilities. Having its own budget coming from the local community could solve those difficulties to a large extent. What is more, pupils and students will handle their own property much more carefully and refrain from vandalism if they know whose money has been spent. /^t/However, the whole matter is not so simple and clear as it has been presented so far. There are also some strong counter arguments against education being paid by students and pupils or their parents. First of all, it is a question of justice. Both poor and rich people should have free unlimited access to education and knowledge itself. This is extremely important as far as children and the young are concerned. We cannot make their training depend on the financial resources of their families. As young citizens, pupils and students ought to have equal chances of getting primary, secondary and futher education. /^t/In addition, it is the state and society that benefit from free educational system. Children and the young, in general, are our future hope. Hence, the government's duty is to help them develop their potential capacities. Introducing general payments for education might deprive the most gifted, but poor, pupils and students of careful educational treatment. It would be a great loss for all of us if a would-be Einstein could not learn or study due to lack of money to pay for a school. /^t/To sum up, the real situation seems rather difficult and complicated. All we have to do is take the arguments for and against into consideration and try to find the best way out. <0412> /^t/There are many people who dream about living in a big city and who would like to enjoy shopping in huge department store, supermarkets as well as take advantage of all the varieties of entertainment, discos and night life usually not found in smaller towns. However, there are also people who prefer more quiet, peaceful life in a place where you know most of the people living nearby, where the air pollution is smaller and it is easier to find a car park. /^t/What does make us prefer to live in a small town rather than in a city or the other way round? At their teenage years people are attracted by the glamour of big cities and escape from their family towns. They love cinemas, theatres, the diversity of pubs full of young people. They love the night life, so colourful and vivid. They live at a faster tempo with much hurry and rush, as long as they are young and energetic. However their preferences change in the course of time. They begin to appreciate fresh air, walking and gardening the peace and quiet, which they find in the country or in smaller towns. /^t/There is no doubt that there are better opportunities for achieving a proper education in big cities. The reason is that there is a bigger choice of schools, universities, greater varieties of training and courses and it is easier to find a suitable and well paid job and make a career in your profession. /^t/On the other hand one might argue that we do not live in the XVIII th century any more and we also have cinemas, pubs, cafes and restaurants in smaller towns and very often in the country, too. You are more likely to find a place there, as they are not so crowded and moreover they are much cheaper than those in bigger cities. While we are at the prices it is important to mention that flats and accomodation in smaller towns are much cheaper and easier to find in smaller towns, where the rent is often very high. It is very difficult for some people with low incomes to buy a house or to pay such a huge rent. /^t/There are more and more cars every year and the problems with heavy traffic are evident everywhere, but during the rush hour in bigger cities they are almost unbearable. Fumes emitted directly into atmosphere polute the air so heavily that many city-dwellers suffer from serious medical disorders. Finding a parking place is considered to be a great achievement and it also demends some luck, by the way. /^t/People in little towns know almost each other. They walk through a park, go to the dentist or do their shopping and they see familiar faces everywhere. I suppose that it makes them feel safe, confident and less suspicious to each other. /^t/But the fact that you know the people all around, they know you, may work to a disadvantage of livind in small comunities. Some people are very annoyed by others' curiosity. They get irritated when somebody is poking his/her nose into their business. They feel beset and uncomfortable. They claim to have no privacy, to be unable to make a single move without others' knowledge. /^t/Another vital reason for choosing not to live in a big city is the high crime rate. Some people never go out after dusk because they are afraid of being robbed or abused. The exposure of young people to drugs and violence also causes many young people to feel lonely, abandoned and lost. They look for the sense of life and a helping hand but noone will notice them, all being so busy with their own personal immense hurry for success. /^t/As far as I am concerned I think that I would prefer to live in a town, and that is what I have tried to express on these pages by presenting the pros and cons of living in a city or in a small town. /^t/To draw a final conclusion from all these controversies I would say that one can not cleary state that there are more advantages of living in a small town than the disadvantages. /^t/There are many different factors which influence our choice, according to which are the most important to us. Is it our health, our job, our family, or the future of our children?. So it depends on the subjective reasoning of every individual person. Wherever we live it should be a place which would fulfill our needs, would be adequate to our lifestyle, age and would be satisfactory in every single matter. <0413> /^t/People seem to be oblivious of the tremendous development of civilisation in the last few years. We do not pay enough attention to the new inventions that are born almost all the time. We regard them as something usual, and still crave for new once to modernize our lives as much as possible. However, one should realize that lots of hidden pitfalls lurk in such inventions. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to ask the question whether the civilisation has not passed its peak yet. /^t/First thing to be considered is the environment whose condition is constantly getting worse. Factories, cars and others pollute rivers, the air and soil. Large areas of land have been contaminated by the leakage from the nuclear reactor. We cut down trees to provide places for new buildings, and at some time we destroy natural landscapes. /^t/Although it is generally believed that our food is much healthier than that consumed by our grandfathers, we must remember that it is not the entire truth. We eat allegedly healthy food and drink delicious juices that, in fact, contain a large number of preservatives and other artificial ingredients. /^t/Similar problem arises if we think of chemicals. Many synthetic detergents are considered bad for the environment, but the majority of people either do not realize it or neglect the problem. As a result we face the danger of holes in the ozone layer. /^t/Although many people agree with the statement that inventing new technologies is indispensable, I think that this process should be somehow limited. There is hardly any doubt that television, video or computer games bring us a lot of harm. They are factors that lead to the decline of our intellectual life. The good example of it is the fact that most of us prefer watching films to reading books. It is simply easier and more convenient for us. Take also into consideration children playing computer games for ours, wasting their time and eyesight. /^t/The most serious danger for the globe is perhaps the pursuit among the countries to play the dominant role in the world, and connected with it the invention of the nuclear weapon. Atom bombs may destroy the whole world, so why not to get rid of them? /^t/There are, of course, a few advantages of the speedy development of civilisation. These are, for example, new ways of travelling and communication. They save our time and make, in a way, the world more related. The improvement of living conditions and development of science are also necessary. But still, it is true that good sides of our level of civilisation are outweighed by the bad ones. /^t/All in all, the topic is very controversial. We are not able to stop the process of further development of civilisation completely. Yet, something must be done for our planet to rescue it from the total destruction. At least more laws to prevent the further pollution of the environment should be implemented as quickly as possible. We must avoid these aspects that may bring on the extinction of the human population. <0414> /^t/Modern advertising shares a lot of features in common with propaganda as far as the techniques they employ and their effect are concerned. They both frequently spread exaggerated or even false information in order to influence the public. Jen Anouilh's words perfectly describe the nature of advertising as <*>. Advertising is the business of persuading and encouraging people to buy things, using a variety of techniques to achieve its objectives. It makes use of pictures, words, songs on television and radio, large public notices, and newspaper and magazines. First, there is a technique which uses very general and, in fact, often meaningless or ambiguous words that produce a favourable response. The second technique attempts to achieve a desirable response by creating some kind of link between the advertisement's idea and the product that is viewed favourably by most people. The third technique uses famous people to speak in favour of some products. It is also easy to observe how a great number of people jump on the bandwagon and tend to copy what other people are doing because it is supposed to be fashionable or successful, this creates the impression that everyone is for this particular product. These subtle approaches appeal to the baser human instincts and exploit our secret dreams. Advertising appears to prey on our fears, our vanity and our greed and consequently makes us buy insurance, cosmetics, clothes, and more food then necessary. /^t/Furthermore, nowadays it is almost impossible to escape the profound influence of advertisements. It is unavoidable since giant street hoardings, catchy-jingles an television and slogans on posters bombard us from all sides. Advertising seems to be ubiquitous. These insidious forms of brainwashing lead to greater demand for material things and ultimately result in producing an acquisitive society which still needs more and more new possessions. Besides, a great number of advertisements are gratuitous and intrusive while inserted in the middle of an interesting programme or film. /^t/What is more, many people claim that it is necessary to maintain standards of honesty and to discourage the overt types of deceptive and misleading advertising by imposing strong regulations on advertised products which are harmful to our health, for example cigarettes and alcohol, or even by banning such advertisements completely. /^t/On the other hand, there are a lot of advantages of advertising and it would be a wrong idea if we thought that advertising only strives for selling good as it is informative and provides us with a great amount of useful information about appearing and existence of new products an the market. Moreover, commercial radio and television companies, newspapers and magazines receive most of their money from advertising and as a result the price of a newspaper is not as high as it could be, and a wide variety of broadcast programmes are accessible to virtually everyone. In addition, the 'small ends' perform a very useful service for the society. They are nearly in every newspaper and magazine and their prime purpose is to help us buy or sell a house or car and find a job. /^t/Owing to the fact that the attitudes towards advertising differ so noticeably the evidence of the harmful nature of it seems to be ambiguous. Certainly advertisements have a tremendous impact on our lives, but it is easy to point to positive as to negative outcomes. They make us better informed about new products, create as many opportunities for free choice as they infringe on our freedom of choice. In addition, advertising reflects and follows social and cultural trends as much as it directs them. It may be safely concluded that advertising is inseparably linked to modern life and constitutes on integral part of it. <0415> /^t/Although there are many people who are for living in a small town, the number of disadventages which are pointed out in almost every discussion on the subject, outnumber the adventages which would probably be presented. Considering the fact, that the contemporary people declare themselves to be tired of constant progress and modernization of big cities, a brief survey is enough to prove the above to be true. /^t/Cultural experiences. In almost every place called 'small town' there is nothing like a real entertainment. In the local cinema (if any) they are showing the films people of the cities forgot about a few months ago. Apart from Town Hall there are no places where concerts or other cultural happenings might take place. And if there are any hardly anybody of famous people is willing to come to. /^t/What is to be done in such a situation is organizing local festivals and fairs but it would always limit the interests of the local people. After years of living such a narrow cultural life the need of higher level of cultural entertainment desappears (if whenever felt) and makes people poorer inside as deprived of the cultural emotions, intellectual challenge. /^t/There are always individuals in any small town society who still do feel the need of seeing the recent film production, theatre or opera performances. However, the distances they are to cover to achieve it are usually very great and discouraging. Not to mention the ballet or Tina Turner concert which often take place in capital or biggest cities. What then? Comfy armchair and CD album instead of real emotions? /^t/Neighborhood. It is very much connected with the lack of entertainment and unemployment in small towns. People who have nowhere to go and nothing special to do concentrate their attention on themselves, that seems very natural but... No move of yours is unnoticed, no visitor of your house is overlooked, no decission of yours is left without comment. You are observed and followed as well as you are interested in others' lives and bussineses. Names, facts, gossip, opinions. So you live your life together with the lives of the neighbors of the other side of the hedge, being aware of the fact that they might know the number of your personal account better than you do yourself. Privacy? What is it? /^t/Education. After finishing the primary school very many young people take up the technical schools or those which train any profession. Less teenagers go to the high schools as they have no perspectives of continuing the education at universities unless they leave the town. Leaving the town, however, is connected with additional expenditures not every family can afford to bear. Leaving for living? /^t/Unemployment. In small town area in Poland the unemployment rate is very high that leads to serious problems. 'I have got the secondary technical education which is not enough for applying for a good constant job', says twenty six-year-old man. 'I did many different things for living during my life just to get money to maintain my family - wife and a little daughter. At present I am jobless and that is why it is I who take care of our girl. My wife is a German teacher, so it was easier for her to find a job in local schools. Now she earns money for our living. She works very hard and I feel uneasy in this situation. But that is real life here. Is it fair? /^t/There are many other questions people living in small towns ask, rarely finding the satisfying answers. The best proof that they find lots of disadventages in their living there is the increasing migrations to big cities which signify the hope for change, progress, success, better life. <0416> /^t/One could say the answer to this question is obvious and it sounds Yes it is. But I believe there are people who require to be convinced that this is so. Therefore I hope they are going to be my audience. By foreign language study I mean any form of studying or learning a foreign language. For some people it is going to be only a basic course in a given language, for others, however, a profound and thorough study of the language. Since I belong to the first group I would like to list advantages of such a study as I believe there are no disadvantages. /^t/The first and the most important result of knowing the language is the ability to communicate. And communication is the most essential part of our life in society. For this reason we learn other languages. Our ability to communicate opens a lot of previously closed doors and it lets us to get to know people, their way of thinking and their problems. We could even say that communication allows us to have a contact with people, whereas such a contact helps us to understand them and understanding leads to sympathy. Such a conclusion may seem to be a little bit too far fetched but still I believe it is true. Communication is also helpful in everyday situations, such as going abroad on holidays, asking and telling the way. These are situations that all of us, sooner or later will come across. /^t/Another good reason to study foreign languages is our own pleasure or entertainment if you prefer. There is a lot of foreign songs and films on TV and in the cinema. I know, of course, this is not the case with all languages but with the most popular ones it is. Thanks to our knowledge we may know what our favourite song is about or what the original version of a given film sounds like. Our understanding does not depend on translators then, we can have a direct contact with a given song, film or a TV programme. /^t/But a language does not exists on its own, it is a language of a given group of people and because of this fact, of a given culture and tradition. Through knowing the language we can get to know a new culture and thanks to that to widen our horizons. New culture might mean literature. One could say we can easily use translations but still not everything has already been translated into a given language. Another thing is that our interests might be very specific and unusual and without knowing a foreign language it would be almost impossible to develop them further on for example, one might be interested in reading the Bible in Hebrew and for this reason they have to know this language. /^t/The last but not the least advantage of studying or learning a foreign language I would like to mention is that this knowledge may increase someone's qualifications. In contemporary world it is almost always required to know at least one foreign language. Besides it allows a person to choose among different job offers. They are not limited to one offer but they can actually choose the one they are interested in best. /^t/I hope I managed to convince at least one person. And apart from all the advantages I mentioned here it is a great fun to use a foreign language. It is incredible to be able to formulate sentences, to express our thoughts and feelings, just to speak it. <0417> My objective is to persuade readers that advertisements play a very important role in modern world. Not only will I try to convince readers that advertisements perform a useful service to the community, but I will also try to argue against the opponents of this view. The critics of the advertisers claim that big companies spend vast sums for self-promotion each year and a good idea according to them would be to stop advertising and start to reduce the price of goods. In fact, it is the heavy advertising that creates mass markets and therefore consumer pays much less for products. We must also remember that it is due to money spent by advertisers that we can enjoy so many broadcast programmes on TV or radio. The buyers of daily paper or magazine wouldn't either pay so little, but for the source of ravenue the newspaper derive from 'small ads'. /^t/The opponents of the advertisements tend to say that the only purpose of advertising is to sell goods. But it is a wrong idea according to the adherents of advertisements who claim that advertisements have another equally important function: informing the community. For example, supposing you wished to buy a vacuum cleaner, it is the advertisement that will introduce you to the product and provide the details concerning its performance and price. People obtain a great deal of knowledge of the household goods from what critics call 'lucrative business'. Advertisements also inform people about new medicines, washing powders, cosmetics, etc. that have appeared on the market. Advertisements perform another useful service to the community - educating young and simple people. We may learn a lot of useful things from advertisements, e.g.: the heater in the washing machine is likely to get covered with stone unless water is soft or jeans should be washed on the left side, etc. Some advertisements promote new technical solutions that make a positive contribution to our pockets, e.g.: an energy-safe bulb. Advertisements inform you about new medicines, washing powders, cosmetics, etc. that have appeared on the market. The opponents claim that advertisements of cigarettes and certain beverages do more bad than good and may have a harmful effect on youngsters. The Tobacco industry's advertisements are dishonest and brainwash people into thinking that if you smoke their cigarettes you'll look like those healthy and handsome men from the advertisements. The supporters of advertising state that some profits from advertisements are provided for the sublime purposes like, for example, the charitable actions organised by Jerzy Owsiak. The big companies such as Coca-Cola or Big Star sponsor concerts, championships and other cultural and sport events. Some spectators argue against TV advertisements, complaining that they get easily annoyed if their favourite movie is frequently disrupted in the most intriguing moments by numerous advertisements. The opponents of this view treat the advertisement as the useful break to prepare something to drink and eat or go to the bathroom, etc. 'I get irritated if there are too many advertisements in the programme', said my 18-year-old brother. Yet, the question remains: how many advertisements is the right amount? /^t/Some critics claim that advertisements create some slogans and catch phrases that encumber the languages. For example, in Polish languages now we are constantly hearing people using the phrases like: 'Czas na Colgate', 'Coca Cola to jest to' or 'Dwa w jednym'. /^t/The other argument against advertisements is that they create stereotypes and thus brainwash people into buying things they don't need. This phenomenon is easily noticed among youngsters who tend to think that, for example, these teenagers who wear jeans with Wrangler or Lee labels are, better, from those wearing jeans, with, for example, 'Dobler' label. The consequence of this is that some teenagers feel inferior to others because they can't afford buying the things advertised. The strongest argument against advertising seems to be that good quality products don't need to be advertised. If so, how can ordinary people be informed about new products, their advantages, prizes and places they can buy them? The fact that advertisements are designed by specialists who are cunny enough to make the product look attractive and the advertisement convincing should force people to look for the tricks in virtually every advertisement. 'The best advertisements are the ones full of tricks as they don't free from thinking', said my friend and I absolutely agree with him. Advertisements are for people who think and don't buy products only because they look nice or have nice covering. <0418> /^t/At the end of the twentieth century it may seem that the world is built on advertising. Indeed, advertisements are everywhere: roads are "fenced" with large, often illuminated, hoardings; city streets, lit by blinking neon signs, speak to passers-by with fantastically decorated shop-windows, glaring billboards and thousands of posters; newspapers and magazines are full of colourful, eye-catching ads; most television and radio stations exist thanks to commercials. Ingenious, witty, nice or stupid, at first sight most advertisements look innocent. But is it really so? Is modern advertising harmless? /^t/The main aim of publicity is to promote goods or services and to win customers. Sometimes, however, large-scale marketing and a loud advertising campaign serve as a method of eliminating the competition. As a result, weaker companies collapse, leaving the magnate in full control of the market. Such actions not only undermine small enterprise, but also do harm to a vast number of customers, left, as it were, at the tycoon s mercy. /^t/A characteristic feature of advertisements, especially TV commercials, is that they tend to present the world as it is not - beautiful women, elegant men and happy, well-off families, whose biggest problems concern buying, or choosing from among several items. The perfect world of commercials does not exist. Still, some people delude themselves into thinking that such a life is within easy reach and, so deceived, look for something they will never find. What they will find, however, is frustration and a deep sense of failure. /^t/Another characteristic of modern advertising is that, more and more often, it appeals to the lowest - and at the same time the strongest - of human instincts. Certain specially chosen words, pictures or scenes, affecting the subconscious, awaken greed or envy and set in motion sexual drives of the recipients. Sexual associations are the best incentive - they are powerful, they appeal to a wide range of people and they never become boring or outdated. Because of the ubiquity of such advertising and its strong influence on the subconscious, it is extremely difficult to resist temptation to buy a particular product. Gradually, people become more and more dependent on advertising. Their choice is no longer theirs, their free will is an illusion. /^t/The increasing number of various temptations that appear in advertisements may lead to a belief that all desires can ( or even should ) be satisfied. Such a belief is, of course, erroneous. You cannot follow all your impulses - some have to be controlled. However, a lot of advertisements, especially those addressed to young people, in very attractive and suggestive ways encourage them to get what they want - immediately and unscrupulously. They encourage teenagers to look for pleasures and indulge their every whim. Young people hear "Follow your instinct," "Break the rules" and, susceptible to influence, do what they are told. Many of them do not see any limits. If they want something, why couldn't they have it? /^t/Modern advertising, while boosting goods and gaining new customers, promotes also a certain lifestyle which, slowly but gradually, becomes standard. Its effect is consumer society. You are what you have. Therefore you buy - to keep up with the Joneses, to show off or for your own satisfaction. It is a never-ending process - since there are always new products being introduced to the market, you do not stop buying. As a result, buying becomes a sort of addiction, which it is very difficult to overcome. /^t/All the aforementioned arguments point out to the fact that modern advertising is by no means indifferent to its recipients. It has a lot of negative effects, the most dangerous of which are a steady, continuous deprecation of moral values, a hedonistic approach to life and consumerism. The price of commercial success is limitation of people's s free will and their increasing dependence on advertising. <0419> /^t/The question of living in the suburbs is an issue which arouses strong feelings. Some people claim that life outside the city centre is a lost one, while others cherish the idea of an escape from the pollution, congestion and evils of the metropolis. The hitherto presented question can be looked at from several points of view. In my opinion, life in the suburbs is a good life for a number of reasons. Firstly, living in the outskirts should be considered with reference to safety, health and people's well-being, in which respect it does not fail to support the argument. Secondly, the importance of work and entertainment opportunities the suburbs offer will be discussed here. Last but not least, the effect suburban life has on human relations and on attitudes towards each other is thoroughly positive. /^t/First of all, life in the suburbs is void of the 'rush-hour' problems as there is hardly any street or traffic congestion in the outskirts. The phenomenon of crowded trains, late buses and air pollution seems to be familiar only to city-dwellers. Since there are fewer car accidents and no petrol fumes in the air, the outskirts are probably the best place to bring up children. In contrast, those who live in the city centre inevitably witness or even participate in collisions or queues, not to mention such health-destroying activities as breathing in polluted air or drinking contaminated water. /^t/It is often suggested that there are fewer employment and leisure opportunities outside the city, and that there are also fewer shopping areas. While it is true to say that commuting to work from the suburbs is not a perspective one looks forward to, it cannot be denied that there are still many possibilities of finding work in the suburban area, e. g. in small factories, offices or local shopping centres. It is probably not the same as working for a large corporation, but local jobs offer less stress and when compared with the cost of commuting or even driving your own vehicle in the city centre, they appear to be more beneficial. Moreover, work in the suburbs is often not very time-consuming as there are no problems with communication or transport within the area. Thus, it allows one to stay closer to one's family or friends, and it also gives more free time. /^t/As far as leisure is concerned, it is obvious that many suburban areas offer such local attractions as the cinema, pubs or restaurants, which are usually cheaper than those of the big towns. It is often the case of the kind of leisure people prefer rather than the issue of a lack of it. While some men enjoy the dazzling neon lights and the noise of the metropolis, the majority of us relish peace and quiet of our humble abode, which - in the case of the city-dwellers, is a futile hope. Besides, despite the variety of shopping centres found in the metropolis, the articles they offer are costly and substandard. Hence, it is not peculiar that it is the suburbs where the town inhabitants purchase the goods. /^t/Looking at the further advantages of life in the suburbs, it is widely acknowledged that the outskirts are the place where one can appreciate close contact with nature. City-dwellers are surrounded by skyscrapers and noisy streets, whereas the suburbs inhabitants are woken up by the singing of birds. That is why the outskirts are a busy place during the weekends, when those who want to flee from the boom of the city hide in the oasis of quietness and the unspoilt beauty. In this respect, life in the metropolis is an artificial existence in the place where every building looks the same and even human beings themselves begin to resemble one another in appearance as well as in character. /^t/Not only are the city-dwellers less healthy due to pollution and a lack of open space, but they also do not care about their mental and physical well-being. They do not practise many sports and even if they do, the opportunities are limited to jogging in the streets. The so-called 'sports centres' provide exercise in constricted rooms situated close to factories or busy streets. In addition to this, life in the city, unlike the suburban life, is an existence of rush and hurry; people do not even have time to eat proper meals, instead they resort to fast food which - everybody would agree, is extremely unhealthy. /^t/Besides, it has been confirmed by the research data that congestion and pollution - the characteristic features of the metropolis, have a disastrous effect on human personality and they can be dangerous for others as well. Not only does the atmosphere of the city life make people more nervous, tense and upset, but it can also lead to behaviours which have fatal consequences. Namely, unlike people living in the suburbs, metropolis-dwellers suffer from a constant lack of security. The cities breed crime and violence, they teach youngsters how to be cruel, they disregard family and moral values. Big towns offer teenagers entertainment which involves drugs, alcohol and cigarettes; houses in the metropolis are burgled every day; guns are allowed for 'safety'. In other words, living in the city is marked by destruction and death. It is enough to compare the night-life of the downtown with that of the suburbs to choose the latter - unless one fancies robberies and riots. /^t/Therefore, as far as the effect on human relations is concerned, life in the outskirts is a peaceful one. It is widely acknowledged that one does not mingle with many people or make innumerable acquaintances when living in the suburbs. However, it is better to have few friends one can rely on rather than to be a cog in a town machine. While it is often claimed that suburban communities cultivate gossip, it is also true that familiarity is better than strangeness. City life is a life of an anonymous mass; it is an existence of noise and hurry which is not advisable to any human being. /^t/One final argument for living in the outskirts is that looking at the metropolis-dwellers, one has an impression of a lack of openness and vitality in those people. The inhabitants of the suburbs, in contrast, are well-known for their friendliness and hospitality. Generally, the former are people with health problems caused by stress and pollution, whereas people living in the outskirts enjoy a long life and are characterised by such qualities as thoughtfulness and a sense of humour. /^t/In conclusion, it can be seen that life in the suburbs is a better choice than life in the city. Not only does it contribute to our mental and physical health, but it is also safer and more economical. Furthermore, suburban life helps to develop people's personality and a sense of aesthetics. Thus, its influence on human relations is vital for everybody. To sum up, we should all live in the outskirts as they offer the only true way of relishing a happy and long life. <0420> /^t/A study of foriegn languages is one of integral elements of contemporary education. A couple of years ago hardly anybody in Poland could speak a Western language, what is more-nobody seemed particularly concerned with the matter. An explanation of that fact is not far to seek: there was simply no need for foreign languages. The relations between Poland and Western countries were reduced to a minimum, we therefore did not travel much, had no direct contacts with foreigners and our mass-media provided information in no other but Polish language. It is not suprising that at that time we were not eager to bother about languages and thus make our lives more difficult. /^t/Luckily, the situation has greatly changed by now, so has our view on language matters. Facing all the political and social changes we could not remain indifferent to the problem of communicating with foreigners. We have thus begun to put interest and great stress on learning languages, which immediately turned out to be a good investition. /^t/In my opinon it is absolutely worthwhile and beneficial to put pressure on language education nowadays. The ability to speak foreign languages seems to be indispensable. First of all you need to know languages if you want to get a job. Good knowledge of foreign languages required we read in almost each job advertisment. A foreign language (and more and more often not only one!) is needed almost everywhere, including multinational corporations as well as humble companies which employ a small number of people. Be sure that filling in any application form you will come across an item concerning foreign languages you can speak. A fluency in English, German or Franch may prove to be a real attribute in making career. Competition for getting a good job is more and more intense and these are generally the best and the most versatile who are given a chance. /^t/Apart from business matters, languages are crucial when you go abroad. You cannot fully enjoy yourself in a foreign country if you are not able to make any contact with the natives. It is impossible to be safisfied with a trip during which you can be just an observer. Just imagine that you do not understand people that surround you, you cannot ask them a single question, you are not able to get into conversation with anybody around... Could you be really content with such a trip? And what about any potential problems you may come up againts while being abroad? How are you supposed to cope with any difficulties if you cannot speak the same language as people around you? Do not expect that foreigners will speak your language! Remember that the best you can do is always to rely on yourself! /^t/Today you have got lots of different opportunities for learning foreign languages. A spark of interest and enthusiasm as well as a bit of self-discipline will be enough to acquire some knowledge of a foreign language these days. You can do that by attending various language school or by taking diverse courses organized both at home and abroad. You can also choose self-studying, as instrucional aids are countless. /^t/I do realize that learning any foreign language calls for time, commitment and of course money. But it is still worth undertaking. By investing in languages you invest in yourself. You should therefore find some extra money and time and get down to some real work on foreign languages. Sooner or later that kind of knowledge will undoubtedly prove a real advantage in your life. <0421> /^t/It is only rarely that a true grasp can be gained of the psyche of all the people who are already at an advanced age. Still, one can vaguely sense that, having run nearly the whole gamut of pleasure and pain that life affords, they reach a point where they, quite naturally, gravitate towards relying on others for their further sustenance. [It stands to reason that they simply have no other alternative, being worn out and unhealthy, as is usually the case.] What is to be done, however, when there is no single soul to turn to and the aged are virtually driven to carry on their shoulders the fate of loneliness, poverty, if not starvation? Granted this, should one insist on the government taking such people under their wing? /^t/Tackling this issue, doubtless a burning one, sets a number of problems already at the outset, when one needs to provide an insight into the pros and cons, which are all too obvious and, perhaps therefore, difficult to formulate. /^t/Let me now start with what, despite its being a platitude, is generally acknowledged: the government is obliged to show due consideration for the entire society, including the needy. On no account can such factors as age or availability for work come into play here. This is certainly true as far as it goes, if a bit idealistic. Even a slight injection of realism would suggest looking at the darker side of the story. In this day and age people are living longer. Reports say that a man's life expectancy is now seventy three while in 1931 it was only sixty. What underlies this fact is an inevitable call for escalating income taxes paid by those at work so that old people's houses can be maintained and other facilities supplied. Naturally, this is enough to incite the labor force to view it as a thinly veiled attack on their financial situation. /^t/What also does not seem out of tune with the main thread of this essay is the often-voiced assumption that the aged are entitled to enjoy the fruits of thier labors on account of having worked thier fingers to the bone even if those days are long gone now. After all, these ever-miserable people were once grouped in with those who were economically active. Can this contribution to the welfare of the state be disparaged or quickly dismissed from our minds? /^t/Conversly, there are many who hold dearly to the opinion that, however great thier past achievements may have been, the elderly are, if anything, entirely useless. And, to cap it all, they are literally haunted by the specter of death looming larger with every passing day. If seen in this light lavishing too much attention on them appears somewhat unwarranted. What deserves mention here is an observation that one is bound to create a cauldron of controversy with the above argument. Namely, if the plight of the aged is to generate so little concern and compassion that nobody should feel any compunction about leaving them to their fate, then children, being just as useless, do not deserve any higher degree of recognition. And yet, on and off, word would spread through the grapevine about the condition of our schools being a far cry from what it is expected to be. Consequently, the need for investing more money in education is invariably highlighted. Not surprisingly, everyone recoils in outright horror at the very suggestion of not complying with this demand. So, to stretch this point to its logical conclusion, we see a fine line separating children from the eldery while, providing our only criterion is usefulness, creating such a line is more of a prejudice than sound reasoning. /^t/Nevertheless, favoring the youngest does have some deeper sense to it. It is in them that we repose hope, thus going out of our ways to place at thier feet as many opportunities as possible. Is it any wonder then that those whose lives are running to the end of their courses are pushed to the second place or even neglected? /^t/Upon reflection, I take it concluding that the pros outweigh the cons somehow pales next to some practical considerations. Admittedly, the issue lends itself to being scrutinized to the effect that one can ascertain that one's bottom line consists of humanity rather than sheer realism or vice versa. <0422> Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps that is why they are always coming in for criticism. Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair for self-promotion and because they have much money to throw around. Very often advertising campaigns are believed to be a waste of money. Many people believe that it would be better to stop advertising and reduce the price of the goods. After all, it is the consumer who pays for everything. But poor consumer! If it were not for advertising, that creates mass markets for products, you would have to pay a great deal more. It is exactly because of the heavy advertising that comsumer goods are so cheap. However, if we think that the only purpose of advertising is to sell goods we surely get the wrong idea. To inform, should be another equally important function of advertising. A great deal of the knowledge we have about the household goods comes mostly from the advertisements we read, hear, watch, or almost stumble over in the streets. Advertisements introduce us to new products that we have never heard about, or at least do not let us forget about the existence of ones that we had already got accustomed to. Supposing that you wanted to buy a washing machine or other useful equipment, it is more than likely that you would obtain details concerning performance, price, and other valuable clues from an advertisement. It would be a wonderful service that would surely help you to make a choice. /^t/It is scarcely possible to avoid reading, listening to, or wathing advertisements in our modern world. Advertisements became something unavoidable in our everyday existence. They brighten up even such places as railway stations, usually providing a great fun. A cheerful, witty advertisement produces a a great contrast to a drab wall or some other obscure place. Lots of people, however, pretend that they never read advertisements, but this claim must be seriously doubted. It is hardly possible to avoid having anything to do with advertisements, even if we hate them. Some people believe it to be a useful 'service', for others it is a deceitful form of brainwashing. However, let's imagine a railway station or even a newspaper without advertisements. Wouldn't it be better to spend time looking at colourful advertising posters instead of gazing at dark walls, or reading railway bye-laws while waiting for your train. Let's imagine newspapers without colourful, bright advertisements, just overfilled with calamities. How would we feel about such a weird view? /^t/As all advertisers say, we must not forget that advertising makes a positive contribution to our pockets. All commercial radio and television companies, newspapers could not exist without this kind of income. So, the fact that we pay 'so little' for our daily papers, that we can enjoy numerous broadcast programmes is entirely thanks to the money spent by the advisers. Isn't it just wonderful? But, poor advertisers, does such business really pay? And, if it does, is it a beneficial business to both interested parties? /^t/Advertising plays a significant role in our lifes. It is a kind of 'service' to community. Thanks to some "small ads", which are in virtually every newspaper and magazine, we can find a job, buy or sell a house, announce a birth, marriage or death, get to know about interesting travelling offers, etc. However, a question about the boundaries between truth and lie, reality and fiction, arises in this place. Aren't advertisements more and more often an insidious form of brainwashing that by using various techniques such as slogans or catch-phrases not only harm people's minds but also 'help' them get rid of their money. /^t/Those who are against advertising believe it creates demand for things we do not need, it produces acquisitive society with demand for material things. Advertising is offensive and often appeals to baser instincts, preying on our fears, our vanity, our greed. We are encouraged to buy insurance because of fear, buy cosmetics because of our vanity, eat more than necessary because of greed. Advertisements, especially the ones in poor taste, spoil countrysides, cheapen the quality of life. They leave us no choice, because are imposed on a captive audience, for example on television, radio, and so on. Advertisements mean also shocking interruption of television programmes, radio broadcasts. They deceive people by offering free gifts in soap packets, coupons in cigarette packets, money in candy boxes. Everywhere we we look there is deceipt, harm, dishonesty. But do the advertisements really have to be that harmful (if we assume that there exists any possibility of harm)? Doesn't everything depend on us and the choice we make while deciding on some goods? Let's think it over! Do we have the right to generalize everything like that? Do we have to be either for or against advertisements? Wouldn't it be better, for instance, remain rather neutral than to radically oppose advertisements, especially if every morning we eat a slice of bread with a lump of RAMA in order to be "as fit as a fiddle". <0423> /^t/Learning languages has become very popular in Poland. Nowadays many parents want their children to start attending language courses as early as possible. These days people have a great choice as far as the way of learning a language is concerned, since not only teaching by different institutions is offered to them, but 'teach-yourself' video courses and correspondence lessons are also widely available. There are many people who at some time realize that it would be good for them to know a foreign language. After they begin to learn it, however, a great number of them give it up after several months. It is the lack of strong will and self-discipline which makes many learners unable to continue what they have started. Here a question may arise whether the knowledge of a language is really worth the effort which must be put into learning it. Seeing how many people attend English, German, or Spanish courses, a conclusion can be drawn that foreign language study is worthwhile, in spite of time and energy spent on it. /^t/Obviously, different individuals have different aims in mind while learning a language. Some people do it for professional purposes; they need the knowledge in order to be able to translate important papers, to fill in some forms, or to make transactions with foreign partners. In such a case the time and energy put in learning a language is compensated for by getting a good job, promotion, or pay-rise. /^t/However, the advantage of speaking a foreign language not always can be felt in a material sense. What rewards our efforts may be satisfaction we get while reading foreign literature in original, or just while being able to watch an undubbed version of a foreign film. Although it is something we cannot measure in the same cathegories as better working conditions; it is a feeling which is worth to be striven for. As pleasure derived from achieving any success, satisfaction of being able to understand a foreigner's speech will influence your self-esteem. Thus learning a language may help you to eliminate not only language barriers but also personal limitations in your life. /^t/One of the main roles of a language is being a tool of communication for people travelling abroad. Of course, one may say that there are electronic interpreters available, which not only may translate a phrase or a sentence into another language but can even utter it. The problem is that while having a nice conversation with a foreigner the only thing you could do with the interpreter is asking questions. You would neither be able to understand the answers, nor to respond to the foreigner's questions, since you would not understand them. I do not think that such a chat would have any sense, since neither of the interlocutors would learn anything from the other person. That is why, if you go abroad to meet new people, and maybe to make new friendships, the knowledge of the language is essential. /^t/However not only usefulness of the effect of learning makes it worthwhile, but even the process of it is advantageous. Memorizing vocabulary and combining the words into sentences according to grammatical rules is a good mental exercise. It develops your ability of remembering things, as well as influences your capacity of problems solving. That is why, if you are impatient and cannot wait long for the effects of your learning, remember that by spending time on vocabulary or grammar exercises you will save time in future while performing tasks requiring mental effort. /^t/There is no daubt that learning languages is worthwhile. Adding to its advanteges the fact that the process of learning may be pleasant, no one should claim that it is the waste of time. I think that only those who do not know any foreign language may say something against studying it. In fact, I have never heard anyone being able to speak English or German regret time spent on learning it. <0424> /^t/Foreign language study can bring so many advantages that, in my opinion, there is hardly any doubt that it might be not worthwhile. Of course, to make it a success, that is, to master a foreign language to a satisfying degree, requires a lot of time, energy, and, most of all, systematic, tedious work. Many people get discouraged; it is because of boring exercises, problems with pronunciation, great numbers of new words to be learned, and so on. But, those luckier ones who, finally, did not give up, have quite a few reasons to feel privileged. /^t/In the today world of bizarre changes, of tremendous people mobility, of new, amazing opportunities to communicate, to travel, to find out, etc., it is the knowledge of a foreign language that makes it possible, easy and more satisfying. It allows a person to be independent, flexible and self-confident when adjusting to new circumstances. Nowadays, it is much easier than ever to use that knowledge, not only when visiting another country and meeting its native-speakers, but also when surfing on the Internet, which allows to practise a foreign language, and at the same time, to make new friends, and have fun. Then, the competence in a foreign language is necessary when one wants to apply for a good, well-paid job. A lot of big corporations have their branches abroad, and thus they expect their employees to be educated in languages. Besides, as technology develops rapidly, a lot of new terms from other languages enter the usage, and, at the same time, remain untranslated. For a person that wants to keep abreast with changes, such a knowledge it is a must. Nowadays, studying of a foreign language does not have to be a tedious activity, and to remain only a kind of a mental exercise, without any practical, real-life reference. Today there are a lot of new methods of learning, so everybody can choose something most convenient for him/herself. A lot of different language courses are organised, a lot of textbooks come out every year on the market. Finally, making use of some audio-visual devices such as video cassettes, tape-recorders, or recently also computers, contributes to making the process a fruitful, interesting and often funny activity. A successful study of a foreign language means also an access to different kinds of entertainment. For example, it allows to watch films in original, to appreciate literature of a given language or, it simply transforms satellite television into a meaningful medium. Also, once texts of pop songs become understandable, their music is not the sole attraction when one listens to the radio or, chooses to buy a CD. Finally, it should be stated that so far no machine that could translate texts or interpret press conferences in the way a man does it has not been invented. This skill remains an extraordinary, exclusively human privilege. And, it cannot be said otherwise but be repeated that foreign language study is one of the best ways of investments that one can think of nowadays. Apart from numerous advatanges such as professional, intelectual, and so on, it gives a lot of pleasure, satisfaction and fun. <0425> /^t/We live in the world of mass communication, and it is now possible to know what is happening in every corner of the world. Every day we are bombared with the news from many sources. The most important source, but also the most controversial one, is television. Nowadays, a TV set is available for everyone and sometimes it is difficult to imagine our life without this small object. Very often people consider it to be the most necessary thing in their homes and treat it almost as a member of their families. A great number of people sitting in front of the screen makes us think about the quality of television pragrams. Television producers are aware of the high frequency of watching TV by an average man and because of it they should make television programs as good as possible. They should constantly try to improve their production, but unfortunately we have to ask here a question - is it really so? /^t/Some people think that we can never say for sure whether a given thing is the best or not because there is always a possibility of increasing its quality. The same can be said about television. We can suspect that nobody will ever claim that television programs have reached perfection. Nowadays, we would not dare say anything like that because every time when we switch on a TV set, we can find dozens of examples which help us realize how many things we would change. /^t/First of all, our television programs are not adjusted to their audience. We can mention here special blocks of programs and films for children which are either too sophisticated or too trivial. They provide even five-year-old children with encyclopedic information or they treat teenagers like kids who cannot think on their own. The news, which are watched by millions of peole, very often are beyond our comprehension. The way in which information is presented is inappropriate for people who are not experts in politics or in the field of science, or art. Morning programs for housewives question their intelligence and it seems that producers consider women to be fools thinking only about cooking, sewing and cosmetics. Moreover, there is not a sufficient range of sport or educational proposals. Sometimes we cannot choose a suggestion which best serves our interests. Therefore, we are even forced to watch programs in which we are not interested or we can only switch off our TV set. For instance, Polish television gives people a choice only between a few sport disciplines and does not present enough transmissions from international events. It is also very difficult to find a suitable educational program and it is even impossible to learn a foreign language from television courses, especially if we do not think about English, German or French and we are adults working in the morning. Furthermore, our television programs are broadcast in the hours which do not suit most viewers. The most interesting films are broadcast at midnight or we can watch the funniest comedy series only in the morning. A further problem is the inappropriateness of some children productions, mainly films. Children watch these films in the morning or in the afternoon when their parents are at work and cannot control what the kids do. For that reason television should introduce more severe censorship of programs intended for children and teenagers. These long hours which they spend watching stupid films have an influence on their present and future behaviour. We can easily notice that the problem of showing violence and pornography in television is frequent at present. It is not so difficult to find a film or a cartoon full of blood and agression at three o'clock in the afternoon, or a film containing pornographic scenes at eight o'clock at night. Too much violence can desensitise us to real-life horrors. This also shows us that more control is needed on the part of television. /^t/In conclusion, it is obvious that the quality of television programs is not as high as it could be. There are plenty of things, including those mentioned above, which can and should be changed. But these modifications will be taking place during a long period of time because television appeared in our life 'only' sixty years ago so it is a relatively new invention. On the whole, we should not forget that television can be useful and give us pleasure but only if we interpret its function properly. Therefore, when we think that some programs do not suit us we should not complain so much but we can switch off a TV set and read a good book. <0426> <*> Wrote one of the greatest poets - William Shakespeare in order to describe and praise his beloved country. Of course, each of us lives in a different place-city, town, village; and we love this very place because our home is there. However, taking into consideration the development of civilization and its influence, one can ask a question - 'Where is the best place to settle down?', and later one more question - 'Are the advantages of living in a small town greater than the disadvantages?' /^t/Both cities and towns, have a special nature and character. Similarly, each has its culture and a way of life. Then, there can be no doubt that there are some cultural and psychological differences between a man living in a large city and a man living in a small town. /^t/One of the Polish psychotherapists, Kazimierz Imieliñski, claims that living in a big city in stressful and has not got a very good impact on one's nervous system. It is also a place where serious conflicts occur among people very often. On the other hand, he states that those persons have more free time and many opportunities to develop their careers. They have many chances to meet interesting and famous people.1 (Imieliñski, 1980: 8-19) /^t/Undoubtedly, there are a few important advantages of living in towns: one of them is the state of the natural environment. Thus, the surrounding nature is not so polluted as it is in the cities. There are more green woods, forests, parks and clearer rivers, streams, and ponds nearby. One can find a beautiful spot to enjoy peace and quiet there. The town dwellers do not suffer from heavy congestion and clamour or the traffic jam. All is due to the fact that industry is not located in such areas. Certainly, there are some local factories, institutions or companies, however, there are not to many of them, and they do not emit very harmful chemical elements in the air. /^t/What is more, medicine doctors suggest that life near the nature, in towns is healthy and more beneficial for a man's condition when compared with life in the cities. As a result, men - and especially children - do not suffer from illnesses so often as the persons from the big communities. They seem to be less allergic, too. /^t/Furthermore, inhabitants of towns are not so much in a constant hurry, taking into consideration everyday life; for example, to catch a bus, to shop etc., they walk more often and, then, they are less stressed, less nervous. At the same time, the know each other better. A complete stranger is recognized by them immediately. In comparison with masses of the metropolis, they are less anonymous and more attentive to one another. In particular, the are more likely to create good atmosphere in a certain town, for example the atmosphere of rest and relaxation in Ustroñ, Wis³a. /^t/Of course, a small town has usually amenities - libraries, cinemas, theatres in the open air, sport facilities etc. However, there are local people who organize shows, performances, concerts in order to entertain themselves. In this way they create folk culture, music and art. Also, they can observe animals, birds and plants in their natural surrounding. A variety of possible free time activities seems to be endless. For instance, they can go fishing, run, climb, do gardening or sunbathe in the country. /^t/Above all, families are used to meet more often together and socialize. Parents and children seem to have more time for chattering and sharing their interests. Parents do not need to be afraid of children being kidnapped or knocked down, knowing they are playing in the garden with the neighbours. In the same way, they seem to know better their children's friends. Yes, the situation is different when their offsprings study at the university and 'fly away' from home. Their contact seems to weaken gradually. /^t/Moreover, small town communities have various means of transport and communication. Almost each family has a car and bicycles. They can travel by public transport, as well. Newspapers and magazines are easily available everywhere. After all, they publish their own newspapers to provide people with the local events, information; for instance "Gazeta Ustroñska" is published in Ustroñ or "G³os Ziemi Cieszyñskiej" in Cieszyn. Recently, several telephone exchanges have been built in our country. Then, it is no longer a problem to communicate by means of a telephone. The local radios and televisions have established their broadcasting stations, helping the public to get to know the latest news and issues. /^t/By the way of contrast with the large societies, persons from the small towns may have not so many opportunities to find interesting work. Therefore, they are sometimes commuters and travel to work in cities. Certainly, it depends on one's town geographic position in Poland and ambitions one has got. If one's job is concerned with tourism or medicine, even a holiday, a health resort like Ustroñ can become a great place to live in, and make career. Taking into consideration shopping, there are many varieties of materials, food, drinks etc., which are easy to get in a city where is bigger market. Then, a life in a city seems to be interesting, however much more expensive than a rural life. /^t/Nevertheless, there is a lot of publicity about the housing shortage in the large cities and that is why some people move away to the country. There are also other problems concerned with unemployment, pollution, crime etc., in metropolis. In fact, those places are overcrowded. /^t/Generally speaking, there can be no doubt that there are many advantages of living in a small town. On the other hand, sometimes there may be a few disadvantages. Thus, there is a crucial question to answer - 'Where does one feel best?' Having work, home, friends in a town shows it or makes it the best place to live in. One can have many benefits from living in a small community - less expensive cost of life, a lack of congestion, an opportunity to practise sport, better relationship with people etc. Being an inhabitant of such a place, one can appreciate quiet and peaceful life, enabling a man to be in closer contact with nature. Maybe a life in the big cities is easier, however the consequences of such life are considerable. <0427> Regardless of our personal attitude towards advertising industry we cannot deny its vast influence on an individual's everyday life. With its aggressive omnipresence in media and the world's economics built upon it it should be perceived as having a meaningful as well as instrumental impact on our culture. Even if it exists to our well-being, having such a power, it has some potential quite feasible to cause harm to some of the parts concerned. In such circumstances we should ask ourselves what the character of this influence is, whether it still remains beneficial, or at least neutral, for all of us. As the advertising industry is more of a 'battlefield' there certainly are some victims of it. They can be found among the members of different groups in connection with it. While some of them understand their situation some are perhaps unaware of it. The first part of the society affected is the people to whom advertising is addressed - customers. Even if it seams to keep its informative function nowadays it is mainly a way of persuading people to choose a particular product, all means acceptable. And there is a number of devices to achieve this. Basically one have to make you realise you need it - more, you cannot possibly do without it. This way we usually buy a totally useless one. Adverts make us want things, here the most susceptible ones are children. Visual effects of the fantastic world leering from the screen is simply irresistible for them. Very often TV commercials show that obtaining certain goods (and certain brands, of course) we identify and eventually join some better group of people - there is a magazine advertised as one for "intelligent women" (does any woman regard herself unintelligent?). Another depicts a well-known candy as the best possible thing to be served at an ambassador's reception. But do we actually ascribe our social status frequenting the confectionery department of a local supermarket. Another deliberate trick is preventing the addressee from obtaining complete information about the advertised product. What is very representative of it is the example of various party lines hiding their excessively high prices in a small print, while the people on the screen radiate in blissful carelessness. A similar problem concerns the ambiguity and vagueness of language and information. All washing powders seem to be better than the others even if those are also claimed to be the best. This problem affects both the customers as the competition. An appropriate promotion and commercial campaign mean more than the quality of a product itself. This situation is a kind of a vicious circle: the items advertised best are the most popular brands which can afford the expense; those which cannot meet the financial requirements will not be promoted, thus have no equal chance for success. As a kind of generalisation one could say that the harmful potential of advertising lies in the very fact of creating an unreal world of commercials, deprived of objectivity, pretending to be something different than it is in fact. A phenomenon meant originally to be a source of information has presently become an instrument to misguide and manipulate the process of healthy competition. As all of us could be regarded its target it is essential to be aware of all the problems connected with existing in this system. The media, with their budgets founded on the incomes from commercial promotions, are overpoweringly present in our lives. Being aware of our vulnerability to this impact is one of the ways of protection from it. If on top of this we apply just a little bit of common sense we will hopefully find ourselves less exposed to the harmful pressure of advertising. <0428> Nowadays television has a tremendous influence on people. It is a source of both information and entertainment. It shapes our outlook on life; it is a remedy against the blues, but first and foremost it is a greatest time consumer. Due to constantly increasing amount of time that people spend watching television, it is worthwhile to consider the quality of television programs. /^t/Taking into account a great range of channels and consequently programs, the audience is not condemned to watching whatever there is on television, but it has, freedom to choose what they really want to watch. Therefore, I do not hesitate to state that everyone can satisfy their expectations by choosing aniong several channels and picking up a particular program unfortunately, many programs that we expect to be up to our expectations, disappoint us. It happens due to the improper approach to a question, hardly professional production or an inexperienced journalist. /^t/Therefore, it has to be mentioned that the quality of television production does not depend on the channel. There is no connection between the program and television itself. It depends entirely on the producer, his motives, the appropriation of the program. /^t/As the television is to reach the broadest audience and make profits, it has to subdue to the needs of the viewers. As there are half as many people as opinions, the producer cannot restrict themselves to transmitting particular kind of programs only. /^t/This is impossible to satisfy everyone with one particular television production. In order to achieve popularity and respect, television producers have to compromise. Therefore, they cannot quit publicist programs in favour of quiz shows or vice versa. /^t/To some people's surprise, these less ambitions and badly produced programs sell well. Probably the best example would be one of Polish commercial channels. Polsat devotes a few hours a day to Disco Polo - a musical program watched by almost 50% of Polish population. The programmes are often created overnight which makes their quality hardly satisfactory. /^t/In case of more ambitions programs, films, or cleverly created light programs, one cannot negatively refer to the content, but to the way the channel broadcasts it - it is often interspersed with television commercials which badly influences general impression of the program. /^t/At present each channel produces quite a vast number of television series and soap operas. It is common knowledge that this kind that this kind of program is produced for an average person, average in the negative meaning of the word. Such program make thousands of people sit and watch what is on a particular channel. It is the easiest way of making profits - producing programs for masses. The one and only disadvantage is the productions are hopeless. /^t/Nevertheless, I cannot criticise all television productions. Though, I have to admit that its larger part is scarcely satisfactory. Still, there is an amount of highly professional programs. Among these are publicistic and educational programs. Their popularity does not depend on quite interesting and current subject, but on the way they are conducted. The journalists are real professionals. Nothing is skipped. They have everything in perfect trim. Their only drawback is that they convey too many bad news. /^t/Bearing in mind the vast range of channels, it is difficult to make the right choice. Nevertheless, it is hardly possible to watch publicistic programs only. on the whole, hardly satisfactory quality of television productions restrains some people from watching it all the time. Maybe it prevents people from losing imagination and a little bit of one's own outlook. <0429> We live in era of a huge and very rapid development of industry, agriculture, media, etc. The speedy growth causes that many prosperous companies try to compete with one another and this explains some reasons why the firms are likely to advertise their products. They make an effort to advertise their products in many different ways: on radio, on TV, on billboards, on shop windows, on exhibitions. They also give some samples on promotions and during other various occasions. The manufacturers try to outdo one another at creating miscellaneous conceptions, producing and then using many tricks to sell their goods. All the methods and techniques involved in process of production, distribution and advertising are not always very honest therefore we should not believe in the excellence of all merchandise. People who watch commercials and advertisements should try to be critical, selective and do not believe in the whole given information about a product because the truth can be different. We can read some articles and rankings in newspapers for housewives that some of the frequently bought products are not good enough in the household (e.g. a set of razor blade knives for lifetime which are good to throw away after a month of using)or are dangerous for health especially for children and teenagers (e.g. Slim Fast or other weight loss formulas producers of which promise us to slim down in a few weeks or even days. We lose our weight by loss of water in our organism but not fat.). /^t/Usually, the appearance of a product (colour of itself as well as very attractive wrapping) do not represent its real value. We can see beautifully prepared pictures to represent the expected quality which does not mean that the thing which we buy will be excellent or at least satisfactory. Most often, we expect good quality of things, good taste but we are disappointed just after first bite (e.g. unfresh bread with Rama) or if the handkerchiefs (e.g. Softis) aren't as soft as they were promised; or if the durability of some kind of equipment and things, (e.g. toys, non-washable colours on the clothes), is lower then the producer predicted. The short oversimplified opinions with sophisticated words in advertisements are to hide the true value of a thing. They only want to increase retail or wholesale. They also try to convince us that we save our money if we buy their product which is not true. "Dosia" had never saved my money because it is not effective. /^t/All the producers are convinced that their product is the best. So now, we have the only Visir (washing-powder), the best Omo, the most excellent Percil, the most effective Perwoll and so on and so forth. In fact, we receive a product which is the best of all and at the same time, is the same as the others. They try to convince us that we do not have "bad" goods at all. /^t/Many customers seeing all the admirable things collected on the shelves one next to another have big problems with selecting the best product for them from the whole range of similar merchandise. The greatness of each product causes that the customers has to search for his favourite one for a very long time and he or she has to take part in a process of trial and error. It is not only problematic but also tiresome. We can take into consideration margarine (e.g. Tina, Masmix, Flora, Rama, Kama etc.)We have at least 20 different kinds of margarine on the market. We can hear that they taste like butter almost in each commercial which is not true. /^t/Some of producers and commercial agents agree to use some tricks and put a short frame in a film which is not visible to our eye, however, it is perceived by our brain. Usually, the frame has a short note for example "buy popcorn". There were made some experiments in California University if the trick really works and the results were unbelievable, almost all spectators went to buy popcorn during break. Proving that such commercials can be deceitful some American states forbidden using such frames. Many people were very satisfied with the prohibition. Nevertheless, we still do not recognise another important thing. When we go to shop we have special rates, sales very frequently. So instead of buying the only products we need we also purchase those which are on sale. In this way we yield to shop advertisements. /^t/We can see all types of advertisements around us. Last time, billboards became very popular. There are so many billboards along our roads that their neighbourhood (such a closeness) is shocking. The big posters advertise all types of merchandise beginning from cars finishing on underwear. Especially the latter can be problematic. We know that almost 80% of drivers is male. When they drive their cars and see billboards with almost naked, sexually attractive, young, beautiful women advertising Triumph underwear they simply cannot keep their attention on driving. It really can be dangerous. /^t/Sometimes, some advertisements appear in a wrong place and in a wrong time. Last summer, we were the witnesses of Pope's pilgrimage to Poland and we were given billboards with his portrayal. Nothing would be wrong with billboard if only it hadn't been arranged next to Triumph underwear poster. All the moral virtues which Pope represents by his person were violated. /^t/Nevertheless, we do not have to search for such inappropriate examples to long. There are very beautiful commercials of toys on TV just before and after bedtime TV cartoon (for children). The desire for possessing such toys by a child grows so much that parents who cannot afford buying Barbie, Lego etc. are in real trouble. /^t/There are only a few arguments which can prove that modern advertising is harmful. It is more harmful when people do not realise the proper aim of advertisements and they yield to buying good-looking things which can allow them to feel better for a little while. We are exposed to cheap or very sophisticated commercials therefore we have to be very careful not to buy unnecessary, useless, of low quality things and also at the same time, do not allow the pictures, photos, posters, billboards, films to demoralise, to touch us or to deceive us. <0430> /^t/Modern world changes all the time. There are more and more inventions which should facilitate people's lives. Many of them are useful but some causes controversies. This is the case video films. As the fashion of watching them is very popular, the importance of books decreases enormously, especially in children's environment. Many adults decide either to borrow or purchase a series of video films and watch them instead of reading books. As usually, some people are for spending free time on watching films, others are against it. Let's ask a question: "Is there still a place for books in the era of video films"? /^t/There seems to be an equal number of the advocates of books and the supporters of an idea that books are out of fashion. /^t/The strongest argument for reading books seems to be the fact that it leaves the space for our imagination. It is especially important for children who develop their knowledge about the world. Books have a special and unique appeal which cannot be experienced during watching video. Reading books help us to develop our personality, arouse our imagination and provide us with valuable and decent messages, which can be applied in real life. /^t/In twentieth century when our world is dominated by violence and crimes, books can be a good remedy for tired people. In books you do not usually have violent scenes of murders, rapes, and even if they are, they do not appeal to your senses as strongly as it happens in the case of films. The films which we have access to do not usually belong to the most valuable ones. Once people, especially youngsters, had chance to watch them then it becomes a habit or even addiction to those films, which are often not recommended. Video films are full of disgusting and horrible events, vicious scenes which then lead to aggression and violence release by youngsters who are particularly inclined to imitate the bad deeds. On the contrary to them, books are to calm your nerves when you want to rest after a tiring day. /^t/Books have always been treated as teachers. They offer a lot of moral values and while reading you have to think and use your brain. Video films lack this advantage. Sitting in front of a TV set and looking stupidly at the screen is all that video films require from you. /^t/Both physical and health factors can have an effect on people. Watching films requires sitting in one position for about two hours. It is very unhealthy. The rays that are emitted from the screen influence people's health and may be the cause of many cancers, too. All these problems can be avoided owing to reading. /^t/Finally, books are still read all over the world. The libraries and book shops still exist. People feel a need of reading. Even the rich have many books on their shelves, although they can buy video tapes. They notice the significant role of books which cannot be replaced by others kinds of entertainment. Generally speaking, books provide us with much deeper insight into people's behaviour and situations which have their value as such. /^t/On the other hand, books are time-consuming. Reading a book can last for a very long period of time, whereas a film comes into your eyes and ears in the twinkle of an eye. You can read a book for about a week, but you save your time watching a film based on this book. /^t/Nowadays people are very tired. They work all day and in the evening they want to relax. They look for a pastime that do not require any effort. The best solution is to sit in front of a TV set. For some people watching video films is real enjoyment and is regarded as the most amusing and exciting way of relaxation, especially after arduous and strenuous work. They just sit in a comfortable armchair and the only thing they have to do is to stare at the goggle-box and to pursue actions taking place on the screen. /^t/People watch films for various reasons. For example, because they provide them with ready pictures, which have stronger impact on their feelings than books, evoke more emotions and, in some way, affect their way of behaviour in real life. /^t/The other thing is that small children who cannot read may watch TV. They think it is enjoyable, and they are really interested in it. In that time their mothers can rest because watching do not require their presence. Children can do it on their own. /^t/Some people can ask a question: 'The world goes on. Why should we read books which are out of fashion when we have a wonderful invention called video films?' They say that we should take from the world the best things. Inventions are to facilitate people's lives. This is why people dress nowadays, live in houses, use cars and computers, etc. /^t/To sum it up, there is no answer to the question: "Is there still a place for books in the era of video films"? Every person is free to make his own choices and to choose what suits him best. These who prefer to read books can do it freely, and those who think that video films are more enjoyable can watch them. Everybody can answer this question according to his views and he will be right. /^t/As far as the fear of losing books is concerned people should not be afraid of this thread. There are still lots of people in book shops looking at the impressive exhibition and picking up some of them, regardless of their price. Lots of people are deeply convinced that only books can provide them with unforgettable experiences. <0431> At the beginning of this essay I would like to state that life is a relatively mysterious phenomenon. No one is able to predict what a person will have to deal with or face in his or her days of existence. For that reason alone, I do not think it possible for University or any other similar institution to prepare someone for successful functioning in the world. However, I hold a strong opinion that under certain circumstances University may become a useful or at least a helpful factor in someone's preparations for life. Naturally, one cannot really rely on the University knowledge since it is usually purely theoretical, whereas reality is not. On the other hand though, a person can always try to apply this theory to practice and then, presumably after numerous laborious endeavours, it may actually work. In fact, the whole issue is comparable to everything else people encounter in their lives. Most of the time they are impelled to work hard on their own and develop themselves as well as they can in order to be able to make good and purposeful use of the things they are being taught or exposed to in reality. Indeed, it is extremely important not to separate self - development from the one encouraged by and directly connected with University or College. For it is obvious that each and every individual undergoes different changes in character or in the manner in which one perceives life and other individuals. Those alterations take place in the course of time, and the time spent at University is one of the many developmental stages of someone's existence. It is the time of new experiences, new changes and new solutions concerning new as well as old problems. University certainly offers a person an opportunity to go into a specified direction, but it is completely dependent on this person how he or she will actually use it. If people only absorb the University knowledge and do not make any attempts to turn it into a stimulus for independent thinking they are very unlikely to achieve any form of success in life. However, if they try to think for themselves and establish their own methods of using the extensive knowledge they are offered at Universities then the success awaits them. For it is worth stressing that University equips people with a certain amount of information but does not instruct anyone in making profitable use of it. Therefore, it is extremely important for people to look for such instructions within themselves. In order to be prepared for life people have to develop their talents and use their own minds regardless of what their surroundings are. No University can teach them thinking for themselves, but it can and does create a favourable atmosphere for people who are willing to develop this ability by themselves. Moreover, one has to remember that theory is useful only when connected with practice. Therefore, everybody has to seek for practical solutions within themselves and learn from their own or others' experiences to make it profitable. And that is the reason why University cannot really prepare anyone for anything, but allows people to prepare themselves for whatever they wish to be prepared for. It also gives them time to realise that their fruition depends only on them, and the environment that surrounds them may serve as a great help, but will never, on its own, make a success of their lives. For one's success depends completely on oneself. <0432> /^t/Drug education is a very serious problem and it is particularly dangerous for young people. It is a cliche; we all know the pictures of shabby looking youths with a wild look in their eyes. Sometimes we meet them in the streets as they are begging for money. They are still exotic for us; we do not know how to treat them so we try to think about them as little as possible. But what happens if we are faced with the problem, as certain parents were who found out that their eleven-year-old son had been playing truant for three months. The time that he was supposed to have spent at school was spent witf some friends in a sewer. What were they doing there? Sniffing glue. Now it was clear why he was suffering from headaches and nausea. Nobody told this boy that sniffing glue could be dangerous. And it seems that no-one is willing to tell this to the thousands of primary school pupils in Poland. The problem of drug addiction tends to be neglected and ovrelooked until a tragedy happens. /^t/Therefore all people responsible for education should remember the old and wise saying: prevention is better than cure and undertake some action concerning the future. My suggestion is that a whole programme of drug education should be designed and introduced to schools. Children as yong as ten should be told clearly and honestly what drug addiction is all about and what seems to be an innocent and fascinating adventure is in fact a serious danger. The children who are so gullible and unaware of this are the easiest victims for the drug dealers. /^t/The education authorities can no longer pretend that the problem does not exist or it concerns only the children from dysfunctional families or certain social groups. The dealers prefer the children who have money to pay them. It is one of the roles of school (and who knows if not the most important one) to prepare the pupils to the world of grown-ups. That is why the children ought to be informed about such phenomena as drug addiction and advised how to possibly avoid them. /^t/Opponents of this idea would probably claim that schools are not able to provide an appropriate sum of money to employ and pay teachers for this additional lesson, but, on the other hand, headmasters insist on overloading students with unnecessary hours of biology or geography with plenty of useless knowledge. Others would argue that children are not mentally prepered to comprehend the whole phenomenon, its aspects and danger. On that account, boys and girls face the problem and a large number of them, consequently, will not stay away from drugs and teachers pretend that they wish to educate but pupils are immature to talk about magic bullets. When they are adults it is usually too late. /^t/Introducing such a programme is nothing new. A few years ago a similiar programme concerning road traffic was introduced and it proved t o be successful. We all know that The Ministry of Education is very careful with money ( the hours of physical education are to be presently reduced ) but the drug programme needs no additional lessons. Each tutor has one lesson per week to dispose. This lesson is to be devote to the current problems of the pupils. If only one such a lesson per month were devoted to the drug education it would certainly be very beneficial. /^t/The programme of drug education is urgently needed. Obviously, it is one of the improvements Polish educational system desperately needs but it would be a very good start for the new staff at at MEN to grasp the nettle ang prove that the hopes for changes in Polish schools are not groundless. <0433> /^t/Rapid development of technology and science, flourishing of medical discoveries awake the age long human desire of becoming immortal. The fear of death accompanying nearly every man seems to be challenged by the hope growing from cloning and the possibilities it may bring to people. The experiment with the sheep called Dolly which was the first mammal successfully cloned, makes people think about their future in a different way, provoking at the same time a very crucial question to be asked: whether cloning will bring about salvation or destruction, whether it will appear to be a blessing or a curse for the humanity? /^t/The technology for cloning is not perfected yet but as the progress in this field has been made very quickly, in the near future cloning may offer people two significant possibilities: it may mean regenerating broken, missing or damaged cell tissues or even organs or generating a complete new life. /^t/Regenerating cell tissues or organs surely would improve lives of many people suffering from damaged, missing or broken organs - allowing them to conduct a normal life. On the other hand it may mean producing clones only for transplantation, solely for the purpose of harvesting their organs. Nobody has the right to give birth to a man and then kill him, even in order to save life of another one. It also may mean creating monsters without heads - just to avoid calling them human beings - but would they really be an ideal organ source? Who would take responsibility for creating abnormal, overgrown creatures? What could happen if they get out of control? There always would be such a frightening possibility and then the nightmares from such science fiction films as e.g. 'Blood Runners' could become a part of our reality. /^t/Cloning for regenerating cell tissues or organs may also allow manipulating genes to make improvements in oneself - to give us all an opportunity of becoming not only healthy but beautiful and attractive as well which, it must be admitted, is a very seducing idea. Who could imagine the world with all people being equally attractive? What about their uniqueness and exceptional features? /^t/Generating a complete new life by means of cloning could also make possible duplicating people dying of terminal diseases. It would certainly be a great hope for all families coping with the illnesses of their close relatives, especially for powerless parents made to watch their dying children. However, the scientists claim that it would be very probable for clones of deadly ill people to suffer from the same illnesses which threatened and finally killed their 'originals'. It simply could mean sentencing people to get over the same tragedy twice - by offering an illusory hope and then making them suffer even more severely. /^t/Cloning could also help childless couples. It could be a good solution for marriages and especially for single people to take advantage of the newest medical achievement and to 'give birth' to their desirable child - but could cloning for family purpose of adopting be consider as morally right? There are millions of unique children all over the world just waiting for a family. /^t/Cloning could also enable to duplicate once living, exceptional people. Once again we could meet Einstein, Picasso or... Marlin Monroe. It would be possible to bring to life those brilliant minds whose names are known all over the world thanks to their genius works which make people's lives easier, maybe happier and more beautiful. How would they find themselves in our reality? Would they really become the same extraordinary people living in our society, still so different from those in which they were brought up? Would any, even international authorities be able to prevent the technology of cloning from being used to manipulate politics? There always would be a temptation to clone not only 'Einsteins' but also worker drones who would do 'dirty jobs' for us. It could really make the Aldons Huxley's vision of 'Brave New World' to become true. What about clones themselves? How should they be treated - legally - should they have the same rights as human beings? It is quite difficult to imagine a society decorated with special identity cards to differentiate between people and clones. There is one more danger - what would happen if the technology gets in wrong hands - could Hitler be cloned? /^t/It appear to be quite clear that cloning may influence our lives to a large extend. There are certainly some good aspects of it as e.g. regenerating damaged or missing organs but at the same time the price which the human society would have to pay for it seems to be too high. <0434> One of the popular themes in American literature is the dream of success. The idea of American Dream has its roots in the works of Benjamin Franklin (e.g. "Autobiography") and was later popularised by Horatio Alger in many of his books. Other writers followed him but in the 19th century naturalism in American literature began to show negative aspects of this dream. The American Dream is generally the belief that hard work, ambition, and strong will-power lead to richness and prosperity. It also means the American tendency to aspire to enter high society by earning huge amounts of money. Such phenomenon is very often referred to as a "rags to riches" career. However, this belief produced many victims who either failed or did not manage to find happiness this way, to whom this whole idea of American Dream proved to be an illusion. F.S. Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" and "Martin Eden" by Jack London are widely known for dealing with the American Dream with their title heroes as the victims of it. In my opinion, it was not exactly the case. They both had very much in common and what they really dreamed of was not financial or material success - their final goal was in both cases a woman. Jay Gatsby, as a young man, used to go out with a rich girl but he could not marry her being a poor soldier himself. Daisy decided to marry another man who was able to provide her with anything she needed. But her marriage was not happy. In the meantime, Gatsby gained fortune on bootlegging and became a mysterious, wealthy gentleman. Finally he regained Daisy but she turned out to be heartless and egoistic and was the direct cause of his death. A very similar story was that of Martin Eden. As a poor sailor, he fell in love with a girl from a high society. He worked hard and despite many difficulties was eventually recognised as an outstanding writer. All that he had done was the pursuit of love and beauty and if it was not for his girlfriend's needs, he would not have cared for money at all. When Ruth at the end was ready to marry him, for Martin it was too late. Fascinated by the standard of life in the high society, later he only discovered hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness of its members. What seemed to him beautiful, proved to be sour. Unable to love another girl or find pleasure in his work, he committed a suicide. Considering these two stories I try to answer the question if the heroes of the two novels were really the victims of American Dream as it is stated. On the one hand, it might be true, especially in the case of Martin Eden. When he finally reached his ideal position in the society, it only brought him disappointment and lack of understanding with other people. Instead of happiness, Martin experienced the worst thing that could happen to a human - a complete antipathy and ill-disposition towards life. Jay Gatsby also did not match the bourgeoisie Buchanans who were careless and insensitive. He was just a parvenu and lonely till the end when none of his rich acquaintances was willing to come to his funeral. Martin Eden as well as Jay Gatsby wanted to improve their living conditions and become "self-made men" according to the values glorified by the American Dream. Gatsby's self-improvement very much reminded that of B. Franklin described in "Autobiography". Martin Eden's determination and self-confidence also led him to success. On the other hand though, their success and fortune were not exactly what they actually dreamed of; they both needed money to "afford" the women they were truly in love with. Therefore, the fundamental question appears: what is the American Dream? Is it a pursuit of happiness, whatever it means for an individual or a mere pursuit of success such as raising up in the world? Or maybe it is both? Martin Eden and Jay Gatsby were looking for happiness. Money, an open door to the high society and everything we associate with success, especially the material or professional one, was only a means by which they could reach their final goal. It was in the both cases a woman that was to fulfil their dreams. When she proved to be unworthy of such efforts and did not bring the heroes happiness as they expected, they could not enjoy their fortunes either. As far as fulfilling the American Dream - the dream of success - is concerned, the heroes were quite successful, I think. Their ambition and perseverance brought them remarkable fruits. That is why they cannot be called the victims of it unless we consider that the American Dream is the love to a woman who returns the feelings and eventual marriage with her. Gatsby and Eden seem to me to be the victims of the unfortunate or misplaced love rather than the victims of American Dream. <0435> /^t/The subject of my essay is very complex and it is impossible to exhaust the issue. I decided to concentrate on those subcultures with which I had some contact through my friends, articles or in some other way. /^t/Subculture is a very broad term and it can be defined in many ways. Oxford Reference Dictionary defines subculture as a social group or its culture within a larger culture. However, in most cases when we think of subculture we connect it with social pathology, levering standards. Even the etymology of the word 'subculture' tends to comprise something which is lower, worse. Moreover, many events suit this definition of the word subculture. To take it for example aggressive behaviour of skinheads, fights on football stadiums, mutual aggression among different youth groups. We can also come across such terms as alcoholic subcultures, delinquency subcultures, etc. /^t/'Grey zones' of culture to which institutions of current system did not make its way were always populated by outsiders, heretics, etc. Although, it was not always the case that these marginalia were the subject of public debates and an occasion to decide about matters concerning the difference between the social norm and pathology. The history of youth subcultures starts, lets say from the youth gangs in the XIXth century. But, in those times the solution was to put the juvenile criminals behind bars. It was rather a criminal problem than cultural one. Our age brings an essential change. /^t/For the purpose of this essay I will stay with one definition of subculture which defines subculture as a group of people who have the same interests, beliefs or objectives. Subculture gathers individuals who do not feel comfortable in a traditional society. These young people revolt against reality prepared and handed down by their parents. Parents motive appears very often. It is the parent who is blamed for the imperfection of the world. /^t/What is equally important, frequently lack of adaptation is caused by having gone through severe trials during childhood. Therefore, most of the participants in the life of subculture comes from broken, pathological homes, from social marginalia. Still, in recent years, after the change of a political system, we can observe that children from so called 'good homes' play more and more important role in the life of subcultures. The parents are mostly concentrated on making lost of money, they work long hours and as a result they do not have much time to devote to their children. Parents role in bringing the children up is limited to giving the child money together with a 'kind' request of not bothering 'exhausted parents'. For this reason, young people look for acceptation somewhere else. They search for places where they are appreciated for being an individual. At the same time, they are accepted because they are having an access to money. /^t/Besides, money is a very interesting issue. Young people who belong to a given subculture usually do not bother to work. And, at once, a question concerning how do they get money for their pleasures (whatever they are) arises. The first thing which comes to our mind is - stealing. But, as far as I am concerned, this answer is not satisfying. To tell the truth, apart from 'qualified thieves' not many young people ply this trade. Only in thievish subculture stealing is one of the primary means of obtaining finances. In other subcultures this form of getting money is not accepted as a method but in case of particular individuals does not bring any objections. Allowances given by parents, frequently very high, are the main source of cash. Commonly they are given by the parents regardless of their financial situation often because the parents are afraid of their offspring. /^t/Also, apart from lack of understanding and not enough interest on the side of the parents, there are other reasons why young people feel isolated. One of them is vast number of families crammed together in blocks made of concrete, where everyone stays anonymous, nobody talks with each other. Another reason is shortage of clubs, youth centers and limited role of school. Hence, this situation makes it easy to spread different ideas, sometimes even insane ones. /^t/For positive roots of subcultures we need to look in pursuit of socialising individual entered into mysteries of clan. It is obvious that in case of a vast number of people in inhabited place not everybody will know each other. Getting together in quasi subcultures can only help in finding people with the same interests (which does not necessarily mean that they are righteous for the public). Mutual help among participants in a given subculture binds and consolidates. Similarly, other things such as the same ideals, same style, clothes, hairdo or behaviour tie them together. /^t/Therefore, pure definition of subculture as a group of people with the same interests is a positive one. Problem appears at a moment when we start to think about ideals and ways of carrying them out into life. /^t/Racial hatred, nationalism (mistaken here for patriotism) is a domain of skinheads, movement which came from England and developed simultaneously with the punk movement. Both of these movements have the same roots in working-class districts of industrial cities. National moods came some time later and it involved politics. At the beginning, both movements wanted to improve the conditions of living. However, the punk - skinhead movement was divided by politics. /^t/Right wing drew towards these young people which thought that the reason for they poverty is presented in foreigners taking they jobs. Left wing attracted individuals who had anarchical and nihilistic attitude. Punk, whose ideas were founded on anarchy and autodestruction became an opposition to a physically (and, of course, racially) clean skinhead. Hatred, which was characteristic for skinheads, passed away on almost all other subcultures. What is very sad, it dominated pacifist movements, especially those based on hippy movement coming from the United States which came to life as an answer to war in Vietnam and inanimated 'robots' who were interested only in making money - young American businessmen - yuppie. /^t/Sloppy look of hippies as well as fascination by eastern culture and vegetarianism (which was an opposition to western culture consumerism) cased aggression. Moreover, problem of drugs appeared. Drugs, present also in punk movement, however did not (of course in main foundation) lead to autodestruction. Besides, in the later one everything was used, no matter how toxic the substances were. /^t/Nevertheless, there are some subcultures which have totally different views, for example music subcultures such as grunge movement (which is very popular nowadays) or metal movement (less popular). The later one developed a type of music called black metal based on satanistic premises. /^t/As I already indicated, subcultures help young people to find others who will accept them and who will find time to spend with them, listen to them but is it a solution for 'busy' parents who do not have any time for their children? Do children really need to look for acceptation outside their homes? I do not think so. Although, there are some positive subcultures I personally think and the examples I provided clearly show that subcultures do more harm than good to young people. In my opinion, what young people need most of all is love of their families. If they do not get this at home they will not get it anywhere else. Only parents can love and accept their children without expecting anything in return and they should find time for their offspring. Of course we all need friends who have similar interest to ours with whom we can spend some time but subculture should not replace the family. It should be a completion to it and only in the positive light. If we do not change our attitudes I am afraid of our future. It has been noted that we tend to behave like our parents and if they do not show the children how a real home should look like, young people will not be able later on to teach their children. The same or similar mistakes will be repeated forever. So, before we start a family we should think what we want and what is important to us - a great house, super modern car, fashionable clothes, etc. or - a family. We need to make good decisions in our lives because our and ours children future depends on it. Moreover, we must make sure that when making the decisions we will not hurt anyone. <0436> /^t/Once upon a time the fifth largest planet called EARTH existed in the solar system. Divided into continents it was a surface where mankind used to live and prosper. Unfortunately human beings abilities and desires hopelessly destroyed the wilderness and natural environment which led to inevitable end. The main reason was POLLUTION. /^t/Of the many problems, which our world faces today, pollution is one that may truly be called 'manmade'. Although increasing technology may have brought to us many benefits it has been destroying all that makes life worth living. Must we wait for the devastation of our countryside? /^t/Let's take a look at our environment. Cities and enormous factories have replace forests and fields and tall buildings stand where trees once used to grow. A walk through the woods means a wade through the litter of our society. As factories, power station, coal mines, etc. pour smoke into the sky and motor vehicles pump large quantities of carbon dioxide and other waste into the atmosphere, we all are in danger. The clouds of black smog overhang all our great and busy industrial cities. Still a lot of petrol contains lead, which is very poisonous and can cause many damaging diseases. Must we wait until we dare not let our children play outside for fear of an overdose of gaseous pollution? /^t/Pollution of our rivers, streams, lakes, pounds has become our great concern. Water - the symbol of life - is coloured with chemical effluent. Not only street washings but also industrial wastes and other refuse are discharged into the rivers and change them into large and malodorous sewage drains. Such repulsive fluids flow carrying rags, papers, and assorted filth. Fish, which we have no longer the pleasure to see, are the victims of our progress. It is not too difficult to notice that riverbanks are also ugly cluttered with rotting and rusting debris. In a further reinforcement of the heavy irony scientists discovered that the temperature of the earth could rise over the next 50 years. Such situation may cause droughts in some parts of the world and floods in others, as the ice at the North Pole begins to melt and sea levels rise. What is the reason of such situation? Of course, it is obvious - carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere slowly make the earth warmer by trapping the sun's heat. /^t/Realising that everybody has heard about ozone layer (the layer of gas high above the surface of the earth which helps to protect from the sun' ultraviolet radiation) it has been recently discovered that holes in the ozone layer are bigger and bigger. It is suggested that they are caused by substances called 'CFC's, which are used in refrigerators, aerosols, cans and in the manufacture of some plastic products. In the far-reaching consequences, the holes in the ozone layer can cause damage of our skin and even horrible cancer! Must we wait until appearance of dramatic tragedy of families? /^t/Another factor of importance is great interest in packing business. Nowadays a lot of people make enormous money on it because many manufactures think that things that are attractively packaged can sell more quickly. Some products are wrapped not only in paper bags but also in jars, boxes, etc., which are completely useless for consumers. The basic problem is that such packaging is maybe convenient for us but unfortunately nobody cares about unbelievable amount of rubbish caused by packaging. Must we wait until our world will change into a big dustbin? /^t/WAIT! Cannot you hear our earth howling for help and protesting against pollution? We must not be passive if we do not want to lose such treasure of natural environment as fresh air, which smells of pine, clear, and bubbling water and truly green forest forever. Ironically, we are all offenders and we should do everything to improve the condition of our earth. Otherwise, using our own poison, we will annihilate ourselves and all that live in the world. <0437> /^t/Immigrants. People coming as settlers into another country. Neither tourists nor visitors. They escape from poverty and very often from political persecution. They look for better jobs, wages, for better lives. Nobody wants them. Hardly anybody tolerates them. The people look different, speak differently and behave in a different way. On the most part, they refuse to accept the culture of the country they came into. It happens quite often that the overwhelming majority of immigrants stay in the particular country illegally. The influx of the illegal immigrants constitutes a serious problem to many countries, the solution of which demands sometimes very "cruel" means. /^t/People immigrating to Poland usually come from Yugoslavia or Romania. In their native countries they suffer from cold and hunger. In Poland, they can at least get some sleep in the waiting room at some railway station or beg for food or for some money to get it. Poles hate the Yugoslavian or Romanian children pulling their sleeves, clinging to their legs and murmuring something which sounds like: "Give me!". Poles do not like the feeling, making their hearts bleed at the sight of a hardly dressed woman, sitting on the ground on a frosty day, with a baby in her arms and another one sitting next to her. Nevertheless, seeing the problem of immigrants from this point one can feel pity for these people and state that he or she does not really mind their staying here. Observing the misery of the Romanians or the Yugoslavians, being aware of the fact that the fate of the people in their native countries is even worse, you have no reason to wish the immigrants came back to Romania or Yugoslavia whatever they do to get money. On the other hand, the people's importunity, loud behaviour, tricks they use to draw out some money, thefts, brawls and horrid smell coming from them on busses and trains - all this makes Poles dream of getting rid of them. All this does not suit Polish culture since Poles, nothing strange in that, would like to live in a clean and peaceful country. /^t/In the United States the "problem" of illegal immigrants, on the most part Hispanics and Mexicans, is even more complicated. The American citizens are made nervous by the fact that the illegal immigrants do not pay taxes and still, if they need, they get medical treatment and their children get education. In some states, there are referenda organized, decreeing that all the people coming to the USA illegaly should be denied welfare and medical care, except in emergencies, and that their children should be removed from schools. From the point of view of economics and "justice", as ordinary people understand the meaning of the term, it seems to be right. On the other hand, if the immigrants' children do not go to school they are going to live on the streets, join gangs or sell drugs and add to the already existing problems. How can anybody refuse to send them to school which is usually their only hope. The hope for education means hope for a better job and better life. As for medical treatment. There are many illnesses which, when treated from the beginning, it is possible to heal; otherwise the person ill can die (as in the case of leukemia). Knowing this, how can anybody deny medical care and sentence to death somebody for whom it is possible to be perfectly healthy. Considering the above arguments, however, one obstinate thought keeps coming back. The maintenance of schools and hospitals costs. Somebody has to pay for this and nobody is likely to pay instead of somebody else. In this light, again, the way in which these American citizens act seems to be justified. /^t/The "illegals" in the USA do not pay taxes because doing odd jobs, the only ones they can do, they get the lowest wages which are sufficient only to pay for the rent and little food. Somebody uses them. Somebody saves employing them. It is unfair. However, if it was not for the employers of the illegal imigrants, the latter would not have even this little money to afford the minimum. /^t/The regulations concerning the people coming illegally to America state that anyone who comes from another country, does not owe a green card and works is to be sent back home immediately. The point of view of the government can be understood. It is phisically impossible to receive anybody who wants to live in the USA since there are so many of those who do. However, from the point of view of the immigrants, they are much better here where they stay even if denied essential rights. Even if restricted by the fact of their being the "illegals" they feel free. They do not suffer from political persecution. They are not forced to believe what they do not want to believe in. They feel happy even if they change the nightmare of being persecuted for the nightmare of being handed over. /^t/In conclusion - the author of the text does realize that not every aspect of the problem has been sufficiently developed here, however this is beyond the scope of this paper. The problem of the illegal immigrants is much more complicated. Every human being is an immigrant to some extent since everyone dreams of a better and easier life. Everyone dreams of freedom. People should be able to understand immigrants then. However, this is not so. Why? Attitudes will always differ depending on whether one feels more like a human being or a citizen. <0438> Along with the political changes, a new social class of well off people is emerging in Poland. Following the western pattern, they like to call themselves a middle class. However, in Poland there are hardly any standards by which anybody can be rated among the middle class, because the process of its formulation is still in progress. In the western cultures such indicators are, apart from money, education, taste and manners. In our country, however, people who aspire to the middle class are often perceived as snobs and nouveau riche. The question arises, whether such an opinion is justified or is that simply a vengeance of those who have their good manners but no money? In order to answer such a question I would like to take a closer look at their origin, appearance, environment and lifestyle. The first signs of the marked shifts in the mentality and culture of Poles appeared in the 80's, when Poland actually started to get out of so called "socialist period". At that time many people started their small businesses at the market place, which were later developed into warehouses and finally, thanks to the ambition of their owners, became highly profitable chains of stores. To achieve such a success the traders did not need to be well educated, but extremely hard working and a bit lucky. They have always been relatively well off, although they still cannot be compared with their western counterparts as far as the contents of their bank accounts are concerned. However, the Polish "middle class" people seem to have a common passion in showing off their money in a way which is disgusting to others. The main problem here, in my opinion, lies in the fact that they try to distance themselves from they origin or anything which is valuable in the Polish tradition. Although our businessmen no longer wear their pairs of white socks or their jackets with the turned down cuffs - subjects of many jokes, there is still something in their appearance which arouses scornful feelings towards them. Many of the people with high aspirations have simply no idea what is suitable for a particular occasion and their choices are often motivated by the price of their garments. The more expensive the better. Everything they wear seems to emphasise the fact that they can afford the most luxurious clothes and jewellery. Unfortunately, their appearance can hardly be regarded elegant and tasteful. The same can be actually said about their environments. Every "middle class" businessman has the ambition of possessing a luxurious car like Mercedes or BMW. As far as I know, the latest hits in Poland are the very expensive off-roads like Jeep or Nissan. The decisive role in the choice of a car plays no so much actual need or preference but the pressure of the group they want to be members of. A good example of our "middle class" taste is the new housing estate that is just being built near Warsaw. The prevailing style of the houses, or shall I say castles, designed for the well off people is eclecticism of everything they have ever seen. In majority they seem to be inspired by the patterns all existent in the soap operas screened on TV. An inseparable attribute of every respectable businessman is a cellular phone. The hidden meaning of such a phone is: "Look, millions of dollars depend on my single word. They wouldn't manage without me even for a minute". That's why these people do not bother to turn off their phones during the theatre performances or concerts. Finally, I would like to mention the way in which the "middle class" people spend their free time. Unlike in the western countries the healthy lifestyle has not yet become popular. The Polish businessmen are usually too busy to attend the leisure centres and even when they take their rare holidays they prefer to spend them in luxurious hotels, obligatorily on Bahamas, Seychelles or Balearic Islands. What's more important, the Polish "middle class" businessmen do not follow the western examples as far as charity or investments in culture and art are concerned. Rarely do they possess big libraries or collections of art and their contribution into charity and cultural events is insufficient. To sum up, the people aspiring to the middle class in Poland have not yet grown into fulfilling the role of the leading social class. They do not equal their western counterparts in many aspects, since they relish their money too much and lack the proper upbringing, education and manners. Therefore, so far they cannot provide any standards by which the Polish society could be judged. However, this situation is likely to improve with a new generation of businessmen, since their parents luckily secured the best education in the country and abroad for their children. I hope, that this new generation, rich in knowledge and used to being well off, will assume the same role as the western middle class plays in the economy and culture of their countries. <0439> /^t/The policy which consists in violence and dictatorship is traditionally recognised as unethical and evil, and its creators as wrongdoers or, simply, madmen. So they call Hitler and Stalin, and likewise one may label Mr Kurtz from The Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. According to others however, such people are geniuses, as Kurtz was regarded to be by Marlow; nevertheless, their barbarian, inhuman deeds prove, unquestionably, that the wit they had to elaborate their position, is diabolic one. There is no doubt that at the background of most Kurtz's actions lay his lust for power and from this aspect I will try to discuss in this paper, which designation: a genius or a madman, is more appropriate for this character. /^t/First, however one should consider the very term "insanity". According to various dictionary definitions, "to be insane" means, either, to be unable to control your behaviour, or to be unaware of one's actions; which suggests a mental illness. There is, though, another interpretation of the state. An insane person is someone who behaves irreasonably or foolishly; this suggests relativity in perception of such actions: it is the matter of a subjective opinion what is reasonable and what is silly. /^t/Let us start the argument at the level of motivation. One of the questions, one has to ask considering the need for domination among people, is the following: what do you need it for? Is it for prestige, self-esteem or, putting it in a different light, for wealth? The latter reason seems to be quite obvious, one may try to justify a person connecting the power with making money. Yet, the other two reasons pose a problem with understanding the motivation. It is even worse, when we come across a situation in which a man has no true grounds to desire any authority. Kurtz, apparently, aspired to an economical success, what is more, achieved it. In reality he lived in, such a kind of behaviour was perfectly correct. The ideology of colonial expansion demanded decisiveness, severity towards the ruled and making profit, sometimes at all costs. /^t/However, Kurtz was not a colonialist in at least two ways. First of all, his attitude was not related to the colonial ideology at the level of inspiration. The strong belief in the superiority of the white must have been supported in his mind by equally powerful, internal lust for hegemony. Otherwise, the sick ideas exercised by Kurtz would have been most common till the present day; after all, colonialism was not the ideology of a marginal minority. Looking at the example of Kurtz, one may talk about the "power for power's sake" which is, in the general sense, very close to insanity. /^t/Secondly, Kurtz managed to build a colony which was independent of the home-government. He did not send any goods to the mother country; the collected ivory did not follow any trade procedures so, in fact, it did not have any commercial value, except the symbolic one in Kurtz's estimation. Still, the fact itself, the creation of a state which was completely independent both of the local law and the jurisdiction of the British empire can be regarded as having a spark of genius. /^t/The next point in the discussion will be the influence of the environment on the character, or more specifically, the problem of his being out of the reach of civilisation. Kurtz, isolated in the African jungle, confirmed of his supremacy, begins to "play God" and arranges his own world. Here, it is not the lust, but the power itself, that makes the man insane. He is aware of his intellectual strength which is effective enough to make the people subservient, he also realises that he does not undergo any punishment. Kurtz is mighty but, at the same time, lonely; the heart of darkness, he had created, turns into the heart of madness in his mind, as being in the very centre, one cannot see what is outside. It would be inappropriate to say that where civilisation ends, barbarity begins; still, it can be a root of evil and may lead to serious psychological disturbances. On the other hand, we cannot assume that Kurtz was mentally ill, he simply wanted to create his own new world, the methods used to do it is a separate question. /^t/The character from The Heart of Darkness had himself chosen to leave the civilised world; the way of life he decided to go fulfilled some unexplained desires and expectations of his. Moreover, being a perfect stranger in a completely unknown land, owing to his own qualities and talents he built his position as a leader and maintained it. One may argue that it was not the first case when a stranger became a king and that it could not take much to impress the primitive people of Kongo, but thinking of the adjustments Kurtz had to make and his seclusion, the outcome is not the effort of an average man. He was able to control a large territory and an unbridled group of the local people, his "achievements" made an impression on a man like Marlow whose profession was similar and who could, at least partly, understand the man's endeavours. Nevertheless, Marlow changed his opinion about Kurtz when he finally discovered what the man had been doing. The mysterious tales about an unconstrained state in the middle of a jungle made the sailor admire the dictator, but a closer look at it transformed the esteem into disappointment. In this way, a genius became a maniac. /^t/Lust for power, its roots, consequences and different aspects have always been a fine topic for writers throughout the centuries. Very rarely, however, it has been presented as a virtue or, at least, as an equivocal notion. More frequently, the desire to exercise some kind of power is pictured as an evil activity. So does Joseph Conrad in The Heart of Darkness, the depravity presented here is regarded as the ultimate one. It is unthinkable, and if the "darkness" is to stand for all evil of the world, the "heart" of it, is probably Kurtz's colony. There is not much worse left to be done by man; at least, according to Conrad and his time. The responsible is man and his lust for power which brings him to insanity. /^t/The reason of mentioning evil in the discussion of the genius and the insanity of human behaviour is to show that the link between the power of intellect and madness can be the wickedness which frequently accompanies the omnipotence. Nevertheless, only an extreme form of corruption is capable of changing people's minds so eminently. This seems to be the case of Kurtz. Although intelligent, successful and talented, by the misinterpretation of his duties and the abuse of the power he had achieved, he became an evil, immoral and consequently, a mad man. Therefore, it certainly would be a mistake to regard him as a genius. <0440> Towards the end of the second millennium people try to make an account of the achievements of the mankind. And one may really amaze at the level of development man succeeded to achieve. If we think of the way people used to live only a few centuries ago, it is hard to believe that such an advanced level of progress was accomplished by people themselves. It is even more astounding when one considers the fact that the prevailing number of the changes took place within less than a century. On one hand we may be proud of these achievements and cherish the technical thought. Scientists remain engrossed with researches into further development, working in the name of technical race. The new developments are employed into everyday life to make it better and easier. But on the other hand such route of action causes the waves of outcry among those who are more aware of the consequences and notice the danger that the progress brings in. The course of action that man continues to follow is nothing but further venture into self-destruction. Technical progress greatly contributed to the standard of our life, we travel by air at the speed of sound, explore the universe and the fruits of the modern technology are used in all fields of our life. But under the glitter and glamour of growing progress, destruction of the values and of the natural world is hidden. People created a new reality, a new world but at a high price. This new world, with all its inventions and conveniences is artificial, unnatural and has the great power of corrupting human minds. We became the slaves of the newly created technology. Life without a car, a telephone or a tv is impossible to imagine. Let alone a computer which importance cannot be denied. But progress does not only mean new technologies or highly sophisticated machineries. These are new attitudes, new way of living and new landscape. The natural environment, forests and meadows gave way to urban and industrial architecture. The new pattern of living demands new rules which are of no benefit to people. The square boxes were built for us to live in and we spend most of our lives within the confines of the four walls. And although thousands of people are living in towns, they are more isolated from one another than they ever used to be. The worst of all is that the nature which once was man's natural habitation was moved to the background, and the new reality degraded man to a status of automaton. Those who approve of the progress argue that thanks to the new achievements people were given a great chance of exploring the unknown, broadening the knowledge of the surrounding world and being the witness to the most spectacular inventions of mankind. And here arises the question: How much is there still to be discovered? How far can we get? It seems that the Earth has still a lot to reveal and that the potentials hidden in man's mind are great. But are we ready to make a good use of it? <0441> /^t/Aims in life are different: for some people the most essential thing is a happy family with at least two children; for some, it is a political or business career. There are also others who are solely interested in material things: having a luxurious house in the most expensive area and several cars in the garage. This division may be seen as a generalization; however, such groups of people do exist. Another group which can be mentioned here comprises people who may belong to one of the above groups, but in whose life art plays an important part. Apart from only looking at and discussing art, they create it. Among artists, poets are distinguished as those whose material is language. /^t/Some people would argue that because poets play with language, and use words in a new, different way, sometimes even stretching limits of language to its extremes, their work is not comprehensible. Poetry, for those people, is not as simple as prose: by simplicity they mean clearer structure which is also for them more traditional and natural. Moreover, many people are still not attracted to poetry because they have a specific image of a poet: that of the times of the end of the last century. Therefore, a person who writes poetry is, for them, someone not belonging to a group of ordinary citizens. It is not because these citizens are not willing to accept them to their group, but because poets themselves prefer to be outside. They live in another world, and claim that their work cannot be understood by everybody. Thus, because of their conviction that poets only write for themselves and for a small group of the elect, and that there is no point in trying to read poetry, people who are not poets do not try to understand it. /^t/Moreover, for some people poetry may be only associated with school. At one time in their life they were forced to read poems and interpret them, and they may have not liked it, so after finishing school they are happy to leave it behind them. In their memories poems are seen as something usually difficult and hard to understand. They prefer to leave poetry aside, and thus, according to them, poets are not needed. There has been published enough books on poetry so far, so why waste more time, paper and money to publish more if they are not going to read these books. /^t/Another argument presented is that poets are usually idle people, who do not work hard. They have not proper jobs, because they claim that it disturbs them in their writing. However, if they started working hard, like all the other people do, they would be much more useful to their country. /^t/However, the above arguments form only one part of the discussion on the poets' role. There are many supporters of poets and poetry, who are strongly against the statement that poets are waste of time, public money or paper. Such people claim that without poetry life would be more difficult to understand and cope with. They argue that poets try to explain the surrounding world, its mechanisms and rules, and they turn readers' attention to some problems which normally are not even noticed, because they are too small and minute, or possibly too ordinary to draw attention to themselves. Such poems may make people aware of other people's lives and everyday struggles, of sad as well as happy moments of each following day. /^t/Apart from this, poetry expresses the author's emotions, and, at the same time, provides words for other people to express their own feelings. Through its beauty and presented images, poetry enables readers to experience unforgetable moments, and it also lets free such emotions as love and pleasure, as well as hate or fear, and many others. Readers' own feelings and his or her perception of them is enriched with what he or she reads. Poetry enlivens people's imagination: helps to reach its higher levels. Besides, poetry gives a chance to forget about problems and all this mundane life, and to find another world where material things are not significant, and problems connected with them are just left aside so as not to disturb. /^t/Furthermore, poetry is diverse: there are many kinds of it. Poets are different ( their attitude towards life and their work ). They also differ from poets who lived a few decades or centuries ago; thus, their writing is also different. It is shaped by present times, by events which occur every day in various parts of the world, and by people who live here and now. Therefore, what poets write is closely connected with the world, and so also with readers and their lives. The image of a romantic poet, living somewhere above the crowd, may be still present in people's minds; however, modern poets live just like everybody else, and they are only ordinary people. They have jobs and their own families, and they write about it. In addition, poems, just like their authors, differ: there are various kinds of poems, written on different topics and to different audiences so that everybody might find what he or she likes and understands best. /^t/Poets are not waste of time, public money or paper, because their work is essential in people's spiritual development. It rescues people from ignorance and complete turn to world governed solely by money and material wealth, where feelings are rejected as not making profits. Poetry helps to sustain humane side in people, and makes it develop. Furthermore, poetry is not as terrifying ( not comprehensible, and therefore scaring and avoided ) as some might think. It is written by people and for people. <0442> The power that TV has over the life of the modern man is enormous and its presence is ubiquitous in the modern times. As in case of every part of reality exercising some sort of power over the individual, the role TV plays in our lives can be described in positive as well as in negative terms and the final verdict cannot be reached without some sort of doubt. /^t/The main point in favour of TV is news and information it brings. Viewers are kept up-to-date twenty four hours a day. Millions of important pieces of information are presented, covering everything from politics and economics to music and entertainment. Reports from places all over the world are available to people who may never have left their home towns. TV viewers can watch political or geographical programmes and via TV be without even leaving their cozy rooms in places they would never visit otherwise. /^t/And what is most important about this type of TV programmes is their educational value. Dry facts from schoolbooks are properly exemplified and by visual presentation they can activate other perceptual areas of the brain. And as fewer and fewer students bother to read books from their compulsory reading lists they can get acquainted with the masterpieces of their literary canons by watching adaptations of novels and plays on TV. Apart from strictly scientific knowledge that especially public television promulgates TV can also teach how to live and what to do promoting role models and giving some sort of ethical instruction. Family, school and the church seem to be no longer in authority over the young. Since the power of these social institutions to instill morality during educational processes is questioned more and more strongly, TV becomes naturally a force powerful enough to give moral instruction and educate subtly by posing appropriate role models and setting good examples. But as we know from experience it is all too good to be true. The main accusation directed against television is precisely violence and brutality it shows. People taking sides in the debate bandy statistics about how many murders, rapes and other violent crimes are shown on television every hour. Psychologists and sociologists link violence on TV screens with the crime increasing in the real world. Whatever the correlation between the two, it does not seem proper to bring children up on images of crime and violence as the governing principles of our world. /^t/The appalling images of violence TV broadcasts are only part of the issue. The role models television creates, apparently innocent and inspiring, are also problematical. They all are meticulously moulded according to the ideology of all-present mass culture and consumerism. Advocating extravagant consumption and easy existence mass culture promoted on TV pervades every aspect of the contemporary life posing new moral standards. At the same time tradition and firm moral standards become relegated to the margins as it is simply difficult to live by them. Traditional family ties are loosened and it is television that stands in for career-oriented parents who are permanently absent in the lives of their children. /^t/Although I have touched upon only some of the aspects of the influence television wields in the modern times they show conclusively that it is extremely difficult to judge it and reach the right verdict. Television brings news, education, information and entertainment and its positive role on this matter is unquestionable. But the role models it creates, consumerism it promotes and violence it shows are not acceptable by the society and cause a lot of protest. <0443> Recently, during our conversation classes the men asked us what we thought of women participating in sports and in particular - weight lifting. The debate revealed that the male part of our group strongly disapproved of that as (not feminine(. Their main argument was that those sportswomen simply don't look like women at all. When we replied that they shouldn't expect them to look like models, we heard that models don't look like women either! Unfortunately, the discussion wasn't planned to deal with femininity and it didn't develop into that direction. Nevertheless, it became an impulse for me. I asked myself many questions, to which I cannot claim that I found answers, but which at least specified my understanding of (femininity(. Coming back to the discussion I have just mentioned I must admit that I was astonished at hearing that models don't look like women. If those beautiful, slim, and sexy girls aren't considered to be feminine enough, then who is? It seems to me that the only answer to this question is that the ideal of woman's looks is a matter of personal liking. Everybody ( or rather: every men ) has his own sense of beauty which shapes his taste. However, according to the famous proverb: personal preferences should never be discussed. Let me then leave that aspect of my argument and proceed to the next one. In my quest for an answer I asked my boyfriend what he associated womanhood with. He enumerated natural warmth, vulnerability maternity and changeable temper. But does a woman have to meet all of these (criteria( to be a (true( female? In my opinion something like natural warmth doesn't necessarily need to be regarded as feminine only. There are plenty of loving and caring men, although they often try very hard to hide these features of their characters, considering them not masculine ( but it's a differnt topic ). I would never attach such inner qualities as warmth, romanticism or tenderness to one sex only. I do admit though, that because of women's opennes they are more easily displayed by them than by men. As far as vulnerability is concerned I think that there are two sides to it. On the one hand there is the emotional susceptibility together with sensitivity which are the reasons for woman's being guided by her heart, rather than her mind. On the other women stopped to be so defenceless and learned how to fight for their rights. They had to accept and use male methods of, not always fair, but omnipresent competition while paving the way for female succes! Haven't they lost anything on their way, though? I think that some of them have. I realize that what I mean may not apply to the majority of women, but in my opinion they lost their right to maternity. What I understand by it, is that to fully realize ourselves as women, many of us need to experience being a mother, as well as a thriving professionalist. However, not many succeed at combining education and making a career with family life and maternity. I could name some of the reasons for that but I would like to concentrate on something else: does not having a baby deny being a WOMAN? From my point of view it doesn't. The choice between maternity and childlessness should always be a personal issue. Still, women's right to have a baby should be protected by some social laws, which would enable them to fulfil both their parental and professional duties. The final feature mentioned above was changeable temper. At that moment I can think of at least three sayings which would confirm that women are capricious, and that they often don't know what they want. What strikes me about them, however, is that two of them refer to feminine changeability while a woman is pregnant. In that case the only ones to be blamed for that are hormones! Since that, the only thing to do for a man, is to accept that contemporary unstableness, hoping that things will get better soon! Seriously, though, I don't think that I am able to provide an explicit definition of femininity. It meant something different for the ancients, romantics, it means something different now from what it may signify in the future. The most important aspect of today's sense of femininity seems to be that we don't appreciate looks most. In the age of equal rights, similar male and female fashion styles, in the age of unisex ( CK One (, we still seem to be faithful to the spiritual, emotional qualities which are symbolized by womanhood. I hope this attitude will exist forever! <0444> /^t/For many years, single-sex schools have been extremely popular almost all over the world, excluding the post-communist countries. In the United Kingdom there are many top public schools which are considered to be very elite. The word "public" means exactly the opposite of what it says, because most children cannot go to this type of school. The fees for those schools are so high that only very few people can afford to send their children there. Although private education of this kind exists on the large scale now, a struggle for coeducational schools has been taken up. /^t/There are advantages and disadvantages of going to single-sex schools. Some people consider them to be very good because they can provide students with better education. They require hard work from their pupils so that they have more chances to pass their future university exams. People approve of such schools because there is no rivarly between pupils of one sex as between students of coeducational schools. Single-sex schools focus students' attention mainly on studying and there is little space for entertainment there. In this way pupils are forced to spend much time on learning, they are being continually controlled and supervised. Many parents would send their children to such a school because it would give them chances for future career. Moreover another advantage of single-sex school is that it is a boarding school. That means students live in hostels far from their homes. Thanks to this, they become more responsible, they experience freedom of living far from their parents but they must also face many problems and difficulties and try to cope with them which prepares them for future life. /^t/Despite of its advantages, single-sex schools are being strongly criticized. Many people disapprove of them claiming that private education is unfair. The schools are said to have bad influence on the psychological development of pupils. Students who happened to attend to such a school admit that the atmosphere there is terrible: there's no room for playing pranks on teachers, leave alone any scandalous goings-on and truancy. Instead of this one can find boredom, excessive ambition and gossip. Everybody learns madly in order to show that one is better than the others. Students do everything to be different from the rest but in reality they take on all the features and habits of the class. There is also another disadvantage of single-sex schools or class. I mean, the inability of its students to get along well with the persons of the opposite sex. A girl who has graduated from such a school can hardly make friends with the people of opposite sex, she cannot get on with them or even she does not know how to behave in their presence. There are opinions among people that students who go to public schools are snobs and that they think they are better than anyone else. They are also said they have no idea how anyone lives in the real world, they are arrogant with no brains or talent. /^t/Having described all the advantages and disadvantages of single-sex schools I think that coeducational schools are better for students than the others. It is not difficult for me to enumerate drawbacks of single-sex schools as while learning at primary and high schools for so many years I had a chance to be both in a single-sex class and a coeducational ones. I know much from my own experience about all the problems which appear after learning at a single-sex class. Fortunately I managed to solve them and it was a coeducational class which helped me to do it. <0445> /^t/'The hours that make us happy make us wise' (John Masefield). I think that using language games provides adolescent learners with opportunities to be happy in the process of teaching/ learning English. /^t/Games are a valuable teaching technique because primarily they are motivating and challenging. They help to evoke students' needs so they do not feel they have to do something but they feel they want to do it. One reason for this is that a game is not a stereotyped task. In Polish situation, they motivate students to use the target language where actual contact with native speakers is rare. Games are based on success and nothing is more stimulating than that. Thus, the students want to do their task as well as possible when they notice their self-image improves, which is of vital importance for adolescent learners. The positive attitude towards games, then, can be identified by students with the English course and language themselves. Furthermore, games motivate by the fact that they engage students' creativeness and the need to express ideas. Through games, the teacher motivates the class to employ its energies because they introduce variety. The essential ingredient of a game is challenge which is indispensable because learning a language requires a great deal of effort. Games help students make and sustain the effort of learning. They ensure maximum student's participation from both slow and fast learners. The challenge of the unpredictable can make language lessons far more exciting and help the students to be better prepared for coping with communication in the real world. /^t/Games can be used at any stage of the learning process from controlled repetition through guided practice to free expression. Moreover, they provide language practice in all the four skills: speaking, writing, listening and reading comprehension plus are a perfect activity for their integration. And it is especially at the secondary school level that emphasis is put on skills integration. Games serve both linguistic and communicative aspects of language with a real-life context. Thus, they create situations in which communication is essential while simultaneously, they focus students' attention on specific structures, grammatical patterns, and vocabulary items. /^t/Games would not be such valuable activities without the atmosphere they evoke. 'Winning' at a game gives enjoyment, self-confidence, and a feeling of achievement. Accordingly, the relaxed and safe atmosphere enables the teacher to get to know each other better which helps the teacher in his/her work. /^t/Games can be adjusted to suit the individual ages and language levels of the students because what is perhaps not always realised is that adolescents enjoy games as much as children. /^t/However, while putting games into practice the most noticeable problem is undesirable behaviour. Excited students may start to be noisy. In that case, the teacher should intervene categorically and even stop the game. However, the desired behaviour can be included as a rule of the game, and thus, breaking the rules results for example in subtracting points. /^t/It also happens that a conflict among competing groups arises. The task for the teacher is to find out the cause. The most frequent one is breaking of the rules or the game is played for the first time and not everybody has understood the rules. To avoid this a given game can be 'rehearsed' before the actual performance. However, the situation may show the students how to lose and that in the real life you not always win. The teacher can draw students' attention to positive social behaviour. /^t/If the game is repeated too often the learners can simply be bored with it. A teacher should be aware of the fact that the same objective can be obtained with the help of other games. /^t/Rarely, it also may happen that the whole group of adolescent learners is not interested in 'playing games'. In this situation the teacher can replace the word 'game' with an 'activity' or 'experiment'. If, on the other hand, the group were not interested in participation, the solution would be to stop using this kind of technique. /^t/I think games help teachers in achieving the aim of students' correctness and communicative effectiveness. If the teacher wants to make the teaching efficient, interesting, and fun then employing games is recommended. Thus, they should be regarded as an integral part of the syllabus. I do not mean that games are irreplaceable. They are demanding and require the teacher's commitment. They should not be applied at all costs, especially as far as adolescent learners are concerned. <0446> It goes without saying that colour is something we should be grateful for. We were given a very rich range of colours which undoubtedly contributes to our ability to perceive and understand the world better. Is our life not more beautiful and less boring thanks to colours? It certainly is. Beyond a shadow of doubt, the influence of colours on our lives is meaningful, being either positive or negative. However, it is definitely the bright colours which cause the outburst of favourable feelings in people. The reason of this phenomenon lies probably in symbolism and associations that people attach to colours. For example, white... This is the least 'complex' colour. Through its simplicity and pureness, it gives people a sense of confidence and security. It brings to their minds such positive ideas as innocence, glory as well as the 'honourable' and constructive activities like the first communion or a wedding. Therefore, most people are in high spirits while being in a whitely coloured room, for instance. Similarly, the blue colour influences people in a positive way. Not only does it make them happy but also relaxed and even refreshed. It is all due to the fact that people associate blue with eternity, immortality, hope, peace, and even with a good weather, which surely adds to the atmosphere of happiness. Another colour which most people consider an antidote to evil, stress, weariness, and fatigue is green. They feel happy surrounded by the greenness for it symbolises nature and people themselves are a part of it. What is more, green is believed to posses a heeling power; it often brings relief to one's tired eyes. Besides, green means for many freshness, calmness, and hope. Indubitably, it is the bright colours, which have the special qualities of bettering people's moods. However, it must be pointed that there are few who do prefer and feel better surrounded by the dark colours. Admittedly, there exists a handful of people whose prosperity and happiness is measured by the degree of darkness surrounding them. In other words, there are individuals who can thrive only at dusk and feel excellent at night. Thus, dark and gloomy colours do not evoke in them such depressing emotions as sadness, loneliness or even death but, on the contrary, generate their creativity and cause general satisfaction. It seems to me that such people constitute an interesting group called 'night-life animals', who either want to escape from the anxieties of life or simply have fun. People who chose to live in gloomily coloured surroundings because their 'religion' imposes it upon them make a different case. Satanism, for example, entails, in a much simplified sense, worshipping Satan, which in a way brings people to venerate the black colour as it symbolises the satanic forces. Although one could argue that it is red, not black that has become to mean the 'demonic colour', people who accept living in blackness, wearing it, demonstrating it, etc. seem to be happy and fulfilled (no matter how long it is going to last). /^t/This way or otherwise, colour is a great gift; whether bright or dark, it does not matter. Nevertheless, I am tempted to venture a statement that people who feel happier in darkly coloured surroundings constitute a minority. <0447> /^t/The life of human beings seems quite promising from the health point of view. A great number of illnesses, mortal in the past, can nowadays be cured and the length of life has increased enormously. But although the possibility of living a longer life is much greater than ever before, the slaughter of men, women, children and animals (which are not even mentioned in statistics) can be witnessed on the roads every day. As thousands of people and animals are killed or horribly wounded day after day, people have to reflect on the reasons of such a situation. /^t/Although the reasons are various, drivers, as the main users of the roads, are the most significant cause of this senseless waste of life. They often tend to behave as if "the kingdom of roads and motorways" belonged to them and their cars only. That is why somebody should finally ask if they are properly and long enough trained to become good or at least average drivers and thus if the requirements for the driving license are adequate. /^t/Naturally, in Poland people who want to get a driving license have to attend the theoretical and practical classes run by well trained instructors. During the theoretical courses they are taught the rules of the road and traffic-signals whereas during the practical ones they learn how to drive. The driving tests are standarised which means that students take exams on the same level of difficulty all over Poland. Many of them have to take both theoretical and practical exams for a few times which may suggest that either these tests are difficult or drivers do not get enough practice. /^t/On the other hand, more and more car accidents are recorded which shows that all these requirements are simply not adequate. The situation can be changed by longer and more careful training. Now after having completed several hours of theoretical classes, candidates are forced to take the wheel and drive. Instead of this, they should be given an opportunity to practice driving using a simulator. It could safely teach them how to react in many extremal situations which may happen on the road. Equally, twenty hours of driving with an instructor are not enough to become a good driver and get used to driving. /^t/Another hazard is an examination itself. In Poland students are given several tests to learn during their classes. Then, when they enter for the examination, they are given one of the tests they have already learnt by heart. It can be very dangerous because the only rules of the road and traffic-signals they know are those included in these tests. The one way is to make them learn all the theory and only then check how well they managed to acquire it. /^t/As far as age is concerned there is some nonsense in Polish law. When you are seventeen you can get your driving licence whereas to go to the disco you have to be eighteen. Is it not irrational? Only person who is old enough to be responsible for other people's life can be given a chance to get a driving licence. Definitely, teenagers are not such people. That is why the age at which you are allowed to drive any vehicle should be raised to at least 21. /^t/All these steps may sound inordinately harsh and be very expensive to enforce but nothing can be considered too severe if even one life can be saved. After all, drivers can also become victims of the car accidents so they themselves should want to change the present situation. <0448> For years the question - which place is better to live in: a city or the country has been causing considerable controversy, with opinion strongly divided. Each party puts forward its own arguments and, no doubt, there is much to be said on both sides. /^t/"Only a madam choose to live in a large modern city" - say those who advocate living in the country. /^t/"Modern man is too sophisticated for simple country pleasures and it is quite enough to visit countryside at week-ends" - claim those in favour of living in the city. /^t/Small towns seem to be the best places to live in. They are neither spoiled by atmosphere of large cities nor affected by boredom of the country. Yes, small towns are the most preferable places to live in. /^t/The advantages of living in a small town are, no doubt, greater than disadvantages. /^t/First of all, you are not an anoymous and lonely person confined within the four walls of ten (or more) story block. People generally know one another in small towns. They are friendly and helpfull and in emergency you can count on your neighbours' help. What is more, living in a small town gives you a sense of adherance to community. You are never stranger in your own town, on the contrary, you are inseparable part of it. /^t/Living in a little town is healthier. The air is cleaner. It is not so noisy. There are no parking problems. All the factors are extremely important in our times. We live in the epoch of constant pressure, noise and terribly polluted environment. Fumes emitted into the atmosphere pollute the air so heavily that many city-dwellers suffer from serious medical disorders. The noise in huge cities never stops there are numerous car accidents almost every day. /^t/Scientists have proved that city-dwellers die much younger than the inhabitants of small towns or the country. John Harris, a well-known scientist at Barkley University claims that "huge cities are killers for mankind", and a man who has decided to live in a big city for all his life must be aware of the fact that he or she has hardly any chance of living to be seventy. /^t/Small towns are much peaceful and safer place to live in. The crime rate is much lower here. Large cities breed crime and violence and are full of places you would be afraid to visit at night. Houses are burgled with alarming frequency. The number of crimes commited in cities is eight times greater than in small towns or in the country. The social anonymity seems to be conductive to it. /^t/Living in little towns has certainly more advantages than disadvantages and if so the supporters of living in big cities may ask some questions: why so many young people want to leave small towns? Aren't they bored with living in their confined, usually birth places? Doesn't a large city offer a greater range of jobs, better schools and more opportunity to succeed in life? And at last, isn't the big city more comfortable and exciting? Well, it certainly is. Large cities offer higher concentration of big stores, restaurants, theatres, cinemas, galleries etc. They also offer well-paid jobs, better chances of promotions. On the other hand, the cost of living is much higher there. Exorbitant rents must be paid for tiny flats and it is impossible for ordinary people to buy a house of their own. Huge fashionable shops are very impressive but the prices of goods in them can make even more impression on their customers. Very few people can afford to buy anything in such shops and living in huge cities so that to do window shopping only is certainle not the point. /^t/Some people say that living in a little town is boring and there is nothing to do there. Is it really so? Most towns possess a great variety of amenities such as swimming pools, cinemas, theatres, youth clubs, disco etc. Everybody can find something for himself, and if it is still not enough, if you need more noise, more light you can always get into your car and drive to the nearest huge city and having already been "dazzled" by the city neon signs and "deafened" by the city movement you will soon realize what a wonderful shelter your little town is. <0449> /^t/Lots of people, especially those who spend their whole lives in a big city, can not imagine that there are any advantages in living in a little town. I, however, will try to prove that live in small towns doesn't need to be boring. To the contrary it is usually more convenient than the existence in a huge city. /^t/In small towns the atmosphere is pleasant and quiet. The inhabitant is not subject to the never-ending noise made by factories and means of transport. What is more the constant crowds on the streets of big cities make it difficult for people to travel, move or simply walk easily and comfortably. Moreover, the inhabitants of small towns know each other better. It is easier to establish good relations between people in little communities. The small town dweller feels that he is connected with the place he lives in, and with the people whom he knows for years. He can depend on his neighbours and friends. People in small towns hardly ever feel lonely and deserted as it happens to the citizens of huge, industrial aglomerations. The inhabitants of such enormous cities as for example: New York, London or Chicago feel isolated and abandoned, interstingly enough, most often when they walk slowly to work surrounded by the masses of their fellow citizens. /^t/Some of the readers may disagree with me, here, claiming that the limited number of people is conducive to gossiping and boredom. I must admit that it is true but only to some point. Can we say it is really so bad that people are interested in their friends lives, that they care for them and want to help them? Is it better when they only think about themselves? Moreover, we cannot ignore the fact that people tend to gossip everywhere, in big cities, too. /^t/The other advantage of spending the life in small town, is that pollution is usually smaller. Its inhabitants live closer to nature, and therefore they are healthier and happier. They can take a long walk or go cycling much easier. There are more parks or green belts and very often little towns are surrounded by forests and medows. A small town dweller doesn't need to bother about the public transport, as the distances between places aren't very long. /^t/Wath is more it is always easier to maintain order in the places when the population is not very high. Though, it is why the coefficient of crime and corruption is much lower in little towns than in big ones. /^t/It is commonly claimed that good education and entertainment are much more difficult to gain in the province. But it is not quite true. It is always possible to commute to school to the city. Some smaller towns also have their secondary schools and colleges, sometimes even better than huge cities. As for as the entertainment is concerned, we must admit that the inhabitants of small towns also have their own ways of spending free time such as: different kinds of parties, festivals, meetings, caf(s and food. All these make the character of the community special. Those who prefer to enjoy themselves in big style can always visit the nearest city, at least from time to time. We should keep in mind that all people, no matter where they live do not go for parties and restaurants everyday. They do it on average three times a year. /^t/Isn't it nicer, though, to spend our lives happily, healthily and comfortably in one of these beautiful, litte provincial towns, rather than tire ourselves in huge industrial aglomerations? I think it is! Do you? <0450> Man has always regarded himself as the most important species on earth and has tried to settle different climates and different lands. Civilization began with agriculture, which meant settlement. For many centuries people have created different variants of settlements. Beginning with small communities which slowly developed into villages and towns mankind has looked for convenient ways of conquering nature and has used whatever the planet can provide for its own good. The second half of the twentieth century has seen many dramatic changes in the way we live, particularly in industrialized countries. The development of industry, and what follows the birth of huge urban metropolises have divided people into those living in big cities and those inhabiting small towns. Many people think that there is nothing better than living in a small town. There are not as many cars and factories polluting the air as in big cities where our environment is already paying the price for this. The noise of thousands of moving buses, cars sounding horns and constant walking of masses of people is one thing that you will not experience living in an average size town. Life in such a small town seems to be easier, quieter, free from the stress and tension of a big and modern metropolis. Town dwellers do not see all those bad sides of any world megalopolis: people queueing outside post offices and benefit offices, beggars, plastic bags full of rubbish everywhere, tatty goods in the shops. In a city with tens of thousands of homeless people, and as many brand new cars, the contrast between private wealth and public poverty is much greater than in a town. Furthermore, one feels much safer in a county town, where you know all your neighbours for a number of years, than in a big anonymous city full of drunkards, drug addicts, criminals and all sorts of disreputable places. There is no doubt that townsmen are more likely to make friends with each other and this way organize numerous events, contests between each other, interesting fairs and meetings in the town hall. Moreover, knowing your neighbours and townspeople well, one tends to help one another and socialize with them more often. /^t/However, there are always two sides of the story. Although the kind of life people lead in small towns may seem happier and more peaceful, for some people the disadvantages of living in a small community are greater than the advantages. First of all, life in a large metropolis is anonymous but millions of people are attracted by this. It is true that many people are isolated but isn't it also why they come to live in a city? They do not want to know all their neighbours and all the gossip, they do not want other people to interfere with their lives. That is why they move out of small towns to a 'city of privacy' but also to a place where you can say hello to the greengrocer or the garage cashier. Besides, a big and modern city is always exciting. Full of things one needs and those ones that are completely useless. It is full of cinemas you can one day go to, bands you will one day hear, restaurants and pubs you might one day go to. There are a lot of people who enjoy the feeling of living in a city they still do not quite know. After many years of dwelling in the same megalopolis they still discover new walks by the river or along the canals, parks they have never walked in, or some old bridge or railway station. One is never bored with a city. There are dozens of galleries and museums you can visit. All different kinds of places offer great fun and entertainment. Numbers of people hate the deadness that descends on a small town at the weekend. Life there stops by noon on Saturday, and if you do not do your shopping by then, you eat out or not at all. In a big city you can shop at any time of day or night. Every supermarket sells all kinds of goods including buttons and ground coffee. Furthermore, there are numerous methods of transport such as buses, streetcars, taxis, the underground, trains that unable the city dwellers to move around with no problem even if they do not have their own cars. Although visiting a friend in another part of city can be a day trip, such a trip may become one of the most interesting adventures of a lifetime. Another positive factor that is provided by the size of a city is countless job opportunities. People have always been driven out of small towns and villages in search for interesting and well-paid jobs that could be found in a city. Whatever your education, experience and needs you will always find what you are looking for in a city, not in a small settlement. Whatever your age, race, status and way of living you will never be bored with a big city. /^t/Presumably, we could enumerate a lot of other benefits of living in a city and a similar number of things in favour of living in a small town. We have to realize, however, that there will be always two sides of the problem. Taking into consideration all of the aforementioned information it is important to stress the fact that every human being has the right to choose for himself whether he wants to live in a big city or in a small town. There is a number of factors that influence our choice. It depends on our needs, expectations, the way we were brought up. Depending on who we are, on our personalities, whether we are extroverts filled with bright ideas or shy introverts leading quiet lives, we choose to live in anonymous metropolises or in homey little towns. There is no doubt that some of us, living in a large city, certainly think of moving to a little, quiet town and vice versa. But isn't that just our wishful thinking and aren't we only deceiving ourselves that "the grass is always greener on the other side of the river"? Personally, I think I would 'survive' both in a big metropolis and in a little town in the middle of nowhere. I like changes in my style of life and adopting to completely new circumstances would not be a problem for me. There are a lot of opportunities, both in cities and towns, waiting for us. We should only be clever enough to appreciate all of them. <0451> /^t/Turning eighteen is regarded to be an entrance to the world of adults. You are allowed to do certain things which are no longer forbidden. But it also means taking full responsibility for one's own deeds. /^t/One of the most apparent benefits of being over eighteen is the right to vote. But are all young people mature enough to make the right choices? Is not it possible that they may fall victim to cunning politicians who would like to take unfair advantage of their naivety and immaturity. /^t/Times when people thought that their representatives chosen in free elections were destined to fulfil some important missions have gone. These days few believe that ambitious men go into politics just because they are committed to carrying out social reforms or want to save the mankind from misery. Most often the people we choose are skilled in dealing with us to their own advantage. They are interested in getting as far up the career ladder as they possibly can and only the next approaching campaign makes them stop for a while and think about ordinary people. And it is the time when they miraculously come up with hundreds of new ideas. They talk a lot of claptrap about unemployment, poverty, crime, social division and say what they would improve if they were chosen for the next term. But believe me - what they are most interested in is how to draw support and win and the countless number of jokes about politicians as people you cannot trust prove that this opinion is shared by the majority. /^t/Older voters who have taken part in many elections know better than anyone else that what is said during the campaign is of little relevance to what happens when the campaign is over. As soon as they are chosen, politicians forget about their grand and brave promises. And only older people taught by experience know how to defend themselves against their empty and insincere talk. They simply accept the fact that they cannot count on the promises to be fulfilled. /^t/But, unfortunately, it is a completely different story with young people. They are allowed to vote when they are eighteen. For every young man 18th birthday is a great milestone which marks the end of childhood and the beginning of adulthood. But do not delude ourselves - young people do not mature overnight. In spite of the fact that they have the right to take part in elections, they are still wet behind the ears. They are not experienced enough to tell the difference between truth and falsehood. Political campaigns are always full of slick and sloganeering and the youngest voters are most susceptible to all kinds of tricks. Latest opinion polls show that it is the young people who are likely to believe in the most unreasonable ideas. /^t/Youth is usually quite a stormy period of life, full of tensions. Teenagers tend to rebel against everything that embodies authority and may become an easy target for radical politicians. They lack experience and wisdom and very often their knowledge about the history of their own country is embarrassingly low. As the latest presidential election showed many of those young people voted for a particular candidate just because they took his nice tan, matching ties and dancing to folk music for his political credentials and it did not matter what political option he represented. Others voted for his opponent because their parents made them do so. They did not put their votes in a ballot box because they were for this or that candidate but because they were influenced by their parents. /^t/It proves that their right to vote is not matched by any emotional growth and political experience and that they often act on an impulse. /^t/Of course, one may ask whether the only people with proper political views are the adults. Certainly not. It is true that we do not live in barbaric communities where the young were neither seen nor heard and no one rejects them their rights. It is obvious that such matters as unemployment, security, education, health service are of utmost importance to young people and that they should learn what true democracy is really about. But they are simply too inexperienced to take any serious decisions. Their optimism spontaneity and craving for changes may lead them to support some radical activists. Their youth may blind them to all sound judgement and make them go into extremes. /^t/My proposal is to let the young people take their time. Give them three more years to grow up and think matters over. Do not push them into hurly-burly of political life at the earliest possible time. There is no need to hurry. Time will work in their favour. <0452> /^t/The topic I would like to discuss is not popular to debate. Drugs are unquestionable evil, and almost everyone would agree that they are one of the greatest enemies in the world. That is why my point of view that marijuana should be legalized will probably meet a hostile acceptance. Of course, drugs will always be drugs, and I have no intention to persuade people that they cause no harm to us, but some reasons will let me argue that marijuana should be legalized. /^t/The most important issue seems to be the division into soft and hard drugs. Most of people do not distinguish between the two kinds of drugs. All drugs seem to be the cause of addiction which finally leads to moral failure and even death. But it is important to note that the matter is not as simple as it looks at the first glance. Soft drugs, to which marijuana belongs, are not as harmful as hard ones. The most striking difference lies in the fact that marijuana does not cause physical addiction. It means that you can take it for a long time and it will not make your body need it. Whereas hard drugs cause physical addiction almost from the very beginning. The conclusion then is that we should start treating soft and hard drugs in two different ways. According to the latest World Health Organisation (WHO) marijuana is even less harmful than nicotine and alcohol. That is why there seems to be no reason why it should be illegal. /^t/If marijuana were legalized, more people would have better access to it, and the amount of selling hard drugs would be limited. This has been proved, for example, in Holland. The consumption of hard drugs has been reduced since marijuana became legal. Of course, one might say that if people want to get a thing, they will always do that, and marijuana is aready accessible, especially in bigger towns and cities. But we have to bear it in mind that because of its being banned, it is smuggled and the cause of that is a much higher price that it would be if it were legalized. That is why it is much easier to buy hard drugs which are simply cheaper. /^t/The legalization of marijuana would allow the government to raise money from selling it. As for now only smugglers have the oppotunity to benefit from selling marijuana. At the same time the government not only has no profits, but it has to spend a lot of money on catching smugglers and dealers as well. At this point some people will strongly oppose my idea and say that it is immoral to take advantage of drugs by selling them. But let us have a look at the present situation in our country. The government earns millions of dollars selling cigarettes and alcoholic drinks. And probably it will never change because those products are a most important source of the government's income. So why should not marijuana become a comparably profitable means of raising money? /^t/I think it is high time we ceased treating marijuana as a source of fatal addiction. People should be educated and get to know the real dangers of this kind of drug which are not as alarming as the generel opinion states. We should also think logically how to reduce the bad effects of taking drugs in general and to eliminate illegal source of income from selling marijuana. <0453> /^t/It has always been an open question whether individual study should replace classes at the university. Being a university student, one can meet a lot of people, share different ideas, be involved in group work. On the other hand, being on one's own doesn't distract one's attention from what one's working on at a particular moment. Not being influenced by what others have to say helps to focus on the task without being bombarded from all the sides by any pros or cons. /^t/Studying at the university usually occupies a long span of time. Students learn at a different pace. Academic lecturers find it hard to combine the diverse needs of their students. For some what is lectured to them is no longer interesting enough whereas others are not satisfied with the speed and the amount of the material to be covered during a course. Individual study provides a solution to this problem. Students who choose this form of education usually waste no time. They know exactly how much time to devote to a particular subject, how and when to repeat a part that needs further consolidation so that there shouldn't be any gap in the knowledge they have already gained, and the progress be clearly seen. A lot of research has already been carried out into the field of university and individual study. Although a number of people may not agree with the results, they undoubtedly speak for the superiority of the latter one. Students learning on their own turn out to be more committed, more thorough and, therefore better prepared. /^t/Studying among others and being a member of a group leads to students being overlooked by academic teachers. So many people haven't been given the chance to emerge to the surface. They have stayed silent during a whole course not being able to open up and show how great a potential they carry. And again individual study takes the lead. It gives a student the chance to develop a closer co-operation with the tutor and thus lets him or her make the most of his experience and knowledge. /^t/Looking around, one can easily notice how enormous a contribution to the world of science, literature and arts people studying individually are responsible for. Not in few cases are they self-made men. Only by studying individually can one be provided with all the answers to all the questions that still cast some shadow on clear understanding of the area one's interested in. It's only the great individuals who realize the necessity of being alone, who know that the ones who usually dissent from the others can soon be muffled and forced to fall into oblivion. If one looks at all those distinguished people no doubt is left that being educated in the old Socratic tradition is the best of all possible ways to get self-fulfillment and reach success. <0454> /^t/There are many people who love big cities and cannot imagine how it is possible that so many people admire small towns. I live in a small town, and I am the one who cannot understand people living in the cities. /^t/I know that there are many inconveniences in small towns. Many young people complain that there are not many places where they could go in the afternoon or evening. The access to the, so called, culture is very much limited. I mean by that, for instance, the limited number of "good" cinemas (if there are any in the town at all), lack of theatres, museums, operas etc. One would be surprised to see how many young people would go to the theatre or cinema if they would not have to drive to the other distant city for such long time. But by culture, I do not only mean theatres, philharmonics etc. - culture are also schools, libraries, especially good libraries. The fact that small towns lack universities, colleges and even high schools or some types of high schools is the real disadvantage. Our society could be probably much more educated if common youngs had the access to schools they would like to learn at. /^t/Lack of several types of high schools, e.g., technical, horticultural, or artistic schools is connected with the necessity of going to schools to the bigger towns. That is another disadvantage of living in a small town - being a commuter-student who spends several hours to get to his/ her school or university. It is very often caused by problems in the smaller towns' communication, if one can at all talk about any local town communication. Usually "small-towners" prefer walking or are forced to prefer walking because they have no other possibility of getting to school or work. /^t/Living in a small town can not only be a problem of a young man, also, if not mainly, adults suffer from its disadvantages. The fact that the town is small corresponds with a fact that there are not many places of work for its inhabitants, the number of jobs is limited. Workers have to care very much for their work because these days we can observe that many workers are being fired because of factories' financial problems, for instance. Global firing of workers automatically causes higher unemployment in the local society. /^t/The other thing that the small towns suffer from is the small amount of money given to towns from the central budget which causes that people try to make money themselves. It is not that easy because as anywhere else the big companies or private firms monopolise the market so that not many smaller "businessmen" manage to take up their own investments. This is the typical example of the big fish eating the smaller ones. /^t/But not only the access to business or commerce makes problems for the inhabitants. One of their major troubles is the health service, at least in Poland. It is terrifying that may small towns lack hospitals, out-patient clinics, and sometimes even the immediate access to ambulance service, not to mention any necessary specialistic clinics. They can count only for private doctors (who on the other hand can count on their money) but at least they are the helpful health service. /^t/And how such a small town is able to develop and help its inhabitants live an easy life if they all know that, for example, prices in other bigger towns are lower and in their town "everything" is so expensive. That fact is easy to observe these days because more and more huge but cheap hyper-markets is being built in the cities or in the city suburbs. And these are usually the people from big cities who buy in that shops, much less number of "small-towners" can afford for driving to the city to do cheaper shopping every day. /^t/But there are many people living in a small town who would have disagreed very much with my previous commentaries to small town disadvantages. They would have convinced you that such a life is not that troublesome. Where, if not in a small town you can feel at home everywhere. What city is so cosy as your own small town. In what city you know everyone around you? In a small town you are not anonymous. You know people more and your neighbours know you. You can always count on help from their hands. What "walking anonymous person" in the city helps the other person if s/he does not know him/ her. Everyone thinks first that if something happens to the other person, then that person must be an alcoholic or drug addict and they only pass you. Only after some time one is able to convince others that one needs their help. Do such things happen in small towns? Yes! But much more rarely. One of the biggest advantages of living in a small town is its safety. /^t/The good point also is that small towns are more free from the heavy industry that is very often characteristic of the city. It is connected in a way with the life a bit closer to nature and much more distant from the industry and the noise of civilisation. /^t/The communication or the distance from communication may have good points as well although I criticised that so much before. It is much less tiring for people if they do not have to stand the noise and terrible pollution of cars on numerous roads and highways (going next to the block of flats in the city...). /^t/The fact that small towns lack such blocks of flats is another advantage of a small town. One do not have to suffer from claustrophobia at least, and can always has a place of one's own. Own small house with a little green peaceful garden full of trees and flowers behind the window. Is not it the idyllic vision? I love it, especially this "greenness" around. The trees next to houses, parks, fields and peace. There are so many big cities that lack these valuable things like parks, trees, nature and especially silence. <0455> Considering both the advantages and disadvantages of living in a small town, in sum the latter seem to me definitely greater than the former. After all, a small town cannot boast of offering its residents big opportunities to succeed in life in the field of employment. Moreover, life in a small town is much less convenient than it is in a large city as for as the access to different kinds of services is concerned. Finally, living in a little town presents one with a quite poor choice of cultural entertainment. It cannot be denied that the concentration of industry in a small town is usually not great. Thus, a pollution is often not a problem. What is also the consequence of a nonexistance of big industry is the lack of massive ugly industry buildings prevailing in the architecture of a big city and spoiling the scenery. On the other hand, a small town shows greater capacity for natural green space. There are usually abundant tress, green squares and parks there which make the life in a little town seem more close to nature than the life in a large metropolis, for instance. However, what is the use of all these merits if the substantial needs of the inhabitants of small towns are not satisfied since, what is really important for people is range of jobs, big enough to offer them a fairly wide choice of employment. Without the employment, the dwellers of litte towns will not enjoy the fresher air and more quiet surrounding. In fact, unemployment rate in small towns is considerably high. As a result, parks and other green spaces, which are in general appreciated by the residents of towns for their soothing greenery, are occupied by the unemployed, ofter drunk people rambling aimlessly across the lanes. As well, a fact is that packed up buses, crowded streets, traffic jams and the parements overflowing with crowds of people are not that much a part of an every day reality as it is in case of large cities. However, a great number of people, being a drawback of living in a big city, also hasa positive aspect about it. Namely, there is a high demand for services in urban areas and actually they are flourishing there. Conversely, in small towns, the people do not have a sufficient access to a variety of convenient services. For example, a person with serious medical disorders may have to go to a large city in order to be helped by a specialist. In the same way, the inhabitants of little towns sometimes venture to go to some big city just to do shopping, as the assortment of goods in their own town shops are not always satisfactory. Finally, although it is claimed that in the small towns the telationship between the people is better than it is in the cities that townspeople are not generally afflicted with the feeling of insignificance and lostness in the crowd, their social life is largely limited to their homes. They do not have much chance to entertain themselves together with their friends in the theatres, galleries, restaurants, pubs and clubs to the extent the city dwellers do. They are restricted in their choice of entertainment. To sum up, when taking into the consideration the good and bad sides of living in a small town, one may not find it difficult to come to the conclusion that life in a small town has greater disadvantages than advantages, that it is less convenient and probably more dull than life in a large, urban area. <0456> /^t/The quiet life of a small town may appeal to those, tired of a hectic pace of a modern city and various pressures of urban life try to shelter there. However, they extol all virtues of the peaceful life they must be aware of disadvantages, associated with their settlement. If they are born in such a town they, either grow accustomed to the living conditions and stay there until retire and finally die, or escape to large cities to find work, hoping for better perspectives. /^t/Living in a small town has obviously certain advantages and disadvantages, but the question arises whether the former prevail over the latter. This is the question I intend to answer. /^t/First of all, I would like to begin with the advantages which are evident. Inhabitants in small communities appear more friendly, more concerned about their neighbours, more willing to help. Also, they keep in touch with one another and atttempt to maintain family bounds. This aspect of closeness between people has two sides. Inhabitants dwelling at same street ( e.g. in semi-detached houses) within short distances away from one another pay a great deal of attention to their neighbours' lives. As a consequence they are very curious about what is going on next door., and help their co-dwellers in times of trouble or in need. Neverthless, those 'decent' people, stired by so called good intentions tend to interfere with their neighbours' matters, although entirely 'unwanted'. /^t/While living in a small town you avoid the rush hours and all inconvencies that accompany it. Wherever you look, it's people, people, people. The trains which leave or arrive every five minutes are packed and yet they are often delayed. The streets are so crowded, there is hardly room to move on the pavements. The buses are crammed with people who squeeze like sardines in a tin. /^t/Moreover, small towns are easy to control, contrary to large modern cities which impose their own living conditions on the people who inhabit them. City-dwellers are obliged by their environment to adapt a wholly unnatural way of life. They lose touch with the land, rhythm of nature. A few flowers in a public park may remind you that it is spring or summer. A few leaves clinging to the pavement may 'announce' you that it is autumn. Beyond that, what is going on in nature seems totally irrelevent. Tall buildings blot out the sun, traffic fumes pollute the atmosphere. Even the dinstincton between day and night is lost. The flow of traffic goes on unceasingly and the noise never stops. Whereas, in a small town you conduct life, surrounded by belts of green, parks, gardens so that you are able to observe all signs of changing seasons easily and appreciate their 'virtues'. Those belts of green may protect you from air pollution. /^t/Also, one of the important advantages of living in such an environment might be safety. As a rate of crime is lower than in large cities, which breed crime and violence and are full of places you would be afraid to visit at night. /^t/In spite of all advantages mentioned above we cannot underestimate attractions of life in large cities of which you are deprived when living in a city not of a big size. In metropoles there are more chances of employment and variety of jobs and with regard to this - more oppurtunities to succeed in life. Higher level of education in secondary and high schools provide you with greater chances to get to university, eventually enable you to embark on a career. If you are lucky and work hard you may quickly climb up the social ladder and make a lot of money. In comparison to small towns in bigger cities services are usually better. Large cities offer you high concentration of good things in life, such amenities as big stores, shopping centres, theatres, cinemas, galleries, sports facilities as follows: swimming pools, stadiums, the gym halls, or tennis courts. /^t/Having those facilities gathered in one place, you can enjoy different forms of entertainment. But what you choose depends on your preferences and likings. If you are keen on art you may go to exhibitions of well known artists who display their works in popular metropoles. If you show a keen interest in sport you may go to a football or a tennis match or practise sport yourself in a gym hall or a swimming pool. Life is never dull, there is always something to do. Plenty of clubs, coffee bars, restaurants welcome you to dine-out, where you delight over delicious meals and enjoy your friends' company. Although the rate of crime is higher than in small communities only minority of city dwellers become involved in crime and violence. /^t/Returning to the topical question, I have reached the point where I am bound to admit that the answer is suscceptible of various interpretations. Having assessed certain pros and cons we have to take into consideration likings and preferences of particular people who, either decide to settle down in a quite place or in a modern city. However, some people are free to move to choose the place of their settlement, a number of citizens are doomed to stay where they were born for different reasons. A lot depends on social status, wealth, occupations, their incomes and society, they happen to belong to. For those deprived of the choice destined to dwell in slums or poor districts of the modern city, life become a curse. Therefore they will not benefit from living in such a 'heaven for the rich'. But those able to decide for themselves who prefer peace and gentle pace of living will opt for a smaller town regardless of all the disadvantages that might result from dwelling there. <0457> /^t/According to the "Webster's Dictionary" "wealth" means: <*> and under the entry "fame" there is a definition: <*>. There are a lot of people in the world who are described as wealthy and famous and although these two adjectives have very positive connotations, very often these people are not fully satisfied with their lives. Among all the well-known are actors, politicians and the heads of different countries. These people seem to be cheerful and they have reasons to be happy - they have money, power and very often they are idolized by the crowds. But are these people really happy? There are some advantages and disadvantages of fame and wealth. Let's take the style of life of these people. They earn a lot of money. They can afford nearly everything. They travel a lot and see all sorts of places they have never seen before. They are transported in exclusive cars and private helicopters or executive aeroplanes. They are surrounded by a permanent entourage of managers, press-agents and bodyguards. Wherever they go, people turn up in their thousand to greet them. Photographs of them appear regularly in the press and all their comings and goings are reported. It all seems like a fairy tale however it is not so. The life of the famous is not all wine and roses. As far as money is concerned we should remember an old proverb "a friend in need is a friend indeed". Very often people do not care about people themselves and their friendship but just about their money. In many cases they take advantage of them. That is why money loses its worth when we do not have any good-hearted person with whom we can share our troubles and worries. Besides the society very often builds unnecessary barriers and creates a stereotype of the rich with all its negative features such as arrogance, presumptuousness and egoism. That is why these wealthy people very often feel lonely. The next thing is that the private life of the famous is always under a microscope. They are the source of rumours and gossip. They belong to the public and they must be ready to be in hands of the people like managers or press-agents who pull them left and right. They must be ready to behave as the public wishes. In many cases it interferes with their dreams. They cannot live common life, they must pretend, act. In this way they lose their identity and character. They become different people. They are accompanied by the feeling of tension. They must get out of it and still look fresh and smiling. They should not pay attention to defeats, but go to the top for all the time. Some of them cannot stand it and break down. Then they are lost and forgotten. Fame and wealth are also connected with danger. More and more we can see in the newspapers titles: "Madonna stalked" or "Monica Seles stabbed by knife maniac". The well-known are surrounded by the crowds of fans but among them there can be some maniacs with an obsession who spy on their victims and torment them with endless phone calls. /^t/On the basis of the arguments mentioned above we can draw the conclusion that there are more disadvantages of being wealthy and famous than disadvantages. <0458> /^t/Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy. They have to live without sexual relatins and they can not get married. Is it really needed? In my opinion celibacy should be abolished because it is not natural for a man to live alone. I do not think that it helps to be a better priest and what is more it is a source of many scandals. Priests can not get married and they do not know what a family means. /^t/Man is a sociable animal. We used to live with a partner for centuries. All of us want to have someone to rely on. Most of us tend to share problems with someone else. It is difficult to go through life alone having nobody to talk to. Some people may say that priests have parishioners who are the substitute for their family. But it is not the same. /^t/God or nature, it depends on what we believe in, created two sexes to live together. Owing to that fact human kind like animals can reproduce itself. Man-woman sexual relations are ane of our basic needs like eating or breathing. Only if these needs are provided for we can think about work or any other things. Some people say that we as opposed to animals are rational and we can control our desires. But still it does not explain why we can not have one partner for a whole life which in reality has nothing to do with animals. /^t/Is it really true that priests who live alone are better because they haven't got a family and they do not have to care about anyone else than parishioners. If they had had families would they have been less religious? I do not think so. Maybe they would have worked even better. Good family life is one of the most important aspects of Christianity. Let's allow priests to get to know problems of ordinary people. They should be allowed to face the same difficulties that all parents have to deal with. Maybe they would have had less time for religion but in spite of that they would have worked more efficiently. Nowadays they try to teach people how to lead good family life although they themselves does not know that. It is as if somebody wanted to explain how an apple tasted although he never tasted it by himself. /^t/The vow of celibacy is very difficult for some priests and that is why it is a source of many scandals. There have been many cases of priests so far who in spite of celibacy have found a woman and lived together illigally. Although they try to keep it in secret, finally someone get to know about it. These affairs make people less religious. People get used to thinking that priests are less sinful than they themselves. Such scandals let them down so much that some of parishioners stop attending masses. Why not to allow priests to have ordinary life to avoid all these disappointments. /^t/There are some religions that allow their priests to have wives and children. I have not heared about any problems connected with it. So why not to try the same. Let priests lead ordinary life. /^t/I am sure that all the arguments mentioned above are very convincing. I think everyone would agree that priests should not be slaves of religion any longer. <0459> /^t/LSD, Ecstasy and Cannabis are considered by many people to be soft drugs and used just for fun. In this situation the question arises if it is O.K. to take drugs for fun and to think that they are harmless. To me, taking soft drugs is just the same as taking hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine. It is not a good idea to take drugs for fun. /^t/Many young people say that taking drugs just for fun eases their nerves and they find some positive reasons for taking drugs, especially for smoking cannabis. When they are having one of those self-indulgent moments, they take a joint and they know it will take them further out of the depths of their misery. They need a good time and they are using marijuana to take them there. They claim that it is the feeling the joint arouses that they want. To them drugs are one of the most potent tools they have for evoking emotions. Such a drug, which is quite a powerful, is Ecstasy. People who take this drug see it, as an entry to a perfect world where everyone loves each other and people's dreams come true. They say that there are some benefits to an occasional joint. Drugs' ability to help them get in touch with their feelings outweighs some of the negative emotional states it reinforces. The drug for those people triggers the strongest feelings in which can be a useful tool for self-discovery they say that if you pay attention to the kind of drug you take, it can give you a lot of information about where you are emotionally. They even say that the drug you choose reflects the emotional state you are consciously, or unconsciously, plugging into. It is like a mantra for them. /^t/These people who take drugs do not realise that this is the first step to a serious addiction. Many people who had the first contact with soft drugs feel the desire to go further and try new kinds of drugs, which are no longer as harmless as they think. They feel "hunger" for drugs and cannot do without them. They claim that this is the step to a perfect world but they just deceive themselves and they become lost in reality. They try to answer problems by losing themselves in drugs. They do not know how to cope with everyday problems and seek to answer such questions by taking drugs. They quite often become insane and are taken to asylums for mentally ill people. /^t/People who take drugs occasionally, just for fun, say that it costs almost nothing. They compare the price of a joint to the price of alcohol. They do not bother to spend just a few z³otych on drugs if they want to have fun. Rich people take cocaine or heroin because it is fashionable among well-known people. They pay large sums of money just to have a more enjoyable life, they think. /^t/Drugs are not cheap. In Poland, a hit of Ecstasy costs 50 z³otych. The habit of heroin can cost about 500 z³otych a week and cocaine costs from 150-200 z³otych for one 0,7g dose, which is nothing for the person who is addicted. Even though many professional and well-off people have money to buy drugs, they lose as the drugs run their lives and they are not able to earn their living. They often turn to crime, as they want to buy narcotics, which leads to being arrested and taken to prison. /^t/What' s more, many young people who take drugs for fun claim that it is safe to take drugs. They say that drugs such as Ecstasy or Cannabis kill fewer people than "peanuts" and many teenagers take them without harm, they think. It is just another myth about drugs. Drugs are dangerous and can lead to serious health problems and finally death. Heroin which is a hard drug depresses the central nervous system and, while it brings on feelings of contentment, warmth and euphoria, heroin can all supress the appetite and induce nausea and constipation. All drugs can kill. First you feel aches. Then drug addicts suffer from tremors, difficult respiration, vomiting, diarrhoea, clammy skin, insomia and muscle spasms. Unexpectedly pure or impure heroin can kill. Injecting impure drugs can cause thrombosis, gangrene and septicaemia. When you share needles it can pass on hepatitis, jaundice and HIV leading to death by AIDS. /^t/To me there is no such thing as taking drugs for fun as when you play with hazardous things such as drugs you always have to pay for it. In the case of drugs you can lose your life and this is a highest price for a moment of new experience. <0460> Primitive human beings lived in caves and it seems they did not have to waste their time thinking of the most appropriate and the most suitable place to live. The only thing they could take into consideration when choosing their home might have been the degree of security of a given location. The lack of food was not a problem. They could always move to another area and at the same time visit quite a lot. What a fascinating life! You may say that they could only see new lands and new wanders of nature. But is it not nature that creates the most fascinating things? /^t/Unfortunately, the civilisation developed creating its villages, towns, cities, countries, roads, cars, planes, skyscrapers, cellular phones, cable TV, marriages, taxes, schools and other troublesome things which only complicated everything instead of making it easier. /^t/Life is not so simple anymore. Even such thing as the choice of the place of living keeps you awake at night and arises to an enormous problem. Should you choose a village, a town or a city? Which one is the best place to live, work, and enjoy your life? There are people who choose nature (read: the countryside) and those who prefer civilisation (read: a city) but it seems that the best choice is a small town. It has some features of a village and in some respects it resembles a city. However, it has got its own unique atmosphere and character. Will you like it? Let's see. /^t/In a village everybody knows everybody and every piece of gossip spreads very quickly. People are like a large family. It is similar in a small town. People know one another, they have friends or acquitances here and there, and they feel at home wherever they go because it is their town. There is nothing like loneliness in a crowd, so characteristic for people who live in big towns or cities and are lost among others, overwhelmed by concrete buildings, traffic jams, and the speed of life. If you go to the street in a city you will see hundreds of strangers rushing in every direction. You will feel like a tiny, unimportant part of an immense machine. Nobody knows you, nobody cares of you. You are just another human being living your ordinary life and being worthy of any interest. You are nobody. It is such a depressing feeling. So you had better move to a small town. There you can find your lost self without giving up the privileges and technical improvements of the civilization. Life is not so intense here. It is much more peaceful. You will not have an impression that you do not matter anything. You do not have to be the man of success. People will respect you anyway. Of course if there is a question of making a professional career there are no as many possibilities of making it as in a city, but it is much easier to distinguish yourself in a small community than in a place where you are just one of many and you have to struggle to get the chance of showing that you are better than others. In a town it is not so difficult to get the job you want, although the choice of jobs is smaller and in order to find something really special and one of a kind you often must travel to a different town, which of course takes some time and effort, but also gives satisfaction of having a good job and a convenient place to live. /^t/Certainly the air is clear in a small town than in a big city and the pollution of the environment is smaller. There are more green areas: parks, lawns, flower-beds, trees on the pavements. The contact with nature is very important. It soothes you, makes you feel relaxed. Concrete has a depressing effect on a human psyche, nature regenerates your mental strength and makes you optimistic. It is nothing in comparison with the country but still something when compared with a city. /^t/A town is much safer when it comes to crime rate, and more quiet. There may be complaints about the kinds of entertainment available. Yet, it would be ridiculous to demand a theatre, an opera house, a skating rink or a fan fair in a small town. With all the cultural and industrial kinds of institutions and companies it would not be a small town anymore. What is more, it would lose its unique atmosphere, the friendliness and kindness of people, its calmness and peace, and would adopt the bad features of big cities. /^t/It seems that oscillating between a large town or a city and a village and analysing the advantages and disadvantages of living in them the best place to choose is a small town which, being far from the extremes, combines the features of both a village and a city, assimilating mostly their good points. The last voice to decide whether to live in a small town is really the best solution will have personal preferences. So close your eyes, think a while and choose. <0461> /^t/You may think that what I am going to write here is controversial, but when you think it over, you will know I am right. /^t/Yes, marijuana should be legalised. At this point, you will probably shout, "But it is a drug." That is true, but do not forget it is a soft drug. Most people can not differentiate soft from hard drugs. However, the difference is very crucial and important. Hard drugs, like cocaine or heroin, destroy the human being, making a drug-addict out of him. No matter how much and how often you take hard drugs, you will become their slave sooner or later. With marijuana, that is a different thing. Many mathematicians, logicians, philosophers and physicists take marijuana. They say it helps them understand many difficult problems and go deeply into complicated philosophies. That happens due to THC, one of the ingredients of marijuana, which relaxes and makes the self-reflection possible. /^t/Secondly, why is marijuana prohibited if another soft drug-alcohol is legal? What is more, it is widely popular. Thousands of people are addicted to alcohol. But there are more who drink it from time to time and do not fall into that dreadful habit. Why is that so? Because alcohol itself is not harmful, but overusing it can be dangerous. It is exactly the same as far as marijuana is concerned. Everything that is being overused is harmful, even milk or yoghurt. I agree that taking marijuana may end in addiction to it. But even then, the addiction is less dangerous than that of alcohol. Nobody who takes marijuana becomes aggressive and does harm to himself or to other people. Have you heard of any murders done by people under the influence of marijuana? I have not. Whereas, most of alcohol's consumers cause violence in the society, bringing devastation and evil. /^t/What needs to be added here is that the costs of treatment in case of people addicted to marijuana are very low. So let people decide whether to take it or not, like in the case of alcohol. /^t/The last of my arguments in this case is that if marijuana were legalised, the government would gain big profits out of it. Marijuana sold in chemistries would be cheaper than that from smugglers. That is why, people would prefer to buy it legally. What happens next, the government takes the money instead of leaving it in the black market. You may say that it is immoral that the government should profit by drugs. However, it already does. The money coming from sales of spirits and cigarettes is the biggest of all other businesses. What is more, it is not only that the country will earn some additional money, but it will also save a lot. This is because vast sums of money are now being spent on struggling against drug-dealers and smuggling. It could be used to promote the good sides of marijuana as opposed to hard drugs. Maybe then, those who decide to take some drugs would reach for marijuana, which would be legal and cheap, instead of buying heroin or cocaine on the black market. In this way, the number of people taking hard drugs would lessen. Even if they became addicted to marijuana, then the treatment would be much easier and cheaper. /^t/Taking into consideration all that has been said here, don't you think that I am right and that marijuana really should be legalised? <0462> /^t/Most people in developed countries are city dwellers. Many of them are drawn to live there by the hard to resist lure of the metropolis. The attractions of the city are many, namely the cosmopolitan atmosphere, stimulation of cultural events or the simple hope of finding work. However, one can be very alone in the city and the anonymity which at first seems to give freedom and protection later leaves just loneliness. There is a lot to do in the city but everything is expensive. The cost of living is extremely high and not many can aford it. The various pressures of city life cause crime to develop. Moreover, large modern cities are too big to control and therefore city-dwellers are forced to adopt an unnatural way of urban life away from the nature. /^t/Foreign restaurants, different languages everywhere and big international companies tempt people with their exoticness and intriguing neons and make them wish to be part of it. The opportunity of meeting new people from all over the world and learning their customs and traditions is much bigger in the city than in the country. The pleasure of tasting different kinds of food from places you can never afford to visit is incomparable to anything else sorrounded by those luxuries one can grow in self-confidence and just for a white forget about everyday existence. /^t/Apart from the cosmopolitan atmosphere, the access to cultural events is so great that one can hardly resist living in a big city. Both in the cinema and in the theatre one can easily become someone else for a moment. If one would like to extend one's knowledge there is no better place than the city. Huge libraries and large amounts of different kinds of publications may encourage masses to settle there for good. Famous people from the furthest places arrive in the cities where you can admire them, undoubtedly having a good time. /^t/Not only does the cosmopolitan atmosphere and access to cultural events lure people. They often leave their fatherlands and move to the city in order to find batter chance for living. It is a lot easier to earn one's living in the city due to the huge number of factories and companies which eagery hire even not very skilled people giving them opportunity to support their families. /^t/Nevertheless, living in the city one loses touch with the land and rhythm of nature. City-dwellers are barely conscious of the seasons of the year. A few flowers in a public park may remind them that it is spring or summer. Tall buildings blot out the sun and traffic fumes pollute the atmosphere. The flow of traffic goes on and noise hardly ever stops. Above all, it is the daily stress and strains of the city which make life there so difficult and exhausting. /^t/Although people suffer the difficult conditions urban life offers, they pay for it and they pay a lot. The demand for accomodation is so great that it is often impossible for ordinary people to buy a house of their own. Very high rents must be paid for small flats. Accomodation apart, the cost of living is very high. Everything you buy is likely to be more expensive than it would be in the country. /^t/Above all this, city inhabitants live under constant threat. The crime rate in most cities is very high. Flats and houses are burgled with alarming frequency. Cities are full of places one would be afraid to visit at night. Acts of vandalism and terrorism, shoplifting, mugging, drug pushing, rapes and kidnappings take place in the city unceasingly. /^t/To sum up, it seems to me that the disadventages of living in the city are much bigger than the adventages. There are many attractions which are provided by the city, however all too many find that the glamorous facade sorrounding the city is false. City life gradually destroys our mental and physical health and the only place we can regenerate it is the country, the pleace in which people belong truly. <0463> Whether capital punishment should exist or not is a question that awakes controversies in parliaments of many countries. It is so difficult because it is the question of human life, which should be of the greatest value for law of every civilised country. Opinions are divided and supporters of the both sides seem to have strong arguments. After thorough analysis however, only the arguments of the 'no' side are truly convincing. What I think is that capital punishment or in other words death penalty is inhumane and ineffective form of punishment. Those in favour of it are motivated by desire to revenge and retaliation. Anyway no law should give one man a right to take another man's life. Life is the superior value and law of every country is to protect it. There has been a marked trend in society towards the humane treatment of all its members and we ought to follow it. Law is surely to protect all citizens particularly those who are victims but it mustn't at the same time give up any human being. We shouldn't stick to the rule 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth'. Otherwise we will prove that we are not better than a murderer. Humane treatment does not of course mean excessive leniency. It only denotes the end of all barbaric practices like hanging, electric chair, garrotting, etc. They are unworthy of human beings. Anyway crime does not pay and every unlawful act deserves a punishment. Capital crime should also have an appropriate punishment. The essence of every punishment is an educational effect on the punished person. It could be something that will make him think and regret his deeds. But if he is to be killed, why should he think something over, what for should he try to understand something. He will have no chance to change. On the other hand if he is sentenced to very hard work and he really gets his deserts - this is a true punishment! Some people say that death penalty is the only way to deter criminals. Evidence shows something different. In Britain for example, capital crime has not increased since suspension of capital punishment. It has been proved many times in the past that relaxation of harsh laws has never led to increase in crime. Therefore the 'deterrent argument' seems irrelevant and also in this respect capital punishment is an ineffective punishment. Law should mean justice and justice means that a criminal gets what he did to his victim. Approaching the problem literally it ought to be like that but it is never so in life. Should a rapist be raped? No, because it would be inhumane. For exactly the same reason a murderer cannot be sentenced to death. His death cannot bring back his victim's life or lessen the suffering of relatives and beloved of the victim. We all should reconcile to the fact that punishment is never equal to the damage that the wrongdoer inflicted. If a capital crime has taken place every penalty may seem inadequate. But the most inadequate one is death penalty because the courts should issue punishments not revenges. Basing my opinion on the presented above arguments I am convinced that capital punishment is inhumane and ineffective. That is why I claim that such a punishment should not exist in legislature of any civilised country of the twentieth century. <0464> /^t/It is difficult for many people to make decision whether to live in a small town or in a big city. Likewise in a big city, living in a town has advantages and disadvantages. But in my opinion the advantages of town life are greater than its drawbacks. I will try to provide some arguments to prove that this statement is true. Undoubtedly one of the greatest advantages of living in a small town is quietness which big cities lack. In a small town there is no traffic and unbearable noise that accompanies it, especially during the rush hour. But on the other hand living in a small town is often associated with boredom and a difficult access to a cultural and business life. The cosmopolitan atmosphere of a big city is one of its greatest attractions, which allures people. Big theatres and cinemas, foreign restaurants are just on your doorstep. However, the supporters of town life point to the cultural development observed nowadays in a town. Today almost in every town there is not only cinemas and restaurants but also clubs that are involved in organising a cultural life for a local community. I would like to mention another argument to support my statement - it is a good social relationship that is typical of a small town community. Town dwellers usually know their neighbours and have good ties with them. Neighbourly help makes residents' lives easier and less stressful. But the lack of anonymity, which gives freedom to city dwellers, obviously is the disadvantage of living in the province. People know each other and often gossip about their neighbours and friends. Such informal remarks on people private lives that may sometimes have unpleasant consequences. It is generally believed that city dwellers have no difficulties in finding a well-paid, satisfactory job in the metropolis. They are often with international companies that give them an opportunity to make a career. That is why city life attracts young people who decide to leave their hometowns and settle in the metropolis. Although, it is difficult to find a good job in a town its residents do not suffer from unemployment or low income. Some of them work locally, others commute to a city, where they are employed. Of course, one can point out that commuting every day is exhausting and it is more comfortable to live in the city near work. But on the other hand it is worth mentioning that city dwellers live in small flats whereas town residents in big houses often surrounded by large gardens. The supporters of town life call attention to the fact that very seldom crimes are committed in a town. One does not witness drug-pushing that is the main reason for juvenile crime. The lack of social pressures is another advantage of living in a small town. There is no stressful atmosphere in such a town, people are less nervous as their pace of life is definitely slower. The cost of living is this argument that people take into consideration while deciding whether to settle in a town or city. The fact that town life requires less expense, as commodities and necessities are usually less costly in the province, is its undeniable good point. I think that quietness, the lower cost of living, a nice atmosphere, the lack of traffic, pollution, crime, various pressures of life, as well as a good relationship between dwellers, and the fact that people live in their own houses, are the main advantages of living in a small community. That is why in my opinion living in a town has more advantages than disadvantages. <0465> /^t/Should celibary be abandoned? Or is it the only way of full and true devotion to the allmighty God? /^t/Almost every day the whole world is shocked by the news of the next love affair involving some representative of prieshood. There are films like "Priest" proving that catholic church's authorieties are human beings too. They try to fight with natural weakness, with unabilities and fears. But being only people they forget about rules, about taken oaths and promises, about spiritual needs of the world, about their missions and finally about God. /^t/Nature has its rights, this obrious statement can be used in relation to nuns and priest as well. They need eating, drinking and from time to time they need sex. /^t/Celibary is unpractical, demoralising practice which was started to make saints out of people which is absolutely impossible. There are other religions where celibary is cancelled and priests can marry and have families. Celibary should be abandoned, as history of catholic church shows there's nothing good in what celibary bring. /^t/Considering Anglican Churche notice that priests are allowed to have their own families, wives, children. They have to live like normal people to care about trivial needs of existance. They do not commit sins, while having sex. Their chastity is true and nobady suffers because of it. Such a life is closer to reality the priests are more open to people's problems, they have morebinderstanding for the rest of society. Their faith in God is of the same value, but their lives on earth are better than those of catholic priests. /^t/"Practice what you pray" says an old English prover. Most of catholic priests call for honesty, faithfullness, phisical and mental chastity, for generousity and life in proverty. While their own lives are excutly opposite. They make use of people's naivete, their sermons are in disagreement with the truth. Most of them have male or female lovers, illegal children. Some are addicted to money, alcohol or fast cars. Some live just two-faced lives. The point's that most catholic priests cannot pray what they do, so they have to use slogans or things taken from somewhere else, not from their own experience. They use their own interpresetation of Bible. It they could marry their lives would be probably different if not better. /^t/The history of catholic church brings marry examples of unproper use of celibary. Priests were learing monastries, breaking the caths. They could not face the challenge of being morally clean and proper. /^t/In my opinion celibary should be abandoned Priests and nuns are people like we all are they have their needs. They should practice what they pray. Life is hard and to make it easier celibary should be surrendered. <0466> Once upon a time in Japan... This is how most of the modern technology fairytales begin. This time the spell held the princess in a round plastic egg, with a few buttons to keep her alive and a RESET button at the back just in case she died. The name of the sorcerer was Tamagotchi-a virtual toy for Japanese children who are not allowed to keep pets at home but who are affectionate enough to love anything they have to take care of, even if the thing can be a dinosaur, a dog, and a cat within the same week. The problem is, as usual with a wicked sorcerer, that adults as well as teenagers and children were captured by the electronic spell of a seemingly highly educational toy. Seemingly-because there is nothing educating in a bleeping plastic egg, except for the fact that it helps to develop certain motor abilities and definitely reinforces Pavlov dogs' effect. Instead of becoming a relief to frustrated children Tamagotchi became a curse. The effects can be heard before they can be seen: constant bleeping drives teachers, parents, and probably users nuts. It was fixed in the latest version, in which the user is informed of the state of the pet by a quiet buzz. Then the searching begins. If you see someone trying to find something in their pockets and panicking every time the search result is negative you see a potential mourner who will publicise the grief on an Internet page and use the burial web service to make sure the dog will live happily in the Tamagotchi heaven. Data go into bit buckets, but virtual animals have souls and therefore their spirits climb up the sky to heaven from where they can watch their human friends raise another animal (human version not available yet but coming soon). Children usually live through the loss, but adults have a hard time trying to get over it and often need professional help. The point is that we are losing contact with nature. Children think that milk comes from factories and they believe a cat can be brought back to life by resetting it, plastic egg or the real thing. The games you play with your virtual pet never bring fun although they are meant to be 'educating' as it must be the animal who wins, not you. You cannot lift a limp ear and whisper your problems into it as you can with a spaniel, you cannot touch soft fur, and you will never know how it is to run in the middle of the night in search of a veterinarian because your goldfish looks as if it couldn't breathe. No goldfish can make your three wishes come true, but the real one can make you feel needed. You can always buy a virtual fishing line (NEW!!! Great price!!!) and catch yourself a shark if you wish. Then fry it on a virtual frying pan and dump into the garbage. Open a window and listen to the birds outside, go for a walk and smell the grass. Tell your children that in order to get milk a cow must be milked and keep virtual toys away from them. Life is too precious a thing to be wasted in search of a bleeping egg. <0467> Crimes and criminals have always been a problem in the world. There has never been any country in which nobody would commit crime. Thefts, burglaries, murders, rapes and other kinds of crimes have never stopped to scare society. This situation made frightened people make up more and more severe punishments. Penalties are inflicted on the basis of the crime, to make the society feel safer, forgetting about the criminal. That is why I think that punishment should fit the criminal rather that the crime. I will try to explain my point of view in this essay. /^t/First of all every person is an individual. Everyone is different from another. Different people have different feelings, different characters and that is why we cannot treat them the same way. Two people will always react differently to one situation. Let me use an example with children: For one child it is enough when he is told that he did something wrong, while for another words will not change anything, but spanking or being forbidden some activities would be helpful. /^t/In this case there is no difference in the wrong-doing, but there is a big difference in the character of those children. The first one is more emotional than the second one and certainly spanking could hurt him and would not fulfil its purpose. The same is true of criminals. We must be very careful about choosing the right punishment for the specific criminal so that we do not destroy that man more than he is already. And that is not the purpose of the punishment. /^t/One of the reasons why we want criminals to be punished is an attempt to compensate financial or moral damages. It is obvious that if the crime is committed, someone must pay for that damage even through complete compensation is not possible. And the only person who is obliged to do it is the one who committed the crime. However, the desire to punish the criminal can be dangerous when it derives from fear. People who are directed by fear cannot control what they are doing. All they want is to be safe. This behaviour is no surprise because it is a natural reaction which can and should be controlled. Often people are ready to hurt another person to keep themselves safe. It is very visible in the matter of the criminals. When any crime is committed, all society wants is to catch the criminal and punish him. This is the only and the best solution for them. In this case, I think, the problem is half solved. Seemingly everything is fine, the criminal is caught, punished, but nobody cares about the criminal himself, about his future life. The first thing we can do take care about his future is to choose the right punishment for him. /^t/Care, not fear or anger for another individual whether he is a criminal or not should always direct our actions. That means that the punishment should fit the criminal more than the crime. <0468> /^t/The history of drugs reaches even ancient times. Different kinds of stupefacients were used in relligious practices mainly by priests. At the end of XIX century they gained popularity especiolly among aristocracy. Smoking opium or experiments with morphine were very fashionable among higher classes of a society. Between the wars mainly artists and European aristocracy were using all the accisible narcotics. However, not until the era of hippie were drugs introduced for good in our lives. They became the symbol of the 60's. Nowadays drugs are one of the most serious problems of the modern world. Even Poland, where democratic processes and western influences started comparatively late, has very quickly become one of the biggest producer and exporter of amphetamine in Europe. Plantations of marijuana can be found everywhere, and even LSD is manufactured here. Younger and younger people are addicted to drugs, which can meean everything from cigarette and alcohol to heroin, cannabis, amphetamine, LSD and cocaine. It's proved by science and experience that drugs can cause confusion and frightening, hallucinations, unbalanced emotions, serious medical disordes, phisical deterioration, or even death. They can infect the system leading to sores, jaundice, blood poisoning or AIDS disease. All drugs can be divided into two groups; soft ones like for example marijuana or hashish, and so called hard drugs, represented by amphetamine, LSD, cocaine etc. /^t/The idea of legalization of marijuana as a way of solving the problem is often put forward by people. One of the arguments of people who are in favour of the legalization is that marijuana is quite harmless and overdose is not possible in its case. Therefore if cigarettes are not prohibited why marijuana should be. Another argument is that easier access to weak drugs will prevent people from experimenting with the stronger and dangerous ones. Moreover the fact that marijuana is forbidden, makes it more attractive for young people. At last the idea of democracy is also an argument here. A man has the right to decide what to do with his life. However, are these arguments really convincing? Can the legalization of marijuana solve the problem of drug addiction? I'm sure not. /^t/First of all marijuana consists of much larger amount of dangerous substance than cigarettes. One piece of marijuana is from ten to twenty times stronger than one cigarette. Marijuana available nowadays on the market is from five to twenty times stronger than the one from 60's. As manufactures provide a consumer with better and better detergents, cosmetics, there appear new and more "efficient" drugs. Drug dealers are unscrupulous businessmen. They are inventing new ways of "improving" the effects of weaker narcotics. Marijuana for instance is soaked in formaldehyde or even in rat-poison. Drugs bought today in the streets may be more poisonous than ever before. The difference between the marijuana from the 60's and the 90's is best known by police officers from drug departments or medicall staff. So the argument about not harmfull, weak marijuana is not true any more. /^t/Marijuana consists also of specific chemical substances causing strong addiction. It can be either physical or psychological or both at the same time. According to a dictionary addicted person is someone who is unable to stop having or taking. Man is a creature who becomes addicted to many things or ideas quite easily. The most frequent addiction concerns close people; family, friends, parents. Our feeling of security and happiness depend on these people. We can be addicted also to the state of oownership. The more we own th better, more secure we feel. We can also feel closely attached to our country, relligion, habits, aims, dreams, style of life etc. All these things give us the feeling of security but at the same time make us slaves, depenndent on them. In fact we liv captivated by dependences in illusionary conviction of our freedom and independence. The same phenomenon refers to drug addiction. Only a man with extreeme will-power can overcome, conquer it. Alcohol addicts never become ex-alcoholics but people who have stopped drinking. It is proved that one drug or even a cigarette or alcohol open doors to next experiments. That is why we must treat them as initiative actions. At the beginning doses are bigger and bigger; then tolerance to a certain drug increases. The person doesn't achieve expected pleasures and takes another, stronger drugs. For this reason the argument that legalization of marijuana will prevent people from taking stronger drugs seems ridiculous. /^t/I don't also agree with the opinion that making it legal and at the same time less attractive for young people will stop them taking marijuana. It is true that forbidden fruit is sweatest and taking drugs attracts young people. This is for them the symbol of their maturity, entering adult's world, the mark of rebellion. It gives them sattisfaction from doing of prevention. I'm sure that the fact marijuana is forbidden will discourage at least a group of people to take it, or anyway will make it more difficult to purchase drugs. The previous argument is closely related to the idea of democracy. Are we for the sake of democracy and the right to decide about our life to allow for autodestruction? Although democracy is a system deffining quite a wide range of citizens' freedom in different areas, it doesn't allow for destructive actions of individuals. Besides democracy rights concern mature adults. It's obvious that since a long time adults haven't been the only drug users. Younger and younger children are drug consumers nowadays. According to researches from 1991 in Poland a typical drug adalict is under 25, comes from a big city, from a well-off family. 10% of all drug addicts in Poland is under 18. Most of them are students of high schools and upper classes of primary schools. We must also realise that there are not children who invented drugs. They learned to use them from adults. There are adults who opend doors to drugs for them, and who young people follow. /^t/As I have shown legalization of marijuana is not the way to solve the problem of drug-addiction. It seems obvious to me, that the first thing we should do is to integrate the eff cts of the whole society, school and family. /^t/We should conduct an effective prevention an a larger scale than so far. According to the saying "Prevention is better than cure". Advertisements of cigarettes or alcohol dominated even magazines for young people. Films create and propagate attractive, happy idols drinking or using drugs. From the experience of many countries we can learn that the basic thing is proper upbringing and providing children with the right models, examples. <0469> Living in the country is often the second dream of certain city-dwellers. However, in reality it has both its advantages and disadvantages. /^t/There are many advantages to living in the country. First of all, you have an opportunity to be closer to nature and can enjoy more peace and quiet in beautiful woods and gardens, which are usually very close to the house. What people value most is their freedom from the rat race and the pressures of life in a big city. Country is a place where you can take a deck-chair lying in the sun, breathing the fresh air and relaxing your control what is going around for a moment. In the large gardens you can grow your own fruit and vegetables. In addition, life in the country is much shower and people tend to be more open and friendly. They seem to form a large family, where everybody is ready to help, when another member of it is in need. Villages seem to be more interested in what is going on around with others than city-dwellers. So, you should heel much more save living in the country, having a support of your neighbours. A further advantage of living in the country is that there is much less traffic and as a result it is a much safer place to bring up your children who can spend most of their time outdoors playing in their lovely gardens, which fortunately are far away from dirty streets, polluted cites but first of all, they are not "prisoned" in their small flats on the seventeenth floor. On the other hand their are also certain drawbacks to life outside the city. Firstly, there are fewer people and you have a smaller number of friends. It would be almost unbearable situation for a very sociable person to live in the country for a long time. Moreover, entertainment, particularly in the evenings is difficult to find a place such as restaurant, cafe or cinema where you can spend some enjoyable tome outdoors with your family or friends. Furthermore, the fact that there are fewer shops and services, you can suffer from the lack of it in many situations when you need something urgently. Fewer shops and services often mean that there are few employment opportunities. Therefore, you may hare to travel long distances to work elsewhere and this can be extremely expensive. What is more, living in the country is more suitable for some than others. To sum up, it is often the best place for those who are retired or who have young children. In contrast, young, single people who are following a career and who want some excitement are better provided for by life in the city. On the whole, the best solution of the problem is that somebody would have to houses, one in the city were he could lead everyday busy life and another one in the country where he could spend his weekends or holidays. <0470> Television - colloquially known as TV or the telly - is nowadays so popular that it is hard to believe that the first acceptable televised pictures were transmitted only about a half of a century ago. A pioneer team working at Hayes, Middlesex, were the first to produce what is known as "high definition television" which gives pictures of moving objects clear enough to be enjoyed as entertainment. /^t/Nowadays, viewers are able to watch television for many hours a day, if they have time and inclination. Moreover, many viewers now have many programs at their disposal. A frequent criticism of TV programmes is that they too often feature violence and gun-play. This is one of the greatest disadvantage of the fifty years' invention. /^t/Television is like a toy of the 20th century for both adults and children. Apart from interesting programmes, television shows too many violent films or cop shows which influence viewers very unfavourably, especially young ones. The blood-shed, brutality releases bad instincts and impulses, the spectators try to realize make-believe world and to test the new methods of fighting. Roughness and cruelty seem to be everywhere. In every movie, the defeated character, whether good or evil, swears to have her/his revenge using violence. /^t/As the scientists puzzle over the impact of television, the concern over its effect on children clearly ranks at or near the top of their worries. What effects, then does TV have on children? Obviously, TV reinforces violent behaviour. Cruel films liberate aggressiveness in young viewers who gravitate toward violent shows, where they find legitimations of their worst impulses. This aggressiveness may lead to juvenile delinquencies. Moreover, children who are heavy watchers (usually defined as four hours a day) typically do worse at school than light watchers. Television depresses reading skills. It interferes with the ability to learn to read. Reading is an activity that is generally hard for a child to learn and children will watch TV instead of practising reading what diminish their ability. It also kills their imagination and personality and by constant watching they ruin their eyesight. Furthermore, children are strongly influenced by commercials. Below age eight, most children do not understand that commercials are designed to sell products. Advertisements are treated by young audience as coloured, short and very funny cartoons. /^t/Recently, however, researchers have begun looking for - and finding - "prosocial" effects. They perceive TV as a bridge between visual and literary forms. Television has been around only fifty years. They are just beginning to experiment. The present electronic revolution is as consequential as the industrial revolution over hundred years ago. People could not anticipate how it would influence next generations. /^t/Generally speaking, television was invented for people and I really appreciate its role. Viewers of any of the programmes can watch "live" transmissions of topical events, sports and athletics, news features, interviews with prominent people, musical performances and many other items. Thanks to the telly, we have a contact with literary world and with plays which we would not be able to see live. It gives us an opportunity to get closer to a contemporary world, other people' s cultures, traditions and different styles of living. By watching topical events, the world seems to be a global village for everybody. Films are often televised, and some of them are made specially for television. Many viewers are critical of the films transmitted because they are usually rather old. The cinema industry is jealous of television, and understandably keeps new films for showing in cinemas. The truth is that television has attracted many people away from the cinema and, in recent years, many cinemas have had to close. /^t/TV can also play an educational role. Some films allow us to acquiant ourselves with different historical periods, for instance with an ancient world or famous tragedies like an extremely popular film called "Titanic" talking about the greatest catastrophe from the beginning of our century. There are lots of educational programmes intended for young spectators to help them to learn reading or writing or many other skills. It must be said that religious programmes are also transmitted and many serious and instructive matters like places or treasures of the earth which could not be observed personally are presented on TV. On the other hand, we are unable to dispose of violence entirely. Even some realistic programmes, documentary films or topical events contain information about blood-shed and cruel fights. To abolish rough films and programmes seems to be impossible since it has been a part of our everyday life, but at least we should try to restrict the number of performances. /^t/Broadly speaking, television is one of the best inventions of the contemporary world. As I said previously, TV is compared to the industrial revolution many years ago. We are also not able to foresee the future effects, but as scientists say, if we use the new technologies well, we will have the best-educated generation within decades and will be able to observe the greatest progress of civilization. <0471> /^t/Are the adventages of living in a small town greater than the disadventages? - the answer will depend where the asked person lives. Generally speaking, nobody is satisfied with a place they live in. I live on the outskirts of a small town - much, much smaller than Katowice. My opinion is dominated by my emotions which living in a such a place arouse. I know the problems with commuting to school and work. When I get up every morning I wish I lived in a big city. And when I must hitch-hike because an overcrowded bus has not stopped I hate my small town. There are no big shops. If you want to do shopping you must take a car and go to a city. If you do not have a car you must take a bus which is very onerous. In a small town you have got almost no chances to develop your interests and to take part in cultural life. There are no cinemas, operas and theatres where you can go and see something interesting. There are no schools to teach how to use computers. The schools have not gualified language teachers. They organize no interesting courses, because nobody is interested in investing money in small, poor schools. How do we want to prepare children from such schools to enter XX century? No computer studies, no language, no additional knowledge? There is a minimal opportunity to meet interesting people. There are no people from "the elite". There are no place where you can learn how to behave, speak or maintain a conversation. People who live in small towns have limited access to big libraries. In their libraries there is a limited range of titles. Besides, in big towns librarians are not very willing to help students from small towns. Sometimes they do not want to understand that I could not bring a book back on time because nobody could give me a lift. For the first year of college I rented a flat in a big city. I could go where I wanted: to the cinema, to a concert and to the museum. I could do that whenever I wanted. After each week spent there, I was looking forward to coming back home. I missed my dog and privacy. Nobody shouted above my head about killing his wife, nobody forbid me to laugh loudly. I could organize a barbecue and nobody asked what smelled so good. I love the feeling that something belongs to me. I say, as the English do: "My home is my castle". Nowhere in the world you can feel so safe as in your own house. I would never change it for a flat. Living in a small town you do not have to look for some open space and green grass. You must only go out of the house and you can hear the birds and other voices of nature. There is no noise pollution which makes city dwellers crazy. To the contrary to the common belief that meddlesome neighbours, interested in your life are necessary evil, I think that they are unconscious guards of your ownership. They ask disreputable-looking characters near your house who they are, what they want. /^t/In conclusion, I would say that as each "medal", living in a small town have two sides: the good and the bad ones. Unfortunately, from my point of view, there are more disadventages than adventages. Small towns are appealing to older people who mind the noise and pollution and prefer the peace and fresh air. <0472> Have you ever been a witness of divorce? I happened to be one a few months ago. The divorce that I witnessed was a disaster for both sides, and not only for the husband and the wife, but also for their two small children. The fact that they decided to separate exposed them to a lot of mental pain, and to financial problems. But after all, they found themselves as happy and calm as they always wished to. Although divorces bring sufferings, they should legally exist to ensure peoples' freedom of choice. /^t/The couple, which I mentioned, lives in Poland where the Roman Catholic religion is dominant. Thus, most Polish couples must be conscious that matrimony is one of the holy sacraments, which means that marriage can be disunited only by the death of one of the spouses. In case of separation, or decision to live with someone else people are regarded by the Church as sinners. Certainly, Christian religion and many others with their sacraments are serious limitations to divorce. But not all people have such sets of beliefs, and if they do not care about religious vows, there can be other things which bother them. A couple's divorce, for instance, can do a lot of harm to the children the couple brings up. Especially, children's psychic is in danger, because it can be distorted in future life. Children are afraid of being left alone and they may think that nobody loves them, which can lead, in their adult life, to lack of success in relationships with other men or women. Fortunately, there are many specialists in the fields of psychology and psychiatry who can always advise, and help those children. Finally, in addition to these minuses of divorces presented here, one may mention also a financial problem, because a couple must pay for the case in the court. But this is a minor problem, which does not form any obstacle to divorce, because money is not as important as psychic comfort of both husband and wife. Divorces sometimes truly help people. They create new opportunities, give hope for better future, and make people feel relaxed after all those marriage arguments, and marriage battles. Men and women may always change their minds in some time, and also people's feelings change. The fact that one loved another person a few months or years ago does not necessarily signify that he or she still loves that person. Generally, people make various difficult decisions in life, and divorce is one of these decisions. All that people need is tolerance for their ideas and choices. Even then, when the choice of divorce seems to be wrong, the law and people should respect it. Actually, the reasons for divorce may be different, sometimes it is only the lack of good will to wait till the things get better, however, sometimes a spouse may suffer physically or mentally. The latter refers especially to the cases of violence in the family, to betrayals, and incompatibility of temper. If a person suffers, divorce is an escape from a form of a prison which marriage then resembles. It is still one's personal choice if he or she wants to get divorced. In a situation that divorces were banned and people wanted to live separately, they would part anyway. Definitely, law would not make them love each other, and divorce as a social phenomenon should exist. In fact, as my divorced friend says, marriage cannot function normally without love. And she always add somewhere-heard saying that one year in marriage without love is worse than ten years on a galley. <0473> /^t/It is almost impossible to find a single place anywhere in the XXth century world which would not be pasted with advertisements of all sorts. Throughout years this branch has developed so greatly that advertisements can be seen everywhere. We see commercials on TV, hear them on the radio, see advertisements at every bus stop, kiosk or airport. They are also common in newspapers, bars, railway stations and we can even meet some on boxes of matches or telephone cards. Nowadays they are so popular that almost every producer uses them to attract potential clients. Advertising has become inherent in our life but we should wonder if it is really harmless to us, ordinary people. /^t/First of all, very few of us realize how much money is spent on advertising. For example, it has been reported that in 1994 about 330 milliard franks were invested in advertising campaigns by European companies but who bothers where the money was taken from? Of course it is the society that provided it, it is the end user that has to finance every advertisement. The price of the product increases since the producer includes the costs of the campaign into the final price. It is like another tax we have to pay to make the sale possible. /^t/Moreover, advertisements are socially useless since they just aim at raising the number of the sold products never taking care of social problems. Not a single car corporation has ever mentioned to what extent car fumes pollute the air and destroy the ozone layer. Alcohol and cigarettes are still advertised and sold successfully despite the fact they are so harmful. Except for a tiny warning at the bottom of the advertisement there is no mention of millions of alcoholics destroying their own families and lives. There is also no mention of smokers dying from lung cancer. /^t/Publicity agents are so much afraid of losing their clients that they do not feel responsible for informing them of such facts. What they do instead is even more alarming. The world they present in the advertisements is so unreal that it may frustrate the society which usually does not live on the highest standard and has to deal with many problems never existing in advertisements. People see expensive cars, beautiful houses and great equipment. Women are always pretty and slim, children are never naughty and men extremely mannish always presenting wonderful white teeth. It is an unreal paradise which makes us start dreaming. After the commercial on television finishes we have to wake up and see our gray reality, an old car which falls into pieces, a child screaming in the corner and an unshaven husband who has just lost his job. We are so dissatisfied with what we have that we start looking for something better. Now only buying a miraculous shampoo will make us feel good. After we buy it we need a new washing machine just seen on television. Then we have to buy a new TV set, a new car, a new house and this vicious circle never ends. /^t/Although it is impossible to eliminate advertisements from our life we must at least think of harm they do to us. We do not even realize that advertising entails such enormous expenses and that this money could be allocated for many other purposes. It does not deal with social problems in fear of losing clients. Moreover, it persuades us to buy certain products which are harmful for our health not caring for the effects. Advertising also exploits our dreams of a better future by alluding us and showing a distorted and beautified vision of the world. <0474> /^t/For centuries man has been eager to fathom the mystery of the outer space. The twentieth century is crucial in the history of mankind - in the sixties man flew into the space for the first time and landed on the Moon. Since then many people left the Earth and many space travels have been organized. Such expeditions are enormous ventures and they entail a lot of expenses. Nevertheless, they should be carried on. In my opinion governments of different countries should spend money on space travels as they are the source of knowledge about the universe which can be very useful in the future. /^t/Nowadays more and more discoveries are being made and human attainments concerning the world are developing. It can be said that space travels are very useful from the scientific point of view as they let us broaden our horizons. Man improves his knowledge from fields of science such as astronomy, astrology, physics, chemistry, biology or geography. This knowledge is not wasted. Thanks to many observations and research scientists are able to explain different phenomena. Common people may change their perspective and start to perceive Earth not as the center of the universe, but just as a small part of it. /^t/Discoveries of new objects in the outer space may be very helpful in the future if man manages not only to conquer, but also to "tame" them and adjust himself to living there. The number of human beings is still increasing and it is possible that in a few hundred years there will be not enough room for all people on our planet, so some of them will be able to "emigrate" and settle down in the space. Nowadays scientists explore some parts of the universe in order to find out if they are suitable for settling down. There are some plans that in the future people will live on the Moon. Maybe it is not as stupid as it may seem. Maybe the development of science will give opportunities to solve the problem of overpopulation on the Earth. Speaking in jest, new places in the universe can also be useful in cases when somebody wants to escape from his or her everyday problems, wants to live in seclusion for some time or start a new life somewhere in the outer space. Perhaps in the future we will spend our holidays on the Moon or on Mars. /^t/The emotional side of space travels is important as well. During the expeditions man is able to observe the Earth as a whole and watch different objects in the space which are not visible from the Earth. There is no gravity in the space and everything, including human body, is floating. I think that emotions connected with abiding in the space are incredible and cannot be compared to anything that man experiences on the Earth. /^t/To sum up, I am strongly for organizing space travels and spending money on this purpose. My intention was to show that the advantages of such travels are immense and I hope that I managed to convince the readers of it. <0475> /^t/In today's knowledge economy, the idea of education is broadening far beyond the classrooms. Therefore the public institutions - especially schools - are endowed with the most crucial task of infusing a country's facts and myths into its youngest, most malleable citizens. America is a good example, where questions about what story will be taught, and who will teach it, have never been more complex. /^t/Since everyone's identity in modern-day America is politicized more than it has ever been - in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, and language - the most profound fight, the one tapping deepest into the emotions of everyday American life, is over political correctness. In the high school textbooks slaves are referred to as 'enslaved people', minorities are referred to as 'part of the world's majorities', poor people are referred to as 'culturally disadvantaged'. The promoting a history told from the point of view of the groups so far underrepresented like African-American, Hispanics, women and ordinary folk, gives the students an ability to apply their history to novel problems. The main goal of multicultural approach in high-school education is to incorporate the perspectives of all cultures in all subjects and to reject the American old-time ideas on cultural diversity, throwing a new light on the official U.S. motto: 'E pluribus unum' ('from many, one'). However, the upward tendency of covering controversial issues and portraying the roles of all racial and ethnic groups, which seems to omen well for American integrity, raises a lot of questions. /^t/The true question is whether nations need to keep their shape by molding their high school students' understanding of the past, present and the future. The multicultural approach, as hitherto described - a purposeful differentiating between culture, gender and race - may be criticized for causing, rather than resolving, racial thinking. Politically corrected stories seem to have added either nuance, or some believe distractions, to the plotline. More importantly, the omnipresent concept seems to be threatening the exercise of the right of free expression and the right of students to express opinion in accordance with their belief and conscience. Yet, uncensored reading favors techniques which place a premium on individual thinking and therefore it leads to students' unrestricted understanding of their own history and culture. It allows more freedom of thought, which is protected by the 1st Amendment to the American Consitution and is considered essential to the vitality of the country. /^t/The roiling debate pitting 'objectiveness' against 'equality' has taken a serious toll in America. In some respects, the educators brought the backlash on themselves by relying on rigid definitions of 'political correctness'. While occupying center stage in American life, political correctness and a new approach to multicultural phenomenon, have aired, some believe, America's decades of grievances. Whether high school reading should add up to this polarization, is still debated. But there is hope. <0476> /^t/Small town reality may sometimes appear as a menacing loop tightening around your neck. The more you struggle, the greater the pain. You desperately attempt to find a solution, but the fact is that there is none. Leaving behind all the monotonny, boredom and narrow-mindedness is the only way to cope with it. The most common inscription on the grey walls of the town is "NO FUTURE", which seems to be the most appropriate token of inhabitants' attitudes and the town's gloomy atmosphere. Small towns are undoubtfully not the best places on earth to live in. The most depressing fact about living in a small town is its overwhelming sameness. Every day you perform the same activities without the slighest hope that something extraordinary may occur to you. The only source of entertainment is the ubiquitous TV set, which will never let you down (books have recently lost their popularity). /^t/However, there is a limit of staring at the glass box in the corner of your room, besides, you are only a human being and the presence of other people would do you good from time to time. Unfortunately, there is only one place where you can meet your friends - the nearest bar (there are several of them in a small town) - a sordid, dirty shack with drunkards staggering all around, mumbling some incomprehensible words to themselves. If you happen not to like this place, you spend your leisure time at home, because, in fact, bars are almost the only entertainment establishments available. Seldom are there any museums, but if there are, the exhibitions remain unchanged for years. The cinema (if at all) offers you the very commercial items, because no unconventoonal artistic undertaking would attract crowds, therefore, it would not be profitable. The elevated notions of culture achievements, like theatre or (God save us!) opera, are forgotten or used only in jokes. /^t/Nevertheless, the problem is not only with the lack of access to culture, but also with the lack of need to such access. The mentality of small-town people appears to be deprived of any higher aspirations towards intellectual self-realization or better understanding of the external world. /^t/Some people claim that dwelling in a small town is very advantageous, maintaining that there is no anonymity, from which the inhabitants of huge agglomerations suffer. However, the question arises, whether the fact that all the faces that you encounter are familiar to you, makes you feel less alone. Besides, there is no place for individuality in small towns, for being other in some aspect than the rest of the community. Here, a slight disobedience of prevailing rules is good enough to make you feel condemned, because everybody knows all the details of your private life. /^t/Small towns are said to be less crime-originating and, therefore, much safer than enormous conglomerations. On the other hand, looking at it from the statistical point of view it is obvious that the smaller number of people will commit much less crime. Besides, you can feel safe nowhere nowadays. /^t/Taking everything into consideration, the shortcomings of living in a small town incomparingly surpass the advantages. By staying there, you may risk not only your self-development, but also joy of life. Therefore, if you happen to live there, do not hesitate, because after some time it may be too late. <0477> /^t/In the contemporary reality it seems rather impossible to do without knowledge of at least one foreign language. Nowadays, international political, social and cultural situation not only encourages, but even obliges people to learn foreign languages, what enables an intensive development of mutual relations and communication between them. Therefore, people of different nationalities may feel the members of one global society. /^t/For the majority of them learning a foreign language is reduced only to the perfunctory knowledge of that language without "going into details". They do not treat it as seriously as those for whom learning a foreign language becomes a real vocation and who devote most of their life-time to study it in the full meaning of the word. /^t/What exactly does it mean to study a foreign language? Certainly it does not mean analysing its grammatical structure or dealing with its formal aspects only, but, moreover, foreign language study broadens one's knowledge of culture, literature, history, political and social life of the country, or countries, in which a given language is spoken. Such a knowledge contributes to the development of one's general knowledge of the world, and, therefore, to create his or her own vision of reality, built upon viewing it from different sides. /^t/Furthermore, a foreign language provides a learner with the new perspectives of self-expression, either in writing or speaking. Human language as such constitutes the primary means of communication between people. I do not deny the importance of some other ways of conveying one's ideas, namely, any artistic creation, gestures, so-called "body language", which do not involve the need of written or spoken language signs. What I mean is that a mature, civilised human being should be able to express himself or herself in the language, traditionally comprehended as a system of grammar and meaningful vocabulary. It is possible that if someone does not feel really comfortable while performing in his or her native language, the study of a foreign one may offer him or her new means of a more positive self-presentation and thus, endow him or her with greater amount of self-confidence. /^t/If one is enthusiastically fascinated with literature, he or she, owing to the more extended knowledge of a given language, is able to read its literary masterpieces or any other texts in their original versions, not in translations which, as it often happens, slightly garbles a text. As an example I can mention my reading of "The Scarlet Letter", written by Nathaniel Hawthorne, which in its Polish translation appeared to me as a very poor and boring novel, whereas, after reading its original version, I have completely changed my opinion on the book. /^t/One might say that it is quite possible to study the literature of a foreign country without knowledge of its language. But I think that only theoretical studies in such a case give satisfactory results. I, personally, cannot imagine studying English or American literature without reading novels or even works on the history of literature in English language. For me it would be a great loss. /^t/Fortunately, it is not only my opinion that a foreign language study is really worthwhile. My personal convictions on the subject are supported and shared by all the young people who enter universities to deal with foreign languages more intensively and thoroughly. Many new institutions specialized in teaching foreign languages on the advanced levels are being established all over Poland, organising different coureses in order to prepare the candidates for university studies. /^t/Foreign language studies for some people may seem rather tedious and monotonous, but it depends on personal preferences. Such studies certainly have some less attractive aspects ( e.g. courses in descriptive grammar ), which might be said also with regards to any kind of studies. Those willing to deal with a foreign language phenomenon have to be prepared for an intensive, time-consuming work so as to obtain fully satisfactory effects. They have to be patient, persistent and open to everything that is connnected with foreign language studies. Moreover, they should be able to treat their work seriously, and, at the same time, to perceive it as a source of sophisticated intellectual pleasure. /^t/Foreign language studies might be an interesting adventure and a challenge worth consideration as there is always something to be discovered in a phenomenon of human language which cannot be penetrated to its furthermost borders, simply because they do not exist. <0478> The answer to the question is: guided individual study should definitely not replace classes in schools. There are reasons behind this statement which will be discussed below. The system of classroom teaching emerged in XVI century because the development of economy and culture demanded speeding-up of a didactic process and improvement of its organization. However, it has been strongly criticized and several attempts have been made to replace it - with no success. Dalton plan was first introduced by Helena Parkhurst in Dalton. Its crucial point is that the students have no classes at school but they are given a part of material from every subject, a set of exercises and theory, to study at home. They are supposed to learn it during usually a month and then to present their knowledge before the teacher. The idea, unfortunately (?), did not work. Learning at schools is very important from the point of view of sociology. The society consists of individuals who should act as one organism. From the very beginning students must be taught how to deal with a variety of social problems, to mention racism only. The school gives them the opportunity to experience different cultures, ideas, religions, and people. It also helps in teaching proper behavior, sense of unity, and identity. Individual study would kill the student's motivation. Learning in a class and observing the progress of the rest of a group make a student work harder. It introduces the spirit of fight and competition when the students motivate themselves. Those who have problems can benefit by taking advice from those who are better. It is proved that there is no use studying certain subjects alone, especially when working in groups or discussion are the basic methods of teaching them. The ability of putting one's ideas into words cannot be developed in front of the mirror. A student needs a partner in conversation. Chemistry or physics are among those that need a teacher as a guide in the jungle of sophisticated experiments. At school a student finds well-equiped rooms and a walking source center to help in case of any possible difficulties. Assuming that a teacher does his/her best, students find the material systematized and it helps them to acquire it faster. The attitude of a teacher to the subject he/she lectures may positively influence students and make them seek for more information. In that way interests are evolving... The rhythm of learning and discipline are imposed, so even those who are not good self-organizers can profit and achieve better results. Since classes in schools have stood the test for such a long time there is no need to introduce anything new instead. <0479> /^t/Nowadays we observe a quick development of mass culture, hence the advertising becomes more and more influential. Since the television is gaining a leading role in media, TV commercials became the most powerful ones. Still, the adverts in the newspapers, magazines, on the radio, and the ones we see every day in the streets cannot be discarded. /^t/Observing the impact the adverts have on the viewer or the listener, and analyzing the way the products are being advertised we may come to the conclusion, that modern advertising has a definitely negative and harmful influence on people. /^t/First of all, the adverts strengthen the stereotypes in the society. It is enough to take a look at a couple of TV commercials and one can easily notice that these are the beautiful women who advertise cosmetics, top models who recommend a washing powder or a ketchup (as if they have ever washed or cooked), and handsome men who drive fast cars and to whom no woman will resist. The life shown in adverts is the most ideal you could think of, however only because of the products mentioned there; no matter whether it is a washing powder or a sports car. Moreover, surrounding world is always the most colorful and the most joyful so as to make one jealous of it. Suddenly you catch yourself that you think the way they (people responsible for advertising) would like you to do. You are likely to start cursing your life for its being so colorless, tasteless, adventureless and friendless according to what is being advertised at the particular moment. Even your job appears boring and your colleaques get on your nerves. Then, you come up with an idea. At first very shyly but then the thought of buying a new product strikes you. Now you know. You will never be happy without this car! And you are lost. The moment you start buying the advertised items you want be able to stop. This is a vicious circle and there is no way out without the help of a psychoanalyst. /^t/There is yet another problem, though. Sometimes the advertising cause some social problems when the way of advertising become controversial. People use half of their vital energy on quarreling whether this or that should, or as a matter of fact should not be advertised, whereas they could focus on much more important social subjects. /^t/Still, there is one issue that should be paid much attention to. Namely, the alcohol is being advertised which is very harmful, especially for young people who are apt to be influenced by catchy slogans. Some TV commercials or posters are even quite obscene. /^t/Finally, let me pay your attention to a very down to earth fact that advertising may cause road accidents. There are huge posters located by the streets or highways and usually what is being advertised is women's underwear. When you drive really fast a second of a lost attention may result in a serious accident. /^t/In my opinion, modern advertising is very harmful and should be somehow wisely governed so as to prevent it from being a threat to a society. <0480> /^t/In the twentieth century television became one of the most crucial mass media. It reaches most of people in the world and is probably the most easy and accessible broadcasting. Moreover, it offers entertainment for millions of people. Taking these facts under consideration we can not forget the influence of television on personalities. Television as a form of education shapes young, undeveloped characters of people. There is a plethora of different programs on television and everybody can choose what he wishes. Despite the fact that some programs have an evident value a bad quality of the huge rest has an impact on the whole television. The essentially treating thing is the quality of telecasts for children. Supposedly an average child spends about three hours a day in the front of the screen. Unfortunately, a part of the staff he watches, if not the whole, is not educational (while it pretends to be) and, what is more, often has a harmful influence on forming the personality of young man, due to violence, sex and swear words presented on the screen. Another humiliating fact about television is the broadcasting of numerous quizes, so popular at present, which pretend to be educational. However, the authors of these programs are not typical highbrows and their productions do not teach anything or are limited to some basic levels of general knowledge. Another matter is the time organisation of programs. The real educational programs are broadcast when everybody is at work or school, namely in the morning. During the time when the most of people turn on television, in the afternoon hours, one can only watch serials, soap operas, quizes and other pieces of entertainment of a minor level. In addition, valuable movies are often broadcast late in the evening, so that one has to wait till midnight or use his video, provided hi owns, of course. This would not be so uncomfortable if not the fact that such a time frame appears on all the channels. So we can not escape watching similar programs as for example soap operas at five o'clock switching channels. The only one solution is to turn off the television set and wait for the more convenient time. The next problem are advertisements, especially commercials emitted during films. Do we really need to be informed about the advantages of a new cosmetic product while watching a war film? Broadcasting of commercials in a ten minute blocks several times during one film undoubtedly brings profit to the television station but it may distract and even get on viewers' nerves. It simply denotes the preference of financial advantages rather than quality of a product which is in this case a television program or a movie. Such an attitude can not guarantee a high level of television programs and furthermore a comfort of watching. Nowadays people are addicted to television. What is frightening television set became a substitute of partner for lonely people. It may even lead to so called scopophilia which is sexual satisfaction taken from watching television. There are such cases but let us forget about extremes. Despite, we have to remember that television is a crucial factor building our opinions, attitudes, views etc. Programs on television seem to be ostensibly objective but to tell the truth no one can avoid a complete objectiveness. To some extent, our political and cultural tastes are somehow directed by television. It is truly sad that the one of the biggest inventions of civilisation may contribute to an intellectual impoverishment of mankind. <0481> <*>. Probably everybody knows the rest of this amazingly beautiful and charming fairy tale. Yes, this is the fable of 'Cinderella' admired by young children teenagers, adults and supposedly by older people. Previously, these beautiful stories such as 'Snow-white', 'The Beauty and the Beast', or 'Sleeping Beauty' were read usually by grandparents for their grandchildren. However, in the 20th century it has changed a bit and the preferable forms of these stories are animated cartoons broadly produces by such famous companies as Disney or other less popular and almost fanatically watched by the youngest, both on TV and at the cinema. Unfortunately, the progress of technology has not left even fairy tales intact and more and more producers create cartoons that rather terrify with their appearances than soothe tired children before going to bed. Shooting robots on the earth in the 25th century where nothing is even similar to what we have nowadays on our poor earth is one of the most common topics around which the business of modern animated cartoons develops. Moreover, all the miracles that happen during fierce fights such as possibility of an unexpected metamorphosis into something even more frightening and powerful than before, make children hyper and nervous. They try to make all these impossibilities possible in the real life whenever there is the smallest opportunity e.g. in kindergarten or at school, pretending they are the most powerful creatures. Those cases at school are even more difficult because some of them end with a durable disability. Nevertheless a great number of young humans spend half of their day in front of the TV screen hypnotized by weird forms from who knows where and making quasi-peace, or order usually on the earth by means of a virtual nuclear wars or just devastating and killing everything on their way. The reality that is served in those cartoons is undoubtedly 'twisted' and children are not able to make heads or tails out of this, they just see what they want to see and are trying to create a 'wonderful cartoon' world around themselves. The good characters in such stories are the ones that kill and wreak havoc. Moreover, the purpose of their activities is usually vaguely clarified and there are no obvious solutions to the problems. Additionally, when the story finishes it is frequently deprived of any moral that a child could learn from and step by step create his or her hierarchy of values. These are just few examples how new cartoons help in education of the future representatives of a given society. Unfortunately, we can not stop the development of technology but at least we have the possibility of free choice, which we should exercise in life. We should not allow unbearable creatures from unpredictable fatasies make us too much happy, and especially deform reality in which the youngest live. <0482> It is unquestionable that most people in developed countries are city-dwellers. However, many of them find that the price for "privilege"of living in metropolies is extremely high and in the long run the disadvantages seem to surpass advantages. It is believed that city offers more chances of employment and greater range of jobs available. But nowadays the situation looks much differently and the increasing number of those who receive unemployment benefit and social assistance seems to contradict the statement. Those who move to the city often argue that this place gives them anonymity which they associate with the sense of freedom and protection from people's inquisitiveness. But the same anonymity later leaves just loneliness. It often happens that city-dwellers, cramped in blocks of flats, do not even know their neighbours and in an emergency they cannot rely on them. Besides, it is difficult for them to strike up the friendship or close acquaintance. /^t/Modern cities impose certain living conditions on their inhabitants which seem to be "unnatural". City-dwellers lost touch with rhythm of nature. Only due to few parks, if they have time to visit them, they distinguish between spring and autumn. Even the distinction between day and night is lost owing to thousands of bright lights. Sunshine and fresh air are more highly valued as usual. Tall buildings cover the sun whereas fumes pollute the air so heavily that many inhabitants suffer from serious medical problems. Besides, the traffic noise never stops and there are numerous car accidents. Some claim that a man is able to adapt to these conditions, but the question is: "what for?". /^t/There are people who point out that it is impossible to be bored in the city, as it offers many kinds of entertainment, including restaurants, theatres and galleries. However, all these amusements as well as sports facilities cost them a lot. Moreover, they do not enjoy these things everyday and living in a small town or even in the country, people can make short trips to the city to participate in various cultural events. /^t/Not only does entertainment cost a lot, but also accomodation. It is often impossible for an ordinary people to buy a house on their own. High rents must be paid for small flats, often situated in the suburbs. Many stress that the cost of living is very high as well. No one would deny that a variety of shops provide a wide assortiment of goods and services. But it is seldom realised that everything you buy is more expensive than it would be in the country. /^t/The city by night with bright lights, crowded pubs, people going to the theatre is undoubtedly an exciting place. Alternatively, there are also deserted shopping centres, drunkards and drug addicts. The streets where people walk with confidence during the day can be frightening at night. Many people fear to leave their flats as there are frequent burglaries. Some never go out in the evenings, terrified of being robbed or abused. Few city-dwellers argue that only small minority of people is involved in crime and violence, and that the police is watchful, but these assertions are not convincing. In addition to all this, commuting to work is like "struggling" through rush-hours. The inhabitants are exhausted by other people who crowd in trains, buses or by traffic jams. Furthermore, there is a shortage of parking places, especially in the centre, where most people work Even if there are made plans of re-building city centers, it involves huge sums of money and time. Unfortunately, the former and the latter are not available. /^t/Concluding, living in a modern city has become a matter of survival rather than of enjoyment, but having no alternative we are forced to put up with these conditions. <0483> The world-wide spread postulate of racism assumes the belief that human abilities depend on race. Moreover, a policy of racial segregation aims at the conviction that some races are superior to other. If the races intermingle, such a two-race intermarriage would imply a solution to the problems of ethnic antagonism. Assimilation of racial differences could result in natural co-operation and, at the same time, eliminate the obstacles on the way to uni-cultural integration. On the other hand however, the idea of race mixing may result in entirely adverse consequences. Namely, the phenomenon of racism could derive immediately from the attempt of race confrontation. If the cultures of the two component races prove to be incongruous and the agreement cannot be reached by means of compromise, then the more potent or dominant culture would endeavour to incorporate the other one. Such a cultural clash may initiate racial separation and alienation, moreover, lead to persecution and open aggression. Paradoxically a complete fusion among the cultures could constitute another threat to the contemporary civilisation, i.e. a phenomenon of world-unification (a Global Village complex). A dynamic process of race-merging and a long-term cultural assimilation would result in a mono-racial and mono-cultural mankind, and at the same time, the extinction of the uniqueness of distinct cultures. Undeniably, there exists potential risk stemming from the fact of contracting intermarriages. Nonetheless, the consequences of the idea of race-mixing, as it was stated above, have already proved rewarding. Racism may turn out to be an extreme result of ethnic confrontation (interracial marriages). In the same circumstances however, race-mixing, in the clear majority of cases, results in co-operation or assimilation, contributing to the embodiment of the idea of the pacifistic world - the fewer differences among people, the fewer occasions of strife. The offspring of intermarriages, in a way, automatically exposed to racial tolerance will consequently propagate and hand down this ability to succeeding generation. To come full circle: tolerance of the wide scope will fructify with even greater number of interracial marriages, hitherto obstructed by racial prejudice, which may lead directly to the unification of cultures. At this point, the phenomenon of uni-culture should be re-evaluated., First of all, the complex of Global Village, as the most significant objection aiming at the cultural unification, may be overruled by comparison with the advantages accruing from the process. Namely, the idea of cultural amalgamation may lead to overcoming cultural barriers, which will subsequently lead to the stimulating transfusion, in literal and metaphorical sense. That is to say, mixed population may enjoy both, the blood revival through the exchange of genotypes, and the dynamic development facilitated by the adoption of the most propitious elements extracted from the component cultures. Paradoxically enough, both, negative and positive aspects of race-mixing can have the same origins. To avoid the disadvantages of the phenomenon, respective steps should be undertaken in advance. Therefore, there must be adopted an educational scheme aiming at the eradication of racial prejudices, senticising the society to tolerance and propagating interracial marriages. Only a consistent policy, supported by media, reflected in art (literature, film) and first of all agreed on will result in a widespread acceptance of the phenomenon of race-mixing. <0484> We have reached a point when it is impossible to deny that European culture has been pushed to the periphery. Filling up this periphery our culture "allotted" the central area to what comes to Europe from America. The flood of might be generally called "Americannes" is noticeable in different areas of human life and activity. Probably, the most conspicuous manifestation of this influence is the input of English into Polish. Some of the English words and expressions ousted the Polish ones and became fully assimilated among many people irrespectively of their education and position. For instance, we tend to use "sorry" (often with Polish pronunciation) instead of "przepraszam" without even being aware of it. It has simply become habitual. Some expressions such as the infamous "fuck" or "shit" have been not only overused but misused too. Also, words like "shop" or "supermarket" have already undergone a strong assimilation, and we ceased to see them as foreign. Furthermore, some specific jargon had made a great use of such expressions as "autoryzowany dealer", a kind of unnecessary linguistic extravaganza that seem to confuse and enhance prestige and credibility of a company. Cinematography is another field of cultural activity in which the American influence is observable. One does not have to count the percentage to see that majority of what European cinemas show are American films. It will not be an overstatement to say, that they are often of questionable value. Not only are they trashy, but they may exert an unfavourable influence on European cinematography setting, sometimes, standards of a happy-end soap opera or shoot-em-ups, to mention just the most prevailing. One might argue that e.g. Polish films are also of bad quality. But every country produces market-oriented as well as ambitious and artistic movies. The point is, that American productions outnumber the native ones and are very often marketable. It would be, of course, tendentious and unfair to overlook good productions which are made in America. Not many of them, however, become box-office hits. They often go unnoticed (because they are not promoted on a great scale) and are low-budget productions which, were meant, from the very beginning, for a small audience. Thus what usually appears on the European cinema market are commercial films which, surprisingly, are favoured by picture-goers and which people will prefer to their home-made productions. Such a situation led to a difficult condition of native film industry in some countries. There are fewer and fewer artistic films made in Europe because they are not profitable and their productions need sponsors to come off. Various film festivals, like those in Venice, Berlin, Cannes, Karlove Vary, Toruñ, Gdynia prove that European cinematography frequently exceeds the American one. But if the inflow of such a great amount of American movies continues, even those festivals will not be able to promote national movies. Books are another vehicle which transports a very mediocre content to Europe. It is undeniable, that America has created an excellent body of literature (as every culture has). Still, the US produces a large number of books of very poor quality which are massively supplied for a mass reader, e.g. low-brow romances or Dale Carnagie-psychology books. Accordingly, it can be seen that America does exert an influence on European culture. Although some people would claim the opposite, this influence is, to a large extent, negative. It is detrimental to the uniqueness of European cultures, which, if the process continues, will become more and more uniform. Why Europe has proved to be a sponge absorbing so much of what is made in America is a problem to be analysed by sociologists. <0485> /^t/Advertising is the business which makes products for sale known to the public and encourages people to buy them. Alas, the ad market resources to all accessible means of persuasion. Stereotypes and negative patterns of behaviour are spread, the use of aggression and erotic is common. A human-being becomes limited to a consumer who is systematically brainwashed and manipulated by the messages which aim at his/her vulnerable points, not always realized emotional needs and unconscious desires. The conclusion follows that modern advertisements may and do cause harm. /^t/The producers act having a single purpose in mind, namely to boost their sales. They flood market with products, and draw people into the slough of consumption. An active participation in the act of accumulating goods gives people an elusive feeling of the freedom of choice whereas in fact the are steered by advertisers. /^t/Brainwashing is a commonly used procedure when by being constantly assaulted by pictorial, written or spoken information people change their beliefs and ideas, so that, for instance, they begin to equal possession of a new automobile with higher social status. People grow accustomed to think about themselves as ones unable to achieve what they crave for because they are deprived of a thing, which lowers their self esteem and may even result in compulsive shopping. /^t/Moreover, directing attention to buying new things helps to forget about solicitude, fears, unfulfilled dreams, lack of love or independence. Depiction of loving families, attractive men and women, affluence, health, power and all that people desire is accepted as a consequence of possessing one or another thing. People shift additional message that advertisements impart on the product itself. Such advertisements emphasize a consumptive model of life and deceive frustrated customers who are left with their problems unsolved. /^t/Unfortunately, advertisers refer also to such emotions and attitudes like aggression, thirst for sensationalism or various sexual desires, which may lead to shaping undesired behaviour among people who imitate situations or approaches, just to mention the case of children pornography when almost naked bodies of youngsters were photographed for the purposes of advertising (Kelvin Klein collection). /^t/Such advertisements, apart from being not ethical and having a negative influence, do offend by degrading values as, for example, respect due to death or religion. A view of a dead body in a poodle of blood shocks deeply if its purpose is to show the everlasting colours of Bennetton. People grow accustomed to such gruesome sights. What is left in their memories is the name of a company. /^t/Apart from a common lack of moral values, most advertisement clash with a sense of aesthetics. Billboards nailed to any buildings also monumental ones, posters peeling off on the bus stops, streetcars painted in awful colours etc., seldom beautify the landscape. Not to forget a spoilt pleasure of watching a film which is interrupted by commercial brake. /^t/The method in which products are advertised distort people's perception of reality by maintaining stereotypes and forcing untrue ideas about the product itself. The polls show that people's knowledge of the world comes from media and TV in particular. Therefore, women are taught that their vocation is to clothe their husbands in immaculately white shirts so that they look handsomely in luxurious cars designed especially for them. At the same time, instead of heard in the ad nice melodies, a washing machine issues noises and cake is not that big as in the TV trick where it was stuffed with silicon. /^t/Happily, insertion of invisible to a human eye frames with, e.g. a name of a product, which influence subconscious are banned, so, theoretically at least, a consumer is safe from being shrewdly indoctrinated without his/her knowledge. /^t/Still, the people have hardly any influence neither on the products they are being wheedled into purchasing nor on the procedures applied to advertising. /^t/Advertisements form an indispensable part of most economic markets and have become a widely spread social phenomenon. Therefore, it should be pointed to the importance of altering the messages into such which would not be at odds with aesthetic and moral values, which would be more fair in relation to the customer and not focused on raising profits solely. <0486> We live in the world of high technology and great inventions. All those innovations fill our lifes and surround us from all sides. The result is that many of them are coming in for criticism. Advertising is one of them. There is always the same question whether it is harmful or not. The opinions are divided. Its critics presented lots of arguments that are supposed to degrade such a form of promoting goods. However, those arguments can also be a good medium to depict the merits of modern advertising. Advertisers tend to think big, but are resented by their critics for self-promotion and spending large sums of money wastefully. It is said that entirely unproductive industry (if we can call it that) absorbs huge sums of money each year. It means large profits for big companies which instead of advertising could sell their goods at a lower price. After all it is a customer who pays. Here is the trap. Doing away with advertising would make the situation look worse. In fact, we would have to pay a great deal more if advertising did not create markets for products. It is also the wrong idea to think that the very purpose of advertising is to sell goods. Another equally important function is to inform the potential customers. A great amount of knowledge that we have about the products we buy comes mainly from advertisement. We obtain details regarding price, performance, etc. of a product we plan to buy. We can make a choice from a variety of presented goods. Lots of people claim that they never read advertisements. It is almost impossible not to read them nowadays. They are everywhere: on the railway station, in newspapers, in the streets. A cheerful and witty advertisement makes a drab wall look nicer. We must not also forget that advertisement contributes positively to the price of the products that are sold to us. The fact that we pay for our newspaper or can enjoy the variety of broadcast programmes is due to the advertisements. We do not have to pay their full price. Another important thing is the role of small ads in the community. In their columns you can announce anything you want. For instance, you can find a job, buy or sell something, announce a birth, marriage, or death. The other argument against advertisements is that they are in poor taste and consequently cheapen the quality of life. Here, we have to ask the question what is good and bad taste. What qualities contribute to the fact that one thing is in good taste and the other in bad taste. Who should establish the norms about taste. I would say that it is a very delicate problem. Our likes and dislikes are a very personal thing. The same is true as far as our tastes are concerned. Another thing often stated is that advertisement is a shocking interruption of television programmes. We must not, however, forget that owe to this shocking interruptions we can watch better films, more interesting programmes. Besides, cannot we really make advantage of those few minutes of break? Advertising system has been criticised a lot lately. This is only a measure of people's great interest. There are lots of contoversial opinions. However, the fact that advertisers perform a useful service to the community is doubtless. <0487> /^t/There are billions of people around the world. They speak thousands of languages. No one knows all of them, but lots of people learn some foreign language. Millions of people spend a lot of money on paying thousands of others who make their living teaching languages. Why is it so? Is foreign language study really worthwile? /^t/It is impossible for any nation not to communicate with the neighboring states. Different nationalities usually speak different languages - it is a crucial element of their culture. Thus, to prevent misunderstandings which might have tragic consequences, people with a good command of both languages are necessary. /^t/Humans have always loved traveling, and nowadays they travel even more, asquick and comfortable means of transport have been invented. It is far easier to survive in a foeign country if you know the local language. First of all, people tend to be more friendly and eager to help if you ask them in their language. Some may claim that a command of a foreign language is needless as there are self-service stores and restaurants. The answer is simple. It is easy to get fooled when you do not know the numbers. Not knowing just a few words may cost a lot. Another thing is that the natives are not always friendly. Being able to distinguish between compliments and insults can save your life. /^t/Each nation has its brilliant writers whose works are read and appreciated all over the world. They are usually translated so that everyone could enjoy them. Unfortunately, hardly any translation can grasp all the ideas and thoughts meant by the author. The only way to fully enjoy the richness of literature is to read the original versions, which involves the knowledge of foreign languages. Similarly, pople want to know what thier favorite songs are about, and the majority of popular songs are in English. /^t/Who does not have neighbors or relatives boasting about their cableTV and hundreds of channels in all possible languages. To watch them with comprehension it is useful to know at least one foreign language. /^t/The command of foreign languages may be the decisive factor when you are applying for a job. The more languages you know, the more attractive for the head-hunters you are. Moreover, there are some fields where foreign languages are indispensable, namely medicine requires some knowledge of Latin, computer terms are taken from English, menus in exclusive restaurants are cramped with French and Italian words. /^t/Although aware of all the advantages, some people still claim that foreign language study requires too much time and effort. They must have had some bad experience with language learning, but it does not have to be so. For instance, holidays in the country where the language you learn is spoken can be great fun and at the same time a good opportunity to pick up some vocabulary. /^t/It is difficult to think up a disadvantage of foreign language study. Even if you find some discouraging aspects of the process of learning, they cannot overwhelm the profits, which are enormous. So, if you have not mastered any foreign language yet, do not hesitate any longer and join the whole world in the foreign language study! <0488> /^t/In the present era of high technology and advanced commercialization of human life it is impossible for us to avoid watching, or simply noticing, any sort of advertisments. They invade our homes whenever we switch on TV set or a radio. They shout to us from the bill-boards or impose themselves on us when we thumb through daily newspapers or magazines. Advertisements appear to be everywhere, they are ubiquitous to modern culture. /^t/Since the presence of the commercials in our lives is undeniable we should not neglect the impotant influence they exert on us. However it it adviseable to consider the mass-media for a while as having possible negative effect through advertising on people. /^t/Modern commercials might be especially harmful to children and adolescents whose proper and fully comprehensive perspective of the world has not yet been developed. They succumb easily to temptations regardless of their quality. Very often chilldren become unusually demanding and egoistic, nagging their parents to buy them toys or other gadgets they saw in TV adverts. Obviously the high costs of advertising, promoting, and marketing the products contribute to the already high prices. The result is parents spending money on things their offspring do not need but must possess due to their peers' pressure to keep up with the latest fashion (e.g. Japanese cyber pets). /^t/Similar observation of the impact of modern advertising is to be made when teenagers come into question. Due to the fact that they still remain in the process of developing their own personalities, and their own judgements about the world, they cannot fall back on their experience to view reality. They know only on eside of the story, usually the one that is so heavily promoted to them by the media. The world of young people is either black or white, with no other colours in-between. /^t/The negative effect of modern advertising is particularly visible in young girls' lives who search for examples to follow. Looking for such role models they come across TV commercials with unbelievably beautiful and unnaturally thin models. The increasing numbers of occurances of teenage girls, but also prown-up women, suffering from anorexia and bulimia, or other eating disorders, may have its source in the mismatch between the image of perfect womanhood promoted by commercial specialists and the girls' own looks and desires. Perfect breasts, flawless skin, gleaming hair, slim legs - one after another these fetishes accumulate until the chief mantra for the modern teenager becomes 'I hate mu body'. Targeted by commercial and pop culture they live with a nonstop 'voice-over' criticising what they eat and hoe they look. Pathological insecurity has become a feminine reflex. /^t/As it has already been said problems of this type originate from the existence of a huge gap between the immaculate and perfect world presented in adverts ( just to remind the reader the image of a loving family gathered around the table at Christmas dinner sipping Jacobs Kronung Kaffee) and the actual reality we all live in. Commercials are not mimetic of reality, they create their own sub-reality which fits perfectly into our dreams. The reality of commercials is distorted by the absence of any unwanted, but real elements, which could spoil its apparent perfection. Commercials show society as it should be, and not as it actually is. In this way advertisements manipulate our lives to make us want what the global multi-million-dollar companies sell. They no longer advertise products but a certain life style. The ultimate goal of all the adverts seems to be to make the innocent viewers believe that if we buy into the ideal portrayed, we will gain the same life style and become as happy and beautiful as the models in the adverts. The basic principle is: BUY IT, YOU WILL BECOME IT. Thus modern advertising even affects adults, especially those who are not able to make the dictinction between the fiction of commercials and the reality of our lives. Adults therefore are also subjest to feeling of inadequacy and low self-esteem, and simple feeling of worthlessness bred by the unreachable perfection displayed in the media. /^t/It is possible to see that although advertising is indispensable as it creates competition allowing people free choice and information about products, as well as symbolising progress, we should be aware of all the negative side-effects it has on the populus. It is essential that people should realize the threateningly enormous power advertising exerts on us and have it always in their minds while watching any commercials. <0489> Nowadays one may observe the constant inflow of commercials advertising products of various sorts that bombard us from many sides. The phenomenon of showing the advantages of goods with the help of TV or radio stations is not new for Polish consumers, but, undoubtedly, has already done considerable harm. In terms of its extend and rapidity of expansion, modern advertising shows a striking similarity to a plague; an uncontrollable and harmful attack causing extensive damage and spreading so quickly that one may find it impossible to prevent from going towards further areas. Similarly to plagues, omnipotent commercials are extremely hard to eradicate. Once an advert appears, a TV viewer or radio listener will encounter it so frequently that some time later they will instantaneously recognize it by its catchy jingle or its characteristic beginning. The phenomenon of modern advertising seems even more frustrating when one attempts to respond to the question why it is inescapable. The answer is that commercials, the production of which involves a great deal of money, can not be prevented form broadcasting, since such radical movement would severely deteriorate the material status of channels responsible for their emission. The strong and destructive influence of modern advertising also lies in the fact that commercials operate on our subconsciousness. The success of a particular advert largely depends on many indirect, apparently insignificant messages that sink into our minds. Such hidden implications make us believe that only this washing powder or that shampoo are of best quality or lowest price. Thus, to put it bluntly, what adverts do is that they brainwash consumers into buying things they rarely need, but which are supposed to make them feel happy or successful. The very group of potential clients especially susceptible to harmful influences of modern advertising are children. Young consumers can not discriminate between goods of real value and those apparently more attractive, but getting worn out more quickly than old, reliable products. What is even more threatening is that adverts are the cause of children's fallacious reasoning. Commercials directed to young clients focus their attention only to good aspects of a given product cleverly avoiding its negative sides e.g. 'All children should have Nutella cream for breakfast every morning as the portion of magnesium it contains will keep you active and full of energy all day long'. Ironically enough, the commercial says nothing about the low vitamins content of this high calorific product. On the whole, modern commercials take advantage of ignorant buyers who do not have sufficient knowledge necessary to objectively decide whether advantages of a given product will meet consumers' requirements and suit to their needs in reality. Finally, although an advertisement is believed to be the base of commerce it charges considerable expanses to clients, who have to pay much more for products advertised, the price of which is higher as it must include all of the costs of the emission thanks to which a commercial has been produced. Taking into consideration all the above-mentioned aspects of modern advertising one may conclude that it does more harm than good by e.g. brainwashing consumers into purchasing needless goods and distorting their objective way or thinking. <0490> /^t/Usually people's preferences concerning their living area focus either on town or on village. When asked about their whereabouts, people more often answer that they live in town rather than suburbs, because they regard being a city-dweller as something superior to being a 'peasant'. Of course living in the village, one usually is not a peasant any more; more and more people from villages commute to their work and very few of them actually posses a piece of land. But people are prone to regard city as generally more 'cultivated' and 'cultural' place for living. That is why living in the suburbs has only advantages. On one hand you are a city-dweller, and on the other you can enjoy the peaceful atmosphere that is typical for villages. /^t/As I said people enjoy all the entertainment that is offered to them by town 'facilities'. It is not far away to go to the theatre or the cinema; everything is at hand. Public transport is convenient, although many people usually own cars, because it is usually richer middle class that lives in the suburbs. Prices here are not so high as in the city, for example, because competition is smaller. People are more friendly, because everybody knows one another. In towns crime has bigger ratio, and people are very indifferent to one another, if not hostile sometimes. It is clean and neat, because everybody takes care of his possession, and it is more common to hear a friendly greeting from your neighbour. In the suburbs people seem to be happier that is why, on the whole, they are more peaceful and friendly. They are happier because they feel that they belong to a certain group, and thus they feel safer. They are comparatively rich, and they do not have to worry about everyday fight that takes place in the streets of great cities. Provincial life causes relative stabilization, which is the thing that people need very much. Having their primordial needs fulfilled, people in the suburbs can think about taking care of their intellectual life (very often children from provincial environments cause less trouble in upbringing and in their education). It is evident that this is the environment that brings up people from the province; even grown up individuals are somehow affected by mentality of such a homogenous group. In fact, suburbs create a certain kind of caste, which equally rewards and judges its members. I do not mean lynches or anything like this, but it is important for such a member of the group how he or she is perceived by his neighbours. /^t/I think that I conveyed my views on living in the suburbs in the main body. As a conclusion I would like to add that nowadays it happens very often that the suburbs slowly lose their magic. As the middle class grows bigger the suburbs are getting overcrowded because nobody wants to live in a huge agglomeration of towns, and more and more people can afford to buy a house in the suburbs. It also happens today that the atmosphere of the suburbs is rather more visible in industrialized, rich villages. Besides people are getting accustomed to their place of living irrespective of living in town or in the village. I live it the centre of a small, beautiful town, in a block of flats and I must admit that I would not change it now, while I live alone. If I ever have a family, maybe I will want to move. <0491> Forty years ago this question would undoubtedly evoke univocal reactions in laymen's circles: tapping their foreheads and knowing looks. It would have probably given some maniacal scientist a reason to unfold a vision of the future world. One thing is obvious: cloning was something mysterious, belonging then only to the science-fiction realm, known only from books like Huxley's "Brand New World". But 'brand new world' was about to come very soon. Everything has changed with the birth of little sheep - Dolly. There would be nothing peculiar in it if Dolly weren't the product of flawlessly planned cloning. Her birth put humankind one step closer to science-fiction, one bold step to reduplicate humans. Today, the question 'Can we clone human beings?' is fully answerable. From the biotechnological point of view the reply is very simple. With further polishing of details, yes, of course, we can, and that not before very long. In pure science what is not forbidden by the Nature is possible. But the question is certainly manifold and the answer is not so clear-cut and unequivocal. Now, when dozens of qualms of moral character throng themselves we are cornered and no longer sure of the answer. Is cloning inherently evil? Is it morally justified? Can we possibly clone ourselves??? Let us imagine the following circumstances. Family circles. An infertile couple. They really long for their own child. Several attempts of in vitro fertilization failed. The adoption procedure lasts already two years with no perspective for the fruitful termination. The would-be parents have lost their hopes. Why shouldn't they resort to cloning if that is the only possible way of having a child? Their own child. On the other hand, if cloning in these circumstances was allowed people avid of money and power would almost instantaneously extend it on other situations. The industry of white-slave traffic would be given great conditions to flourish. Child-clones for sale would be a blessing for infertile people craving for an offspring for long. They would be happy to buy one for all the money of the world. Would it be excused then? A decent family with the only son dying of leukemia. No hope for healing except bone marrow transplant. Parents decide to reduplicate a sibling who is to serve only as a donor. What is wrong with saving their son's life? The aim is noble but the means - low. The sibling clone serves only as a source of supplementary organs. The case that probably would be multiplied on human organs farms where people will be cloned just to constitute a base of supplies for clinics and medical centers. What about an extremely well-to-do lady desperately planning to have a beautiful, blue-eyed, blond, gifted daughter who will master violin playing and exact sciences excellently? The proper sum of money, quick cloning and a dash of appropriate genes will settle the business. That seems to be nothing blameworthy, if you have enough money to plan your motherhood so carefully. Prospective parents will crowd to program their children's DNA code. What would it mean on a large scale? People will consider their children mere products, projections of their own dreams and unfulfilled ambitions. Little clones may be treated like objects filling with pride more self-centered parents. ("Look, he is my exact copy when I was his age...). Cloning would help to resuscitate another Einsteins, Mozarts, and Shakespeares. Why not clone them? The world will be full of supermen, but from that point on there is only one step to negative eugenics and discrimination. Besides, some crazy scientist may strike upon an idea of cloning little Hitlers, and what comes next...? You may say that this is nonsense, fin de siecle rubbish, science-fiction story. But aren't we already deep in it if cloning of humans is within the reach? Is not cloning itself some kind of encroachment upon human life? It necessarily violates the rights of nature. Creating a human clone is not as subtle as the natural phenomenon of identical twins. Cloning would infringe the rights and dignity not only of the original genetic 'material' but also of its (or maybe it is better to say 'his'/'her') copy. The whole order of moral values so carefully reared by generations throughout centuries would collapse. How would we find our identity in the world full of human copies? Would there be place for everybody? Can we clone human beings then? My answer is no. Leave Nature what belongs to her. Let us not play Supermen. As far as we are humans let it be this way. <0492> A lot of people, including me, once desired to get the driving license. It seemed relatively easy, one thought: 'I will make the course, go and take the exam successfully and receive the small pinkish book with PL letters on the front page.' Nothing more ridiculous. Only a few years ago such a plan was possible to be carried out, however, this is not so simple nowadays in Poland. Polish Department of Transport keeps to be the bane of our life. Recently the things have gone into extreme. It is almost impossible to pass the driving test straight away, it takes people months to make it. Interestingly, the problem lies not in the difficulty of the test but in the approach of the examiners towards the driver-to-be, in the injustice, partiality and corruption. Let me explain it more clearly. /^t/To apply for driving license in Poland today one must take a driving practice course (20 hours, it may be more but not less). This course is accompanied with some theory classes, but these are real 'theory' because, in fact, they do not take place at all. Instead, one receives 20 written tests to practice. These are not difficult and a human being of middling abilities is able to learn it in two day without much effort. When one has completed the course then he or she has to take an exam. The written part does not trouble the prospective driver, the worst is to come, i.e. practical part (checking the ability of parking a car in various ways and the city drive). Now the horror starts. Here the examiner is the almighty king and he really behaves like this, everything depends upon him. He seems not to understand his role properly. I do not know whether he perceives himself as perfect or unmistakable, but people are not perfect, especially after 20 hours driving practice. The examiners seem not to take it into account and out of ten people only one or two passes the exam. This leads to the extremely grotesque and ridiculous situation, when people have to take the exam several times (I myself passed the exam on fourth attempt). One may say that this was because I could not drive then. This might be partially truth. But is it possible to learn to drive after only 20 hours behind the wheel? I do not think so. It is only the question of getting acknowledged with driving, mastering has to come later, with time and experience. Of course one may pay the examiner some extra money, then he or she can be sure of the result of the exam. What is even more irritating is that the examiners do not like women drivers somehow. They treat men more tolerantly, as if males have some inborn features to be better drivers than females. It is more likely for man to pass the exam, despite the fact that he has made the same mistakes as some woman. Another injustice is the way of treating people from small towns or villages by the examiners. In Poland the driving license exam takes place only in the capital of province, so no wonder that things like traffic lights, tramways are new for people from smaller towns. This fact seems to be helpful for the examiner in distinguishing between these who are to pass the exam and these who are not. I do not know whether this is the proper factor. /^t/I do really think that something should be done on the side of the Department of Transport to reduce that wilfulness of the examiners. They should be controlled in some way to avoid the situations of injustice and partiality. This what happens during the exams is unendurable. It costs people money, health and time. There must be some malfunction of the system of acquiring a driving license in Poland as it leads to such a ridiculous state of affairs. <0493> /^t/As we all know, commercials are omnipresent in our lives. We come across them on billboards and posters in the streets, in newspapers and magazines, on the TV and the radio. Yet, do we fully realize the implications of such a state of affairs? Most people do not suspect that advertizing is meant to shape their taste and even their behaviour in certain situations. By using the fallacious criteria of fashion, usefulness and economy, all of which are no really definable, people become consumers of the advertized goods. They are no longer treated as human beings, but as a bevy ofjerks who will buy anything they are offered. Unfortunatelly, this treatment of the customers works. /^t/Advertisements tend to deprive us of our free will and make us uncritical by dint of coaxing and luring us into purchasing the products. The goal is invariably one although the techniques vary. The ideology o fthe advantages of advertising is simply an artefact. At the core o fit lies the desire to make more money by taking advantage of the human weakness. The dire effects of this strategy are already visible. /^t/Although we live in the postmodern era, ethics still functions in our society. Advertising usually does not observe its rules. As many goverments have already noticed, in advertising children ar eusually taken advantege of. They either take part in the commercials or they are manipulised while watching other kids playing with 'the toys of their dreams'. They will feel really unhappy when they will not get all those toys and sweets. The parents who cannot afford them are put in a dramatic situation. They have to make the child realise its economic status in the society. Then th eoffspring may aquire inferiority complex or at least feel its accute 'otherness'. /^t/The opponents might argue that the adults have a free choice. They do not have to buy the advertised product. Publicity is only a help for those who are able to afford the goods. Yet, the children have no choice. They cannot influence the economic situation of their parents. /^t/There is another threat posed by this situation. Children may be unusually spoilt when adults buy them everything what is advertised. Grown-up people can be dissuaded from certain actions. Children act emotionally most of the time and do not use logical thinking a lot. /^t/The goods that are advertised have the costs included in their price. We pay more and think that the value is greater from that of the non-advertised products. The elevated prices create the illusion of superiority of agiven commodity. This fallacy has far-reaching consequences. Most people think that more expensive goods are better, especially if they are manufactures by a foreign company. This idea usually has nothing to do with the real quality, for instance as far as cosmetics are concerned. Foreign beauty products are deemed to be more effective solely due to their price, though the quality of Polish products is higher or comparable. /^t/The companies idealize this process. They claim that the prices are kept low because of the competition. Every new product on the market has to adjust its price to the already existing ones or make it lower to attract the customer. Yet, there are hardly any bargains. Profit is the main rule governing the market. the customers should be only tricked into thinking that the company lowers the prices to make their lives easier. This is simply a means of increasing the sale. /^t/The manufacturers achieve this effect by using lies or half-truths in their slogans. Then emotions nad not reason are influenced. Otherwise we would not believe that all the washing powders are 'the best' and 'number one'.. Although the ethics of advertising requires truthfulness, hardly anybody takes it into conisderation in publicity campaigns. The standard products are advertised as superior, the mediocre ones are presented as $the merchandise. /^t/The ads influence the addressees' subconsciousness and ake us squander vast sums of money on thing we do not need. This procedure is explained i sdemagogically by the platitudes about saving time while shopping. We no longer choose ourselves since we are virtually programmed to buy the advertised products. Obviously, we save time if ewe enter the shops and purchase what we already know from the media. Yet, the model of the society created by such impulses is horrid. Everybody becomes a consumer and is treated as such, regardless of the age and status. /^t/The supporters of advertising state that this phenomenon of modern life raises the society living standard. However, are the material values everything we should aspire to? /^t/The commercials use the mechanisms we are afraid to admit to. No product will make us become a supermodel, a film star or a singer even if we feel the similarity by using a given product. As a matter of fact, we should realise that they would never use these egalitarian products. Starring in ads is solely a job for them. /^t/Most peopl efind publicity spots in the middle of films annoying. The ads suit neither the contents of what we are watching nor the whole situation. We ar ethreatened by this commercialisation. Even if we want to concentrate or experience something, we are nagged into buying ridiculous products. /^t/Advertising may be treated as an art, but as such it should have a specific place in our lives. Yet, nowadays we are sheerly bombarded by commercials and forced into buying things for somebody else's profit. This is outrageous. People are treated as thoughtless machines that can be compelled to doing something they do not want to do. /^t/Every customer should oppose the unethical mechanisms of advertising. We are not gullible puppets which can be manipulated day in day out. Moreover, people have the moral duty to protect their children against the materialistic conception of the world. /^t/We should not be indifferent to the aggressiveness and materialism in the advertisements. Appropriate laws ought to regulate the range and the tricks o fcommercials. Protecting oneself is vital. Let us no longer gaze at the colourful pictures and listen to the jingles that are design to influence our minds. Man should triuph over objects and not allow for being manouvred by the media and other powerful forces. <0494> /^t/It is generally believed that a new life brings happiness and unusual feeling of exultation. Each of us perfectly knows or at least should realise this unique thrill of excitement when a small, innocent creature is being born to experience both joy end woe, constituting our eternal life. /^t/However, the case is not so simple as it sometimes may seem to be. It is frequent to hear about unwanted or derelict children who through their life are not allowed to enjoy maternal and paternal love. Deprived of homey atmosphere or even the basic symptoms of affection they look wistfully seeking in vain what should naturally be given to them. /^t/In case of such children we usually feel regret and pity, some of us try to help them somehow, others think of irresponsible mothers. But only few rationally thinking people bear in mind a supposed source of this unhappiness. Maybe, a given woman was forced to bear a child although she did not want it because she had no means and possibilities to bring it up. So, would it not be better to abort such a miserable and unwanted creature who at the very beginning of its existence is condemned to the lack of a real home? In other words, the abortion should not be prohibited, since we have to cope later with such a serious problem of manifold nature. /^t/There are many more or less extreme cases when a woman simply cannot give a birth to a child. These more detrimental ones without appeal should and really do undergo abortion, since they are harmful for both sides, namely a mother and a baby, like the possibility of the danger of a mother's life or the threat of impairment of the foetus. Also a child who is a fruit of the rape, being one of the most terrible acts of violence done on females, can be prevented from the opportunity to be born. These cases were stated and legalised by the government after long and tempestuous negotiations. However, there are some more situations which were not taken into consideration but which are equally harmful and inappropriate not only for two interested sides but also for the whole society. /^t/First of all, what is a basic wrongdoing is that people who debate on this problem, being repeatedly unsuitable ones, namely spinsters, older women of non-progressive views or men who because of their sex cannot understand women 's in question situation, do not consider such a child 's misery. They are only interested in the very act of bearing it., without taking into account its later life. It is not important that such a child will suffer from poverty and ill-treatment, will be even beaten, hungry and extremely unhappy or will miss love and basic symptoms of affection surrounded by its companions in distress, while spending its life in children's home. The government seems not to perceive a problem of finances which are crucial in our hard times. Women are forced to bear children no matter if they have money to support them or not. When great desperation and poverty compel them to leave a child they are blamed or even boycotted. Then, nobody think of their material situation. Such children who are born, let us say, from compulsion usually go to social institutions to suffer, apart from moral and spiritual inconveniences, from material ones, since these institutions are granted by the state. /^t/Moreover, in negotiations on abortion incest and mental damages of foetus were not taken into consideration. A woman who carries in her womb a child, being fruit of an incestuous intercourse, is not permitted to abort it although there is a great possibility that he or she will be mentally retarded, as in the most cases of such children, since the combination of genes is too small. /^t/Furthermore, the prohibition of abortion leads to another problem which is an excessive enrichment of doctors who illegally conduct these specific operations. So, just they and not desperated mothers should be blamed, since their fault is as if twofold, not only moral but also dependent on their profession. /^t/At last the question of morality should e raised. Very often the abortion is refered to as killing with premeditation, being one of the most severe and wicked acts because done on defenceless child. However, when we think of the whole matter in terms of a child itself, its future life and mother's. situation the abortion can be compared to euthanasia in a sense. But, one considerable difference between them two exists: euthanasia shortens the actual anguish while the abortion anticipates it and that is why both can be regarded as merciful acts. But this statement, being very "slippery" and controversial one, may be a subject of another, very subjective essay. /^t/The above examples prove that permission of the abortion could be a positive phenomenon First of all, it would prevent the doctors' illegal enrichment and corruption, it would solve many problems of young mothers and, what is the most important, in most cases it would be better for children themselves. Of course, we are left with a problem of morality but this one is so subjective that it cannot be solved unanimously and satisfactorily. <0495> They are everywhere. We can watch them on television, listen to them on the radio, look at them in all magazines and newspapers, as well as on the streets of our towns. Nowadays we can hardly imagine the world without their presence. Producers of all kinds of goods use them as a means of attracting us, customers, and persuading us to buy their products. And although we may sometimes feel fed up with them, we need them. Advertisements, as they are in question here, are useful in our everyday lives. In order to satisfy our needs, from the basic ones, eating and drinking, to those concerning our intellect and spirit, we are forced to spend some time in stores. It is more difficult than it may seem; on one shelf there are several brands of coffee, on another - tens of titles of contemporary literature, still another tempts our children with the latest models of remote-controlled cars. Without advertisements we would probably get lost in this jungle: they serve as a guide in the mass market. And although some people may claim that really good products do not need to be advertised, how could we get familiar with them and become convinced they are really good if they were not promoted? Some people complain about the prices of products which are advertised most frequently, made by the most famous and popular producers, and it is true that we have to pay more for Jacobs coffee or Nike trainers. It is also true, however, that these names are associated with high quality, and it is the quality of a product that we pay for and not the fact that it is advertised. In fact, advertising often makes us save: competition observed on the market lowers prices. Besides, thanks to money from advertisements earned by mass media, our access to the latter is cheaper. Advertising appears also to be a form of entertainment. Some television commercials are quite amusing, others have very good music as a background; finally, there are even commercials which are worth watching. Short films promoting Levis jeans, for instance, may be regarded as created with a big amount of good taste and ingenuity. Unfortunately, these are still exceptions. There are many commercials repeating certain schemes: we are often shown another kind of washing powder after the use of which your shirt will be as white as never before, but watching them is not harmful. Neither is it compulsory. For people who are annoyed with the frequent appearance of advertisements in their lives, there always exists a possibility of switching off their TV set, or at least of choosing another channel; they can turn off the radio or put aside a newspaper. They can also try to notice the usefulness of advertising: it provides them with the information about new products appearing on the market, it reminds them of the existence of the old ones. There are also advertisements presenting films, books, music records. Thanks to them it is really easier for them to choose something for themselves. Taking into account the number of possibilities of choice they have, they can admit that advertising is useful. <0496> /^t/It is hard to say at what age people start drinking alcoholic drinks. In Arabic countries children are encouraged to sip wine with their meal when they are still very young because it is considered good for their digestion. In European tradition there is no place for young people drinking alcohol when they are under age. /^t/In Poland the legal drinking age is eighteen, which seems to be reasonable as far as our biological development and maturation age are concerned. On the other hand people start drinking much earlier regardless of the legal drinking age; as far as statistics go, there is more and more juvenile drunkards in our country. What could be done about it in a country where the problem of alcohol overuse touches so many people? How to prevent youngsters from following in their parents' footsteps? /^t/It is forbidden to sell alcoholic beverages to people under eighteen but this law is not strict enough to deter shop assistants and bartenders from doing it, as they are actually making fortune out of it. Moreover, it is not possible to forbid any adult to buy anything on behalf of an under age person. It seems to be a much more complicated phenomenon which concerns not only youngsters but also adults and it is not a matter of drinking or not drinking but rather of a cultural approach to alcohol as such. /^t/If the legal drinking age was lowered the phenomenon of alcohol overuse could be even more intensive, which is inadmissible. Some people say that it could evoke positive reaction because drinking would be no longer attractive when it would be widely accessible to all. This kind of approach is supported by a Dutch precedence concerning soft drugs - allowing free access to them triggered the drop of drug-addicts. Anyway, it is dubious that putting this into life on Polish ground would result in the same way. /^t/It also does not sound right to raise the legal drinking age over eighteen as it would be not fair to treat someone biologically and sometimes mentally mature as a child. It would make the whole thing even worse by means of smuggling and theft. Additionally it would have other consequences like raising the age of the legal marriage without parents' permission. /^t/Drinking seems to have not too much to do with the legal drinking age, at least in our country where not many people obey the law. If it is not a matter of age a new question arises - if not the law, which authority should take action against this extremely complex phenomenon as alcoholism? /^t/One thing is perfectly sure; there is nothing wrong with the age eighteen being the legal drinking age. Treating drinking as a life style and a symbol of reached maturation is a feature which should be uprooted from our mentality. <0497> According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the study is the taught or meditation directed to the accomplishment of a purpose; studied or deliberate effort or contrivance; also, the object or aim of (a person's) solicitous endeavour, one's concern. /^t/This definition stresses the individual character of studying, which is also the main feature of the guided individual study. The guided study aims at determining of the course or direction of the study which stresses the 'application of mind to the acquisition of learning; mental labour, reading and reflection directed to learning, literary composition, invention, or the like.' * /^t/This sole argument that any study involves primarily the mental labour, would be enough for defeating of the counter arguments, which support the classroom system of education. The counter argument is that studying is a much more complicated process which consists in not only learning or the acquisition of the book knowledge but also involves other aspects. /^t/First of all, the classroom reality, consisting of a number of students, affords much more motivation to learn a subject. The group exerts pressure on its members and creates competence which is an element of the integrative motivation, which is identified with positive attitudes toward the group and the potential for integrating into that group, or at least an interest in meeting and interacting with members of the group. Students who are integrated are also active students and thus successful. Successful students tend to acquire positive attitudes toward both learning and community as a result of doing well. /^t/In contrast, the guided individual study lacks the integrative motivation. The only person who exerts any pressure to learn is a tutor, who may be not enough able to motivate the student. /^t/Second, classroom creates the formal setting, which contributes to the proper organization of the material which is laid out in the manner meant to be most helpful for the learner to engage his learning capacities. Whearas, in the informal settings, which the guided study tends to be, there is less organisation so the student has a considerably greater problem on imposing structure on the data. Moreover, the student is dependant on his tutor, who may not be able to lay out the material in the proper manner, so the student must be more able to seek for it himself. This creates more space for individual activity as far as the material for studying is concerned, but it also creates much of arbitrariness and optionality in the choice of the material. /^t/Third, the guided study is meant to be for a small number of students and each of them takes up much time for the tutor to prepare an individual course of study. Classroom has got that advantage over individual courses, that greater number of learners makes use of the teaching at one time. Moreover, the university which engages a teacher, spends less money on the hours of teaching, which then may enable larger reception of students to the school. /^t/Summing up the advantage of classes over the guided individual study, class system prepares students for the social life in a community through the integrative behaviours of students as well as organization of not only the school material and time and money of a university institiution but through it, of their life in a given society. <0498> /^t/Churches, art galleries and museums are currently the most common places of meetings with the arts. Among both the art enthusiasts and ignoramuses there is a tendency to associate these places with each other. It is said that in churches, as well as in museums, one can often see the masterpieces which concern the similar, if not the same, subject matter. Yet a more detailed comparison uncovers considerable differences. Upon a closer look, the claim that an art gallery or museum resembles a church seems to be false. /^t/Even though for some people there is little doubt that a gallery and a temple have few common features, others maintain that the very presence of the works of art makes both places alike. Thanks to the varied forms of art, which is majestic by nature, both a church and a gallery acquire a sacred and sublime character. Such circumstances provide the visitors with spiritual nourishment and satisfy their artistic tastes in quite a similar way, regardless of the place they visit. In the light of that, individuals who emphasise the importance of emotions aroused by art make no or little distinction between a church and a museum as places of contact with it. /^t/Another argument in favour of the resemblance of a church and a gallery is the fact that a gallery is quite a recent invention. Over a long time in the past an average viewer could see the works of art merely in freely accessible churches because other precious masterpieces were in the possession of the ruling class. The notion of an art gallery or museum was unknown; it is at most two centuries since the art owners have made their collections available to the public. Hence, the churches, as now galleries, served for contact with art. /^t/It appears to be true that in many countries the art in museums and churches depends on the politics. Exhibitions frequently receive a substantial media coverage, which contributes to higher attendance at public museums and churches. Without marketing and the patronage of governments or other public institutions, many exhibitions would be unknown. Also, the money spent on running a gallery or renovating a church of artistic value come mostly from public funding. Consequently, the political establishment has a decisive influence on the area of arts, both in temples and galleries, so it has the right to introduce censorship of artistic masterpieces and remove them from the public eye, as well as to make profits on them. /^t/In spite of some common features, there are numerous reasons, like purpose, changeability, and subject matter, for treating both places dissimilarly. Firstly, it is beyond doubt that churches and galleries serve different purposes. While a temple is primarily a place of prayer and worship, a gallery is supposed to be a setting for mostly lay exhibitions. A painting or sculpture of artistic importance found in a church might be treated as merely a background ornament complementing the sacred atmosphere of the place, and thus, an artefact of secondary importance. By contrast, the main function of a museum is to expose the values of the presented masterpieces in the best possible way, as well as to attract and impress the visitors. For this reason, it may be safely concluded that an art gallery is hardly similar to a church. /^t/To take the argument a step further, it is worth pointing out that contrary to churches, museums arguably undergo constant changes. Museums and galleries, apart from a few prestigious ones showing permanent collections, usually hold their displays for a particular period of time. Afterwards they are removed and replaced by another exhibition, often organised around a totally different theme. Galleries also appear to be visited by a fairly narrow group of educated people with a keen and broad interest in art. But art in churches constitutes the inseparable unity with the building. Sculptures, bas-reliefs, and paintings, especially on the walls and vaults, are normally non-portable and their presence enhances the unique character of a given church. Owing to the technical obstacles and the possibility of spoiling the effect if shown elsewhere, religious masterpieces almost never circulate among exhibition places. Instead, an excessive number of people, regardless of their education and interests, visit churches to admire the works of art regarded as famous. /^t/Although there is an element of truth in the notion that the content of art in both a museum and a church seems relatively alike, one should consider differences in this field. A contemporary gallery or a museum is quite free from conventions restraining the kind and the subject of the exhibited art. Thus, shocking and provocative objects combined with classical beauty are increasingly frequent phenomena. A good example of this was the juxtaposition of holiness and pornography observed in the works presented during the 'Sensation' exhibition at the Royal Academy in London. The visitors could see among others a copy of Leonardo's 'Last Supper' with Christ shown as a naked woman. Contrary to this, such elements are strongly prohibited in a church. The art in temples still conforms to certain norms which emerge in a more rigid and usually religious subject matter, comprising of mostly sacred images, biblical scenes and the lives of the saints. They are kept in a sublime character and arouse mainly positive emotions, which stands in obvious contrast to the outrageous style of modern exhibitions and galleries. /^t/To conclude, in my opinion an art gallery and a church bear little resemblance. Although it may be said that art is capable of assigning a sublime character to both a gallery or museum and a church, I think that the differing purposes of these two types of places, as well as dissimilar subject matter in the displayed objects, excludes the possibility of parallelism. <0499> /^t/A regular moviegoer may have noticed that a Polish film appears in movie theatres once per about three months. This situation can be observed from the time when Polish cinematography was flooded with American productions. It definitely is not a good sign because of the value of the native cultural aspect for the audience, the rapidly developing domination of western productions in Polish movie theatres as well as the growing need to promote Polish filmmakers and actors. The best solution seems to be that 50% of the films shown in Polish cinemas should be made in Poland. /^t/Polish people should have an opportunity to watch movies about issues concerning them. Unfortunately, what they can see does not resemble Polish reality at all. What they are constantly shown in movie theatres are fantastic visions of foreign directors whose ideas overgrow an average Polish audience. One can feel brainwashed leaving a movie theatre. Foreign films - American especially, present distorted images. Most Poles perceive America from only one angle - they can tell of the USA as of a rich country with no poor people, where everyone smiles lying on the California beach and drinking Coca Cola. Such cliches are common among people who are shown one picture of a country which is very distant culturally, geographically and economically. That cultural backlash causes great deal of frustration among Polish society. They undervalue their country, thinking of it as worse to live in.This leads to undervaluing Polish movies. Most people are not aware of the fact that Polish films are appreciated and praised on film festivals all over the world for their artistic content. Without the appreciation and strong backup from Poles, however, great Polish movies cannot be sent to most Film Festivals. Polish movie market is strongly dominated by western productions. Among high budget western productions there seem to be no place for Polish film art. Highly commercialised western motion pictures are preferred all over the world. They are easy to watch, they do not require any effort from the viewers because there is simply nothing to think about. The same situation can be observed in Poland - a nice and easy film wins with the difficult artistic Polish picture. In result, there is not much left for people who are conscious of Polish film art and who find pleasure in watching it. Some people just quit trying and simply stop going to the movies. Movie industry can be very profitable. It does not, however, make profits in Poland. With such a small number of Polish films on the movie screens, almost non-existing promotion and a lack of positive response from the viewers, the production is dramatically reduced. Small number of Polish film production is closely connected to the lack of job for many actors and filmmakers. High competition and unemployment among actors seem normal, but many Polish actors and directors are forced to go abroad to work creatively and make their living. There is no phenomenon of a movie star in Poland - even the best actors are very often underpaid, they take a part only to appear on the big screen. Such artistic emigration has a negative impact on Polish culture. Polish filmmakers are constantly making their movies abroad or working in some foreign productions. Almost every Pole knows Krzysztof Kieslowski who is famous for his French production "Three colors: Blue, Red, White". Also Allan Starsky and Ewa Braun are world-wide known as the Oscar winners for working with Steven Spielberg in his "Schindler's list". Poles can be proud of it, but at the same time it means a huge waste of talents. It is a pity that going to the movies usually means going to see an American film. 50% of the films shown in Polish cinemas should be made in Poland to create an opportunity for a Polish movie to be produced and for people to see it. It is important to restore and maintain Polish film art tradition. That can be done by accepting, not rejecting it in favor of easy western commercialism. Promotion and support of Polish movie industry can prevent many artists from emigrating. It would enable them to work in Polish productions and Polish films therefore could be of much better quality. <0500> /^t/A U.S. Army rule prohibits male soldiers from carrying umbrellas while in uniform. The rule is supposed to protect masculine image of the American soldier. Such argumentation is unsatisfactory and unacceptable for two reasons. First, the rule is sexist and hypocritical. Second, this policy produces unnecessary and unjustifiable financial burden on American taxpayers. /^t/The rule is sexist for the obvious reason that it is gender based. It discriminates male soldiers in rainy weather. They have to soak while their female colleagues stay dry, and happy. Not so happy, however, as it may seem. The regulation proves to be directed against women soldiers as well. It clearly implies that real soldiers never disgrace themselves by carrying umbrellas. Since female soldiers are allowed to do it the conclusion is facile. Nobody treats women as real soldiers. Thus, the regulation is double sexist. It not only gets the males soaked, but also ridicules the females. /^t/The rule entails also more direct consequences. Namely, it is a cause of unnecessary financial expenditures. The expenditures include replacements of hearing aids and ruined uniforms. They cover medical bills for treatment of the soldiers fell ill while getting soaked. These expenditures may seem picayune compared to the overall Army budget. Still, considering the size of this budget, even its small friction counts in millions. It is the American taxpayers who pay for their generals' romantic vision. To me, this vision of a tough 'soaked' soldier is certainly not worth the money. /^t/Concluding, the arguments against the Army rule are of two-fold in nature. The first one could well be called a political correctness based objection. It rightly accuses the regulation of being sexist. The other is more down-to-earth. It states there is no point in wasting taxpayers' money on getting the soldiers soaked. Given the above it is clear that the umbrellas ban should be lifted. <0501> /^t/In the second half of our century scientists achieved a breakthrough in researches on animal's behavior. This breakthrough was caused by a great progress in the field of technology. Since then it has been possible to record even those sounds that are inaudible for the human ear. The most important result of using these technological devices is that it occurred to be a great help for the advocates of the evolutionary theory of continuity. They maintain that humans are not the only beings that are able to communicate with each other by means of their language. On the contrary, those who opt for the theory of non-continuity argue that the human race is the only species able to communicate verbally. Personally, I am convinced that the evolutionary theory of continuity, unlike the non-continuity theory, is very cogent, as there exist many arguments in favor of this theory. /^t/Charles Hockett, one of the most outstanding linguists, is the author of the best definition of a language. According to this definition a given species can be said to be using a language if it satisfies the following three groups of conditions: (1)-using the verbal channel, arbitrariness, and semantics; (2)- cultural background, spontaneous language usage, and using a dialog; (3)- structural dualism, speech autonomy, and creativity. Therefore, animals do use a language, for scientists have proven that they, indeed, satisfy all the above conditions. There is sufficient evidence that animals fulfill all the conditions from the first group. Obviously, most animals use the verbal channel, thus it is not an exclusively human ability. Arbitrariness, which says that there is no direct connection between a speech symbol and what this symbol stands for, can be best illustrated by the dolphins' use of sounds that constitute a sort of a naming system. Semantics, which says that symbols should be assigned a well-defined meaning, also exists in the animal world. Talapoins, for instance, use three different sounds for three different kinds of upcoming peril, namely: the sound "rroup" stands for a danger lurking in the air; "uh" - for danger coming from the land; and "tchirp" - in extremely dangerous situations. The second group of conditions is also well satisfied by the animal world. The cultural background is connected here with acquiring new sounds. Namely, the young learn meanings of given sounds from their parents, so that their language can be said to be handed down from generation to generation. It is worth mentioning here that some animals have dialects specific of the groups they belong to. On this basis scientists can establish, for example, from which region a given chimpanzee comes from. Moreover, ornithologists say that young larks learn singing from their parents. Spontaneity in using a language is connected with a situation when a creature is able to use a language because it wants to, irrespective of the external circumstances. Some parrots, for example, repeat words they have learnt even though there is no purpose for them to do it. Using a dialog is also typical of most animals, birds respond to requests addressed by their young (for instance when the young are hungry, their parents bring them some food). And finally the third group of conditions also confirms the evolutionary theory of continuity. The rule of the structural dualism says that language consists of two levels. On the lower \ abstract level we can observe the use of meaningless phonemes, whereas on the upper level phonemes are assigned some meaning and thus become words. Single sounds for birds are meaningless, but when these sounds are arranged in a melody they, automatically, start to carry some communicative meaning. Speech autonomy enables people to refer to situations remote in time and space. But actually this phenomenon can be observed in the animal world too. Animals can, for example, repeat danger signals for a very long time after the danger disappears. Animals are also quite creative when it comes to their behavior, which is strongly connected with the changes of their living conditions. The fact that the definition of a language perfectly applies to animals leaves no doubt that speech is not characteristic of solely the human race. Thus animals do have their own language, perhaps more primitive than ours, but still a language in the full sense of the word. <0502> /^t/A man is not a lonely island. We live among the others and through our lives we have to learn how to coexist in a peaceful way. One of the ways of making our living much easier and more pleasant is to learn a very difficult technique of forgiving. Firstly, anger appears. We cannot help feeling mad at a person who hurt us. Then, desire to take the revenge comes and thinking about it paralyses our daily living. Secondly, one can decide to keep on living with anger in one's heart or make a step foreword forgiving. Thirdly, we need to learn to live with people who said sorry to us. /^t/It can happen at any time that somebody hurts us, simply unconsciously or on purpose. Then, quite naturally anger comes; sometimes mixed with tears. We promise ourselves to take a revenge and pay back in kind. Very often resentment fulfills our hearts and the revenge does not bring expected results. Thinking about experienced harm over and over again rouses in us pain, anger and hate. All those feelings become a real poison, which, unfortunately, we decide to offer to ourselves. It has bad influence on our nervous and hormonal system, which can result in health problems. Moreover, meditating on our suffering and planning the revenge poison our mind. We cannot give up our thoughts that are focused on the past unpleasant events. We just foment the flame of grief in ourselves. /^t/Dealing with anger is not easy so sometimes it is really much better to forgive and forget about retaliation. When we forgive we somehow purify our minds. Bitterness disappears. Internal peace returns. We start trusting people again and our world becomes more colorful and bright. The easiest way to forgive is to be in the shoes of a person who hurt us. We should think about this person's intentions, forget about grief and anger. We ought to try to look at this person from a distance. Maybe he meant no harm. Perhaps he wanted best for us but unfortunately it did not work this way. Possibly he did not realize that his action can make us feel really bad. All we have to do is to remember that none of us is perfect and that to err is human. /^t/It is very difficult to forgive. And actually even if we forgive it is almost impossible to forget the resentment. Nevertheless, we cannot treat a person who hurt us as a walking evil. The reason why we cannot forgive lays probably in the fact that we see only this person's vices. And it is simply impossible that he does not have any virtues. It would be very helpful to find them. Once we find out that this person has also his own problems and sorrows it would much easier for us to forgive. We need to detect a human being in our enemy, with his bad and good sides. And it is really worth remembering that once we forgive we should never come back to these sad matters. /^t/Another very important issue is to help a person who hurt us make a first step to approach us with apologies. WE must realize that we will not be able to forgive as long as we don't understand that we are the ones who also need to be sometimes forgiven. And maybe somebody has actually tried to say sorry but we were to blind with anger to notice that. We need to make this person to be aware that we are likely to forgive. We can say something encouraging and explain that everything is fine already and there is no more grief in our hearts. When we find opening our mouth too difficult, sending a note with some warm words would do. /^t/Forgiving is not an easy thing to do. As a matter of fact, we often need to overcome ourselves to accept somebody's apologies. However grief can leave its traces in our hearts, one thing is sure - once we forgive we feel as if we gave up this burden of planning the revenge. Giving up thinking over and over again about the harm somebody done to us, we free our minds. We become new people. <0503> /^t/Catholicism is the most important branch of christianity. It claims at least one billion followers, people of different races, languages and viewpoints. Although the church is the paramount denomination, many accusations have been levelled at the Pope, catholic institutions and dogmas. The catholic church seems not to comply with new standards and ideas about the universe and life. Catholic authorities do not feel like changing its conduct and creed. So much the better for them. Anybody who proposes such a change is calling for inconsistency and on-the-fence attitude towards everything. I think that the catholic church is not to blame for not keeping up with the times, its main felony is that it has always been a little cruel and deviant. Firstly it advocates pagan tradition, secondly it is a sexist organisation favoring men, thirdly some catholic dogmas are simply unacceptable due to their inconsistency and lack of logic. /^t/Catholicism is soaked in pagan beliefs and superstitions. Catholic dogmas worship blood sacrifice as such. Nobody would see the pyres with cattle being burned on them. No reverend would require his parishioner to kill his or her favorite pet in order to win God's grace. Nevertheless the scriptures ( catholic ones ) provide us with the examples of such bloody sacrifices that ancient gods would not be ashamed of. Every catholic is very likely to know that pious Abraham had to kill his own son in order to satisfy Jehovah. It was supposed to be the "confirmation" of Abraham's fidelity and faith. Does almighty need such a test in order to be sure of one's love? It is as if god required a lie detector test for every catholic. That is a ridiculous and pagan idea of those who were writing down the scriptures. Moreover, the fact that Abraham is looked up to and regarded the role model of a catholic is terrifying. Is the father willing to kill his own son worth such recognition? I think not. He should be condemned as the one misinterpreting the words of God. The other example is more important one. The way I am going to present it is tantamount to a refutation of the whole christian reasoning. The Jesus' father did the same thing. He sacrificed his own son in order to conquer the devil. It is not something we should be looking up to. I think it is cruel and immoral. That could have been easily digested by the people living in the Middle Ages. Nowadays, however, one reads it as a fairy tale. What about the symbol of crucifix and Jesus dying on it. I think that this torture device does not contribute to the spread of "catholic good news". Children looking at a naked, suffering men can develop everything like traumas, fears and disgust, but surely not love or optimism. The idea of a man being nailed to a piece of wood is sickening. When I come to think of it it is more like a pagan totem. /^t/The catholic church does not think much of women as people being worth representing god. The only role they can perform is being a nun, which means blowing out candles after a service or taking care of children during religious instructions. No women are allowed in the parochial or the Vatican offices. Women cannot hold services, hear confessions. Speaking about the Vatican it is imperative that I mention the fact that this city is probably the only one in the world being inhabited by men only. I claim that such sex uniformisation can lead to many traumas and deviations among men priests. Moreover, I claim that many men have enrolled in the church to hide their homosexual preferences or for fear of women. I claim that this "occupational" group should undergo drastic reforms. First of which would be to give up celibacy. /^t/The catholicism operates on bizarre dogmas that cannot be accounted for by confiding in common sense. Such strange views are often justified by catholic authorities on the grounds that a human-being is not capable of grasping the whole idea of God and his "or her" mission. Nothing can be more depressing. Imagine a teacher making use of this method and the reactions of his or her pupils. The same is the case with church authorities when they try to account for Jesus' mission on the earth. We know that his goal was to deliver us from the devil and explain our role in the God's plans. That certainly sounds nice but it does not make any sense. Imagine you are giving a toy to a child. After the child has had this toy for 5 months you explain how this toy works. According to the scripturers that is what God did. /^t/I hope I am not the only one to think this way. Six hundred years ago I would have been burned on the pyre. Now I can safely criticize what I want. I chose the church because there is so much to be criticized. The church advocates pagan customs whether the church admits that or not. The church does not want to allow women to become its on-the-regular-basis members, turning itself into the most sexist organisation the world has ever known. Finally the church operates on incomprehensible dogmas that cause confusion and doubts among churchgoers. <0504> /^t/One of the most fundamental aspects of a human being is his ability to believe. If not for believing we wouldn't be probably able to love, work or dream. To believe is to create meaning and sense. To believe is to stand face to face with your own life. From the moment we are born we struggle to believe. A baby believes in mother's feeding breast. A mother believes that her child will grow up happily. A lover believes in his making love. A gardener believes that his tree will bear fruit. A sinner believes in God's mercy. I believe that faith is what makes us human. If we assume that every human being attempts to apprehend his reality, strives to fulfil oneself and above all yearns to attain happiness, then we must assume that faith is the testimony of our humanity. /^t/The enigma of our existence has always disquieted human being. The fundamental existential questions, such as: "Why are we here?" or "How did it all begin?", constitute the universal, never-answered dilemmas. Yet, it is faith that allows us to search for the answer. Our human investigation is purely based on our capacity to believe. In order to grasp the inexpressible complexity of our life, we have to rely on our faith. Whether it is the faith in evolution and progress or the faith in God, is a matter of our conscious choice. Faith is always based on our free will. That is why people are capable of giving up their own life to save their faith. The first Christians were already aware that faith is the utmost value of their life. They succumbed to their destiny because they believed that death is the only road to eternity. Copernicus, Galilee or Newton believed that science is the only gateway to apprehend the reality. If not for faith there would be no philosophy, science or religion. Faith is what makes human being search for the truth. We believe that step by step we will grasp the unknown, the meaning and the miracle of our life. That is why human being will never relinquish the quest for the truth. /^t/I cherish the thought of a human being seeking fulfilment in his life. I think that our destination is to arrive at the point when we can consciously believe that we live a good life. To live a good life is to believe in oneself, in others, in the whole human race. Probably the most trustworthy manifestation of faith is love. Love is the gateway to self-fulfilment as well as the testimony of our humanity. Love is about exploring the unknown, lonely planets of our souls, it is about exploiting and fulfilling the best of our potentials. To love somebody is to believe in ones capacity of giving and receiving love, and above all, it is to believe in one's own unique identity and the unique identity of the other person. /^t/Human being can also realize himself by the means of his own work. He believes that his work furnishes his life with the meaning. His work is the object of his faith for work is his motivation to self-fulfilment. However, this road for self-realization may only be attained if you love your work. You believe your work is meaningful because you love your work, again love and faith transcendent each other. Self-fulfilment may also be attained in the path of chastity and sacrifice, as long as you believe that by abandoning your own needs and desires you fulfil yourself. Whatever you do in your life, if you believe that it has the meaning, you certainly contribute to your own self-fulfilment./^t/Happiness is the utmost yearning of a human soul. Yet, it is the utmost unknown. We can not possibly define happiness, we can only trace its signs or interpret its symbols. We believe that we are capable to attain happiness, as if happiness was to be attained. We believe that happiness will suddenly emerge and materialise, as if happiness was a property to be possessed. We believe that one day we would apprehend what happiness is and with the triumphal "eureka" we would cling to it forever. Our life is cherished with hope that our pursuit for happiness would not be futile. Happiness may seem to have different faces, depending on what we believe to be valuable in our life. For some people it may be love, for others it may be money or success, or both. Whether it is a materialistic, tangible wealth, a growing career or a good family, again depends on our faith in various values. Happiness may also be reflected in our faith in God. We are happy because we believe that God knows the meaning and enigma of our existence. /^t/Human being is not only the combination of chemical or neural elements. Human being is a spiritual being who consciously manifests his own spirituality. It is faith, not chemical substances that make us strive for love, money, pleasure, peril, comfort, prestige, etc. Faith is the symbol of our humanity. It is faith not intelligence that makes us different from animals. The art of believing is as crucial as the art of breathing for both of them are the essence of our life. <0505> /^t/Towards the end of the twentieth century we can observe a departure from traditional values, patterns of behaviour and ways of expression. It is worth asking ourselves a question about art: does it continue any tradition of the past? Are the old modes of representation still relevant? One such mode is painting. I shall argue that in modern art there is no place for painting and that this means of expression is dying out. /^t/Firstly, it seems that everything has been already said in painting. In the course of history we had realistic representations as well as symbolic ones. At one point a whimsical impression was important, at some other - an abstract idea underlying the image. Political allegories were once replaced by posters. Portraits became less attractive with the development of cheap and efficient photography. When it comes to technical inventions, people have used practically everything to paint. The pieces of art found in the caves of Lascaux were painted with natural dyes within a limited range of colours. Then, the palette broadened and the chemical composition of paint began to change as well. Oils, water-colours, acrylic paints, Indian ink, poster colours - were all used to paint, all with an unlimited range of tints and hues. We had pictures made of colourful smears, we saw paintings composed of little dots of paint, we saw canvases covered in one colour only. Nowadays it would be hard to become original and innovative in painting. Therefore, artists turn to other means of expression, which lend themselves to experiments and allow for new inventions. /^t/The second argument confirming that the art of painting is almost dead comes from the observations of the artistic scene all around the world. The objects produced by contemporary artists are very rarely paintings. For centuries painting was the form of art and, most probably, people got tired with it. They wanted something new, something more convincing and up-to-date. In their search of a more creative means of expression painters constantly developed their techniques. At the turn of the nineteenth and the twentieth century a revelation came: the birth of film and the growing popularity of photography opened new horizons to all artists. Since then, such innovations as collages, installations and videos have become accepted, well-known and widely used as a means of expression. /^t/The last, and perhaps the most valid argument lies in the fact that the potential public for the art of painting is very limited. In the past, this art was directed at the aristocracy and the ruling classes. Today, consumers of goods are the most important people and, in the natural course, art is also directed at them. Therefore, if you want to be famous as an artist your works must have a massive appeal. Efficient and cheap for the buyer as they are, film and photography guarantee wide publicity. They are easily available. The same movie can be distributed all over the world, a photo can be reproduced and published everywhere. It is true that ordinary people can still visit famous art galleries and admire the works of classical painters in their original version but on the other hand it is easier to buy a beautiful album with their favourite pieces of art in it. When reproduced, however, a painting loses its quality and uniqueness as it enters the context of a particular house and becomes just one more photo in a book or on the wall. /^t/To conclude, I would risk a statement that the art of painting will inevitably die out in a few years. This fact is particularly regrettable for it reminds us that the exquisite taste of past generations is less and less valid at the end of the twentieth century. Moreover, painting is one of the most ancient ways in which humans could express themselves and, apparently, the first one to die. All that is left is to ask what will be next. <0506> /^t/Addictions fall into two categories: physical and psychological. The first include an illness called the withdrawal (abstinence) syndrom. The second ones comprise situations when the user relies on drugs in order to experience a feeling of satisfaction. /^t/Physical dependence becomes apparent only when the drug intake is decreased or stopped and a voluntary illness called the abstinence syndrom occurs. This term designates that the user must keep away from the source of his/her addiction. Very often, however, people find it impossible to get over their illness without the help of specialists. That is why, most of them subject themselves to a long-lasting hospitalisation. /^t/Psychological dependence is indicated when the user relies on a drug to produce a feeling of weel-being. This type of dependence varies widely with both the substance and the user. In its most intensive form the user becomes obsessed with the drug and focuses virtually all his interest and activity on obtaining and using it. Very often even small amounts are taken to reduce tension, relieving anxiety, and obtaining gaiety and exilaration. /^t/The major problem that arises from addiction to stimulas is dependence, the compulsion to use the drug despite the deterioration in health, work, or social activities. As a result, people stop to realise that they become someone different; they unconsciously lose their personality and self-esteem. Much as they are aware of their addiction, they are not able to foresee the consequences which may follow. Very often, when trying to overcome the illness without any professional help the likelihood of the success ic very small. In my opinion, more attention should be focused on the possibilities of how to help these people. Therefore, the more properly prepared institutions with a highly experienced staff, the greater the chances of reducing the number of the addicted. <0507> /^t/According to the statistics, nearly one thousand murders and two thousand rapes are committed in Poland every year. The growing threat of violence makes people undertake certain means of protection. This is why more and more poeple want to possess a gun which would provide them with a feeling of security while walking down the street after the dawn or staying home alone. These people, however, are not aware that considering different aspects such as the awareness of possessing a gun, its use and storage, a gun can bring on its owner more harm than protection. /^t/First, the awareness of posessing a gun can bring on its owner a lot of danger. It comes from the fact that when people are aware they carry a gun which can be used in a situation of life-threat as a kind of protection, their feeling of security increases and their actions become less careful. They tend to take unnecessary risks because they think if they have a gun they are able to cope with any danger. Such people provoke the danger which can easily overgrow them; in a life-threat situation they are not able to shot if their psyche does not let them for a large outburst of agression required for firing at someone. /^t/Second, the usage of a gun can cause more danger than create protection for its owner. It happens so in a situation when a person has to face some danger, namely s/he pulls out her/his gun in order to cause a threat to an aggressor and protect her/himself from the attack. If the aggressor is armed too, his immediate reaction is pulling out her/his own gun and using it, although at first s/he had no intention of harming or killing the person attacted. This is why a gun should be used only in a life-threat, rape-threat situation or when a victim is terrorized by an aggressor with a gun. In such situations a person should act quickly, with cool nerves and without hesitations; otherwise, a gun is not helpful at all but quite contrary. /^t/Third, a gun which is not carefully guarded and properly stored can get into the reach of children which leads to creating many dangerous situation. Sometimes, children find a gun belonging to their parents and use it for their games. As they are not aware how perilous playing with a gun can be, the gun naturally becomes an object of their games. They want to find out how it is built, if the ammunission they have found can be put inside of it, etc. A real gun makes the game of war more realistic because a child can point at another and pull the trigger. In order to prevent oneself from such situations, a gun should be kept in a special casket built in a wall and locked. Moreover, the gun and ammunission should be stored separately. /^t/As it is shown above, possessing a gun does not always act as a mean of protection for its owner; what is more, it can bring more peril than a gun-owner can think of. In order to avoid the unnecessaey danger, a possessor of a gun should act as carefully as without a gun. S/he should use it only when needed, that is in extreme situations when one's life is threatened. Moreover, the proper storage and careful guarding is important in order to keep the gun out of reach of thoughtless people. <0508> /^t/The moon has an enormous influence on human beings in spite of the common belief in the sun's exclusive impact on life in general. Our perception of nature's impact on life is sun-oriented. We all know that the sun makes life on earth possible. It emits life-giving light. The circle of life goes on thanks to the light which enables plants' developement and growth. Animals feed themselves with plants, other animals eat those animals and so on. Of course, animals need the light to grow, too. The sun brings us warmth, as well. Without it there would be too cold on earth for any life to exist. The sun gives us also energy and optimistic approach to life. The moon is not that generous. It does not give off either light or warmth. It shines only thanks to the sun again, as it reflects the sun's light. It seems that its only contribution to our life is the atmosphere of romance that it lends to the night. However, this apparent indifference of the moon to life is not that obvious, since the moon influences functioning of human body, and especially bodies of so called sleep-walkers. /^t/The moon affects water on earth, which does not leave human body untouched. The influence of the moon on the water on earth is clear and scientifically proved. It can raise the sea level by 15 metres. We know that man is composed in 75-80% of water. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fact that functioning of our gastric, nervous, and even reproductive systems are affected during the full-moon. Our stomach produces more gastric juice, which makes our appetite greater (that is why the full-moon is not the best time to start a diet). Our brain also works more intensly, so we learn and memorize better. Our emotional sphere does not remain unaffected. We are more energetic, but also nervous and tense. The research conducted revealed that there are more suicides and murders committed during the full-moon. On the other hand, we are said to have more chances to succeed in our love relationships in the time of full-moon. There are also said to be more children concived. The above facts may explain why the moon has been for centuries associated with both evil spirits and romance. /^t/Some people are even more visibly and intensly influenced by the moon. They are called somnambulists or sleep-walkers. During the full-moon sleep-walkers get up and walk. They have their eyes open and behave as if they were awaken. They perform various complicated actions: they may eat, dress, unlock the doors, refurnish rooms, or walk the mould. It usually lasts several minutes. In the morning they do not remember anything. Sometimes they wake during the walk and are surprised not to find themselves in their beds, but rather in the kitchen or out-doors. Scientists do not know much about somnambulism. The statistics suggest that sleepwalking happens to children and young people and declines with age. There is also some evidence for genetic origin of it. It is more probable to walk in one's sleep if somebody in the family had done it before. Scientists seek the cause of sleepwalking rather in the delayed development of brain or in stress and oversensitivity. Yet, the connection between it and the influence of the moon can not be denied. /^t/In most ancient cultures the sun was the most important deity, the moon being the second in importance. The sun was associated with life and good spirits; while the moon was asigned to evil spirits and demons. They always stood in opposition representing the two extreme powers of light and darkness. They also represented the two opposite sexes: the sun was associated with male and the moon with female features. Yet, the influence of both the sun and the moon were equally appreciated. Today the impact of the moon seems less obvious than that of the sun. Still, the above examples may make us realise how much we are influenced by the moon. <0509> /^t/The controversial topic of sexual education triggers heated discussions both in the United States and in Poland. This issue, however, is differently broken into the American and Polish school systems. The most important discrepancy between the two systems is in the authorities' attitude towards sex. While in the United States this subject is openly and freely debated, Polish authorities adamantly oppose discussions of such matters as safe sex and contraception. On the other hand, Polish and American educational systems resemble each other in the fact that there is no national curriculum for the course of sexual education. /^t/In Roman Catholic Poland, sex education has become an ideological battle ground. Many teachers, inluding priests, are still unwilling to challenge the taboo on the topic, being even skittish about using the very word "sex". Consequently, Polish teenagers are forced to act on their own and are very often in danger of suffering from their ignorance. Unlike Poland, the US authorities do not flinch from discussing sex. Prime time television programes, front page newspaper articles, and even high religious figures freely talk about this subject. Intense media coverage along with immense exposure to sex-related topics in sexual education classes has also proved to be extremely beneficial. As a result, an increasing number of American teenagers are using birth control or even abstaining from having sex. /^t/Neither Polish nor American educators are able to provide the students with the national curriculum for the course. In Poland, for example, there aren't even proper books for teaching safe sex and contraception. The only book that the Polish Ministry of Education recommends for adolescents - namely "Before You Choose" - doesn't seem to satisfy students' quench for exploring the subject of sex. In the United States every school district provides the students with an in-depth study of sexuality, so that each one of them have a firsthand look at the realities of sex. /^t/The task of introducing sexual education to Polish and American schools needs to be carried out effectively, in order to raise teenagers' sexual awareness. As far as Poland is concerned, the society, teachers, parents, the Church and finally the school authorities must all combine their efforts to properly educate the youngsters. If they don't come up with a reasonable solution to the problem of sexual education, many teenagers will have to bear the dreadful consequences of their ignorance.