Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Weapons, Violence, Disruption and Drugs all on the rise in Britain's schools.

Tittle: Weapons, Violence, Disruption and Drugs all on the rise in Britatin's schools.
Author: Richard Garner, Education Editor.
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education-news/weapons-violence-disruption-and-drugs-all-on-the-rise-in-britains-schools-799650.html?r=RSS
Date of Publication: Sunday, 23 March 2008.


Vocabulary:
-Hard Core: noun. the small central group in an organization, or in a particular group of peolpe, who are the most active or who will not change their beliefs or behaviour.
-Manhandle: verb, to push, pull or handle somebody roughly.
-Crack, to find the solution to a problem, etc.; to find the way to do something difficult.
-Restrain: verb, to stop somebody or something from doing somenthig, especially by using physical force.
-Referral: noun, the act of sending somebody who needs professional help to a person or place that can provide it.
-Sin bin: noun, slang, (in some sports), a place away from the playing area where the referee sends a player who has broken the rules.
-Bash: verb, informal, to hit somebody or something very hard. /"bash, beat or knock the living daylights out of somebody", informal, to hit somebody very hard several times and hurt them very much./"frighten or scare the living daylights out of somebody" informal, to frighten somebody very much.
-Premise: noun, the building and land near to it that a business owns or uses.
-Warrant: verb, formal, to make something necessary or appropiate in a particualr situation.


Main ideas:
-According to a recent research, every week up to 8,000 teachers will deal with a pupil carrying an offensive weapon in the US, such as a knife or a gun. Teachers are facing worrying levels of violence, drug dealing, poor behaviour and disruption in schools. The study also showed that one in 10 teachers reported being pushed or manhandled by pupils.
-The study, by Dr. Sean Neill, of Warwick University's Institute of Eduction, revealed that serious incidents were increasingly concentrated in a "hard core" of schools serving disadvantaged areas. According to Steve Sinnott, General Secretary of The National Union of Teachers, which comissioned the research, there is a polarization taking place. He added that carrying weapons to schools does not make students safer but more vulnerable and that they need to get that message across.
-Jhon Bangs, Assistant Secretary of the Union, said that teachers are reporting they are encountering these problems, especially in some of the toughest schools in the toughest areas, particularly among boys from socially deprived backgrounds.
-Teachers reported that boys from disavdvantaged backgrounds were more likely to have lower aspirations, be worse behaved, to comitt offences and to become gang members and teenager fathers, and that girls showed similar problems.
- Mr.Sinnott said that they need to change the Government's slogan from "education" to "eductaion and equality". Teachers in the survay said that rather than tackle the problem with more pupil referral units they would preferred action to reduce class sizes, make curriculum less restrictive and get more support from parents for school discipline.

Personal Reaction:
That violence in schools is rising, is not new for us. As many other countries around the world, Argentina is also experiencing this drammatic problem.
There was a tendency years ago, to believe that serious problems of behaviour and violence within the classromm were more likely to occur in schools situated in poor areas. And eventhough that is what often happens, we have already seen violent episodes occur within students from the highest social clases as well. Anyway, the surprising violent actitudes of teenagers nowadays does not have a clear connection with their economical or social backgrounds.
One of the major factors which contributes to the rise of violence is that children are growing up alone and with no limits, with both, their mothers and fathers working outside home and with too much bad influence from TV, the Internet and the mass-media.
At the same time, there's a general crisis in our Educational System which has reached a national level, with the consequence of schools responsibility being displaced from educating and forming students, to feed them and support them with their personal problems. This actitude from part of schools, ends up to contribute negatively to the problem of violence since to form students in their manners and behaviour, has been unfortunately left aside. To form them in a pedagogical aspect is just one of the schools' task. And they seem to have forget that schools are also responsible of creating good people.

My Expectations

As a prospective teacher of English, I have been recently thinking about my expectations. Days ago a teacher asked me what do I expect for the future, and I realized then, that I have never asked that question before to myself in a profound way. And that situation was what encouraged me to think about it.
The firts conclusion which I arrive at, is the fact that I would like to prefer to teach in public schools rather than in private ones. The only reason for this preference is the reality which those children from public schools live. The vast mayority of them come from poor backgrounds, and to have less money than other children may trigger in them the thought that they may have less opportunities as well. Less opportunities to learn a second language, and therefore, less opportunities to use English to get a good job in their future. Eventhough this may be a common thought, I do not agree with it. And I want to teach them, so as to do somenthing to counteract that feeling of being inferior that they may have.
I also have expectations which go beyond the tecahing of English Language, and they are related to the attitudinal aspects of the teaching profession. I want my future students to learn more than just a subject. As a tecaher, I consider myself also encharged of teaching students how to behave correctly and how to respect each other. I want them to learn about their rights and responsibilities. About their roles in society and in their families. To sum up, I want not only to create good students but also good people.
A third expectation that I have, is inevitably to have a good job. I want to have the posiibility to earn my living through this profession. I know that this would depend on hard work, especially in our province, or let say, in our country. Our Educational System has many failures actually, and this extends even to the budget that the National Government administres for this area. As I pretend to work in public shools, and, as it is said, "to be part of the sysytem, I know that this means to work the whole day long. Anyway, I would not left asside the opportunity to work in the private area, if it is necessary, which wil probably be the case.
So, to form children as students and as persons an to live by doing that are the expectation I have for my future as teacher of English.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

The Murky Politics about Mind-Body

Tittle: The Murky Politics about Mind-Body.
Author: Sarah Kershaw.
Source: www.nytime.com/2008/03/30/weekinreview/30kers.hml
Date of Publication: March 30, 2008.

Vocabulary:
-Murky: adjective, disapproving or humorous, of peoples' actions or character, not clear known and suspected of not being honest.
-Mingle: verb, to combine or make one thing combine with another.
-Parity: noun, formal, the state of being equal, especially the state of having equal pay or status.
-Ailment: noun, an illness that is not very serious.
-Wobble: verb, to move from side to side in an unsteady way, to make somenthing do this.
-Chip away at : phrasal verb, figurative, to keep breaking small pieces off something, to gradually make somenting weaker.
-Moras: noun, an unpleassant and complicated situation that is difficult to scape from.
-Balk (AmE), Baulk (BrE): verb, to be unwilling to do somenthing or become involved in somenthing because it is difficult, dangerous, etc.
-Patchwork: noun, a thing that is made up of many different pieces or parts.
-Protracted: adjective, lasting longer than expected or longer than visual.



Mian Ideas:
-The dualism of mind-body lives on these days in less abstract form in the US under the question of how much of a difference should it make to health care and health insurance, if a condition is physical or mental? Recent scientific studies have blurred this line between these types of disorders. Now a critical moment has been reached in a 15-years debate over wether treatment for problems like depression, addiction and schizophrenia should get the same coverage by insurance companies as, say, diabetes, heart diseases and cancer.
-This month, the House has passed a bill that would require insurance companies to provide mental health insurance parity. It was the first time it has approved a proposal so substancial. The bill would ban insurance companies from setting lower limits on treatment for mental health problems than on treatment for physical problems, including doctor visits and hospital stays.
-Parity raises all sorts of tricky questions: Is an ailment a ligitimate disease if you can't test for it? If a patient says "Doctor, I feel hopeless" is that enough to justify a diagnosis of depression and health benefits to pay for treatment? How many therapy sessions are enough? If mental illness never ends, which is typically the case, how do you set a standar for coverage to that for physical ailments, many o which do end?.
-The US has a long history separating the treatment of mental and physical illness, dating back to the days when the severly mental ill were put in poorhouses, jails, and later, in public asylums. That ended after the 1960s, but mental health experts say that the delivery of servicies is still far from equal, because emotinal illness is still not considered to be a par with medical illness.
-Over the last 5 years, reserach studies examining the link between physical brain abnormalities and disorders like severe depression and shizophrenia have begun to make a long case that the disorders are manifestations of actual and often fatal, problems in brain circuitry. A growing number of studies are making the bilogical connection, redifining the concept of mental illness as brain illness.
-Anyway, some still question the legitimacy of calling any mental ailment a disease. A lauder chorus argues that adiction is a behavioral and social problem, even a choice, but not a disease, as many mental health professionals and the founders and followers of Alcoholic Anonynous mantain. Critics of parity say that anything that would not turn up in an autopsy cannot be equated with physical illness. These critics also say that because the mental abnormality research is so new, it still be considered theory rather than established basis for equal payment treatment.
-Nevertheless, as federal parity legislation has wobbled along over the years, 42 states have adopted their own verssions of parity, offering a patchwork of standars for insurance companies or coverage for addiction and mental illness. A federal law would extend insurance parity to tens of million more Americans who are not covered under the laws and set one broad standard for the nation.
-As states have experienced with parity, however, many providers have complained that insurance companies have often found it easy to deny benefits by ruling that claims are not "medically necessary", a potential taugh standar when it comes to ailments of the mind. Menawhile, attitudes about the mental illness and addiction have changed significally since advocates for the mental ill and for parity firts tried to include broad coverage of mental illness in the nation's insurance plans, and since pop culture has normalized rehabilitation and even suicide attemps, chipping away slowly at social stigmas and lending streght to the idea that the sufferer of mental illness and addiction may be a victim rather than a perpretor.
-Still a cancer patient generally remains a far more sympathetic figure than a cocaine addict or a schizophrenic. But scientists advances may go a long way to help the parity cause. The biological and neurological connection lends streght to the notion that mental illness are as real and urgent as physical illness.
-The Senate passed its own bill with substancial differences from the House bill, which has been co-sponsored by Representative Patrick J. Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Mr. Kennedy has admitted to struggling with addiction and depresion. On the other hand, President Bush, who has voiced support for the more limited coverage called for in the Senate bill, has siad he would not support the House version.
-The House bill would require insurance companies that offer mental helth benefits to cover treatment for the hundred of diagnosis included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The Bush administration and other opponents say the list of disorders is far too broad.

Personal Reaction:
There's no doubt that there are striking similarities between mental and physical diseases. There is suffereing, there is a lack of skills, a quality of life tragically reduced and the need for help.
People should develop a concept of mental health that focuses on the similarities and at the same time, respects the differences with both types ol illness. What is important is not to allow those differences to produce radically disparate between both medical conditions. Because if we do so, there will be no other consequence than a disparate in the forms of the treatment and and in the form of insurance as well.
Private insurance companies may be more difficult to convince of such similarities, probably because of economical reasons. It's believed that more than thinking on their clients benefits, they first think on their own profits. But that the national insurance plans do not include in their bills mental helath care is simply unacceptable. A health care system is every human being right, no mattter which their particular medical condition may be.

Violence and Schools

For the first time in my life, I have a doubt about my career. It is not that I'm not sure about my profession, because I really want to become a teacher, but I have a certain feeling of fear everytime I hear or read about violence at schools.
I have already gained some little experience in classromm. I have taught to secondary school students and also to children from the kinder garten. And I took the best out from those experiences. I really had a good time and I've also learned a lot about the pedagogical aspects of the teaching profession.
I know I have a long way to go yet. And there's a lot more I need to learn. The fact is that I really want to keep going through this road I've chosen and till now, there has been nothing at all that makes me doubt, except for the violence issue.
Last year, one of my students started to fight on day, while we were in class. The episode was really traumatic for me, eventhough it didn't end up in nothing serious. And I have recently read some articles related to the topic which shocked me a lot. This contributed to the feeling of insecurity that is affecting me.
I feel unprotected when I imagine myself in the classroom. That a student may take out a gun, is a permanent association I make everytime I think about teaching. I should find the way to manage this fear because I don't want to let it interfere with my plans for the future.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Ethics Law isn't without its Loopholes

Tittle: Ethics Law isn't without it's Loopholes.
Author: Robert Pear.
Source: www.nytimes.com
Date of Publication: April 20, 2008.

Vocabulary:
-Loophole: noun, a mistake in the way a law, contract, tec. has been written which enables peolpe to legally avoid something that the law or contract had intended them to do.
-Lobbyist: noun, a person who tries to influence a politician or the government and for example, persuade them to support or oppose to a law.
-Draconian: adjective, formal, (of a law, punishment, etc.) extremelly harsh and severe.
-Niebble: verb, to take small bites of something, especially food.
-Spotty, adjective, not complete, good in some parts but not in others.
-Cumbersome: adjective, slow and complicated.
-Burdensome: adjective, formal, causing worry, difficulty or hard work.
-Spigot: noun, any tap or faucet, especilly one outdoors.
-Liken, verb, formal, to compare one person or thing to another and say they are similar.(phrasal verb: to liken something or somebody to something or somebody).

Main ideas:
-The optimistically named Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 was supposed to prevent Lobbyists from securing undue influence by taking members of the Congress to intimate dinners at fancy restaurants. But Loobyists had already come up with a way around the new law.
-Even as they try to figure out what the law requires, Lobbyists are working to preserve the acces and influence they have in Congress and Federal Agencies.
-For decades, Lobbyists have registered with Congress, but compliance and reporting requirements have been spotty. They had little to fear if they understated their expences or misinterpreted their activities.
-This month, the controller general of the US will audit a sample of Lobyists' reports and can demand evidence to verify their accurancy. The new law quadruples the maximun civil fine to $200,000, and provides up to 5 years in prision for failure to comply.
-Under prior House rules, lawmakers and their aides could accept gifts, including food and refreshment, from virtually any person or organization if the item had a value less than $50. New rules ban most gifts from lobbyists and their employers.
-How much the gift ban has driven up Lobbyists' contirbutions will not be clear until july, when Lobbyists must file a new type of report listing money they contributed to a congressional candidate, an event honouring a member of the Congress, a charity designated by a lawmaker, a presidential library or an inaugural comittee. As part of the report, Lobbyists and their employers must sign "certifications" attesting that they have read and adhere to the new gift rules.
-Lobbyists cannot pay meals to a member of a congress or buy to them practically any gift, but they can make political campaign contributions. Thti is perfectly legal. People who make campaign contributions, have an opportunity to get face time with a member of the Congress at find-raising events.
-One of the consequences of the gift ban is to drive more and more social interaction between Lobbyists and congressional officials into campaing find-raising, which is no subject to most of the gifts rules.

Personal Reaction:
According to the article, the new Ethics rules related to the activity of Lobbyists in the US, has many loopholes. It places too much emphasis in the gift ban and makes a detailed explanation of which types of gifts are legal to be given to a lawmaker, and which ones not. But it fails in expressing rules which could control the Loobyists' activity in itself.
I don't understand the point of the gift ban if the new Congressional Ethics Rules cannot assure "honest leadership and open goverment". Eventhough it is said to be early to arrive to any conclusion, most of the people related to the analysis of the rules predicts a failure in some points of them.
The question that arises in front of me when reading this article is if Lobbyists do really achieve their goals with the gifts and the money they give to members of the Congress. It is hard to believe for me that politicians end up being persuaded in the end by such people., because I think that politicians are more likely to find Lobbyists' activity beneficial for them than the other way round. For this same reason, maybe the idea of focusing so much in the gifts ban is presicely to persuade Lobbyists to invest more cash in political campaigns.

Happiness

Happiness is for me a state, maybe one of the most dificult to reach in life and well-known for not lasting forever. It would be great to make of it a permanent way of life but specialists often say that in life not everything is happiness. This state tends to be naturally quieted by moments of some feelings contrary to it.
In my personal life what brings happiness to me, is freedom. The freedom of being onself without restricition is more than a human right to me. It's what helps us to satisfy our need of happiness in life.
What happiness is to us can vary from person to person. You can find joy in something that someone else can find boring. And at the same time what entertains others can appear not interesting to you. For this reason, the only way in which we can be really happy is through the freedom of choosing from all the options in life, the one that really matches us.
To have the opportunity of choosing is the key to happiness, then. Through it we can follow the way we want to. And that opportunity can not have other consequence than making us feel well. To be free enables us to be loyal to our thoughts and to our ideas, and even to our likes and dislikes. Without the chance of choosing, we are restricted. We turn into controlled beings. And then is when happiness situates far from us.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

A shift in the debate over Global Warming

Tittle: A Shift in the debate over Global Warming.
Author: Andew C Revkin.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06revkin.html?_r=1&oref=login
Date of Publication: April 6, 2008.

Vocabulary:
-Cap: verb, to cover the top or the end of something with something.
-Prod: verb, to try to make somebody do something, especially when they are unwilling.
-Bluntly: adverb, in a very direct way, without trying to be polite or kind.
-Stifle: verb, to prevent something from happening.
-Curb: verb, to control or limit somenthing, especially something bad.
-Lick: verb, infromal, to easily defeat somebody or deal with something.
-Overhaul: noun, an examination of a machine or a system, including doing repairs on it or making changes to it.
-Deploy: verb, formal, to use something effectively.
-Avert: verb, to prevent something bad or dangerous from happening.

Main ideas:
-In the last few years, most of the focus of the debates over Global Warming has centered on imposing caps on green house gas emissions to prod energy users to switch to nonpolluting technologies.
-Now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, scientists are saying that whatever benefits the caps approach yields, it will be too little and come too late.
-The economist Jeffrey D.Sachs (Earth Institute, Columbia University) says that if we try to restarin emissions without a new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth. Our current technology cannot support both, a decline in carbon dioxide emissions and an espanding global economy. What is needed is a development of advance low carbon technologies.
-Proponents of treaties and legislations say that cap emissions don't disagree with this call to arm for new, low carbon technologies. But they say the cap approach should not be ignored, either.
-Joseph Romm, member of a non-profit group for legislation to restict greenhouse gasses says that if we don't start aggresively deploying the technology we have now for the next quarter century, then all the new technologies in the world won't avert catastrophe.
-Roger A. Pielke, a political scientist at the University of Colorado, emphasizes that the recent rise in emissions points the need for government to push aggresively for technological advances instead of waiting for the market to force reductions in emissions.
- Mr. Sachs points to several promissing technologies (capturing and burying carbon dioxide, plug-in hybrid cars and solar-thermal electric plants). Each will require a combination of factors to succed: more applied scientific research, important regulation changes, appropiate infraestructure, public acceptance and early high-cost investments. A failure on one or more of these points could kill the technologies.
-In short, what is needed is a major overhaul of energy technology financed by large-scale public funding of research, development and demostration projects.

Personal Reaction:
In the fight against Global Wraming's consequences, time is key. It is a critical factor. Debates continue to occur all over the world without any parctical result, at time at which counties such as China and India keep on developing into the modern world. And in a way in which they will soon become the dominant producers of greenhaouse gasses.
There's no plan or idea which is useless when taking about saving our planet. The problem is how to make them work, and more important, how to make them work quickly. The only way colud be through the co-participation of every entity that should assume responsibility for our climate change problem.
As the article states, we cannot wait the market to promote and consumers to buy planet-friendly products if governments do not support them with adecuate campaigns. At the same time, we cannot expect the industry to reduce gas emissions if there are no laws or regulations truly approved in which the people can base on.
The real fact is that while scientists, economists, politicians and students of energy policy continue discussing the problem, our planet keeps on suffering the long term effects of global warming. Thant's why time should be the first factor to be taken into account in climate debates so as to force the results to appear as soon as posible.

Living in the structured society

Somentimes I get really shocked of how many things we are capable of doing in our lifes, just to please other people. A famous argentinian singer says in a song that the things we do in a compulsory way, end up taking out the happiness from our hearts. And the truth is that we can end up sometimes doing things that we really hate to do.
From styding to getting married, there are decisions that we can take just to prevent somebody else from worrying or getting upset with us. It semes hard to understand how hypocritic we could be. And worst than being synical with the rest of people around us, what is really wrong, is being synical with ourselves. We can left aside our own feelings and betray our thoughts and ideas just to fix in the society, in the family or in our group of friends.
The necessity of belonging to a group, of being part of something and of feel supported, can push us to be somebody who we really are not. It seems like if we are silenced by the fear of being pointed just because we think differently or do not share certain common thoughts. We are always supposed to think in a way, behave in some other and solve things out as normal people would do. The problem is that what is normal to you can be anormal to the rest. In just one second if your ideas do not match with what everyboby thinks as normal, you can become a phenomenon among the people around you. And, with any doubt, your ideas and behaviour will be judge then.
Our decisions are always conditionated by cultural and social patterns of behaviour. And most peolpe seem to agree with this as an important elememt so as to enable our co-living. And I generally used to do as well. I used to think that this is right. But recently, I have started to have a feeling of rejection towards this so much structured socienty in which I live in.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Response: The Science of Happiness

Having read "The Science of Happiness" by Mike Rudin, there are many interesting things which I consider to be truth in that article.
Although I believe is quite difficult to measure happines, I agree with Prof. Ed Diener (University of Illinois) when he says, that happines leads to a better life. I know by my own experience that there are strong connections between the feeling of happiness and how much healthy a person may be. At the same time as much happy you feel in life, more strong you will be to face problems and hard work.
I also agree with what Prof. Daniel Kahneman (University of Princeston) argues: money cannot make people happier. Once peolpe have reach a good standar of living, there is a tendency to seek for more since comparision with other peolpe is inevitable.. The act of comparing ourselves with others gennerally leads to the realization of what we still haven't achieve, and threfore, we start to feel unhappy. There's always be somebody richer and in a better social status than us. And as it is suggested in the article, the best thing to do is to choose objectively who we compare with and about what.
I have no doubt that "The Happy Formula" to which the article makes reference to, includes a set of ingredients that are vital to it and that there is no just one key to ahppiness. As the article suggest, family and friends are extremely important because not to be alone is a paramount aspect for every human being. We all need company and to feel supported.
As important as those ingredients is the belief in something bigger than us no matter which your religion may be. That gives sense to human life and helps us to answer to many existencial questions that may be difficult to responde.
The article also remarks the importance of having goals that you find enjoyable and the possitive influence that working on them may have in our search for happiness. It is avery real thought for me that our lives should develop for something. We need to live and not just to exist. We need to get involved, to be connected and to have values in life as well as we need to have plans and find the way to achieve them.
With a mixture of all of these, is precisely how happiness can be constructed.

To Relax: A difficult but necessary task. (Draft II)

We may all have experienced how difficult is to relax sometimes or may have heard people talking around about this fact, what makes of it a common problem nowadays. At the same time, it is well known that relaxing is necessary to our mental and physical health.
Eventhough we all know how important is to rest and to allow our attention and effort to become weaker, this vital necessity is often left aside. For some people, this occurs simple because they voluntary avoid to relax, and the aim of this behaviour may be to cope with the fear of losing control of situations. In this way they can turn up living their lives with a constant preasure that they put upon themselves; all this originated in a wrong idea that if they relax situations may escape from their hands.
Besides this intentional behaviour, not allow ourselves to relax can occur unintentionally as well. In many occations we end up making too much trouble of problems that do not deserve our full attention. This leads to an unnecessary waste of energy that could be invested in some other really important issues. It can also happen that we ruin moments that we were suppose to use for relaxation because we cannot just stop the rush of thoughts inside our minds.
To find difficulties in relaxing is a current problem nowadays. People generally use time that should be destined to resting and enjoying themselves to continue worring about some unsolved problem or task that they haven't finished yet. We all live so fast, so stressed and anxious thatt we even tend to think that to relax is a waste of time. A solution may be to accept thatt we are not machines and that relaxation is something healthy, especially after work or a big effort. To relax should be then, another activity included in our timetables, and not just left aside until we find extra time to spend in doing that.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

How difficult is to relax? (Draft I)

Many of us may have experienced how difficult is to relax. And at the same time we all know how necessary is to rest, and to allow our attention and effort to become weaker. What currently happens is that this necessity is normally left aside in many times, because of the fear of loosing control of situations. In consequence, we can turn up living in a constant preassure that we put ourselves on us, just not to allow situations to scape from our hands.
This is wrong common thought, that affects almost every human being, based on the idea that if we torture ourself thinking about somenthing, we will control it and it will have the outcome that we wish. If not, if we forget and relax, the situation can develop through it ows course. And in fact is this second idea which is the correct one, eventhough it may be hard to believe, and not the first one. Things will end up in what they have to, and not in what we whant. It is truth that we can modify the future of situations, but not of all of them, and not in a complete fully way. And this is hard to accept.
In many occations we end up making to much trouble of problems which do not deserve our full attention.This leds to an unnecessary waste of energy which we could invest in more important issues. Sometimes we are not conscious of how much we ruin moments that we were suppose to use for relaxation because we cannot stop the rush of thoughts inside our minds. And we can end up unintentionally using time that should be destine to resting and enjoying ourselves, to continue worrying about an unsolved problem or a duty that we have not finished yet.
All this behaviour is quite common in the actual times. We live so fast, so stressed, so anxious that we even tend to think that to relax is a waste of time. We should accept that we are not machines and that to relax is something healthy, especially after work or doing a big effort. To relax should be another activity included in our timetables and not something left aside 'till extra time appear to be spent in doing so. Because that will be to rest important to the activity of relaxation.

My Current Thought

I'm only thinking about my wedding these days. To be honest, I'm only thinking about my wedding party these days. Getting married is not the problem but the party is turning into an issue that is constantly disturbing my mind. It shouldn't, I know, because it is supposed to be something happy and full of joy. And eventhough I have two weddind planners, my sister and my best friend, I can't relax and let them do the job.
I try not to worry myself whith this. I try to convince myself all the time that everything is going to be ok. But a party is not a simple thing to organize. I'm going to get married only once in my life, at least, I hope so, for what I have only one chance to have the party of my dreams and I really don't want to loose it.
I trust on my wedding planners but there are some details which they can unintentionally forget to take into account in the party planning... I'm sure of that. Like, for example the music. Of course they are going to rent music equipment and pay for a DJ to do the job , but I don't want to listen to conventional wedding music, as I'm sure it will occur if I don't arrange it by myself.
I don't want to listen awful music in the most important day of my life. I have a particular taste for music and so does my boyfriend. Music that my guest are not like to enjoy. The problem is that my sister and my friend keep on telling me that it is nonsense to invite 200 peolpe to a party and play music which nobody is going to dance. And they are right. At the same time, I know that I can't cope with everybody's taste just to satisfy the guest because the party is to be what I dreamt and not what the rest wants. What should I do, then?