You are being watched with the excess in technology.

Are we living in "1984"?

Today, I have this creepy sensation that I am always being watched, and I probably am, by CCTV footage capturing my every move.

"Big Brother is watching you."

Definitely true.

I feel as though my privacy has been violated and disrespected as a citizen. My vote doesn't count. Why are we so obsessed with control? We all demand information, where we are, at what time, with who, where at, when and how we get there, when we leave and with who; all to our oblivion.

Sure it's helpful in catching scandals and solving crimes, but now I am uncomfortable of being in public. Miniluv, thoughtcrime and minitruth.

I must say, George Orwell and Aldous Huxley were both correct in their own perspectives. They have co-existed together.

Tranquility and Disaster.

Music is the very essence of my life. Without music, I would not feel complete because it would not define who I am. But not any music. The music which is the melody of my life, the tune of my heart and the bridges of my personality is classical music.

The very complexity and texture of classical music is what draws me to how rich and full of meaning and emotions. Different instruments placed together, played at different pitches and rhythms express completely different feelings that touch my very spine.

I think it's a shame that classical music is starting to get lost in the sea of today's generational change. With the rise of rock, hip hop, rap, techno and all that jazz, classical music is become less and less valued. I think classical music is a great source of inspiration for those that do understand it. For those that don't, one could attempt to try and understand how beautiful it is by analysing the components of the piece, or you could just sit back, relax and enjoy the tune flow right through your body as you imagine yourself in the setting of the tune.

Classical music is dying a slow death. There will always be a few people who would nourish and embrace classical music into their lives, but as each new generation comes into society, all the other music genres will precede classical music. No longer would you occasionally see people dancing to "The Blue Danube" or "Swan Lake" or even "1812 Overture". Even Scott Joplin's "Maple Leaf Rag" or the "Swanee River Boogie" would be great dance pieces. Not in today's society.

But apart from the stereotypical classical music of violins, pianos, harps, trombones and flutes, there are other new emerging improvisational instruments which I am greatly intrigued by.

Until next time...

We...Society...Them

Speaking to Ms Emo was scary...geez I was sweating so badly... but it pulled off in the end. Easier than I expected. Now onto my spasm...

Being a Legal Studies student, we speak a lot about the society. So I wish to comment on...the society.

Society. Society decides the laws that are enforced. Society decides what is in their general interest. Society decides what is usually in the media. Society votes on the government. Society is dominant. However, we do not always agree with society, yet we are the society so in other words...paradox.

Ok. Let's begin.

Let's take hypothetically the entire population and say that every single individual agrees to a concept or issue. That decision agreed upon would be considered to be the "dominant" or the "correct" way of thinking, acting or response by all individuals in that society. Let's now take a society of 100 people and 100 of them agree that theft is good. This would then trigger the belief that theft is acceptable in that society and all laws would revolve around allowing theft. But if in the same society, one person realises that theft is in fact bad, and now places the vote of 99 in favour of theft is good and 1 in favour of theft is bad, the fact and truth is that, theft will still be considered good, and is in the interest of the general community. That one person who is actually "correct" will be regarded wrong until a majority vote on his side. This then leads me to saying that the majority of people in society believe one thing while many people and other groups believe in the opposite or perhaps something different. So is the general majority right in their way of thinking or perhaps they could be wrong in the example given, where something bad is considered to be good? For example, using insanity as a defence for getting out of sentence when they are in fact not insane in the slightest? What if they are using that "good" defence and taking advantage of it? So is the minority correct in saying that insanity cannot be relied on being used as a defence? Sure it could be, with beyond reasonable doubt and proving it, but there are more people who will take advantage of this defence and get away with it, making something that is meant to do "good" to the society, actually has backfired and gone bad.

Society usually decides on issues, as well as their government. But the minority of the population actually understand what happens in politics, the economy, the legal system, the reason for the financial crisis, the reason behind trade, the reason why fares and interest rates go up. The minority actually specialise in certain areas and the majority, won't. Take for example, political voting between Person A and Person B. Person A was in power and they ruled for a long time with great prospects and great deeds and has served the society well. So they stayed in power. But then something in the world happens, which might cause many, many people to lose their jobs, or lose their money that they have invested or have to pay extra on loans, and the society shows unrest and instability. So in the next election, Person B prevails Person A and the roles change. Society (or the majority) expects Person B to fix the problem in the shortest amount of time possible, hopefully next morning, but it is quite impossible. So then the society becomes even unhappier and blames Person B for not fixing the problem when it is even totally beyond anyone's control. So then Person B gets kicked out and in comes Person C, who society again trusts and relies on to fix the problem. This cycle will continue until eventually the problem is fixed itself. So I ponder, since the majority of the society usually will not always understand or get the details and specifications of the problems in the world, are they making the wrong decisions, jumping the gun and rushing into conclusions and assumptions too early without stopping to think about the problem, ask questions and seek professional information? If that is so, then society is definitely flawed in its way of thinking and decision making. So is the society correct or "correct"?

Society is the people. The people make up the society. The society believes in one thing while the people may not. Individuals have unique ways of thinking but sometimes the minority is correct instead of the majority but are overwhelmed and their opinions are not usually considered. So is what society says correct based on what the majority believe? Or is the society simply flawed and do not understand the complications of thinking behind certain issues and are just making the wrong, incorrect decisions?