The attribute that distinguishes me from others is my never dying enthusiasm to learn and to improve myself. I always reflect back on my actions and get feedback from others in order to find out my mistakes and figure out what could have been better. This ability of spotting my own weaknesses and fighting against them gives me an edge above others.
This attribute developed as I tried to achieve perfection in whatever I did. As a kid, I was a bit of a rebel and would not take any feedback in the right spirit. However, I was always an avid reader, was fortunate enough to attend a good school, and had the pleasure of good company. As I was growing in such an environment, my thoughts matured. I began to see my imperfections, and realized that everyone possessed a quality worthy of appreciation. The characters in my novels, my friends, my parents – the entire world around me became my teacher. Healthy competition and positive feedback from my parents and teachers led me to strive for perfection. By and by, I developed the ability to reflect on my actions, to observe the world around me and to learn.

Working with this attitude, I changed from being an impolite and disrespecting person to one who sees the good in everyone around and respects them for it. I grew from a student who would give up easily on a task and take a break to one who would concentrate hard and persevere until a solution is found. I learnt to take success with humility and failure with courage. Fearless of failure, I am always willing to experiment and to take on new challenges. This attribute has helped me move out of my comfort zone, and that’s where the adventure called ‘life’ begins.

Justification for this change in national policy which required an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and ratification by a majority states was based on: 1) the ongoing war in Vietnam, 2) resistance to the war which resulted in demonstrations on various college campuses including the Kent State Massacre by Ohio National Guardsmen on May 4, back in 1970, and 3) the fact that national sentiment concluded that if a nation were asking its young men to serve their country, they should be able to vote in national elections as well. Although there was resistance to this Constitutional change, the majority of Americans realized that when fighting a vastly unpopular war, the logical reasons to prevent soldiers who where under twenty-one from voting for their Commander and Chief President Richard M. Nixon seemed outdated.

While the justification for lowering the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen during the Vietnam War in retrospect seems logical, lowering the voting age to thirteen holds less of a sustainable argument or justification when comparing the reasons for the aforementioned change and the question now being discussed in this paper.

Although the concept of allowing thirteen year-old citizens to vote seems a bit misguided if not downright foolish, the concept of lowering the voting age below the eighteen-year-old threshold is not without consideration.

Although the views of State Sen. John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) seem unusual, they are in keeping with his long-standing views on liberal topics that have endeared him to his constituents. The final question to this possible change to at least the California State Constitution, is that under what criteria should citizens who are under the age of eighteen and possibly as low as thirteen be allowed to vote, and if such criteria had never been established when the US Constitution was changed in 1972, what checks and balance could be established at this point in time?

My father was in the family business, to which he gave a modern shape. He converted the small grocery shop into a mini-department store. He sold quality goods to his customers and charged reasonable rates. Occasionally he took me to the shop and I observed how he dealt with the customers. Most of them became his intimate friends, because they appreciated his honesty and upright dealings.

As far as my teacher is concerned, discipline and punctuality were his watchwords. He recognized my literary talents and provided encouragement and suggestions to improve my writing. When my first book was published, he wrote to me, “I am proud of my boy.” His advice to his students was: “Have the will to grow, and grow you will!”. He greatly helped me foster my personal development.

Finally, my spiritual guide was benign and kind. He initiated me in to the path of spirituality and taught me to cultivate positive approach to life. He often said: “Spirituality is not an after-retirement project. That which is not practical is not spiritual either. One must cultivate right type of values when one is young”.

I salute the above individuals who have influenced my life. They have been the guiding stars for the improvement of the standard of my life. I owe them debts that I will never be able to repay.

We see women as trendsetters, as decision makers, as political activists, and as role models.

On the other hand, some TV shows and even movies picture women as a mere tool, a man’s “pleasure vehicle”, saying that if you are not strong enough as a professional, as a personality, if you are not married or coupled with somebody powerful and famous, you may have to make compromises to get where you want. Sometimes, the message they are sending, especially to the young girls trying to figure out what they want to do in life, is that: hey, if you want to get rich and famous, here is what you should do, “sell” yourself! In my view, this is also supported, by the “Barbie-like look” of women who starve themselves to fit the standards, to “please” the world. In the Eastern European countries, unfortunately, the image of the woman having to obey “the almighty man” who can make her life a heaven or a living hell still persists.

Anyway, things have changed and we see women in top business positions, in managing boards, in politics, making decisions and making a difference. But is that enough to make her feel like a woman, in the most “human” sense possible, considering that we live in a society where almost everything is about perception and image?

The question does not have a simple answer. A day-care center can provide a setting for the child that allows social interaction and intellectual stimulation. Being with others of their own age group provides the opportunity to learn valuable lessons in sharing, communication and empathy for others. Being in a setting that encourages creativity, growth and curiosity allows them to explore new directions in thinking and expression. Being in a social setting outside of direct parental control gives them exposure to working within a group and proper behavior in the greater world.

However, a day-care center can also provide a setting that encourages bullying, neglect or other negative situations that can be harmful to a child’s physical or emotional well-being. Being subjected to an unsupervised environment where the largest or most aggressive children can run roughshod over the more introverted children can provide terrible lessons to children at both ends of the dynamic. The aggressive children learn that they get what they want by force and the meek children learn that their wants and needs are always to be deferred to those of the aggressive ones.

The answer, then, lies in the quality of day care provided and by the philosophy of the Center itself as regards how the children will occupy themselves during the day and how much supervision the Providers put forth. Every parent is encouraged to check on the quality of service that their chosen day care center provides to insure that children are being given the sort of care that they give when the child is in the home.