Nowadays most of the people are members in at least one club. It is part of our daily life and has become very famous. In my opinion such a membership is very important, especially for children.

Apart school and home, clubs are facilities that support children’s education. They help children to learn social behaviors towards other people. Cooperation and consideration are practised as well as making compromises. Being together with a lot of others, children gain some of the main key qualifications very easily. These skills are important in every day life and particularly later in working life. A club requires, for example, responsibility, punctuality and reliability, which are conveyed to the children. This process is facilitated in a club, because there are only people sharing the same hobby.

A membership improves interaction in a team. Children have to integrate and learn that they can only reach something by working together. One person alone cannot win but all together are able to defeat an opponent. A club requires and also teaches discipline while interacting with the members without any difficulties. Children are automatically confronted with problems they are then forced to solve. Strategies in interacting with others are learned and can be applied to life outside the club.

A club can be a kind of family for children. Nowadays children want to break away from their parents very early and they prefer hanging around with friends. An alternative can be a club that gives them a hold. There they can practise their hobbies, meet friends and exchange opinions. These weekly meetings are part of their lives and have influence on their development. Children who have problems with their parents may even see the club as the only place they can take refuge in. This shows clearly the significance of clubs for children. 316 words

Nowadays, most people are members of at least one club. Clubs are part of our daily lives and have become very popular . In my opinion, membership in such clubs is very important, especially for children.

Just like school and the home, clubs can influence children’s education. They help children to learn social behavior , to cooperate with and be considerate of others, and make compromises. Being together with a lot of other children helps them learn skills that will be important later in everyday life, and particularly later in working life. Club membership requires, for example, responsibility, punctuality and reliability .

Being a club member improves the child's ability to interact with others and be part of a team. They learn that they can only accomplish some things by working together. They learn discipline by interacting with others .. Strategies for interacting with others are learned and can be applied to life outside the club .

A club can be a kind of family for children. Nowadays children want to break away from their parents very early, and they prefer hanging around with friends. A club can be an alternative . There they can pursue their hobbies, meet friends and exchange opinions. These weekly meetings often become part of their lives and have a strong influence on their development . Children who have problems with their parents may even see the club as a place of refuge.

It can not be denied that technology is in most cases a great advantage. Technology makes people become convenient but offers at the same time more possibilities for communication. I can not imagine how I could ever lead a life without my cell phone or without my computer, writing my texts on a typewriter which took me hours because I had to rewrite it again and again when I made a mistake. And I am glad I have internet access, a web cam and a microphone which enables me to see my cousins, who live in the United States, every time I want and to talk to them or to leave them a message.

However, the rate of technological productions increased to a rapid extent in the last few years. We are flooded by mobile phones that are better and smaller than the ones of the last generation. There is a struggle between the various producer firms for the better design and the better capacity of their cell phones, TVs, microwaves and DVD-players. I doubt that we need each of those new gadgets that are on the market right now, for instance the mp3 player which could not gain acceptance yet. It is also a fact that one can not afford each new appliance. I think a cell phone with a little camera, where you can see your phone partner, is expensive and is useless, if the phone partner does not have a cell phone with a camera, anyway.

I think new technological gadgets are worth to deal with and should not be ignored, because I think that someday they may happen to become irreplaceable in our everyday life. I recently learned how difficult it is for the elder generation, my grandma belongs to, to understand and to use technological devices like a video player or a charge card. If we don’t want to end up helpless in a technological high developed world in which we can not do a step independently, we are forced to adapt to new techniques and become assimilated to the developments soon. 364

It cannot be denied that technology is in most cases a great advantage. Technology makes life easier and helps us communicate. I cannot imagine how I could ever led a life without my cell phone or without my computer. Writing papers on a typewriter took me hours because I had to rewrite them again and again, whenever I made a mistake. Now… I am also glad I have Internet access, a web cam and a microphone, which enable me to see and talk with my cousins, who live in the United States, anytime I want to, or at least send them a message which is transmitted instantly and costs practically nothing.

However, the rate of technological production has skyrocketed in the last few years. We are flooded with mobile phones, TVs, microwaves and DVD-players that are better and smaller than the last generation. . I doubt that we need all of these new gadgets Nor can we/many people afford them. Why do we need a cell phone with a little camera and screen where you can see your conversation partner ? This is a very expensive luxury, and quite useless if your interlocutor does not also have a cell phone with a camera.

I think new technological gadgets are worth developing and should not be ignored, because I think that someday they may become irreplaceable in our everyday life. I recently learned how difficult it is for the generation of my grandma to understand and to use technological devices like a video player or a charge card. If we don’t want to end up helpless in a highly developed technological world in which we cannot take a step independently, we are forced to adapt to new techniques and become assimilated to the developments as soon as possible.

Ritalin is a medicine which is usually prescribed to pacify hyperactive children. It calms children down. Hyperactivity is an illness which is caused by a disfunction in the brain. In most cases it has to be treat with Ritalin. In the USA Ritalin is a very popular drug which is daily taken by millions of american children. It is not only taken by hyperactive children althoug Ritalin was definetely not made to reduce or to stop all unwanted behaviour. There are many reasons for a bad or striking behaviour. Not all children who are loud, restless or insolent are hyperactive.

A high number of children take, or get, Ritalin in order to improve their learning abilities. When they take it they are quiet and peaceful. Their concentration becomes much better. For adults it is a very easy solution. When a child gets Ritalin every problem is gone . The child behave in a way that teac hing becomes pleasant for the teacher and the parents are also satisfied with their childs behaviour.

Sure, teachers and parents have to react when a child´s behaviour is striking or when a child get out of controll, but they are not doctors nor psychologists. Often the symtomes of a child are interpreted wrong. To avoid wrong diagnosis the decision, whether Ritalin is the right medicine to prescribe or not, should be made by an expert.

Nobody can be completely certain that the treatment with Ritalin does not entail any after effects. It is really shocking how this medicine can change a child´s behaviour. In the USA the overuse of Ritalin among children is already a significant problem.

It is obvious that Germans take over a lot of american habits. In think that we better don´t take over the habit of using Ritalin. Maybe it is the easiest way to recommend it but in my opinion it is no desirable solution. 325words

Ritalin is a medicine which is usually prescribed to pacify hyperactive children. It calms children down. Hyperactivity is an illness which is caused by a dysfunction in the brain. In most cases it has to be treated with Ritalin. In the USA Ritalin is a very popular drug which is daily taken by millions of American children. But not all children who are loud, restless or insolent are hyperactive, and many such children are put on Ritalin.

A large number of children take, or get, Ritalin in order to improve their learning abilities. When they take it, they are quiet and peaceful. Their concentration becomes much better. For adults it is a very easy solution . When a child gets Ritalin, all problems are gone . The child behaves in a way that teaching him or her becomes pleasant for the teacher, and the parents are also satisfied with their child's behaviour at home.

Of course, teachers and parents have to react when a child gets out of control, but they are not doctors or psychologists. Often the symptoms are interpreted wrongly. To avoid a wrong diagnosis, the decision whether Ritalin is the right medicine to prescribe or not should be made by an expert.

Nobody can be completely certain that the treatment with Ritalin does not entail any after-effects. It is really shocking how this medicine can change a child´s behaviour. In the USA the overuse of Ritalin among children is already a significant problem .

Germans take on a lot of American habits, but I think that we had better not take on the habit of using Ritalin. Maybe it is the easiest way to control our children, but in my opinion it is dangerous.

The Syriac Institute launched today Project eBeth Arké : The Syriac Digital Library. The project aims to bring 3.000 out - of - copyright books, journal articles , pictures, and audio recordings to the Internet in an eLibrary form. The Syriac name of the Library, eBeth Arké, literally means 'house of ar - chives and denotes a library. The pro- ject is directed by Dr. George Kiraz. The Institute initiated the project and is leading it in partnership with major university libraries, including Bringham Young University, The Catholic University, Dumbarton Oaks Library, Princeton Theological Seminary, and others. As - sociated with the project is a Library Partnership program that gives public and private libraries the opportunity to complete their collections, or start a collection from the ground up. Publications on Syriac studies are usually scattered over so many libraries and are hard to obtain. Books on the Syriac Orthodox heritage will be well represented in this library. The 3000 i - tem collection will include publications in English, German, French, Syriac, Arabic and other languages. The project was welcomed by many scholars and libraries world-wide. The Institute is making use of the latest in eBook technology . Books are being digitized using high guality digitisation equipment. The images are then con - verted into eBook form, and when possible Optical - Character Recognition is applied in order to allow readers to search the text.. Links are added from the table of contents and indices to pages, making navigation a click away. A Web version is created to allow readers borroww ( i.e. download) eBooks from any place around the world. The average cost of digiti - zing a book is $250. To have all this material that is material that is out of copyright collected together and made available in this way would be an immensely valuable service, not only to scholars working in this and the many related academic fields, but also to the wider public and above all, to people belonging to the different Churches of Syriac tradition. 346

The Syrian Institute launched today Project eBeth Arké : The Syrian Digital Library. The project aims to bring 3,000 out - of - copyright books, journal articles , pictures, and audio recordings to the Internet in an eLibrary form. The Syrian name of the Library, eBeth Arké, literally means 'house of archives and denotes a library. The project is directed by Dr. George Kiraz. The Institute initiated the project and is leading it in partnership with major university libraries, including Brigham Young University, The Catholic University, Dumbarton Oaks Library, Princeton Theological Seminary, and others. Associated with the project is a Library Partnership program that gives public and private libraries the opportunity to complete their collections, or start a collection from the ground up. Publications on Syrian studies are usually scattered over many libraries and are hard to obtain. Books on the Syrian Orthodox heritage will be well represented in this library. The 3000 item collection will include publications in English, German, French, Syrian, Arabic and other languages. The project was welcomed by many scholars and libraries worldwide. The Institute is making use of the latest in eBook technology . Books are being digitized using high quality digitization equipment. The images are then converted into eBook form, and when possible Optical - Character Recognition is applied in order to allow readers to search the text. Links are added from the table of contents and indices to pages, making navigation a click away. A Web version is created to allow readers borrow ( i.e. download) eBooks from any place around the world. The average cost of digitizing a book is $250. To have all this material that is out of copyright collected together and made available in this way would be an immensely valuable service, not only to scholars working in this and the many related academic fields, but also to the wider public, and above all to people belonging to the different Churches of Syrian tradition.

I have read an article oh H. Fidler where she describes the function of television in different decades in America. In the 1940s the purpose was to bring the family circle together by introducing television.

But later, the result of this new media was that today´s family life is characterized by TV.

In my opinion, the introduction of the media was actually claimed to reinforce the sense of community in families, but it had more destructive effects on the relationships in families than progressive effects concerning the reuniting of families.

Consequently, the television acts as a baby-sitter, for instance. Furthermore television is responsible of the loss of communication between parents and children.

I think that the television dominates family life, and that it makes activities impossible. As a result, a family spends less time together by doing different activities.

In fact each family member is interested in different programs on TV. Followingly, they are all concentrated on their favourite talk show, for instance.

The introduction of television reduces the concersation among family members totally and it doesn´t reinforce the relationships as it was predicted many years ago.

Furthermore parents set bad examples for their children concerning the hours they spend in front of television. Moreover, they do not make an endeavour to change their own behaviour.

Indeed, this tendency can be stopped, if each member of the family changes the attitude. But first of all the parents have to be aware of their function as a model in order to guarantee an education which is not influenced by television.

In my opinion, this topic has also to be discussed under a different aspect which is called ´´social environment´´: A child who is living in a high-rise building and has no possibilities to play outdoors , therefore, prefers to watch TV. Besides it has to be considered that in some cases children are alone at home until the parents come back from work.

The lack of playfellows and playgrounds has the effect that they have free hand regarding the creation of their leisure activities, in a negative sense.

In brief, It is indispensable to reduce the role of television to a minimum in order to improve the communication among Family members. This aim can be achieved if each member establishes effective priorities. 388

I have read an article by H. Fidler where she describes the function of television in different decades in America. In the 1940s the purpose was to bring the family together around the television set. It was actually that television would reinforce the sense of community in families., But as we now know, it had more destructive than progressive effects on the family .

The television now acts as a baby-sitter, for instance, and far from stimulating communication, it discourages it.

Television dominates family life and makes other activities impossible . As a result, a family spends less time together doing different things.

In fact, each family member is interested in different programs on TV. Accordingly, they are all concentrated on their favourite talk show, for instance.

Television reduces conversation among family members and doesn´t reinforce relationships , as was predicted many years ago.

Furthermore , parents set bad examples for their children concerning the hours they spend in front of the television set.

This can be changed, but first of all, parents have to be aware of their function as role models. If they do not want their children to watch so much TV, they should not watch so much themselves. Let us consider the social environment of a child who lives in a high-rise apartment building with no outdoor recreational facilities. Is it any wonder that he prefers to stay indoors and watch TV? In many cases, the children are alone at home until their parents come back from work, so there is no one to forbid them to watch the tube or to suggest alternatives.

In sum, the role of television should be reduced to a minimum in family life. This aim can be achieved if each member of the family establishes effective priorities.

On the one hand, one can learn discipline and punctuality, improve one’s social competence based on the interaction with a wide variety of male people. Moreover, one is taught in taking responsibility and in handling technical equipment. To me, the most positive about military service is the acquaintance with real comradeship among the recruits. Although these are quiet a few educational qualities of military service, there are even more cons to it, though.

Thus, one doesn’t learn to discuss problems and to find solutions in an oral way. Instead, one is well trained in ending a conflict situation by violent means. So violence is the thing one is taught. In addition, military service, in the long run, makes one stop thinking and therefore just work as a functioning weapon, which only executes orders, in any conflict situation. Either one is pro or against something, there’s no space for possible compromises.

Furthermore, the newly trained social competence lacks the correct behavior towards female in general, as one can see in many bars, night clubs or discotheques where such situations quite often escalate in fights either with the female herself or with someone who just wants to help her. Talking of the practical instruction and experience in handling technical equipment, what is this gained ability worth in real life where one never is confronted with such a kind of technical equipment?

In my opinion, there are better ways to learn such crucial qualities as discipline, punctuality, taking responsibility and social competence. One can learn the same virtues during civil service while one is working for common welfare, for example, as a driver of a medical service, handicraftsman of a town council etc. Considering the females who haven’t been allowed to do military service for ages until recently, how could they possibly educate themselves in these kinds of qualities –which they certainly did, didn’t they? 317

On the one hand, one can learn discipline and punctuality in the military, and improve one’s social skills by interacting with a wide variety of (mostly male) people. One learns to take responsibility for technical equipment. To me, the most positive about military service is the comradeship among one's fellow soldiers. However, in the military one doesn’t learn to discuss problems and find peaceful solutions. Instead, one is trained in ending a conflict situation by violent means. So violence is the thing one is taught. In addition, military service, in the long run, makes one stop thinking and just work as a weapon, an extension of the state, whose sole function is to execute orders. There is no room for thinking.

Furthermore, the social skills one learns in the military lack an essential component, namely behavior towards females. As one can see in many bars, nightclubs and discotheques frequented by soldiers, awkward social situations quite often escalate into fights. What good is all the "practical" instruction and experience in handling technical equipment in real life, where the real problems are not technical but have to do with people, including the opposite sex?

In my opinion, there are better ways to acquire the qualities of discipline, punctuality, taking responsibility and interacting with other males. One can learn the same things in alternative civilian service, where one works, for example, as a driver of a medical service, handicraftsman of a town council etc . It is certainly not the case that men are more self-disciplined, more punctual, more responsible, or more socially skilled than women, and since women haven’t been allowed to do military service until recently, they must have acquired these qualities elsewhere.

Communication is considered to be one of the primary social processes that accompany us throughout our lives. Originally, communication means a speech act between two or more people, which enables an exchange of information with each other. Nowadays, it is often claimed, however, that the art of communication – the way people actually talk to each other – is dying. In my opinion, the main reason for such a turning point is technical progress. It is difficult to judge whether it makes our life easy or hard, bad or good. In this essay I will try to illustrate the arguments for and against.

It is inevitable that technical progress has strongly influenced our life. It offers us new forms of communication, and at the same time makes people dependent upon it. Apart from this, in our modern world we cannot just avoid the fact that the world is changing too. To put in other words, we have to accept this changes trying to get along with them. As a result, using the Internet and mobile phone are becoming our new ways of exchanging information.

I would not say that we are losing ability to communicate because of the Internet or similar technologies. On the contrary, we are getting more able to communicate in different ways, using various means of communication. Moreover, some new forms of communication are more economical. For example, it is cheaper to send an SMS than to make a phone call. Also, if we compare writing e-mail and sending a letter by post, I prefer the former because it is fast, easy and cheap.

However, there are some disadvantages in modern arts of communication as well. If we look closer, we can outline them. First of all, there is no doubt that these so-called new forms of communication are unnatural. Secondly, they are in some way gradually replacing the old ones. Thirdly, they require some technical knowledge. Hence, those who cannot possess such knowledge cannot have access to these new forms of communication, and therefore might fell themselves deprived.

To sum up, despite the development of the new forms of communication mentioned above, we still have enough opportunities to actually talk to each other. If you are really a talkative, open person and like to talk face to face, the new form of communication, such as the Internet, for instance, should not be a hindrance for you. 399

Communication is considered to be one of the primary social processes. Nowadays it is often claimed, however, that the art of communication – the way people actually talk to each other – is dying. In my opinion, the main reason for this is technical progress. It is difficult to judge whether it makes our life easy or hard, good or bad . In this essay I will try to illustrate the arguments for and against.

It is inevitable that technical progress strongly influences our lives. It offers us new forms of communication, and at the same time makes people dependent upon them. We have to accept these changes and try to adapt to them. As a result, using the Internet and mobile phone are becoming our new ways of exchanging information.

I would not say that we are losing the ability to communicate because of the Internet and mobile phones. On the contrary, we are getting more able to communicate in different ways, using various means of communication. Moreover, some new forms of communication are more economical. For example, it is cheaper to send an SMS than to make a phone call. Also, if we compare writing e-mail and sending a letter by post, I prefer the former because it is faster, easier and cheaper.

However, there are some disadvantages in the modern art of communication. First of all, there is no doubt that these new forms of communication are unnatural . Secondly, they are in gradually replacing the old ones . Thirdly, they require some technical knowledge, and those who do not possess such knowledge and access to these new forms of communication might feel deprived.

To sum up, despite the development of new forms of communication, we still have enough opportunities to actually talk to each other. If you are really a talkative, open person and like to talk face to face, the new form of communication, such as the Internet, should not be a hindrance to you.

According to present German law, it is forbidden to receive organs from a living human donator. The only exceptions from this rule are those cases in which the receiver of the organ is a close family member.

But recently, during a meeting of specialists in the field of organ transplantation, some of the doctors rooted for legalizing commercial organ donation to increase the number of donated organs. This would mean allowing people to donate parts of their lungs or liver or even a kidney to non-family members for a financial reward.

From my point of view this is the wrong way to supply people in need of a donation with the organ they need.

The shortage of donated organs and the sad cases of people dying while on waiting list should be met by encouraging people to give their organs after their death and not by legalizing organ trade.

Commercializing organ donation inevitably leads to the danger of people being exploited. That’s because it would never be a hundred percent certain if it was really the donator’s free will to give his or her organ. It’s easy to imagine people being forced by their families or partners or even by criminal organizations to get the financial reward for the donation.

If organs were to be bought and sold like other goods the question of life or death would even more than now depend on money. The rich could simply buy an organ from somebody desperate enough to sell a part of their body whereas a poor person would have to wait for an organ taken from a dead body.

All these aspects would give a very bad name to transplant medicine and stir mistrust against organ donation in general. As a result even fewer people than now would sign the agreement to donate their organs after their death. This would certainly mean a decrease in the total number of donators because it’s hard to imagine that the new donators won by allowing organ trade would outnumber those potential conventional donators scared away by this dubious practice. 355

According to present German law, it is forbidden to receive organs from a living human donor. The only exceptions to this rule are those cases in which the donor is a close relative.

But recently, during a meeting of specialists in the field of organ transplantation, some of the doctors expressed support for legalizing commercial organ donation to increase the number of available organs. This would mean allowing people to a lung or kidney or even a liver to non-family members for a financial reward.

From my point of view, this is the wrong way to increase the supply of organs available for transplants .

The shortage of organs and the sad cases of people dying while on a waiting list should be met by encouraging people to donate their organs after their death and not by legalizing organ trade.

Commercializing organ donation inevitably leads to the danger of people being exploited. That’s because it would never be a hundred percent certain that it was really the donor's free will to give his or her organ. It’s easy to imagine people being forced by their families or partners, or even by criminal organizations, to get the financial reward for the donation.

If organs were to be bought and sold like other goods, the question of life or death, even more than now would depend only on money. The rich could simply buy an organ from somebody desperate enough to sell a part of their body, whereas a poor person would have to wait for an organ taken from a dead body.

All this would give a very bad name to transplant medicine and stir mistrust against organ donation in general. As a result, even fewer people than now would sign the agreement to donate their organs after their death. This would certainly mean a decrease in the total number of donors, because it’s hard to imagine that the new donors won by allowing organ trade would outnumber the potential conventional donors scared away by this dubious practice.