Admission Essy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Admission Essy - Essay Example I realize success in this Doctoral Program requires me to apply a financial plan with efficient time management skills. I held a full-time job as a pilot while studying to receive my Master of Arts in English as a Second Language from the University of Phoenix. This combination of work and school challenged my time management skills, allowing me to successfully meet my financial obligations to the University and graduate on schedule. The difference between this program and my M.A. program is the online environment. I am experienced with the UOP learning model and appreciate its advantages for timely completion of projects. It was instrumental as a support system and the collaborative knowledge I gained was outstanding. The team approach exposed me to new ideas and perspectives in a non-threatening environment. I have an appreciation for constructive criticism as an essential learning tool and the pragmatic knowledge the UOP learning model facilitates. For many years it has been my goal to pursue a Doctorate, but until discovering the Education Specialist program there wasnt a program I felt passionate enough about to devote the time and energy. The Education Specialist program will enhance my educational background, further develop my intellectual capabilities, and prepare me to provide effective leadership in my diversified

Managing in a global society Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 1

Managing in a global society - Essay Example It is therefore the reason why international managers should take their time to study these cultures before introducing new products in the market or opening new subsidiaries (Turner, 2000). Communication, for example, is an important tool, necessary for transmitting ideas throughout an organization. However, it is worth noting that communication does not necessarily entail only the formal aspects such as through writing and speaking but also, it entails maintaining personal etiquette and as per the standards required by the host. The US and UK have English language as their official means of communication. Therefore, it would be easy for a UK entrepreneur to establish himself quickly in the US as opposed to Japan, which has Japanese as the major language of communication (Norbury, 2006). The language barrier present between UK and Japan requires foreign investors to study Japanese as their second language especially due to the fact that Japan scores highly under hofstede’s un certainty avoidance index (Varley, 2000). ... It therefore means that the presenter has to exercise patience before pressing for response, failure to which it would be taken to mean that he is disrespectful thereby risking his success. Worse still is the fact that business negotiations may be hampered by lack of understanding for example due to the Japanese reluctance to say no or to criticize openly (Norbury, 2006). It may therefore be confusing for a foreign negotiator to find that everything he says is met with a positive response, while in the real sense his Japanese counterparts are against his propositions. Experts advise foreigners to concentrate more on their sign languages, which could be for example scratching eyebrows, tone in their voice, teeth clenching, frowning in between a conversation among others. For instance, frowning is a sign of disagreement and therefore, it would be wise to concentrate on the facial expressions or better, phrase your statements in a manner that will demand an outright yes or no as an answ er (Varley, 2000). Coming from a country such as UK where open criticism is considered as normal, it would be taken as an insult and destruction of character to practice the same when negotiating with such people. The high uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) has also been described as a hindrance towards effecting change. This is due to the fact that these people are accustomed to predictability such that introduction of new working environments may not receive a friendly welcome (Hofstede, 1996). This is as opposed to the US whereby UAI is low such that it becomes possible for entrepreneurs to introduce new brands in the market and be able to make profit within short periods of time. This is an important observation, which a person intending to invest in the

Should Gun Ownership Be Banned?

Should Gun Ownership Be Banned? Gun is a weapon which consists of a metal tube from a projectile which is fired at high velocity into a flat projectile. There are many different types of guns such as rifles, shotguns, and handguns. 1.2 The habits of gun ownership The culture of the United States cultivates an attitude toward firearms and a right of the armed citizens. They believe that the gun is used for survival. The entertainment drama and movies in America have shown that the gun acts as an instrument to promote personal fairness among people. Many authorities claim that handguns are involved in the violence issues in the United States because handguns are easily available and they function as an instrument to commit suicide or a crime at any time without much effort. 1.3 Gun laws in the United States There are several gun laws present in the United States 1.3. 1 State and local gun control 1.3.1.1 Concealed weapon laws About seven states in US prohibit concealed weapons and it requires individual to show a need prior to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearms. The private sale to minor has been regulated. 1.3.1.2 Federal law, Minors underage18 are prohibited from owning guns and minor under age 21 are prohibited from purchasing any gun from dealers. 1.3.1.3 One handgun a month laws It limits legal purchases of handguns once a month per buyer. The majority of states have a pre-emption law which prohibits local authorities from passing local gun control ordinances, crediting to a dramatic reduction in violent crime. (n.d 2009) 1.3.2 Possession Americans underage 18 may own a firearm only if they have a valid hunters safety certificate and are overage 14, or are supervised under a parent or guardian or another person authorized by the parent or guardian. Americans below 18 may also posse any legal firearm while hunting with a valid license, participating in lawful target shooting or organized competition, attending a hunter safety or firearms training course, or are traveling to or from such activity with an unloaded and inaccessible firearm. Any person who is not a citizen of the United States to carry or possess any firearm, without first obtaining an alien firearm license which is valid for 5 years from the director of licensing is a serious crime. 1.3.3 Carry A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his own without a permit license but he may carry concealed without a license in his place of abode or fixed place of business. American are not allowed to carry or place a loaded handgun in any vehicle unless he has a license to permit him to do so, or the person with the concealed carrying license is in the vehicle at all times that the handgun is there, or the person with that license is away from the vehicle and the handgun is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle. American above 18 years old who possesses an unloaded handgun shall not leave it in a vehicle unless it is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.(Mantaldo n.d)It is unlawful for an Americans to possess on public, private elementary, secondary school buildings, school-provided transportation, and areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools any firearm which propel a p ellet or other projectile by the discharge of compressed air, carbon dioxide or other gases. It is law disobeys to carry, transport, convey, possess or control in or on a motor vehicle a shotgun or rifle containing shells or cartridges in the magazine or chamber, or a muzzle-loading firearm loaded and capped or primed. 1.3.4 Miscellaneous It is unlawful to alter, remove, or obliterate the name of the maker, model, manufacturers number, or other mark of identification on any firearm which creates a legal presumption that the possessor committed the offense. It is illegal to carry, display or draw any firearm in such a way as to manifest intent to intimidate another as it does not apply to persons who instances of self-defense or acting in furtherance of ones official duties. (n.d 2009) 2.0 The benefits of gun ownership There are a lot of purposes for owning guns in the United States. 2.1 Provides effective self-defense For those people who own guns, they can protect themselves. They can also defend their friends and families from violent crimes. The police cannot protect the public and the belongings of everyone at the same time so the United States citizens have their own responsibility to protect our property. (Phil 2006). Guns protect the victims during attacks. For instance, an individual can defend himself with a gun when he encounters a rapist, a robber, or a mugger. (Torr 2002). The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) generally believes that if more law-abiding citizens are armed, they would be better prepared to stop criminals from committing murders and other violent crimes.(n.d 2009) 2.1.1 For weaker sex or handicapped victims For example, women are usually physically weaker than men .A woman carrying a gun has greater effect on the crime than a man. This phenomenon will lower the rate of murder for women by 3-4 times. (Kim 2006). A 2003 study from the USA shows that having a gun in the home increased the overall risk of someone in the household being murdered by 41% whereas for women in particular the risk was nearly tripled. Women think having a gun in the home makes them safer to live there; a large majority of men think just the opposite.A handicapped person who is not very smooth in his movement might face a big threaten when he encounters an armed criminal. Owning a gun can help to ensure his safety. 2.2 Reduce gun violence Personalized guns are created by equipping the normal gun with some specific safety features which allow the adult owners to use them only. Such guns help to lower the rate of incidents such as homicide, robbery, suicide and accidental death from occurring in the real world. Personalized guns can reduce the injuries or the accidental death of the victims of unintentional and wrong gun usage. These guns also reduce gun violence are stolen and used by criminals to commit crimes. (Egendorf 2005)The law-abiding citizens cannot protect their own property and their lives. A woman who always goes back home late and passes through any gang-infested housing project. She needs a handgun so that she will be in safer condition and will not be a victim of the robbed and violated. (Kim 2006) 2.3 Protects the country from being invaded Countries where gun ownership is prevalent are also far less likely to be successfully invaded. No invader will want to invade a country where virtually every America citizen already has the means to fight back against them. 2.4 Protects people from the government Gun ownership is not simply a means for protecting oneself from those who may pose a danger within our society, but also a means of protection from the government, which as noted, can sometimes be pretty malevolent. Our right to bear arms is part of what keeps us free. With a gun in hand, the government dares not to violate peoples civil rights, enter peoples homes randomly and place political dissidents in prison camps. (Mccracken n.d ) 2.5 Protects ones family and property Having a gun in the home can greatly increase the chances of survival because if someone is trying to break in ones house and he is the only one in the house at that particular time, he might as well use the gun he owned to protect his property. With the present of at least one gun in each family, this may help to ensure the safety of each of the family members. Half of the people who have been interviewed think that having a gun in the home makes it safer for the people who live there versus about one-third who feel the opposite way. 2.6 Unites Citizens Police cannot be everywhere simultaneously, and have no duty to protect everyone. Armed citizens can help to decrease the number of violent crimes committed by cooperating with the police which actually decreases the police workload. This enables the police to be more productive. 3.0 Disadvantages of gun ownership There are several disadvantages of gun ownership. 3.1 Contributes to violent crimes In general, the higher the gun ownership in a state, the higher is the percentage of the occurrence of the homicides caused by firearms. Due to little gun control law enforcement, murder and crimes are on the rise. This is because the handguns are too easily accessible to the children, the teens and the adult and this increases the risk of gun violence towards innocent people. The gun owners can use their gun to commit suicide when they wish to. The robbers use the gun to get involved in robbery cases. (Egendorf 2005).Torr (2002) argues that a prayer service at the Wedgwood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, a gunman who opened fire with his handgun for killing seven people, injuring the other seven and kill himself. Within a week from February 7, 2008, the United States had seven shooting incidents happened, leading to 23 deaths and dozens of injuries. On March 27, 2008, five people in Georgia and Kentucky were shot dead (The Associated Press 2008). On the night of April 18, nine shootings were reported in a period of less than two hours in Chicago (The Chicago Tribune 2008). In year 2005, 30,694 people died from gun violence which includes 12,352 people murdered; 17,002 people who killed themselves; 789 people killed accidentally; 330 killed by police intervention; and 221 who died, with an unknown intent. While in year 2007, 69,863 people survived after gun injuries, including 48,676 people injured in an attack; 4,291 people injured in a suicide attempt; 15,698 people shot accidentally; and 1,198 people shot in a police intervention.( n.d 2009) Some Americans are convinced that more federal regulation of firearms is necessary to reduce the number of murders and injuries that are inflicted with guns and to ensure a safer, more civilized society. 3.2 Decreases personal safety Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) is an activist organization which claims that owning a gun in home will increase the risks of accidents to occur. There are many cases show that the victims are dying in their houses because they are shot by a robber. The Usage of guns increases the risk of death and injury among people as well as creates a false sense of security. A study by Peter Hart Research shows that many parents realize the dangerous of handgun for their children but they still keep their handgun in the unsafe place. (Torr 2002) Public shooting There is very common for a public shooting to be occurred anywhere and anytime. The students will feel very angry and unhappy if they are scolded or ridiculed by other students, and therefore they might shoot at people to vent their anger. The children who are unhappy with their teachers might shoot at the targeted teachers. According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 1.35 million high school students in 2007 were either threatened or injured with a firearm at least once in school premises (United Press International 2008). A record about 34 Chicago Public School students were killed in 2007-08. (The Chicago Tribune 2008) 4.0 Conclusion Gun ownership among Americans brings them lots of advantages when compared to the disadvantages. Owning gun makes Americans to be able to defend themselves from dangers but in the meanwhile it also increases the crime rate. The increasing crime rate can be overcome by the actions taken by the government which includes the regulation of the gun ownership. Gun ownership should not be banned in USA because it brings a lot of advantages for the people who own the guns as they can use guns to protect themselves, families and property.

The Role of Women in Ancient Egyptian Society Essay -- Ancient Egypt W

It is difficult to fully understand the role of women in ancient Egyptian society because the understandings of the society and government are still incomplete. There are also two other major problems, those being that there is very little source material on women, and the material that has been found was biased by the ideas and minds of previous Egyptologists. The only source material that has survived from great kingdoms of Egypt is material that has been either found in tombs on the walls and sarcophaguses, or carved on major government and religious document. None of the writings on papyrus and other delicate materials survived. This material, which has survived, is the writings of the Egyptian literate male elite. In their writings the also did not show any emotions or feelings, this was not the style of the Egyptian people, writings were purely a record keeping device. Because of these limitations, â€Å"It is essential to avoid the temptation to extrapolate from the par ticular to the general, a process which can only too easily introduce error.† Upper class men, who had been schooled in their craft, did all the writings. As a result, there is very little material that deal with the lower peasant class. They were all illiterate and unable to record their tales. When studying women in Ancient Egypt, the great majority of the available texts discuss the lives of the upper class, which composed only a small percentage of the Egyptian population. In Pharonic Egypt, women were the legal equals of men. They were not denied any rights in accordance of the law because of their gender. Women, like men, could own property, coming into it either through inheritance, as a payment for goods or services, or through purchase. Women could buy houses and goods, and with them, they were allowed to do as they chose. Being landholders and people of property afforded ancient Egyptian women a reasonable amount of social freedom. They could travel about freely in towns without veiled faces. In their own homes, women could move about as they pleased, they were not forced to remain in one section of the house or forbidden from other common areas as they were in other societies of the time. Women could initiate legal proceedings, and they were responsible for their own actions. They could be the executors of wills and even sign their own marriage contrac... ... Egyptian women were looked at differently than men; their role was that of the nurturer and the caregiver, the bearer of a family’s future. They were just as important to the society as the men. Ancient Egypt was a very complex world, and just as complex was the role that women played in its society. They were not free, but they also were not enslaved. They were vital, but only in terms of their husbands and their children. Egypt offered women a far more free life than the rest of the ancient world. In the end, women played a secondary role to men putting their desires for achievement aside so their husband could be king. Bibliography: Fischer, Henry George. Egyptian Women of the Old Kingdom and the Heracleopolitan Period. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York. 1989 Hawass, Zahi. Silent Images: Women of Pharonic Egypt. Cultural Development Fund, Cairo, Egypt. 1995. Robbins, Gay. Women in Ancient Egypt. St. Martins Press, New York, New York. 1991. Tyldesley, Joyce. Daughters of Isis, Women of Ancient Egypt. Penguin Books, London, England 1995 Watterson, Barbara. Women in Ancient Egypt. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1993

Nutrition programs Essay

Traditionally, nutrition programs were targeted to the indigent and poor populations in developing countries. Many of today’s Americans are malnourished also, but they are inundated with unhealthy foods and require a multidisciplinary approach to nutrition education. What would be the three most important points to include in a public nutrition program? Provide current literature to support your answer and include two nutritional education community resources. Answer: Although we already know it is essential to eat a healthy diet, we may find it more challenging to sort through all of the information about nutrition and food choices. Nutrition is the provision to cells and organisms of the materials necessary (in the form of food) to support life. Healthy eating helps prevent high cholesterol and high blood pressure and helps reduce the risk of developing chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes. Many people today in America are malnourished and it is mostly due to indulging in unhealthy/poor dietary intake. These problems can be controlled by utilizing a multidisciplinary approach to public education. The doctors, social workers, nurses, dieticians and other health educators involved in health promotion should all have a part in ensuring and promoting healthy dietary intake with appropriate food portions and increasing physical activity. The three most important points to include in a public nutrition program are (a) the relationship between food choices and chronic disease such as high blood pressure (high salt intake), high lipids (high fat intake), obesity/diabetes (high sugar/carb intake/low activity) and much more. Educating the public on how to use natural herbs/ seasonings, or salt substitute, reading labels for nutritional contents and ingredients and eating low carb food are all vital factors to know. It is also very important to increase your physical activity daily. Another important point to include is (b) the nutritional assessment. Individuals need to be assessed for their nutritional status and risk. This will help to â€Å"tailor the food packages, design appropriate nutritional education and make referrals to health and social services† (USDA, 2015). The next would be  the nutrition for mothers and children in regards to lactation counselling and school lunch programs. Newborn maternal nursing along with children’s’ nutrition is also a very important point to address. There are a lot of mother/baby classes in the community to help promote breastfeeding, infant meals, and children lunch box ideas. Schools are also in a unique position to promote healthy eating and help ensure appropriate food and nutrient intake among students. There are many nutritional education community resources that helps families in America to improve their nutritional status. They are (A) MyPlate Program: This was created by Michelle Obama in 2011 to serve as a reminder for people to create/make healthier food choices. It put emphasis on eating lots of fruits, grains, vegetables, protein foods and dietary foods. (B) The woman, infant and children program (WIC): This program assist pregnant women, new moms and young children obtain and eat healthy foods. Qualified individuals can only purchase healthy food items. Nutritional education is also provided for qualified individuals at no cost to them. References: MyPlate, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/myplate WIC Program Nutrition Education Guidance, 2006. Retrieved from: http://www.nal.usda.gov/wicworks/learning_Center/ntredguidance.pdf Edelman, C.L., Kudzman, E, C., Mandel, C. L., (2014). Health promotion throughout the Lifespan. St. Louis: Elsevier.

Animal Rights and Human Wrongs Essay

Are there limits on how human beings can legitimately treat non-human animals? Or can we treat them just any way we please? If there are limits, what are they? Are they sufficiently strong, as som e peop le supp ose, to lead us to be veg etarians and to se riously curtail, if not eliminate, our use of non-human animals in `scientific’ experiments designed to benefit us? To fully ap preciate this question let me contrast it with two different ones: Are there limits on how we can legitimately treat rocks? And: are there limits on how we can legitima tely treat other human beings? The an swer to th e first ques tion is pre suma bly `No.’ Well, that’s not q uite right. There are som e limits on what w e can le gitimate ly do with or to rocks. If Paula has a pet rock, then Susan can’t justifiably take it away or smash it with a sledge hammer. After all it is Paula’s rock. Or if there is a rock of unusual beauty or special human interest say the Old Man of Hoy or Mt. Rushmore it would be inappropriate , and pro bably im mora l, for me to te ar it down , to deface it, or to chisel o ut a sectio n to use in my ca tapult. These limits though, arise not from any direct concern for the rocks; rather, they are imposed because of the interests a nd rights of other h uman s. Susan can’t take Paula’s rock for the same reason she can’t take Paula’s eraser: it is Paula’s and Paula has a right to those things which are hers. And no one ca n destro y or defa ce items of specia l natural b eauty because by doing so one is indirectly harming the interests of other humans in them. So there are limits on what we can legitimately do to inanim ate objects, but whatever limits there are arise from some human concern.1 Not so for our treatment of other humans. We suppose that it is inappropriate to tr eat a human being just any way we wish. I cannot steal another human; that would be kidnapping. Nor can I sm ash so meon e with a sledgehammer; that would be, depending on the outcome, assault, attempted m urder, or murder. And the reason I cannot do these things has nothing to do with what third parties d o or don ‘t want. It has to do with the interest and desires of that particular person. It is wrong for Susan to hit Paula , not beca use oth er peo ple like Paula or because other people would be offended, but because Paula is a person. Period. Thus, there is a fundamental contrast between those objects which we can treat as we please (excep t when limited by the interests of other humans) and those which we canno t. Ordinary rocks fall into the first camp; humans, into the later. Now, what about nonhuman animals? Do they fall into the first or the se cond c amp? Or som ewhe re in between? There are reasons to believe that many animals and certainly the higher-order anima ls are more like humans than they are like rocks. Thus, we have reason to believe there are constraints on how we can legitimately treat them, regardless of our particular wishes and desires. Or so I shall argue. For the moment I will simply note that these are beliefs which most of us already have. That is, most of us presume that it is illegitimate to treat animals just anyway we wish. For exam ple, mo st of us be lieve it is wrong to wanto nly kill or torture a higher o rder m amm al. Suppose we discover that some member of our commun ity, say Jones, has a habit of picking up stray dog s or cats a nd dec apitating them w ith his hom e-ma de guillo tine’; 2 or we learn he has invented a machine which draws and quarters them. He uses these machines because he revels in th e anim als’ pain, b ecaus e he relis hes in the sight of blood; or maybe he is a scientist who w ants to stu dy their re action to stress. In this case we rightly surmise that Jones is immoral. We wouldn’t want him to be our pre sident, our fr iend, our next door neighbor, or our son-in-law. In short, we all seem to agree that they a re limits on how we can properly treat nonhuman animals, and that these limits arise becau se of the n ature of th e anim als, not m erely because of the de sires of oth er hum ans to see an imals trea ted we ll. That is, such acts are wrong not merely because other humans are bothered by them. We would think them equa lly wrong if they were secretly done so that no one else in the community knew about them. We think they are wrong because of what it does to the animal. On the other hand, we are also part of a culture which rather cavalier ly uses a nimals for food, for clothes, for research in the development of new drugs, and to determine the safety of household products. And many of these u ses req uire inflicting a great d eal of pa in on animals. Record of such uses is readily available in various academic journals, and chronicled by num erous writers on the topic’. 3 But for the reader who might be unfamiliar with them, let me briefly describe two ways in which we use animals ways which inflict substantial pain on them. Anima ls who are raised for food are obviously raised with the express purpose of making a profit for the farmer. Nothing surprising. But the implications of this are direct and obvious and deleterious to the an imals. There are two ways for a farmer to increase her profit. One is to get higher prices for her goods, the other is to spend less producing those goods. Since there is a limit on how much people will pay for meat, there is substantial financia l pressu re to dec rease th e expe nse of p roducin g the m eat. This under standa bly leads to over-crowding; after all the more animals a farmer can get into a smaller space, the less it costs to produce the meat. There are similar pressures to restrict the animals’ movement. The less the animals move, the less they eat, thus decreasing the farmer’s expense. For instance, farmers who raise chickens are inclined to put them in small `battery’ cages. They are commonly kept `eight to ten to a space smaller than a newspaper page. Unable to walk around or even stretch their wings much less build a nest the birds be come vicious a nd attac k one a nother ‘.4 The average person seems equally unfamiliar with the extensive use of animals in laboratory experim ents. Ma ny of thes e are of o nly mo derate significan ce’; 5 most of the them involve extensive pain on animals. For instance, N.J. Carlson gave hig h voltag e electric shocks to sixteen d ogs an d found that the `h igh-sho ck grou p’ acqu ired `an xiety’ faster. Or researchers in Texas constructed a pneumatically driven piston to pound an anvil into the skulls of thirteen monkeys. When it didn’t immediately produce concussions, the researchers increased the strength of the piston until it produced `cardiac damage, hemorrhages and brain dama ge’. 6 Or researchers at Harvard placed baby mice and ba by rats into cages with starving adult male rats. The adults ate them. The researchers’ conclusion: hunger is an important drive in animals. (That, of course, is some thing we are sho cked to learn; we would have never kno wn this fact otherwise). T HE O PTIONS Now, how d o we sq uare o ur abso lute revu lsion at ou r hypoth etical Jones with his animal guillotine, and our rather blithe acceptance of the treatment of animals on the farm and in the scientific and co mme rcial labo ratories? It is not imm ediately clear tha t we can . What is clear, it seems, it that we have three options, three alternative beliefs about our treatment of anim als. Thes e are: 1) If we are repulsed by Jones treatment of stray animals, we are simply being inappr opriately or unduly squeamish or sympathetic. We should have no aversion to killing, torturin g, or usin g anim als in any way w e pleas e, unles s, of course, that anima l is some one els e’s prop erty, that is, he r pet. 2) There are reasons why we should treat non-human animals better than we treat rocks; nonetheless, there are also reasons why we can use non-huma n anim als in ways we could never legitimately use humans. 3) We should be treating non-human animals more like we currently treat humans. Many of our accepted ways of using animals are, in fact, morally objectionable. The first position, it seems, is completely untenable. No sensible person , I think, is willing to adop t a position which s ays that to rturing a nimals for fun is completely acceptable; no one is willing to say that Jones is a fit mem ber of so ciety. This b elief, it seem s, is virtually unshakable. Most of you understood perfectly well what I meant when I describe d Jone s’s behavior as `torture.’ But this claim would be nonsense if we thought there were no moral limits on how we could treat animals.7 So we are left with the la tter option s. And, of course, which one we choose, will have a dramatic impact on the lives of humans and of other animals. One necessary clarification: to say that animals should be treated more like humans is not to say that they should be treated exactly like humans. For instance, we need not consider giving animals the right to vote, the right to free religious expression, or the right of free speech. As far as I can ascertain, most an imals do n’t have the necessary capabilities to exercise these rights. However, the same is true of very young children and of se verely retarded adults. That is why they don’t have these rights either: the y lack the requisite capacities. Nonetheless, the mere fact that some adult humans are not given the right to vote does n ot mea n it is legitimate to have them for lunch or to test bleach in their eyes. So why assume it is so for animals? W HY ANIMALS SHOULDN’T SUFFER NEED LESS PAIN Until now I have been trying to identify our own deeply held convictions about restriction s on the prope r treatme nt of anim als. Now it is high time to try to offer a positive defense of our ordinary understa nding; a defense which will have even more radical implications that we might have supposed. That is, I want to argue for option three above; I want to a rgue tha t there are rather strin gent lim its on wh at it is morally permis sible to do to anima ls. More s pecifically , I wish to argue that we should all b ecom e vege tarians a nd that w e shou ld dram atically curtail, if not eliminate, our use of laboratory animals. Though there are numerous arguments which can be offered in this rega rd, I want to defend one particular claim: that we should not inflict need less pain on anim als. Before I go on I should make it clear what I mean by `needless pain.’ The point can be made most clear by use of an analogy. Contrast the following cases: 1) I prick my daughter’s arm with a needle for no apparent reason (though we needn’t assume I derive any sadistic pleasure from it). 2) I am a physician and I inoculate her against typhoid. What differentiates these cases? In both I prick her arm; in both (let us presume) I inflict similar amounts of pain. Yet we consider the latter not only ju stifiable, bu t possibly obligato ry; the former we consider sadistic. Why? Because it inflicts unne cessar y pain. M y daug hter doe s not in any way bene fit from it. Thus, unnecessary pain is that which is inflicted on a sentient (feeling) creature when it is not for the good of that particular creature. The latter is necessary pain; it is pain which the creature suffers for her own good. There are two main premises in my argument. The first is the factual claim that anima ls do, in fact, feel pa in. The second is the claim that the potential of animal suffering severe ly limits what we can justifiably do to them, it constrains the way we can legitima tely use them. That an imals fee l pain That anima ls do feel p ain see ms rela tively unc ontrove rsial. It is a belief we all share. As I noted earlier we couldn’t even make sense of `torturing’ an animal if we assumed it was incapa ble of feeling pain. Nor could we understand being repulsed at Jones’s use of stray anima ls unless we thought the animals suffered at Jones’s hands. If Jones collected abandoned tin cans and cut them to pieces w ith his guillo tine, we m ig ht think J ones te rribly odd, bu t not imm oral. But more can be said. We have more than adequate behavioral evidence that anima ls feel pain and that they can suffer. Most of us have seen a dog which has been struck by a car, though not killed instantaneously. The dog convulses, bleed, and yelps. Less drastically, most of us have, at some time or another, stepped on a cat’s tail or a dog’s paw and ha ve witne ssed the anima l’s reaction . The reaction, unsurprisingly, is like our own reaction in similar cases. If someone steps on my hand, I w ill likely yell and attempt to move my hand. But we ne edn’t res t the case on beh avioral e videnc e thoug h it does seem to m e to be more than sufficient. We should also note that we share important anatomical structures with higher o rder an imals. A human being’s central nervous center is remarkably similar to that of a chimpanzee, dog, pig, and even a rat. That is not to say the brains are exactly alike; they aren’t. The cerebral cortex in human beings is more highly de velope d than in most mamm als (though not noticeably so wh en compare d with a dolphin or a Great Ap e); but the cortex is the location of our `higher brain fun ctions,’ for e xamp le, the sea t of thoug ht, speech, etc. However, the areas of the brain which neurophysiologist identity as the `pain centers’ are virtua lly identica l betwee n hum an and non-h uman anima ls. Accord ing to evolutionary biology this is exactly w hat we should expec t. The pa in centers worke d well in enhancing the survival of lower species, so they were altered only slightly in succeeding evolutionary stages. H igher br ain func tions, how ever, are condu cive to survival, and thus, have led to more dramatic advances in cerebral development. Given all this, it seems undeniable that many animals do feel pain. That they feel pain is morally relevant ‘So what?†™ someone might ask. ` Even if animals do feel p ain, why should that limit or at least se riously restrict our treatment of them? Why can’t we still use them for our purposes, whatever those purposes happen to be?’ Let’s turn the question around for a moment and ask why we think we should be able to use them for our purposes, given that they are capable of suffering? After all, we are staunc hly opposed to inflicting unnecessary pain on human beings. If animals can also feel pain, why shouldn’t we have the same reluctance to inflicting needless pain on them? A crucial tenet of ethics is that we should treat like cases alike. Th at is, we sh ould treat two cases the same unless there is some general and relevant reason which justifies the difference in treatment. Thus, two students who perform equally well in the same class should get the same grade; two who perform rather differently should receive different grades. By the same token, if two creatures feel pain and it is improp er to inflict needless pain on one of them , it would likewise be improper to inflict needless pain on the othe r. But the argumen t has pro gresse d too qu ickly. This a rgum ent wo rks only if the reason it is wrong to inflict need less pain on the one creature is that it feels pain. If there is some other reason so me rea son wh ich could differentia te hum an from non-h uman anim als then we would not be able to infer that it is illegitim ate to inflict needless pain on animals. Hence, if someone wishes to show that it is not wrong to inflict needless pain on animals, then she must identify some relevant difference between human and non-huma n animals, some differenc e which justifies this d ifference in treatm ent. And, of course , this is just wh at mos t defend ers of ou r presen t treatme nt of anim als are inclined to do. Tho ugh pe ople on ce rega rded a nimals as non-sentient creatures as mere automata that is no longer so.

The logical problem of evil and the freewill defense

The logical problem of evil and the freewill defense Introduction The purpose of this essay will be to evaluate the logical problem of evil and free-will defense. The aspects that will be focused on in the essay will be the logical problem of evil where the concept of God and the key attributes that are in conflict with the existence of evil will be discussed.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on The logical problem of evil and the freewill defense specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The free-will defense as a response to the logical problem of evil will also be covered in the essay as well as how the free-will response demonstrates the existence of evil to be logically inconsistent with the existence of God. Objections to the free-will defense as a logical solution to evil will also be presented in the discussion. Logical Problem of Evil The problem of evil according to Inwagen (188) is defined as the label for an intellectual problem that is contrary to emotional, spiritual, psychological and theological problems. The prevalence of evil in the world or the logical problem of evil can easily be used to form a basis for an argument that is against the existence of God or any other omnipotent being. The logical problem of evil states that if God really existed he would be an all powerful and morally perfect being who would not allow any evil or immorality to exist in the world. But since there is a lot of evil in the world, God does not exist and this basically forms a basis for the logical problem of evil. According to the logical problem of evil, the continued existence of evil since the beginning of time is a prelude to the fact that God is non-existent (Inwagen 188). The response to the logical problem of evil is the existence of a morally perfect and omnipotent being that has the relevant knowledge of evil and how to deal with it. God is an omnipotent being who is pure, good and morally perfect and can be able to deal with evil. The concept of God is basically made up of Him being an omnipotent being, His knowledge of evil and His moral perfection. God is seen to be a morally perfect and omnipotent being meaning that he can do anything as long as it is not an intrinsic impossibility. Because omnipotence and moral perfection are the non-negotiable components of God, the implications of this is that if the universe was made by an all powerful being and that being was less than omnipotent then the atheists would be right in assuming that God did not exist. A morally perfect being would not allow evil to exist in the world and him being omnipotent would mean that he has the power to control the existence of evil. The implication of this statement is that such a being is either false or is wholly ignorant to the occurrence of evil (Inwagen 192).Advertising Looking for essay on philosophy? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More One of the key attributes that is in conflict w ith evil is moral scorn which according to Inwagen (191) is the safest kind of evil because it is easily taken for granted by most people. Scorn which is generally a form of moral insensitivity is a type of evil that is committed against a person’s emotional and spiritual feelings. It is meant to belittle the actions, opinions or comments that individuals make towards something of common interest. Moral scorn conflicts with general scorn because it can be used against individuals who disagree with others by demonstrating self-righteous acts or moral posturing. Moral scorn is meant to belittle the actions or opinions of other people without necessarily being backed by evil feelings such as malice or hatred. Moral scorn deflects an argument from employing any forms of evil to one that employs self-righteousness or moral posturing meaning that it eliminates the occurrence of any form of evil completely (Inwagen 191). Freewill Defense The free-will defense is the only response to the logical problem of evil because of the existence of rational, self-aware and good human beings who have a free choice or free will to take part in evil or good. The free-will defense explains the presence of God to be that of an omnipotent being who grants human beings with the power of free choice and free will. Free-will is a great good created by God to outweigh the existence of evil in the world and it is therefore seen as a defense to the logical problem of evil. The simplistic form of free-will points to the fact that evil exists in the world and the existence of God as a morally upright being. If evil did not exist in the world, there would be no need for human beings to decide whether they will engage in evil or good meaning that the free-will defense is meaningless (Inwagen 198). Because God created human beings to be rational when it came to choosing between good and evil, he would not be in existence if people lacked the free-will defense when choosing between right and wrong. Free-will means that a person is morally responsible for the choices they have made bearing in mind that they had the choice to do otherwise. Free-will provides human beings with an option to choose what they think is right regardless of whether or not they think it is evil or good. The choice of free will therefore points to the existence of evil in the world and since free-will is a moral choice derived from morally right and rational human beings, it points to the existence of God as an omnipotent being (196). The free-will defense addresses the logical problem of evil because it offers human beings with an alternative to committing evil. Free-will provides people with a chance to be morally responsible for their actions though they had the chance to do otherwise. The simplistic form of the free-will defense can at best be used to deal with the existence of some forms of evil as opposed to a vast amount of evil that originates from the acts of human beings.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on The logical problem of evil and the freewill defense specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Objection to Free-will Defense An objection to the free-will defense is that it fails to address the logical problem of evil because free will and determinism are compatible concepts that co-exist in the world. This means that God as the omnipotent being could create a world where human beings were free to commit evil but also do good. This seems to be a surprising argument to make but it has a strong basis based on philosophers such as David Hume and Thomas Hobbes who held the belief that free will and determinism were perfectly compatible concepts that could coexist in a world full of both evil and good. These philosophers argued that free-will meant being free to do what one wants to do while determinism involved making the right choice based on what a person wanted to do. If free will and determinism were c ompatible therefore, an omnipotent being could create a human being who had a free choice to choose between evil and good (Inwagen 199). A person’s free will is therefore what one wants to do with regards to the above analysis meaning that a free will is an unimpeded will. A creator who would want to offer people with a free choice would only need to arrange matters so as to achieve the intended desire in human beings. This means that if a human being had a desire to commit act x instead of y, they would be able to achieve that desire because they have the option of x and y implanted in them. If every human being with a free will always did what they felt was right there would be an abuse of free will and evil would not exist in the world through the human abuse of free-will. This means that the free-will defense is not a suitable response to the logical problem of evil based on this objection. Inwagen, Peter. The problem of evil. New York: Oxford University Press

Facts About Canadas Geography, History, and Politics

Facts About Canada's Geography, History, and Politics Canada is the worlds second largest country by area but its population, at slightly less than that of the state of California, is small by comparison. Canadas largest cities are Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, and Calgary. Even with its small population, Canada plays a large role in the worlds economy and is one of the largest trading partners of the United States. Quick Facts About Canada Population: 37.2 million (2018 estimate)Capital: Ottawa, OntarioArea: 3,855,085 square miles (9,984,670 sq km)Bordering Country: The United StatesCoastline: 125,567 miles (202,080 km) History of Canada The first people to live in Canada were the Inuit and First Nation Peoples. The first Europeans to reach the country were likely the Vikings and it is believed that Norse explorer Leif Eriksson led them to the coast of Labrador or Nova Scotia in 1000 CE. European settlement did not begin in Canada until the 1500s. In 1534, French explorer Jacques Cartier discovered the St. Lawrence River while searching for fur and shortly thereafter, he claimed Canada for France. The French began to settle there in 1541 but an official settlement was not established until 1604. That settlement, called Port Royal, was located in what is now Nova Scotia. In addition to the French, the English also began exploring Canada for its fur and fish trade and in 1670 established the Hudsons Bay Company. In 1713, a conflict developed between the English and French and the English won control of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Hudson Bay. The Seven Year’s War, in which England sought to gain more control of the country, then began in 1756. That war ended in 1763 and England was given full control of  Canada with the Treaty of Paris. In the years after the Treaty of Paris, English colonists flocked to Canada from England and the United States. In 1849, Canada was given the right to self-government and the country of Canada was officially established in 1867. It was comprised of Upper Canada (the area that became Ontario), Lower Canada (the area that became Quebec), Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In 1869, Canada continued to grow when  it bought land from the Hudson’s Bay Company. This land was later divided into different provinces, one of which was Manitoba. It joined  Canada in 1870 followed by British Columbia in 1871 and Prince Edward Island in 1873. The country then grew again in 1901 when Alberta and Saskatchewan joined Canada. It remained this size until 1949 when Newfoundland became the tenth province. Languages in Canada Because of the long history of conflict between the English and French in Canada, a division between the two still exists in the country’s languages today. In Quebec the official language at the provincial level is French and there have been several Francophone initiatives to ensure that the language remains prominent there. In addition, there have been numerous initiatives for secession. The most recent was in 1995 but it failed by a margin of 50.6 to 49.4. There are also some French-speaking communities in other portions of Canada, mostly on the east coast, but the majority of the rest of the country speaks English. At the federal level, however, the country is officially bilingual. Canadas Government Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy and federation. It has three branches of government. The first is the executive, which consists of the head of state, who is represented by a governor general, and the prime minister, who is considered the head of government. The second branch is the legislative, a bicameral parliament consisting of the Senate and House of Commons. The third branch is made up of the Supreme Court. Industry and Land Use in Canada Canada’s industry and land use vary based on region. The eastern portion of the country is the most industrialized but Vancouver, British Columbia, a major seaport, and Calgary, Alberta are some western cities that are highly industrialized as well. Alberta also produces 75 percent of Canada’s oil and is important for coal and natural gas. Canada’s resources include nickel (mainly from Ontario), zinc, potash, uranium, sulfur, asbestos, aluminum, and copper. Hydroelectric power and pulp and paper industries are also important. In addition, agriculture and ranching play a significant role in the Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) and several parts of the rest of the country. Canadas Geography and Climate Much of Canadas topography consists of gently rolling hills with rock outcrops because the Canadian Shield, an ancient region with some of the worlds oldest known rocks, covers almost half of the country. The southern portions of the Shield are covered with boreal forests while the northern parts are tundra because it is too far north for trees. To the west of the Canadian Shield are the central plains, or prairies. The southern plains are mostly grass and the north is forested. This area is also dotted with hundreds of lakes because of depressions in the land caused by the last glaciation. Farther west is the rugged Canadian Cordillera stretching from the Yukon Territory into British Columbia and Alberta. Canadas climate varies with location but the country is classified as being temperate in the south to arctic in the north. Winters, however, are normally long and harsh in most of the country. More Facts About Canada Nearly 90 percent of Canadians live within 99 miles of the U.S. border (because of harsh weather and the expense of building on permafrost  in the north).The Trans-Canada Highway is the longest national highway in the world at 4,725 miles (7,604 km). Which U.S. States Border Canada? The United States is the only country that borders Canada. The majority of Canadas southern border runs straight along the 49th parallel (49 degrees north latitude), while the border along and east of the Great Lakes is jagged. 13 U.S. states share a border with Canada: AlaskaIdahoMaineMichiganMinnesotaMontanaNew HampshireNew YorkNorth DakotaOhioPennsylvaniaVermontWashington Sources The World Factbook: Canada. Central Intelligence Agency. 21 April 2010.â€Å"Canada.†Ã‚  Infoplease.Statistics Canada. â€Å"Canadas Population Estimates, Third Quarter 2018.† 20 Dec. 2018.â€Å"Canada.†Ã‚  U.S. Department of State. Feb. 2010

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages and Disadvantages of Technology This paper will discuss the pros of the use of stun guns and patrol car videos. This form of technology is being used every day by law enforcement agencies around the world. They are continuingly striving to make stun guns and surveillance cameras better. Patrol car videos have caught numerous illegal events by police and suspect that have committed a crime. Police stun guns and patrol car videos are very important to all law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement is expanding the video car surveillance cameras, so that they may be able to record and store details of suspect’s daily car journeys for up to five years. With the cameras installed in police cars, they can record any and all activity committed by police or suspects. The police would have irrefutable evidence when they capture a suspect or a police committing a crime against the suspect. The evidence is a very effective tool when appearing in a court hearing or trial. Surveillance cameras send a direct signal to the police station and other mobile data units across state lines and within the police department. Studies have shown that the continued use of surveillance cameras installed, not only in police cars, but on government issued equipment, such as: a telephone pole. The crime rate had decreased, the prostitution related reports decreased by 42%. â€Å"Law enforcement agencies states that with the new technology (i. e. urveillance cameras) allows them to deploy police officers more effectively, in cases such as demonstrations that cause trouble, and they help reduce traffic to and from planned events†(Krane, 15 November, 1999). Surveillance cameras help police and other law enforcement agencies to watch and monitor the suspect’s record, activities before they are captured. Scanners can help protect the homeland security traffic laws and catch international criminals. Problems that exist with surveillance cameras, is that they ma y not record everything that may have happened, the lens may get dirty and cloud the view.

Religion in the Workplace Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Religion in the Workplace - Essay Example As such, practitioners of Buddhism are calm, positive, and centered, especially during stressful incidents or moments that people would normally respond to with anger. In the workplace, Buddhism can bring about numerous positive experiences for both an individual and anyone who happens to communicate with that individual. As in any workplace, stress levels and tempers tend to be high; indeed, it can almost be considered proper workplace conduct to tread with caution around one’s boss or supervisor for fear of upsetting them or getting on their bad side. Someone who follows the practices and tenets of Buddhism will find it easier to respond to people that often let situations, and thus their emotions, get the better of them. Even during a crisis, a Buddhist is able to remain calm and rational. While in the workplace, they can use these practices to help keep a clear mind so that they may focus on their work and not on the negativity that surrounds them.

Question responses Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Question responses - Assignment Example The narrator says that, â€Å"Sunday’s too my father got up early and put his clothes on in the blue black cold, then with cracked hands that ached from labor in the weekday weather made banked fires blaze† (James and Alan, 32) This goes on to show how the narrator’s father was concerned about the narrator. If he did not care, then he would not have woken up early even on a Sunday. The claim that the father showed unconditional love is showed universally in this poem. In my own personal life, my parents show so much concern in me; from school work, family life and also my social life, my parents have shown concern in me that can only happen if there exists the connection that is commonly known as love (James and Alan, 32). Dulce Et Decorum Est is a poem written by Wilfred Owens and it has various arguments inside it that bring out what the poem is about. When the name is translated, it means, â€Å"It is sweet and meet to die for one’s country† (James and Alan, 33). And to back up the claims that the statement lacks merit, the poem has been written in order to distinguish between sweet and bitter, and pain and comfort. Even though the poem is about how sweet it is to fight and die for one’s country, the pain and suffering that the individuals go through reflects more on the negative side. There is evidence to support this in that the subjects talked about include post-dramatic stress, recurring nightmares, gas attacks that are lethal which include mustard gas attacks and chlorine gas attacks. Evidence

An explaning why I am interested in becoming a nurse Essay

An explaning why I am interested in becoming a nurse - Essay Example Consequently nursing provides personal satisfaction by giving me an opportunity to make real differences in the lives of people everyday. Another important reason why I’m interested in nursing as a career is that nurses experience daily challenges some of which are interesting, unique and rewarding. In this regard, becoming a nurse will not only provide me with invaluable vast opportunities of life learning experiences. I also find personal satisfaction and growth in nursing as it provides me with knowledge and new experiences that help me to contribute more to the community. One of my goals for pursing nursing is to achieve Career mobility. Nursing will provide me with an opportunity to continue with my career in many directions because nursing offers the needed flexibility and individuals can choose to work with children, adults, schools and public health institutions among others (DeWit, 964). Currently there are virtually unlimited opportunities in nursing particularly for people who would like to continue learning new things in their fields of interest. With the rapidly improving healthcare technology and a constantly growing population, nurses are able to work in a variety of diverse working environments and settings such as in home cares, healthcare clinics and hospitals. My specific career goal however is to work as children doctor. Job security is another important consideration that made me to choose nursing. This is because there is a significant shortage of nurses nationwide and I will not need to worry about finding a fulfilling career option once I complete my studies. Nursing also offers the much needed scheduling flexibility to individuals who have other commitments to attend to. For example, as a nurse I will be able to combine a real career with the other personal or family demands by working in part time basis or shifts. On the other hand, I believe pursing nursing career will translate into competitive benefits and higher salaries in

Two Fundamental Conditions Determine What Each One of US Can Become Essay

Two Fundamental Conditions Determine What Each One of US Can Become - Essay Example The sense of identity which individuals experience is determined by the moral and intellectual development and it defines what one becomes in life. The nine positions or stages of students’ journey during their development were provided by William Perry and have been substantiated by research (West 61). The identity of a student is congruent to his or her attitudes towards the acquired knowledge. The first category of the nine stages of development is that of received knowledge or dualism. The basic principle of dualism explains how individuals experience problems asserting that all problems can be solved. The ability of students to obtain the right solution to every problem hence determines how they experience life and thus what they become. The identities of people are diverse in terms of their achievement in life. Achievers are those who are capable of solving life problems through application of the right solutions. The knowledge received by a person is obviously a basic f actor which influences life achievement because it is through application of acquired knowledge that various tasks are achieved. However, knowledge requires skills and experience, which defines the identity of a person in terms of what has been achieved, and what that individual is capable of doing (DeRobertis 177). The feelings, which people develop about themselves significantly, influence problem-solving abilities because those who believe that they can manage situations and overcome challenges have a different identity from people who are submissive to the inevitable life challenges. Additionally, full dualism is a position presented by Perry that demonstrates the need to ignore solutions, which are not considered right in solving particular problems. As a result, it can be argued that the feelings people develop about their identity can be said to be a result of their ability to select the right solution to problems. People who are not able to learn ways of overcoming challenge s may have bad feelings about their own self. The concept of soft determinism views events and human decisions as being determined but moral responsibility and freedom exists but on the other hand, Jean Paul Sartre argues that the decisions, which determine our existence, are a result of an accident or chance (Odesanmi 85). The decisions, which people make, justify what every individual is in life and the diverse identities, which are associated with the achievement of people in society. It is true that people have freedom to choose what they become in life but at times accidental destinies result from unexpected happenings such as disease or disability which change the identity of a person and the manner in which self-worthy is viewed by himself or other people. In child development, the humanistic approach or theory of teaching emphasizes self-concept arguing that when a child feels good about himself or herself then it shows a good start in acquisition of knowledge (Odesanmi 88). The works of Carl Rogers also demonstrates how the humanistic approach determines what a child becomes in life through evaluation of how a student feels about his or her self-worth. Positive feelings about oneself thus lead to motivated

The comparative case study of Developed (G-8 & G-20 countries) Term Paper

The comparative case study of Developed (G-8 & G-20 countries) - Term Paper Example The United Nation’s definition of the poor indicates that they are such persons living on less than a dollar a day. The more alarming indications that the developed economies classified under the G-8 and the G-20 have their share of economic problems points out the seriousness of this issue. The world’s giant economies are classified under the G-8 whereas the G-20 are the fast growing economies of the world that have continued to be a threat to the developed nations in terms of economic power. The World Bank has made projections to the effect that developing countries or the G20 are likely to reach full capacity in terms of growth and consequently slowing growth from the year 2010’s 7.3 percent to a region of around 6.3 percent annually as from 2011-2013. On the other hand, the G8 will encounter a slowed growth from the lower growth reflected by the 2010’s 2.7 percent to the year 2011’s drop to 2.2 percent. They will experience a rise of up to 2.7 percent in the end of 2012 and a further drop to 2.6 percent in 2013, which shows a fluctuating economy in the giant economies1. If these statistics are to be believed, the developing world is steadily catching up with their developed counterparts even though there are obstacles that they must overcome. This paper examines the macroeconomic indicators of two selected countries (United States and Saudi Arabia) that are in the G-8 and G-20 categories. The period of examination shall be in the last five years a nd indicators such as the GDP, unemployment rates, GNP, consumer and producer price index and GDP per capita among others will be used to analyze their macroeconomic conditions. United States is slowly picking up from the worst economic downfall in decades. On the other hand, the Arabic nation of Saudi Arabia has not been affected much by the global economic crisis but that does not mean that the citizens of the

Managing Homeland Security Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Managing Homeland Security - Essay Example I will be working with the city planners and commission to evaluate the existing zoning laws and building codes. We will work with the local and state law enforcement agencies to analyze any potential for man made threats. As risks are encountered, I will work with the appropriate agency or department to resolve any budgetary concerns that are needed to take corrective action. As we work to reduce the risk and minimize the impact, we will also be preparing for a disaster should one strike. We will work with FEMA to draw up an appropriate response plan, and coordinate getting key people the necessary training that they may require. We will also develop a communications system and contact list so that we will be prepared to communicate with the appropriate local, state, or federal agencies and people as needed. We will be appointing numerous emergency planners in the major institutions and organizations in the community that we can coordinate our activity with in the event of an emergency. This will include the public utilities, hospitals, highway department, and public transportation. We will also work with local, state, and federal officials to assure that the city has the necessary resources needed during a disaster. This includes hospital supplies, fuel, and critical survival materials. In the event of an emergency or disaster, our department will coordinate the appropriate level of response. We will be responsible for contacting and monitoring the wide variety of agencies that may be needed. This will vary depending on the type of disaster, but may include fire and rescue, medical personnel, geologists, or the weather bureau. We will have a public information officer that will act as an information liaison between these agencies and the public in an effort to keep the people well informed. The disaster may be able to be handled locally, or may involve FEMA or specialized hazardous materials personnel. We will work with the public utilities to resolve issues with the gas and electric supply. We will also work with public transportation and the highway patrol in the event that an evacuation is needed. As the damage is assessed after the emergency, this department will begin to work to restore the city and its infrastructure. We will work with state and federal agencies in regards to funding and the availability of material resources. Some things may be able to be restored immediately, such as utilities, but other projects may be longer term, and managed by state or federal agencies. Temporary housing may be needed, as well as day-to-day supplies to maintain our daily life. While this department does not directly perform these functions, we assure the correct agency is responding appropriately. 2.) One of my first acts as the Emergency Management Coordinator would be to form an Emergency Planning Committee by selecting some key members from the police department, fire department, and the hospitals, as well as other agencies and organizations. I would then work with the committee to draw up an emergency response plan that outlined the roles of the various agencies in the event of an emergency. One of our first duties would be to create a contact list and a communications plan. I would

The comparative case study of Developed (G-8 & G-20 countries) Term Paper

The comparative case study of Developed (G-8 & G-20 countries) - Term Paper Example The United Nation’s definition of the poor indicates that they are such persons living on less than a dollar a day. The more alarming indications that the developed economies classified under the G-8 and the G-20 have their share of economic problems points out the seriousness of this issue. The world’s giant economies are classified under the G-8 whereas the G-20 are the fast growing economies of the world that have continued to be a threat to the developed nations in terms of economic power. The World Bank has made projections to the effect that developing countries or the G20 are likely to reach full capacity in terms of growth and consequently slowing growth from the year 2010’s 7.3 percent to a region of around 6.3 percent annually as from 2011-2013. On the other hand, the G8 will encounter a slowed growth from the lower growth reflected by the 2010’s 2.7 percent to the year 2011’s drop to 2.2 percent. They will experience a rise of up to 2.7 percent in the end of 2012 and a further drop to 2.6 percent in 2013, which shows a fluctuating economy in the giant economies1. If these statistics are to be believed, the developing world is steadily catching up with their developed counterparts even though there are obstacles that they must overcome. This paper examines the macroeconomic indicators of two selected countries (United States and Saudi Arabia) that are in the G-8 and G-20 categories. The period of examination shall be in the last five years a nd indicators such as the GDP, unemployment rates, GNP, consumer and producer price index and GDP per capita among others will be used to analyze their macroeconomic conditions. United States is slowly picking up from the worst economic downfall in decades. On the other hand, the Arabic nation of Saudi Arabia has not been affected much by the global economic crisis but that does not mean that the citizens of the

Death penalty Essay Example for Free

Death penalty Essay First, in your own words define, then compare and contrast the following concepts: Genera deterrence- punishment for crime to scare others not to commit the same crime. Specific deterrence- punishment of a crime that prevents the offender from repeating the same offense again. Incapacitation- punishment of keeping offenders in jail so they can’t repeat offense again in society. Retribution-punishment fairly justly due to the severity of the crime. Then, apply these concepts to the ways in which VIOLENT offenders are sentenced in todays courts. Sentences are based on the severity of the offenses being committed. Punishment can be based on certain factors of the crime. Violent offenders can be sentenced to death or incarceration of life. Using general deterrence it supposed to stop others from committing similar crimes. Specific deterrence is a way to avoid offenders from repeating their crimes. Keeping criminals incarcerated away from society, is the practice of keeping criminal of the street. Retribution punishes the criminal based on their action from the crime committed. Present your views on the death penalty as it exists today in the United States. You must present at least one case from law concerning the use of [for or against] the death penalty. Finally, examine your states rules concerning the use of the death penalty. I have nothing against the death penalty, but I’m not God either. If a person can go on a killing spree for instance like a serial killer, I feel that they should be held accountable. The old saying an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, kind of makes me think of the death penalty. A life for a life, but does that give back the life of the one taken. I have various few on the death penalty. Certain situations require it others I feel are unnecessary. Does that make me bias? I’ve heard some people say they’re against it, for reasons as the offenders suffers more by living day to day knowing they have taken someone’s life. Not all offenders have a conscious so when that comes into play, how the offender does suffers for their crime committed? Kennedy v. Louisiana US Supreme Court, 554 U.S.June 25, 2008 Petitioner Patrick Kennedy was convicted and sentenced to death in Louisiana for the aggravated rape of his then 8 year-old stepdaughter. A Louisiana state statute authorized capital punishment for the rape of a child under 12. The State Supreme Court affirmed the statute, rejecting petitioner’s reliance on Coker v. Georgia, which prevented the use of capital punishment for the rape of an adult woman. The Supreme Court concluded that the Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death.

Censorship And Right To Free Speech And Expression Philosophy Essay

Censorship And Right To Free Speech And Expression Philosophy Essay Right of free speech, one of the fundamental building blocks of a liberal democracy, has often been at odds with the hindrance posed by censorship to the unabated exercise of such right. While the use of censorship as a weapon to stifle counter opinions has indeed been granted socio-political legitimacy in regimes authoritarian as well as liberal, nonetheless, the intrinsic importance of the role played by censorship as a shield rather than a sword can hardly be neglected. In course of this paper, the author intends to emphasize that the very divergent nature of social mores in different jurisdictions and across different regimes worldwide strengthens the necessity for existence of censorship, albeit in varying degrees to suit the differing requirements of the aforesaid regimes. Any attempt to evolve a universalistic practice has scarce little options other than to turn into more of a farcical legitimization of Super Power Hegemonies, owing to the blatant disregard of the said inhere nt diversities that such universalism is likely to enforce. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall  [1]   Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If youre in favor of free speech, then youre in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, youre not in favor of free speech. Noam Chomsky  [2]   When compared with the suppression of anarchy every other question sinks into insignificance. The anarchist is the enemy of humanity, the enemy of all mankind, and his is a deeper degree of criminality than any other. No immigrant is allowed to come to our shores if he is an anarchist; and no paper published here or abroad should be permitted circulation in this country if it propagates anarchist opinions. Theodore Roosevelt  [3]   Free Speech and Censorship A Brief Introduction Free Speech is one of the constitutional guarantees of a liberal democracy a right recognized by all International Human Rights Documents. It is an amalgamation of the Right to Freedom of Conscience, Thought, Choice and the ultimate expression, without being subjected to arbitrary blocks on its enjoyment, in the form of Censorship. Censorship, on the other hand, is the process of imposing checks, direct or indirect, governmental or otherwise, on the exercise of ones Right to Free Speech. Apparently, this phenomenon can be perceived as a blunt curb on ones basic Right to Liberty, but on another plane, it can be looked at in the form of a necessary evil a limitation on ones Human Rights in order to uphold the Communitys Human Rights. The broad social purposes of censorship can be laid down as to ensure that ordinary members of the community are not affronted by the display of material to which a majority of reasonable adults would object, to maintain a level of public decency, and to avoid the undesirable social effects which may flow from the normalisation, by its use in entertainment or other dissemination, of undesirable material.  [4]   This paper aims to look at the interconnected nature of the two, keeping in mind the inherent diversities in different socio-political systems, and varied constructions of the two phenomena ultimately leading to the unmistakable impressions about the questions of Democracy, Politics and Power. In course of this article, the author has accepted as a foundational hypothesis the fact that throughout history and across jurisdictions, it has been noted that Censorship has been more often than not used to suppress counter-opinions be it political or religious; this practice has been conferred political and legal legitimacy in jurisdictions alike, be it the most Authoritarian or the most Democratic of regimes. Suffice to say that more often than not, Censorship has been used as a sword rather than as a shield. However, this does not take away the intrinsic value of the check. Indeed, the need for Censorship is evident from the divergent nature of the social mores, albeit differently in different jurisdictions trying to evolve a universalistic practice would thus disregard these inherent diversities, and would be more of a farcical legitimization of super power hegemonies. Categories of Censorship Paul O Higgins distinguishes Censorship into the following types  [5]  : Autonomous Self-censorship brought about by conscious or unconscious motives, which makes an individual wither to refrain from expressing his or her views or alter the same. Social Discouragement of the expression of certain ideas, either through socialization or sanctions, which lead to the emergence of taboos. Legal Enforcement of restraint by legal institutions such as the government, police and the courts prior censorship or penal censorship. Extra-legal Telephone Tapping, d-notices, limited release of information about defendant at trial. Voluntary When an institution with shared common beliefs lays down upon constituents limitations on what they should or should not say or do, without sanctions Press Council norms, etc. Subterranean When an individual or institution uses powers set aside for another purpose to impose censorship without direct government involvement political censorship. Free Speech and Censorship An International Human Rights Recognition Free Speech is an internationally guaranteed Civil and Political Right. However, this Right is subject to Reasonable Restrictions in the form of Censorship in most Human Rights Treaties and Systems. The main reason that can be attributed to such restraint is the requirement of public policy the apprehensions about the abhorrent effects that an unbridled exercise of this Right may produce. Given below is a list of the provisions from different Human Rights Treaties both International and Regional, which deal with the Human Right to Free Speech, and the operation of Censorship upon it. Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 19, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. (2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. (3) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. General Comment No. 10 (29/06/83): Paragraph 1 requires protection of the right to hold opinions without interference. This is a right to which the Covenant permits no exception or restriction. Paragraph 2 requires protection of the right to freedom of expression, which includes not only freedom to impart information and ideas of all kinds, but also freedom to seek and receive them regardless of frontiers and in whatever medium, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. Paragraph 3 expressly stresses that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities and for this reason certain restrictions on the right are permitted which may relate either to the interests of other persons or to those of the community as a whole. Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. (2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Article 13, Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of ones choice. (2)  The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: (a)  respect for the rights or reputations of others; or (b) the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. (3) The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence. (5) Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law. Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression Freedom of expression in all its forms and manifestations is a fundamental and inalienable right of all individuals. Additionally, it is an indispensable requirement for the very existence of a democratic societyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Every person has the right to seek, receive and impart information and opinions freely under terms set forth in Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights. All people should be afforded equal opportunities to receive, seek and impart information by any means of communication without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, economic status, birth or any other social conditionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Prior censorship, direct or indirect interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression, opinion or information transmitted through any means of oral, written, artistic, visual or electronic communication must be prohibited by law. Restrictions to the free circulation of ideas and opinions, as well as the arbitrary imposition of information and the imposition of obstacles to the free flow of information violate the right to freedom of expressionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Prior conditioning of expressions, such as truthfulness, timeliness or impartiality, is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression recognized in international instruments. These inherent variations in the level and nature of governmental control over Freedom of Expression also accounted for in the National Constitutions, Statutes and Judicial Decisions collectively constitute the subject-matter of an interesting study, especially in light of the fact that they are also indicative of the extent of democratization and totalitarianism inherent in these countries. Thus, the First Amendment to the US Constitution  [6]  and the Glavlit System of Pre-Censorship existent in former USSR and many East European Countries  [7]  , throw light on two different ends of the spectrum. Somewhere in the middle lies the Brit-ECHR system of giving a bag full of Rights, and then putting sufficient, and very often, more than sufficient, restrictions on their enjoyment. These variations are the results of the systems of governance and the Historical Evolution of Free Speech in these national jurisdictions inasmuch as they account for an enormous blow upon those who tend to argue about the Universalistic Nature of International Human Rights. Censorship and Free Speech A Nexus with Questions of Power, Authority, Liberty and Democracy: A Comparative Critique of World Systems and Disputes of Theories John Locke, one of the Founding Fathers of the Liberal View, advocated a Minimalist State intervention regime in his Life, Liberty and Property, which, according to him, were inalienable rights.  [8]  John Stuart Mills Theory of Marketplace of Ideas stated that if we suppress an opinion, it may turn out to be true. To assume otherwise is to assume that we are infallible, which is not the case  [9]  . According to O.W. Holmes, the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried outà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ in Abrams v. U.S.  [10]  where, in his dissenting judgement, he also laid down that a governmental regulation on Free Speech is only justified where it is used to dispel a clear and immiment danger. Otherwise, the market should be left to determine the veracity of the assertion. This opinion of Holmes was later accepted by the US Supreme Court whe n it overturned Abrams  [11]  and upheld Holmes Clear and Imminent Danger Theory in Brandanburg v. Ohio  [12]  during the Vietnam War. According to Prof. Rodney O. Smolla  [13]  , Free Speech Serves Five Purposes in a Democracy: (a) As a means of participation, (a) Serving the purpose of Truth, (c) Facilitating majority rule, (d) Providing Restraint on Tyranny and Corruption by keeping the Government in Check, and (e) ensuring stability by allowing minority voices to be heard.  [14]   However, the Marketplace of Ideas rationale for Freedom of Speech has been criticized by scholars on the grounds that it is wrong to assume the assertion that all ideas will enter the marketplace of ideas, and even if they do, some ideas may drown out others merely because they enjoy dissemination through superior resources. The marketplace is also criticized for its assumption that truth will necessarily triumph over falsehood. It is visible throughout history that people may be swayed by emotion rather than reason, and even if truth ultimately prevails, enormous harm can occur in the interim. Alan Haworth, in his book Free Speech (1998)  [15]  , has suggested that the metaphor of a marketplace of ideas is misleading. He opines that Mills classic defence of free speech does not develop the idea of a market (as later suggested by Holmes) but essentially argues for the freedom to develop and discuss ideas in the search for truth or understanding. In developing this argument, Hawor th says, Mill pictured society not as a marketplace of ideas, but as something more like a large-scale academic seminar. This implies the need for tacit standards of conduct and interaction, including some degree of mutual respect. That may well limit the kinds of speech that are justifiably protected. Political Extremism and Censorship This is an issue that is very essential and relevant in the contemporary world the question whether one should allow a platform for Fundamentalist and Extremist Organizations like the Al Qaida to propagate freely their views through their Private Television the Al Jazeera TV, or ought there be governmental curbs on such broadcasting. An interesting debate on this subject had been voiced in the May, 1994 issue of The Guardian  [16]  , where two noted columnists argued on a similar issue related to providing a platform to the extremist British Nationalist Party. According to Seamus Milne  [17]  , who advocated a curb on the BNPs Right to Free Speech, the BNP necessarily violates the Human Rights of a large section of the population, and, by doing so, it has justified the abridgement of their Right to Freedom of Speech. The oxygen of publicity, if given to them, would help the spread of racism. On the other hand, Polly Toynbee  [18]  argued that the banning of a particular group may set a precedent by which any group that does not conform to a norm is rendered prone to a similar ban. According to him, Free Speech is not absolute but we must be free to speak our political minds, and listen to political opinions of others, however nasty.  [19]  This statement of his has an uncanny resemblance to the Marketplace of Ideas Theory, thereby highlighting its relevance in the contemporary world. Use of Offensive Language on College Campuses The issue was the imposition of a Speech Code banning the use of offensive language at Stanford University. According to Gerald Gunther  [20]  , Speech should not and cannot be banned simply because it is offensive to substantial parts of, or a majority of, a community. The refusal to suppress offensive speech is one of the most difficult obligations the free speech principle imposes upon all of us; yet it is also one of the First Amendments greatest glories indeed, it is a central test of a communitys commitment to free speech. However, Charles Lawrence  [21]  opined that restrictions reflected genuine demands from students from minority ethnic groups, who had through harassment been denied the Right to Equality of Education. Being a supporter of the Hobbesian Principle of a Right for a Citizen to expect from the State Security of Person, Lawrence was thus advocating the same guarantee from a Welfare State, be it at the cost of restricting the offensive operation of some others unrestricted Right. Pornography, Sexuality and Obscenity an analysis of the Changing Voices This is an area where views and opinions have a range encompassing a whole spectrum. For some, pornography is a threat to a moral order, whereas for others, it is a mark of emancipation from bondages. The Libertarians seek to uphold individual freedoms and oppose state interference. According to then, States authority to make laws is only pertaining to the Public Sphere and not on the individual choices and preferences in the Private Sphere (The First Amendment Assertion has been illustrated by Justice Thurgood Marshall in Stanley v. Georgia  [22]  where he says that if First Amendment means anything at all, it means that a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he must read or what films he must watch. This liberal fundament was also supported by the Wolfendon Committee Report in the UK. (H.L.A. Hart had also been a known supporter of a similar view and had argued for a separation of the private and the public spheres  [23]  ). Sexual repression is itself more damaging than sexual openness, according to the Libertarian view. However, according to Conservatives, Pornography is a threat to moral order and stability, and the material itself is disgusting and unworthy of publicity. Moreover, the Conservatives believe that State is empowered to pass laws controlling both Public and Private activities, as has been evident from Devlins dissent to the findings of the Wolfendon Committee  [24]  . If one looks at the Feminist Movements, and the jurisprudence emerging there from, history shows changes and evolutions at every stage. Traditionally, feminists have supported the liberal cause, celebrating the need to discover the body and sexuality as a tool of emancipation from bondages. In the 1970s, Realist feminists stressed that pornography was not only damaging to womens status in society, but also dangerous to their safety. Thus, pornography not only provides the foundations for, but also is, violence against women.  [25]  Hence, according to the Liberal Feminists, pornography is not essentially a question of mere censorship, but a question of the womens Human Rights as a whole.  [26]  However, the 1990s have seen a shift in the trend. Avedon Carol  [27]  has claimed that women are suppressed not because of pornography but because of censorship. Wendy McElroy  [28]  has warned that anti-pornography legislations might result in a backlash against Feminism. Jea n Seaton  [29]  has suggested that the Realist feminists run the risk of losing touch with the roots of feminism, in the Civil Liberties and emancipatory movements. Melissa Benn  [30]  argues that the problem is one of structural sexism, and censoring pornography would not solve the problem. Instead, anti-sexist laws need to be established. The underlining philosophy behind the divergent philosophies is the fact that while one looks at the issue of censorship, one can look at it from two distinct planes the Moralist plane, identifying the evils contained in what needs or needs not to be censored; and a Causalist plane  [31]  , which would need to look at the effects of the commission or omission of Censorship. The decades of the Feminist Movement indicated drastic shifts in views, from the Moralist Plane to the Causalist Plane, and vice versa thereby leading to the wide divergence in opinions. The Use or Non-Use of Censorship in Different Regimes This section is a skeletal overview of the existing politico-judicial approaches towards Free Speech and Censorship on select issues in the US, UK, former USSR and India, which would adequately throw light on the kind of governance and degrees of guarantee of Human Rights in the individual regimes. Interesting to note, the instances referred to would be more of acts of a Subterranean Censorship imposition of Censorship through means not directly aimed at doing so. Issue USA UK Former USSR India Speech that may lead to Rioting, i.e. localized violence Edwards v. South Carolina  [32]  : Clear and Present Danger Test. New York Times v. US  [33]  : Prior Restraints on Speech and Press are constitutionally very suspect. Wise v. Dunning  [34]  : Anyone who utters something that is likely to lead to violence can be punished. Street Corner Orator? Anti State Speeches? Unheard of. Reports about Soviet Police disallowing observance of Human Rights Dayà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦tells a taleà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ A/19 (2): Public Order a ground for imposing restrictions. S/144, CrPC a tool for imposing preemptive indirect censorship. Counter Doctrines and Subversive Groups Anti-Communist Activities in the 40s supported by legislations like the Smith Act and Supreme Court Decisions like Dennis v. US  [35]  where the evil produced by such Speech was Grave and not Improbable. However, situations changed post-Brandanberg. Concept of seditious libel R v. Aldred  [36]  . Any incitement to use force against State was seditious libel. Soviet Criminal Code punished Agitation or propaganda carried out with the purpose of subverting or weakening the Soviet Regimeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ essentially, anti-Communist Campaigns. Preventive Detention Act, s/124A of the IPC and, on a broader political plane, imposition of A/356 on grounds of Breakdown of Constitutional Machinery. Criticism of the Government and Public Officials New York Times v. Sullivan  [37]  : No punishment if actual malice cannot be proved. Initially, strong Contempt of Court Jurisdiction, even in case of Fair Criticisms of Judicial procedures and decisions R v. Editor of New Statesman  [38]  . However, standards of stringency notably lower now. No difference between criticism and subversion hence, repression was the result. Sullivan standards not followed. Contempt and Privilege very strong tools in the hands of the State. Moreover, imposition of MISA and Repressive Press Laws during Emergency. Sexually Oriented Materials Miller Test  [39]   liberal standards. Hicklin Test  [40]   Rigidity. Strict pre-Censorship of Pornographic Material by the Glavlit. Largely influenced by Hicklin gradual liberalization post Bandit Queen. The obvious conclusion that emerges out of an analysis of this Table is that the US is the Country which, through the Constitutional Assertion of the First Amendment and a liberal, yet vigilant judiciary, and a Democratic Governance system, been the highest protectors of the Free Speech Rights. Admitted that the events of 9/11 have forced the US to make more stringent laws often aiming to curb Personal Liberties, but still, it has been a guiding light in the direction ahead, at least it seems so. But, how true is this assertion? Is it, like much other propaganda, only an ideological and hegemonic whitewash of the only surviving superpower? The list of incidents below, which deals with Governmental acts of subversion of the voice of conscience in the US and other Western Countries is self-explanatory  [41]  : Voice of America, a federally supported international broadcasting organization, decided not to air a story that included parts of a rare interview with the leader of Afghanistans ruling Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar. Those who deny that the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel, its use of extrajudicial executions against Palestinian gunmen, the Israeli gunning down of schoolboy stone-throwers, the wholesale theft of Arab land to build homes for Jews, is in some way wrong would like all criticism of Israel to be labeled as anti-Semitic thus branding the critics statements as heinous and unworthy of consideration. Military autopsy reports provide indisputable proof that detainees are being tortured to death while in US military custody. Yet the US corporate media are covering it up. Dr. Elsebeth Baumgartner currently faces up to 109 years in prison in the U.S. state of Ohio for her criticism of, and accusations of corruption against, government officials in Ohio. In Canada, school teachers have limited freedom of speech, both on and off the job, regarding certain issues (e.g., homosexuality). Chris Kempling was suspended without pay for writing letters, on his own time, to a local newspaper to object to LGBT-related material being introduced into public schools. Kempling pursued the freedom of speech issue all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada without success. By the Official Secrets Act, the London government has the power, throughout the UK, to order that certain subjects are abs