The Great Escape Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3750 words

The Great Escape - Assignment Example This project has been in the research field for many years trying to make some improvements pegged on the technological status of the world. This project also gets its boost financially from SETI Institute of Mountain View USA. This institute has been funding this project from the year of its publication, which is February 1995, leading to a great change and advancement of their research methods. The financial stability of this project has really boosted and triggered some of the inventions they carry out in relation to technology (Basalla, 36). This project was first started by Parkes radio telescope which is based on the South Wales in Australia. Initially, before the SETI Institute started funding this project, the Parkes radio telescope institute, who also happened to be the introducer of this project, was responsible for all the findings that the project might have needed during those days. This project conducts a thorough research technologically basing some of its analysis and references to the scientific principles. Since its year of establishment, the project has really grown and undergone a lot of advancements leading to the expansion of various branches and subsections. Aims of the construction project As a technological project, it is always aimed at improving the technological status of the world. Moreover, it exposes some of the hidden scientific principles and knowledge to people. Although it scans the whole sky for messages, it also bases its facts and actions in a simple manner that favors human understanding. Due to the fact that SETI Institute is responsible for the balance of financial stability of this project, all the processes or activities involved in the project are, therefore, fully controlled by this institution (Sclove, 92). The aims of the project are also based on the institution’s goals and targets. The SETI Institution is one of the world-recognized institutions that deals with the transmission of signals, especially those of the radio. The project also searches for signals that are as narrow as 1 Hz lying between 1000 to 300 MHz. The Phoenix research is very broad as compared to any other research project. Though the SETI researches tend to be advanced, they still rely on the Project Phoenix for their stability pegged on research cases. Findings of the Construction Project Based on signal researches that the project has been carrying out for years, there is a clear indication that some of the projects researches work out. This can be proved by the narrow signals that the project invented. Many other research organizations have not yet reached the limit to which Phoenix project has reached today. This project also focuses its research up to about 800 stars with a light-year range of 200. Due to this research, the project announced its failure in finding extraterrestrial signals within the 800 stars that happened to have been in their list of research (Abbate, 28). This failure made the project manage r, or leader, Peter Backus to make a remark that people live in a quite a neighborhood. Significance of construction project to SETI programs Phoenix project is one of the research projects being of great importance to some of the SET programs. Due to this significance that it holds for SETI, it is, therefore, funded by the SETI institution to enable them advance in more signal researches. Though SETI also carries out researches, it still gets some bits of support from Phoenix project as that is their main reason for funding Phoenix project. The programs

Reflection on Powwow Highway & Native American Stories of the Sacred Essay

Reflection on Powwow Highway & Native American Stories of the Sacred - Essay Example "But they can be your friends and grandchildren. Your main purpose is to give plenty of light". He is repeatedly asked by all other heavenly creatures that represent parents, friends and relatives, who provide us warmth and light as old man tells them "I have now told all of you the best ways to guide yourselves and what you can do to help the people of the world. You must always remember that these children of the human race are my children!". In this story there is lesson for parents that as adults they have special responsibility, which is to take care of the children, but not with a tendency of owing them and forcing, which often results in rebellion and consistent disappointments. And another occasion the Cherokee says that "Treat every person, from the tiniest child to the eldest elder, with respect at all times" which is an essential thing desperately needed in modern times. Gambling today is inherent part of Western culture, but it has been seen as an alternative to war in Indian culture. Similarly these stories are drawn from the diverse Indian tribes across North American retells the Tribal Indian traditions in a simpler way, stories such as Son of the light, who goes on quest to rescue his wife, and the Muskrat's self sacrifice emphasise the sense of sacrifice for other people, even if he has to pay the price, so that other being can live in peace and happiness; and the White Buffalo profound gift of the scared pipe to his people, all illuminates the essential elements of tribal cultural life and their wisdom in these beliefs. It is through such tales that essential lessons of life can be learned, which affirms the belief that we are not separate, but an essential part of the natural world. THE POWWOW HIGHWAY The Powwow Highway is not only a movie, but it is rather a meditation, the way Tribal American Indians understand land in terms of space rather than time. For Indians going from one place to another is not a trip in miles or km, but rather a journey from one land to another. The movie provides the reason, why two Indians are going on the journey. The main plot of the movie involves a Buddy, who cannot see native land be confiscated due to a lame excuse, even though his sister is thrown into jail, yet he is persistent to take her out even, though its ploy to take him out of the controversy. It also shows, the Americans Indian beliefs and practices are essential for their spiritual growth. Despite being living in an advanced age, still old tribal bonds are strong even though for an outsider these Indian traditions and norms often look strange, they keeps Native Americans intact. The movie enlightens the viewer that the culture values and traditions of native people are more than crafts and carvings, but it Indian culture has solid foundation. The arrival of Europeans marked a major change in Native American society, millions died due to sickness, slavery and extermination. The Europeans missionaries looked upon Native Spirituality as worthless superstition inspired by the devil, while many survivors were forcibly converted to Christianity on the pretext of white man's burden. However, nothing could change their cultural values as the movie shows, how Natives Americans respect the land, nature and their concept of family responsibilities, concern for the environment and willingness to share - all of these values together. It

The Outcome Of The Korean War

The Outcome Of The Korean War The Korean War officially began on 25 Jun 1950 when forces of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK North Korea) invaded the Republic of Korea (ROK South Korea). After initial stunning successes by both sides, there then followed over 3 years of bloody conflict which ultimately ended in an uneasy status quo ante bellum which still persists. The central hypothesis to this paper is that the use of military force was an effective policy tool for all parties involved to meet defined political objectives. The degree of success that each state/organisation achieved will be examined in detail. This essay will be limited to analysing the conflicts immediate aftermath and will not consider events beyond the Geneva Conference in Apr 1954. Specifically, this essay will investigate the rationale that led the DPRKs leader (Kim Il Sung) to consider the use of military force to achieve his primary objective of unifying Korea. The causes of the Korean War will also be briefly examined to set analysis in context. Causes The decisive event that caused the Korean War was the decision by two US Army Colonels on 10 August 1945 to divide Korea at the 38th parallel  [1]  . The decision was taken on Aug 10 1945 and for no better reason than à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦it would place the capital city [Seoul] in the American zone.  [2]  From the moment that the Korean partition decision was made public, the leaders of the DPRK and ROK were essentially determined to establish a unified country by diplomatic or military means. Indeed, many in the United States were worried that the ROK would invade the DPRK first, such was the bellicose rhetoric emanating from the ROK President Synghman Rhee. The dividing line on the 38th parallel did not have any historical significance to Koreans of any faction and the imposition of an arbitrary dividing line by the joint Soviet/United Commission in Korea came as a total shock  [3]  . Indeed, Bruce Cumings asserts that the interim United States occupation forces nearly became as unpopular as the newly ousted Japanese once the 38th Parallel decision became widely known  [4]  . It can therefore be argued that nascent nationalism, coupled with diametrically opposed ideologies and the unfortunate choice of an arbitrary dividing line provided the catalyst for the DPRK invasion of the ROK on 25 Jun 1950. It can also be postulated that Kim Il Sung was left with little option but to resort to military means to bring about his desired end state of unifying Korea. Military outcomes From its inception, the Korean War was viewed as a limited war by the principal combatants, who (albeit for different reasons) had no wish to see the conflict escalate into a wider conflagration. The military outcome of the Korean War was indeterminate, with neither side emerging as a clear victor. After the initial period of manoeuvre (from Jun 1950 Jun 1951) the Korean War settled into a stalemate reminiscent of World War 1 trench warfare. With neither side willing to escalate the conflict to gain a decisive edge, continued operations by UN and Communist forces essentially became a series of (relatively) pointless battles  [5]  in order to gain territory or exert political leverage at the Armistice negotiations in Panmunjom. When the Korean Armistice was formally signed on 27 Jul 1953, a heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) was established following front line positions. Neither side could claim victory in the true sense of the word. Political and Strategic Objectives of the Soviet Union Due to chronic instability in the ROK, the Korean peninsula perhaps presented the best opportunity for a communist leaning buffer state to be established that would protect Soviet and Chinese borders from any perceived American threat. The northern portion of Korea was occupied by Soviet troops, who quickly moved to support indigenous communist orientated commissariats. Kim Il Sung emerged as the favoured choice of the Soviet leadership and the DPRK was established in 1948. Once it became clear that Korea would not be unified by political means alone, and the Soviet Union had successfully tested an atomic bomb, Stalin eventually gave his consent and backing to Kim Il Sung  [6]  to proceed with the invasion of the ROK, but was purportedly unwilling to widen the conflict and risk a wider war with the USA  [7]  . Stalin viewed the Korean conflict as a key part of a wider Soviet strategy to embroil the USA (and its allies) in a protracted struggle far away from what both sides regarded as the Centre of Gravity in Europe. In this the Soviets largely succeeded as the USA became wedded to the defence of the ROK on a point of principle after the DPRK invasion. Stalin also determined that it would be perhaps better for the Soviet Union to engage in conflict with the United States at an early juncture, rather than to wait for Germany and Japan to be re-armed, which would greatly increase Western military capability: [Stalin] à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦added that even if the USA provoked a big war, let it take place now rather than a few years later, when Japanese militarism will be restored as an American ally, and when the United States and Japan will possess a military spring-board on the continent in the form of Rhees Korea.  [8]   The Soviet Unions relationship with China was crucial. Stalin viewed newly communist China as the junior partner in the communist world. While content to provide administrative, technical and planning advice, Stalin determined that the Soviet Union would not become overtly involved in any Korean conflict in order to avoid a direct confrontation with the United States. Kim Il Sung visited Moscow in Apr 1950; during this period, Stalin laid out the terms of any DPRK invasion of the ROK as: The Chinese (specifically Mao Zedong) must approve the invasion; The DPRK invasion must appear as a counter to an ROK move into the DPRK; and that Kim Il Sung would not be able to rely on overt Soviet support if the USA intervened, but would have to rely on Chinese support  [9]  . In essence, Stalin determined that there were great advantages to a conflict being fought by proxy between the fledgling communist Chinese state and the United States. A conflagration in Korea that pitted the United States against China would make any chance of rapprochement between the two states highly unlikely and would also fix American attention far from the Soviet vital ground in eastern Europe. Another key piece of evidence of Soviet strategy was revealed by the former Sovier premier Nikita Khrushchev. In his memoirs, Khrushchev gave an explanation of why Stalin decided to support Kim Il Sungs proposed invasion of the ROK. Khrushchev stated that when the United States Secretary of State (Dean Acheson) publicly stated that the ROK was outside of the United States Defence Perimeter  [10]  , this inadvertently sent a strong signal to Stalin that the ROK was a soft spot that was worth exploiting  [11]  . Stalin therefore reasoned that the United States would not commit forces to support the ROK regime in the event of a DPRK invasion  [12]  . Once it became clear that the Korean Peninsula would not be unified by diplomatic means, Stalin was content to sanction the use of military force (by his DPRK proxy) to bring about unification of Korea. The eventual outcome of the Korean War did not meet the Soviet primary political goal of establishing a communist, unified Korea as the eventual cease fire line ran almost exactly along the 38th parallel. Despite this, it can be argued that the Soviet Union greatly benefited from the outcomes of the Korean War. The United States was badly shaken by the Chinese intervention in Nov 1950  [13]  and the loss of American prestige was tangible when United Nations forces were forced into a pell-mell retreat south after the Chinese riposte in Nov 1950. The Korean War diverted the United States from what the Soviet Union determined as its vital ground in Europe. Korea also provided a means to test Soviet military capabilities in combat against the United States, especially in the air. Finally, Korea also allowed the Soviet Union to cement its relationship with China and prevent any rapprochement between China and the United States. The Soviet Union, by financing and supporting its Chinese and DPRK proxies was thus able to meet the majority of its aims, without becoming overtly involved in the fighting. On the minus side, Soviet support for the DPRK invasion unwittingly provided the justification for huge increases in United States military spending and the rearmament of West Germany and Japan. The Soviets were henceforth viewed as aggressors bent on spreading communism throughout the world, which the United States was clearly going to resist. United States Political Objectives and Strategy Prior to the outbreak of the Korean War, debate was intense as to how the United States should respond to the perception that Soviet aggression in Europe and elsewhere was on the increase. With memories of the Berlin Airlift still fresh and communist ideology seemingly in the ascendancy everywhere, US policy makers sought to determine what course the United States should follow in response to perceived Soviet aggression. A key strategy document outlined the United States response to the communist threat and was drafted in early Jan 1950 by the National Security Council (NSC). The resulting paper (NSC 68) aimed to define how the United States would respond to Soviet expansionist aims and also made predictions about the future nature of conflict between the superpowers in a bi-polar world post World War 2. While it was recognised that the main Soviet threat was most likely in Europe, NSC 68 recognised that the communist threat was global and would have to be countered. NSC 68 defined t he United States options as: Option 1: Maintain current policy; Option 2: Adopt an Isolationalist stance; Option 3: Go to war with the Soviet Union; Option 4: Fund and authorise a rapid build up of political, military and economic strength.  [14]   NSC 68 painted a dire picture of Soviet intentions and recommended that Option 4 was the preferred course to chart. The principal author (Paul H. Nitze) proposed radical steps, many of which were politically highly sensitive. Key recommendations were that West Germany should be rearmed as a priority and that a policy of Containment be adopted. Containment was defined as: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦It is one which seeks by all means short of war to (1) block further expansion of Soviet power, (2) expose the falsities of Soviet pretensions, (3) induce a retraction of the Kremlins control and influence, and (4) in general, so foster the seeds of destruction within the Soviet system that the Kremlin is brought at least to the point of modifying its behaviour to conform to generally accepted international standards  [15]  . President Harry S. Truman was presented with the conclusions from NSC 68 in Apr 1950. Its findings placed Truman in a dilemma; although the United States still had many more nuclear weapons than the Soviet Union,  [16]  the United States could not afford the increase in conventional military spending and support to European nations proposed by the paper. The United States Congress had strongly opposed increased military spending in favour of more spending within the United States. A fierce debate thus raged in the United States as to how perceived Soviet aggression should be responded to. United States policy towards the ROK was somewhat haphazard. As already mentioned, Acheson had publicly stated that the ROK was outside of the United States Defence Perimeter and relations with Rhee were often difficult given his bellicose nature and frequent outbursts about reunifying Korea by force. This prompted the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) to press for remaining US troops to be withdrawn in order to concentrate on more important commitments elsewhere. The last US troops were withdrawn late in 1949, which again seemed to signal to Kim Il Sung and Stalin that the United States would not intervene in the event of an invasion of the ROK. Meanwhile, the debate over the implications of NSC 68 continued to rage in Washington, with those in favour of increasing military spending gaining little traction in the face of harsh budget realities. The invasion of the ROK on 25 Jun 1950 was greeted with shock in Washington and no doubt a degree of satisfaction by those that had signposted the Soviet inspired communist threat. American policy was thus immediately polarised and global US Political objectives were quickly wedded to the idea of Containment. The DPRK invasion of the ROK acted as an accelerant that ignited the United States commitment to defending what it perceived as the free nations of the world. Due to an ongoing Soviet boycott of the Untied Nations, the United States was able to secure the UNs approval for the use of force and quickly committed substantial forces in support of the United Nations Command (UNC) in order to restore ROK sovereign territory. With the support of the UN and the containment of DPRK forces at Pusan, many in the United States began to call for a more aggressive strategy to Rollback communism. The United States implemented its Rollback strategy in Korea after the successful landings at Inchon on 15 Sep 1950 had severed DPRK supply routes and seen communist forces retreat in disarray back over the 38th parallel. UN Security Council Resolutions 82 85 condemned DPRK actions and eventually gave UNC forces authority to proceed north across the 38th parallel with the express intent of removing Kim Il Sung and reunifying Korea as a nation state. What set out as an ideological stance taken in Washington to Rollback communism was thus implemented in reality i n Korea, with poor results after decisive Chinese intervention. While it will be debated later in this essay if the UNC advance precipitated Chinas entry into the conflict, it certainly was a contributory factor. The United States was justified to seek UN approval to use force to restore ROK territorial integrity; Containment was a valid political objective that justified the use of force in response to the perceived Soviet threat. The Rollback strategy was (with hindsight) unjustifiable and did not warrant the use of force in a vain attempt to unify Korea. Overall, and despite the ambiguity of its outcome, the Korean War had important implications for American foreign policy. In the short-term, the conflict globalized the policy of containment and was the impetus for vastly increased Defence spending and extensive US military deployments in Europe and elsewhere. The Korean War deepened the United States already combative relationship with the Soviet Union and effectively scuppered any possibility of cordial diplomatic relations with Communist China for twenty years. The outcome of the Korean War was satisfactory for the United States. Communist advances had been contained and the ROK preserv ed as a bulwark against communism in Asia. Korea also had a far ranging impact on US policy and the policy of containment was to be applied to South Vietnam with disastrous results. China In Apr 1949, the Chinese Civil War ended in the decisive defeat of the Chinese Nationalists. A newly unified China under the leadership of Chairman Mao Zedong was keen to assert much greater influence in the region and this was to be a critical factor for the duration of the Korean War. United States support for the remnants of the Chinese Nationalist regime in Taiwan continued to be a major source of friction between the United States and China and was an underlying theme that determined Chinese political and strategic objectives in the region. As a result of the United States overt support of the Nationalist regime and the lack of Chinese counters to US military strength (particularly Naval), Mao was keen to determine if there was an indirect means to confront the United States and perhaps even extract concessions over the future of the Nationalist redoubt in Taiwan. Chinas decision to enter the Korean War was determined by Chinese leaders interpretation of Chinas security interests and their judgment as to how Chinas security would be affected by entering the conflict. At this early juncture after the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War, the Chinese leadership was highly sensitive as to how Chinas stature, capability and willingness to defend its position were perceived by outsiders and particularly the West. China had suffered greatly at the hands of Great Britain and the USA and others during a prolonged period of foreign intervention in its affairs and Mao determined at an early stage that China would become involved in a Korean conflict if the situation dictated  [17]  . Once UN Forces crossed the 38th parallel in force and the Rollback strategy was openly advocated by the United States, the Rubicon was clearly crossed for the Chinese leadership and in particular Mao Zedong leaving them little choice but to act to defend its interests in the region. In essence, if all of Korea was occupied by UNC forces, then this would (in the eyes of the Chinese leadership) create a fatal danger to the fledgling Chinese revolution. Chinas use of force to meet its strategic objectives was fully justified in the minds of the Chinese leadership. The sanctity of the Chinese revolution appeared to be under threat once Rollback gained significant support in the UN. It can also be argued that Mao saw a fleeting opportunity for China to deal an embarrassing blow to UN Forces by committing large numbers of Chinese volunteers at a decisive moment in the campaign. By committing Chinese forces to an ideological struggle such as Korea, Maos reasoning can be assessed as sound; China would bolster its credibility within communist circles and perhaps emerge from the conflict as a beacon for other fledgling communist states so long as the west was prevented from securing success in Korea. Underlying much of Chinese strategic thought was the possibility that prolonged involvement in any Korean conflict had the potential to secure concessions from the United States over the future of Japan and crucially Taiwan. Chinese intransige nce during the later stages of the Korean War can be attributed to not wishing to terminate the conflict until a more favourable situation had been achieved by communist forces and also Stalins wish to prolong the conflict to keep the USA involved in a peripheral action. DPRK Strategy and Political Objectives DPRK strategy was relatively simple once the division of Korea became permanent. Under the shrewd leadership of Kim Il Sung, the DPRK charted a course that played the Soviet Union and China off each other in order to serve the DPRKs best interests. Once any hope of a diplomatic solution had vanished to unify Korea, Kim Il Sung determined that a narrow window of opportunity existed for the military unification of Korea. Indeed, the DPRKs invasion of the ROK perhaps provides the best example of Clausewitzs dictum à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means  [18]  . On 7 March 1949, while talking to Stalin in Moscow Kim Il Sung said: We believe that the situation makes it necessary and possible to liberate the whole country through military means. The Soviet leader apparently disagreed, citing the military weakness of the North, the Soviet-USA agreement on the 38th parallel division and the possibility of American intervention if the DPRK intervened militarily in the ROK. Stalin added that only if the ROK/USA attacked Pyongyang could the DPRK try military reunification by launching a counterattack. Then, the Kremlin chief explained, your move will be understood and supported by everyone.  [19]  On 17 January 1950, Kim Il Sung complained to the Soviet ambassador Shtykov: I cant sleep at night because I am thinking of the unification of the whole country. If the cause is postponed, then I may lose the confidence of the Korean people. Kim Il Sung apparently requested permission to make a new visit to the USSR to receive orders and permission fr om Stalin for the offensive  [20]  . This is a key point; for Kim Il Sung, the war was as much about maintaining popular consent for his regime as it was for unifying Korea. The DPRK was essentially justified in resorting to the use of force in its attempt to unify Korea. This is a contentious point of view, but it can be argued that as the Korean War was essentially a civil war, then once diplomatic means had been exhausted, the only way left to Sung was to exhort the Soviet Union and China to support a military endeavour to unify the Korean peninsula. It could also be argued that had the ROK not been supported by the United States, then the ideological and nationalist tensions in Korea would have played out after a period of internal wrangling. Korea would have likely emerged after the end of the Cold War as a stable, unified state that would have been open to capitalist influence (like many former Warsaw Pact states) and not the insular, paranoid autocracy that still persists. The outcomes of the Korean War essentially did not meet the primary aim of the DPRK to unify Korea, but did ensure the continued support and investment of the Soviet Union and C hina, much as the United States supported the ROK. ROK Political and Strategic objectives ROK strategy was again relatively simple. By continually agitating against the communist DPRK regime, Rhee hoped to draw the United States into a Korean Civil War in order to enable the unification of Korea by force. Many accounts of the time place the blame squarely on the DPRK for invading the ROK, but this is too simplistic. Rhee continually blustered that he would lead an ROK invasion of the DPRK to reunite Korea. On a visit with The US Secretary of State (John Foster Dulles) a reporter (William Mathews of the Arizona Daily Star) recorded that: He [Rhee] is militantly for the unification of Korea. Openly says it must be brought about soonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Rhee pleads justice of going into North country. Thinks it could succeed in a few days à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦[I]f he can do it with our help, he will do it  [21]  . Rhee was an ardent nationalist and was clearly set on reuniting Korea by any means, so long as he had the support of the United States to do so. ROK forces were responsibl e for repeated violations of the 38th parallel and ROK initiated artillery exchanges were commonplace from Spring 1949 onwards  [22]  . Continued United States military support was thus at times difficult to justify in the face of pressing commitments elsewhere and the Joint Chiefs of Staff finally withdrew all but a token force of advisors in late 1949  [23]  . The primary political objective of the ROK can thus be clearly identified as seeking to secure and maintain United States military, economic and political involvement in the ROK. In this, the Rhee regime was entirely successful as the Korean War precipitated massive United States military, economic and political support which extends to the present day. Indeed, the prolonged nature of the conflict served to ensure that the Korean conflict was centre stage of the Truman/Eisenhower Presidential Election. Rhee and his regime survived the war intact and the experience of the conflict had a direct influence on ROK politics for two generations with successive semi military dictatorships controlling ROK affairs. The United Nations Facing its sternest test, the United Nations had weathered a challenge, which, if unanswered, might have resulted in disaster and eventual disintegration. Under the U.N. flag, the original objective of the intervention in Korea-halting Communist aggression-had been successfully carried out and the independence of its foster child, the Republic of Korea, had been preserved. This practical demonstration of how the United Nations could function when peace was threatened greatly enhanced the prestige of the organization and established a precedent for future U.N. military action if the need should again arise. The effort had not been given unanimous support by U.N. members, it is true, but twentyone nations had contributed forces of one kind or another to sustain the U.N. decision. Although many of these countries had supplied only small token units, the mere fact that they had participated at all was encouraging, since it indicated their belief in the U.N. and their willingness to put teeth in the enforcement provisions of its charter. The Korean War marked a real departure from the dismal experience of the League of Nations in this respect. Conclusions

Making School Uniforms Mandatory :: essays research papers

Intro I am a student that has attended 3 schools and has always worn a school uniform, a mate has never experienced any issues with school uniforms, and have noticed a few issues that can be prevented from the use of a uniform. Uniforms, not only had they been proven to be helpful at school, but they are also helpful at home. Base Parents spend a couple hundred dollars per year on clothing just to make their children meet the latest fashion. An average shop favoured by many teenagers, such as International, sells a piece of clothing for around $40 each! Parents can really find this money useful while paying bills. Uniforms are cheap, after a mate when his primary, his parents had a lot of excess money to spend because of uniform! A typical gang trait is to have a gang name, gang color, and other characteristics, that make them diverse this makes parent spend money on clothes that children don?t need. There is a possibility of violence due to an article of clothing. If a student is dressed up similar to a member of a gang, another student who does not like that gang might plan to attack that person. In this case uniforms can protect the safety of another. Many people believe if you compare a uniform school with a non-uniform school, you?ll see that violence is much popular in the non-uniform school. As said above clothing can be quite expensive, how would one feel if their garment has been misplaced or stolen? A lot of students love to brag about their shoes, especially sport shoes, when they first buy it. Famous Sport shoes are worth $120 on average, and not everybody in the school is Happy. Envy takes place when a student replaces their new shoe, with an old one for a gym class. The other student returns to the changing room, and finds out that his new sport shoes have disappeared. The shoe that had cost a lot of money, and now it?s gone! This would have never happened if the sc hool the student goes to makes a uniform compulsory. Instead of bring a students fancy shoes that student would have brought his leather shoes, that matches the school uniform. Uniform decreases the amount of theft on school property. Uniforms make it harder for strangers to sneak in the school, because for sure they?ll be the center of everyone?

Rhos-Y-Gwaliau Outdoor Education Center Essay

Hello, I’m here today to talk to you all about work experience. I can see a few anxious faces when I mention the words work experience, but I hope that my talk today will change that. Incase some of you are not exactly sure what work experience is, it’s a placement that you personally choose yourself, and than you will go there for a period of two weeks. I now it might seem a long time, two weeks but when you’re there time just flays, and it’ll be worth it. And if you’re lucky you might decide what you would like to do in the future from this experience, you never know!! Getting a placement is quite straight-forward you know. Well it does depend on were you’re thinking of going. You can either phone them, e-mail them or send them a letter. What I did was phone them because I believe this was the most affective way and this way you are also able to find out more necessary information. All I had to do after I phoned was go and visit my placement to get to know everyone and to get to know the building. The day before I started on my work experience I was very anxious, but at the same time I was looking forward. So don’t worry if you have similar feelings before you start your work experience because they’re just normal. The only advise I can give you is that you have an early night before you start your work experience so you’ll be rearing to go the next morning. Also on your first day you should make sure that you arrive at your placement right on time, so you make a good impression to your co-workers and employer. It’s also important that you have a reliable transport. I was very lucky with my transport because my mum passed my placement on the way to her work, and it was very convenient. I went to Rhos-Y-Gwaliau Outdoor Education Center for my two weeks. I was very anxious before I got there each morning because I had no idea what was in store for me. The whole experience wasn’t half as bad as I had predicted, I hope your outcome at the end of your work experience will be the same as well. Where I went on my work experience I didn’t really have a typical day. Each day I did something different, sailing, canoeing, canoeing, climbing, hill trails and gorge walks. I arrived at the center at 8am each morning, then I had to make sure that all the children that were in my group had packed all the necessary kit they needed for the day. The we would all gather in the canteen, and make our lunches ready for the busy day that we had planned in front of us. Then we would all set off in our individual group and head towards our activity location. I had so much fun from my experience at Rhos-Y-Gwaliau Outdoor Education Center, and I found out a lot about myself. I do hope that you will choose a suitable placement for yourself and gain a lot of experience and knowledge. I sure did, and this whole experience will always stay with me. I don’t have to tell you how much I enjoyed my work experience, because I’m sure you can imagine. There was nothing I really disliked about my work experience, well the hours were a bit long, because twice a week I had to be there from 8am till 9pm, which I believe was a very long shift, but that didn’t bring me down the slightest bit more enjoyable. The whole experience at Rhos-Y-Gwaliau Outdoor Education Center has definitely helped me choose what I would like to do in the future. This is an ideal work I would love to do when I’m older. I found out that I’m able to work with people from all ages and I truly enjoy working with children because you are able to see all the progress they have done and you’re able to see the amazement on the children’s faces when they achieve a new skill. When I help people I get a warm feeling in my heart. I wish you all the best for the future, and I hope that my talk today has reassured you all, and you have a better incline of what to expect when you’ll be starting work experience in couple of weeks time. And I truly do hope that you will have two fantastic weeks at your placements, and try your best to enjoy them. Thank-you for listening to my talk today, and I hope that I have helped some of you, and you now know a little bit more of what you’re in for. All the best to every single one of you. And thank-you for being such a good audience.

If only God had made Adam & Steve, instead of Adam & Eve

In â€Å"Let Gays Marry,† Andrew Sullivan responds to conservative objections to same-sex marriages, by arguing that allowing such unions would actually promote traditional values, such as fidelity, monogamy, and love. It should logically appeal to straight conservatives, who deplore gay male promiscuity, that the declaration of Supreme Court: â€Å"A state cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,† now assigns equal rights to gays and lesbians. Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at The New Republic, a magazine he edited from 1991 to 1996, and the U. S. columnist for the Sunday Times of London. He has a B. A. in modern history and modern languages from Oxford University and a Ph. D. in political science from Harvard University. He lives in Washington, D. C. The real problem is that there are really only three arguments against gay marriage: One is rooted in entirely God's preferences, the second cites inconclusive research on its negative effects on children, and third, the integrity of a marriage as a legal document. Sullivan effectively presents his case in a very logical fashion, calmly displaying his points, and using a statement declared by the United States Supreme Court, under which no gay men or lesbians will be considered strangers in America. They (Gays) are human beings just like you and I, â€Å"the sons and daughters of countless mothers and 2 fathers,† and should have the same opportunities to pursue happiness by marrying the one that they love. A natural process, where two people fall in love and decide to get married, is not any different for gay people. Therefore legalizing gay marriages does not provide gays with any special rights or place in America, but instead people will consider them to be an equal part of the society. The main idea is homosexuals should have the right to get married legally. Sullivan does not want churches to make any change in their practice, but to allow everyone to be who he/she is, a principle that the United States was created on. Plus, the concept of marriage has changed within the past one hundred years. The inter-caste and the inter-religion marriages which were once prohibited or forbidden between couples, has now become socially acceptable. Gay marriages do not change anyone else's rights or marriages in any way. Marriage is not just about raising children because the fact that many notable â€Å"childless heterosexual couples† exist in today's society, such as Bob Dole and his wife Elizabeth Dole, etc. Sullivan concludes by telling the general public to accept homosexual marriages and the fact that they will not be the turning point for the downfall of all society. Although I agree with Sullivan when he says, legalizing gay unions would not change anyone's right to marriage, I find Bennett's view more powerful, that it would weaken the institution of marriage, and contradict natural, moral, religious, and sexual realities. After reading Sullivan's article, I question his credibility, as he didn't provide enough evidence to get his point through. His approach toward his readers is with a lot of pathos, rather than logos. For example, when he states â€Å"And what we 3 seek is not a special place in America†¦ o give back to our society,† it is not clear as to what he means by giving back. When he argues about the definition of marriage, Sullivan fails to see the change, which was brought about for the welfare of the people (inter-caste marriages, inter-religion marriages, etc. ), consisted of a â€Å"man† and a â€Å"woman†, not two men, or two women. I would have agreed to the assertion, â€Å"the most simple, the most natural, and the most human instinct,† if it was used to prove the relationship between a male and a female. But using it to persuade about the same sex marriage doesn't cheer me up. To answer the question of whether gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry, the question of why the institution of marriage is valued so dearly in society today must be answered. To do this, the meaning of the word marriage must be found, remembering that there are different levels in which marriage can be interpreted and/or evaluated. As with many other issues, when one tries to define the word marriage and its repercussions in society, several fundamental questions arise that must be answered in order to get a better understanding of the issue in question. Questions like: What is marriage defined as? In Webster's Dictionary, marriage is defined as â€Å"The institution whereby men and women are joined in special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. † This concept seems to have been perpetuated throughout history, one man and one woman joined â€Å"till death do them part. † Keeping the above points in view, same sex marriages defy the laws of Christianity, and it is immoral in the eyes of society. Homosexuality in almost all countries has been looked down upon, and sometimes condemned. This opposition stems from the Holy 4 Bible. The couple in the Garden of Eden was a man and a woman, not two men or two women. If God intended two men or two women to be together, he would have put them in the Garden of Eden, giving them both the ability to have children. But that didn't happen. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, for the procreation of life. God wanted man and woman to reproduce with one another in order for the human race to continue. Today, adoption has taken a turn for the worse; Gay and Lesbian couples who cannot have their own children are adopting kids. I see this as one of the concerned problems. What kind of message are these kids getting? That homosexuality is all right. Moreover, the impact of this move can be devastating on the children as they grow up. For example, they might have to face a lot of challenges, like people taunting them, name calling, making fun, etc. Homosexuality is rejected by all major religions around the globe, but Andrew Sullivan still believes that promiscuity in homosexual relationships can show heterosexual couples that adultery doesn't have to end their marriage. The Bible states, â€Å"Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. † Thus, a 4000 year old book had an answer to the question being asked today. i. e. = Same Sex Marriage– Ethical or Unethical?

261 Ellison and Invisible Man Professor Ramos Blog

261 Ellison and Invisible Man Quick Write Ralph Ellison (1914 1994) Invisible Man (1952) Jazz: A Metaphor for America Crash Course Thug Notes