Analysis of Goodwives essays

Analysis of Goodwives essays According to Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, men used women both positively and negatively. From my understanding of the book Good Wives there were more negative then positive ways of how men used women between 1650 and 1750 in Northern New England. Here I will briefly explain the one and only positive aspect followed by the negative aspects. I will also express my opin-ion of the relationships between men and women during this time period, whether they were positive or negative. The one and only positive way men (husbands) used women (wives) were as Deputy Husbands. A Deputy Husband would stand in the place of her husband in his absence or if he were unable to perform his duties. Some wives were servile, some were shrews, others were respected compan-ions who shared the authority of their spouses in the management of family affairs (p. 38). In performing her husbands duties, a wife not only gained the respect of her husband, but she also gained his trust as well. As a consort (a consort tuned her life to her mates (p. 9)), a wife would be aware that in strengthening her husbands business affairs she strengthened her own. The first negative aspect of how men used women was as Christians. Being a Christian was not negative, but how women were treated in the Church was negative. A Christian seized spiritual equality and remained silent in the church. Among the Congregationalist majority in New England, women could sign the covenant, enlarge the scriptures, write and even publish, but only among the Quakers could they hold office or preach in mixed assemblies (p. 9). In others words women were the majority in the church and as the majority they were allowed to sign the covenant and enlarge the scriptures, but they werent allowed to hold office or preach. Women werent even allowed to sit on the main floor ...

The Monster in Eli Roths Hostel

The Monster in Eli Roths Hostel Free Online Research Papers He awoke in a dark, damp room that appeared to be a basement. Josh had not the slightest clue where he was. â€Å"Where the fuck am I?† he kept bellowing. Finally a man removed the burlap sack covering Josh’s face. â€Å"You, oh God, oh Shit!† Josh recognized the man from the train ride to Slovakia. Josh pleaded â€Å"Please, please, I didn’t do anything to you!† The man in the old-style executioner’s outfit was amused by his victim’s mental and emotional anguish. Josh pleaded with this dark figure to let him go. â€Å"I had always wanted to be a surgeon† the man said as he secured a scalpel. He then offered to open the door. Before untying his victim, the man used the scalpel to cut both of Josh’s Achilles’ tendons. The executioner was delighted to see Josh squirm to the door; leaving behind him two distinct trails of blood. What exactly had Josh done to deserve this? What crime had he committed? Josh was an American, and his executioner had the cash to pay for his life. In Eli Roth’s Hostel, a crime syndicate known as â€Å"Elite Hunting† operates out of a post-Soviet nation. The organization sponsors a very twisted form of slavery. Elite members may purchase human beings and kill them in any way they please. They just show up at an abandoned factory, pay for a victim, and have their way with the victim’s life. It’s not that simple though, as certain people cost more than others. For instance, a European victim costs less than say, a Japanese victim. Imports are a bit pricier than domestics. What is truly disturbing is that Americans cost the most. The demand to kill an American is higher than the demand to kill any other kind of person. While you can torture an Asian for $10,000, to do the same to an American costs $25,000. This is a clear symbol for the way in which Americans are viewed by the world. Take for instance a 2005 world survey conducted in 25 nations including the U.S. The survey showed that 75 percent of the respondents disapproved of how our leaders in Washington had dealt with Iraq. The majority of the 26,381 respondents also disapproved of the way five other foreign policy areas had been handled. This included the U.S. government’s dealing with Iran’s nuclear weapons program, global warming, and the military prison in Guantanamo Bay. This survey is a display of the current distaste for the U.S. and its government’s policy. In Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s Monster Theory, Cohen describes the monster’s body as that of culture: â€Å"The monster is born only at this metaphoric crossroads, as an embodiment of a certain cultural moment-of time, a feeling a place† (Cohen 4). In other words, this monster, this intense dislike for the American people, traces it s origins to feelings of resentment and rage towards the U.S. government’s recent policies, especially that of the war in Iraq. Some may argue that the big-wig killers in Hostel pay more for Americans only because they are imported from overseas, but I contend that that the high price of Americans is due to the world’s view of the American people. In a survey found on people-press.org conducted in nine countries including France, Germany, and Turkey, all of these countries showed increasing belief in two years that the U.S. was over-reacting to terrorism. Another survey found on the same web site showed that most European nations disapprove of the United States using force in Iraq without United Nation’s approval. There is an apparent strong, unfavorable opinion of the United States. The monster in Hostel, then, is a cultural crisis. One must ask if the actions and decisions of the United States’ government have made the Americans appear as monsters to the European people. According to an article by Brian Eno on time.com, most Europeans regard Americans as stupid, arrogant, and ignorant. Eno says of the American people, â€Å"I could fill this page with names of Americans who have influenced, entertained, and educated me. They represent what I admire about America: a vigorous originality of thought, and a confidence that things can be changed for the better. That was the America that I lived in and enjoyed from 1978 to 1983.† Eno continued in his article, â€Å"That America was an act of faith- the faith that (otherness) was not threatening but nourishing, the faith that there could be a country big enough in spirit to welcome and nurture all the diversity the world could throw at it.† Eno believes the U.S. has taken a downhill course since S eptember 11: â€Å"But since Sept. 11, that vision has been eclipsed by a suspicious, introverted America†¦. The gated community†¦. Designed to keep the (others) out, it dissolves the rich web of society into a random clustering of disconnected individuals. It turns paranoia and isolation into a lifestyle.† It is difficult to put aside Eno’s arguments for the way other first-world nations look at us. After establishing itself as a world power after WWII, the U.S. became more and more comfortable with using military force. Vietnam and the Gulf War are two examples of our government using military force willy-nilly. Our current struggle is arguably unjustified and makes our government look foolish. You see the paranoia of our people at airports. How many times have you felt nervous when sitting next to an Arabic person on an airplane? Brian Eno makes vital points in regards to where the distaste for America comes from. However, we must ask if the U.S. and American people deserve being the target of this European loathing. In Hostel, for example, there is a scene when the two American characters are in a club in Amsterdam. They get into a fight with a Swedish man and are escorted out of the club by a bouncer. The mammoth Dane mutters something in the manner of â€Å"fucking Americans† as he throws them to the street. It is far too common for Americans traveling abroad to face such harassment. In many instances, though, it is brought upon by us. Americans, such as the two from the film, often act cocky and arrogant and forget to respect the place where they are at. The monster in Hostel is the intense hatred and disgust the U.S. receives from the rest of the civilized world. In Roth’s film we see this hideous and horrendous monster grow into acts of evil that even the S.S. of Nazi Germany would frown upon. You see this monster in the eyes of the torturers’ faces as they take great care not to kill their over-priced, American, animal bitches too quickly. It clearly costs more for an American because the killers get more satisfaction from it. Hostel’s monster is a cultural one. It was given life via the way in which the U.S. makes decisions and the actions of our government. The reaction by the rest of the world has to be a monstrous one. The United States is a world power and has been since World War II. Because of this and our advances in military technology, Americans are afforded the luxury of being weak and soft. We don’t have to watch the news at night. We don’t have to worry about coming under attack. We were proven wrong on Sept. 11, but our government reacted in the wrong way. Our president even used the attack as an excuse to mobilize forces into Iraq. These actions were all blunders and the world recognizes that. Our false senses of security and superiority have caused us to become rude, arrogant, and ignorant. This has become such a problem that our allies are starting to turn against us. We lacked support from both France and Germany when entering Iraq. The U.S. felt that it didn’t need U.N. approval to liberate Iraq. These actions created Hostel’s monster. In a sense, we are the mothers and fathers of this monster. 18 February 2007. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.htm 19 February 2007. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206 Eno, Brian. â€Å"The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World† 12 Jan. 2003 time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,407288,00.html Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. â€Å"Monster Culture.† Monster Theory. Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. 3-6. Hostel. Dir. Eli Roth. Perf. Jay Hernandez, Derek Richardson, Rich Hoffman. Lion’s Gate Films, 2006. Research Papers on The Monster in Eli Roth’s HostelCapital PunishmentThe Effects of Illegal Immigration19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraArguments for Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS)Influences of Socio-Economic Status of Married MalesPETSTEL analysis of IndiaThe Relationship Between Delinquency and Drug UseThe Masque of the Red Death Room meaningsHip-Hop is ArtComparison: Letter from Birmingham and Crito

Why sleep affects our health Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Why sleep affects our health - Essay Example These possible negative health effects from sleep deprivation increase health care costs while at the same time decrease productivity in terms of information processing and attention while performing tasks. This insufficiency in sleep is one of the risk factors for major chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Major restorative functions of the body like repair of tissue, growth of muscle and synthesis of protein occur almost completely during sleep. As seen earlier, sleep deprivation can be caused by habitual behavior, where this is thought of as being harmless as well as the presence of an ongoing pathological disorder or condition associated with reduced total sleep time like sleep apnea and insomnia. Insufficient sleep can affect life expectancy and ones well-being in general. Studies have shown that sleeping for 5 hours or less per night can increase mortality risk by as much as 15%. Sleeping well does not necessarily guarantee that one will be in good health but it helps maintain many vital functions like tissue repair, growth and consequent development. It is not enough to sleep but is important to have quality sleep. This means that sleep should be uninterrupted as much as possible for the 8 hours in adult and for the recommended hours in other age groups. Many of the costs of poor sleep go unnoticed. Medical conditions like diabetes and cardiovascular diseases are likely to develop over long periods of time. This is not to say that this is the only risk factor for these diseases, but coupled with other factors like genetics, poor nutrition and leading a sedentary lifestyle the likelihood of developing these diseased is increased. Insufficient sleep is therefore considered an important risk factor for the development of these diseases and scientists have begun identifying connections that exists to support this. Most of them

Economics - to develop an understanding of what has happened in the Essay - 1

Economics - to develop an understanding of what has happened in the economy of the United Kingdom over the last two years - Essay Example The GDP of a country signifies the country’s overall growth. This indicates the heightened level of the economic activities and the high demand for the currency. The increase in the GDP always raises questions regarding the raised inflation levels as well which acts as an indicator to the monetary authorities to increase the interest levels within the country. The GDP and Inflation are normally based on two main concepts a) Consumer Prices Index and b) Retail Prices Index. The United Kingdom has seen a growth in the CPI over the years so as in the RPI. According to the national statistics, the CPI increase has been 5.2% and that of the RPI has been 5%. The increase in CPI and RPI is based a lot on the government and Bank of England contributions and looking at the stats it is very evident that the two have been contributing positively to the growth of the country (National Statistics: Inflation, 2008). The graph shows the growth over the past 4 years and if noticed there has b een an increase however this is expected to fall drastically over the next year. The Government and the Bank of England have made solid efforts to help the economy of the country. After studying the economy for the period 2006 – 2008, it has been noted that the Government and the Bank have played a very important role in the growth of the country’s economy. There have been constant efforts from the Government and the Bank of England to help the banks improve the current situation the government has taken steps of 50 billion pounds plan to nationalize the banks partly and also a promise of 250 million pounds has been made in the future. The Prime Minister has referred to this as a radical plan to assists the banks recover and get back into the normal course of business at the earliest. The Bank of England on the other hand has made available at least 200 billion pounds as short term loans to help

Comparing the ideas of Plato and Aristotle Essay

Comparing the ideas of Plato and Aristotle - Essay Example His ideas of politics and the government considered a city as a natural community that gave more importance to the family. He covered politics as an organism other than a machine, as well as, a collection of parts, which can exist without others. The political philosophy of both Plato and Aristotle were relevant and of reasonable concern because a person’s character, vices, virtues and desires, and most importantly education help in making a correct or relevant government. The two philosophers also agreed that governments and politics were vital to the characteristics of mankind. However, although the two philosophers agreed on some issues about government and politics, those opinions differed in one way or another. First, Plato was mostly concerned with the question of justice where he asked question of what a just state was, as well as, an individual. He states, â€Å"As concerning Justice what is it?† The question of what a just society is according to Plato is wide in the sense that it looks at the idea state where it is looked at a broader perspective (Plato, 47). Where a just society should have leaders who govern the society and who provide laws that should be followed by the society and individuals. Additionally, a just society is a society where each person performs their function without infringing in the rights of the others. Plato was having an argument an argument with Socrates and Polemarchus where they concluded, â€Å"Justice can be acknowledged not to be for the interest of the stronger, when the rulers unintentionally command things to be done, which are to their own injury (Plato, 56).† Therefore, justice is the obedience because the subjects render their comman ds. Aristotle, on the other hand, looks at political leadership where he views politicians as lawmakers who frame the appropriate constitution for the state to ensure that there is justice in the society (Aristotle, 188). Aristotle looks at justice in a government perceptive

Nozicks Wilt Chamberlain argument

Nozicks Wilt Chamberlain argument Explain and evaluate Nozicks Wilt Chamberlain argument. In Robert Nozicks famed Anarchy,State, and Utopia Nozick uses the example of a basketball player who becomes considerably richer than the rest of the population to demonstrate that liberty is incompatible with any patterned theory of distributive justice. This argument, if successful, would be a considerable challenge for Rawls because his theory prioritises liberty in his conception of justice but also requires some redistribution of wealth (as determined by the difference principle). If Nozick is right that a patterned theory (of which the difference principle is one) is incompatible with liberty then the Rawlsian project collapses into a libertarian theory because the first principle (liberty) must be favoured over the second redistributive principle. First I will argue that the Wilt Chamberlain argument is not question-begging because it assumes self-ownership and not absolute property rights (the latter is what the patterned theory must deny) and attempts to derive the latter fr om the former. Second I will argue that interpreting liberty as self-ownership does entail the incompatibility of liberty and a patterned theory as long as we do away with a Lockean proviso on initial acquisition. Nozick categorises theories of distributive justice by two classifications. The first classification is whether a theory is historical or ahistorical which is the distinction between whether a theory takes into account past actions/events/circumstances (historical) or not (ahistorical). The more important distinction that Nozick makes between varying theories of distributive justice is between patterned and unpatterned theories. A patterned theory of justice is one in which distributive shares are determined or correlated with some variable. For example a utilitarian theory of justice would be a patterned theory of justice because it would distribute social goods according to how much utility they promote. An unpatterned theory would not determine who is to get what by reference to some variable in the world. The best (and seemingly the only) way to interpret an unpatterned theory of justice is to not determine who is to get what but by what means who can get what; we may call this a procedural theory of justice. Nozicks argument against patterned theories of justice is that they are incompatible with liberty and uses the example of Wilt Chamberlain to argue for this point. In an imaginary world we assume a patterned theory of justice. Although it doesnt (and shouldnt as the example is meant to show that all patterned theories of justice are incompatible with liberty) matter which patterned theory we choose we will assume an egalitarian theory. So in the initial situation (from here on D1) we assume that the social goods in society have been distributed equally. In D1 Wilt Chamberlain, a famous basketball player, strikes an agreement with his club that for every ticket sold he will receive 25 cents (Nozick 1997:208). As a result of this Wilt Chamberlain becomes very wealthy and so upsets the patterned theory because society becomes more unequal (from here on D2). About this case Nozick can be interpreted as arguing the following: Ex hypothesi in D1 each person is justly entitled to their share of goods. This entails that no person in D1 has a claim of injustice against any other person(Nozick 1997:208-9). If everyone is entitled to their goods then they are to be at liberty to do with them whatever they want i.e. they have absolute property rights. An egalitarian principle denies that each is to be at liberty to do as they wish with their goods because it upsets the patterned theory of equality (as it does in D2). Therefore an egalitarian principle of distributive justice is incompatible with liberty. As there is no good reason to think that any other patterned theory of justice cannot be upset by liberty then any patterned theory of justice is incompatible with liberty. The essential point that Nozick is trying to make is that if each person is entitled to their goods in D1 then how can it be possible for an unjust situation to occur in D2 after each person voluntarily gives money to Wilt Chamberlain in order to see him play? As Nozick puts it, how can an unjust situation arise from people transferring their money to Wilt when each customer had no claim of justice on any holding of the others before the transfer ?(Nozick 1997:209). An initial objection may be that in society people will always freely trade (i.e. not have their property taken coercively in order to maintain a distributive principle) in accordance with that distributive principle. This objection misses the point because all Nozick is trying to show is that a patterned theory of justice is in principle incompatible with liberty. That is, any patterned theory of justice doesnt necessitate a respect for liberty. A more serious problem for Nozick arises in trying to establish (2) because it seems to beg the question against the patterned theorist. For exactly what the patterned theorist denies is that each individual has absolute property rights over the goods that have been distributed to him. When goods are redistributed after D2 in order to correct the unpatterned distribution that Wilt and his customers caused then this is not a violation of Wilts liberty because he had no absolute rights over his goods. If he had no absolute rights over his goods then when his goods are taken from him then Wilt cannot complain that his liberty has been violated. His liberty to do with his goods as he wishes is only his right to do with his goods as he pleases and if he has no absolute rights over his goods (which is exactly what the patterned theorist denies) then his liberty has not been violated under any circumstance in which it is taken e.g. not violated when in accordance with the patterned theory. In order to establish the incompatibility of liberty and any patterned theory non-question-beggingly then Nozick must give independent support for absolute property rights. Nozick does give independent reasons for absolute property rights and these are not reasons that the patterned theorist necessarily denies. Whilst the patterned theorist necessarily denies absolute property rights they dont necessarily deny the principle that each person is the owner of their own bodies i.e. the principle of self-ownership. Even if Nozick fails in his attempt at this he has not begged the question against the patterned theorist because the denial of self-ownership is not what the patterned theorist has denied in the Wilt Chamberlain argument, rather, what he has denied are absolute property rights. If self-ownership does entail absolute property rights then the patterned theorist must, by modus tollens, deny self-ownership as they necessarily deny absolute property rights. But you dont beg the qu estion against an opponent by asserting a conditional that entails the denial of your opponents point otherwise all of philosophy would be question-begging! Rather Nozick has provided a new argument and it is for the patterned theorist to deny this in order to deny the Wilt Chamberlain argument. If Nozick is to demonstrate that liberty is incompatible with any patterned theory then in order to avoid begging the question Nozick must give independent support to the idea of absolute property rights. If people are forbidden from exercising their right to property (e.g. their right to keep their property despite it being incompatible with a pattern) then we may say their liberty has been violated just as we say that a person whose right to speech has been violated has also had their liberty violated. So conceived liberty is just a collection of rights;we are at liberty to do something so long as we have a right to do that thing and no-one prevents us from exercising that right. An example that supports this conception of liberty is given by Ryan (Wolff 1992:93) where we would think it absurd to say that a professors liberty has been violated by him being prevented from transferring his tenure to his children. We think that his liberty hasnt been violated because he had no right t o transfer his tenure in the first place. Therefore our liberties are dependent on our rights. Liberty is violated when a right is violated and if peoples right to property is absolute then taking it from them without their consent violates their right to that property and so their liberty too. When we say that property rights are absolute we do not mean that people have the right to use their property literally however they want for that would give people a right to throw their spears at somebody without provocation. Rather we mean that people may use their property however they wish as long as they dont interfere with others using their property as they wish and crucially that they may use their property despite it not maintaining a patterned distribution. Can Nozick give independent support for absolute property rights (and not merely postulate them)? His attempt at this starts with the thesis of self-ownership (Kymlicka 2002:107): 6. Persons have the right to decide how they use their bodies as long as they dont interfere with anybody else using their body. Self-ownership is essentially an absolute property right to your own body; we are to be at liberty to use our bodies in any way we wish as long as we respect the like rights of others. Self-ownership seems intuitively a very plausible starting place for any normative theory. If it is denied then either other people have a claim on our bodies or nobody has a claim on our bodies or their own bodies. If people dont have the right to decide what they should do with their bodies then in what sense is slavery wrong (slavery that is better than no slavery, to cut short the utilitarian response)? Self-ownership seems to have enormous explanatory power for our moral intuitions as it explains why slavery, murder, rape, kidnapping and almost any other use of force is seen as wrong. An initial implication of this is that it would be wrong in a world where people are born with different numbers of eyes to take, without consent, peoples eyes in order to achieve a more equal distribution of eyes (C ohen 1995:70). This is one way in which a patterned theory would violate rights and thus liberty but Nozick wants to take aim at all patterned theories not just some. For example Rawls patterned theory would guarantee the right to freedom of speech and freedom of thought which are both guaranteed by self-ownership. Nozick wants to attack the Rawlsian redistribution of private property (i.e. property that is not identical to your own body) and show that violations of these private property rights (and thus liberty) is tantamount to denying self-ownership.The point is as follows: 7. If (6) is true then anyone can gain an absolute property right to any part of the world as long as they dont worsen the condition of others. (7) follows from (6) because (6) implies that we may do anything we wish as long as we dont interfere with others doing what they wish. It doesnt matter exactly how we acquire a piece of property only that it seems we must use our bodies. For how else could something that was not originally ours become ours? If this is the case then we may acquire property because we acquire property through the use of our bodies and we have the right to use our bodies as we want. The clause in (7) is introduced in order to try and stop the acquisition of property which deprives another of that right to it. For when we acquire a piece of land then it comes ours and it is up to us if others are to be able to use it and thus no-one else can have a say over how that piece of land is to be used. Nozick thinks this is acceptable as long as we hold a proviso on exactly when we may acquire a piece of land. We may only acquire a piece of land if the acquisition of that piece of land materially worsens the co nditions of anybody else who would use that piece of land. We only worsen the condition of others if they have less of what they need than if we had not acquired the piece of land that we did. For example we may not take the only full water hole in an area and deprive others of the water in it because we are clearly worsening the conditions of others. He doesnt specify exactly what happens to someones property once the Lockean proviso is violated just saying that there become stringent limitsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦on what he may do with his property(Nozick 1974:180). He seems to doubt that we could even call it that persons property. If the argument is successful it will show that people can gain absolute property rights and thus that patterned theories are unjust because they involve violating those property rights and thus liberty in order to maintain a pattern. The problem with the above argument is that the self-ownership thesis does not entail (7). Specifically it doesnt entail the Lockean proviso and the proviso seems completely ad-hoc. If Nozick admits that our ability to acquire property is dependent on how it affects the materials that others can have access (and thus their welfare) to then how is this different to weakening the property rights in order to achieve greater utility via a patterned theory? Nozicks proviso seems arbitrary in that he gives no reason why we should select his Lockean proviso over another. If we should limit the acquisition of property because of its harmful effects on others then why shouldnt we accept another Lockean proviso such as one that maximises the welfare of others? I believe that Nozick specifically selects that principle because of his interpretation of interfering in (6). For he wants to forbid acquiring property when that interferes with others acquiring property. This seems to be a mistaken int erpretation of the interfering which seems to be essentially depriving another of a negative liberty rather than a positive liberty. The distinction between positive and negative rights is essentially the distinction between what others have a duty to do and what they have a duty not to do. For example my right to not be killed is a duty that others have to not murder me and so is a negative duty whilst my right to an education is generally conceived as a duty that my lecturers have to come and lecture me about distributive justice. So I have a negative right if I have a right that people dont do something to me whilst if I have a positive right I have a right that someone provide something to me. Interfering is naturally construed as violating negative rights such as when we say that people have a right not to be interfered with. So we should interpret the self-ownership thesis as saying that we may do as we want with our bodies (including using them to acquire property) as long as we dont stop others using their bodies as they wish (including them acquiring property). So our negative right to use our body as we wish is somebody elses duty to not stop us from using it as we wish. We do not have a positive right to use our body as we wish and thus nobody has a duty to help or assist us in someway of using our bodies as we wish. This means that we have the negative right to acquire property and so everybody has a duty to restrain from stopping me acquiring property unless in doing so I am violating the negative right of someone else to acquire or maintain property. When I acquire property it does stop others acquiring property but this is nothing to the point, since you had no right to that plot (Narveson 1987:62). For nobody had a right to that piece of land until I got there and it became mine and when it becomes mine then nobody may violate my right to that property. So Nozick makes the mistake of assuming that by acquiring a piece of land I am interfering w ith somebody elses right to that piece of land. But in actual fact I am not violating anybodys right to that piece of land because I only have the duty of not violating anybody elses right to property but nobody had a negative right to that piece of property because it was me who first acquired it. So self-ownership guarantees that I may acquire property using my body and that I may acquire property as long as I dont interfere with the property rights that others already have and as interfere is violating a negative right we dont interfere with someone else acquiring property by acquiring that property because they had no positive right to a piece of land rather only the negative right that someone else not stop them acquiring a piece of land. Thus self-ownership does not require a Lockean proviso in order to acquire property because the mere depriving someone of a piece of land doesnt constitute interference. The implications for the Wilt Chamberlain case is that each person acquir es a right to that piece of property and that we may use our property in anyway that we wish as long as we dont violate the negative rights of someone else to their property. In the Wilt Chamberlain case nobody is violating anybody elses right to property by buying tickers because nobody is stopping anybody else using their property as they wish and therefore the redistribution to maintain the pattern violates the negative rights of Wilt to his property. As we have identified the violation of a right as correspondingly the violation of a liberty then it can be said that redistribution violates the liberty of Wilt by violating his liberty to do with his property as he wishes. In conclusion it seems that the Wilt Chamberlain argument does provide a good argument to show why patterned theories of justice are incompatible with liberty. We first identified that the violation of a right to do something is best described as the violation of a liberty to do something. Then we argued that in order for Nozick to avoid begging the question against the patterned theorist he must give independent support to the idea of absolute property rights which give somebody the right to use their property even if it upsets a distributive pattern. Nozick tries to argue for absolute property right from the basis of self-ownership which is the idea that each person is to have the right to use their body as they wish (which includes using it to acquire property rights) as long as they dont interfere with others using their bodies as they wish. Nozicks Lockean proviso on acquisition is not entailed by self-ownership because interference is defined only as the negative right to acqui re property and we are not violating somebody elses right to that piece of property by acquiring it because they only had the negative right of the opportunity to acquire it and not the positive right to somebody else not taking it for themselves. As self-ownership guarantees that people may acquire and use property as they want as long as they dont violate the negative rights of others to their property then the taking of Wilts property (his money) is a violation of his absolute property rights and is therefore a violation of his liberty. Bibliography Nozick,R., Anarchy,State, and Utopia 1974 Wolf,J., Robert Nozick: Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and the Minimal State 1991 Cohen,G.A., Self-ownership,freedom and equality 1995 Narveson,J., The libertarian idea 1987 Kymlicka,W., Contemporary political philosophy 1990

Comical and Satirized Characters in Pride and Prejudice and Sense and S

Jane Austen's use of satire in her novels, Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, break from the boundaries of sentimental writing. This left Austen open to a lifetime of criticism, only to be hailed after her time as one of the greatest writers of the English language. Much of Austen?s social commentary on Regency England was done through flat comical characters such as Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Collins, Lady Catherine, Mrs. Jennings, and others. All of which are amusingly oblivious to anything deeper than the rules and aspirations set by society. The dialogue of their interactions and the irony of their situations add humor as well as reinforce the idiocy presented by the very first line of Pride and Prejudice, "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" (Austen 3). Mrs. Bennet?s actions as a mother are not unjustified. Because the Bennet estate was entailed, the marriage of her daughters was necessary for their secured wellbeing. In Chapter 20 Elizabeth refuses Mr. Collins marriage proposal. Her mother, who views the match as advantageous, is outraged and expresses her grief to Mr. Bennet, ?Nobody can tell what I suffer! - But it is always so. Those who do not complain are never pitied? (Austen 130). Austen?s criticism is clarified by Mrs. Bennet?s obsession with marriage, ?The business of her life was to get her daughters married? (Austen 6). ?Happy for all her maternal feelings was the day on which Mrs. Bennet got rid of her two most deserving daughters? (Austen 432). Mrs. Bennet?s ideas of marriage fully overlook love of the person. They settle in her foundations that happiness with another person is provided by an improvement in wealth or social st... ...zzle, the characters Jane Austen satirizes would fall short in fitting everything together. Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Collins, Lady Catherine, Mrs. Jennings, and all the other comedic characters in the novels appear only to see the shape of people. They focus on wealth, status, and connections. Even when the outline of the pieces fit, they fail to any make sense when put together. The reason being the characters Austen pokes fun at are so focus on the externals. They are ignorant to the individual image inside each piece. Austen uses flat satirical characters to add interest and humor to her works, but also to comment on the faults in peoples? attitudes toward society, marriage, possessions, and position. Works Cited Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Norwalk: The Easton Press, 2007. Austen, Jane. Sense and Sensibility. New York: Barnes and Noble Inc., 2006.

Reaction time Essay

Back crawl is different to most strokes because you cannot see where you are going. I know that the skill backstroke is a weakness of my performance because my coach informs me that I have a weak leg kick action. If your leg kick is weak it can make your body position fall slightly diagonally into the water. He tells me I need to bend my knees more and flex my ankles when kicking. My arm action provides most of the power, as my arms make circling actions as they move in and out of the water. Overall the arm action is good but I need to reach and stretch more into every stroke. Also I drop my head forwards into the water and don’t hold it back enough. This can make my body position sink, therefore I need to lift my hips up and make sure my head is looking up instead of down, consequently the overall efficiency would be improved. Also as a part of my backstroke technique, my backstroke tumble turns are a weakness in my performance. I know this because I have had video analysis and it shows that sometimes I do to many arm pulls into the turn on my front, where as your only supposed to do one. Therefore my arm action is too soon, and I need to do less front arm pulls. In the somersault part of the tumble turn, the overall rotation is not fast enough, because my body position isn’t in a tight enough tuck shape. I need to kick harder with my legs so that I rotate and flip faster. When I glide off the wall in a streamline position my butterfly leg action is weak, therefore I don’t get enough distance underwater and sometimes I don’t even reach the flags. The overall efficiency of the tumble turn is slow and not fluent. Strategy/Tactic Weaknesses: Building up through out a 800m/ Long-distance race. When I swim long distance races I find it hard to increase my pace through out the race therefore a maintain the same speed. I know this tactic is a weakness in my performance because I know am more of a sprint/middle distance swimmer, and also I prefer to take part in these events.  Components of Fitness Weaknesses:  The component of fitness speed is a weakness in my performance because it is proven that in fitness testing I have scored only average. In swimming speed is the ability to exert maximum muscular contraction instantly in an explosive burst of movements, example a sprint start of the diving blocks. You need speed more when your swimming sprint races example 50m ,100m races. There is a significant degree of technique when trying to build up speed. It’s all about a mix of breathing, arm and feet movements, but you must have good muscle force behind before you can increase your speed. There is the fact that some people are just born with an ability to go faster than others. Whilst you can train faster you might never be as fast as your training partner, as they may have a different muscle composition that they’ve inherited. This will in itself help them go faster. So speed is most important in sprint races and starts. Another weakness in my performance is the fitness component, reaction time. Reaction time is being able to respond quickly to a stimulus. It important in many sports though it can be measured. Simple reaction time is the time taken between a stimulus and movement e.g., sprint start off a diving block. For example at the start of a swimming race the official signals a gun or a type of noise that indicates you to start the race, you have to respond quickly to this. Therefore reaction time is essential at the start of a race. I know that reaction time is a weakness in my performance because it is proven that in fitness testing a have scored below average. So when I combine my reaction time in swimming to the start of a race, I am slower at reacting to the starters gun. Therefore this is something I need to improve on.

Racial Identity Development Personal Essay †Sociology Paper

Racial Identity Development Personal Essay – Sociology Paper Free Online Research Papers Racial Identity Development Personal Essay Sociology Paper My name is Hakyoon Anfo. I am 22 year olds and I am Korean. I just immigrate 3 years ago. Actually I grew up in Korea, so I can not speak in English. I did what I want to do when I was in Korea because there are 100% pure Koreans live in Korea and I am male, so nobody care what I want to do. I was the dominant group of majority,sexuality and most of categories, but it completely changed. After I immigrate here, I could not be majority or dominant group anymore. There are four categories of Identity development which are the White racial, Minority racial/Ethnic, Black racial and Biracial Identity development. (Poston) I am belonging to minority racial/ethnic identity development, so I do not have many disadvantages than native born or white people. One of disadvantages is ignoring or makes fun of me when I ask something to native born people. That happen makes me uncomfortable. My dad also had one of disadvantage happen last time. Actually previous owner used that heater, and he never used heater which is in his office, but ‘Puget sound energy’ charged my dad to pay previous payment. According to one of my math classmate Sun-Jae said, â€Å"I had disadvantage on buying my car!† Sun-Jae went to dealer to buy his car, and he did not get any profit and then they charged him to pay high interest and tax, but he did not know about that because he could not speak in English at that time. Also one of my classmates Josh said that he saw some bad situation that Asian his friends can not go inside the club because they are just Asian. I have some advantages too. It does not matter who is white or Asian or whatever other race people. Male can walk around the street or campus during the night time. That is what I did when I was in Korea too. Another advantage is my parents allow me to meet girl friend, even my mom love to see my girl friend, but my parents never allow let my sister have or meet any boy friend. I think most of parents want their daughter not to meet boy friend. The thing is that I have many disadvantages than what I have advantage after I immigrate here. I learned 4 categories of racial identity development and 4 stages of each category. Especially I memorized minority racial/ethnic category, but I do not think I changed my social life positively. I knew all the information that I can change my social life but it is really hard to overcome cultural conflict between Korea and the United States. I am always reminding those stages but sometimes I just lost my reason when minority situation came up to me, but now, way better than before I take this Intra America History class. It is going to be better and better so on. â€Å"It’s always been this way, and it always will† (Johnson, 142). This is one of his Myths in his chapter entitled: â€Å"What can we do?† I disagree with some parts of his words and I totally agree with some parts of his words. I do not like this passage that it’s always been this way, and it always will. Do we have to let it go same as what it did? I think we have to change if we can. Everything is process, the space between one point and another, the movement from one thing toward another, just like this century also one of step for the future. I totally agree with Johnson’s argue. There are so many different racial people or groups in the world, and they have different culture and customs each of them. So there are many problems, conflict between each other. The Johnson’s second Myth is Gandhi’s paradox and the myth of no effect, this myth story’s point is really similar with Korean Proverb Proverb. â€Å"If people in one united body, they will survive but if they separate by each one of them, they will die† (Korean proverb). That means if we respect each of different racial people or groups, we could live perfect world that does not have ‘ism’. So we must stop waiting wonderland and we should change our destiny. Research Papers on Racial Identity Development Personal Essay - Sociology PaperAnalysis of Ebay Expanding into AsiaHonest Iagos Truth through DeceptionBook Review on The Autobiography of Malcolm XHip-Hop is Art19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraPersonal Experience with Teen PregnancyThe Hockey GameResearch Process Part OneCapital PunishmentThe Masque of the Red Death Room meanings

Listen to the Radio in French is Écouter la Radio

Listen to the Radio in French is Écouter la Radio Mistakes will always be made in French, and now you can learn from them. The verb  Ãƒ ©couter  does not need a preposition to connect it to the next word. So when youre listening to the radio or anything else in French, you would not add a preposition, as you would in English:      Jà ©coute la radio.   Im listening to the radio.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Il aime à ©couter les discours. He likes listening to speeches.  Ã‚     Ãƒâ€°coutez la voix de la sagesse. Listen to the voice of reason.     Elle va te faire à ©couter un chanson.   Shes going to play you a song.       Verbs and Prepositions: To Add or Not To Add Many French verbs do need a preposition such  as or de- by far the most common- to connect them to the next verb and complete their meaning. Its this way in English, too; consider to look at and to take care of. But many of the most common French verbs, such as aller, croire, faire, falloir, penser, pouvoir, sentir, savoir, venir, voir and vouloir,  do not need a preposition at all and are usually in constructions that go directly from conjugated verb to infinitive or conjugated verb to direct object: no preposition   infinitive no preposition   direct object The confusion arises for English-language speakers when the prepositions required for French verbs are not the same as the ones required by their English equivalents, or when some verbs that require a preposition in English dont take one in French, and vice versa. couter Doesnt Need a Preposition Écouter  is one of those French verbs that are  not followed by a preposition whereas their English equivalents are.   The explanation? The French verb à ©couter means to listen to, which cancels the need to add another preposition. Beginners often mistakenly add after à ©couter, in effect saying to listen to to something. And that is a classic French learners mistake. Some French learners find it helpful to memorize lists of verbs by the prepositions they require, while others prefer a master list of  alphabetized verbs. Additional Resources How to Use French verbs with and without prepositions  Ã‚  List of correct prepositions that follow French verbs, if anyMost common French prepositionsFrench infinitives

Risk Management in Panama Canal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Risk Management in Panama Canal - Essay Example The papers highlight different risk analysis techniques that are applicable in analyzing risk, in Panama Canal. Risk analysis techniques used in forecasting are categorized in either qualitative or quantitative method. Qualitative techniques base their finds and conclusions on opinions and feelings of individuals. These include opinions and judgments of experts, consumers or scholars. Quantitative methods of risk analysis are based on numerical records over in the period. Quantitative analysis of different categories of project requirements and resources are recorded in the paper. The analysis includes meaning, standard deviation and means of all categories of resources, possible risks, costs, and conditions necessary for the Panama Canal project.The paper comprises of different steps and procedures taken in the development of the Panama Canal as highlighted by Kendrick (2006). Identification of the work and deliverables was the first step carried out in Panama Canal. Secondly, there was the organization of project work and clear determination of work breakdown structure on the Panama Canal project. Most of Stevens’s effects were utilized in the preparation of the initial work on the canal. Work breakdown structure is then decomposed into lower-level components that would be functional. These components are assigned identification codes. Lastly, examination of decomposition is carried out to assess whether the decomposed components are complete and clear.

Supreme Court Winery Decision Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Supreme Court Winery Decision - Essay Example It is plausible to note that the ruling destroyed the distribution chain by the wine fabricating companies including chain stores, wholesalers, and retailers (Bravin A1). The system reduced benefits since it boosts unemployment in the United States. Although the decision might create a new market niche for the country’s products, the benefits are enjoyed at the expense of collapse of local infant/inefficient industries. Kantianism suggests that although some actions could bring about more happiness than the others could, there is a possibility of being prohibited. Based on this principle, the Supreme Court ruling was morally upright since it encouraged equality, transparency, and fairness in the market. In fact, if all states and countries could act and emulate the earlier ruling, then globalization together with its benefits could be a nightmare. There is the essence of collaboration and competition in the market, which benefits all market participants. The earlier law did not respect the goals of the human being but rather was used to protect the local industries and presumed consumption of alcohol by young Americans. According to Kantianism theory, the moral of an action does not depend on whether the presumed action is wrong or right on their consequences, but rather on whether such action fulfills its duty (Bravin A6). Out-of-state wineries can still conduct online businesses with their customers in a socially accepted manner. Tax is a fundamental ingredient to the government that assures benefits to the greatest majorities. In this perspective, online out-of-sale wineries would be considered dealing in a moral perspective only if they contribute a significant amount of the profits as tax to the government to support the establishment and creation of public goods.