Effects Of Bush’s Foreign Policies Essay Example for Free

Effects Of Bush’s Foreign Policies Essay It is not without reason that analysts and scholars alike find Bush’s foreign policy to be alienating the united states in the international system and practicing unilateralism when making key international decisions. Key to these policies is what has come to be referred to as â€Å"Bush Doctrine†; this is to denote the nature of President’s Bush dominant policy adopted after the occurrences of the September 11, 2001. Many admit that U. S foreign policy changed dramatically after that attack, assuming isolationism, a radical shift from the key ideals Bush espoused during his campaigns (Brzezinski, Z, 2004) Bush foreign policy during his campaigns was on bedrock of improved relations with the nations in Latin America. However, most of his efforts in both his first and second terms have been taken up by his involvement in the wars; both Iraq and Afghanistan. This whoever is not the only reason he has been receiving criticism. He has overruled and withdrawn from core global initiatives that have put the nation on a collision path with other countries across Europe and Asia. The Kyoto protocol for example is one where the rest the world is united in its criticism for the United States decision to pour cold water on it. Kyoto Protocol is a convention that was aimed at significantly reducing and controlling the amount of greenhouse gases emissions. Despite the fact that the United States is the biggest emitter of these gases, it has been adamant in the protocols ratification. During Presidents Bush reign, the United States has backtracked on the agreement signed thirty years back in 1972 between the country and the Soviet Union. America made that decision in 2002. In making the decision Bush claimed hat the step was necessitated by the need to protect the United States citizens and interests across the world from terrorists and other enemy states (Alterman, E. Mark G. , 2004). It is also in this period that America withdrew from the Ottawa treaty that seeks to ban landmines use or their production. The United States now sits together with China and Russia amongst others that have refused to join in the treaty. This is just but a superficial look of the trend that has been characteristic of Bush foreign policy, a policy that has been under much criticism both within and outside the United states. It is the war on terror that has raised questions over it legitimacy and appropriateness with most in the United States questioning whether President Bush has usurped the authority of the congress in the military engagements abroad. To understand Bush foreign policy, it is important that the analysis be carried out in accordance to the specific region or countries. The United States foreign policy is defined in accordance to the type of a relationship that both states enjoy and how important a country is towards America or the amount of the threat it poses either in trade or security wise. Europe for example continues to enjoy a lukewarm reception from the United States especially over the much criticism and lackluster support given during the Iraq war. A key ally in Europe remains the United Kingdom especially in the reign of Tony Blair as the Prime Minister (Dalby, Simon, 2005). Interestingly though is Bush focus on the African continent more than any sitting president in the white house. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is for example a program initiated by President Bush with an intention of reducing the prevalence rate and the impact of the AIDS scourge across Africa especially in the sub-Saharan region. This remains the hallmark of Bush administration-accomplishments in Africa, with most analysts saying it is a legacy building venture. These, together with Doha round talks. President Bush is still contending with the challenges that his policies are producing. The relation with China is one such headache. Prior to his election, Bush had vowed to introduce a foreign policy that would be a radical shift from his predecessor president Bill Clinton, on the United States relationship with China, saying that he would consider China as a competitor. The recent decades have seen China grow and emerge from an abyss of unknown to become a global player and a great threat to the United States. Both these nations appear to be on a clashing course, trading accusations and counter accusations. The issues at hand have centered on the intellectual property rights with the Bush administration accusing Beijing of violating the IPR of American companies. The U. S has also accused China on its human rights record. Notable however has been the cordial relations that the Bush administration and the Chinese government have enjoyed over the past years though underneath they are both very weary of each other and cautious. Under Bush’s rule, positively though, both countries have been moving towards improved cooperation with most in the United States acknowledging the massive threat posed to the nation by one of the fastest growing economy in the world. With the Korean nuclear headache in mind, Bush has had no choice than to initiate cooperation with China. In fact many attribute the current economic woes in America to the stiff competition from China. None however has received the largest portion of Bush in terms of attention than the Middle East. It has remained a region that has witnessed a downfall to his popularity ratings in the United States and across the world. His focus in the Middle East kicked off in earnest after the September 11th attack and war on terror officially commenced after he launched a military strike against the Taliban in Afghanistan and installed in administration friendly to the United States interests. He also initiated a massive hunt for Osama Bin Laden the Al Qaeda leader but still has not paid off yet. Following on the steps of Bill Clinton who signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, President Bush launched a much-criticized war against Saddam Hussein that succeeded in his removal and execution. Prior to attacking Iraq, Bush had tried to convince the Security Council to pass a resolution that would compel Iraq to allow inspectors and initiate a full process of disarmament. It is against this backdrop that Bush went on and ordered a strike starting a war hat has continued to paint him in a bad light. This remains a glaring dent to his presidency. Since the days of President Richard Nixon and President Lyndon Johnson, never has the history of the United States witnessed public out roar over the nation’s foreign policy like it has seen since 2001. Where initially analysts and the public were supportive of the war believing the strikes against terror would be quick and decisive, as Bush had made people to believe, this support as years went by turned into consternation and apprehension. Bush is simply not getting enough and wanted a shot at Iraq misleading the congress that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States. He committed troops to Iraq in one of the most costly war the United States has ever seen, costly in terms of financial expenses and public morale. Both combined the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have cost the United States over three hundred and fifty billion dollars at the moment and more is lined up by the congressional budge. This much against growing resentment at home and skepticism over where the war in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the nation safer. Political and economic advisors together with prominent policy advisors have admitted that this spending in the war is to blame for the fiscal and monetary crisis facing the country. There is a backlash in the United States economy. Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska admitted that the war spending have gone way above the prior tentative projections. Putting it candidly, he said Bush was out of touch with the reality. The economic recession in the United States is real. Whereas the current economic wars facing the United States cannot be fully attributed to the war in middle east, as there are many factors in the international system that have contributed to this, the ineptitude of Bush foreign policy has had a role to play, as some analysts concede. Bush has been unable to combine his ambitious plan in foreign policy with tenable fiscal and monetary strategies to ensure the economy survives the international shocks. The worst critics of Bush foreign policy and spending are the democrats who justifiably have criticized Bush administration plans to cover the deficit in the war budget with appropriation outside the budget instead of cutting at on non priority government projects. It was fool handy for Bush to go it alone in the Iraq war as it is the taxpayers who have to shoulder the costs unlike in the gulf war where senior Bush was able to convince allies to chip in. more so, Bush senior’s invasion of Iraq to liberate Kuwait was more justified and he also had the publics support (Ambrosias, Lloyd E. , 2006). Bush’s ‘lone ranger’ foreign policies are hurting the country more than he or his strategists are willing to admit. First of all Bush has altered keys ideals of the international system in which the Americans corporations survive. Most of the United States foreign investments are located in Europe and pacific. The U. S put the relations between the United States and these two key regions at jeopardy by the U. S unilateralist. The France and Germany diplomatic rows on the justification of the Iraq war may have been just but a tip of the iceberg (Carter, Graydon, 2004). Bush foreign policies have made it clear that the United States is a lone ranger and would go at whatever cost to protect its interests, the opinion of other key players in the international system not withstanding. This is fast eroding the cordial relations that existed before. The trade policies are a good example to this; with a single stroke he introduced tariffs on trade hurting the revenue of hundreds of companies. The cost of the war is huge and some analysts are accusing Bush administration of under estimating the figure. Joseph Stiglitz an economic strategist and a Nobel prize winner in his book â€Å"The three trillion dollar war† claims that president Bush is largely misrepresenting the figures. President Bush has maintained that the war in Iraq cannot be possibly the cause of the economic slump experienced in the United States; rather it is the prevailing economic conditions. Bush went ahead and said in retrospect, the war has created jobs and the need for more manufacturer and supplies from the United States companies. His argument, Joseph Stiglitz, argues is based on a traditional thought that the war is good for the economy as it lead to an expansion of the economy. This is a belief that economists no longer share. The economy is slumping because the federal government in its bid to correct the situation introduced liquidity and people have taken to debts to finance their expeditions. The oil prices have soared and are leaving the country with huge debts especially from the Middle East. A poll that has been conducted lately found that majority of the Americans believes that the war in Iraq has been having profound impact on the economy. Seventy percent of those polled believe that Bush war is to blame; this is contrary to what president Bush thinks is the cause. To him, the economic recession is caused by people building too â€Å"many houses† (Carter, Graydon, 2004). The economic cost of the war aside, the magnitude of the loss is discouraging coupled with other negative effects the Bush foreign policies are having on the pubic psyche. The turn around made by the Bush administration after the September 11th attack has played a great deal in demonizing people along religious lives. Bush has succeeded in orchestrating a campaign that has crated a negative perception towards Muslims not only in the clutter stakes but also worldwide. Muslims in America are viewed as extremists waiting to blow up bombs, a dangerous perception indeed that has altered how people relate with each other. Analysts claim that such kind of perception and open hatred policies against Muslims could further fuel the urge towards extremism. His immigration policies are also having a profound effect on Americans social life and corporation’s profits. Big corporations in the United States have been surviving on labor drawn from immigrants, as it is cheap. The tough measure taken by the Bush administration has compounded this and the corporations are already feeling the pinch. It has become increasingly difficult for immigrants to settle in the United States and worse still there are talks of deporting the illegal immigrants already in the United States. This is as a result of a generalized belief that the immigrants could play a great role in stalling progress in the anti-terror wars at home (Dalby, Simon, 2005). The international standing of the United States has largely been dented. The Bush foreign policy continues to create an image of arrogance and unilateralism. It has exhibited rogue and brutish tendencies that has made the world wary of its relations. Bush stand after the September 11th attack that posited that there was no middle ground on the war on terror -you are either with us or against us- risk isolating the United States from the rest of the world and putting its interests world wide at a great security risk. A recent opinion poll has indicated the image of the United States has declined greatly since 2003 after the commencing of the search to the elusive weapons. Its stand as a moral police has been questioned greatly. Major protests held worldwide and specifically in the countries considered to be U. S allies traditionally like Germany is a great indicator of this. U. S reputation in the Middle East has taken a great stride backwards and countries have become soft targets for terrorists for associating with America (Ivo H. D. James M. L. , 2005). President George Bush since his election in 2000 has introduced a foreign policy that has largely contributed in isolating the United States from the rest of the world. His tenure in office has seen him wage two wars and other foreign policies that have been blamed by many to be the cause of the ongoing economic recession. The unemployment rate is at 46 percent and the Americans are feeling the pinch. The international standing of the nation has been jeopardized by the involvement in the illegitimate war and gross abuse of the rights of the suspected terrorists both at home and abroad A shift in policy is needed with the United States embracing multilateralism especially regarding serious issues like terrorism. Huge costs of war can also be avoided through political settlements. References Alterman, Eric and Mark Green, 2004. The Book on Bush: How George W. Bush (Mis) Leads America. New York: Viking Press. Brzezinski, Zbigniew, 2004. The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. New York: Basic Books. Carter, Graydon, 2004. What We’ve Lost: How the Bush Administration Has Curtailed Our Freedoms, Mortgaged Our Economy, Ravaged Our Environment, and Damaged Our Standing in the World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Bivens, Ph. D. , L. Josh, December 14, 2004. Debt and Dollar. Economic Policy Institute. Dalby, Simon, 2005. Geopolitics, Grand Strategy, and the Bush Doctrine. Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies Working Papers Ambrosias, Lloyd E. , 2006. â€Å"Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush: Historical Comparisons of Ends and Means in Their Foreign Policies,† Diplomatic History. Britton, Gregory, 2006. â€Å"September 11, American ‘Exceptionalism’, and the War in Iraq,† Australasian Journal of American Studies. Ivo H. Daalder James M. Lindsay, 2005. America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy.

The Physics of Swinging :: Physics Swinging Essays

The Physics of Swinging My son begs to watch me swing on one of the swing sets at the park. I tell him that there is so much work involved and I don’t know if I have the energy to do all of the many things it takes to make a swing move. It’s such an innocent plea, but complicated in the terms of the actual process of it. The physics of swinging has so many components. From resonance to force, and from the period of the swing to the conversion of energy, the process of swinging is actually a complicated matter. While you watch a person swing, place your hand at the maximum point of the swing’s achieved height and then count how many seconds it takes to return back to that same height. You have just measured the period of the swing. The period of the swing is the time it takes the swing to make one full move back and forth. The equation used to solve for the period mathematically is T = 2p (square root of L/g), where L is the length of the pendulum, and g is gravity. There are a few things that can change the period of a pendulum. As length increases and as the force of gravity increases so will the period. Likewise, when both gravity and length of the chains decrease, the period does also. My reference Mark Nethercott says that if there are no outside influences, the period stays constant at about 15 degrees of arch, but the amplitude must be low. This statement corresponds with Newton’s first law of motion (law of inertia) that says, â€Å"Every object remains at rest or in motion in a straight line at constant speed unless acted on by an unbalanced force.† (Physics, A World View p.31). A force other than gravity and the length of the swing can alter the outcome of a period. While standing with your hand out, measuring the period, give the person on the swing a push. â€Å"Periodic motion is motion that repeats itself at regular intervals of time and resonance is periodic increases of the amplitude of periodic motion due to a force at a constant interval. So while you push the person on the swing, you are creating a form of resonance for the swing.† –Mark Nethercott. There is one last force that changes the period of a swing, and that is squatting and standing, or leaning back and forth.

Discuss the Economic Advantages and Disadvantages to the Uk of Participation in the

Discuss the economic advantages and disadvantages to the UK of participation in the European single currency (Euro). Will British businesses be better or worse off if the country decides to participate? Introduction of Euro in the world’s monetary union is a milestone. Eleven countries were going to create EMU at the beginning, now there is a long queue to join in EMU. Most of the EMU members get more advantage then disadvantage to join in Euro. Euro creates a large market in the Eurozone. Three core members of EU (Great Britain, Sweden and Denmark) still not participate in European single currency. Many European countries are very excited to join in EU, some of them decided to implement European rate mechanism- 2 (ERM-2). If Britain accept euro then the country poses both advantage and disadvantage. Productivity and living standard will increase if Britain joins in Euro. If they will not join, they have chance to fall further behind. European Union European Union is the union of twenty-seven countries. Most of the members of European Union come to join in EU from European Continent. The origin of European Union associated with foundation of European coal and steel community. Treaties of Rome or Schuman declaration formed European Economic Commission. Both these bodies are essential parts of European Union. Rome treaty signed in 1957 for creating European Economic Community (EEC). Belgium, France, Netherlands, Luxemburg, West Germany and Italy are the core six members of EEC. During that period, West Germany and Netherlands built nexus among them by the help of European Steel and Coal Community. Among the six countries of EEC, they allowed free movement of labour and capital. Free trade also allowed. They abolished internal tariffs among them and set external tariffs. In enlargement stage, UK, Denmark and Ireland become member of EEC. Greece, Spain and Portugal joined in EEC in 1981 and 1986 respectively. After this enlargement stage, the commission president Jacquas Delors signed single European act. In 1992, the Maastricht treaty signed to establish European Union. According to Sloman and Sutcliffe (2004, p. 563) â€Å"May 2004 marks the latest expansion, with 10 new members joining. These are Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Solvakia and Solvenia†. European single currency: Euro is the single currency among the countries that include in European Union. Other countries also adopt the single currencies. In 1932, the chairman of German Bank Hans F? rstenberg gave the idea about European currency to set up European central bank. The idea came about euro currency among the countries before Second World War. Idea of European integration became stronger after Second World War. Some sequential incidents happen after the war. In 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSE) established, Rome treaty signed in 1957 and at the same time, European Economic Community formed. Rome treaty and Economic Community both made the path for euro to lunch. European monetary system established for full monetary support in 1979. According to Solman and Sutcliffe (2004, p. 741) â€Å"Details of the path towards EMU were finalised in the Maastricht treaty, which was signed in February 1992. The timetable for EMU involved adaptation of a single currency by 1999 at the latest†. Therefore, Maastricht treaty made the path for euro easier. Before joining the euro currency, each country fulfilled five criteria, which set by the European central Bank. The eleven members of EU out of fifteen could fulfil the criteria and joined in Euro. Sweden and Greece could not fulfil the criteria. Later 2001, Greece joined in Euro. Euro came in to the market on 1 January of 1999 but the bank note and coin were introduced 2002. National currency of the European countries withdrawn from market due to introduce euro notes and coin. Road to EMU European Monetary Union proposed by Delors committee report. The road to EMU described in three phases. Phase 1: Remove the entire trade barrier in internal market including capital controls among the countries. Enhanced coordination from different countries in the economic and monetary policy. Phase 2: European Monetary Institute (EMI) established. EMI monitored macroeconomic convergence of members according to Maastricht treaty. In that stage, commission prepared logistic and organisation framework for ECB. Phase 3: In that stage, Union fixed the exchange rate, euro introduced as a single currency. European Monetary Institute replaced by establishment of European Central Bank. Advantage of Single Currency Several advantages deserves, if one country join in to the single currency such as eliminating transaction cost, avoid exchange rate uncertainty, increase transparency of price, increase credibility of monetary union. All the member of European Union gets equal opportunity and benefits. The countries get benefit in the case of converting currencies. Every European Countries have separate currency. When anyone converting the currency of any European country in to another European country’s currency then the converting cost added each time. If we used single currency, we can easily minimize the converting cost. According to Solman and Sutcliffe (2004, p. 742) â€Å"the European commission estimated that the effect was to increase the GDP of the countries concerned by an average of only 0. 4 percent†. United state of America whose have 51 states with one single currency. They get benefit of single currency in their market. Euro currency gives the chance to European country to make a large single market. Pricing difference increased in market if we cannot use single currency. Pricing depends on rate of currencies. Therefore, we get same product in different price due to different rate of different currencies. Single currency increased the transparency of product price. Invest increased in euro zone because there is one single currency available. According to Solman and Sutcliffe (2004, p. 42) â€Å"investment from the rest of the world is attracted to a euro zone of over 300 million inhabitants, where there is no fear of internal currency movements†. Travel becomes easier due to euro. There is no hassle in converting currencies. No time waste during travel due to single currency which used in everywhere in euro zone. According to Solman and Sutcliffe (2004, p. 743) â€Å"A single monetary policy convergence in inflation rates. Provided the ECB succeeds in remaining independent from short-term political manipulation, this is likely to result in a lower average inflation rate in the eurozone countries†. Therefore, the single currency helps lower inflation rate in eurozone. Abolish the market barrier is another advantage in eurozone. Abolishment of trade barrier helps to maximise profit and increase market size. In eurozone, there is no market barrier among the members and they can easily market their product in eurozone. Disadvantage of Single Currency The European Union brings lot of advantage to members. Some are argue that it also brings some disadvantages. When euro introduce, EMU members have to invest huge amount of money to change payroll, pricelist, database, software and so on. It is an investment cost, which arises due to lunch euro. Previous coins and banks note removed from the market, cost of previous coins and notes also include in investment cost. Some of the countries change their trade patters due to introduce euro. If the country accepted euro as a single currency then the country cannot accept separate national monetary policy. Only European Central Bank can conduct monetary policy in Europe. Most of the people take seriously the issue that we lose our independence in policy making. According to Solman and Sutcliffe (2004, p. 43) â€Å"Another problem for members of a single currency occurs in adjusting to a shock when that shock affects members to different degrees. These are known as asymmetric shocks†. In case of asymmetric shocks no European countries have no right to utilize national monetary policy survey, they should try to find out another option for fighting against asymmetric shocks. Single currency also effect in country’s independency. Local government faced problem when they lose the independency. Single currency increased the lost of human capital, because capital moved freely in eurozone. Skilled worked and specialist will try to look for better jobs and wages in other countries. It means that skilled full worked migrate to east to west to take advantages of higher benefits and wages. Economic advantages for UK to participate in the single currency: It is become a big issue whether Britain join or not join in Euro. Every decision has some advantage and disadvantage. Joining Britain in single currency has some economic advantage and disadvantage. Country’s people and government of Britain are collecting information to make their mind about entry in to the single currency zone. Increase income & living of Standard: In 1956, France and Germany had overtaken of Britain position in living of standard, because France and Germany decided to join European common market. Then in 1973, Britain joined in ECM and stopped their declining situation. European countries are making a united market by the help of single currency. These single currencies help European countries to increase their income and living of standard. If Britain not joins, they fall behind. Problems in Exchange rate: before lunching euro, Germany faced exchange rate risk if they sold their products in Britain, Italy or any European countries. After lunching euro, they have no risk because they (European countries) used euro as a single currency but Britain still have the same risk. Eliminating exchange rate fluctuations and increase the price transparency then we can reduce the investment risk- and the total process required a single currency. Therefore, by the help of euro, Britain can easily reduce the investment risk. Large single market: we can easily make a large single market in Europe. This large single market arise more competition and increase trade. All European counties got the benefits of single market so why not Britain? Britain medium size country, which is dependent on international trade so, separate currency become a disadvantage for Britain even they cannot neglect the exchange rate like as US. In single market, producers are going to reach more customers simultaneously customers can easily get the product from wide range of suppliers. Economic disadvantage of UK participating in the single currency UK still not participates in Euro due to same obstacles. Government of UK takes their time to analyse and understanding their position. UK takes several problems with great concern. Same interest rate: In the eurozone, every country has some interest rate, which selected by the European central bank. Britain thinks that European central bank set their interest for whole Europe not for Britain. However, Britain thinks that, one interest rate is not suitable for different countries for every times- it means that one size does not fit all. Britain will cut down their interest rate if they faced in negative shock (asymmetric shock). Britain can easily cut down their interest rate because hey still not participate in euro and they have own independent budgetary policy. This budgetary policy can easily used to minimize the shock and stabilize the economy. According to Sloman and Sutcliffe (2004, p. 745) â€Å"in the UK, a large proportion of borrowings is at variables interest rates. In Germany, by contrast, much is at fixed rates. Thus if the ECB were to raise interest rates, the deflationary effects would be felt dispro portionately in the UK†. So, it is true that, the interest rate which is select for eurozone creates different impacts on each country. Unemployment rate: different unemployment rate going through among European countries. Over 8% unemployment rate in France, Germany, Italy. Where as Austria, Ireland, Sweden have only 4% unemployment rate but Britain have below 4%. Increasing the unemployment rate in eurozone is not mistake of European Union. This mistake creates by different national policy among different countries. Minimum wage rate is high in UK than any other countries of Eurozone, so skilled full manpower come here to work and UK faces unemployment problems. Britain think joining euro is like that joins in exchange rate mechanism. They think, ERM was fixed exchange rate system in Europe. This mechanism helps us in exchange our currency not more than that. In case of British Business: The positive effect and negative effect of Euro may be different from country to country. It is very tough for us to identify all of the effect. In the Eurozone, each country has different financial system and euro make some positive and negative effect on their business. In the below, we describe about UK’s business condition if they join in euro. Positive Side Giant euro firm will create with substantial economic power due to free movements of capital. Many European company is merger recently. British business can easily get benefits to join euro and merge with other company in European continent to maximize profit. If UK joins in Euro, the inward investment will increase. According to Sloman and Sutclifffe (2004, p. 742) â€Å"from 1990 to 1999, the UK’s share of inward investment to the EU was nearly 40 percent. From 1999 to 2002, it was 24 percent†. So, inward investment diverted to eurozone from UK. Britain thinks that if they join in euro, then European Union passed law which affecting Britain. Then, they have no power of influence over European countries. Britain ideas is totally wrong because Britain still not participate in Euro and European Union gives no more emphasize (showed any honour) on Britain. It is better for Britain that joins in euro and influence European Union as well as outside Europe. Britain can easily organise regular meeting among European countries and represent the European central bank. This way, help Britain to influence over European business cycle. Negative Side Most serious issue is that, the British currency continues to fluctuate against the Euro. It is real disadvantage for business. Suppose a firm produces machine in Britain and sells them in France. Company pay wages in pounds, the goods become expansive to the consumer among eurozone if the pounds become expansive. Therefore, the firm cannot sells as much as they expected, even they accepts a lower profit margin. The firm go to bankrupt situation due to firm’s profit fall. It is a example of business risk. Separate currency increase the business risk for any company. Most of the company faced this type of business risk because Britain still not participates in single currency. British businesses are going to worse situation due to absence of single currency. London city is the largest financial centre. More people worked in London in financial services than Frankfurt, Europe’s next largest centre. We know that finance is a footloose industry and London is a city of mergers and acquisition, or foreign exchange trading. London city enjoys a success cycle by self-reinforcing. The cycle of the success will be broken due to absence from the Euro. Conclusion European Union tries to establish a eurozone. Many European countries showed interest to join in EU but we cannot still predict how benefit it for member of EU. Britain still not participate in Eurozone, it is true single currency can boosted the economy but in Britain value of pound still strong against dollar and other currencies of the world. Higher value of pound is an advantage of Britain to attract a lot of foreign investor. Some economist suggested that Britain should join in Euro due to falling rate of pounds but euro cannot make any advantage of UK economy. Same monetary policy applied in eurozone which create more controversy. It is true that a single monetary policy is inappropriate to deal with asymmetric shocks. To join euro means loss of independency in policy making another way we can say that loss sovereignty of a country. References: Sloman J & Sutcliffe M (2004). Economics for Business, 3rd edn, NJ: Pearson Education McAleese D (1997). Economics for Business, Harlow: Prentice Hall http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Euro http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/European_union http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Pounds http://www. google. co. uk/

The Kantian View of Animal Ethics

Kant’s Ethics of Metaphysics: A Response To the Charge of Speciesism I. In this paper I will present the charge of speciesism contended by many animal right’s activists. I will attempt to substantiate Immanuel Kant’s view on animal morality and justify how his philosophy is not in violation of speciesism. Furthermore, I will explain how the Kantian view still grants animals some moral consideration through the designation of â€Å"indirect duties†. Lastly, I will present a difficulty with accepting the Kantian view of â€Å"indirect duties† towards animals.Moral quandaries regarding animals are still demanding the attention of many philosophers as they attempt to modify and inspect the relationship between morality and social policy. Contemporary applications of this issue can range from experimentations on animals for developing medicines (or even cosmetics) to whether human beings should avoid eating animal-based foods. There is a vast spectrum of moral issues that arise with respect to animals. However, most of the morally questionable situations are contingent on one fundamental question: do animals even have moral rights?And if so, to what extent? Although animal moral considerability has peaked the interest of many contemporary philosophers, such as James Rachels and Peter Singer, the question is really an age-old question that can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle. Immanuel Kant has probed the question of whether an animal has moral considerability. Kant continuously makes the distinction between humans and animals throughout his best-known contributions to moral philosophy.Therefore, I will address and present the counter-argument to the charge of speciesism, one of critical arguments of the animal rights movement, through a Kantian lens. II. One of the prevailing charges on humanity proposed by champions of animal rights is that humans act in violation of ‘speciesism’. The term, first coined by psycho logist Richard Ryder in 1973, is used to describe an arbitrary bias that humans have towards their own species (Homo sapiens).The argument is as follows: to assign primacy to humans by considering only a human to be within the system of morality is similar to other types of discrimination, such as racism and sexism. Just as in racism and sexism the dominating force arbitrarily assumes itself as the normative ideal, in this case whites or males respectively, so too human beings arbitrarily assume themselves as the ideal and to be the only species deserving of morality. Therefore, because there is no legitimate basis for this distinction, other species of animals should be equally included within the system of morality.Ryder believes that those in violation of speciesism â€Å"overlook and underestimate the similarities between the discriminator (humans) and those discriminated against (animals or any other species). † His argument assumes that most animals are fundamentally th e same. Of course those who charge humanity to be guilty of ‘speciesism’ acknowledge that there are obvious differences between humans and non-humans. They just believe these differences to be irrelevant for delineating the scope of a moral system. Man’s higher intelligence, being the most conspicuous difference, should have no authority on morality.If intelligence were the decisive factor then it would follow that people who are intellectually superior should be treated with superior moral standards. Moreover, some apes could potentially have more intelligence than a human if the human was insane or otherwise intellectually compromised. Thus, although intelligence is the distinguishing factor between most human beings and non-humans, it cannot be the sole criterion for defining a moral system . III. It would appear that aside from intelligence (that has no moral bearing) there is no fundamental quality that separates humans and non-humans.Therefore, animals real ly should be treated with equal moral standards, and those who do not equate moral rights are guilty of speciesism. Philosopher Michael Pollan challenges Kant with being in violation of arbitrary discrimination of animals; â€Å"none of these (Kant’s) argument evade the charge of speciesism† (pg 439 Vice and Virtue). So we are left with the daunting question: is there any validity to Pollan’s claim? At first it would appear that Kant presupposes human beings as the only species worthy of morality without giving any explanatory criterion. Kant evelops one of his foundational doctrines called â€Å"The Categorical Imperative†, which can be summarized in the following sentence: â€Å"Act in such a way that you treat humanity in such a way, whether in ourselves or in others, as an end in itself† (Groundwork II). It seems that Kant believes that human beings bar none deserve what he calls ‘respect’ or what we are calling moral consideration . However, after a closer examination it becomes apparent that Kant is not guilty of speciesism at all. In a remarkably similar excerpt Kant says, â€Å"as rational beings, we must always at the same time be valued as ends (pg 239 4:430).It is almost as if Kant just substituted the phrase humanity with rational beings. When both excerpts are read in conjunction it becomes apparent that Kant includes human beings into his moral system not because of an arbitrary nepotism towards his own kind (homo sapiens) but because of a human being’s attribute of rationality. In other words, Kant’s criterion for moral considerability is rationality and not intelligence. When Kant says to treat humanity in such a way, he is referring to a human’s rational nature, which happens to be the unique quality of human beings and is thus presented as rationality’s synonym.According to Kant, rationality is not the same as intelligence and is what makes human beings worthy of mora l consideration and animals unworthy. Rationality is the ability to be governed autonomously and make advised decisions of what is right and wrong. It is not the ability to display reasoning skills. Therefore, a being, such as a chimpanzee with excellent cognitive abilities, cannot exercise rationality, which is Kant’s basis for morality. Human beings, on the other hand, belong to a ‘Kingdom of Ends’, where moral laws are meticulously chosen by each individual.This capability to discern and choose which laws have absolute moral worth binds all human beings in a cohesive moral community. Each member of this community has the authority to legislate and decide which laws are unconditional and then subsequently act in accordance with those laws. Not even the highest functioning chimpanzee has the capability to decide whether an action can be universally applied. Nor can a chimpanzee mull over the question â€Å"what ought I do? †. Thus it follows that a person only has obligations towards other beings that can obligate themselves, or act rationally.Kant chose rationality as the marker that defines the line of required morality because of its pureness. Rational knowledge is not influenced by history, anthropology or psychology. It is not qualified by emotion. Other potential values, such as intelligence, have the possibility of being used immorally; â€Å"Intelligence and wit are doubtless in many respects good and desirable but they can also become extremely harmful if the will†¦is not good (pg 231). † Consequently, a being’s rationality, the ability to decide whether an action is ‘good’ universally, is the only incorruptible value that could define the scope of morality..Now that it is clear that Kant is not guilty of speciesism, since his moral system is predicated on the standard of rationality, one can still ask how Kantian Ethics views animals. Kantian Ethics prescribes indirect duties towards animals . This means that it is wrong to act maliciously towards animals because it will damage a person’s sympathies. Damaging ones sympathies will inevitability lead to a failure of ones duties to others. On the one hand, animals cannot be granted direct duties, for they lack rationality. Their moral value is categorized in a sort of limbo between inanimate objects and human beings.On a practical level, a Kantian might perform the same actions towards animals as a Utilitarian would. But Kantian Ethics is problematic for many philosophers, at least in theory. Christina Hoff offers an example where a â€Å"kind† man spends his life fulfilling his duties to himself and towards other human beings except he secretly burns stray dogs to death. Despite how disturbing and wrong this seems, Kantian ethics does not consider this man as having committed any wrongful action in and of itself. The suffering of the dogs is only problematic as it affects our duties to rational beings.It is difficult to challenge the Kantian view of animals on philosophical grounds. The Kantian moral system is consistent in that it is rooted in the assumption that rationality alone has absolute moral value. To challenge this assumption would involve dismantling Kant’s entire moral system by showing why rationality is inadequate as the supreme value. When Kant is concerned with damaging our sympathies he is only concerned in so far as sympathies ability to promote rationality and the ability to fulfill ones duties. He does not award sympathy any independent value.Yet, to allow, even if just in theory, the scenario of the man burning dogs seems against common morality. To be indifferent to an animals suffering is intuitively immoral. An animal rights champion would be more likely do adopt a Utilitarian view, which incorporates suffering into the fabric of its moral system. IV. Consequently, Kant can evade attempts to label him guilty of speciesism. Kantian ethics does have a crite rion that differentiates humans and non-humans. With rationality as its hallmark, Kantian Ethics views animals as deserving of only indirect moral considerability.As Christine Korsgaard explains in her essay Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals, â€Å"moral laws may be viewed as the laws legislated by all rational beings in the Kingdom of Ends (pg 5) Animals incidentally do not share this capacity for rationality. But if they did, they would surely be included. Interestingly, when referring to animals he ambiguously labels them as a human being’s analogue. Perhaps Kant was identifying that animals have similar qualities such as intelligence that link us together. But animals are analogues and not exactly similar.As such, Kant grants animals some moral considerabilitiy, through indirect duties, but not equal moral considerability. A being earns moral considerability only through the capacity to implement the Categorical Imperative and exercise an autonomous level of cogni tion, not through reasoning skills or mathematical abilities. Therefore, animals rightfully have moral limitations. Works Cited: 1)Ryder, Richard. â€Å"Richard Ryder: All Beings That Feel Pain Deserve Human Rights | World News | The Guardian. † Latest News, Sport and Comment from the Guardian | The Guardian. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. 2)Kant, Immanuel, and H. J. Paton. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Print. 3)Sommers, Christina, Frederic Tamler Sommers. Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2003. Print 4)Korsgaard, Christine M. â€Å"Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals. † Www. Tannerlectures. utah. edu. University of Utah Press Volume 25/26. Web Author’s personal website 5)Sebo, Jeff. â€Å"A Critique of the Kantian Theory of Indirect Moral Duties to Animals. † Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume II Pp. 1-14, 2004. Web.

History of the Invention of Fireworks

History of the Invention of Fireworks Many people associate fireworks with Independence Day, but their original use was in New Years celebrations. Do you know how fireworks were invented? Legend tells of a Chinese cook who accidentally spilled saltpeter into a cooking fire, producing an interesting flame. Saltpeter, an ingredient in gunpowder, was used as a flavoring salt sometimes. The other gunpowder ingredients, charcoal and sulfur, also were common in early fires. Though the mixture burned with a pretty flame in a fire, it exploded if it was enclosed in a bamboo tube. History This serendipitous invention of gunpowder appears to have occurred about 2000 years ago, with exploding firecrackers produced later during the Song dynasty (960-1279) by a Chinese monk named Li Tian, who lived near the city of Liu Yang in Hunan Province. These firecrackers were bamboo shoots filled with gunpowder. They were exploded at the commencement of the new year to scare away evil spirits. Much of the modern focus of fireworks is on light and color, but loud noise (known as gung pow or bian pao) was desirable in a religious firework, since that was what frightened the spirits. By the 15th century, fireworks were a traditional part of other celebrations, such as military victories and weddings. The Chinese story is well-known, though its possible fireworks really were invented in India or Arabia. From Firecrackers to Rockets In addition to exploding gunpowder for firecrackers, the Chinese used gunpowder combustion for propulsion. Handcarved wooden rockets, shaped like dragons, shot rocket-powered arrows at the Mongol invaders in 1279. Explorers took knowledge of gunpowder, fireworks, and rockets back with them when they returned home. Arabians in the 7th century referred to rockets as Chinese arrows. Marco Polo is credited with bringing gunpowder to Europe in the 13th century. The crusaders also brought the information with them. Beyond Gunpowder Many fireworks are made in much the same way today as they were hundreds of years ago. However, some modifications have been made. Modern fireworks may include designer colors, like salmon, pink, and aqua, that werent available in the past. In 2004, Disneyland in California starting launching fireworks using compressed air rather than gunpowder. Electronic timers were used to explode the shells. That was the first time the launch system was used commercially, allowing for increased accuracy in timing (so shows could be put to music) and reducing smoke and fumes from big displays.

Definition and Types of Illocutionary Force

Definition and Types of Illocutionary Force In speech-act theory, illocutionary force  refers to a speakers intention in delivering an utterance  or to the kind of illocutionary act the speaker is performing. Also known as an illocutionary function  or illocutionary point. In Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function (1997), Van Vallin and LaPolla state that illocutionary force refers to whether an utterance is an assertion, a question, a command or an expression of a wish. These are different types of illocutionary force, which means that we can talk about interrogative illocutionary force, imperative illocutionary force, optative illocutionary force, and declarative illocutionary force. The terms illocutionary act and illocutionary force were introduced by British linguistic philosopher John L. Austin in How to Do Things With Words (1962). Examples and Observations Illocutionary Act and Illocutionary Force [A]n illocutionary act refers to the type of function a speaker intends to accomplish in the course of producing an utterance. It is an act accomplished in speaking and defined within a system of social conventions. Thus, if John says to Mary Pass me the glasses, please, he performs the illocutionary act of requesting or ordering Mary to hand the glasses over to him. The functions or actions just mentioned are also referred to as the illocutionary force or illocutionary point of the speech act. The illocutionary force of a speech act is the effect a speech act is intended to have by a speaker. Indeed, the term speech act in its narrow sense is often taken to refer specifically to illocutionary act.(Yan Huang, The Oxford Dictionary of Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, 2012) Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices There are different devices used to indicate how an illocutionary force must be interpreted. For example, Open the door and Could you open the door have the same propositional content (open the door), but they represent different illocutionary acts- an order and a request respectively. These devices that aid the hearer in identifying the illocutionary force of the utterance are referred to as the illocutionary force indicating devices or IFIDs [also called illocutionary force markers]. Performative verbs, mood, word order, intonation, stress are examples of IFIDs.(Elizabeth Flores Salgado,  The Pragmatics of Requests and Apologies. John Benjamins, 2011) I may indicate the kind of illocutionary act I am performing by beginning the sentence with I apologize, I warn, I state, etc. Often, in actual speech situations, the context will make it clear what the illocutionary force of the utterance is, without its being necessary to invoke the appropriate explicit illocutionary force indicator.(John R. Searle,  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, 1969) I Was Just Saying That Kenneth Parcell: Im sorry, Mr. Jordan. Im just overworked. With my page duties and being Mr. Donaghys assistant, theres not enough hours in the day.Tracy Jordan: Im sorry about that. But just let me know if theres any way I can help.Kenneth: Actually, there is one thing...Tracy: No! I was just saying that! Why cant you read human facial cues (Jack McBrayer and Tracy Morgan, Cutbacks. 30 Rock, April 9, 2009) Pragmatic Competence Achieving pragmatic competence involves the ability to understand the illocutionary force of an utterance, that is, what a speaker intends by making it. This is particularly important in cross-cultural encounters since the same form (e.g. When are you leaving?) can vary in its illocutionary force depending on the context in which it is made (e.g. May I have a ride with you? or Dont you think it is time for you to go?).(Sandra Lee McKay, Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford University Press, 2002) What I Really Mean When I say how are you to a co-worker, I really mean hello. Although I know what I mean by how are you, it is possible that the receiver does not know that I mean hello and actually proceeds to give me a fifteen-minute discourse on his various maladies.(George Ritzer, Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. Allyn Bacon, 1980)

Case Analysis Part IV Lab Report Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Case Analysis Part IV - Lab Report Example Therefore, nondelivery of the certificate does not intervene in any way with passing the title. The same conclusion has been reached by the Court in the case of Wood Chevrolet Co. v. Bank of the Southeast3, where it was held that: â€Å"†¦non-delivery of a certificate of title at the time of a sale does not prevent the passage of title from the seller to the buyer.... This is true even where a state's certificate of title act provides that no title can be acquired in an automobile until the certificate of title has been issued.†. In conclusion, title to the car passed to Mann at the moment of physical possesion of the car being transferred to him. CHAPTER 17 CASE 3 I believe that in this case, Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc. must be held liable for the damages caused to Young and it should certainly cover the damages caused to the plaintiff. Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc. has certainly breached the contract concluded with Young. Due to the fact that Frankâ₠¬â„¢s Nursery & Crafts, Inc. ... v. Johnson4, the Court held that, in order to avoid the injured party not recovering her losses, â€Å"Ohio law allows a damaged lost volume seller to recover its lost profits from the breached sale in addition to traditional breach of contract damages†, thus applying the lost volume seller theory. According to Goldberg, V.P., â€Å" In cases in which the seller is a retailer, the conclusion is (a) yes, the seller does suffer damages, (b) the damages are the market price of the service of selling the goods, (c) the market price of selling is approximately the gross margin, (d) even though the damages are incurred, full compensation would probably be inefficient, and (e) the law ought to encourage the parties to use nonrefundable deposits as liquidated damages.†5 Therefore, I believe that the Court ought to apply the lost volume seller theory in this case and, thus, reduce Young’s damages to minimum. CHAPTER 18 CASE 6 I strongly believe that the Benfers did have c ause of action against the retailer – Thomas, along with the manufacturer - Town & Country Mobile Homes, Inc. Thomas was the one who actually convinced the Benfers, by showing them a model mobile home, that the mobile home had the one-quarter-inch sheathing on the siding that made it better than cheaper units, by this intentionally misleading the couple and creating for them a misrepresentation on the product they were about to purchase. Moreover, Thomas, by knowingly proposing the Benfers a more expensive unit, which supposedly had the sheathing desired by the potential buyers, actually lied to them, by taking the price for a more expensive product and offering them a cheaper one. Moreover, by delivering to the purchasers the written warranty, which stated that the mobile home had the