Sunday, November 3, 2019
PERSONAL STATEMENT on masters in ECONOMIC REGULATION AND COMPETITION Essay
PERSONAL STATEMENT on masters in ECONOMIC REGULATION AND COMPETITION POLICY - Essay Example Being a female who looks at life from an optimistic mindset, I hail from the Sultanate of Oman and am 20 years old. I have qualified from high school where I understood the basic nuances of life. My academic interests within high school helped me become the head of student council which allowed me a chance to properly understand how work processes within the student regimes were handled. It also gave me an opportunity to believe in the dictum of living for others more than my own self. I transpired to me that I could gain quite a lot if I involved myself whole-heartedly within the student council affairs and thus my vision was geared to look after the people whom I was representing within the high school. Due to my commitment levels shown in the school, I was made the head delegate to model United Nations from Sultanate of Oman to Geneva, Switzerland. I learned a great deal within my high school days, which empowered me to comprehend how life will shape up in the coming times. I beli eve being an economics student, I can better adapt to the financial and accounting dynamics which are significant in the time and age of today. Economics is an important discipline and should be analyzed in such a manner that there is immense growth and development within the related ranks of an individual. I envision economics to be an important part of my life as this has shaped up my professional domains in essence. Since the world is moving ahead at a fast pace, getting acquainted with economics is definitely a point of advantage because it puts the economic champions to know what they are talking about and how to mold the financial management issues with the way learning is done. Within the Sultanate of Oman, I opine that economics has been a successful case study because it has empowered the oil rich state to use its resources in a viable manner – a manner in which there is more efficiency and productivity than anything else. As far as my educational journey is concerne d, I am doing my University Bachelors degree (Joint Honors) from the City University. My majors are International Politics and Sociology. I hope to be a graduate in the summer of 2011. This degree program offers me a chance to understand how economics of competition are manifested as well as the economics of regulation. The applied competition policy, sectoral competition and regulation, and the quantitative techniques for competition and regulation with the regulation law are important tenets of the degree program. My studies have not taken up all of my time. I have paid attention to my personal and professional grooming as well. What this has done is to make me feel proud of who I am and how I interact with the people around me. This is a much looked for aspect in the present day and age, and I am no stranger to this phenomenon. I like to mingle within debates so that my skills get polished. I usually speak on all topics which are clear to my understanding and which make me feel a t home with the topic at hand. I compete with people so that my abilities become strong and hence my competitive spirit is taken in a very positive manner by all concerned. I am usually a good orator as I like to speak fluently and that too within different languages. I speak well on economics and the different economic tangents, which are a central part of any business enterprise and indeed the entire industry of which economics is an integral link. Current affairs are something that I
Friday, November 1, 2019
How do relationships affect an organization In what ways are they Personal Statement
How do relationships affect an organization In what ways are they positive in terms of efficiency - Personal Statement Example The same applies to a soccer team that wins the trophy at the end of the derby. Achieving desirable results when many characters are involved all boils down to creating an effective team. An unfortunate scenario where workers do not understand or relate well with one another could be termed as poor social working environment. An organization housing such irregularities would soon plunge into great debts and losses unless there is some divine- economic intervention. A real socially functional working environment is not achievable by instinct but by practise. For workers to know each other well, it is the prerogative of the management to engage them in team building activities and cooperation and co-ordination workshops all through in the life of the company (Reis & Leukefeld, 1998). In conclusion to have an effective team, employees must learn to relate well with one another. It goes a long way in minimizing conflict between workers so that more time is saved, and less energy is applied in carrying out tasks. This kind of efficiency ultimately translates to increased
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
CDC children observation Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words
CDC children observation - Assignment Example The second child is Kate, a girl aged 3 years. She is also an active child. Her favorite activity is playing with dolls. As noted the boy is very keen on detail. He plays with his toy car alone at a corner of the playfield. He does not interact with other kids except in situations when they come to him. He seems friendly whenever another child spoke to him. However, he concentrates on the playing with his toy car. At one occasion, he seems to observe something unusual with one of the wheels. He takes up a screwdriver and tries to untighten the screw so that he can remove the wheel. However, he is unable to do it. He seeks help from the caretaker who quickly untightens the screw for him. The boy seems convinced that the wheel has a problem. He looks carefully all around. He notices each detail and observes that the plastic when is cracked. He does not replace the when since there seems to be no replacement. He takes his toy car to the store. I also observed the girl several times. She seemed to enjoy the company of other children. In fact, I did not see her alone at any time. She was always with friends. The girl loves dolls and has several of them. She takes motherly care for them. I observed her trying to feed one of the dolls, soothed it and also lay it to sleep. Along with other girls, she tries to talk to them, assuming that they can hear. She is also quick to cry whenever she is offended by one of her friends. The toys that children use in the center are gender specific. For example, boys are seen to be playing with toy cars. The toy cars are characteristic of male children and are thus male gendered. However, there are also a small number of girls attracted to toy cars. On the other hand, girls are interested in playing mother roles. All of the girls have dolls. Also, I did not see any boy with a doll. Children at the center are always quarreling over toys and playing space. The staff members try to resolve all the
Monday, October 28, 2019
Therapeutic Cloning Essay Example for Free
Therapeutic Cloning Essay Introduction            Cloning is the practice of creating a genetically the same copy of an original creature. And although it seems like twentieth-century idea, cloning is actually a part of natural processes, and had taken place many decades before though it was attainable. Since a variant of the cloning process plays such a large role in stem therapies, it’s worth taking a look at how cloning processes work (Cohen, 2002).            Most public attention has been focused on the area called reproductive cloning – reproducing an entire creature be it frog, sheep, dog, or human being. As the twenty-first century unfolds, it is far more likely that what has been called therapeutic cloning – cloning used to cure disease – is going to have a more immediate impact on all our lives. Your chances of getting a cloned liver are greater than your chances of seeing a cloned you (Avise, 2004). Therapeutic Cloning            Relative to genetic testing, therapeutic cloning is a technology very much in its infancy. Whereas we can plausibly predict, that genetic testing methods and the scope of such tests will dramatically improve in the proximate future, a like projection in the case of therapeutic cloning is more of a stretch. This view notwithstanding, analysis of current regulation of therapeutic cloning does have something to gain from postulating a future world in which therapeutic cloning is in clinical application (Savulescu Hendrick, 2003).            One likely application of therapeutic cloning is in the treatment of leukemia, and more broadly in various types of tissue and organ transplantation. Therapeutic cloning is important for four seasons. First, there is a shortage of tissue for transplantation. Second, there are problems with compatibility of transplanted tissue form another individual, requiring immunosuppressive therapy with serious side effects. Cloned tissue would be compatible without the infectious risks of xenotransplants. Third, the role of transplantation might be expanded to include common diseases such as heart attack and stroke. Fourth, cloning may prove to be a cost-efficient means of preventing disability and morbidity, and of promoting distributive justice (Shannon, 2005).            In considering the ethical aspects of therapeutic cloning there are two separate issues: should embryos produced during in vitro fertilization (IVF), which would otherwise be discarded, be available for research (with the consent of the couple who produced them); and, should we deliberately create embryos for use in research? It is difficult to argue against using embryos that would otherwise be discarded. The main ethical issue raised by both the production of ES cells and therapeutic cloning, is that of destroying embryos for the purposed of research or tissue for transplantation. If the embryo is considered to have a moral status similar to, say, a child, them embryo research would normally be wrong. On this view, IVF and almost any termination of pregnancy would also be wrong. A less absolute position would be that what is wrong with destroying embryos is a need to respect human life in general. But that wrong need to be balanced against the value of such research. Furthermore, for every live birth, up to five embryos will miscarry. In attempting to have a child by natural conception, we implicitly accept that this loss is a price worth paying to produce a new life. If the loss of embryos is an acceptable price to pay to produce a new life, is it not also an acceptable price to pay to save an existing life (Avise, 2004)? Tissue Therapy via Therapeutic Cloning            More than 40 years elapsed since Joseph Murray and his colleagues at a Boston hospital successfully transplanted a kidney between identical twins. This landmark approach was later extended by the medical community to other organs (e.g., heart, liver, lung, and pancreas) and to transplants involving more distant relatives and unrelated individuals. Transplants between unrelated individuals are especially challenging because, unless ameliorative actions are taken, the immune system of a transplant recipient sooner or later rejects the alien cells. To alleviate this problem, donor and recipient typically are matched as closely as possible for genes underlying immune responses, and immune-suppressive drugs also are administered. Such procedures are fairly common and have saved many lives. Nonetheless, modern transplantation surgery remains risky due to inherent immunological intolerances of patients to foreign tissue (Cohen, 2002).            Thus, many research professionals are excited about â€Å"therapeutic cloning,†a new genetically modified (GM) approach that in theory should avoid the immunorejection problem. In this procedure, genes in cells to be transplanted originate from the patient, who therefore serves in effect as both donor and recipient. Because the donor and recipient tissues have identical genotypes, presumably the immune system would not recognize the implanted tissue alien. Another reason for enthusiasm about therapeutic cloning is that this research gives scientists welcome opportunities for basic research on human genetic disorders as they unfold during cell and tissue development (Bellomo, 2006).            The notion of therapeutic cloning for tissue or organ reconstruction in humans traces to the development of nuclear-transfer cloning methods for sheep and other farm animals. As applied to human cells, the procedure might work as follows: A suitable cell is removed from a patient and its nucleus is inserted physically into an enucleated egg. The egg then begins to multiply in a test tube, and, from the developing mass, pluripotent cells (those that possess a capacity to differentiate into multiple tissue types) are induced to grow replacement cells needed by the patient. Nerve cells might be grown to treat Alzheimer’s disease or spinal cord injuries, skin cells could be used to repair burn damage, retinal cells for macular degeneration, pancreatic cells for diabetes, hematopoietic cells for leukemia, neuroglia cells for multiple sclerosis, and so on. When returned to the patient’s body the cloned cells in such tissues or organs ideally would repair or replace the damaged body part, without evoking immunological rejections (Avise, 2004).            Several technical challenges must be overcome before this approach is medically viable. First, nuclear transfer (NT) techniques developed for farm animals will have to be improved and adapted to our species. Second, cells in the proliferating mass must be generated in such a way that they indeed are pluripotent at the outset. Third, the developmental potential of those flexible cells then must be channeled to produce the specialized kind of tissue that the patient requires. Fourth, methods must be devised to put those now-dedicated cells together properly to make therapeutically useful tissue or organ. This may take place naturally when the cells are placed in a patient’s body, or in some cases it may be accomplished initially in vitro. For example, replacement skin tissue for burn victims might be constructed by seeding the cloned cells onto sheets of a polymeric scaffolding substance. Finally, tissue therapy must be conducted such that the cloned cells do no harm when returned to the patient. It would be disastrous, for example, if even a few cells in the transplanted tissue began to divide in an unregulated, cancerous fashion (Shannon, 2005).            Of course, ethical issues will have to be addressed as well. When the initial oocyte created by NT begins to divide into two cells, then four, then eight, and so on, when does the cloned mass become a new human being worthy of protection under the law? Opponents of therapeutic cloning often contend that an individual arises at the exact moment that the first appears, such that any sacrifice of an early cell mass, even for medical purposes, is tantamount to slaughter. Proponents of therapeutic cloning view this notion as nonsense. How, they as, can a few amorphous cells be granted legal rights that take precedence over those of sentient human beings is desperate need of cell therapy? Remarkably, in US society, most of the debate over the possible legalization of therapeutic cloning hinges on this one emotion-laden philosophical issue (Bellomo, 2006).            In such public discussions, a common error (or often, an intentional argumentative ploy) is to equate therapeutic cloning with reproductive cloning. Although the initial laboratory steps in the two procedures are identical – both begin by inserting a cell nucleus into an unfertilized egg – that is where the similarity ends. In reproductive cloning, the GM egg would be re-implanted in the womb and allowed to grow into a fetus and baby, the intent being to generate a fully functional and independent human being genetically identical to its predecessor. In therapeutic cloning, the early clump of pre-implantation cells that comes from the GM egg would be grown in vitro and used to produce replacement tissues for medical rehabilitation (Avise, 2004). Elimination or Treating Heritable Diseases via Therapeutic Cloning            Although therapeutic cloning does not reproduce an entire organism to develop in utero and live life outside the womb, one motivation for reproductive cloning might be therapeutic. Reproductive cloning could allow genetic engineering interventions to correct defective genes before they have a chance to exert detrimental effects. Correction at the earliest stage would also free germ or reproductive cells and hence subsequent generations from carrying the defective gene (Savulescu Hendrick, 2003).            Certain genetic disorders may enhance certain universal human vulnerabilities, such as those to infection, bleeding, and aging. Beyond increasing these, everyone has inherited vulnerability to some disease or diseases. We would all like to be free from the threat of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, and Alzheimer’s disease. Therapeutic cloning might substantially improve the treatment for these diseases since therapy for these is currently limited by the availability or immunocompatibility of tissue transplants (Avise, 2004).            Among the genetic disorders, some are so highly heritable and horrific that we might wish to employ reproductive cloning to enable the use of genetic engineering to correct the defective gene. That would free the clone and all subsequent generations from their ravaging impact (Savulescu Hendrick, 2003).            However, reproductive cloning is an inefficient and error-probe process that results in the failure of most clones during development. For a donor nucleus to support development it must properly activate genes important for early embryonic development, it must properly activate genes important for early embryonic development and suppress differentiation-associated genes that were transcribed in the original donor cell. Inadequate â€Å"reprogramming†of the donor nucleus is thought to be the principal reason for the developmental loss of most clones. In contrast, reprogramming errors do not appear to interfere with therapeutic cloning, because the process appears to select for functional cells (Shannon, 2005). Ethics of Therapeutic Cloning            Can therapeutic cloning be ethically tolerable? Debates about the theory of proportionality, the slippery slope and the principle of subsidiarity here center again in a little dissimilar way (Savulescu Hendrick, 2003).            It is uncertain whether the principle of proportionality offers a believable a priori opposition against therapeutic cloning. If it is well thought-out suitable to make embryos for study aiming cryopreservation of oocytes; in vitro maturation of oocytes and the like, then it is contradictory to decline therapeutic cloning in advance as being disproportional (Avise, 2004).            A consequentialist opposition, as a slippery-slope disagreement, is that therapeutic cloning will unavoidably direct to reproductive cloning. This objection firstly presumes that reproductive cloning is necessarily and categorically wrong, a premise still debated. Clearly, it would be premature, if not criminally irresponsible, in view of the serious health risks for children conceived by cloning to start clinical trials on reproductive cloning right now. But what if, somewhere in the future, these risks could be controlled? Would cloning then still be entirely baseless – even if it were ‘safe’ – then it is practical to exclude reproductive cloning, and not to forbid other, non-reproductive, relevance of cloning (Bellomo, 2006).            Are there suitable alternatives to therapeutic cloning? First, it is important to note that therapeutic cloning strictu sensu, starting with the first clinical trials, will not come up soon. Much basic research is needed, about the question whether it will be possible to control the differentiation of human embryonic stem (hES) cells in vitro. This study can, and ought to, be made with additional IVF embryos. At the same time, research into potential ‘embryo-saving’ alternatives for therapeutic cloning should be stimulated. For the relative ethical examination it is once more essential to evade the drawback of one-dimensionality. Amongst others, the following options are suggested in the literature: a) the use of adult stem cells; b) transferring a human somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated animal egg; and c) the direct reprogramming of adult cells, i.e., to reprogram an adult cell to make it revert to it unspecialized state so that it can then be influenced to develop into a specific type of tissue (this involves the development of undifferentiated cells without the need to create an embryo) (Shannon, 2005). Summary and Conclusion            Cloning can be divided into therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning is the use of cloning technology to produce, for example, tissues for transplantation to people with disease. Reproductive cloning is cloning to produce a liveborn offspring (Avise, 2004).            The possibility of therapeutic cloning focuses on the concept of stem cells. Stem cells have the ability to develop into different mature cell types. Totipotent stem cells are cells with the potential to form a complete animal if placed in a uterus. They are early embryos. Pluripotent stem cells are immature stem cells with the potential to develop into any of the mature cell types in the adult (liver, lung, skin, blood etc.), but cannot by themselves form a complete animal if placed in a uterus. Human embryonic stem (ES) cell lines obtained from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst or pre-implantation embryo have recently been established. ES cells are pluripotent. Possible future clinical applications of human ES cell technology include: hemopoietic repopulation (‘bone marrow transplant’); treatment of diseases or spinal cord injury; screening of drugs; and as vectors for gene therapy (Cohen, 2002).            We should distinguish reproductive cloning with a therapeutic intent from therapeutic cloning to produce stem cells. Most of us are familiar with the nightmare scenario of reproductively cloning a person in order to use him as possession for â€Å"spare parts.†Parents who conceive children in the hope that the new child would be a good match immunologically to donate an organ needed by an existing child contribute to this image. With a child cloned from the original, there would be no doubt that the needed organ would perfectly match the recipient immunologically. Creating a person to be a source of spare parts is not what therapeutic cloning is about (Bellomo, 2006).            Therapeutic cloning provides hope for cures or better medical treatment for people with many diseases. These include many of the genetic disorders for which reproductive cloning with a therapeutic intent might be entertained, but they also include diseases that are not necessarily genetic. A therapeutic cloning, cells are extracted from an embryo to clone specific bodily tissues for medical use, particularly transplantation. Type I or juvenile diabetes is one example of a disease that might be cured by therapeutic cloning to produce stem cells. Without contradiction, we can condemn reproductive cloning and at the same time, if we choose, support research with embryonic stem cells (Cohen, 2002). References: Avise, J. C. (2004). The Hope, Hype Reality of Genetic Engineering: Remarkable Stories from Agriculture, Industry, Medicine and the Environment. New York: Oxford University Press US. Bellomo, M. (2006). The Stem Cell Divide: The Facts, the Fiction, and the Fear Driving the Greatest Scientific, Political, and Religious Debate of Our Time: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. Cohen, D. (2002). Cloning. Brookfield, Connecticut: Twenty-First Century Books. Savulescu, J., Hendrick, J. (2003). Medical Ethics and Law: The Core Curriculum. New York: Elsevier Health Sciences. Shannon, T. A. (2005). Genetics: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy : a Reader. New York: Rowman Littlefield.
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Modern Crime :: essays research papers
"She's just another Hollywood whore, an immoral porn queen. She's beyond redemption," he muttered to himself as he paced back and forth outside her apartment building. He had been constantly walking around outside the building for hours now, harassing people passing on the streets with crazed questions. Suddenly, overcome with resolve, the man stomped back to the building and rang the bell. She had rejected him once, but never again. He had given her a chance, but she had turned him away from her life. How could she do this to him, her biggest fan? After letting go of the buzzer, Robert Bardo hid himself in the bushes by the door. This was the only choice he had left after such a rejection. Twenty-one year old Rebecca Schaeffer, actress on the sitcom My Sister Sam, answered the door for the last time in her life. She had politely turned away a disturbing man earlier that day after explaining to him that she had to study her lines for her next show. However, when she answered the door this time, there was no one there. Bardo saw his chance and acted on it. He burst from the shadowy confines of the bushes and pushed a gun into Schaeffer's chest, pulling the trigger after he had her in his grasp. The bullet barely missed the young actress's heart as she fell to the ground, bleeding from a mortal wound. As Bardo flew from the scene, he stashed the incriminating evidence into the bushes. After interrogations performed by the LAPD, it was found that Bardo had been stalking Schaeffer for a very long time. However, this was not the usual case of a voyeur or a stranger trailing someone throughout their day. Bardo had traced Schaeffer through the use of the computer and its vast resources. With the use of computer databases, Bardo was able to find out where Schaeffer lived, what her telephone number was and who she called, what kind of vehicle she drove, and where she spent her money. It was as if Bardo could look through a window and clearly see all of Schaeffer's personal, intimate secrets (Rothfeder 13-14).This is the perfect example of a modern crime, in which all of an individual's privacy and personal information have become little more than a commodity, easily accessible to anyone with very little hassle. In the highly modernized society in which everyone lives, people compromise their privacy in order to live comfortably.
Thursday, October 24, 2019
Historical Inaccuracies in the Movie Braveheart
The movie Barveheart in 1995, which was starred, produced and directed by Academy Award winner Mel Gibson, depicted (or tried to depict) the life of Scottish hero and patriot Sir William Wallace. The film gained worldwide recoginition, has won five Academy Awards including best picture and best director, and was nominated for another five. It also sparked the interest of many in Scottish history. The film, however, was also criticized about its historical inaccuracies.Indeed, according to historian Elizabeth Ewan, the film â€Å"almost totally sacrifices historical accuracy for epic adventure. †Sharon Krossa pointed out that in the film, â€Å"the events aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurateâ€â€in short, just about nothing is accurate. †Without proper information and understanding of the actual events in Scotland during the time of William Wallace's exploits, one would thi nk that the presentation in the movie is how it really happened during that time.Not much is really known about the life of William Wallace that even the date of his birth is a subject of debate among historians. And much of what is known is based on a fifteenth century poem by aperson known as the Minstrel or Blind Harry. It is the purpose of this paper to present historical facts during the time of William Wallace in contrast to those that were presented in the film. During the beginning of the film, there appears a text stating: â€Å"SCOTLAND 1280 A. D. †, followed by a narration: â€Å"I shall tell you of William Wallace.Historians from England will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes. The king of Scotland had died without a son, and the king of England, a cruel pagan known as Edward the Longshanks, claimed the throne of Scotland for himself. Scotland's nobles fought him and fough each other over the crown. So Longshanks invited them to talks of truceâ€â€no weapons, one page only. Among the farmers of that shire was Malcolm Wallace, a commoner with his own lands. He had two sonsâ€â€John and William†¦Ã¢â‚¬ This very statement would already have made the film far from fact. As Krossa points out, â€Å"it is the historians from Scotland, far more than from England, who will recognize the errors of the narrator/film. †There is no doubt that the â€Å"king of Scotland†mentioned was King Alexander III. But not only was the â€Å"king of Scotland†not dead in 1280, both of his sons were alive and well, and had an heir to the throne that had outlived him for four years. King Alexander III fell from his horse and broke his neck causing his death .True enough that all of his childrenâ€â€two sons and a daughterâ€â€were already dead during that time, but it didn't happen until 1986, six years from the film's 1280. The death of Alexander brought Scotland in a political crisis but its nobles acknowledged Margaret, Alexander's three-year-old Norwegian granddaughterâ€â€the product of his daughter's maariage to the King of Norwayâ€â€and his only direct descendant, as inheritor of the kingdom. They appointed a Committee of Guardians â€Å"to govern in the name of the young queen.†However, the two leading claimants of the kingship after Margaret, Robert Bruce of Annandale and John Baliol of Galloway, together with other nobles, apparently refused to â€Å"submit to a female sovereign, especially if she was a child,†and the country was soon â€Å"distracted by the intrigues and conspiracies of the competitors for the crown†. The guardians of England appealed to Edward I, then King of England, to intervene. King Eric II of Norway, the father of Margaret, also asked Edward I's aid to vindicate his daughter's rights.They agreed to marry Margaret, the Maid of Norway, to Edward I's son, the then Prince of Wales, with the view of uniting the crowns of England and Scotland. In 1290, Margaret embarked for Scotland to marry the Prince of Wales but fell sick during the voyage and died at Orkneys at a tender age of merely eight years. This renewed the disputes between claimants. In 1291, Edward I met the nobles of Scotland, apparently to act as arbitrator, but demanded the Scots to recognize his overlordship. This must have been the basis of the film's â€Å"talks of truce†.Recognizing that they do not have the army to oppose Edward I had he decided to invade Scotland instead, the Scots, after long deliberation, finally agreed to recognize Edward I's overlordship. Edward I then finally awarded the Scottish crown to John de Baliol. John de Baliol soon found out that â€Å"the crown which he had obtained by means of a base concession had only transformed him from a poweful noble into the slave of an imperious and exacting master. †He soon revolted against the English crown.Edward launched his armies to Scotl and and on 1296, finally defeated the Scottish army at Dunbar. He demanded â€Å"nothing less than the total surrender†of John de Baliol and his kingdom. Incapable of resistance, the king of Scotland resigned his kingdom into the hands of Edward I. Considering the facts stated above, it was not until 1296 A. D. that the Scots had an actual armed conflict with the English through John de Baliol's short-lived rebellion, and when Edward the Longshanks â€Å"claimed the throne of Scotland for himself†, sixteen years later than the film's 1280 A.D. Edward the Longshanks is also not a pagan. Being the king of England, he is, in fact, a Christianâ€â€a fact that is evidenced by the ceremony of coronation. As John Steane explains: â€Å"the king was invested by the Archbishop of Canterbury with spiritual power as God's annointed, like the kings of Israel before him. Henceforward, the king was set aart from his subjects, at least on a par with, and to some extent superior to, churchmen. †It would be imprudent to think the Archbishop of Canterbury would annoint a non-Christian as King of England.Furthermore, he did not invite the Scottish nobles for â€Å"talks of truce†but presented himself as an arbitrator, which was perhaps a response to an earlier appeal made by the Scots, to the internal conflicts of the Scots themselves. That King Edward I took advantage of the political turmoil that has engulfed Scotland may be true enough but the manner of which it has been presented in the film is nowhere near from truth. The widely accepted, though still debated, father of William Wallace was Malcolm Wallace of Ellerslie, who was descended from ancient knights and baronets of Craigie and who himself is a Scottish knight.Sir Malcolm Wallace was of noble family and not â€Å"a commoner with his own lands. †Although there are sources that say Malcolm Wallace has only two sons, it is also widely accepted that he has at least three sons, an d in any case, Malcolm (same name as the father) or Andrew was the name of the eldest son, William would be the second son while John would be the youngest when Malcolm is presented to have three sons (compare with the film in which John is presented as being older than William).John has also outlived William by two years, compared with the film in which John was presented to have died when William was still a young boy. It should be also noted that Sir Malcolm Wallace (the father) was still alive in 1291, when the Scottish nobles met with Edward I (in contrast with the film wherein he died in 1280). He was one of those who did not accept the claim of overlordship of Edward I and went into self-exile.The inaccuracies stated above happened only during the first few minutes of the film and already there are a lot of them. As the story depicted in the film progresses, there would still be a lot more of inaccuracies. The inaccuracies, however, may be based on the different versions of t he accounts on the life of William Wallaceâ€â€it has already been stipulated that much of his life is unknown that even the date of his birth is debated.We have already established that Edward I was not able to claim Scotland for himself until 1296. However, in 1291, after he misled the nobles of Scotland that he would act as an arbitrator but instead asserted his overlordship and the nobles had to swear allegiance to him, different towns and fortresses of Scotland had already been garrisoned by English soldiers (still 11 years later than the faulty 1280, although, in the film, there appears nothing that suggest that English garrisons were present in Scotland).The English soldiers, considering themselves masters of Scotland, treated the people with great contempt and cruelty, took from them by force whatever they had a fancy to (which most probably include sexual advances), and if the owners offered resistance, they were abused, beat, and sometimes killed; for which acts of viol ence the english authorities neither checked nor punished.Brawls were frequent occurences between the inhabitants and the soldiers and Wallace seldom remained inactive to those which came under his notice, compared with the film's depiction of Scots being totally submissive to such abuses and the depicion of Wallace as a reluctant patriot. It should also be noted that even as a young man, Wallace already displayed his indignation with the English, not only until his wife was murdered as was depicted in the film.Fact of the matter is that he was outlawed even before the Battle of Dunbar in 1296 where the English had totally defeated King John Baliol's forces and King Edward has taken the throne for himself. He would have been 20-24 years of age during this time if we consider his birth to be between 1272 to 1276, and 15-19 when the English had started setting up garrisons in Scotland.William Wallace â€Å"had witnessed as a boy the independence, the security and the happiness of his country, under the reign of Alexander, and the contrast which he†beheld upon the establishment of English garrisons that roused the feelings in his heart which have â€Å"been animated by a love of liberty and a hatred of tyranny and dissimulation, that nothing but death could extinguish. †The same is true for most of the Scots during that time. Prima Nocte, or the right for a lord to bed the bride on the first night of her wedding day, was also mentioned in the film.It was presented to be one of the oppressions made by the English to the â€Å"sons of Scotland. †The Jus Primae Noctis, or the law of first night, was introduced in the fifteenth century medieval Europe, at least a century later from the death of William Wallace. It was apparently â€Å"developed by the lords and used as humiliating signs of superiority over the dependent peasants. †Edward the Longshanks, in the film, said that â€Å"the problem about Scotland is that it is full of Scot s. †He further asserts that â€Å"if we can't drive them out, we'll breed them out.†Thus, in the film, Prima Nocte was justified as a means to â€Å"breed out†the Scots from Scotland. It is not in the interest of Edward I, however, to â€Å"drive out†the Scots, but, perhaps, only to invade them and expand his territory. There are, in fact, many Scottish nobles that held land in England, regardless they were granted these lands in exchange of them swearing allegiance to the English Crown, much as there were English nobles who held lands in Scotland. However, there are little, if not none at all, evidence that Jus Primae Noctis was practiced in the fifteenth century, much less during the time of William Wallace.While rape and murder most certainly occurred during the English exploits in Scotland, Prima Nocte most probably did not. It is flagrantly adulturous in the eyes of the Church and England, being a Christian country, could not tolerate such an abus e, much less putting it into a law. For most historians, Prima Nocta is but a myth. Even some of the momentous events in the history of Scotland with a major participation of Sir William Wallace was depicted in the film with much inaccuracies.There are two major battles depicted in the filmâ€â€the Battle of Stirling Bridge and the Battle of Falkirkâ€â€which were both parts of the Scottish Wars of Independence. It is very easy to notice that the film did not include a bridge in the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which, as the name already implies, includes a bridge. Perhaps the creators of the film mistook this particular battle for the Battle of Stirling which happened in 1648, more than three centuries after the death of William Wallace.It is important to note that the bridge itself was a major factor for the victory of the Scots against the English during that battle, that despite the advantage in numbers of the English army the Scots still prevailed. The English would have to cross the bridge, which at that time was so narrow that it could be crossed only with at most two horses abreast at a time and would have taken the them several hours to cross, after which they would enter a narrow loop in the River Forth that will leave their flank dangerously exposed to attack even before they were ready for battle, thereby nullifying their advantage in numbers.The participation of Andrew Murray was also not included in the film. Also in contrast with the film, the battle did not commence when Wallace arrived at the scene. Fact is that Wallace's and Murray's armies were already waiting on the opposite bank of the river when the English, headed by John de Warrene, Earl of Surrey, arrived at Stirling Bridge. Even after that, Warrene decides to delay crossing the bridge for several days to allow for negotiations.Two Dominican friars were sent to Wallace to demand their surrender with which Wallace replied: â€Å"Tell your commander that we are not here to make peac e but to do battle, defend ourselves and liberate our kingdom. Let them come on, and we shall prove this in their very beards. †Compared with the film, this speech was more solemn and educated, not a taunting challenge. The English, confident of their advantage in numbers and military superiority, were surprised by the refusal of the Scots to surrender and on the 11th of September 1297 decided to cross the bridge.Wallace's speech in the film was not characteristic of nobles during the thirteenth century or at any other time, not with â€Å"kiss his own arse†language. Compare also the film's presentation that the English negotiated with other Scottish nobles when it was with Wallace they negotiated with. The film also depicted those Scottish nobles introducing Wallace to the English lords when, fact of the matter is, Wallace had already gained popularity at that time with the Scots and the English alike. The Battle of Falkirk also suffered much inaccuracies in the film .In the film, Wallace used the schiltrons to resist the enemy's heavy infantry at the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Although, Wallace really used long spears to achieve his victory, the schiltron was never really used in that particular battle. Instead the schiltron was used at the Battle of Falkirk, from which the film failed to include. Wallace had no need for the schiltron at the Battle of Stirling Bridge as it is mainly a defensive tactic against heavy cavalry. Although the English started moving first by crossing the Stirling Bridge, it was really Wallace who started the attack.On the otherhand, Wallace knew he was at a disadvantage at Falkirk and readied his men in a defensive formation, which was mainly with the use of schiltrons. Knowing that the cavalry is useless against the schiltron, Edward I ordered his cavalry to attack the Scottish archers. Edward I did not order to loose arrows with his infantry in a melee with the Scots, as was depicted in the film. Instead, he ordered the arrows loose upon the schiltrons, which were in no position for defense against such attack.It was in such manner that the Scots were defeated in the said battle, which the film failed to present properly. It is true enough that the Scottish cavalry, under the command of the other nobles, â€Å"shamelessly rode off the field, without a blow being given or taken,†but detail by detail, the film's depiction of the Battle of Falkirk is in no way accurate. As for clothing and armor, the poem by Blind Harry gives us a short description as to how William Wallace looks like in battle: A habergione under his goune he war, A steylle capleyne in his bonet but marr;His glowis of plait in claith war couerit wiell In his doublet a closs coler of steyle; His face he kepit, for it was euir bar, With his twa handis, the quhilk full worthi war. †George Grant gives us a simple explanation. The habergione was a sort of chain-mail or ring-mail, extremely light and flexible, allowing the greatest freedom to the motions of the wearer, whether on foot or horseback. It was brought into Scotland by the crusaders in the beginning of the reign of Alexander III. During the period of Wallace, they appear to have been in general use both in England and Scotland.The goune was the surcoat, or coat of arms. It was a long, loose dress, without sleeves, open before and behind for the convenience of riding, and girted round the waist by the cingulum militare or belt. It was commonly worn by noblemen. The steylle capleyne, or iron hat had a rim and convex crown and was worn over a hood. The limbs were defended by being encased in boiled leather. Wallace also wore knee-plates of iron and guards for the shin-bones. His shield was round or triangular, would also have been made of iron (not wood as the film depicted).He also kept a dagger folded back under the arm, between the wrist and the elbow, when not in use, and concealed and secured in that position by the cloth of gloves wh ich appears to have worn over his glowis of plait, or arm-plate. His favorite weapon was a two-handed sword, or claymore, which his great strength enabled him to wield with ease. The mace and spear was sometimes also used by him. Paintings and sculptures of Wallace depict him in much the same way as described above. Wallace, in the film was wearing leather armor and kilts, very much in contrast with historical facts.No one wore kilts during his time as it were not introduced until in the sixteenth century, three centuries later after his death. Instead, the Scots who were lesser in standing wore tunics, its nobles were culturally similar with their English counterparts and would have dressed like them. There are much more historical inaccuracies in the film. The bottomline is that the film really is of an epic adventure genre, something short of a fantasy, not a historical presentation. A few mistakes on the details would be forgivable, but to change the story based on facts, an in a grand scale besides, deserves to be rejected as historical.Krossa suggests not to believe anything depicted in the film if one is truly intrested in what really happened during that time. There are elements in the film that coincide with history but that the elements leading up to those coincidences would need to be properly explained to fit to the real history, which the film obviously failed to present. She said that â€Å"it is far safer, and far more efficient, to just ignore the whole film, as regards history, and read a good Scottish history instead. †She adds, however, â€Å"to enjoy the film†¦by all meansâ€â€just as one enjoys Star Wars or any other work of imaginationâ€â€simply do not mistake it for history. †Bibliography BBC. â€Å"The Battle of Stirling Bridgeâ€â€Factsheet. †Available from http://www. bbc. co. uk/history/scottishhistory/independence/trails_independence_stirlingbridge. shtml. Internet; accessed May 4, 2008. Edgar, John George. Memorable Events of Modern History. (1862) Ewan, Elizabeth. â€Å"Braveheart. †American Historical Review 100, no. 4 (1995): 1219–1221. Grant, George. The Life and Adventures of Sir William Wallace: The Liberator of Scotland. Dublin: James M'Glashan (1849) Kock, John T.Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO (2006). Krossa, Sharon L. â€Å"Braveheart Errors: An Illustration of Scale. †Medieval Scotland (2002). Krossa, Sharon L. â€Å"Regarding the Film Braveheart. †Medieval Scotland (2001). Mitchison, Rosalind. A History of Scotland. Routledge, 2002. Rodger, Robert. Documents Illustrative of Sir William Wallace, His Life and Times. (1841) Rowan, Frederica. History of Scotland. 1851. Steane, John. The Archeology of the Medieval English Monarchy. Routledge, 1999. Wettlaufer, Jorg. â€Å"The jus primae noctis as a male power display: A review of historic sources with
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
American foreign policy Essay
Foreign policy refers to the strategies that governments employ to guide their actions towards other countries. The U. S. foreign policy is founded on the principles of democracy and tenets liberalization (Goldstein, 2003). The U. S. foreign policy takes into account issues of human rights, economic growth and development, terrorism and environmental degradation and addresses them as challenges that can best be addressed through democracy in countries and institutions throughout the world (Goldstein, 2003). The U. S. foreign policy has undergone significant transitions that match different historical periods in the world that include the World War I, the World War II, the Cold War, the post Cold War period and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The United Nations and the United States are arguably the most influential players in the international system as well as in the global political economics as a whole. Having been formed with the main objective of promoting and achieving sustainable peace in the world, the United Nations remains the most dominant and most influential International Governmental Organization in the world (Roberts & Kingsbury 1994). In theoretical terms, the fundamental significance of the United Nations as well as the operational challenges faced by the institution are illustrated in the theory of realism which states that â€Å"there is no world government, or political authority above the state, a situation that ultimately reduces the international system to absolute anarchy with the absence of any overarching political body with the capacity to enforce law and order among its members or nation states†(Roberts & Kingsbury 1994). The realism theory stresses on the centrality of the state, or nation state as the ultimate political authority in the politics of the international system. As such, the overriding motive of all states is self-preservation through maximization of power, a characteristic that effectively transforms the international system of a war of all against all (Goldstein, 2003). The realism theory further argues that stability is best achieved in the balance of power which can be achieved through increased interactions among states, with the most powerful country playing the role of a balancer (Goldstein, 2003). Today, the U. S. is the most powerful country in the world and has effectively assumed the role of a balancer in the international system, with the United Nations serving as the overarching political body with capacity to enforce law and order among its member states. Domestic Public Attitudes toward Foreign Policy in the United States At the domestic level, the U. S. foreign policy enjoys a lot of support among the citizenry. According to a report by World Public Opinion. org, a strong majority of U. S. citizens support of the U. S. involvement in the world. However, the number of U. S. citizens who feel disgruntled by the country’ foreign policies is growing steadily. The World Public Opinion. org has established that Americans overwhelmingly support the continued leadership role that the U. S. plays in the world. These findings were based on a 2006 GMF poll which indicated that 84 percent of those polled saying it was desirable for the U. S to exert strong leadership affairs, with 43 percent having been quoted as expressing a US global influence as being very desirable, and only 14 percent expressing their concerns about the U. S. global influence. However, the overwhelming support of the U. S foreign policy by its citizenry does support the role of the U. S. in global affairs as a hegemony, but rather supports the idea of shared leadership roles with other players in the international system. A significant segment of the U. S population believes that the U. S security has been threatened by the way the U. S. has been using the threats of military force as leverage in the international system. In a poll conducted by the World Public Opinion. org, 63 percent of the respondents were of the view that the U. S. military threats prompt other countries to be protective by developing and acquiring weapons of mass destruction. In another survey that was carried out in 2003 by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, majority of the U. S. citizens faulted the war in Iraq, with 66 percent of the respondents believing that the war has had negative effects on the relations between the U. S. and the Muslim world. According to the survey, 64 percent of the respondents expressed concerns that the war will not promote democracy in the Middle East while a further 61percent expressed fears that the war will not reduce the threat of terrorism. International Public Attitudes toward Foreign Policy in the United States There has been a growing disdain for the U. S. foreign policy in many countries throughout the world. The September 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent U. S. war on terror are seen as having particularly caused dramatic shifts in U. S. foreign policy (Grant, 2004). The military operations in Afghanistan that have been ongoing since October 2001 to date and the U. S. invasion of Iraq have taken toll on the image of the United States with people from around the world and those in the Muslim countries in particular showing the lowest ratings for the U. S foreign policy. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project that is run by the Washington DC based Pew Research Centre, America’s image relative to the country’s foreign policy has dropped immensely over the years. According to the report of the project, the United States is trailing many countries in favorability ratings. Countries such as France, Germany, China and Japan are more popular than the U. S in the European Union countries and Muslim countries. The study showed that while the ratings of the U. S were highest in Asian countries such as India, the favorability ratings of the country dropped by 15 percent in India between 2005 and 2006. The study further indicated that levels of negative attitudes that the populations of Western Europe have towards America are even higher than they were in 2002 before the Iraq invasion. The Pew Global Attitudes Project report also showed low ratings for President George Bush both domestically and internationally, with the confidence in bush to make the right decisions in international affairs having dropped in seven of the eleven countries in 2005 as provided by the data that tracked the trends. The report further indicates a steady slump of rating for George Bush in European countries and among predominantly Muslim populations. George Bush registered the largest slump of ratings in the U. S. from 62 percent in 2005 to 50 percent in 2006. In regard to the War on Terror, the Pew Global Attitudes Project reported an overwhelming decrease in international public support for the U. S led war on terrorism. With Muslim countries having obviously registered the highest levels of criticisms against the war on terror, Spain and Japan also registered almost virtual collapse of support for the counter-terrorism war. As of 2006, the support for war on terror in Spain had reduced to 19 percent from 63 percent in 2003 while Japan registered public support of 26 percent from 61 percent in 2002, according to information provided by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)