Neorealist Theory of US Politics

Neorealist Theory of US Politics Realists believe that power is the currency of international politics. Great powers, the main actors in the realists account, pay careful attention to how much economic and military power they have relative to each other. It is important not only to have an important amount of power, but also to make sure that no other state roughly shifts the balance of power in its favour. For realists, international politics is synonymous with power politics. They are, however, important differences among realists. The most basic divide is in the answer to the simple but important question: why do states want power? For classical realists  [1]  like Hans Morgenthau, the answer is human nature. Practically, everyone is born with a will to power, which effectively means that great powers are led by individuals who are determined to having their state dominate its rivals. Nothing can be done to change that force to be all-powerful  [2]  . For Neorealists or structural realists, human nature has little to do with why states want power. Instead, it is the structure or architecture of the international system that forces states to pursue power. In a system where there is no higher authority that sits above the great powers, and where there is no guarantee that one will not attack another, it makes good sense for each state to be powerful enough to protect itself in the event it is attacked. In essence, great powers are trapped because they have little choice but to compete with each other for power if they hope to survive  [3]  . Neorealist theories ignore cultural differences among states as well as differences in regime type, mainly because the international system creates the same basic incentives for all great powers. Whether a state is democratic or autocratic matters relatively little for how it acts towards other states. Nor does it matter much who is in charge of conducting a states foreign policy. Neorealists treat states as if they were black boxes: they are assumed to be alike, save for the fact that some states are more or less powerful than others.  [4]   There is a significant divide between structural realists, which is in the answer to a second question that concerns realists: how much power is enough? Defensive realists like Kenneth Waltz (1979) maintain that it is unwise for states to try to maximize their share of world power, because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power. The pursuit of hegemony, they argue, is especially imprudent. Offensive realists like John Mearsheimer (2001) take the opposite view; they maintain that it makes good strategic sense for states to gain as much power as possible and, if the circumstances are right, to pursue hegemony. The argument is not that conquest or domination is good in itself, but instead that having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure ones own survival. For classical realists, power is an end in itself; for structural realists, power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is survival. In a widely discussed essay John Mearsheimer  [5]  (1993) use the neorealist argument of Waltz  [6]  (1979) and applies it to both the past and future. He says that neorealism has continued importance for explaining international relations: neorealism is a general theory that applies to other historical situations besides that of the Cold War. He also argues that neorealism can be employed to predict the course of international history beyond the Cold War. The question poses is: What would happen if the bipolar system were replaced by a multipolar system? This question can be justly discussed with the study of the last War in Iraq. Indeed, the Iraq case throws light on the determinants of war, exposing how far decisions are driven by systemic factors. Kenneth Waltzs defensive realist image of systemic constraints shaping a prudent defensive use of power does not appear to correspond to American behaviour. Offensive realism, predicated on the notion that great powers can never have enough power in an insecure world, might seem more relevant, but even this is doubtful: its main proponent, John J Mearsheimer (2001) views hegemony as merely regional and hegemons as acting as offshore balancers outside their own regions. Seeing the Iraq War as going well beyond that, he denied that it was necessary to US security (Mearsheimer and Walt 2003). So, ultimately, How the US invasion in Iraq can be interpreted from neorealists points of view? First, in order to answer, I will study the works of Waltz and Mearsheimer in identifying their similarities and their differences. Finally, I will apply their perspective to the US invasion of Iraq. Defensive Realism versus Offensive Realism: How much power is enough? The leading contemporary neorealist thinker is undoubtedly Kenneth Waltz (1979). Waltzs Theory of International Politics (1979) seeks to provide a scientific explanation of the international political system. In Waltzs view the International relations theory is a neorealist theory that focuses centrally on the structure of the system. Actors are less important because structures compel them to act in certain ways. Structures more or less determine actions. According to Waltss neorealist theory, a basic feature of international relations is the decentralized structure of anarchy between sates. States are alike in all basic functional respects in spite of their different cultures or ideologies or constitutions or personnel, they all perform the same basics tasks. But the structure of the system changes with changes in the distribution of capabilities across the system units  [7]  . In other words, international change occurs when great powers rise and fall and the balance of power shits accordingly. A balance of powers between states can be achieved, but war is always a possibility in an anarchical system. Waltz distinguishes between bipolar systems, such as existed during the Cold War between The United States and the Soviet Union, and multipolar system, such as existed both before and after the Cold War. Waltz believes that bipolar systems are more stable and thus provide a better guarantee of peace and security than multipolar sys tems. With only two great powers, both can be expected to act to maintain the system  [8]  . That is because in maintaining the system they are maintaining themselves. According to that view, the Cold War was a period of international stability and peace. Waltz assumes that the fundamental concern of states is security and survival. He also assumes that the major problem of great power conflict is war, and that the major task of international relations among the great powers is that of peace and security. Nevertheless St ate leaders are prisoners of the structure of the state system and its determinist logic which dictates what they must do in their conduct of foreign policy. There is no room in Waltzs theory for foreign policymaking that is independent is the structure of the system. Waltzs image of the role of state leaders in conducting foreign policy comes close to being a mechanical image in which their choices are shaped by the international structural constraints that they face. Thus, Waltzs neorealist approach does not provide explicit policy guidance to state leaders as they confront the practical problems of world politics. That is presumably because they have little or no choice, owing to the confining international structu re in which they must operate. Waltz does address the question of the management of international affairs  [9]  . Waltzs argument is at base a determinist theory in which structure dictates policy. However, just beneath the surface of Waltzs neorealist text, and occasionally on the surface, there is recognition of the ethical dimension of international politics. For example, he operates with a concept of state sovereignty:To say that a state is sovereign means that it decides for itself how it will cope with its internal and external problems  [10]  . For Waltz, all states are equal only in a formal-legal sense; they are unequal, often profoundly so, in a substantive or material sense. But that means that a norm of state exists which all states without exception are expected to observe in their relations with each other regardless of their substantive inequalities of power. Waltz also assumes that states are worth fighting for. That, too, indicates that neorealism is imbued with normative values: those of state security and survival. Waltz operates, as well, with a concept of the national interest: each states plots the course it thinks will best serve its interests  [11]  . For Waltz, however, the national interest seems to operate like an automatic signal commanding state leaders when and where to move. Waltz sees states as structures that respond to the impersonal constraints and dictates of the international system. Mearsheimer builds on Waltzs argument concerning the stability of bipolar systems as compared with multipolar systems  [12]  . These two configurations are considered to be the main structural arrangements of power that are possible among independent states. As indicated Waltz claims that bipolar systems are superior to multipolar systems because they provide greater international stability and thus greater peace and security. There are three basics reasons why bipolar systems are more stable and peaceful. First, the number of great-power conflicts is fewer, and that reduces the possibilities of great-power war. Second, it is easier to operate an effective system of deterrence because fewer great powers are involved. Finally because only two powers dominate the system the chances of miscalculation and misadventure are lower. They are fewer fingers on the trigger  [13]  . In short the two rivals superpowers can keep their eye steadily fixed on each other without the distractio n and confusion that would occur if there a larger number of great powers, as was the case prior to 1945 and arguably has been the case since 1990  [14]  . The question Mearsheimer  [15]  poses is: What would happen if the bipolar system were replaces by a multipolar system? Mearsheimer  [16]  that the demise of the bipolar War order and the emergence of a multipolar world will produce highly undesirable return to the bad old ways of anarchy and instability and even renewed danger of international conflict, crises, and possibly war. Mearsheimer differs from Waltz whom characterizes as a defensive realist: someone who recognizes that states must and seek power in order to be secure and to survive, but who believe that excessive power is counterproductive, because it provokes hostile alliances by other states. For Waltz, it does not make sense, therefore, to strive for excessive power beyond that is necessary for security and survival. Mearsheimer speaks of Waltzs theory as defensive realism. Mearsheimer agrees with Waltz that anarchy compels states to compete for power. However, he argues that states seek hegemony, that they are ultimately more aggressive that Waltz portrays them as being. The goal for a country, such as United States, is to dominate the entire system, because only in that way could it rest assured that no other state or combination of states would even think about going to war against the United States. In the Western Hemisphere, for example, the United States has long been by far the most powerful state. No other state, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, would even think about threatening or employing armed force against the United States. All major powers strive for that ideal situation. But the planet is too big for global hegemony.The oceans are huge barriers. No state would have the necessary power. Mearsheimer therefore argues that states only become the hegemon in their own region of the world  [17]  . Regional hegemons can see to it, however, that there are no other regional hegemons in any other part of the world. They can prevent the emergence and existence of a peer competitor. According to Mearsheimer, thatis what the United States is trying to ensure. That is because a peer competitor might try to interfere in a regional hegemons sphere on influence and control. According to Mearsheimer, all states want to become regional hegemons. That is why he refers to his theory as offensive realism which rests on the assumptions that great powers are always searching for opportunities to gain power over their rivals, wit hegemony as their final goal  [18]  . There has always been conflict, there is conflict, and there will be conflict over power. And there is nothing that anyone can do to prevent it. This is why the title of one of his books is The tragedy of Great Power Politics. In sum, there is disagreement among structural realists about how much power states should aim to control. Offensive realists argue that states should always be looking for opportunities to gain more power and should do so whenever it seems feasible. States should maximize power, and their ultimate goal should be hegemony, because that is the best way to guarantee survival. While defensive realists recognize that the international system creates strong incentives to gain additional increments of power, they maintain that it is strategically foolish to pursue hegemony. That would amount to overexpansion of the worst kind. States, by their account, should not maximize power, but should instead strive for what Kenneth Waltz calls an appropriate amount of power  [19]  ; The War in Iraq and the neorealists : a troublesome case States operate in a self-help world almost always according to their own self-interest and do not subordinate their interests to the interests of other states, or to the interests of the so-called international community. The reason is simple: it pays to be selfish in a self-help world.  [20]   The decision made by the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003 can both be fit into neorealist theory, while some things also complicate neorealist theory. Realists believe that power is the controlling force in politics, and especially international politics, and power is defined as the ability to control outcomes. This is a hard thing to prove but the US certainly have shown that it is able to control outcomes, when US forces invaded Iraq without the consent of the UN or most other nations. Other countries like France also tried hard to persuade the US not to invade Iraq, which is also a sign of wanting to control outcomes. However, the US turned out to be a lot more powerful in this case. Mearsheimers theory of offensive realism states that the unrelenting pursuit of power means that great powers are inclined to look for opportunities to alter the distribution of world power in their favour. This means that the US, which is by far the greatest power in the West, will always be looking for opportunities to gain even more power at the expense of other states. Neorealist theory can explain the Iraq war in 2003 by saying that the US saw invading Iraq as an opportunity to gain even more power at the expense of foremost Iraq  [21]  . The invasion of Iraq can also be seen as a way for the US to prove to the world how powerful it is by not letting the US be taunted by Saddam Hussein, and by defying the opinion of the UN and other states  [22]  . The invasion of Iraq can be analysed as a strategy for gaining power or as a strategy for checking aggressors. By using war as a way of increasing their power, the US can exploit Iraqs economy for their own benefit and gain power by confiscating natural resources such as oil and foodstuffs  [23]  . Also, the US can gain strategic important land by gaining an ally in the new Iraq, which the US has helped rebuild. War has been used as a way of checking aggressors, which is basically a way of preventing other states from gaining power at their own expense. In reality this is done by deterring the aggressor, who in this case is Iraq. When the US did not think that Iraq was deterrable they had no other choice than to invade Iraq, according to offensive realism. This is because the structure of international politics forces states to be aggressive in order to survive. Before and during the 2003 Iraq war the US gave the impression that they were threatened by Iraq, which means that they were trying to deter Iraq, which was an aggressor. However, looking at the image as being just and democratic that the US clearly wants the world to think of them, it is hard to imagine that they would say anything different from what they did, no matter what their motives were. The conditions of international politics today for countries in the West demands them to be just and democratic or at least to appear that way and no state leader would say anything that could not be explained as being just and democratic, because it is the rules of survival in international politics today. This does not mean that states today in the West are only just and democratic, because they can do whatever they want to within reason. It just means that whatever they do will have to be camouflaged as just and democratic. However, the invasion of Iraq is hard to explain with offensive realism in some ways. According to offensive realism, the central aim of American foreign policy is to be the Hegemon in the Western Hemisphere and have no rival hegemon in Europe or Northeast Asia. How can offensive realism then explain that the US is invading a country in the Middle East, because this region should not interest the US enough to want to invade a country in other regions than Europe and Northeast Asia?  [24]  Mearsheimer has trouble seeing why the US have troops in Europe and Northeast Asia, and argues that they should be sent back, and therefore it is even harder to explain why they should have troops in a region in which the US government does not aspire to be a hegemon. Some of the most prominent realist scholars Mearsheimer and Waltz actually argued against invading Iraq, because they believed that it was unnecessary. All state leaders are rational according to realist theory, which means that Saddam Hussein is also rational although the US government kept arguing that he was irrational and therefore you could not reason with him  [25]  . Because realist theory holds that Saddam Hussein, like all state leaders, are rational, he is also deterrable because economic sanctions and threats of massive retaliation will always work on him, and they have in the past, realists argue. Therefore, neorealist theory tells us, that Saddam Hussein is not as big a threat to the US as the US government claimed and there was no reason to invade Iraq. If Saddam Hussein is rational he would acknowledge that Iraq is a weak state, and would never be foolish enough to attack such a powerful state as the US, because it is not wise to attack a state that has nuclear wea pons regardless of whether you have WMD or not. Conclusion It is impossible to create a theory about international politics, that is bullet-proof, because there will always be an element of unpredictability, which is unavoidable when humans interact. Neorealist theory has been able to predict the US foreign policy because a structural argument: the unipolar system and its instability. However, when the system level ceases to be the major constraint on behaviour, as expected by neorealism, there is much more scope for domestic determinants to drive policy  [26]  . Moreover, the war demonstrates the dangers of unipolarity in which the once-benign hegemon becomes malign  [27]  . It is no accident that small powers have traditionally put the highest value on international law and the UN and that the world hegemon uniquely deprecates the latter as unwanted constraints on its freedom to do as it pleases; their failure in the Iraq case makes for a less secure world for those at the bottom of the power hierarchy.

The Civil War And Its Ending Of Slavery :: Slavery Essays

The Civil War and Its Ending of Slavery This paper is about the civil war and about how it ended slavery with the emancipation proclomation. I will also talk abou the physical loses of the war. The South, overwhelmingly agricultural, produced cash crops such ascotton, tobacco and sugarcane for export to the North or to Europe, but it depended on the North for manufactures and for the financial and commercial services essential to trade. Slaves were the largest single investment in the South, and the fear of slave unrest ensured the loyalty of nonslaveholders to the economic and social system. To maintain peace between the Southern and Northern supporters in the Democratic and Whig parties, political leaders tried to avoid the slavery question. But with growing opposition in the North to the extension of slavery into the new territories, evasion of the issue became increasingly difficult. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 temporarily settled the issue by establishing the 36Â ° 30' parallel as the line separating free and slave territory in the Louisiana Purchase. Conflict resumed, however, when the United States boundaries were extended westward to the Pacific. The Compromise Measures of 1850 provided for the admission of California as a free state and the organization of two new territories—Utah and New Mexico—from the balance of the land acquired in the Mexican War. The principle of popular sovereignty would be applied there, permitting the territorial legislatures to decide the status of slavery when they applied for statehood. Despite the Compromise of 1850, conflict persisted. The South had become a minority section, and its leaders viewed the actions of the U.S. Congress, over which they had lost control, with growing concern. The Northeast demanded for its industrial growth a protective tariff, federal subsidies for shipping and internal improvements, and a sound banking and currency system. The Northwest looked to Congress for free homesteads and federal aid for its roads and waterways. The South, however, regarded such measures as discriminatory, favoring Northern commercial interests, and it found the rise of antislavery agitation in the North intolerable. Many free states, for example, passed personal liberty laws in an effort to frustrate enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act . The increasing frequency with which "free soilers," politicians who argued that no more slave states should be admitted to the Union, won elective office in the North also worried Southerners. The issue of slavery expansion erupted again in 1854, when Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois pushed through Congress a bill establishing two new territories -Kansas and Nebraska -and applying to both the principle of popular sovereignty. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, by voiding the Missouri Compromise, produced a wave of protest in the North,

Give Students a Break :: Argumentative Persuasive Essays

Give Students a Break Students at Tech, and indeed at most colleges, eagerly anticipate holidays because they provide a welcome break from classes. Although some may say that breaks only take away valuable class time from students, they fail to see the educational benefits that breaks afford. Tech's sparse holiday offerings take little advantage of these benefits. Tech is harming students, who could greatly benefit from the time breaks offer for relaxation, family interaction, and studying. Despite criticism, breaks do not necessarily have to adversely affect students' education by taking away important class time. There are many ways Tech could integrate breaks into its semester schedules without loosing any class time at all. For instance, classes could begin a few days early or end a few days late, allowing breaks to be added into the semesters. Alternatively, Tech could shorten its overly-long twenty-eight day Christmas break and use those days for breaks during the semesters. Careful planning of the breaks already offered would even help. During the fall semester, Tech currently offers one of its five breaks less than a week after classes begin and three more of its breaks less than three weeks before Christmas break begins. This poor scheduling leaves large gaps during the semester with no breaks at all. Why, though, are breaks important from an educational standpoint? One reason is that they lightens students' stress loads. College is stressful enough with breaks; without them, students have no way to recuperate from the stress of classes. During Montana Tech's fall semester, there are over two months of straight classes that contain no breaks at all. During the spring semester, there are two more large gaps between breaks, one of which is also over two months long. Although weekends do help, these are often used for studying and homework and do little to ease the students' stress. Many students begin to dislike their classes because of the stress they cause, and as a result, some put less effort into their studying. Breaks allow students some time off from their classes to relax so that they can come back refreshed. Another reason breaks are important is that they give students time to spend with their families. It is very important to develop social skills during college and, it is also important to become more independent. Both of these will aid the student when starting a new life after graduation. But family relationships are still very important for students.

To Kill a Mockingbird: Notes and Quotes

Quotes in To Kill a Mockingbird by theme Pride| * ‘†¦I suppose he loved honour more than his head†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ – talking about Jem when he ran up to the Radley House on a dare. A childish example of the much more complex idea of pride explored in this book * When asked why he is defending Tom Robinson, Atticus reponds that ‘†¦if I didn’t, I couldn’t hold up my head in town†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ * ‘It was the first time I ever walked away from a fight†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ – Scout refuses to fight Cecil Jacobs even though he insults Atticus, because Atticus had asked her not to fight.She gave up her pride for the respect of her father. * While Scout is proud that ‘Atticus is the ‘deadest shot in Maycomb County’, Jem takes more pride in the fact that Atticus is no proud of this talent and does not use it unless he has to, and that ‘Atticus is a gentleman, like me! ’ This is a great example of the way ideas chan ge with youth. * ‘She said she was going to leave this world beholden to nothing and nobody. Jem, when you’re sick as she was, it’s all right to take anything to make it easier, but it wasn’t all right for her.She said she meant to break herself of it before she dies, and that’s what she did’ – About Ms Dubose, who was too proud to die a morphine addict * A major aspect of pride in this novel if family pride. An example of this is when Jem and Scout withstand all of Ms Dubose’s insults and taunts, until she insults their father. When she exclaims that ‘‘your father’s no better than the niggers and trash he works for! ’ Jem loses it and destroys her garden. * ‘It was a sad thing that my father had neglected to tell me about the Finch Family, or to install any pride into his children’.As we have already seen, the Finch children are certainly proud of their father and themselves. However, Aunt Alexandra considers family pride upmost – they should not pride in Atticus for his bravery, but pride in him for upholding certain family traditions. To Alexandra, the best families were those who had lived on a certain plot of land longest. | Perspective/understanding other people| * ‘There’s some folks who don’t eat like us’ Another childish example which explores the much deeper idea of perspective * ‘If you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks.You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view†¦ until you climb into his skin and walk around in it. ’ * ‘You children last night made Walter Cunningham stand in my shoes for a minute. That was enough’ (after the mob scene) * ‘They could never, never understand that I live like I do because that’s the way I want to live’ – Mr Raymond – the Ã¢â‚¬Ë œdrunkard’ – who claims he can tell them ‘because you’re children and you can understand it’ unlike the adults. Atticus stands by his beliefs and is even able to see Mr Ewell’s point of view; ‘Jem, see if you can stand in Bob Ewell’s shoes a minutes. I destroyed his last shred of credibility at that trial†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢| Femininity| * ‘Sometimes you act so much like a girl it’s mortifyin’’ * ‘†¦Jem told me I was being a girl, that girls always imagined things, that’s who other people hated them so†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ * ‘I declare to the lord you’re getting more like a girl every day! * ‘I could not possibly hope to be a lady if I wore breeches; when I said I could do nothing in a dress she said I wasn’t supposed to be doing things that required pants’ * Aunt Alexandra claims she moved in to provide Scout a ‘feminine influence’ * ‘I felt th e walls of a pink cotton penitentiary closing in on me†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢| Growing up/youth| * ‘†We shouldn’a done that tonight, Scout. † It was then, I suppose, that Jem and I first began to part company. ( after the shooting at the Radley house when they tried to peek in the windows) * ‘†¦I was far too old and big for such childish things, and the sooner I learned to hold it in, the better off everybody would be. ’ (About fighting) * ‘When a child asks you something, answer him for goodness’ sake’ – reveals Atticus’ unusual attitude about children; he treats them with much more respect than most adults in the novel. Another good quote for this idea is ‘this is their home sister†¦We’ve made it this way for them, they might as well learn to cope with it’ – after Alexandra questions whether it was advisable to take the children to the hearing * While Scout is proud that ‘Att icus is the ‘deadest shot in Maycomb County’, Jem takes more pride in the fact that Atticus is no proud of this talent and does not use it unless he has to, and that ‘Atticus is a gentleman, like me! ’ This is a great example of the way ideas change with youth. * ‘Jem said I had to grow up sometime’ (about facing Ms Dubose) * ‘It’s time you started being a girl and acting right! – While in the past Jem had used ‘girl’ as an insult, accusing Scout of becoming ‘more and more like a girl every day’, as he matures his perspective on this changes. * As Jem grows up, he develops a sense of ‘maddening superiority’, and considers himself part of the ‘grown folks’ of Maycomb. * Jem ‘†¦broke the remaining code of our childhood’ when he valued adult rules more than children’s unspoken code of friendship and informed Atticus that Dill had run away from home. â €˜They could never, never understand that I live like I do because that’s the way I want to live’ – Mr Raymond – the ‘drunkard’ – who claims he can tell them ‘because you’re children and you can understand it’ unlike the adults. * ‘So far nothing in your life has interfered with your reasoning process†¦ There’s something in our world that makes men lose their heads – they couldn’t be fair if they tried. ’ * When Scout tell Jem that she thinks there’s just one kind of people (she, like Atticus, believes in the inherent goodness of humanity) he responds; ‘That’s what I thought too†¦ when I was your age.If there’s just one kind of folks, why can’t they get along with each other? ’ * ‘If Aunty could be a lady at a time like this, so could I’. Far from the fist fighting youth with little control of her emotions, Scout has matured over the course of the book and learned how to hide her feelings * ‘†¦had our classmates been left to their own devices, Jem and I would have had several swift, satisfying fist fights apiece and ended the matter for good.As it was, we were compelled to hole our heads high and be, respectively, a gentleman and a lady’| Morality / good vs evil / the inherent goodness of humanity| * Atticus Finch is unique in this novel in the way that he has seen evil without losing his faith in the human capacity for goodness. This is a major theme throughout the novel, and he tries to teach this lesson to his children by encouraging them to step into the shoes of others. He takes Tom Robinson’s case because of this belief, he knows that he is very unlikely to win, but he believes that it is possible to change the minds of the jury.He, unlike the others in this novel, believe that the jury are possible of the kind of goodness and bravery required to acquit Tom. * Whe n Scout asks if they will win it, Atticus plainly says ‘no, honey’. He fights anyway. * ‘Simply because we were liked a hundred years before we started is no reason for us not to try to win’ * ‘I think maybe he put his gun down when he realised that God has given his an unfair advantage over most living things.I guess he decided he wouldn’t shoot till he had to, and he had to today. ’ * ‘Scout, I couldn’t go to church and worship God if I didn’t try to help that man’ * ‘I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin abut you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.Mrs Dubose won’ * ‘I was drifting into sleep when the memory of Atticyl calmly folding his newspaper and pushing abck his hat became Atticus standing in the middle of an empty waiting steep, pushing up his glasses. ’ – Scout links these two events together for a reason * ‘Mr Cunningham’s’ basically a good man†¦ he just has his blind spots along with the rest of us’ – A nice insight into Atticus’ mind, a good quote to evidence his belief in the inherent goodness in humanity * ‘You children last night made Walter Cunningham stand in my shoes for a minute.That was enough’ (after the mob scene) * Scout compares the court day to ‘watching Atticus walk into the street, raise a rifle to his shoulder and pull the trigger, but watching all the time knowing that the gun was empty’ * ‘So far nothing in your life has interfered with your reasoning process†¦ There’s something in our world that makes men lose their heads – they couldn’t be fair if they tried. * Ms Merriweather believes that many of the people in Maycomb are †˜good, but misguided’ * The novel is concluded with a final moral debate – whether or not to persecute Bob Ewell’s killer. When Atticus thought that Jem had stabbed Ewell in self defence, he was adamant that Jem should go through the proper process in court rather than have rumours circulating about him his whole life. However, when Heck Tate finally convinced Atticus that it was in fact Arthur Radley that killed Ewell, Atticus finds himself in a moral dilemma.He finally concedes that ‘Mr Ewell fell on his knife’, and asks if Scout could possibly understand. She does, explaining perfectly that persecuting Arthur Radley would be ‘sort of like shootin’ a mockingbird, wouldn’t it? ’ Arthur Radley was already destroyed once by the evil in humanity, and Atticus and Scout agreed that it would be wrong to make someone as innocent and shy as him to defend himself in court, even if he did not do anything wrong. | Racism| * ‘ He’s ruining the family’ * He’s nothin’ but a nigger lover! * ‘Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don’t pretend to understand’ (Atticus) * ‘Your father’s no better than the niggers and trash he works for! ’ This blatant racism comes from Ms Dubose. * ‘They got their church, we go our’n’ – The racial divide in this novel goes both ways. This is further explored when Jem explains to Scout about ‘mixed’ children, and how ‘they don’t belong anywhere’ * ‘Mr Finch. If you was a nigger like me, you’d be scared too’ ‘The witnesses for this state†¦ have presented themselves to you gentlemen†¦ confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption – the evil assumption – that all Negroes lie, that all Negroes are basically immoral beings, that all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women’ * ‘In our courts, when it’s a white man’s word against a black mans, the while man always wins. They’re ugly, but those are the facts of life’| Innocence| * The children believe in goodness because they have not yet confronted evil. When they do, they respond differently.Dill cries (eg courthouse scene) and prompts the memorable quote ‘it seems only the children cry’. Dill makes the reader long for youthful innocence and belief in human goodness. Jem copes better with the shock initially, but after Tom’s death loses much of his faith in humanity and the justice system. He gets furious at once point, exclaiming ‘I don’t ever wanta hear about that courthouse again, ever, ever, you hear me? ’ Scout deals better with the shock, and despite the court’s decision, people like Atticus and Miss Maudie help her retain her faith in human goodness. * ‘Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy.That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird’ – Ms Maudie. A wonderful metaphor for one of the book’s main themes – the loss of innocence. This situation is replicated in a real life situation in the last scene, where Atticus and Heck Tate decide it immoral to convict Arthur Radley of manslaughter when all he was trying to do was protect the Finch children. * ‘Tell him hey for me, won’t you? ’ – Scout’s moving talk with Mr Cunningham proves the power of innocence. It was Scout’s youthful innocence that made Mr Cunningham and the rest of the mob reconsider the position they were in.Her speech broke the mob mentality and brought Mr Cunningham back to morality * Jem compares the reveal of evil in society to ‘like bein’ a caterpillar in a cocoon, that’s what it is†¦ I always thought Maycomb folks were th e best folks in the world, least that’s what they seemed like. ’ * ‘He likened Tom’s death to the senseless slaughter of songbirds by hunters and children†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Mr Underwood)| Society| * ‘She has committed no crime, she has merely broken a rigid and time-honoured code of our society†¦ she tempted a black man’ * ‘This is their home sister†¦We’ve made it this way for them, they might as well learn to cope with it’ – after Alexandra questions whether it was advisable to take the children to the hearing * While society shuns and hates the black people living near them, the Missionary Tea Parties give insight into how hypocritical society is when they pity the ‘Mrunas†¦living in that jungle†¦ the poverty†¦ the darkness’ * The hypocritical society is further explored in the brief reference to the Holocaust in the comments of Scout’s teacher (Miss Gates) that ‘ove r here we don’t believe in persecuting anybody. Persecution comes from people who are prejudiced. ’|

Development of Online Grading System Essay

Introduction The logistical problems associated with distributing, collecting, grading, and returning assignments and the difficulties in ensuring fairness and consistency in grading tend to increase non-linearly with the number of students enrolled in a class. This is especially true in project based design courses where evaluation is subjective, deliverables are team-based, and the philosophies and expectations of course faculty members may vary substantially. Online course management programs can be very helpful in the dissemination of information and the collection of grades in very large courses like those offered as part of the freshman core curriculum. However, the automated grading capabilities of these programs are generally limited to question banks with clearly defined right and wrong answers. More advanced computer-assisted grading systems have been developed for the assessment and grading of students. However, fully automated systems are still limited to applications with well-defined rules and objectives. Computer-assisted grading rubrics that guide the grading process and compile the final results are a more promising alternative. Our members report that using computer-assisted grading rubrics during essay grading reduced the grading time by half compared to traditional hand grading without a rubric and by two-thirds compared to hand grading with a rubric. In addition to the â€Å"reduced time in grading assignments,† and our other members notes that computer-assisted grading rubrics can lead to increased â€Å"validity and accuracy of grading – making grading more even handed,† increased feedback for students, and increased student satisfaction. Kurt and Gilbert also observed that the use of grading rubrics increased the consistency of grades across multiple graders, especially when teaching assistants were involved. The advantages of computer-assisted and web-based grading rubrics have led to the development of online tools for the assessment of student. However, these systems still do not fully address the problems of real and perceived teacher bias in grading, grade inflation, and professor pleasing. For example, 51% of respondents in a 20013 faculty survey on capstone design courses rated their perception of grading fairness as only â€Å"fair – I seldom hear complaints† and none rated their perception as a â€Å"all bias and distortion have been eliminated†. These types of concerns have led many students to prefer that design projects be evaluated by external jurors because they â€Å"want the jury process to be more objective and believe that the presence of external jurors will help achieve this†. This led San Sebastian to â€Å"to take professors out of the grading process† entirely and â€Å"replace them with professional evaluators who never meet the students,† who â€Å"don’t worry that students will punish harsh grades with poor reviews† and who have â€Å"no temptat ion to skew results in any way other than to judge the students’ work. This paper presents an online computer-assisted rubric-based grading website that was developed in conjunction with a distributed jury-based grading system to improve the fairness, consistency, and efficiency of grading in a large required first year project-based design course. This work provides a brief overview of the course, its deliverables, and the breakdown of the final grade. It discusses the design requirements, features, and implementation of the online grading system. Reactions from course faculty and staff members based on end-of-semester survey results are presented. Finally, the current limitations and future development directions of the online grading system are discussed. CHAPTER 1 Introduction Leader : Marchjohn Glorioso Members : Kurt Mallari Gilbert Cruz View as multi-pages

Greek Goddess Artemis and the Roman Goddess Diana Essay

The Roman empire developed much later than the Greek empire thus the Romans copied almost everything that the Greeks had developed over time, such as art, literature and Gods. However the Romans did give some of their Gods different names and duties than those of the Greek Gods. There are other differences, which is shown between the Greek Goddess Artemis and the Roman Goddess Diana. These two Goddesses are very similar, however some differences are apparent. The Greek Goddess Artemis is compared to her Roman equivalent Diana through genealogy, images and symbols, and modern connections. Artemis is the daughter of the Greek Gods Leto and Zeus, and the twin sister to the God Apollo. Although Artemis only has one sibling, she has many relationships with other Gods and had few enemies. One of these Gods is Orion, Artemis’s lover, who is a giant huntsman. Although Artemis ended up mistakenly killing her lover, she never married or had children. Artemis came upon many relationships through hunting, which is a common symbol for Greek Gods related to her. Other symbols associated with Artemis were most commonly directly connected with hunting. The bows and arrows are one of those symbols which resembles power and strength. However, Artemis usually used her power negatively by punishing people for their misdoings. One type of punishments was spreading the plague and transforming people into deers. A specific type of deer is the Kerynitian Hinds, which are deers larger than bulls with golden horns. These deers are also a symbol of Artemis because she used them for transformations often. A common image of Artemis that is recognized today is the moon. The moon is a present symbol that is on flags of several Muslim countries. However, the symbol didn’t have much more meaning other than representing the Gods associated with Greek Gods and their Roman counterparts. Because of the many symbols Artemis has, there is a vast majority of modern connections. The Artemis mission site by NASA is an example of how Artemis is connected with modern day science. The missions is run based on a spacecraft named Artemis that studies the moons relation to the sun. The Artemis spaceship bridge simulator is a game based on the spacecraft. Another association to modern science is through medicine. A human gene is also named after her. However, a lot of these association also apply to Artemis’s Roman equivalent Diana. The Roman Goddess Diana has many similar characteristics like those of the Greek Goddess Artemis. Diana is the twin sister of the Roman God Apollo and her parents are Leto and Zeus. Like Artemis, Diana has many relationships made through hunting. However she did not punish then due to the fact that she did not believe in punishment, especially not through transformations. Symbols that represent Diana are mostly associated with hunting. Bows and arrows represent power and strength, however they are not used negatively by Diana. She uses them as a sign of security. Nothing resembled to science can be associated with Diana, mainly because she is not well known in comparison to her Greek counterpart Artemis. As a modern connection, the moon is a similarity to Muslim countries, which is represented on several flags, however does not have any other meaning. The Roman Gods are a representation of strength and stability to the Muslim culture. The Roman Goddess Diana is very similar to her counterpart Artemis. Genealogy is identical due to the fact that the Romans based their Gods to the Greek Gods. This causes similar images and symbols, except that some Roman Gods weren’t as violent as the Greek Gods with their punishments. However, modern connections aren’t as similar as other aspects of these two Goddesses because the Greek Gods are more well known. Even though both the Greek Goddess Artemis and her Roman equivalent Diana have many similarities in genealogy, images and symbols, there are also differences in modern connections. Artemis’s parents are Leto and Zeus, and she only has one sibling, her brother Apollo. This is also true for Diana. Both these Goddesses have identical images and symbols, however Diana isn’t feared and she does not punish other Gods.. However, because of the Greeks being well known for their Gods and Goddesses, Artemis has more modern connection than Diana has.

Health and Safety Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Health and Safety - Essay Example The manager is now faced with a tough problem and that is to find means to save the image of the product and the company. This will cause a disruption in the manager’s planned routine and he will try to curtail losses as much as possible. Furthermore, the manager will try to gain back the confidence people has in his brand and his company and will therefore invest his time, energy and resources to retain the company’s market share. Hence, it is evident that safety plays a vital role in a manager’s job. Safety ensures the well being of a business in all aspects. Be it the manufacturing process, work place environment, food and beverages, occupational hazards or the environment in which business takes place. Safety is important for the efficient running of these processes and for the welfare of the people involved in these processes. For a business to prosper all business functions should work together and perform efficiently. Therefore, safety issues need to be considered right across the organizational domain starting from production and going up to shipment and delivery. For this reason most companies have developed standards for safety in their work domain and ensure that safety standards are always met. According to the WHO, food and waterborne diseases are the leading causes of illness and death in less developed countries, killing approximately  2.2 million people annually, an estimated 1.8 million of whom are children Therefore, the recent trends in global food production, processing, distribution and preparation are creating an increasing demand for food safety to ensure a safer global food supply (WHO). Even in the developed countries food safety has become a major concern. Food safety needs to be ensured in restaurants as well as homes to prevent people from catching food borne diseases. The WHO has identified five ways to ensure