Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Mechanical Engineering and Agriculture Essay Example for Free
Mechanical Engineering and Agriculture Essay Engineering is a rapidly developing career field. There are many reasons why I would like to become an engineer. I am interested in SIUE’s Mechanical Engineering program. Mechanical Engineering is an exciting career field. In my youth, I was constantly designing and building an assortment of contraptions out of LEGO’s and K’NEX pieces. These objects included rollercoasters, cars, buildings, tractors, and many other machines. Growing up on a farm, I have always been interested in agriculture. There are many reasons why I’m interested in the Mechanical Engineering program at SIUE. This program offers many challenges to its students while providing them with numerous opportunities to design and build many machines and devices. I have three cousins who are engineers. One of my cousins is a civil engineer, and the other two are mechanical engineers. The first mechanical engineer designs air ducts for commercial buildings. The second designs plastic containers for a variety of companies. While these are not related to my career interest, it shows the broad amount of jobs available to a mechanical engineer. This is another reason why this program interests me. In today’s economy, knowing there’s about a ten percent unemployment rate, the ability to have a very wide range set of skills is nearly a necessity. While building small toys out of plastic pieces is much different than designing the next rollercoaster, it is how I originally gained so much interest in engineering. At the age of seven, I received a rollercoaster K’NEX set for Christmas. We opened presents at about nine on Christmas Eve. By the time we were done, it was almost ten. I stayed up building the roller coaster and finished in about an hour and a half. The design was not very complex; however, it was taller than me at the time. I also built as many cars as possible out of my LEGO’s. The fact that it was always interesting, and still is, is the main reason why I am interested in engineering. Agriculture has had a major influence on my life. I live on a farm, and many people know the ups and downs of farm life. The fact that this career could give me the ability to work at a company like John Deere or Caterpillar is very exciting. Once I graduate, I plan to work in an agriculture related field. I have grown up around it and want to see the look on my dad’s face when I design him a better tractor or combine. The salary that comes with these jobs is also a bonus since I’m used to money being short at times. Engineering is one of the most interesting and broadest career fields today. I am very interested in Mechanical Engineering at SIUE. Whether I was building K’NEX rollercoasters or LEGO cars, I have been building since my youth. Growing up on a farm has given me background for my career interests and has been an important factor in choosing my major
Monday, August 5, 2019
Sen’s Theorem: Overview and Analysis
Sen’s Theorem: Overview and Analysis Table of Contents (Jump to) 1. Introduction 2. A Review of Sen’s Theorem 3. The Rise of New Interpretation 4. Merits of the New Interpretation 5. Conclusion References 1. Introduction The Sen’s theorem has an important impact on the decision and social choice theory. In the Nobel Prize lecture of 1998, Sen said that discovering the societal decision rules will be the main objective of the choice theory. However, Sen found it is difficult to achieve this objective in his paper of â€Å"Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal†(Sen, 1970a, b, 1976c). Sen’s theorem states that it is impossible to achieve the minimal aspect of liberalism when it is combined with the Pareto condition. According to the theorem of Sen, it seems that there is a fundamental conflict between the Pareto welfare concepts and the liberalism. After this argument, there is a pooling of studies that focus on the individual rights and there are also studies that find new interpretation for the theorem of Sen. According to Saari and his collaborators, the cyclic decision outcomes established by Sens theorem describe a transitional, dysfunctional state of society. This essay will mainly explain how this interpretation arises and discuss its merits relative to the original interpretation offered by Sen. The essay will be structured as follow: in the second session, the essay will briefly introduce the Sen’s Theorem regarding to the conflicting results between Pareto Optimal and Liberalism. Examples will also be used to better illustrate the choice decisions. In the third session, the essay will how and why there will be new interpretations of the theorem of Sen. Particularly, the essay will base its argument on the research results of Saari and his collaborators. In the fourth session, the essay will discuss the merits of the new interpretation compared with the interpretation by Sen himself. In the last session, a brief conclusion will be made based on the analysis in the previous se ssion. 2. A Review of Sen’s Theorem The Sens impossibility of a paretian libertarian theorem or Sens paradox Paratian liberal states that weak Pareto criterion and liberalism may have conflicts on the fundamental level, which indicated that the Pareto criterion is flawed. On one hand, it shows that the Pareto criteria only consider aspects of difference in efficiency among relevant states while ignoring the individual utility conflicts arising because of these states. On the other hand, the theorem also shows the in addition to considering some reasonable internal conditions, one also needs to consider issues such as liberalism for social order decision making. According to Sen, there are some choices that are purely of personal nature, such as the state (x) means everything else in the society as ÃŽ ©, when A is sleeping supine, state (y) means everything else in society as ÃŽ ©, when A is sleeping prostrate. If A has a preference of y than x, while many others in the society prefer the opposite, then it can be consid ered that social choice between x and y is a purely personal thing, because A is the only a real person that is related to the choice while other people are just nosy person. It can also be considered that one can choose one such a collective choice rule where As preference should be accurately reflected by social preferences in this purely personal nature choices (Sen, 1970). Based on this point, Sen emphasizes that people should pay attention to the study of individual rights and other issues affecting the social choice order and decision making. The new welfare economics and welfare economics research before the new welfare economics are consciously or unconsciously avoid these problems. Sen (1970) found that the Pareto criterion is incompatible with liberalism. Pareto optimality is used by the economists and other social scientists to measure the efficiency of society, which is also the the most common and widespread, even the only indicator. It refers to such a state that we are good as it gets, no one can make an additional welfare without compromising the welfare of others. And the principles of individual freedom are the relentless pursuit of mankind, both of which are on the intuition that people can fully accept and understand. However, Sens theorem shows that these two attractive standards are contradictory and cannot be simultaneously true. 3. The Rise of New Interpretation There are three assumptions that Sen’s theorem is based on and the realistic of these assumptions will be one reason why there will be new interpretations for the Sen’s theorem. First, the essay will briefly introduce the assumptions related to the Sen’s theorem. An unrestricted area principle; The Pareto principle; The minimum principles of liberalism (ML), which states society should give at least two people the right to choose between at least a pair of social status. If one thinks that A better than B, then society should not interfere and should agree with the preference. With Sens words, if you want sleeping supine and did not want to sleep prostrate, the society should agree with it. However, Sen also prove that for two or more people in the society, there exist no social choice functions that simultaneously satisfy these above three conditions because there will be the similar results of cyclical Condorcet voting paradox revealed by Arrow Impossibility Theorem when Pareto optimal is in combination with a minimum principle of liberalism. Sen’s theorem on freedom of the Pareto impossibility can be accurately described as: there does not exist the collective decision rule that meets the following conditions. The first condition is a sort of rational conditions. The sort is reflexive, relevance, and the preference relation is not circulating. Reflexive means for any choice x has xRx, which indicates that any choice is at least as good as its own. Relevance means for any two options, there must be xRy or yRx or both. The second condition is weak Pareto criterion. For any choice of x and y, if everyone i think xPiy, then the society also thinks that xPy. The third condition is the minimal liberalism. In this condition, there are two non-empty, disjoint subsets L1 and L2, two different options for the (a, b) and (c, d), if everyone in L1 considers a is better than b, then the society also thinks that a is better than b; if everyone in L1 thinks that b is better than a, then b is also better than a for the society. Similarly, if everyone in L2 believes that c is better than d, then the society also thinks that c is better than d; if everyone in L2 thinks d is better than c, then the society t hinks also that d is better than c. The two groups were decisive on the choice between the two groups. Anyone is free to do what he likes to do, which means there are some choices that are entirely personal, personal preferences should not be affected by some other people. How to walk out of Sens paradox? Mueller has proposed two solutions in the â€Å"public choice theory . One is to let the Pareto principle in some cases to comply with the right to liberalism. The other is through Pareto transactions. As Mueller noted, the matrix is similar to game theory, for example a state in the famous prisoners dilemma, and the Pareto inferior results are due to the independent exercise of each person in his own right, regardless of the damage to others such externalities. The results of Sen’s theorem are established mainly through examples. There are no rigorous proofs on the results why there will be inconsistency of minimal liberalism and Pareto conditions. The results are basically based on the assumption that there are conflicts between the Pareto Conditions and the Minimal Liberalism. There are questions keep asking whether the assumption is true and what if the cyclic societal rankings are not due to these conditions? In fact, in 1998 and 2001, Saari argues that the real reason of the seminal result of Sen’s theorem is not related to the nature of the Pareto condition and the Minimal Liberalism. The reason is that Pareto conditions and Minimal Liberalism needs the societal rankings to be made over pairs, which dismiss the transitivity of individual preferences. Therefore, it is not the conflicts between societal need and individual rights that undermine the assumption of individual rationality; it is the concentration of pairs that leads to the ignorance of individual rationality. And Saari also made geometric proof on this argument, which provides a new interpretation for the Sen’s theorem. 4. Merits of the New Interpretation There are several advantages of the new interpretation compared to the one that Sen present in the original version. First of all, the theorem carried out by Saari and his collaborates are proved using geometric proof, instead of using only examples and assumptions to derive the final results. In addition, the new interpretation can explain all the examples used by Sen in his prior papers and the new interpretation also supports Sen’s own interpretation that the three conditions in Sen’s theorem force the decisions to be made by ignoring the individual rationality. The new interpretation also thinks that the decision rule also wants to meet the demand in the cyclic preference (Saari 2001; Saari and Petron, 2004). Secondly, the geometric proof of the new interpretations has identified all possible profiles that support any examples of Sen’s model. In addition, Saari and his collaborates have also significantly expanded on earlier observations by providing a new statistical interpretation for Sen’s Theorem. And they also conclude that the cyclic decision outcomes established by Sens theorem describe a transitional, dysfunctional state of society. Thirdly, the new interpretation has pointed a new direction for the movements of individual rights. Compared with the interpretation by Sen, the new interpretation focus more on the intensity minimal liberalism, which will leads to social decision procedures without cyclic outcomes and at the same time satisfy weak Pareto conditions. They pointed out the deeper reason of the ignorance of individual rationality instead of concluding that the reason is because of the inconsistency of the Pareto condition and the Minimal Liberalism. 5. Conclusion As discussed in the previous session, the Sen’s theorem provides a good direction for the research of individual rights. And there are many researchers working on the topic to find new interpretation for the seminal results of Sen’s theory. Saari and his collaborates find that Minimal Liberalism makes some of the information in the society irrelevant. However, depending on that information, individual preferences may or may not be transitive. Therefore, they conclude that Minimal Liberalism makes transitivity information irrelevant and this happens for any possible example of Sen’s cycles. They find a way to solve this problem and the response to this is to modify Minimal Liberalism in a way that is sensitive to transitivity information. They use the Intensity Minimal Liberalism (IML), which is a decisive that agent can impose his preferences only when the choice does not create a strong negative externality for some other agent. And they finally find that there are social decision procedures without cyclic outcomes that satisfy weak Pareto and IML, which provides a new interpretation for the Sen’s theorem. The new interpretation finds a more appropriate way to proof Sen’s theorem and expends Sen’s theorem in several aspects. References Li, I. and D.G. Saari 2008. ‘Sen’s theorem: geometric proof, new interpretations’, Social Choice and Welfare 31: 393-413. Focus especially on pages 393-401. Petron, A and D.G. Saari 2006. `Negative externalities and Sens liberalism theorem, Economic Theory 28: 265-281. Read Sections 1 to 4. Saari, D. G. (1995). Basic Geometry of Voting, Springer-Verlag, New York Saari, D. G. (1998). Connecting and resolving Sen’s and Arrow’s Theorems, Social Choice Welfare 15, 239-261 Saari, D. G. (2001). Decisions and Elections; Explaining the Unexpected, Cambridge University Press, New York Saari, D. G., and Petron, A. (2004). (April), Negative Externalities and Sen’s Liberalism Theorem, IMBS working papers, University of California, Irvine, to appear in Economic Theory,June, 2006. Saari, D. G. and Sieberg, K. (2001). The sum of the parts can violate the whole, American Political Science Review 95, 415-433. Salles, M. (1997). On Modelling Individual Rights: Some Conceptual Issues: Discussion; p 129-133 in Social Choice Re-examined, Vol. 2; Ed. by K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, and K. Suzumura,St Martin’s Press New York. Sen, A. K. (1966). A Possibility Theorem on Majority Decisions, Econometrica, 34(2), 491-09. Sen, A. K. (1970a). Collective Choice and Social Welfare, Holden-Day, San Francisco. Sen, A. K. (1970b). The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal, The journal of Political Economy, 78(1), 152-57. Sen, A. K. (1976). Liberty, Unanimity and Rights, Economica 43(171), 217-45. Sen, A. K., Liberty and Social Choice, Journal of Philosophy, 80(1), 5-28. Sen, A. K. (1992) Minimal Liberty, Economica, 59 (234), 139-60. Sen, A. K. (1999) The possibility of social choice. The American Economic Review 89 (3), 349-378
Sunday, August 4, 2019
The Cold War :: essays research papers
1. Name of President- Harry S. Truman 2. Dates in Office- 1945-1952 3. Political Party- Democrat 4. Presidential Cold War Philosophy President Truman’s philosophy was to come to the defense of those countries in danger of Soviet takeover, but the US would not start a war with the Soviet Union. He also made alliances with Europe through NATO, which was a contrast to the past because from the time of Washington’s Farewell Address, Americans have strongly favored avoiding all foreign entanglements. He also was taken over by the paranoia created by the Red Scare because he ordered investigations of 3 million federal employees for â€Å"security risks.†5. Actions taken during presidency in regard to Cold War.      a. The Beginning of the Cold War- The end of World War II raised the issue of the shape of the      new world and what new political alliances would be formed. This would become the major      source of contention between the world’s leading political-economic system, capitalism and      communism. The American economy was growing more dependent on exports, while American      industry needed to import metals. This required open trade and friendly relations with those      nations that provided metal. With many economies in shambles, competition for the few healthy      economies became fierce. Germany, Japan, and Great Britain, who had been the strongest before      war had either been defeated or their influence was greatly reduced. The United States and the      Soviet Union became the world’s leading two powers, and they quickly became enemies.      b. The Truman Doctrine- After the Soviet Union had spread communism to Hungary      and Czechoslovakia, it threatened to take over Greece and Turkey. Truman was intent on      preventing this. The Truman Doctrine states that the US would support the free peoples who      were resisting the attempted subjugation of the Soviet Union. This was the cornerstone of a      larger policy called containment, which provided that while the US would not go to war with      the Soviet Union, it would come to the defense of countries in danger of Soviet takeover.      c. The Marshall Plan- This was a way to gain alliances. This plan sent more than $12 billion      to Europe to help rebuild its cities and economy. In return for that money, those countries      were expected to become American allies. It was offered to Eastern Europe, but no country      participated.      d. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)- This was a mutual defense alliance
Change in Life from Antebellum to the New Deal Essay -- essays researc
Modern America can be considered one of the world’s economic and industrial leaders. This didn’t happen instantaneously. It was a long process that took centuries to occur from when America was first colonized by England. America started slow and far behind England and other European countries in the technology race but a diverse culture and the work ethic of American people all helped to push this country forward. From antebellum America in the 19th century, to the Progressive Era in the late 19th century and early 20th century, and finally to the New Deal period in the 20th century, many changes occurred as millions of people lives were affected greatly during this time. Throughout these eras in U.S. history, there was a general improvement in the lives of most Americans from the progression of economic life.      During the antebellum period, the United States was a predominantly pre-industrial society. There were very few factories open at this time. Most of the factory workers were from rural and village cultures. These jobs usually required no skill or knowledge and were quite simple to learn. Working conditions in factories were at its worst with extremely low pay, long workdays, and dangerous conditions. Most workers remained as farmers and artisans. They devoted their lives to their work and were skilled at their jobs. Artisans usually worked closely with agrarians to make different products. Farmers worked the fields, growing crops and raising livestock. Their work would occasionally become easier from new tools made by artisans. Women during this time were housewives. They were doing everything at home. They took care of the children, the house, and the food for the family. Sometimes, life demanded that they work the fields with their husbands. Most women did not have jobs outside the home but a small number did work outside in factory jobs. There was a great influx of immigrants at this time. Many of them worked at factories, usually taking the lowest paying positions available. Their different cultures and work habits often caused many problems because they were not accustomed to the American customs. Most of the immigrants chose to settle in American cities, where most jobs were located. As a result, the cities became extremely crowded. Housing in cities became a major problem from the large number of immigrants. Most ... ...evel administrative positions due to various New Deal agencies and programs. Not many reform programs were intended for women. Most of their benefits came indirectly from programs targeted at men. From the three eras of America, antebellum, Progressive, and New Deal, there seems to be a general increase in quality of life in the workplace and outside. Although there were also many inhumane things that happened, such as the growth of monopolies which prevented many small businesses to fail, the overall improvement of life is still evident. From the antebellum period, when Americans were having trouble finding jobs and many jobs were taken by immigrants, to the New Deal, when Americans have their rights protected and secured by the government, the quality of life has improved. Especially through the efforts of the Progressives and their reforms and Roosevelt and his New Deal, the American worker has never had more security in their life than ever before. Because of the security of their jobs and wages, the number of people that can live relatively comfortably have increased since the last 19th century. Therefore, in general, most people did improve their lives during these perio ds.
Saturday, August 3, 2019
Who is the Living Christ of Mormonism? :: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Who is the Living Christ of Mormonism? "In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak'" (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7). "It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (LDS Seventy Bernard P. Brockbank, The Ensign, May 1977, p.26 ). Following one of our outreaches at the LDS "Jesus the Christ" pageant in Mesa, Arizona, I overheard a young Mormon girl complain to her friend how one of the Christians tracting the event had said that the Jesus of Mormonism was not the Jesus of the Bible. She was overtaken by such a statement, incredulous that such a comment could be made. "How can that be?" she said. "There is only one Jesus!" It would seem reasonable that if the one to whom Mormons call "the Savior" is in fact the Savior of Scripture, it should be easy to take what the Bible has to say about Jesus and then compare this with what Mormons leaders have said. Logic would demand that the two descriptions should parallel. However, this is where the problem lies. Mormon leaders have described their Jesus as a literal offspring of the one they call Elohim. "The First Presidency of the Church has written, 'God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title Elohim,' is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race" (Messages from the First Presidency 5:26). According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Vol.4, Appendix 4), "Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons and daughters of Elohim." Page 11 of the LDS Church manual Gospel Principles (pg. 11) states, "All men and women are...literally sons and daughters of Deity." This includes the Mormon Jesus. Mormon theology makes a distinction between Elohim and Jehovah. LDS leaders have claimed that these are the names of two separate Gods. Sixth LDS President Joseph F. Smith stated, "Among the spirit children of Elohim, the first-born was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors" (Gospel Doctrine, p. Who is the Living Christ of Mormonism? :: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Who is the Living Christ of Mormonism? "In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak'" (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7). "It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (LDS Seventy Bernard P. Brockbank, The Ensign, May 1977, p.26 ). Following one of our outreaches at the LDS "Jesus the Christ" pageant in Mesa, Arizona, I overheard a young Mormon girl complain to her friend how one of the Christians tracting the event had said that the Jesus of Mormonism was not the Jesus of the Bible. She was overtaken by such a statement, incredulous that such a comment could be made. "How can that be?" she said. "There is only one Jesus!" It would seem reasonable that if the one to whom Mormons call "the Savior" is in fact the Savior of Scripture, it should be easy to take what the Bible has to say about Jesus and then compare this with what Mormons leaders have said. Logic would demand that the two descriptions should parallel. However, this is where the problem lies. Mormon leaders have described their Jesus as a literal offspring of the one they call Elohim. "The First Presidency of the Church has written, 'God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title Elohim,' is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race" (Messages from the First Presidency 5:26). According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Vol.4, Appendix 4), "Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons and daughters of Elohim." Page 11 of the LDS Church manual Gospel Principles (pg. 11) states, "All men and women are...literally sons and daughters of Deity." This includes the Mormon Jesus. Mormon theology makes a distinction between Elohim and Jehovah. LDS leaders have claimed that these are the names of two separate Gods. Sixth LDS President Joseph F. Smith stated, "Among the spirit children of Elohim, the first-born was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors" (Gospel Doctrine, p.
Friday, August 2, 2019
Domestic Terrorism In The United States Essay
To varying degrees, domestic terrorism has survived and affected the social and political structure of the United States. As defined by the country’s Department of Justice, these words connote â€Å"the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives†(U. S. Department of Justice, 1994, p. 26). Though such characterization is considerably clear in its meaning, oftentimes a case-by-case interpretation is necessary to ascertain where extremism ends and terrorism begins. Terrorism vs. Extremism A more concise demarcation between extremism and terrorism is evident in the recognition that extremism is not unusual in any political environment, and is more often than not directed by societal pressures, civil discourse, education and the law. On the other hand, in terrorism, the violence is far beyond control by civil, educational or societal elements and must be tracked down, penalized and castigated by law enforcement agencies. The Dictionary of Political Thought defines extremism as â€Å"a vague term, that can mean a) the taking of a political idea to its limits, regardless of unfortunate repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary and with the intention not only to confront but also to eliminate opposition; b) intolerance towards all views other than one’s own; and c) the adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty and human rights of others†(Scronton, 1982). The complexity of separating terrorism and extremism is that in various situations, domestic groups which are seemingly law-abiding at present, may be contemplating of violent actions in the future. As it is, many violent groups started as non-violent discussion or protest movements with very lofty ideals; however, as time elapsed they evolved into something else. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, provides a suitable and a more fitting characterization of terrorism when he described it as â€Å"the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends. †USA Patriot Act Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act stretched the definition of terrorism to include domestic in contrast to international terrorism. An individual is said to be involved in domestic terrorism if he/she does an act that is dangerous to human life, that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, and if the act appears to be intended to a) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; b) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or c) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Further, the acts have to take place chiefly within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, then these acts can already be regarded as international terrorism. Clearly, Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism. Nonetheless, it does extend the kinds or the nature of actions that the government can examine and probe into when it is investigating terrorism. The USA Patriot Act stretched out the powers of the government when they do their investigations and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism. Such definition of domestic terrorism is expansive enough to cover the actions and activities of many known activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could make them subject to investigations as engaging in domestic terrorism. Contemporary Domestic Terrorism Though governments, private and public institutions have been beleaguered and weighed down by terrorism for hundreds of years in one form or another, the strategies and the application associated with it have changed and progressed as surely as the societies upon which it is imposed. Technological advances in the transportation, communication and in the area of weaponry have permitted the capacities of current domestic terrorist groups to get their message out and have enhanced their ability to take aggressive and sadistic action to achieve their objectives. President Clinton launched a counter-terrorism bill to the Senate and House of Representatives in February of 1995. One exceedingly contentious proposal in the bill is the assigning of the Department of Defense a dominant role in assisting the investigation of domestic terrorism incidents in which chemical and biological agents are utilized. Currently, the military can be used in cases of terrorist activities where there is an alleged employment of nuclear weapons or devices and much more if such allegation has been established (Hall, 1995, Sec A). Though the amplified role of the military would be limited, necessitating a further amendment to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, civil liberties experts cautioned that it would infringe the tenets of civil supremacy over the military and would only rekindle the hostilities and anti-government sentiments of the citizen-militias and conspiracy theorists (Landay, 1995). Furthermore, several Congressmen, law-enforcement officials and some military advisers concur that such employment of the military would be an exceedingly precarious approach in combating domestic terrorism. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat from New York, responded to questions as to whether the use of the military, in an expanded role, should be a part of the counterterrorism package, said, â€Å". . . the military defends the nation and does not involve itself in internal affairs†(Minzesheimer, 1995, Sec A). Incidents and Implications There has been an evident and persistent decline in the number of terrorist incidents in the United States during the past twenty years. To further delineate the trend of decline over time, a comparison of the average number of incidents per year during each of three, six-year periods would be useful. During the six year period from 1977 through 1982, there was an average of 59. 0 incidents/year; from 1983 through 1988 an average of 15. 7 incidents/year were recorded; this compared to an average of 5. 3 incidents/year investigated during the period from 1989 through 1994 (FBI, 1994). *** ACTIVE GROUPS OPERATING WITHIN THE UNITED STATES CLASSIFIED AS TERRORISTS African National Prison Organization (ANPO). An arm of the African Peoples Socialist Party. Animal Rights. Principally against use of animals for any purpose beyond their natural existence. Armed Resistance Group (ARG) aka Revolutionary Fighting Group, Red Guerrilla Faction. This group has been characterized in 1988 as â€Å"tired and aging revolutionaries. †Greenpeace Principally environmental-use extremists. Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Reorganized and relocated several arms of its group in 1989. Macheteros. Puerto Rican nationalists. Ohio Seven. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Very public-relations oriented. Radical Feminist Organizing Committee (RFOC). Driven-out of the feminist movement in 1989, operating independently. RAMBOC (Restore a More Benevolent Order Coalition). Targets and actively pursues the US assets and people of foreign groups with terrorist links, such as the PLO, SWAPO, ANC, etc†¦ Rolling Thunder aka American Foundation for Accountability; primary focus is to draw attention to the POW/MIA issue from Vietnam War. Satanic Cult. Associated with attempted bombing of churches and kidnapping, and animal sacrifices, tombstone vandalism, and miscellaneous actions. Skinheads (SKA). Groups consist of both racist and anti-racist factions. SS Action Group. Principally anti-Semitic. Apparent Motivation There are principally four classifications into which groups that are regarded as domestic terrorists can be distinguished currently existing in the United States. These groups can be generically delineated as being either motivated by religious convictions, racial prejudice and supremacist goals, anarchistic/anti-government/politically motivated, or in pursuit of unique special interests. These classifications have been extracted from a collection of the categorization and delineation of extremist and terrorist groups by two respected subject-authorities, Stephen Segaller and FBI’s Department of Justice. Segaller, in his book Invisible Armies, classified domestic terrorism in the United States into four groups as well, but lists them as being: a) Cuban infighting (political), b) â€Å"backwoods terrorism†(a combination of religious, racist and anarchistic), c) violent Puerto Rican independence groups (political), and d) a handful of domestic revolutionary Marxist groups (anarchistic/anti-government and racist) (Segaller, 1987, pp. 221-225). Theoretically speaking, the stimulus for the creation and sustained existence of extremist and terrorist groups can unequivocally be associated in many circumstances to ethnic, cultural, religious, and racial feelings of superiority. An accurate depiction of the continuum formed by these supremacist attitudes, and how they promote further tension is succinctly articulated by Frank G. McGuire, when he said that as long as Christians feel superior to Jews (or vice-versa) and Catholics feel superior to Protestants and Ashkenazic Jews feel superior to Sephardic Jews, men feel superior to women and whites feel superior to blacks/browns/yellows/reds and so on, such phenomenon will be with us (McGuire, 1990, p. 10). These cultural, racial, gender, and a myriad of other differences that are present among people in society, particularly one as diverse as the United States of America, must be acknowledged and respected, but shouldn’t be seen or considered as a encumbrance to peace and harmony within society. Nor should these diversities be seen as wholly benign in their impact on the functioning of society as a whole. Tibor Machan, a social and political commentator, showed a well-timed dissertation on the myths and erroneous beliefs associated with viewing multiculturalism as simply a difference in dress, music, dance, and customs. Dr. Machan asserted that cultural differences, whether a result of race, gender, religion, or whatever, impacts both negatively and positively on other cultures within the society (Machan, 1996, pp. 134-135) and further opined that attitudes of cultural-superiority and intolerance are directly related and incorporated into many of the extremist views and motivations that are plaguing America today. The period from 1982 through 1994 showed that the targets of domestic terrorism were predominately commercial establishments. The majority of incidents directed against commercial establishments were conducted by animal-rights and/or anti-abortion extremists, either attacking stores that sold fur, or clinics that performed abortions or provided abortion advice, respectively (FBI, 1994; McGuire, 1990). Religious & Racial Supremacy/Intolerance Religious intolerance founded upon fundamentalist standpoints has been the stimulus for acts of terrorism all throughout history and such as involved Orthodox Jews, Moslems, Catholics, and Protestants. Perhaps, there is no issue or idea among human beings that is as provocative and as seditious as that of religious beliefs. Auspiciously, at least as far as the United States is concerned, terror stimulated by religious intolerance has not been as significant a threat as in other parts of the world like in Africa, the Middle East or Bosnia. â€Å"America is a unique nation in that it guarantees the freedom of religion with the First Amendment and the right to [keep and] bear arms with the Second Amendment. This means that people can believe whatever they want, and they can buy the guns to protect that belief†(LeBaron, n. d). The statement was made in direct reference to Mormon fundamentalism and summarizes the very ideology upon which this country was founded which also provides an insight into the potential dangers that exist with religious extremist groups. Recently however, there has been rhetoric and open threats of aggression from different extremist groups that describe themselves as being inspired by religion, nonetheless, have undisputedly displayed racial supremacist and hate-mongering views. The leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, advocates sundry rhetoric of black supremacist views and religious fervor. He professes to have the faith and devotion of some four million people (Fletcher, 1996). In addition, several white-supremacist clusters, including some of the many Christian militia splinter groups, advocate exceptionally caustic and hate-filled threats as well, apparently an endless, ages-old game of â€Å"I call you a name, you call me a name. †Oddly enough, two racial supremacist groups representing opposite extremes, the Nation of Islam and the Posse Comitatus, have concurred to an ultimate end-state segregation of the United States into regions of pure racial integrity. Another group operating within the United States that has historically merged a racist agenda with religious rhetoric, and was truly very sadistic in its actions and objectives, is the Ku Klux Klan. They have, however, considerably lessened in both their membership numbers and invisible power-base in recent years, and though there are still very strident individuals appearing from time to time, the danger posed by the Klan nowadays is essentially restricted to local regions, and their activities are in the form of parades and rallies. As the Klan has faded in its activities and numbers, it has been replaced by the tremendously vicious and rapidly growing racist movement known as the Aryan Nations, which is strongly associated with the Identity Church that proclaims Anglo-Saxons as God’s chosen people. The fundamentalist Mormons are another religiously-motivated cluster within the United States that are catching the attention and concern of law enforcement and other government officials. This group has been at odds, to a certain degree, with the government since its creation in the early 1800s. Many of these fundamentalist Mormons are well-armed conspiracy-minded survivalists, who have retreated to the mountains of central Utah to await Armageddon, which they believe will occur on April 6, 2000. Believing in their gifts of prophecy and revelation, and fired-up by heavenly visions and doctrines of blood atonement and oaths of vengeance, they have isolated themselves awaiting the end of the world and fearing that the government is about to take away their freedoms (LeBaron, n. d. ). A specifically insightful yet explosive issue to a huge section of the American people, despite individual beliefs, is the classification of particular abortion clinic-related hostility as domestic terrorism. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994 in concurrence with the Attorney General Guidelines (AGG) on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and Domestic Security/Terrorism Investigations, instigated and directed the creation of the Department of Justice Task Force on Violence Against Abortion Providers to look into conspiratorial acts of violence against abortion clinics and personnel as domestic terrorism (FBI, 1994). Although personal opinions on the ethical aspects associated with abortion, whether for or against, are not wholly confined to religious beliefs, the most articulate, open and visible anti-abortion advocates are directly allied with religious organizations. As it is, abortion rights and issues persist to be one of the most contentious and conflict-ridden questions among Americans and motivate exceedingly passionate and rousing rhetoric and reactions from people from both sides of the matter. In the period between 1982 and the end of 1984, there were a total of 220 separate acts of violence, including 89 cases of bombing, arson and other serious incidents, conducted against clinics where abortions were performed or abortion-advice offered (Segaller, 1987, pp. 222-223). Ethnically and racially stimulated bias, extreme loathing and carnage are as much a part of human history as any other characteristics of mankind, and have at least to some extent have a bearing on the cultural and social identities of essentially all civilizations to date. From the subjugation of Hebrews by ancient Egyptians, to present-day current situation in the Balkans, racial and ethnic differences have triggered incalculable suffering and death. The history of racial and ethnic turmoil in the United States is no different, and is seemingly experiencing an increase in such activity recently. Racially-motivated extremist and terrorist groups in the United States, especially those of today, seem to employ religious rationalizations and teachings for their sadistic tendencies and aggressive actions, and all indications point to the fact that such trend will continue at an accelerating rate into the foreseeable future. Anarchistic/Anti-government /Political Terrorist clusters of today that are actually anarchist, anti-government or political in their motivations are mostly associated with the growing self-determination, radical citizen-militia movements, or have been around a relatively long time, such as the Puerto Rican freedom fighters. The former has drawn considerable attention, and extracted wary concern from law-enforcement and civil-rights groups due to the bombing in Oklahoma City, and their rapid and continuing growth in numbers and visibility. A few of the more extreme citizen-militia groups, often motivated by New World Order conspiracy theorists and anger over a belief that government has become too large and repressive in everyday life, are openly soliciting and calling for the overthrow of the United States government. These groups, when linked with the self-described â€Å"Constitutionalists,†are being considered as extremely dangerous by many law-enforcement and watchdog groups (Knickerbocker, 1995). The Puerto Rican terrorist groups have been almost exclusively limited in their actions to operating within Puerto Rico against local and federal targets of opportunity. Unique Special Interests Within this designation of domestic terrorist groups are those of relatively recent creation, or at least they have relatively recently gained high public visibility through their actions. Groups such as the extremist animal-rights groups, environmental extremist groups and homosexual-rights groups, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Earth Night Action Group, and Act Up, respectively, have emerged within the past two decades and have actively used violence, destruction and intimidation to gain recognition, and to further their respective political agendas. References *** McGuire, Frank. 1990. Security intelligence sourcebook: Who’s Who in terrorism. Silver Spring, MD. : Interests, Ltd. U. S. Department of Justice. 1994. Terrorism in the United States, 1994. Washington, DC. : National Security Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorist Research and Analytical Center Scronton, R. 1982. Dictionary of Political Thought. New York: Hill and Wang Hall, M. 1995. â€Å"Clinton’s Military Police Plan Under Fire. †USA Today, 11 May Sec. 5A. Landay, J. S. 1995. â€Å"Tempering Terrorism. †The Christian Science Monitor, 8 May Sec. US. Minzesheimer, B. 1995. â€Å"Terrorism Bill Warning: Go Slow. †USA Today, 1 May Sec. 5A. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1994. Terrorism in the United States 1982 – 1992; Terrorism in the United States 1994. Segaller, S. 1987. Invisible armies, terrorism into the 1990s. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Machan, T. 1996. â€Å"Fallacies of Uncritical Multiculturalism. †The Freeman, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 134-135. LeBaron, G. Jr. â€Å"Mormon Fundamentalism and Violence: A Historical Analysis available at http://www. tcd. net/~garn/ polygamy. html>. Fletcher, M. A. 1996. â€Å"Farrakhan Vows to Take Libya’s Aid. †Washington Post, 26 February, Sec. A1. Knickerbocker, B. 1995. â€Å"US Militias: The Dark Side of Frontier Independence. †The Christian Science Monitor, 24 April, Sec. NATIONAL.
Thursday, August 1, 2019
Psychological approaches Essay
Today, few psychologists identify their outlook according to a particular school of thought. While you may still find some pure behaviorists or psychoanalysts, the majority of psychologists instead categorize their work according to their specialty area and perspective. Every topic in psychology can be looked at in a number of different ways. For example, let’s consider the subject of aggression. Someone who emphasizes a biological perspective would look at the how the brain and nervous system impact aggressive behavior. A professional who stresses a behavioral perspective would look at how environmental variables reinforce aggressive actions. Another psychologist who utilizes a cross-cultural approach might consider how cultural and social influences contribute to aggressive or violent behaviors. The following are just a few of the major perspectives in modern psychology. The Psychodynamic Perspective The psychodynamic perspective originated with the work of Sigmund Freud. This view of psychology and human behavior emphasizes the role of the unconscious mind, early childhood experiences, and interpersonal relationships to explain human behaviour and to treat people suffering from mental illnesses. The Behavioral Perspective Behavioral psychology is a perspective that focuses on learned behaviors. Behaviorism differed from many other perspectives because instead of emphasizing internal states, it focused solely on observable behaviors. While this school of thought dominated psychology early in the twentieth century, it began to lose its hold during the 1950s. Today, the behavioral perspective is still concerned with how behaviors are learned and reinforced. Behavioral principles are often applied in mental health settings, where therapists and counselors use these techniques to explain and treat a variety of illnesses. The Cognitive Perspective During the 1960s, a new perspective known as cognitive psychology began to take hold. This area of psychology focuses on mental processes such as memory, thinking, problem solving, language and decision-making. Influenced by psychologists such as Jean Piaget and Albert Bandura, this perspective has grown tremendously in recent decades. Cognitive psychologists often utilize an information-processing model, comparing the human mind to a computer, to conceptualize how information is acquired, processed, stored, and utilized. The Biological Perspective The study of physiology played a major role in the development of psychology as a separate science. Today, this perspective is known as biological psychology. Sometimes referred to as biopsychology or physiological psychology, this point of view emphasizes the physical and biological bases of behavior. Researchers who take a biological perspective on psychology might look at how genetics influence different behaviors or how damage to specific areas of the brain influence behavior and personality. Things like the nervous system, genetics, the brain, the immune system, and the endocrine systems are just a few of the subjects that interest biological psychologists. This perspective has grown significantly over the last few decades, especially with advances in our ability to explore and understand the human brain and nervous system. Tools such as MRI scans and PET scans allow researchers to look at the brain under a variety of conditions. Scientists can now look at the effects of brain damage, drugs, and disease in ways that were simply not possible in the past. The Evolutionary Perspective Evolutionary psychology is focused on the study of how evolution explains physiological processes. Psychologists and researchers take the basic principles of evolution, including natural selection, and apply them to psychological phenomena. This perspective suggests that these mental processes exist because they serve an evolutionary purpose – they aid in survival and reproduction. The Humanistic Perspective During the 1950s, a school of thought known as humanistic psychology emerged. Influenced greatly by the work of prominent humanists such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, this perspective emphasizes the role of motivation on thought and behavior. Concepts such as self-actualization are an essential part of this perspective. Those who take the humanist perspective focus on the ways that human beings are driven to grow, change, and develop their personal potential. Positive psychology is one relatively recent movement in psychology that has its roots in the humanist perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)