Google and Twitter On Their Way to Global Dominance

Google and Twitter On Their Way to Global Dominance With the recent and quite radical changes in the IT sphere, major companies specializing in providing the related services were forced to reconsider a range of their strategies and shift to new and improved techniques of expansion into the world market. Among such publicly traded organizations, Google, Inc and Twitter, Inc must be mentioned.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Google and Twitter: On Their Way to Global Dominance specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Both companies seem to have embraced the changes, managed to admit their mistakes and considered the creation of mergers and acquisitions as a viable strategy to adopt. As a result, both companies are currently growing by acquiring less competitive firms and expanding into the world market. Indeed, a single look at Google’s policy will reveal its expansion plans: the organization has acquired BlackBerry, Boston Dynamics, Nest Labs, Inc. and Dropcam, and cre ated a range of mergers, including the one with Motorola Mobility. It is clear that Google is planning to grow further and exploring new opportunities by creating new mergers. Such an intense struggle for the dominance in the global market can be explained by the fact that Google has recently had to refuse from a range of ideas, which seemed quite promising a few years ago. As the recent announcement on Google explained, the company had to abandon a number of the projects that it used to view as promising several years ago; for example, Picasa, Google Docs and Orkut were shut down, since similar and more successful services were created by other companies (Siganos, 2013). As the representatives of the Google, Inc. explained, the services that were closed down had been created before new opportunities for communication and data exchange emerged; therefore, being ahead of its time, Google finally had to yield to more advanced companies. Consequently, to regain its status, the company had to conjure a different strategy. As a result, the idea of merging with the companies that have designed more advanced services appeared to be the solution.Advertising Looking for essay on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Twitter, Inc., however, had other reasons for choosing the policy of mergers and acquisitions. It is remarkable that, unlike Google, which was initially targeted at providing a variety of services, twitter was designed solely as a social network from the very creation of its concept (Sprangler, 2013). Hence, the reasons for the leader of Twitter to adopt the strategy of mergers and acquisitions, shifting to the idea of corporate governance, have a different line of reasoning to be based on. Unlike Google, which does not seem to have very strong rivals except the apple, Inc., Twitter has to deal with a lot of competition, primarily, the rivalry with Facebook. Though each of the companies bases its philosophy on a unique concept and includes original options for its users to enjoy, both fall under the category of social networks and perform the same function, i.e., facilitate the process of users’ communication by transferring information from one user to another. Therefore, twitter clearly needed to revamp its reputation by growing larger and more influential, which resulted in a range of acquisitions and mergers with various companies, primarily, the ones dealing with analysis and advertisement. Though each of the organizations has its own reasons for choosing the strategy of mergers and acquisitions, both Twitter and Google seem to be going in the same direction. The results of these steps, however, are bound to be quite different as well. Reference List Siganos, A. (2013). Google attention and target price run ups. International Review of Financial Analysis, 29(3), 219–226. Sprangler, T. (2013). Twitter nets social-TV startup blue fin. Mu ltichannel News, 34(6), 22.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Google and Twitter: On Their Way to Global Dominance specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More

Eleanor Roosevelts Contributions to Human Rights

Eleanor Roosevelt's Contributions to Human Rights On February 16, 1946, facing the incredible violations of human rights that victims of World War II suffered, the United Nations established a Human Rights Commission, with Eleanor Roosevelt as one of its members. Eleanor Roosevelt had been appointed a delegate to the United Nations by President Harry S. Truman after the death of her husband, President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Eleanor Roosevelt brought to the commission her long commitment to human dignity and compassion, her long experience in politics and lobbying, and her more recent concern for refugees after World War II. She was elected chair of the Commission by its members. Contributions to the Development of the Declaration She worked on a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, writing parts of its text, helping to keep the language direct and clear and focused on human dignity. She also spent many days lobbying American and international leaders, both arguing against opponents and trying to fire up the enthusiasm among those more friendly to the ideas. She described her approach to the project this way: I drive hard and when I get home I will be tired! The men on the Commission will be also! On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution endorsing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In her speech before that Assembly, Eleanor Roosevelt said: We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind. This declaration may well become the international Magna Carta for all men everywhere. We hope its proclamation by the General Assembly will be an event comparable to the proclamation in 1789 [the French Declaration of the Rights of Citizens], the adoption of the Bill of Rights by the people of the US, and the adoption of comparable declarations at different times in other countries. Pride in Her Efforts Eleanor Roosevelt considered her work on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be her most important accomplishment. Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home- so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.

Discrimination Based on Religion and National Origin Essay

Discrimination Based on Religion and National Origin - Essay Example Accordingly, as it is made known to her that customers need English speaking sales professionals, Mary was aware of the needs of the customers as well as her responsibilities, which include speaking in English. Additionally, the Spanish language was not prohibited as long as it is used to communicate with a Spanish-speaking customer. In the context of Mary’s case, it can be said that the imposition of the â€Å"English Only Policy† is to prevent misunderstanding between employees and customers. Murray and Bernard mentioned that with the diversity in the workforce today, there is a need to impose a preferred language to ensure effective and comprehensible communication among customers and employees (1). Additionally, Mary’s dismissal is not merely based on her language, but it is based on the idea that she did not use the prescribed language preferred by the company. For this reason, Sears did not violate the law that protects employees against racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination. Based on Title VII, Tucker and Haddad flesh out that the concept of religion, in the juridical context, includes all the religious practices, observances, and beliefs of an individual (217). With this definition, it can be said that religion has a wide scope that accommodating all of the employees’ religious preferences may be difficult. Furthermore, although it is a general rule that employers should not discriminate an employee’s religion, service industries and religious-related organizations are exempted from the limitations prescribed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Service industries and organizations associated with a particular religion can discriminate an employee’s religion. For instance, the airline industry, in its service-oriented business process, is allowed to disregard the religious practices of their employees and oblige them to work especially when the work is a business necessity. Considering the rationale of the exception, I

Critiques Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Critiques - Essay Example Also, one may not know the limit of how much information the client should e given before they make a decision and hence may end up giving too much information. Before one can give consent, there are four elements of informed consent that a client needs to have. These are competence, voluntariness, full information and comprehension. A client must in all instances be able to consent to treatment without hindering factors. These factors include lack of adequate information or the inability to understand the information given since in most instances; it is expressed in some to understand medical jargon. In as much as a client could be willing allow the collection and keeping of information regarding them, there arises the question of confidentiality. Many at times, confidentiality of the right to privileged communication is breached. The fear of client’s information being shared with third parties is an enormous hindrance to successful medical services as clients may not be willing to give truthful of information regarding their conditions. More so, not all countries recognize the right of privileged communication and thus there is no guarantee of confidentiality. All medical practitioners are required to warn clients and their close affiliates of nay risks of infection, side effects associated with treatments or any harmful behavior of patients such as violence. This is quite contradictory in regard to confidentiality that should be enjoyed by clients. It may also be quite impossible to warn a dying patient on the harmful side effects of a drug when the best thing to do is save their lives. Some clients may be threatening to commit suicide hence calling for intervention and the need to warn the family members or other authorities in charge of them. Clients could have consented to treatment and record keeping believing that their information will be treated with confidentiality. However, cases may arise that call for access

Is hunting ethical Essay Example for Free

Is hunting ethical Essay The difference between hunting and killing â€Å"It is 4:00 in the morning as a father and son prepare for a day of elk hunting, Whenever October comes around this father and son know that it is an important month because it is hunting season and they have a chance to provide meat for their family. The day brings success to the hunters as they harvest a male elk and take it back home to share not only the meat but also the memories that were provided by the hunt. † Many people in this world have opinions about hunting saying it is â€Å"unethical† or that it is a cruel form of killing for fun. Hunting is portrayed as an activity that allows humans the right to go out into the wild and harvest an animal or animals just as our ancestors did many years ago, that is a good picture of it but there are many reasons why people hunt other than to get meat shoot a gun or hang out with friends in the outdoors Benefits of hunting Hunting isn’t what most people think, it doesn’t just help the hunters who are getting meat but it helps the population of animals as well. In Colorado alone there are an estimated two thousand elk and 1500 deer taken a year, this seems cruel but hear me out. If a herd of elk gets to big then there will be scarce amounts of food because there many mouths to feed but only so many acres of edible grass and plants to feed them. This problem causes fights and the weaker elk get run out of the herd because of over population, these elk that are disowned by the herd usually die off from starvation or predators. Matt Forsyth a local area hunter says â€Å"my family and I can live for a year on one animal harvested from our hunting trips†. That means that one animal out of the thousands in Colorado can support a family and save an estimated 400 dollars that is usually spent on beef pork and chicken bought from the store. My family relies on meat from my father and I every year, if we are not successful it is a devastating blow on our bank accounts. STATISTICS ABOUT HUNTING 12. 5 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 220 million days and took 185 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $22. 9 billion. An estimated  10. 7 million hunters pursued big game, such as deer and elk, on 164 million days. There were 4. 8 million hunters of small game including squirrels and rabbits. They hunted small game on 52 million days and spent $2. 4 billion on small game hunting trips and equipment. 2. 3 million hunted migratory birds such as doves or waterfowl 1. 1 million hunted other animals such as woodchucks and raccoons. As the above figures state hunting is a very much enjoyed sport that Colorado residents take a very great passion in and I believe it always will be. DISADVANTAGES ABOUT HUNTING Many animals die yearly from accidental death from hunters, accidental death occurs when a hunter mistakes and shoots an animal or the target species he was pursuing. I have seen many accidental deaths as a hunter and it is very sad because I hate to take a life from an animal that did not deserve it, I am not saying all animals deserve to die but if I cannot benefit from the death of an animal then why does it deserve to die? Poaching is also a huge problem in America. I do not like this one part of hunting and I wish it could be eliminated, poaching is when a human illegally harvests an animal without a license. Over 1500 animals are poached each year and many of those animals had their lives taken only for their horns or ivory teeth and tusks. Many people will say that hunting is not right because the animals are helpless and innocent, I say otherwise. At the beginning of time hunting was a major part of life and was a necessity, being the only means of survival. It was a source of food, clothing, and sometimes tools. Hunted animals were know as game animals. The earliest tools used to hunt were bow and arrow and spears, where now in the present we hunt with more powerful weapons like the compound bow and rifle. Having these newer and updated tools man can now hunt with out having to work as hard at killing their prey. Just because it is easier to hunt with the new and improved rifles and bows does not mean that it is easy. I give a lot of credit to the Native Americans because they had it worse than us, they had to run and chase their animals till it was down where as now days you can use an all terrain vehicle or a truck to get deep in the forest. I feel like people do not look past the blood of hunting because it is such a gory part of the process and they feel justified to say that hunters are messed up in the head because would we want to be shot and bleed to death, I wouldn’t but still hunting has evolved from the early ages so humans were just taught that hunting was a way of living. I have been hunting since I was nine and I will admit that there were some parts of the sport that I wish I didn’t see. I hate to see an animal suffer and I have seen my fair share of that, but my plan was not to kill for the thrill or pride of taking down an animal. I did it because it was the meat that my family ate for a whole year and without it we would pay more than five hundred dollars for meat in 6 months because of my large family size. There is always a downside to everything and as much as I love hunting I have to say that there is parts that I do not like. What we see is the aftermath of people going out and killing trophy animals and removing those trophy parts, which would be the antlers or the horns and leaving the carcasses to rot, It is so disrespectful to the wildlife and gives hunting a bad name. (Sarason) Antlers are valuable. They can earn poachers hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars per mount. (Forsyth) Some people do it purely as a business. Theyve detached from their activity. Its just pure dollars and cents. They dont see wildlife as anything other than something you can buy and make a buck, (Sarason) â€Å"it is 4:00 in the morning as a man and his hunting guide sit in a cozy cabin drinking coffee and going over the game plan for the day, this man has paid his guide an estimated 3,000 dollars for this hunt. The day starts off in the truck as they drive to a hillside to see if spotting a herd will bring them luck, sure enough out of the tree’s comes a beautiful male elk with an astoundingly big set of antlers. This is where the 3,000 dollars comes in because this man is on a guided elk hunt that has been set up on a high fenced ranch (the animals have no way to escape or be free), the elk are given special grass and food to grow big antlers. The man shoots the elk takes pictures and leaves the meat with the guides who will charge him an additional 500 bucks to get it cut and delivered to his house† People from around the world come to have supposedly the hunt of a lifetime and partake in an event that our ancestors have done but it is far from what actually happens. Many guided hunts are just slaughter of animals because they have no place to be free and live a life, they shoot the animals and the guide hauls it cuts it and prepares it and all you have to do is pay 3,500 dollars for it which is a deal right? Real hunting is when you pay 300 dollars a year to chase fair game through beautiful mountains and enjoy cutting the meat hauling it and doing all of the stuff that makes hunting what it truly is today. HOW ARE ORGANIZATIONS GETTING INVOLVED Many people have a jaded opinion about hunting because they see tv shows about it and the people always shoot the big animals and it all looks so easy but in reality it is not all that easy, real hunting requires patience love and respect for not only the pastime of it but the animals as well. No person will ever be right about wether it is ethical or if it isn’t but everybody can have a say in what they think is right or what they believe in. hunting is such a controversial subject to many people because just like anything, if you don’t know anything about it you are either really interested or very skeptical and I have found that many people are skeptical. Because of all the modern PETA campaigns many people are upset about hunters going out and harvesting an animal because it is an â€Å"innocent† animal that has been killed for pleasure or thrill. But hunting is an art form and a blessed opportunity for humans to provide their family with meat as well as learn more about the outdoors and life. Many campaigns have been run to stop hunting in many states. These campaigns are put together by PETA a non-profit organization that try’s to outlaw the abuse and neglect of animals, also called animal cruelty. Organizations like PETA are against hunting because they are under the impression that hunting is a cruel form of killing helpless innocent animals which is true somewhat. What they do not understand is that while many animals die every year but true hunters will never kill for the fun of shooting a gun or killing. With a lot of the gun laws that the president is trying to pass maybe all of these animal cruelty organizations wont have to keep fighting hunters because if such laws pass then many Americans will not be able to hunt anymore. Rumor has it that PETA is trying to get all gun laws passed just because of the way that it could help save many animals every year. Hunting is a very controversial subject because it is so important to some people and many families rely on an animal to be harvested every year. Good hunting ethics are not usually covered by written laws. Ethics are a personal code which dictates how we act. It is conduct that is morally right, safe, proper and fair. According to Aldo Leopold, regarded as the â€Å"father† of wildlife management, â€Å"ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching- even when doing the wrong thing is legal. † T. D. Carroll, the Father of Texas Hunter Education, once said: â€Å"There are written and unwritten laws. The written laws tell us what we can and cannot do while the unwritten laws tell us what we should and should not do. † HOW WOULD ANIMALS BE AFFECTED IF WE DID NOT HUNT If we didnt hunt animals they would die of starvation and disease. That is why we have regulations on hunting. And that is why bag limits and seasons change yearly. Take for instance the Snow Goose, It is so overpopulated right now that it takes food from animals and fish that are low in population thus the overpopulation of this bird could cause other animals to go extinct. It would not be the hunters causing the extinction. This year there was a conservation order in effect issued by the Colorado Fish and Wildlife Department to hunt as many as you can-no bag limit which seems like a killing frenzy for all of the geese but given the options it really helps all animals. Another instance is with exotic species (species that dont naturally occur in a particular area). For instance here in Colorado, the Mountain Lion does not belong here but It flourishes and if it keeps its pace then it could totally wipe out the population of native species of animals. Thus, the state says you can hunt and kill the Mountain Lion whenever you want and as many as you want, you just have to tell the state where you shot it. Look at the wild pig. Not natural to the United States and now we have a major problem on our hands. They destroy crops and take the food of our natural species. If deer hunting became illegal we would have so many deer in this country no one would be able to drive down the highway without fear of hitting one at 70mph possibly killing the passengers of the vehicle. Or there would be so many deer the food would eventually run out for them causing them to starve to death. Many in Colorado are interested in living a healthy lifestyle, which often includes consuming organically-grown food. â€Å"Locally grown† is becoming an increasingly popular way to enjoy fresh fruit and vegetables and backyard gardens are seeing a resurgence. One of the driving forces for the â€Å"going organic† movement is related to concerns about chemicals and pesticides associated with mass production of our food. Meat from hunting does not go through the chemical-related processes of grocery-store domestic meats. Hunting and eating wild game provides a lean, â€Å"free-range† protein product similar to that of organic food stores. Moreover, for those who hunt, fresh meat procured through hunting offers a â€Å"do-it-yourself† pride and satisfaction similar to that of growing your own garden. Hunting provides healthier food for the hunter and his/her family. I have nothing against farmers, I support them 100%, but theres more protein in the meat of a wild animal than there is a cow, pig, etc. So, more protein means a healthier cut of meat. It only takes one male to reproduce so anybody that says population control isnt a valid reason to hunt isn’t well equipped with the facts of hunting. Since it only takes one male animal, then theres no reason to have older animals that are not healthy reproduce because that would be passing along weaker genes, and that will make that generation of animals weaker. A lot of people say that hunters only shoot the males animals but that shows just how un-educated they are on this subject. I know many people who will kill a female over a male any day. Theres no benefit to just harvesting males and not the females. Each sex needs a specific number harvested to keep the population healthy. Back to the example I used about an older male animal breeding. Same thing goes with female animals. The older they get, the weaker their offspring will be. The less milk theyll produce. The older the animal (males and females), the weaker the state of their body/health. Inbreeding DOES happen where animal populations have exploded. You need a good mix of male and females of different lines so that you will get healthy offspring. Not only for that aspect of population control- if there are too many animals in a given area no matter if they are mostly males or mostly females, the animals will deplete the area of resources- food, water, cover. So, not only will the animals be at a higher risk for diseases/illnesses like rabies or CWD in deer, the land will be greatly affected by it too. The difference between hunting and killing â€Å"It is 4:00 in the morning as a father and son prepare for a day of elk hunting, Whenever October comes around this father and son know that it is an important month because it is hunting season and they have a chance to provide meat for their family. The day brings success to the hunters as they harvest a male elk and take it back home to share not only the meat but also the memories that were provided by the hunt. † Many people in this world have opinions about hunting saying it is â€Å"unethical† or that it is a cruel form of killing for fun. Hunting is portrayed as an activity that allows humans the right to go out into the wild and harvest an animal or animals just as our ancestors did many years ago, that is a good picture of it but there are many reasons why people hunt other than to get meat shoot a gun or hang out with friends in the outdoors Benefits of hunting Hunting isn’t what most people think, it doesn’t just help the hunters who are getting meat but it helps the population of animals as well. In Colorado alone there are an estimated two thousand elk and 1500 deer taken a year, this seems cruel but hear me out. If a herd of elk gets to big then there will be scarce amounts of food because there many mouths to feed but only so many acres of edible grass and plants to feed them. This problem causes fights and the weaker elk get run out of the herd because of over population, these elk that are disowned by the herd usually die off from starvation or predators. Matt Forsyth a local area hunter says â€Å"my family and I can live for a year on one animal harvested from our hunting trips†. That means that one animal out of the thousands in Colorado can support a family and save an estimated 400 dollars that is usually spent on beef pork and chicken bought from the store. My family relies on meat from my father and I every year, if we are not successful it is a devastating blow on our bank accounts. STATISTICS ABOUT HUNTING 12. 5 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 220 million days and took 185 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $22. 9 billion. An estimated 10. 7 million hunters pursued big game, such as deer and elk, on 164 million days. There were 4. 8 million hunters of small game including squirrels and rabbits. They hunted small game on 52 million days and spent $2. 4 billion on small game hunting trips and equipment. 2. 3 million hunted migratory birds such as doves or waterfowl 1. 1 million hunted other animals such as woodchucks and raccoons. As the above figures state hunting is a very much enjoyed sport that Colorado residents take a very great passion in and I believe it always will be. DISADVANTAGES ABOUT HUNTING Many animals die yearly from accidental death from hunters, accidental death occurs when a hunter mistakes and shoots an animal or the target species he was pursuing. I have seen many accidental deaths as a hunter and it is very sad because I hate to take a life from an animal that did not deserve it, I am not saying all animals deserve to die but if I cannot benefit from the death of an animal then why does it deserve to die? Poaching is also a huge problem in America. I do not like this one part of hunting and I wish it could be eliminated, poaching is when a human illegally harvests an animal without a license. Over 1500 animals are poached each year and many of those animals had their lives taken only for their horns or ivory teeth and tusks. Many people will say that hunting is not right because the animals are helpless and innocent, I say otherwise. At the beginning of time hunting was a major part of life and was a necessity, being the only means of survival. It was a source of food, clothing, and sometimes tools. Hunted animals were know as game animals. The earliest tools used to hunt were bow and arrow and spears, where now in the present we hunt with more powerful weapons like the compound bow and rifle. Having these newer and updated tools man can now hunt with out having to work as hard at killing their prey. Just because it is easier to hunt with the new and improved rifles and bows does not mean that it is easy. I give a lot of credit to the Native Americans because they had it worse than us, they had to run and chase their animals till it was down where as now days you can use an all terrain vehicle or a truck to get deep in the forest. I feel like people do not look past the blood of hunting because it is such a gory part of the process and they feel justified to say that hunters are messed up in the head because would we want to be shot and bleed to death, I wouldn’t but still hunting has evolved from the early ages so humans were just taught that hunting was a way of living. I have been hunting since I was nine and I will admit that there were some parts of the sport that I wish I didn’t see. I hate to see an animal suffer and I have seen my fair share of that, but my plan was not to kill for the thrill or pride of taking down an animal. I did it because it was the meat that my family ate for a whole year and without it we would pay more than five hundred dollars for meat in 6 months because of my large family size. There is always a downside to everything and as much as I love hunting I have to say that there is parts that I do not like. What we see is the aftermath of people going out and killing trophy animals and removing those trophy parts, which would be the antlers or the horns and leaving the carcasses to rot, It is so disrespectful to the wildlife and gives hunting a bad name. (Sarason) Antlers are valuable. They can earn poachers hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars per mount. (Forsyth) Some people do it purely as a business. Theyve detached from their activity. Its just pure dollars and cents. They dont see wildlife as anything other than something you can buy and make a buck, (Sarason) â€Å"it is 4:00 in the morning as a man and his hunting guide sit in a cozy cabin drinking coffee and going over the game plan for the day, this man has paid his guide an estimated 3,000 dollars for this hunt. The day starts off in the truck as they drive to a hillside to see if spotting a herd will bring them luck, sure enough out of the tree’s comes a beautiful male elk with an astoundingly big set of antlers. This is where the 3,000 dollars comes in because this man is on a guided elk hunt that has been set up on a high fenced ranch (the animals have no way to escape or be free), the elk are given special grass and food to grow big antlers. The man shoots the elk takes pictures and leaves the meat with the guides who will charge him an additional 500 bucks to get it cut and delivered to his house† People from around the world come to have supposedly the hunt of a lifetime and partake in an event that our ancestors have done but it is far from what actually happens. Many guided hunts are just slaughter of animals because they have no place to be free and live a life, they shoot the animals and the guide hauls it cuts it and prepares it and all you have to do is pay 3,500 dollars for it which is a deal right? Real hunting is when you pay 300 dollars a year to chase fair game through beautiful mountains and enjoy cutting the meat hauling it and doing all of the stuff that makes hunting what it truly is today. HOW ARE ORGANIZATIONS GETTING INVOLVED Many people have a jaded opinion about hunting because they see tv shows about it and the people always shoot the big animals and it all looks so easy but in reality it is not all that easy, real hunting requires patience love and respect for not only the pastime of it but the animals as well. No person will ever be right about wether it is ethical or if it isn’t but everybody can have a say in what they think is right or what they believe in. hunting is such a controversial subject to many people because just like anything, if you don’t know anything about it you are either really interested or very skeptical and I have found that many people are skeptical. Because of all the modern PETA campaigns many people are upset about hunters going out and harvesting an animal because it is an â€Å"innocent† animal that has been killed for pleasure or thrill. But hunting is an art form and a blessed opportunity for humans to provide their family with meat as well as learn more about the outdoors and life. Many campaigns have been run to stop hunting in many states. These campaigns are put together by PETA a non-profit organization that try’s to outlaw the abuse and neglect of animals, also called animal cruelty. Organizations like PETA are against hunting because they are under the impression that hunting is a cruel form of killing helpless innocent animals which is true somewhat. What they do not understand is that while many animals die every year but true hunters will never kill for the fun of shooting a gun or killing. With a lot of the gun laws that the president is trying to pass maybe all of these animal cruelty organizations wont have to keep fighting hunters because if such laws pass then many Americans will not be able to hunt anymore. Rumor has it that PETA is trying to get all gun laws passed just because of the way that it could help save many animals every year. Hunting is a very controversial subject because it is so important to some people and many families rely on an animal to be harvested every year. Good hunting ethics are not usually covered by written laws. Ethics are a personal code which dictates how we act. It is conduct that is morally right, safe, proper and fair. According to Aldo Leopold, regarded as the â€Å"father† of wildlife management, â€Å"ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching- even when doing the wrong thing is legal. † T. D. Carroll, the Father of Texas Hunter Education, once said: â€Å"There are written and unwritten laws. The written laws tell us what we can and cannot do while the unwritten laws tell us what we should and should not do. † HOW WOULD ANIMALS BE AFFECTED IF WE DID NOT HUNT If we didnt hunt animals they would die of starvation and disease. That is why we have regulations on hunting. And that is why bag limits and seasons change yearly. Take for instance the Snow Goose, It is so overpopulated right now that it takes food from animals and fish that are low in population thus the overpopulation of this bird could cause other animals to go extinct. It would not be the hunters causing the extinction. This year there was a conservation order in effect issued by the Colorado Fish and Wildlife Department to hunt as many as you can-no bag limit which seems like a killing frenzy for all of the geese but given the options it really helps all animals. Another instance is with exotic species (species that dont naturally occur in a particular area). For instance here in Colorado, the Mountain Lion does not belong here but It flourishes and if it keeps its pace then it could totally wipe out the population of native species of animals. Thus, the state says you can hunt and kill the Mountain Lion whenever you want and as many as you want, you just have to tell the state where you shot it. Look at the wild pig. Not natural to the United States and now we have a major problem on our hands. They destroy crops and take the food of our natural species. If deer hunting became illegal we would have so many deer in this country no one would be able to drive down the highway without fear of hitting one at 70mph possibly killing the passengers of the vehicle. Or there would be so many deer the food would eventually run out for them causing them to starve to death. Many in Colorado are interested in living a healthy lifestyle, which often includes consuming organically-grown food. â€Å"Locally grown† is becoming an increasingly popular way to enjoy fresh fruit and vegetables and backyard gardens are seeing a resurgence. One of the driving forces for the â€Å"going organic† movement is related to concerns about chemicals and pesticides associated with mass production of our food. Meat from hunting does not go through the chemical-related processes of grocery-store domestic meats. Hunting and eating wild game provides a lean, â€Å"free-range† protein product similar to that of organic food stores. Moreover, for those who hunt, fresh meat procured through hunting offers a â€Å"do-it-yourself† pride and satisfaction similar to that of growing your own garden. Hunting provides healthier food for the hunter and his/her family. I have nothing against farmers, I support them 100%, but theres more protein in the meat of a wild animal than there is a cow, pig, etc. So, more protein means a healthier cut of meat. It only takes one male to reproduce so anybody that says population control isnt a valid reason to hunt isn’t well equipped with the facts of hunting. Since it only takes one male animal, then theres no reason to have older animals that are not healthy reproduce because that would be passing along weaker genes, and that will make that generation of animals weaker. A lot of people say that hunters only shoot the males animals but that shows just how un-educated they are on this subject. I know many people who will kill a female over a male any day. Theres no benefit to just harvesting males and not the females. Each sex needs a specific number harvested to keep the population healthy. Back to the example I used about an older male animal breeding. Same thing goes with female animals. The older they get, the weaker their offspring will be. The less milk theyll produce. The older the animal (males and females), the weaker the state of their body/health. Inbreeding DOES happen where animal populations have exploded. You need a good mix of male and females of different lines so that you will get healthy offspring. Not only for that aspect of population control- if there are too many animals in a given area no matter if they are mostly males or mostly females, the animals will deplete the area of resources- food, water, cover. So, not only will the animals be at a higher risk for diseases/illnesses like rabies or CWD in deer, the land will be greatly affected by it too.

On Achievement :: essays research papers

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/vaksam/">Sam Vaknin's Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs Web Sites If a comatose person were to earn an interest of 1 million USD annually on the sum paid to him as compensatory damages – would this be considered an achievement of his? To succeed to earn 1 million USD is universally judged to be an achievement. But to do so while comatose will almost as universally not be counted as one. It would seem that a person has to be both conscious and intelligent to have his achievements qualify. Even these conditions, though necessary, are not sufficient. If a totally conscious (and reasonably intelligent) person were to accidentally unearth a treasure trove and thus be transformed into a multi-billionaire – his stumbling across a fortune will not qualify as an achievement. A lucky turn of events does not an achievement make. A person must be intent on achieving to have his deeds classified as achievements. Intention is a paramount criterion in the classification of events and actions, as any intensionalist philosopher will tell you. Supposing a conscious and intelligent person has the intention to achieve a goal. He then engages in a series of absolutely random and unrelated actions, one of which yields the desired result. Will we then say that our person is an achiever? Not at all. It is not enough to intend. One must proceed to produce a plan of action, which is directly derived from the overriding goal. Such a plan of action must be seen to be reasonable and pragmatic and leading – with great probability – to the achievement. In other words: the plan must involve a prognosis, a prediction, a forecast, which can be either verified or falsified. Attaining an achievement involves the construction of an ad-hoc mini theory. Reality has to be thoroughly surveyed, models constructed, one of them selected (on empirical or aesthetic grounds), a goal formulated, an experiment performed and a negative (failure) or positive (achievement) result obtained. Only if the prediction turns out to be correct can we speak of an achievement. Our would-be achiever is thus burdened by a series of requirements. He must be conscious, must possess a well-formulated intention, must plan his steps towards the attainment of his goal, and must correctly predict the results of his actions. But planning alone is not sufficient. One must carry out one's plan of action (from mere plan to actual action).

Good Eduction Essay

In my view questions about education always raise normative issues and therefore always require value judgements, i. e. , judgements about what we consider to be desirable. In plural democracies like ours we should not expect that there will only be one answer to the question as to what constitutes good education. It rather is a sign of a healthy democracy that there are ongoing discussions about the purpose and direction of such a crucial common endeavour as education. After all, education is not simply a private good; it is also – and in my view first and foremost – a public good and therefore a matter of public concern. Education, in its widest sense, is about how we welcome ‘newcomers’1 into our worlds. It therefore raises important questions about how we (re)present our worlds to newcomers – something which involves selection, choice and judgement. One reason why I consider it important to pay attention to the question as to what constitutes good education has to do with recent tendencies in policy, research and practice that seem to suggest that this question no longer matters or, to be more precise, that seem to suggest that this question can be resolved without engaging in discussions about value and purpose. One of these tendencies is the rise of an international ‘league-table industry’ which is increasingly influencing education policy at national and local level. Studies such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and, most notoriously, OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), generate a never-ending stream of comparative data that are supposed to tell us which educational systems are better and which are best. Although there is nothing against attempts to make such judgements, the problem with league-tables is that they give the impression that the data can speak for themselves. As a result, the deeper question whether such studies indeed measure what we value or create a situation in which we are valuing what is or can be measured, is easily forgotten. Whether a high score on TIMMS, PIRLS or PISA does indeed indicate good education is an entirely open question that crucially depends on what we expect from education. And even if we were to accept the validity of such measures, there are always further questions about the material and immaterial costs involved in achieving a high score, both for individual students and for the educational system as a whole. 1 I use the term ‘newcomers’ to refer to anyone who is new in a particular situation. The category of ‘newcomer’ therefore includes children, immigrants, but also those who are new in relation to a particular trade or profession, such as student hairdressers, student teachers, and so on. Elsewhere I have made a case for seeing the idea of ‘coming into the world’ as a fundamental education category. see Biesta 2006). 1 A second tendency that has contributed to the marginalisation of questions about good education can be found in calls for turning education into an evidence-based profession based on research knowledge about ‘what works. ’2 Again, I do think that to a certain extent it can be use ful to examine the effectiveness of particular educational practices and procedures, as long as one bears in mind that in the social domain there are at most probabilistic relationships between actions and consequences and never deterministic relationships between causes and effects. After all, if teaching is going to have any impact on students, it is not because of some kind of mysterious force that teachers exert upon their students, but because of the fact that students interpret and make sense of what they are being taught. The links between teaching and learning are, in other words, achieved through processes of interpretation and such links are by definition ‘weak. ’ 3 But the most important point here is that ‘effectiveness’ in itself is never a ufficient reason for adopting a particular approach or procedure. There is, after all, both effective and ineffective brain washing, just as there is effective and ineffective torturing. ‘Effectiveness,’ to put it differently, is an instrumental value – a value that says something about the ways in which certain ends can be achieved, but which does not say anything about the desirability of the ends in themselves. To address the latter question we need normative judgem ents about what we consider educationally desirable. To call for effective schools, effective teaching, effective assessment, and so on, is therefore meaningless until one specifies what it is one aims to achieve and why what one aims to achieve is desirable or good. With regard to educational effectiveness we therefore always need to ask: â€Å"Effective for what? † – and also â€Å"Effective for whom? †4 These are some of the reasons why I consider it important to put the question of good education back on the agenda of educators, researchers and policy makers. But my ambition with this lecture is not only to make a case for considering the goodness of education – and in what follows I will say more about the ways in which I think that this question might be addressed. I also want to make a case for the importance of education or, to be more precise, for the need to use the language of education when we discuss educational matters. Putting it this way may sound odd, so let me try to explain why I not only want to make a case for good education but also for good education. The Problem with ‘Learning’ The simplest way to present my case for an educational language is to contrast it with the language I think we should not be using when discussing educational matters – and this is the language of learning. I am not suggesting that the word ‘learning’ has no place in education. But I do wish to argue that ‘learning’ and ‘education’ are two radically different concepts and that we shouldn’t conflate them. This is not simply a matter of the proper use of language. The concepts we have available in a particular domain of human action such as education in a very fundamental sense structure what we can say, think, and do and therefore also impact upon what cannot be said, thought and done. This is why language matters, also in education. 2 3 For a detailed analysis see Biesta (2007a). For more on this see Vanderstraeten & Biesta (2006); Biesta (in press[a]). 4 See Bogotch, Miron & Biesta (2007). 2 My concerns about the notion of learning – or, to be more precise, about the conflation of learning and education – should be understood against the background of the remarkable rise of the concept of learning within educational discussions over the past two or three decades; a phenomenon to which I have referred as the rise of the ‘new language of learning’ (see Biesta 2004a; 2006). This rise can, for example, be found in the redefinition of teaching as the facilitation of learning or the provision of learning opportunities or learning experiences. It can be found in the use of the word ‘learner’ instead of ‘pupil’ or ‘student’ or of the phrase ‘adult learner’ instead of just ‘adult’. And it is manifest in the transformation of the field of adult education into that of lifelong learning. It is also worth noting that the word ‘education’ no longer appears in the name of the two UK government departments that deal with educational matters (they are now known as The Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills), unlike in Scotland where there is at least still a Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. What perhaps also fits in with this picture is the case of Watercliffe Meadow, an institution that was formed as a merge between three former primary schools in Sheffield and that decided to refer to itself as â€Å"a place of learning† rather than a school. 5 The rise of the ‘new language of learning’ can be seen as the expression of a more general trend to which I have referred – with a deliberately ugly term – as the ‘learnification’ of education (see Biesta 2009). By this I mean the translation of everything there is to say about education in terms of learning and learners. A focus on learning is, of course, not entirely problematic. Although not a new insight, the idea that learning is not determined by teaching but depends on the activities of students can help teachers to rethink what they might do best to support their students. There are even emancipatory opportunities in the new language of learning to the extent to which it can empower individuals to take control of their own educational agendas. Yet there are also problems with the rise of the new language of learning and, more specifically, with the concept of ‘learning’ itself. One problem with the word ‘learning’ is that it is basically an individualistic concept. It refers to what people do as individuals. This stands in stark contrast to the concept of education which generally denotes a relationship. Whereas one can educate someone and someone can be educated by someone else, one cannot ‘learn’ someone. This already reveals one problem with the language of learning: it makes it difficult to articulate the fact that education is about relationships, and more specifically about relationships between teachers and students. The language of learning makes it difficult to acknowledge the relational character of education and also makes it difficult to raise questions about the particular role and responsibility of the educator in such relationships. This is one reason why the words ‘education’ and ‘learning’ are not the same and are not interchangeable. This does not mean, of course, that they have nothing to do with each other. One could say that the general aim of educational activities is that people will learn from them. But that doesn’t make education into learning; it simply says that learning is the intended outcome of educational processes and practices. All this also doesn’t mean that people cannot learn without or outside of education. It simply highlights the fact that when we talk about education we refer 5 See http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Watercliffe_Meadow [accessed 26 February 2009] 3 to a specific setting in which learning takes place; a setting, moreover, with a specific set of relationships, roles and responsibilities. A second problem with the word ‘learning’ is that it is basically (but see hereafter) a process term. This means that it is open if not empty with regard to content. Yet in educational situations the aim is never simply that learning will occur; the interest is always in the learning of something and this, in turn, is connected to particular reasons for wanting the student to learn something. In education there is, therefore, always the double question of the learning ‘of what’ and the learning ‘for what. The problem with the language of learning is that it makes questions about content and purpose much more difficult to ask – yet education, unlike learning, is always structured by purpose and content. This is the second reason why education and learning are not the same and why the language of learning is actually quite unhelpful in discussing educational matters. An example of the emptiness of the language of learning can be found in the Scott ish Standard for Chartered Teacher which, unlike the Standard for Full Registration, is rather permeated by a language of learning. In the document one of the four ‘professional values and personal commitments’ is described as ‘effectiveness in promoting learning in the classroom,’ which is further broken down into the requirement to demonstrate the capacity to (1) ‘effect further progress in pupils’ learning and development’: (2) ‘create and sustain a positive climate for learning’; and (3) ‘use strategies which increase pupils’ learning’ (see GTCS 2002). Very little, if anything, is said about what students should learn and for what they should learn. Even less is said about what would be required from Chartered Teachers in terms of their ability to make informed value judgements about the content and direction of their teaching and wider educational endeavours. 6 When we look more closely at the language used, a phrase such as â€Å"increasing pupils’ learning† is actually rather incomprehensible in my view. Before I draw my conclusions about the language of learning and move to a discussion about the question of the goodness of education, there is one more peculiarity of the word ‘learning’ that I wish to address briefly. Although there are ongoing discussions within the educational literature about definitions of learning, it is generally accepted that learning can at least be defined as â€Å"any change that is not the result of maturation† or, in a slightly more precise definition, as â€Å"any more or less durable change that is not the result of maturation. † In addition to this, many definitions specify the kinds of change that are considered to be important, such as changes in skilfulness, in cognition, in mastery and so on. One important point here is that ‘learning’ refers to those changes that are the result of engagement ith our environments, which means that in this regard we can say that all learning is by definition experiential learning, i. e. , learning from experience and experiencing. An important implication of this line of thinking is that when we use the word ‘learning’ – such as in sentences like â€Å"Mary has learned how to ride a bicycle† or â€Å"Mary has 6 There is a similar problem with regard to the notion of effectiveness which is also used as something that is good in itself, rather than that it is positioned as an instrumental value. This can, for example, be seen in the following two statements: â€Å"the Chartered Teacher should regularly and systematically demonstrate and evaluate his or her effectiveness as a teacher;† and â€Å"the Chartered Teacher should demonstrate the capacity to contribute to the professional development of colleagues and to make a fuller contribution to the educational effectiveness of the school and the wider professional community than could be expected of teachers near the outset of their career† (see GTCS 2002). 4 earned the first law of thermodynamics† – we are not so much describing something as that we are making a judgement about changes that have taken place. The point here is that when we look at Mary more carefully we will probably be able to find numerous changes going on all the time. The reason for identifying some of the changes as ‘learning’ and others just as ‘changes’ is because we value these changes and because we have reason to believe that these changes are the result of engagement with the environment, not just effects of maturation. Which isn’t to suggest that this distinction is easy to make and that the difference is always clear-cut. ) This implies that the use of the word ‘learning’ always implies a value judgement. ‘Learning,’ in other words, is not a descriptive term – it is not a noun – but it is an evaluative term. The upshot of this is that we can only use the word learning retrospectively, i. e. , after some change has happened. Whether any current activity will actually result in learning – that is, whether it will actually result in more or less durable changes that we find valuable – is not something we can know when we are engaged in he activity. Whether you will learn anything from listening to this lecture is, in other words, a question that can only be answered in the future – and sometimes it can take a very long time before we can conclude that we have learned something from a particular experience or event, which is an important argument against an exclusive focus on short-time result in education. This implies that the word ‘learning’ does not refer to an activity – and we can summarise this by saying that ‘learning’ is also not a verb. If we want to be clear and precise in the language we use to talk about education, we shouldn’t therefore refer to the activities of our students as ‘learning’ but rather use such words as ‘studying,’ ‘rehearsing,’ ‘working,’ ‘making an effort,’ etcetera. And for the same reason we shouldn’t refer to our students as ‘learners’ but should either refer to them with terms that specify the particular relationship they are in – which is what the word ‘pupil’ does – or with terms that specify the activities they are engaged in – which is what words like ‘student’ or ‘worker’ do. The Dutch progressive educator Kees Boeke referred to the students in his school as ‘workers’ and referred to the school that he established and which still exists in Bilthoven as a ‘workplace. ’) For all these reasons I therefore wish to a rgue that the language of learning is rather unhelpful for discussion of educational matters as it tends to obscure the relational dimensions of education – the fact that education is always about teachers and students in relationship – and also because it makes it more difficult to raise questions about content and purpose. I have also argued that when we use the word ‘learning’ we are actually involved in a judgement about change, a judgement we can only make after the event. For that reason using the word ‘learning’ to describe the activities of students is as imprecise as it is to refer to students as ‘learners. ’ This is also the reason why we cannot ask from students that they take responsibility for their own learning – they can only take responsibility for their studying, their activities, their efforts, etcetera, and it is this that teachers should demand from students. All this also means that learning can not be the object of any strategy. Despite the many teaching and learning strategies that are being developed in schools, colleges and universities, and despite the fact that many of such institutions make individuals responsible for ‘teaching & learning,’ it is only teaching – and related aspects such as curriculum and assessment – that can be the object of a strategy and thus can be the responsibility of individuals whose task it is to take care of what, with a simple word, we might perhaps best refer to as ‘education. 5 If this suffices as an indication of why we need education – that is, why we need an educational language with proper educational concepts – I now wish to turn to questions about what constitutes good education. Good Education My ambition with raising the question of good education is not to specify what good education, a good school, a good college or a good university should look like. As I said in my introduction, we shouldn’t expect that in plural democracies like ours there will only be one answer to this question. Yet it is of crucial importance that there is an ongoing discussion about the content, purpose and direction of education first and foremost because education is – and should be – a matter of public concern. I do not only think that it is important to have a plurality of opinions about what constitutes good education. I also believe that it is important to have a plurality of actual educational practices. Here I am partly biased as a result of my upbringing in the Netherlands, a country which over the past century has developed and has managed to maintain an interesting level of plurality within a state-funded system of compulsory education. Although there are some advantages of educational standardisation – and the main advantage, one that we have to take very seriously from a social justice angle, is that it can bring about an equality of provision – I also believe that there are many disadvantages to the MacDonaldisation (or perhaps we should now call this the ‘Starbuckisation’) of education. One disadvantage of standardisation is that it takes away opportunities for educational professionals to make their own judgements about what is necessary and desirable in the always particular situations they work in. My experience in England has been that the scope for professional judgement and professional action in education has systematically been eroded as a result of a massive top-down standardisation of education, combined with narrow-minded forms of inspection based on low trust. 7 At this point I can only say that I have encountered a significantly different culture within Scottish education, and here I particularly want to single out the idea of the Chartered Teacher as the expression of a belief in the power of education and as a serious investment in and commitment to the development of professionality and a high trust culture in education. A second disadvantage of educational standardisation is that it takes away any opportunity for a plurality of opinions about good education. This is often done through the construction of a quasi-consensus around an alleged common sense notion of what good education is. One popular version of such a quasi-consensus is the idea that in order to remain competitive within the global knowledge economy schools need to produce a highly-skilled workforce; hence the most important task for schools is that of raising standards in English, science and mathematics. While this story may sound appealing – and many policy makers at national and supra-national level (such as the OECD) seem to believe it – it is based on questionable assumptions, for example because it assumes that in the knowledge economy we will all have complex jobs that require a high level of education, whereas in reality those jobs are only available for a happy few and the bulk of jobs in many post-industrial societies is to be found in the low-skilled and low-paid service industry (and here we can, again, refer to MacDonalds, Starbucks, call-centres, and the like). Yet the problem with such 7 For more on this see Biesta (2004b). 6 constructions about what good education is, is not only that they are based upon questionable assumptions. The problem of stories that express a quasi-consensus about good education is also that they suggest that there is no alternative. It is, however, not too difficult to see that instead of economic competitiveness, we could also argue that as a society we should give priority to care – care for the elderly, care for the environment – or to democracy and peaceful co-existence. Such priorities suggest a complete different set of educational arrangements and articulate radically different views about what good education might look like. My contribution to the discussion about what constitutes good education is not about suggesting alternative futures for education. Although this is important as well, I wish to confine myself in this lecture to a more modest task, viz. that of presenting a framework that might be helpful in asking more precise questions about what good education is or might be. My main point in suggesting this framework is to emphasise that educational processes and practices serve a number of different functions and purposes. This not only means that the answer to the question as to what constitutes good education is likely to be different in relation to the different functions. By distinguishing between the different functions it also becomes possible to explore the extent to which emphasising one function might interfere with the quality of education in relation to one of the other functions. The framework can help, in other words, to think about costs and trade-offs of particular educational arrangements. Although the everyday use of the word ‘education’ often gives the impression that it refers to a single reality, ‘education’ is actually a composite concept. This becomes clear when we ask what education is for. In answering this question I wish to suggest that education serves (at least) three different functions. One important function of education has to do with qualification, that is, with the ways in which education contributes to the acquisition of knowledge, skills and dispositions that qualify us for doing something – a ‘doing’ which can range from the very specific (such as the training for a particular job) to the very general (such as in the case of liberal education). The qualification function is without doubt one of the major functions of organised education and is an important rationale for having state-funded education in the first place. The argument, as I have mentioned, is often an economic one, i. . , that people need knowledge and skills in order to become employable. But the acquisition of knowledge and skills is also important for other aspects of people’s lives. Here we can think, for example, of political literacy – the knowledge and skills needed to exercise one’s citizenship rights – or cultural literacy – the kno wledge and skills considered to be necessary for functioning in society more generally. 8 A second function of education has to do with the ways in which, through education, individuals become part of existing socio-cultural, political and moral ‘orders. This is the socialisation function of education. Schools partly engage in socialisation deliberately, for example, in the form of values education, character education, religious education or citizenship education, or, and this is more explicit at the level of colleges and universities, in relation to professional socialisation. Socialisation also happens in less visible ways, as has been made clear in the literature on the hidden curriculum and the role of education in the reproduction of social inequality. It is, in What kind of knowledge and skills we need to function in society is, of course, a complicated matter. I do not have the space to go into this here, but see Biesta (2002). 8 7 other words, both an important function and an important ‘effect’ of (engaging in) education. Whereas some would argue that education should only focus on qualification – this is often seen as the justification of the ‘traditional’ school as place for the transmission and acquisition of knowledge – and whereas others defend that education has an important role to play in the socialisation of children and young people, there is a third function of education which is different from both qualification and socialisation. This function has to do with the ways in which education contributes to the individuation – or, as I prefer to call it for a number of philosophical reasons, the subjectification – of children and young people. The individuation or subjectification function might perhaps best be understood as the opposite of the socialisation function. It is not about the insertion of ‘newcomers’ into existing orders, but about ways of being that hint at independence from such orders; ways of being in which the individual is not simply a ‘specimen’ of a more encompassing order. It is, to put a big and complex concept against it, about the ways in which education makes a contribution to human freedom. 9 Whether all education actually does contribution to individuation is debatable. Some would argue that this is not necessarily the case and that the actual influence of education can – and should – be confined to qualification and socialisation. Others would argue, however, that education always impacts on individuals and their ‘modes’ and ‘ways’ of being and that, in this sense, education always has an individuating ‘effect. ’ What matters more, however — and here e need to shift the focus of the discussion from questions about the functions of education to questions about the aims and ends of education – is the ‘quality’ of individuation, i. e. , the question what forms of subjectivity are made possible in and through particular educational arrangements. It is in relation to this that some would argue – and actually have argued – that any education worthy of its name should always allow for forms of individuation and subjectification that allow those being educated to become more autonomous and independent in their thinking and acting. The distinction between the three functions of education, that is, between three areas in which education operates and has ‘effects,’ can be helpful when we engage in discussions about what constitutes good education because it can make us aware of the fact that the question about good education is a ‘composite’ question: it consists of (at least) three different questions. An answer to the question what constitutes good education should therefore always specify its views about qualification, socialisation and individuation – even in the unlikely case that one would wish to argue that only one of them matters. To say that the question of what constitutes good education is a composite question, is not to suggest that the three dimensions of education can and should be seen as entirely separate. The contrary is the case. When we engage in qualification, we always also impact on socialisation and on individuation. Similarly, when we engage in socialisation, we always do so in relation to particular content – and hence link up with the qualification function – and will have an impact on individuation. And when we engage in education that puts individuation first, we will 9 I wish to emphasise that the idea of ‘freedom’ can be articulated in a range of different ways, from egocentric, self-obsessed freedom to do anything one wants to responsible, relational and ‘difficult’ freedom – to use a phrase form the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. 8 usually still do so in relation to particular curricular content and this will always also have socialising effects. The three functions of education an therefore best be represented in the form of a Venn-diagram, i. e. , as three overlapping areas, and the more interesting and important questions are actually about the intersections between the areas rather than the individual areas per se. The distinction between the three functions of education is not only important when we engage in discussions about the aims and purposes of education and the shape and form of good education; it can also be a helpful framework for analysing existing educational practices and policies. With regard to this I just want to make one brief observation which is that in many recent discussions about the shape and form of education, particularly at the level of education policy, the discussion is shifting more and more towards the socialisation function of education. Increasingly discussions about the aims and ends of education try to describe the kind of person that should be ‘produced’ through education, rather than that the focus is on the things that should be learned as a result of engagement with education. A ‘good’ example of this can be found in the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence which, although it refers to itself as a document about Curriculum, actually specifies the intended outcomes of education in terms of personal qualities – and many of you in this room will be familiar with the four ‘capacities’ that frame the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence: successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens, effective contributors. 0 Although I generally welcome attempts to introduce new languages into the educational discussion as they allow us to see and do things differently, I do think that the shift towards socialisation such as expressed in the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence is worrying for two reasons. One is that by emphasising what students should be or become, questions about what they should know and be able to do become secondary. The danger here is, in other words, that we forget to pay sufficient attention to the qualifi cation function of education and thus might forget that in many cases and for many individuals knowledge is still power. The other reason why I think that the shift towards socialisation, towards the ‘production’ of a particular kind of individual, is worrying, is that it gets us too far away from the individuation or subjectification function of education. It puts the emphasis too much on ‘moulding’ individuals according to particular templates and provides too little opportunity for ways of being that question and challenge such templates. In my own research I have explored this issue particularly in relation to citizenship 11 . Here I have argued that the idea of responsible citizenship puts the emphasis too much on a-political forms of citizenship that are mainly confined to doing ‘good deeds’ in the community, and provides too little opportunity for the acquisition of political literacy, the promotion of political activism and the development of political agency. Good education in the domain of citizenship should therefore not be about the production of ‘obedient citizens’ through effective socialisation, but should also operate in the domain of individuation and 10 The National Curriculum for England and Wales has recently adopted a similar language to articulate the aims of education for ‘key stage 3 and 4’. It is interesting to see, however, that they have included three of the four Scottish capacities – viz. , successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens – but not that of effective contributors. See http://curriculum. qca. org. uk/key-stages-3-and-4/aims/index. aspx [accessed 1 March 2009] 11 See, e. g. , Biesta & Lawy (2006); Biesta (2007b); Biesta (2008); Biesta (in press[b]). subjectification by promoting forms of political agency that both contribute to and are able to question the existing social, cultural and political order. From this angle it is perhaps significant that the word ‘critical’ does not appear in any of the four capacities of the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence. This brings me to my concluding remarks. Conclusions In this lecture I have tried to make a case for good education. I have not done this by specifying what I think a good school, college or university should look like. What I have done instead is first of all to argue for the importance of the question of good education itself. I have argued, in other words, that in our discussions and deliberations about education we should acknowledge openly and explicitly that we are dealing with normative questions, and hence with questions that require value judgements. These are questions, in other words, that can not be resolved simply by having more information, more data, more knowledge or more research. Secondly I have argued that in order to address the question of good education properly we need to make sure that we have a vocabulary that is appropriate for what we are discussing. It is here that I have argued for the importance of an educational vocabulary rather than a vocabulary of learning. Thirdly, I have introduced a distinction between different functions and purposes of education that might help us to ask more precise questions and have more focused discussions about what good education might look like. I see the importance of making the distinction between the three functions of education first and foremost in that it can help us to find a balance in our educational endeavours rather than to end up in one of the possible extremes. Just as an exclusive focus on qualification is problematic – and I think that the damaging effects of such a focus are continuing to influence the lives of many students and teachers around the world – I also think that an exclusive focus on socialisation is problematic – and perhaps we are beginning to see some of the problems of such an approach as well. In all cases it belongs to my definition of good education that there is also sufficient attention to opportunities for individuation and subjectification so that education can continue to contribute to what the philosopher Michel Foucault has so aptly described as â€Å"the undefined work of freedom. † Finally: for me the question of good education does not stand on its own. I do believe that we are living in a time in which the question of goodness is one that we should ask about all our collective human endeavours. This is first of all important in the economic sphere, which is why I would argue that we urgently need to shift the discussion from questions about profitable banking to questions about good banking. It is also important in the domain of politics and democracy, which means that there is also a need to engage with questions about what constitutes good politics and good democracy. The particular answers we give to these questions are perhaps slightly less important than our commitment to seeing these questions for what they are – viz. ormative questions – and our commitment to a continued engagement with these questions, both in generating answers to the question as to what might constitute good education and by continuing to raise critical questions about such answers as well. Good education should at least enable and empower everyone to engage in such crucial deliberations about the shape, form and direction of our collective endeavours. Thank you. 10 References Biesta , G. J. J. (2002). How general can Bildung be? Reflections on the future of a modern educational ideal. British Journal of Philosophy of Education 36(3), 377-390. Biesta, G. J. J. (2004a). Against learning. Reclaiming a language for education in an age of learning. Nordisk Pedagogik 23, 70-82. Biesta, G. J. J. (2004b). Education, accountability and the ethical demand. Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained? Educational Theory 54 (3), 233250. Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future. Boulder, Co: Paradigm Publishers. Biesta, G. J. J. (2007a). Why ‘what works’ won’t work. Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit of educational research. Educational Theory 57(1), 1-22. Biesta, G. J. J. (2007b). Education and the democratic person: Towards a political understanding of democratic education. Teachers College Record 109(3), 740-769. Biesta, G. J. J. (2008). What kind of citizen? What kind of democracy? Citizenship education and the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence. Scottish Educational Review 40(2), 38-52. Biesta, G. J. J. (2009). Good Education in an Age of Measurement. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21(1), 33-46. Biesta, G. J. J. (in press[a]). On the weakness of education. In D. Kerdeman et al. (eds), Philosophy of Education 2009. Biesta, G. J. J. (in press[b]). What kind of citizenship for European Higher Education? Beyond the competent active citizen. European Educational Research Journal 8(2). Biesta, G. J. J. & Lawy, R. S. (2006). From teaching citizenship to learning democracy. Overcoming individualism in research, policy and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education 36(1), 63-79. Bogotch, I. , Miron, L & Biesta, G. (2007). â€Å"Effective for What; Effective for Whom? † Two Questions SESI Should Not Ignore. In T. Townsend (ed), International Handbook of School Effectiveness and School Improvement (93-110). Dordrecht/Boston: Springer. GTCS (General Teaching Council for Scotland) (2000). The standard for chartered teacher. Vanderstraeten, R. & Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). How is education possible? A pragmatist account of communication and the social organisation of education. British Journal of Educational Studies 54(2), 160-174. 11 Biography Gert Biesta (1957) is Professor of Education at the Stirling Institute of Education and Visiting Professor for Education and Democratic Citizenship at Orebro and Malardalen University, Sweden. He is editor-in-chief of Studies in Philosophy and Education, an international journal published by Springer Science+Business Media. Before joining Stirling in December 2007 he worked at the University of Exeter (from 1999) and before that at several Universities in the Netherlands. He has a degree in Education from Leiden University, a degree in Philosophy from Erasmus University Rotterdam, and a PhD in Education from Leiden University (1992). From 1995-1997 he was a Spencer Post Doctoral Fellow with the National Academy of Education, USA. A major focus of his research is the relationship between education and democracy. His theoretical work focuses on different ways of understanding democracy, democratisation and democratic education, with particular attention to questions about educational communication both at the micro-level of classroom interaction and the macro-level of intercultural communication. He has also written about the philosophy and methodology of educational research, and the relationships between educational research, educational policy and educational practice. His empirical research focuses on democratic learning of young people and adults, with a particular emphasis on democratic learning in everyday settings. He has a research interest in vocational education and lifelong learning, democratic conceptions of the learning society, learning theories and theories of education, the professional learning of teachers, and the civic role of Higher Education. He has published widely in many national and international journals. Recent books include Derrida & Education (Routledge 2001; co-edited with Denise Egea-Kuehne); Pragmatism and Educational Research (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003; co-authored with Nicholas C. Burbules); Beyond learning. Democratic education for a human future (Paradigm Publishers, 2006; a Swedish translation, Bortom larandet: Demokratisk utbildning for en mansklig framtid, was published by Studentlitteratur in 2006; a Danish translation will appear in 2009); Improving learning cultures in Further Education (Routledge; co-authored ith David James); an English and a German version of George Herbert Mead’s Lectures on Philosophy of Education (coedited with Daniel Trohler; Verlag Julius Klinkhardt 2008; Paradigm Publishers 2008); Education, democracy and the moral life (Springer 2009; co-edited with Michael Katz ande Susan Verducci); Derrida, Deconstruction and the politics of pedagogy (Peter Lang 2009; co-authored w ith Michael A. Peters); Rethinking contexts for teaching and learning. Communities, activities and networks (Routledge 2009; coedited with Richard Edwards and Mary Thorpe). In 2008 his book Beyond Learning won the American Educational Studies Association Critics’ Choice Book Award. Contact details: The Stirling Institute of Education, University of Stirling Stirling, FK9 4LA Scotland, UK e-mail: gert. biesta@stir. ac. uk website: www. gertbiesta. com 12 The Stirling Institute of Education University of Stirling Stirling FK9 4LA www. ioe. stir. ac. uk Scottish Charity Number SC 011159

Morality vs Duty Essay

When we hear stories about soldiers and about war, it’s usually about patriotism for one’s country, their duty, the bravery of the soldier who died in battle, and the pride at a soldier’s return. The story that is not typically heard is what it really feels like to put on a uniform, go to war, and come home. The psychological and emotional trauma these young men and women face in war is nothing short of moral anguish. This is evident in Haruki Murakami’s gruesome story, â€Å"Another Way to Die.† Here is a lieutenant struggling with the barbaric orders he was given to execute three prisoners with a bayonet and a fourth prisoner with a baseball bat. Throughout the story the lieutenant would often repeating his orders and muse over the senselessness of the act. In sum, he says, â€Å"What the hell good is it going to do to kill these guys? †¦adding a few bodies to the count isn’t going to make any difference. But orders are orders. I am a soldier and I have to follow orders† (1039). Ultimately, the lieutenant employs another soldier to execute the final prisoner with a baseball bat. Perhaps this is an example of the lieutenant’s inability to go against his moral fiber. He does his duty by making sure the order is carried out, but he cannot do it himself. As one can only imagine, it can be difficult to bludgeon someone to death. This soldier, ordered to carry out the task, had never even held a baseball bat before. Yet, they were all surprised when the prisoner, â€Å"with his last drop of life,† sat up, â€Å"as if he had fully come awake† and then grab on to the veterinarian standing nearby (1041). The lieutenant had to fire his gun for the first time ever at a human being. However, he chose not to think about it until after the war was over. How could he? Certainly he wouldn’t be able to do his duty if he let his morals get in the way. In Frank O’Connor’s story, â€Å"Guests of a Nation,† one can assume that duty would become obsolete-Especially since the prisoners and captors had become friends. The tone of this story seems hopeful. The scene is in a cozy little cottage run by an odd, but likable old woman. The characters are all cheerful and friendly towards each other. It is difficult to keep in mind that there is a war going on and that these four are enemies. Even the narrator, Bonaparte, has a hard time believing they are hostages and is surprised and saddened when he learns that he may have to shoot them (1024-1025). Hawkins, the more animated hostage, has a hard time believing it as well. It’s not until the very last moment that he realizes they’re earnest. He says to Donovan, â€Å"What have you against me, Jeremiah Donovan?† (1027). That he knows his full name and it comes naturally to say it aloud, should be enough proof that these men are not enemies. Hawkins asks if anyone thought he would shoot Noble if he had to and Donovan points out, â€Å"yes, you would†¦. Because you’d know that you would be shot for not doing it.† Regardless, Hawkins insists he would never shoot a pal. Hawkins contends that his morals are higher than his duty. But then again, he’s not the one holding the gun. Bonaparte, keenly aware of the gun in his pocket wishes they would attempt to run away, knowing he wouldn’t shoot at them if they did (1027). Donovan, their leader, never did get too close to the hostages and seemed to have no problem firing at them. His sense of duty was high. He asks Belcher if he understands that they are only doing their duty, to which Belcher remarks, â€Å"I never could make out what duty was myself. I think you’re all good lads, if that’s what you mean. I’m not complaining† (1029). I’m not actually that sure Belcher would have shot either of them if the roles were reversed. It is difficult enough to cope with the loss of a friend. One can only imagine if you were the one ordered to kill your friend. How does one come out of something like that? Noble turned to God. Bonaparte never feels the same about anything again. Surely this is not something that they will easily move past. Think about it; all our lives we’re taught what is right and what is wrong. Then, one day, you are ordered to torture or kill a stranger. Even when they’re interrogating a prisoner the right way-that is, not torturing them- they are gaining intimacy just so they can exploit them. At what point does duty beat morality? The truth is, for most soldiers, it doesn’t. Despite the task they are ordered to execute, virtually every soldier has an overwhelming sense of guilt and regret. Is a soldier’s guilt worth their sense of duty in the end? I highly doubt it. Perhaps, this is the reason those stories are often swept under the rug. The shame is too much to admit out loud.

Women in American Politics at Ghost Writing Essays Essays

Women in American Politics at Ghost Writing Essays Essays Women in American Politics at Ghost Writing Essays Essay Women in American Politics at Ghost Writing Essays Essay American women in general have struggled in gaining people’s acceptance in both society and politicsghost (Sanbonmatsu, p. 368). More specifically, America has never had a woman president since the time of the Founding Fathers to the present time for several reasons. One is that American women have only recently experienced the liberty to go beyond the household tasks usually attributed to their gender roles. As a consequence, it is only recently that America has given ample room for women to excel in what has been the largely patriarchal structure of American politics, although the extent of participation given to American women are not yet completely realized.Two is that few American women have turned to politics and only few of these female politicians have actually taken the challenge to reshape the perception of male-dominance in the American presidency. And three is that even the current setting of American politics, which by and large is predomin antly occupied by men, contributes to the presence of the limitations faced by aspiring female politicians, which include either the low recognition of women candidates or the higher regard for male political aspirants within the political system itself (Thompson, p. 340).It is only in the late nineteenth century when women have gradually gained their liberty to participate in the affairs in the society and in the government with less restraint as compared to the earlier years. One thing that can be said from this is that there has been an awakening on the part of American women, knowing only quite recently the capabilities that they have in shaping the nation’s politics and using that knowledge to further expand their social recognition. However, even if women can now freely participate in the American political system, such freedom does not necessarily translate into having the large probability of, say, winning the local or national elections.It can also be said that the i nability to transform that freedom into the power to occupy important political positions rests on the earlier influence of men on the political system. Long before women were given the political capability to engage into politics, male Americans were already shaping the course of the American political system (Traube, p. 129). The very fact that we call the founders of the Constitution the Founding Fathers already hints at the patriarchal setting of the earlier days of the government. During those early years, the primary tasks of women were confined within households. They served as the ‘ornaments’ of men during social gatherings, so to speak.Given the unwelcoming history of how women had to endure the status of being ineffective members of the political society as far as the setup of the early political system is concerned, it can be said that it did not encourage American women to turn to politics immediately after they were given the chance to participate in politi cs. More importantly, even though we now see American women wielding political power in some areas of the United States, with Hillary Clinton bidding for a shot at the presidency although failing to do so in the end, the presence of these women barely match the presence of males in the American political system. The male dominance in that system is overwhelming that it sizes up any identifiable presence of females even in local political areas.The overwhelming dominance of males in American politics also contributes to the realization of the full participation of women in local politics to Congress, and even to the national government. The very existence of the higher regard for male politicians as a result of the long history of the patriarchal American politics continues to this day which, apparently, casts a long shadow from any attempts of American women to break political barriers and suffuse female perspectives into a largely male domain.As long as there is a lack of support f rom the status quo to further empower women to taking the political course with less hindrance and with more encouragement, it will remain difficult for American women to establish a substantial political presence with reputation (Yuval-Davis, p. 11). Even if we assume that there are thousands, if not millions, of women across the many States of the country seeking to occupy political positions in the national government, the absence of a groundswell of support both from the numerous localities and from the national government will only water down these efforts into a state of ineffectiveness.The recent turn of events in the recently concluded democratic nominations between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tells us that Clinton will not be having a shot at the presidential race this November 2008. Moreover, such turn of events only implies that even in these modern time were men and women are said to be equals before the eyes of the society female presidential nominees still have a lot to do in order to stand at par with their male counterparts. The confidence of the public remains an important issue that should be addressed by aspiring female politicians in the national government.However, it can also be said that the participation of Hillary Clinton in the presidential nominations is one big step in making the public aware that it is no longer impossible for American women to rise above the challenge of changing the public perception that women cannot go higher in the political hierarchy. The fact alone that Clinton was able to earn thousands and thousands of popular votes and many delegates in the democratic presidential nominations sheds light on the question of whether America has already begun to accept the possibility of having a woman as president. The question now is no longer about the possibility of electing a woman as president of the nation for that question has been answered by the example of Hillary Clinton. The more relevant question in todayâ €™s American society is whether or not more women will follow the lead of Clinton.Apparently, in order for more women to actively participate in American politics, several conditions should be met. These include but are not limited to: a substantial amount of local public support to begin with, a suitable financial backing from these supporters, and a support from the current political setting as well just to name a few. If these conditions are met, there are more chances for aspiring female politicians to successfully enter the political realm, both from the local and national levels of the government.Comparing and contrasting the political situations between the past and the present times, it can be observed that there have been substantial changes in the balance of gender participation. That is, instead of having just an obscure number of female politicians and political candidates, Americans now have the liberty to elect women candidates and that these women candidates now h ave the liberty to actively participate in elections as potential candidates. In the past, women were not even allowed to vote in the elections; today, women can not only vote, they can also enlist themselves as candidates for people to freely choose.Perhaps some time in the future, the United States will elect a female candidate as president, thereby setting a precedent for future generations to learn from and to follow. When that time comes, it can fully be said that gender is no longer an issue in national politics as it will simply become a thing of the past made irrelevant and obscured by the tides of history. And when that time comes, women in America will have certainly achieved one huge leap forward for themselves and for the nation. Sanbonmatsu, Kira. Gender-Related Political Knowledge and the Descriptive Representation of Women. Political Behavior 25.4 (2003): 368.Thompson, Becky. Multiracial Feminism: Recasting the Chronology of Second Wave Feminism. Feminist Studies 28.2 (2002): 340.Traube, Elizabeth G. The Popular In American Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 25 (1996): 129.Yuval-Davis, Nira. Women, Citizenship and Difference. Feminist Review.57 (1997): 11.