Calvins Unique Theocracy Essays - Calvinism, Forms Of Government

Calvin's Unique Theocracy When we think of a theocracy, we usually think of a political system, governed and legislated by a religious body with religious beliefs. For the most part this is true. Historically, theocratic governments have successfully existed throughout the world, from ancient Egypt to modern Middle-Eastern Islamic states. For centuries even the Christian Church enjoyed a theocratic diversity which encompassed most of the civilized world. As well, the unprecedented spread of Islam has seeded new theocracies at a tremendous rate. Most theocratic governments had one thing in common, however; their political ideologies did not just originate from the church, they were the church. Church leaders were the political leaders. Typically, a strong theocracy was one with a superior church hierarchy in which the political system was deeply entrenched. But not all theocratic structures were intended to be this way. In Chapter XX of his masterpiece The Institutes on Christian Piety, John Calvin logically o utlined his view of a theocracy. Consistent with his scripture-based reasoning, Calvin eloquently described how civil and ecclesiastical governments were different, yet uniquely related. In his classic reformation style, Calvin metaphorically compared Catholic to Protestant theology by framing his theocracy not on the church as the government, but rather he separated civil government from spiritual government into a divinely ordained, segregated Protestant theocracy. Subtlety expressed and masterfully executed, Chapter XX is dripping with figurative language, suggesting that Calvin went to great lengths to insure that his distaste for the Catholic papacy would not go unnoticed. The first third of Chapter XX concentrates on the duties and responsibilities of the magistrate. This after two opening sections which clearly divide government into two parts, and then claim these parts not to be antithetical. Indeed such a preamble is necessary since the remainder of the document is to be a separation, yet cross-self-reliance on these parts. Calvin made no attempt to separate local, regional, or national magistracy. In fact, most of the scripture references are Old Testament passages which refer to either the kings of Judah, or other post-king patriarchs. The main focus on the magistrate "is that they have a mandate from God, have been invested with divine authority, and are wholly God's representatives." In addition, God has "entrusted to them" the authority "of exercising judgement not for man but for God." This sounds very theocratic. However, no where did Calvin mention the source of this divine position to be the church. Rather he asserted, quoting Psalms 2:12 , that the magistrate should "kiss the Son of God" yet not lay aside their authority. With this he follows, "By these words he entrusts the condition of the church to their protection and care." Calvin clearly separates the church from directly engaging in the politics related to the office of the magistrate. By assigning to the church the responsibility of caring for the magistrate, Calvin allows the church to be associated with government while not actually becoming part of the government, as his Catholic adversaries did. Beyond divine appointment, however, Calvin also outlines the duties of the magistrate in a way which uniquely joins the government to God. Calvin continued his blend of civil and spiritual government through a discourse on the duties of the magistrate, issues of war, and the levying of taxes. On the duties of the magistrate, for example, he returns to the question of divine appointment. "And that their sole endeavor" Calvin asserts "should be to provide for the common safety and peace of all." Continuing, he states that, "in administering punishment, [the magistrate] does nothing by himself, but carries out the very judgements of God ." In this, Calvin begins to solidify his argument concerning the divine nature of the magistracy. It is no coincidence, however, that he includes no reference which joins the magistrate to the corporate church. Supported by additional references to Old Testament kings, Calvin implies that it is inappropriate for the magistrate to be a church leader, in that King David, for example, had priests dedicated to occupying those positions. On the topic of war, Calvin makes his position crystal clear. "But kings and people" Calvin states, "must sometimes take up arms to execute such public vengeance." Calvin views war as a "lawful" undertaking, as

buy custom Crime and Social Policy essay

buy custom Crime and Social Policy essay The first documented case regarding the use of marijuana, also known as cannabis sativa, dates back to about 2500 B.C. It was noted among the ancient Chinese cultures that the discovered plant produced a mild euphoria when ingested, and thus was considered as an effective pain reliever. From that time, the use of marijuana as a pain reliever spread to other cultures not only in China, but also around the world. According to the statistics of the United Nations, marijuana is considered as the most widely used illicit substance around the world (Rowe, 2006). In the United States, for instance, marijuana was introduced during the institution of the British colonies in the Northern part of America. Doctors commonly used the substance for inducing appetite and as a pain reliever. However, some citizens used marijuana as a recreational substance. This prompted the Federal Government to conduct studies about the use and effects of marijuana. The findings actually revealed that the productio n of marijuana and its use were harmful to the Americans` culture and morality. As a result, the Federal Government established the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 which was supposed to introduce high taxes to the marijuana industry, and eventually lead to the termination of the substance use and production in the country (Rowe, 2006). However, the introduction of this act marked the start of the controversies regarding the use of marijuana. For instance, the American Medical Association was totally against the legislation because of the high medicinal value the substance contained. However, the government continued with its efforts and in 1950s it instituted compulsory fines and jail sentences for possession and distribution of marijuana (Rowe, 2006, p.26). Less strict marijuana policies were introduced in the 1970s, but these did not last for long as they encountered strong opposition from the reigning presidents. Currently, two controversial sides regarding marijuana exist - those who are for the legalization and those against it. However, it is important to note that some states like California have legalized the use of marijuana. Statement of Purpose The war regarding the production, distribution and use of drugs is one of the most expensive battles, since a great deal of resources are required to detect those involved in this trade, prosecute them and house them in a prison. Besides, the controversies concerning the legalization of such drugs have generated heated debates. This research is based on the fact that there have been numerous controversies regarding the legalization of marijuana. From the documented research and case studies, some of the arguments that have been brought forward regarding the reasons as to why marijuana should be legalized include the claim that this substance contains medicinal values, such as pain relieving that can be of help to cancer patients and the fact that its legalization would help reduce illegal crimes (Messerli, 2011). Indeed some countries have gone forward to legalize marijuana. However, others stand with the fact that this substance should be illegalized considering the lethal effects it has on human health, among other numerous factors (Messerli, 2011). Despite the numerous studies that have been conducted with regard to this substance, drawing a general conclusion that would incorporate the arguments from both sides has proved difficult. Most countries have remained adamant and maintained the laws that are against the legalization of the substance. Besides, there are various drug policies put in place to control the use of drugs. This research will therefore look at the arguments from the both sides of those who are in support of the legalization of marijuana, and those who are against; the drug policies which have been implemented in various countries to curb the use of the substance will be also considered. The SAMSA National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), carried out in 1999, revealed that in the United States marijuana is the main drug being regularly used by around 75 percent of the present illegal drug users. Description of Research Methods and Materials This research will use secondary data, which involves a critical analysis of the previous research works including case studies to identify the arguments that have been brought forward with regard to the topic of study. Numerous research studies and case studies have been conducted regarding the legalization of marijuana and the drug policies, which have been put in place to control the same. In addition, the case studies have been well presented to support the arguments brought forward. This study will consider both sides of the argument, the policies that have been implemented and will then draw conclusions using the arguments that have been provided. This will as well be supported using the case studies conducted in the previous research studies. To avoid biased results, different studies will be considered and explored in order to identify the perspectives of different researchers with regard to the topic of the study. Basically, this will be a case study analysis. Literature Review The topic on the legalization of marijuana has been the subject of discussion and argument for decades. Scholars have deferred greatly on whether or not marijuana should be legalized. Some intellectuals argue that the pros of legalizing marijuana are much more compared to the cons, while the opponents put forward that legalizing the drug will only bring more harm to the society and the users. Reasons behind the Legalization of Marijuana It is evident that the society is unhappy with the current efforts to stop illegal drug smuggling, supply and use, while people are not aware of the solution to this problem. Owing to the augmented drug use, drug connected crimes, and the inability of the government to bring to an end the illegal drug use, the majority of people argue that in order to lessen certain immoral behaviours and improve positive outcomes the drug use should be legalized and controlled. In this case, the legalization of marijuana in the United States and other countries around the world would considerably minimize crimes in the cities and besides, will form a community that is more industrious through its positive usage (Klein, 2009). It is true that many crimes are linked to the use of drugs including financial and physical crimes. As a result, crimes that would result from legalizing marijuana would be less destructive and minimal in the community, as compared to murder, violence, mayhem and theft, which a re the daily bread especially in the United State and other nations presently. Many Americans want marijuana to be legalized as a result of the amplified government spending on drugs and war (Messerli, 2011). They believe that the cost of maintaining marijuana is extremely expensive. For instance, in the United States the federal, state and local governments recently use billions of dollars every year to fight against the use of marijuana. In 1980 the federal government used one billion dollar, while the local and state government used four and three billion dollars crrespondingly on marijuana, and this means that currently they may be using roughly ten billion dollars on marijuana (Klein, 2009). Another benefit of legalizing the drug is that it would be a source of revenue to the government through taxation. In essence, legalization would give the government an augmented control over the influence and purity of marijuana, and this may be attained by regulating the global drug trade more efficiently. The proponents of legalization of marijuana also put forward that people should be given freedom to make their own choice, including the usage of marijuana (Klein, 2009). Study verifies that marijuana is not an addictive drug as other drugs, like alcohol and tobacco which are legal in most countries (Klein, 2009). Statistics also reveal that, since its existence to today, marijuana has not led to any incident of death. For that reason, the government ought to concentrate on fighting other harmful legal drugs that have jeopardized persons lives and the entire society and give individuals liberty to make their choices. It is also evident from the existing illegalization policies that it is hard to attain the desired objective to stop the use of a drug. Prohibition of alcohol has not in any way worked, since people are still taking alcohol regardless of how dangerous this substance is to our health. Therefore, there is no logical basis to argue out that prohibition of marijuana will be a better idea in controlling the use of this drug, especially among the college students. In fact, illegalizing marijuana has not stopped people from taking it, since the estimates highlight that over 25 million people use marijuana annually in the United States (Rudolf, 2004). It would even be a better idea if the government allowed the legalization of marijuana, at the same time introducing heavy taxes to the users, so it would become difficult for them to access and afford it. There are also medical benefits associated with the use of marijuana. In its natural form, marijuana is considered to be one of the harmless therapeutically active drugs available to a man (Messerli, 2011). It can be used safely, following a strictly supervised schedule of a medical care. Furthermore, medical practitioners have proved that excessive intake of marijuana contain no adverse effects other than the mere sleeping. The only proved negative effect of marijuana comes as a result of its smoke that contains more carbon dioxide compared to tobacco (Rudolph, 2004). It is proven that marijuana relieves nausea, especially among the cancer patients undertaking powerful chemotherapy. Patients suffering from AIDS and multiple sclerosis can also use it. In addition, marijuana is proved as an effective treatment of glaucoma, due to its ability to lower the eye pressure. Reasons against the Legalization of Marijuana On the other hand, some scholars who argue against the legalization of marijuana offer various reasons to support their side. Firstly, marijuana is linked with health problems. Studies have revealed that smoking marijuana usually deposits almost two to four times more tar into the lungs, compared to a filtered cigarette (Ballot Question Committee, 2006). Furthermore, smoking three joints of marijuana per day can lead to more problems of the respiratory system than smoking a full packet of cigarettes daily. Research also indicates that the smoke of marijuana has fifty to seventy percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons compared to tobacco smoke (Ballot Question Committee, 2006). Moreover, some opponents argue that legalizing marijuana will increase the crime rates in the society (Messerli, 2011). This is evidenced by the facts that people who are involved in the illegal buying, selling and usage of the drug are more probable to involve themselves in other crimes. With this, the opponents believe that the society will be much safer when marijuana trade and its use remain illegal and the offenders incarcerated. It is also true that crime, violence, and drug use go hand-in-hand. Individuals who are using drugs and those who are searching for money to buy such drugs usually commit crimes such as homicides. In fact, research has shown that these individuals commit six times as many crimes as others (Messerli, 2011). However, studies have indicated that individuals under drug influence other than those looking for ways to purchase the drugs commit most of the crimes. Laws that prohibit the use of marijuana usually send a message to the minors that marijuana is a harmful drug. As a result, legalizing of marijuana will increase it usage by young people. This is evidenced by the fact that, when Alaska allowed the private use of the drug, the percentage of minors who used the drug rose rapidly to twice the countrys average. A study carried out in Canada indicated that the nations liberal marijuana policies have resulted in Canadian youth topping all other nations for frequent use of marijuana. The lead researcher attributes the increased use to availability, affordability and acceptability (Ballot Question Committee, 2006). In Netherlands, after the legalization of marijuana its consumption among the youth, especially between eighteen to twenty years, tripled. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Managers Supervisors Association, the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association and the Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro suppose that criminals who a re gaining a lot from illegal drug sales would not be out of trade, as they will probably augment their efforts to increase the number of minor users (Ballot Question Committee, 2006). Countrywide, Marijuana was concerned in over 215, 000 emergency department visits affecting an already loaded emergency care system. Drug Policies During the year of 1988 when Ronald Regan was the president of the United States, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 was put into effect with an objective of generating a free drug United States of America. The initiative was triggered by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) that had the responsibility of setting and implementing national strategy in addition to setting budgets (Legalizationofmarijuana.com, 2011). The act had the purpose of decreasing drug trafficking, drug abuse and their outcomes. Particularly, to curb drug abuse, young people should be prevented from using prohibited drugs, drug availability and the number of users should be also reduced. Since its start the Office of National Drug Control Policy has been given wider powers. In addition to that, the organization`s director currently coordinates, assesses and also oversees domestic and global anti-drug hard work of administrative branch agencies. Moreover, the organization also ensures that the activities are constant and that state level activities should complement them. The president is advised by the director concerning the transformation in the budgeting, management, organization and the Federal Agency personnel who could be engaged in the anti-drug attempts and the execution of the Federal Agencies in the strategy (Legalizationofmarijuana.com, 2011). The organization in conjunction with the Act 19888, which instigated it, have since then been the American powerhouse on the war against drug use. Moreover, there has been numerous updates to the Office of National Drug Control Policy regarding the superseding years which are all on the Office of National Drug Control Policys site (Legalizationofmarijuana.com, 2011). For the site to be decipherable, it merely center on shortening the 2010 National Drug Control Strategy. A new balanced approach is promised by the most recent strategy, where Obama pledges on the restoration of balance in the fight of drug problem that has distressed our communities. The main aim of the 2010 Drug Control Strategy encompasses: To build up efforts to stop the use of drugs in the communities Request for early involvement in Health Care opportunities Rupture the sequence of use of drugs, wrongdoing and imprisonment Interrupt the production and trafficking of domestic drug Building up global partnerships Develop the systems of information for assessment, management and analysis Expand recovery support and add substance treatment into health care (Legalizationofmarijuana.com, 2011). By 2015, they are looking to: Reduce illegal consumption of drugs in America Enhance public safety and public health of Americans by decreasing the outcomes of the drugs` abuse. In 2011, the Office of National Control Policy requested 15.5 billion U. S. dollars so as to decrease the use of drugs and its outcomes in America. Finishing the term war on drugs is the only Americas adjustment to its drug policy that was brought about in 1971 by Richard Nixon, which Obama states not to be productive. In the book of Jack Herer, The Emperor Wears No Clothes, the author explains why cannabis is illegal. During the mid 1930s machines used for conserving hemps high-cellulose pulp and the novel hemp stripping machines lastly became modern, accessible and inexpensive; huge timber lands and business like the Kimberly Clark [USA], St. Regis, Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division and nearly all paper, newspapers and timber companies lost a lot of money and possibly went bankrupt. Plastic made from coal and oil had been unproved by DuPont, and a sulfite procedure was employed in making paper that came from wood pulp (Legalizationofmarijuana.com, 2011). According to historians and DuPonts corporate records the processes rated above 80% of the car loadings of the company and the railroad in the 1990s. The thrilling, and probably amazing fact at the start was that marijuana was not a serious problem according to Anslinger (Rudolph, 2004). Concurring with DuPont and Hearst anti-marijuana campaign of 1934, he began to focus particularly on marijuana in his greater aim of prohibiting all drugs. Anslinger greatly employed the headlines on Hearst including Marijuana killing the youths and according to him, marijuana was the main violence triggering drug in the entire history of human beings (Rowe, 2006). Nevertheless, the congress reacted to this by adopting the marijuana tax act in 1937. In the United States the most recent news regarding the legalization of marijuana is the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. This is in the preposition 19 of the California ballot. The aim of the Act is to put the responsibility for regulating the use of marijuana on the local government and allow it to enforce and collect fees and taxes in addition to sanctioning an array of civil and crim inal penalties. The fact that marijuana is believed to be harmful to the lives of many Americans instigated the Federal Government to establish the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937, which was supposed to introduce high taxes to the marijuana industry, and eventually lead to the termination of the use and production of marijuana in the country (Rowe, 2006). However, the introduction of this Act marked the start of the controversies regarding the use of marijuana. For instance, the American Medical Association was totally against this legislation because of the high medicinal value the substance contained. However, the government continued with its efforts and in 1950s it instituted compulsory fines and jail sentences for possession and distribution of marijuana (Rowe, 2006). Less strict marijuana policies were introduced in the 1970s, but those did not last for a long time as they encountered strong opposition from the reigning presidents. The Australian National Drug Strategy 2010-2015 is a drug strategy framework that has been outline by the Australian Ministerial Council to address alcohol and other drugs use. The main objective of the National Drug Strategy is to assist in building healthy and safe communities through the lessening and minimization of alcohol and other drugs linked health, economic and social harms amongst communities, families and individuals (NIDAC, 2009). The overarching procedure to harm minimization that has steered the National Drug Strategy from the time when it was set up will persist through 2010-2015. The approach encompasses three pillars including demand reduction, supply reduction and harm reduction which are underpinned by amplified commitments to build personnel capability, innovation and evaluation, performance measurement, and building linkages across sectors. It is apparent from the above that, the war regarding production, distribution and use of drugs is one of the most expensive battles, since a great deal of resources are required to detect those involved in this trade, prosecute them and put them in jail. Besides, the controversies concerning the legalization of such drugs have generated heated debates. According to some proponents, marijuana should be legalized as it contains medicinal values like a pain relieving effect that can be of help to cancer patients, and its legalization would help reduce illegal crimes. Nevertheless, others stand with the fact that it should be illegalized, considering the lethal effects it has on human health, among other numerous factors. Most countries have remained adamant and maintained the laws that are against the legalization of the substance. Besides, there are various drug policies put in place in different countries in order to control and curb the use of illicit drugs. In fact, some countries have policies which legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal use whereas other countries implemented strict laws against it. Buy custom Crime and Social Policy essay

Marcus Buckingham Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Marcus Buckingham - Essay Example In addition, he expresses that managers need to assign employees depending on the abilities and personalities. Therefore, managers need to identify the one practice that will ensure success in all management situations irrespective of the complexity of situation. The ability of leaders to inspire the employees and to guide in implementing management goals determines the success of their organizations. Buckingham uses the analogy of chess to explain the situation that managers face while working with a big lot of employees (3). In the Chess, all the pieces move differently unlike in Checkers where all pieces move in the same manner. The same way, employees within an organization have unique differences in terms of abilities, personalities, or qualities, which all influence their service delivery. Therefore, a manager’s role is to understand the key strengths of every employee and to utilize this strength for the benefit of their organization. In his example, Walgreen’s manager Michelle Miller employed Jeffrey, an employee who was not good in vague and generic tasks but effective in specific tasks. By tweaking her responsibilities, she realized this strength and became an important resource in handling specific tasks within the organization. In this light, a manager should be able to identify employee’s strength and support them in becoming better workers. Just like, a Chess player, the manager should be able to look ahead of the employees and see opportunities even before they emerge. Secondly, Buckingham (5) identifies the need for managers to identify the one strategy that works best in all situations of management. The author calls it as the â€Å"one thing† that ends up being the backbone of the management strategies. He identifies that the argument that exists within modern research supporting the idea that there is no any management practice that is best for all situations. Therefore, leading an organization requires

Criminal Justice System in the USA Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Criminal Justice System in the USA - Assignment Example As the paper outlines, this is obviously the wrong direction that the prison system is taking and represents an unethical way in which the offenders are being treated. Although the conditions in these prisons meet federal and local standards, the overall issue of human rights and equality is fundamentally flawed due to the fact that the people who are being locked away are not viewed with respect to how they should be punished or reformed; rather, they are only viewed with respect to the overall level of profitability that can be extracted from the state, regional, or federal government for their tenure in the penal system. The following analysis will discuss this to some length and highlight the unethical nature as well as some prescriptions for change that could be instituted in order to have a positive impact on the current criminal justice system. The ethical issue that exists is the fact that the prisons and penal institutions within the United States are supposed to be interest ed only in punishing and rehabilitating the criminal. Instead, what is taking place throughout the country is a situation in which the prison complex itself is making a massive amount of money based upon the individuals that it incarcerates. As one might expect, this means that there will be little if any focus upon seeking to rehabilitate the criminal; instead, the focus is upon only trying to expand the size of the prisons so that a further and further level of profitability is made.  As such, the primary ethical/moral issue that one must consider relates to the issue that has evolved from what this author will deem â€Å"incarceration for profit†. Although few individuals in the United States are aware of this practice, the fact of the matter is that it has grown from an isolated incidence to a multi-million dollar a year industry. The central issue can be explained as a system whereby overburdened municipalities cannot immediately afford the massive expense that is call ed for in order to build a new penitentiary system. As a way to bridge this gap while making a substantial profit, private firms enter into the equation and offer the municipality a joint venture which is oftentimes hard to resist. These firms offer to front the necessary capital to build the facility as well as staff it with private contracting security firms. The catch then comes as the municipality agrees to an extended lease of the facility. Although at face value this may seem an ingenious way for a private firm to work to alleviate the strains that a municipality may have with relation to prison overcrowding, it is however slightly more sinister than one would at first presume. Due to the fact that a private firm now has the stake in the criminal justice system, a system that arguably the state and the state alone should have prevued over, the interests of rehabilitation and reform are placed as secondary to overall profit (Brickner et al. 11). Such a situation is counter to t he very foundations of what the criminal justice system is supposed to provide to society.  In this way, incarceration has become the primary focus of policymakers and local leaders whereas the needs of those incarcerated as well as the secondary objectives of rehabilitation and reform are all but forgotten in a drive to provide more â€Å"bed space† for existing and incoming offenders.   This issue has been compounded by a host of policy decisions; some of these are beyond the scope of this individual analysis.   However, two of the complicating factors will be discussed at greater length within this analysis.

International Relations Essays Terrorism Definition Solutions

International Relations Essays Terrorism Definition Solutions Terrorism: An Exploration Of Its Definition, History, And Possible Solutions Terrorism upsets people. It does so deliberately. Thatis its point and that is why it has engrossed so much of ourattention in the early years of the 21st century. Townshend Ask any tenindividuals on the streets of London, Paris, Moscow, or New York for the topthree issues facing the world today and one common response is likely to be terrorism.Inquire further about how the same people would define terrorism, whenterrorism began, and how terrorism can be stopped and you will probably befaced with a myriad of answers, or maybe just looks of puzzlement. The range ofresponses (or lack thereof) from the public should not be surprising. Not evenexperts agree on responses to these seemingly fundamental questions on an issueof such importance to worldwide security, an issue that Thackrah suggests isone of the most intractable global problems at the start of the twenty-firstcentury. This essaybegins by surveying the vast array of definitions for the term terrorism,providing some insight into the reasons that terrorism is so difficult forexperts to define, and adopting a working definition for the term. Thehistorical roots of terrorism will then be explored and results of a review ofselected literature on possible solutions for dealing with terrorism will beintroduced. Finally, a conclusion discussing the results of the literaturereview will be presented. Terrorism Defined What is terrorism? The definitionassigned to the term very much depends on who you ask, although, as Hoffmanwrites, few words have so insidiously worked their way in to our everydayvocabulary.Oots writes that terrorism has been defined in different ways by variousscholars.Hoffman suggests that most individuals have vague notions of what the termmeans, but cannot offer precise, explanatory definitions. The TerrorismResearch Center claims that [t]errorism by nature is difficult to define.Townshend writes that both politicians and scholars have been hung up inattempting to define terrorism in a way that distinguishes it from othercriminal violence and even military action.Complicating attempts to define terrorism, the meaning and usage of the termhave changed over the years.Complications aside, most people would agree that terrorism is a subjectiveterm with negative connotations, a pejorative term, used to describe the actsof enemies or opponents. The term has moral connotations and can be used topersuade others to adopt a particular viewpoint. For instance, if an individualsympathises with the victims of terrorism, then the perpetrator is consideredto be a terrorist, but if an individual sympathises with the perpetrator, thenthe perpetrator is considered to be a freedom fighter or is referred to byequally positive characterisations.About this, the Terrorism Research Center writes: One mans terrorist isanother mans freedom fighter.Whittaker distinguishes between terrorists, guerrillas, and freedom fighters inwriting: the terrorist targets civilians; the guerrilla goes for militarypersonnel and facilities; and the freedom fighter conducts a campaign toliberate his people from dictatorial oppression, gross disarmament, or the gripof an occupying power. One author includedover one hundred definitions for the term terrorism.Another quoted over ninety definitions and descriptions.The definitions range from those that are quite simplistic to those that areequally comprehensive. The following definitions are illustrative of the broadrange of thought: Terrorism is violence for purposes of creating fear. Terrorism is politically and socially motivated violence. Terrorism is political violence in or against true democracies. Terrorism may be described as a strategy of violence designed toinspire terror within a particular segment of a given society. Terrorism is the most amoral of organised violence. Terrorism is a form of warfareused when full-scale militaryaction is not possible. Terrorism is a method of action by which an agent tends to produceterror in order to impose his domination. Terrorism is the systematic use of coercive intimidation,usually to service political ends. It is used to create a climate of fear. Terrorism is the threat or use of violence, often against thecivilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidateopponents, or to publicise grievances. Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at populations inan effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims. Terrorism is politically motivated violence perpetrated againstnon-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usuallyintended to influence an audience. Whittakerexplores the complexity of defining terrorism by furnishing a comprehensivelist of terrorism criteria: The violence or threat of violence inherent in terrorism ispremeditated and politically motivated for the purpose of intimidating orcoercing a government or the public in general. The strategy of terrorism is to instil fear and insecurity. Sustained campaigns or sporadic incidents are applied byterrorists in conducting their unlawful activities. Calculated use of violence is applied against civilian,non-combatant targets. Acquiring, manipulating, and employing power is at the root ofterrorism. Revolutionary terrorism attempts to completely change the politicalsystem within a state; sub-revolutionary terrorism attempts to effect changewithout totally replacing the existing political system. Terrorism consists of carefully planned goals, means, targets,and access conducted in a clandestine manner. The goals of terrorism focus on political, social, ideological,or religious ends. This distinguishes terrorism from other criminal activity. Terrorism is conducted occasionally by individuals, but mostoften by sub-national groups. An important objective of terrorism is to obtain maximumpublicity. Increasingly, terrorist zones of action are extending beyondnational borders, becoming transnational in effect. The vast number of definitions proposed for the term terrorism might makeone wonder if there could ever be agreement around a common definition. Forwithout a common understanding about what terrorism is, how can it bechallenged and ultimately removed as a threat to modern civilisation? Despitethe many definitions for terrorism, there does seem to be an emerging consensuson the definition of the term, according to Jenkins.For instance, Enders and Sandler offer the following comprehensive definitionof terrorism: Terrorism isthe premeditated use or threat of use of extranormal violence or brutality bysubnational groups to obtain a political, religious, or ideological objectivethrough intimidation of a huge audience, usually not directly involved with thepolicy making that terrorists seek to influence. Enders and Sandlersdefinition will be used for the purpose of this essay not only because it is anexample of a current consensus description, but also because it containscriteria suggested by other definitions surveyed in the literature review -violence or threats of violence; intimidation of large civilian audiences; desireto influence; subnational terrorist groupings; and political, religious, orideological objectives. Historical Roots of Terrorism Colin Gray writes thatterrorism is as old as strategic history.The roots of terrorism can be traced back in time to ancient Greece, andterrorist acts have occurred throughout history since that time. The termterrorism, however, originated in the French Revolutions Reign of Terrorand was popularised at that time.Terrorism in this era carried a very positive connotation as it was undertakenin an effort to establish order during the anarchy that followed uprisings inFrance in 1789. It was considered to be an instrument of governance institutedto intimidate counter-revolutionaries, dissidents and subversives and wasassociated with the ideals of democracy and virtue. In fact, according toHoffman, the revolutionary leader Maximillien Robespierre claimed that virtue,without which terror is evil; terror, without which virtue is helpless andthat [t]error is nothing but justice, prompt, severe and inflexible; it is thereforean emanation of virtue. Terrorism at thestart of the twentieth century retained the revolutionary connotations it hadacquired during the French Revolution as it took aim on the Ottoman andHabsburg Empires. In the 1930s, the meaning of terrorism mutated to describeactivities of totalitarian governments and their leaders against theircitizenry in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Stalinist Russia. For instance,in Germany and Italy, gangs of brown shirts or black shirts harassed andintimidated opponents, although leaders of these nations denied that thisoccurred. After World War II, the meaning of terrorism changed once again,returning to its revolutionary connotations where it remains today. Terrorist activitiesin the 1940s and 1950s primarily focused on revolts by indigenous nationalistgroups opposing colonial rule in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, resultingin independence for many countries. Although terrorism retained itsrevolutionary connotation in the 1960s and 1970s, the focus shifted fromanti-coloni alist to separatist goals. Today, terrorism involves broader, lessdistinct goals.The right-wing and left-wing terrorism that became widespread in recent times includedacts by diverse groups such as the Italian Red Brigades; the Irish RepublicanArmy; the Palestine Liberation Organisation; the Shining Path in Peru; theLiberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka; the Weatherman in the UnitedStates; various militia organisations, also in the United States; radicalMuslims through Hamas and Al Quaeda; radical Sikhs in India; and the AumShinrikyo in Japan.Some governments, such as those in Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, are also consideredto be involved in terrorism as sponsors of terrorist activities.Some people, such as American dissident Noam Chomsky, contend that thegovernment of the United States is engaged in terrorism, as exemplified by thetitle of Chomskys 2001 article entitled U.S.A Leading Terrorist State,which appeared in the Monthly Review. Terrorism associatedwith the French Revolution had two important characteristics in common withterrorism today. Firstly, terrorism was, and is today, organised, deliberate,and systematic. Secondly, the goals of terrorism then and now were and are tocreate a new, better society.But, terrorism today has changed in some very fundamental ways: (1) terroristorganisations have evolved into network forms and are less often organised inhierarchies; (2) the identities of transnational terrorist organisations areharder to identify because they claim responsibility for specific acts lessoften; (3) todays terrorist groups do not make demands as often as in the pastand their goals appear to be more hazy and vague; (4) motives have generallyshifted from those that are more politically-oriented to those that are morereligiously-oriented; (5) targets of terrorists are more dispersed around theglobe; and (6) terrorist violence, today, is more indiscriminate, involvingsignificant collateral damage to the public. With thishistorical foundation, particularly the description of the evolution ofterrorism into its current form, the focus now shifts to possible solutions todealing with the issue today. Possible Solutions to Terrorism To effectively meet thechallenges of terrorism, one should consider the history of terrorism, but mustalso look to the future. Kress and colleagues contend that terrorism isincreasing in geographical scope, numerical frequency, and intensity as wellas in ingenuity and subtlety. They suggest that these trends could welltranslate into more varied threats and more powerful tools and weapons, addingthat bombs will get smaller and more powerful, poisons and mind-blowing drugsmore insidious, psychological techniques for converting or brainwashing thevictims more effective, and psychological tortures more agonizing. Ian Lesser offers acomprehensive approach for meeting the challenges of terrorism. His approachconsists of a core strategy and supporting strategies aimed at targetingsecurity threats posed by terrorists within a context of global securitythreats from all sources. Lessers core strategy consists of four components:(1) reducing systemic causes of terrorism, (2) deterring terrorists and theirsponsors, (3) reducing risks associated with superterrorism, and (4)retaliating in instances where deterrence fails. In reducing system causes ofterrorism, Lesser is referring to the long-term goal of addressing issues thatgive rise to terrorism such as social and economic problems, unresolved ethnicand nationalist conflicts, frustrated political ambitions, and personalexperiences of individuals who may become future terrorists. In deterringterrorists and their sponsors, Lesser suggests taking massive and personalactions against terrorist leadership, although he concedes that this is becomingmore an d more difficult as terrorists and their sponsors become more diverseand diffuse. In reducing risks associated with superterrorism, Lesser callsfor eliminating weapons of mass destruction that terrorists could use ininflicting destruction and suffering. And, finally, in retaliating whendeterrence fails, Lesser suggests developing the means to retaliate quickly andspecifically to terrorist activities. One of Lessersstrategies supporting his core strategy is environmental shaping, whichinvolves exposing sponsors of terrorism to global scrutiny and isolation;shrinking the zones of chaos and terrorist sanctuary; includingcounterterrorism as an integral component of strategic alliances; limitingglobal exposure; and targeting terrorist networks and funding. His hedgingstrategy involves hardening key policies and strategies to limit risks ofterrorism, increasing ground and space-based surveillance of terroristresources, and preparing to mitigate the effects of terrorism to limit negativeeffects. Kress andassociates reiterate the first component of Lessers core strategy in offeringtheir proactive approach to dealing with terrorism; specifically, addressinggenuine political injustice and resolving supposed injustices.Chalk contends that a state response to terrorism must be limited,well-defined and controlled to avoid compromising the political and civiltraditions that are central to the liberal democratic way of life. He suggeststhat any liberal democratic response to terrorism has to rest on oneoverriding maxim: a commitment to uphold and maintain constitutional principlesof law and order. Conclusion The long history ofterrorism, dating as far back as ancient Greece, suggests that this phenomenon maynever be eliminated as a tactic by those people or groups without sufficient formallegal power to achieve their goals. However, this does not imply that terrorismcannot be engaged proactively and reactively. Logically, it seems that thefirst step should be to agree on a universally-accepted definition forterrorism because, without a consensus on the meaning of the term, effectivelyaddressing its causes and its effects may be difficult at best and impossibleat worst. With a consensusdefinition in hand, the comprehensive strategy for dealing with terrorismproposed by Lesser reduction in systemic causes, deterrence, superterrorismrisk reduction, and retaliation would appear to offer the most balanced,effective approach. Todays leaders should realise that offensive and defensivemilitary action, so typical of traditional warfare, is quite ineffective as asole method for dealing with modern forms of terrorism as demonstrated byfailures experienced by Israel in dealing with the Palestinian terroristproblem and the greater-than-expected difficulties experienced by the UnitedStates, the United Kingdom, and others in ridding the world of radical Islamicterrorists. These efforts may not only fail to ultimately deal effectively withpreventing terrorist activities, but may also produce more terrorists who are offendedby military actions. Alternatively, a holistic approach one which includesproactive prevention and reactive punishment measures such as the approachadvocated by Lesser should be employed. In any solution to theglobal problem of terrorism, the cautionary advice offered by Peter Chalkshould be considered; that is, political and civil liberties should not besacrificed in responding to the terrorist threat. For the very way of life thegovernments of free societies are trying to protect in their attempts to combatterrorism could be compromised by actions that are not limited, well-definedand controlled. Interestingly, this thought was eloquently proffered more thantwo centuries ago by American inventor, journalist, printer, andstatesman Benjamin Franklin in warning that [t]hose who would give upessential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neitherliberty nor safety. Therecommendation, then, is to deal with terrorism in a holistic, balanced mannerstressing proactive and reactive measures whilst preserving political and civilliberties. References Bassiouni,M. Terrorism, Law Enforcement and the Mass Media: Perspectives, Problems,Proposals, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 72:1 (1981).Cited in Thackrah (2004). Bergesen, Albert J., and Han, Yi. New Directions forTerrorism Research. International Journal of Comparative Sociology46:1-2 (2005). Bite, V. InternationalTerrorism. Foreign Affairs Division, Library of Congress, Appendix of U.S.Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1975. Cited in Thackrah (2004). Chalk,Peter. The Response to Terrorism as a Threat to Liberal Democracy. TheAustralian Journal of Politics and History 44:3 (1998). Chomsky, N. U.S. ALeading Terrorist State. Monthly Review 53 (2001): 10-19. Cited inBergesen and Han (2005). Enders, W., and Sandler, T. Patterns of TransnationalTerrorism, 1970 1999: Alternative Time-Series Estimates. InternationalStudies Quarterly 46 (2002): 145-65. Cited in Bergesen and Han (2005). Fromkin, David. TheStrategy of Terrorism. In Contemporary Terrorism: Selected Readings,John D. Elliot and Leslie K. Gibson, eds. Gaithersburg, Maryland: InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police, 1978. Gray, ColinS. Modern Strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Heyman, P.B. Terrorism and America: A Commonsense Strategy for a Democratic Society. Cambridge,Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1998. Cited in Thackrah (2004). Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism.New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Jenkins, B. M. Terrorism and Beyond: A 21st CenturyPerspective. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24 (2001): 321-27. Citedin Bergesen and Han. New Directions for Terrorism Research. InternationalJournal of Comparative Sociology 46:1-2 (2005). Kress,Bruce, Livingston, Marius H., and Wanek, Marie G. International Terrorism inthe Contemporary World. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978. Lesser, Ian.Countering the New Terrorism: Implications for Strategy. In Countering theNew Terrorism, Hoffman et al., eds.Santa Monica, California: Rand,1999. Mallin, Jay. Terrorismas a Military Weapon. In Contemporary Terrorism: Selected Readings, JohnD. Elliot and Leslie K. Gibson, eds. Gaithersburg, Maryland: InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police, 1978. Cited in Oots (1986). Oots, Kent Layne. PoliticalOrganization Approach to Transnational Terrorism. New York: GreenwoodPress, 1986. Ruby, C. L. TheDefinition of Terrorism. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 2(1)(2002): 9-14. Cited in Bergesen and Han (2005). TerrorismResearch Center, What is the Definition of Terrorism? (n.d.) Availablefrom: Charles Townshend, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2002).

Essay --

â€Å"As of 2012, approximately 400,000 people in the United States have been diagnosed with MS, with 10,000 new cases being diagnosed each year. Worldwide, MS affects between 1.5 and 2.5 million people.† (Davidson, Fallon, Slomski & Cataldo, 2013, p. 2228). With statistics like this many people have encountered individuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). The purpose of this report is to describe in detail this disease and how MRI is the modality of choice to diagnose. The Disease MS is an autoimmune disease. This means that the body’s immune system attacks normal tissue. Immune cells attack and obliterate the myelin sheath that surrounds neurons found in the brain and spinal cord. Myelin is an important component of neurons because it acts as an insulator. Myelin sheaths help electric signals travel efficiently from the brain to areas of the body, and â€Å"speeds transmission and prevents electrical activity in one cell from short-circuiting to another cell† (Davidson et al., 2013, p. 2228). MS attacks these myelin sheaths and disrupts the efficiency of that signal. It can be compared to a radio transmission. When myelin is working properly, one can hear a clear broadcast. However, when myelin is attacked and destroyed the transmission is no longer clear. It is jarbbled, hence, it alters and disrupts the message. When myelin is destroyed it turns into scar tissue called a plaque. This plaque will appear as â€Å"small round areas o f gray neurons without the white myelin covering† (Davidson et al., 2013, p. 2228). Causes There is no known reason to explain why the body starts attacking its own myelin sheaths. Though there has been much research, researchers have not been able to pinpoint a trigger. However, through this resear... ...em, because cortical bone does not produce a signal in MRI. This area is often obscured on CT because of the beam hardening artifact. The use of gadolinium better differentiates and increases sensitivity in detecting lesions. Diffusion-weighted imaging also gives MRI the ability to determine the age of lesions or differentiate acute from chronic ischemic changes (Pierce & Dubose, 2012). In conclusion, MS is a disease affecting many individuals. It can shorten the individual’s lifespan, but many treatment options are available to help cope with the symptoms. MRI is an evolving modality as it was just introduced in the 1990s and many advances have been made in the past couple of years. MRI is more sensitive than CT in detecting changes in the white matter of the brain. That is why MRI is the modality of choice to help diagnose a case of Multiple Sclerosis.

The Awakening Deconstruction

When understanding a work of literature, most readers would take the work at its face value, not looking Into other possible meanings, while a deconstructionist would take apart a text and find many other possible meanings. In The Awakening, Kate Chopin tells the story of Edna Pointillist, who feels that society is constricting and that she needs to be free of the norms set by society. She decides to leave her responsibilities and pursue a life of freedom, which she at first thinks is exactly what she wants. She abandons her life as a housewife and mother to follow a path that leads to her own destruction.By freeing herself from what she thought was an unhappy life, Edna finds herself more dejected, which leads her to her death. She thinks the only way to be truly free from the oppressiveness of society would be to die, which would release her of all her worries. The point Chopin was trying to convey in The Awakening is that society is oppressive and forces women to stay in their pla ce otherwise their reputation would be in Jeopardy. The idea falls apart in that no one ever tries to stop Edna from her process of â€Å"awakening. Not one person forces her to do her housework or take care of her children. It Is merely suggested that she does so. Even though Edna receives warnings and scolding from her husband to be a better mother and to take better care of the family, she ignores them, and L ©once thinks there is something mentally wrong with her (86). When Dean's father comes to visit her, he scolds L ©once for being too lenient and not asserting his authority instead of realizing that Edna was asserting her own independence (107). The idea of an oppressive society disintegrates through this example.Edna believes that society Is constricting her, when there Isn't anyone who Is limiting her actions. L ©once, on finding out that Edna has moved into a smaller house, only disapproves because he fears his reputation would be injured because he believes others would think he is having financial difficulties (137). This shows that L ©once isn't particularly worried about Dean's reputation, only what she could be doing to his reputation. Therefore, Edna isn't necessarily being burdened by the norms of society; she is already partially free to express herself.Doctor Mandated, on speaking with L ©once concerning Dean's â€Å"condition†, asks If Edna has been associating with â€Å"pseudo-Intellectual women†, which L ©once reports that she hasn't (99). Mademoiselle Raise could be considered an intellectual woman, being that she often gives Edna advice, whom is also Dean's confidant. Mademoiselle Raise also warns Edna by telling her â€Å"The bird that would soar above the level plain of tradition and prejudice must have strong wings. It is a sad spectacle to see the weaklings bruised, exhausted, fluttering back to earth† (122).So, even the woman whom Edna turns to for guidance tells her she must be strong to break t hrough societies clutches, or she will fall, which foreshadows Dean's death. Chopping concept is void because Edna continues to challenge authority. Throughout the story, Dean's friends and relatives worry for her reputation, though she seems to not care about it. The society that Chopin displays deeply considers the role of women and how it forces women to conform, otherwise jeopardizing their reputation.This Idea crumbles when Edna throws a house party her father's health, praising him for â€Å"the daughter whom he invented† (129). Dean's reputation has obviously not been affected by her actions because of the many people who showed up to her party. They didn't seem to Judge her for inviting Robin either. When Ad ©eel visits Edna, she tells her that she worries for the impulsive and reckless nature of her actions, but the two seem to still be close friends despite her actions (141). Her reputation is not affected by her so-called â€Å"impulsive and reckless nature†.Also, earlier in her process of â€Å"awakening†, L ©once scolds Edna for being out on a Tuesday, which is Dean's reception day, and not leaving an excuse for her absence (77). Edna finds that while she was out, there had been many callers, proving that her reputation is not affected. L ©once is only worried about his own reputation throughout the novel. Ad ©eel tells Edna to â€Å"think of the children† after she gives birth to a child, warning Edna that her endeavors could also hurt the reputations of her children (164).It seems that Dean's reputation is not significant in the views of others, therefore diminishing Chopping notion that not conforming to society standards can ruin a woman's reputation. Although, Chopin intended the work to say that Edna is constricted by society standards and feels that she can free herself by not conforming, Edna feels that society is oppressive and that she can't do things on her own without becoming independent and freeing herself of the responsibilities set for her.In actuality, the work said that society isn't as oppressive as Edna makes it seem, through her constant dismissal of its nature. Throughout the story, not one person tries to stop Edna in pursuing her ideas of freedom and independence. Though some people warn her of the consequences of her actions, they do not demand her to stop. This shows that society is not totally oppressive, even though Edna may believe so.