Legislation Health and Social Care free essay sample

In this document you will find an overview of some of the Government Policy and legislation which has an impact on workers in health and social care settings. You will be able to identify the legislation that most affects the work you do, and will have a broad understanding of the International, European and UK Government policy that has an impact upon the way we must work. Plans for genuine partnership working between health and social services lie at the heart of the governments strategy to modernise the management and delivery of social care. The emphasis is upon empowerment, person centred planning, public protection and a well trained and regulated workforce to deliver quality services. You will see the trends in the following pages as legislation, policy and guidelines all reflect the same aim. There will often be differences between the four countries of the UK as devolution has enabled each country to focus upon their own priorities. We will write a custom essay sample on Legislation Health and Social Care or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page How devolution affects health and social care workers Devolution is the process by which power has been transferred from Westminster to three countries of the UK. The framework for devolution is laid down in the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. There are different levels of devolved responsibilities for each country. Scotland has a Parliament and an Executive based upon the Westminster model. Under the Scotland Act 1998, the Parliament can pass Acts and the Executive can make secondary legislation in many areas. Under the Government of Wales Act 1998, powers in certain areas have been delegated to the National Assembly for Wales. The Assembly can make secondary legislation in these ‘devolved areas’, but primary legislation for Wales is still made by the UK Parliament. Devolution in Northern Ireland is linked closely to the success of the peace process; issues with this have led to the Assembly and Executive being suspended several times. When in operation the Northern Ireland Assembly can make primary and secondary legislation in ‘delegated areas’. This means that although in health and social care the four ountries do work closely together, there will often be different priorities, policy and guidance, depending on where people live and work, as each country will define its own way forward based on research which identifies the needs of individuals in their country. This can be confusing for people who live on the borders of Scotland or Wales, where there are often conflicting requirements in terms of qualification requirements for staff or differences in National Service Standards. It is important to make sure that any legislative requirements, White Papers, policies or guidance you use to underpin your work are the right ones. The White Paper Modernising Social Services set the scene for developments that have changed the face of social care in England over the past few years. You will see common themes, which underpin the ethos of legislation, growing in strength and being reflected in the way service provision is delivered. As you read through the next few pages and identify the parts that are most relevant to the area in which you work you will find everything emphasises empowerment of individuals receiving services, public protection, flexible needs led services, Health Social Care NVQs Legislation England partnership and a service that centres upon the needs of each individual. All of this depends upon the UK having a well trained and regulated workforce. Modernising Social Services The White Paper ‘Modernising social services promoting independence, improving protection, raising standards’ was published on1st January 1998. It outlined the governments plans for modernising social service provision, emphasising the importance of promoting independence, public protection and ensuring the delivery of quality services for adults and children. It also introduced a new system of regulation, workforce standards, and the establishment of a General Social Care Council. It emphasised the importance of partnership with the NHS and non-statutory bodies, and produced a framework for cooperation between local authorities and central government to promote the delivery of efficient, high quality services. Branded the ‘third way’ for social care, it identified important ‘key principles’: ? care should be provided to people in a way that supports their independence and respects their dignity. People should be able to receive the care they need without their life having to be taken over by the social services system. services should meet each individuals specific needs, pulling together social services, health, housing, education or any others needed. And people should have a say in what services they get and how they are delivered. care services should be organised, accessed, provided and financed in a fair, open and consistent way in every part of the country. hildren who for whatever reason need to be looked after by local authorities should get a decent start in life, with the same opportunities to make a success of their lives as any child. In particular they should be assured of a decent education. every person child or adult should be safeguarded against abuse, neglect or poor treatment whilst receiving care. Where abuse does take place, the system should take firm action to put a stop to it. people who receive social services should have an assurance that the staff they deal with are sufficiently trained and skilled for the work they are doing. And staff themselves should feel included within a framework which recognises their commitment, assures high quality training standards and oversees standards of practice people should be able to have confidence in their local social services, knowing that they work to clear and acceptable standards, and that if those standards are not met, action can be taken to improve things. ? ? ? ? ? ? Useful web site www. archive. official-documents. co. uk/document/cm41/4169/chap-1. htm Health Social Care NVQs Legislation England Equality Legislation Over the past 30 years a number of different pieces of equality and equality related legislation have been introduced. You are not expected to become an expert on any or all of them. The following section summarises the key legislation and principle concepts, which you are most likely to encounter and find useful on a day-to-day basis. The Equal Opportunities Commission works to eliminate sex discrimination in 21st Century. The organisation promotes equal chances in life for women and men. They provide up-to-date information for all Four Nations of the UK, their web site is an excellent resource for equal opportunities can be found at the following address: http://www. eoc. org. uk Arndale House, Arndale Centre Manchester M4 3EQ Email: [emailprotected] org. uk Fax: 0161 838 1733 Tel: 0845 601 5901 The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 This Act protects people from discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status. Exceptions to the Act include genuine occupational requirements. The Act applies to both men and women. The inclusion or marital status was an important feature of the Act. The reason for including this alongside gender is to prevent employers from making, and acting upon, assumptions that married women are more likely to have child care responsibilities and are therefore less reliable or less committed employees. Further information can be found on: www. pfc. org. uk/legal/sda. htm 36 Broadway London SW1H 0BH Email: [emailprotected] org. uk Tel: 0207 222 1110 Fax: 0207 222 2771 Health Social Care NVQs Legislation England Equal Pay Act 1976 The Equal Pay Act gives women (or men) a right to equal pay for equal work. The equal pay code is aimed at employers, but employees and employee representatives may also find it useful. The code aims to help employers, employees and their representatives by giving practical guidance on how to ensure pay is determined without sex discrimination. The Act applies to both genders, full, part time, or casual or temporary workers regardless of length of service. The Race Relations Act 1976 This Act protects people from discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins. The Act defines racial discrimination as less favourable treatment on racial grounds and identifies several ways in which such treatment may occur. A person racially discriminates against another if: ? ? He or she treats the person less favourably than he or she treats, or would treat another person on racial grounds or He or she applies a requirement or condition to that other person which is such that the proportion of the person’s racial group which can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportions of persons not of their racial group Further information can be found on: www. omeoffice. gov. uk Victimisation Victimisation is unlawful, it occurs when another person is treated less favourably because they have made or intend to make a complaint or may have assisted another person in making a complaint of discrimination. A person has the right to make a complaint without prejudice to their existing, potential or future equal opportunities. Direct discrimination To treat a person less favourably than another person is or would be treated in the same or similar circumstances on racial grounds is known as direct discrimination. The motive or intention behind the treatment doesn’t matter. For example, it would be unlawful for a nursing home to refuse to admit a person simply because he or she is black, white or Asian or because of the colour of his or her skin. Indirect discrimination An example of indirect discrimination is when an employer tells an employment agency that his care setting only wanted people who spoke good English without a foreign accent. Although the employer did not specify that he would employ white people only, the effect of the condition was to exclude many people from minority ethnic groups and is unlawful. Further information can be found on: www. racialjustice. org. uk/Indirect%20Discrimination. htm Health Social Care NVQs Legislation England Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 This Act places a statutory obligation on all public bodies to develop a race equality policy and action plan, not only to eliminate race equality but proactively to promote equality between different racial groups, to assess the impact of all its policies on staff and students from different racial groups, to ensure that all staff are trained in their duties regarding promoting race equality.

Phrasal Verb Overview and Resources

Phrasal Verb Overview and Resources Phrasal verbs are verbs that are made up of two or more words. For example: Turn onLook forward to turn on - He turned on the TV.look forward to - I look forward to meeting you. Why are Phrasal Verbs Important? If you are unfamiliar with phrasal verbs, this guide to what are phrasal verbs explains everything. Phrasal verbs are used in everyday English by native English speakers to express a wide range of ideas. Unfortunately, phrasal verbs are often ignored because students focus on only the verb. Its important to take notice of the attached prepositions to phrasal verbs when learning new vocabulary. Phrasal verbs can be literal or figurative in meaning. For example, the phrasal verb get into can mean enter - He got in the car - or figuratively accept - He got into Harvard. Phrase verbs are made up of a verb, plus one or more particles. make up - I made up the story.get over - She got over her illness.put in - I put in three hours on the project. In two-word phrasal verbs, the particle is a preposition. In three or more word phrasal verbs the last particle is generally a preposition. look forward to - She looks forward to going on vacation.get ready for - Im getting ready for a competition.get on with - Lets get on with this job. There are four types of phrasal verbs. Phrasal verbs can be separable or inseparable and they can take an object or not. Phrasal Verb Reference Materials There are so many phrasal verbs. The Cambridge Phrasal Verb dictionary is 432 pages long! Luckily, not all of these phrasal verbs need to be committed to memory. Phrasal verbs with to get are some of the most common phrasal verbs. There are also certain common prepositions used to build phrasal verbs: Departures and arrivals with off and onIncreasing and decreasing with up and down Learning Phrasal Verbs in Context Phrasal verbs can also be learned in context by relating synonyms to the new phrasal verbs you learn. Here is a series of exercises that provides listening examples from which you match the phrasal verb to its definition or synonym. Build your phrasal verb vocabulary - 2 Phrasal Verb Quizzes Learning phrasal verbs also takes a lot of repetition. Quizzes provide some of the best practice. These quizzes provide feedback on phrasal verbs: Phrasal Verbs with BringPhrasal Verbs with LookPhrasal Verbs with PutPhrasal Verbs with TakePhrasal Verbs with TurnMixed Phrasal Verbs

Al Gore - Saving the Constitution Speech at Constitution hall

Al Gore Saving the Constitution Speech at Constitution Hall delivered 16 January 2006, Washington, D.C.Thank you very much. Id like to thank Michael Ostrolenk for that on-the-spot introduction, and Id like to thank Michael and the other leaders of the Liberty Coalition for the wonderful work that they are doing to try to help Americans bridge many gaps that have sometimes unnecessarily divided us. I want to thank them for co-sponsoring this event. I want to thank Lisa Brown for her friendship to me and for her outstanding leadership of the American Constitution Society. Tipper and I have long admired her work, and its a pleasure to work with her. To all of the distinguished guests who are here, Senator Dianne Feinsteinothers who are present [inaudible]. And I want to commiserate with Congressman Bob Barr, who was connected live when we walked out on the stage, but having had similar occurrences with live video feeds before, I know what can happen and what he must be feeling right now. And I want to thank all of you for coming. Id like to start by saying that Congressman Bob Barr and I have disagreed many times over the years. But we have joined together today with thousands of our fellow citizens, Democrats and Republicans alike, to express our shared concern that Americas Constitution is in grave danger. In spite of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power. As we begin this new year, the executive branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress precisely to prevent such abuses. It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored in our country. And that is why many of us have come here to Constitution Hall to sound an alarm and call upon our fellow citizens to put aside partisan differences insofar as it is possible to do so and join with us in demanding that our Constitution be defended and preserved. It is appropriate that we make this appeal on the day our nation has set aside to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who challenged America to breathe new life into our oldest values by extending its promise to all of our people. And on this particular Martin Luther King Day it is especially important to recall for that for the last several years of his life Dr. King was illegally wiretapped, one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during that period. The FBI privately labeled King the and I quote the most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country and vowed to again, I quote take him off his pedestal. The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and tried to blackmail him into committing suicide. This campaign continued until Dr. Kings murder. The discovery that the FBI conducted this long-running and extensive campaign of secret electronic surveillance designed to infiltrate the inner workings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and to learn the most intimate details of Dr. Kings life was instrumental in helping to convince Congress to enact restrictions on wiretapping. And one result was the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, often called FISA, which was enacted expressly to ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance would be presented to an impartial judge to verify that there was indeed a sufficient cause for the surveillance. It included ample flexibility and an ability for the executive to move with as much speed as desired. I voted for that law during my first term in Congress. And, for almost 30 years, the system has proven a valuable and workable means of affording a level of protection for American citizens while permitting foreign surveillance to continue whenever it is necessary. And yet, just one month ago, Americans awoke to the shocking news that, in spite of this long-settled law, the executive branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years and eavesdropping on and I quote the report large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages and other Internet traffic inside the United States. The New York Times reported that the president decided to launch this massive eavesdropping program without search warrants or any new laws that would permit domestic intelligence collection. During the period when this eavesdropping was still secret, the president seemed to go out of his way to reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course, judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place. But, surprisingly, the presidents soothing statements turned out to be false. Moreover, as soon as this massive domestic spying program was uncovered by the press, the president confirmed the story was true but in the next breath declared that he has no intention of stopping or bringing these wholesale invasions of privacy to an end. At present, we still have much to learn about the NSAs domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently. A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our founding fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. They recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution, our system of checks and balances, was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said, The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men. An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive; too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet on Common Sense ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described Americas alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that, in his phrase, the law is king. Vigilant adherence to the rule of law actually strengthens our democracy, of course, and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint under the rule of law. And make no mistake: The rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed and examined through the normal processes of government that are designed to improve policy and avoid error. And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents overreaching and checks the accretion to power. A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability helps our country avoid many serious mistakes that we would otherwise make. Recently, for example, we learned from just-declassified documents after almost 40 years that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which authorized the tragic Vietnam War was actually based on false information. And we now know that the decision by Congress to authorize the Iraq war 38 years later was also based on false information. Now, the point is that America would have been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes in our history. And that is the reason why following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable. The president and I agree on one thing: The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attacks on September 11th and we must be ever vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm. Where we disagree is on the proposition that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government in order to protect Americans from terrorism when, in fact, doing so would make us weaker and more vulnerable. And remember that, once violated, the rule of law is itself in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows, the greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its mistakes and reveal errors, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police its activities. And once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we do become a government of men and not laws. The presidents men have minced words about Americas laws. The attorney general, for example, openly conceded that the kind of surveillance, in his phrase, that we know they have been conducting, does require a court order unless authorized by statue. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act self-evidently does not authorize what the NSA has been doing and no one inside or outside the administration claims that it does. Incredibly, the administration claims instead that the surveillance was implicitly authorized when Congress voted to use force against those who attacked us on September 11. But this argument simply does not hold any water. Without getting into the legal intricacies, it faces a number of embarrassing facts. First, another admission by the attorney general: He concedes that the administration knew that the NSA project was prohibited by existing law and that that is why they consulted with some members of Congress about the possibility of changing the statute. Attorney General Gonzales says that they were told by the members of Congress consulted that this would probably not be possible. And so they decided not to make the request. So how can they now argue that the authorization for the use of military force somehow implicitly authorized it all along? Indeed, when the authorization was being debated, the administration did in fact seek to have language inserted in it that would have authorized them to use military force domestically and the Congress refused to agree. Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Jim McGovern, among others, made clear statements during the debate on the floor of the House and Senate, respectively, clearly stating that that authorization did not operate domestically and there is no assertion to the contrary. When President Bush failed to convince Congress to give him the power he wanted when this measure was passed, he secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother. But as Justice Frankfurter once wrote, To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between the president and the Congress. This is precisely the disrespect for the law that the Supreme Court struck down in the steel seizure case during the Korean War. It is this same disrespect for Americas Constitution which has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution. And the disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both political parties. For example, as you know, the president has also declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation, and that notwithstanding his American citizenship that person in prison has no right to talk with a lawyer, even if he wants to argue that the president or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person. The president claims that he can imprison that American citizen any American citizen he chooses indefinitely, for the rest of his life, without even an arrest warrant, without notifying them of what charges have been filed against them, without even informing their families that they have been imprisoned. No such right exists in the America that you and I know and love. It is foreign to our Constitution. It must be rejected. At the same time, the executive branch has also claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture and have plainly constituted torture in a widespread pattern that has been extensively documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world. Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by executive branch interrogators. Many more have been broken and humiliated. And, in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, investigators who documented the pattern of torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the victims were completely innocent of any criminal charges whatsoever. This is a shameful exercise of power that overturns a set of principles that youre nation has observed since General George Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War. They have been observed by every president since then until now. They violate the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention Against Torture and our own laws against torture. The president has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals on the streets of foreign cities and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation on our behalf by autocratic regimes and nations that are infamous for the cruelty of their techniques for torture. Some of our traditional allies have been deeply shocked by these new and uncharacteristic patterns on the part of America. For example, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan one of those nations with the worst reputations for torture in its prisons registered a complaint to his home office about the cruelty and senselessness of the new U.S. practice that he witnessed. This material were getting is useless, he wrote. And then he continued with this: We are selling our souls for dross. It is, in fact, positively harmful. Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is yes, then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, imprison American citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what cant he do? The dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, said after analyzing the executive branchs extravagant claims of these previously unrecognized powers, and I quote Dean Koh, If the president has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution. The fact that our normal American safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power is itself deeply troubling. This failure is due in part to the fact that the executive branch has followed a determined strategy of obfuscating, delaying, withholding information, appearing to yield but then refusing to do so, and dissembling in order to frustrate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches to restore a healthy constitutional balance. For example, after appearing to support legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain to stop the continuation of torture, the president declared in the act of signing the bill that he reserved the right not to comply with it. Similarly, the executive branch claimed this it could unilaterally imprison American citizens without giving them access to review by any tribunal. And when the Supreme Court disagreed, the president then engaged in legal maneuvers designed to prevent the court from providing any meaningful content to the rights of the citizens affected. A conservative jurist on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the executive branchs handling of one such case seemed to involve the sudden abandonment of principle and, I quote him, at substantial cost to the governments credibility before the courts. As a result of this unprecedented claim of new unilateral power, the executive branch has now put our constitutional design at grave risk. The stakes for Americas democracy are far higher than has been generally recognized. These claims must be rejected and a healthy balance of power must restored to our republic. Otherwise, the fundamental nature of our democracy may well undergo a radical transformation. For more than two centuries, Americas freedoms have been preserved in large part by our founders wise decision to separate the aggregate power of our government into three co-equal branches, each of which, as you know, serves to check and balance the power of the other two. On more than a few occasions in our history, the dynamic interaction among all three branches has resulted in collisions and temporary impasses that create what are invariably labeled constitutional crises. These crises have often been dangerous and uncertain times for our republic. But in each such case so far, we have found a resolution of the crisis by renewing our common agreement to live together under the rule of law. The principal alternative to democracy throughout history has, of course, been the consolidation of virtually all state power in the hands of a single strong man or small group who exercised that power without the informed consent of the governed. It was in revolt against just such a regime, after all, that America was founded. When Lincoln declared at the time of our greatest crisis that the ultimate question being decided in the Civil War was, in his memorable phrase, whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure, he was not only saving our union. He was recognizing the fact that democracies are rare in history. And when they fall, as did Athens and the Roman republic upon whose designs our founders drew heavily, what emerges in their place is another strong- man regime. There have, of course, been other periods in American history when the executive branch claimed new powers later seen as excessive and mistaken. Our second president, John Adams, passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts and sought to silence and imprison critics and political opponents. And when his successor, President Thomas Jefferson, eliminated the abuses, in his first inaugural, he said, The essential principles of our government form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. Should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain that road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety. President Lincoln, of course, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, and some of the worst abuses prior to those of the current administration were committed by President Wilson during and after World War I, with the notorious red scare and Palmer Raids. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II marked a shameful low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive. And, of course, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTEL program was part and parcel of those abuses experienced by Dr. King and so many thousands of others. But in each of these cases throughout American history, when the conflict and turmoil subsided, our nation recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret. But there are reasons for concern this time around that conditions may be changing so that this cycle may not repeat itself. For one thing, we have for decades been witnessing the slow and steady accumulation of presidential power. In a globe where there are nuclear weapons and Cold War tensions, Congress and the American people accepted ever-enlarging spheres of presidential initiative to conduct intelligence and counterintelligence activities and allocate our military forces on the global stage. When military force has been used as an instrument of foreign policy or in response to humanitarian demands, it has almost always been as the result of presidential initiative and leadership. But as Justice Frankfurter wrote in that famous steel seizure case, The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority. A second reason to believe that we may be experiencing something new, outside that historical cycle, is that we are, after all, told by this administration that the war footing upon which he has tried to place the country is going to last, in their phrase, for the rest of our lives. And so we are told that the conditions of national threat that have been used by other presidents to justify arrogations of power will in this case persist in near perpetuity. Third, we need to be keenly aware of the startling advances in the sophistication of eavesdropping and surveillance technologies with their capacity to easily sweep up and analyze enormous quantities of information and then mine it for intelligence. And this adds significant vulnerability to the privacy and freedom of enormous numbers of innocent people at the same time as the potential power of those technologies grows. Those technologies do have the potential for shifting the balance of power between the apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways that are both subtle and profound. Dont misunderstand me. The threat of additional terror strikes is real and the concerted efforts by terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction does indeed create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the executive branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is an in fact an inherent power conferred by the Constitution to any president to take unilateral action when necessary to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat. And it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not. But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for many years and producing a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government. And there is a final reason to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle. This administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential power is exactly what our Constitution intended. This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which ought to be more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the presidents powers until the contours of the Constitution that the framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the presidents authority when acting as commander in chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary, cannot be checked by Congress. And President Bush has pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing his role as commander in chief, invoking it as frequently as he can, conflating it with his other roles, both domestic and foreign. And when added to the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine. This effort to rework Americas carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure dominated by an all-powerful executive branch, with a subservient Congress and subservient judiciary, is ironically accompanied by an effort by the same administration to rework Americas foreign policy from one that is based primarily on U.S. moral authority into one that is based on a misguided and self-defeating effort to establish a form of dominance in the world. And the common denominator The common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control. The same pattern has characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the executive branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated ideological goals and to demand conformity from all executive branch employees. For example, CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases. Ironically, that is exactly what happened to the FBI officials in the 1960s who disagreed with J. Edgar Hoovers assertion that Martin Luther King was closely connected to communists. The head of the FBIs domestic intelligence division testified that his effort to tell the truth about Dr. Kings innocence of the charge resulted in he and his colleagues becoming isolated within the FBI and pressured. And I quote: It was evident, he said, that we had to change our ways or we would all be out on the street. The men and I, he continued, discussed how to get out of trouble. To be in trouble with Mr. Hoover was a serious matter. These men, he continued, were trying to buy homes, mortgages on homes. They had children in school. They lived in fear of getting transferred, losing money on their homes, as they usually did. So they wanted another memorandum written to get us out of the trouble that we were in. The Constitutions framers, who studied human nature so closely, understood this dilemma quite well. As Alexander Hamilton put it, A power over a mans support is a power over his will. In any case, quite soon there was no more difference of opinion about Dr. King within the FBI, and the false accusation became the unanimous view. And in exactly the same way, George Tenets CIA eventually joined in endorsing a manifestly false view that there was a linkage between Al Qaida and the government of Iraq. In the words of George Orwell, We are all capable, he said, of believing things which we know to be untrue and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time. The only check on it is that, sooner or later, a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. Two thousand two hundred American soldiers have lost their lives as this false belief bumped into a solid reality. And indeed, whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable, it almost inevitably leads to gross mistakes and abuses. That is part of human nature. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes, dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded. It is human nature, whether for Republicans or Democrats or people of any set of views. Last week, for example, Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the administrations eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that, if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers. Tragically, he apparently still does not know that the administration did, in fact, have the names of at least two of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have led to the identification of most of the others. One of them was in the phone book. And yet, because of incompetence, unaccountable incompetence in the handling of the information, it was never used to protect the American people. It is often the case, again, regardless of which party might be in power, that an executive branch beguiled by the pursuit of unchecked power responds to its own mistakes by reflexively proposing that it be given still more power. Often the request itself is used to mask accountability for mistakes in the use of power it already has. Moreover, if the pattern of practice begun by this administration is not challenged, it may well become a permanent part of the American system. That is why many conservatives have pointed out that granting unchecked power to this president means that the next will have unchecked power as well. And the next may be someone whose values and beliefs you do not trust. And that is why Republicans as well as Democrats should be concerned with what this president has done. If his attempt to dramatically expand executive power goes unquestioned, then our constitutional design of checks and balances will be lost. And the next president or some future president will be able in the name of national security to restrict our liberties in a way the framers would never have imagined possible. This same instinct to expand power and establish dominance has characterized the relationship between this administration and the courts and the Congress. In a properly functioning system, the judicial branch would serve as the constitutional umpire to ensure that the branches of government observe their proper spheres of authority, observed civil liberties, adhere to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the unilateral executive has tried hard to thwart the ability of the judiciary to call balls and strikes by keeping controversies out of its hands, notably those challenging its ability to detain individuals without legal process by appointing judges who will be deferential to its exercise of power and by its support of assaults on the independence of the third branch. The presidents decision, for example, to ignore the FISA law was a direct assault on the power of the judges who sit on that court. Congress established the FISA Court precisely to be a check on executive power to wiretap. And yet, to ensure that the court could not function as a check on executive power, the president simply did not take matters to it. And did not even let the court know that it was being bypassed. The presidents judicial appointments are clearly designed to ensure the courts will not will not serve as an effective check on executive power. As we have all learned, Judge Alito is a long-time supporter of a powerful executive, a supporter of that so-called unitary executive. Whether you support his confirmation or not and I respect the fact that some of the co-sponsors of this event do; I do not but whatever your view, we must all agreethat he will not vote as an effective check on the expansion of executive power. Likewise, Chief Justice Roberts has made plain his deference to the expansion of executive power through his support of judicial deference to executive agency rulemaking. And the administration has also supported the assault on judicial independence that has been conducted largely in Congress. That assault includes a threat by the majority in the Senate to permanently change the rules to eliminate the right of the minority to engage in extended debate of the presidents nominees. The assault has extended to legislative efforts to curtail the jurisdiction of the courts in matters ranging from habeas corpus to the pledge of allegiance. In short, the administration has demonstrated a contempt for the judicial role and sought to evade judicial review of its actions at every turn. But the most serious damage in our constitutional framework has been to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of Congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the executive to attain this massive expansion of its power. I was elected to the Congress in 1976. Served eight years in the House, eight in the Senate, presided over the Senate for eight as vice president. Before that, as a young man, I saw the Congress firsthand as the son of a senator. My father was elected to Congress in 1938 10 years before I was born and left the Senate after I had graduated from college. The Congress we have today is structurally unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There are many distinguished and outstanding senators and congressmen serving today. I am honored to know them and to have worked with them. But the legislative branch of government as a whole, under its current leadership, now operates as if it were entirely subservient to the executive branch. It is astonishing to me and so foreign to what the Congress is supposed to be. Moreover, too many members of the House and Senate now feel compelled to spend a majority of their time not in thoughtful debate on the issues but, instead, raising money to purchase 30-second television commercials. Moreover, there have now been two or three generations of congressmen who dont really know what an oversight hearing is. In the 70s and 80s, the oversight hearings in which my colleagues and I participated held the feet of the executive branch to the fire no matter which party was in power. And, yet, oversight is almost unknown in the Congress today. The role of the authorization committees has declined into insignificance. The 13 annual appropriations bills are hardly ever actually passed as bills anymore. Often, everything is lumped into a familiar single giant measure that sometimes is not even available for members of Congress to even read before they vote on it. Members of the minority party are now routinely excluded from conference committees, and amendments are routinely disallowed during floor consideration of legislation. In the United States Senate, which used to pride itself on being the greatest deliberative body in the world, meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd famously asked, Why is this chamber empty? In the House of Representatives, the number who face a genuinely competitive election contest every two years is typically less than a dozen out of 435. And too many incumbents have come to believe that the key to continued access to the money for re-election is to stay on the good side of those who have the money to give. And, in the case of the majority party, the whole process is largely controlled by the incumbent president and his political organization. So the willingness of Congress to challenge the executive branch is further limited when the same party controls both Congress and the administration. The executive branch time and again has co-opted Congress role. And too often Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power. Look, for example, at the congressional role in overseeing this massive, four-year eavesdropping campaign that, on its face, seemed so clearly to violate the Bill of Rights. The president says he informed Congress. What he really means is that he talked with the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees and, sometimes, the leaders of the House and Senate. This small group, in turn, claims they were not given the full facts, though at least one of the committee leaders handwrote a letter of concern to the vice president. And, though I sympathize with the awkward position, the difficult position in which these men and women were placed, I cannot disagree with the Liberty Coalition when it says that Democrats as well as Republicans in the Congress must share the blame for not taking sufficient action to protest and seek to prevent what they consider a grossly unconstitutional program. Many did. Moreover, in the Congress as a whole, both House and Senate, the enhanced role of money in the re-election process, coupled with the sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption that some have fallen vulnerable to. The Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg threatening the integrity of our legislative branch of government. And it is the pitiful state of our legislative state which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by the executive branch now threatening a radical transformation of the American system. I call upon members of Congress in both parties to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government that you are supposed to be under the Constitution of our country. But there is yet another player. There is yet another constitutional player whose faults must also be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has accompanied these efforts by the executive branch to dominate our constitutional system. We the people, collectively, are still the key to the survival of Americas democracy. We must examine ourselves. We, as Lincoln put it, even we here must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and hollowing out and degradation of American democracy. Its time to stand up for the American system that we know and love. It is time to breathe new life back into Americas democracy. Thomas Jefferson said, An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will. America is based on the belief that we can govern ourselves and exercise the power of self-government. The American idea proceeded from the bedrock principle that all just power is derived from the consent of the governed. The intricate and finally balanced system, now in such danger, was created with the full and widespread participation of the population as a whole. The Federalist Papers were, back in the day, widely read newspaper essays. And they represented only one of 24 series of essays that crowded the vibrant marketplace of ideas in which farmers and shopkeepers recapitulated the debates that played out so fruitfully in Philadelphia. And when the convention had done its best, it was the people in their various states that refused to confirm the result until, at their insistence, the Bill of Rights was made integral to the documents sent forward for ratification. And it is we the people who must now find once again the ability we once had to play an integral role in saving our Constitution. And here there is cause for both concern and for great hope. The age of printed pamphlets and political essays has long since been replaced by television, a distracting and absorbing medium which seems determined to entertain itself more than it informs and educates. Lincolns memorable call during the Civil War is now applicable in a new way to our present dilemma: We must disenthrall ourselves, he said, and then we shall save our country. Forty years has passed since the majority of Americans adopted television as their principal source of information. And its dominance has now become so extensive that virtually all significant political communication now takes place within the confines of flickering 30-second advertisements, and theyre not The Federalist Papers. The political economy, supported by these short but expensive television ads, is as different from the vibrant politics of Americas first century as those politics were different from the feudalism which thrived on the ignorance of the masses of people in the Dark Ages. The constricted role of ideas in the American political system today has encouraged efforts by the executive branch to believe it can and should control the flow of information as a means of controlling the outcome of important decisions that still lie in the hands of the people. The administration vigorously asserts its power to maintain secrecy in its operations. After all, if the other branches dont know whats happening, they cant be a check or a balance. For example, when the administration was attempting to persuade Congress to enact the Medicare prescription drug benefit, many in the House and Senate raised concerns about the cost and design of the program. But rather than engaging in open debate on the basis of factual data, the administration withheld facts and actively prevented the Congress from hearing testimony that it had sought from the principal administration expert who had the information showing in advance of the vote that indeed the true cost estimates were far beyond the numbers given to Congress by the president. And the workings of the program would play out very differently than Congress had been told. Deprived of that information, and believing the false numbers given to it, instead the Congress approved the program and, tragically, the entire initiative is now collapsing all over the country, with the administration making an appeal just this weekend asking major insurance companies to volunteer to bail it out. But the American people, who have a right to believe that its elected representatives will learn the truth and act on the basis of knowledge and utilize the rule of reason, have been let down. To take another example, scientific warnings about the catastrophic consequences of unchecked global warming were censored by a political appointee in the White House with no scientific training whatsoever. Today one of the most distinguished scientific experts in the world on global warming, who works in NASA, has been ordered not to talk to members of the press; ordered to keep a careful log of everyone he meets with so that the executive branch can monitor and control what he shares of his knowledge about global warming. This is a planetary crisis. We owe ourselves a truthful and reasoned discussion. One of the other ways the administration has tried to control the flow of information has been by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. President Eisenhower said this: Any who act as if freedoms defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America. Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote, Men feared witches and burnt women. The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk. Yet in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the full Bill of Rights. Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles ready to be launched on a moments notice to completely annihilate the country? Is America really in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march, when the last generation had to fight and win two world wars simultaneously? It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. And yet they faithfully protected our freedom and now its up to us to do the very same thing. We have a duty as Americans to defend out citizens rights not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the executive branch and the presidents apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law. I endorse the words of Bob Barr when he said, and I quote, The president has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will. A special counsel should be immediately appointed by the attorney general to remedy these obvious conflicts of interest that prevents them from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the president. Weve had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special council with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, has shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the executive branch has violated other laws. Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of this special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by the warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the president. And it should be a political issue in any race, regardless of party, section of the country, house of Congress, or anyone who opposes the appointment of a special counsel under these dangerous circumstances when our Constitution is at risk. Secondly, new whistleblower protection should immediately be established for members of the executive branch who report evidence of wrongdoing, especially where it involves abuse of authority in the sensitive areas of national security. Third, both houses of Congress should, of course, hold comprehensive and not just superficial hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the president. And they should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Fourth, the extensive new powers requested by the executive branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should under no circumstances be granted unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed. Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist the their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion in the privacy of American citizens. Freedom of communication is an essential prerequisite for the restoration of the health of our democracy. It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against either the encroachment of government or efforts at control by large media conglomerates. The future of our democracy depends on it. In closing, I mention that, along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established by the people and will flourish more vibrantly than ever. Indeed, I can feel it in this hall. As Dr. King once said, perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us. Thank you very much.

The Dome of St. Peter's Basilica Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

The Dome of St. Peter's Basilica - Essay Example Peter’s towers 445 feet in the air from the floor to the very tip of the cross on that famous dome above and it was a tall building even by sixteenth century standards. â€Å"That dome is a revered part of the Roman skyline and it is an amazing architectural design all by itself. None other than Michelangelo himself designed the great dome and that famous Renaissance artist employed a double-shell design technique that was created by San Gallo. Even though Michelangelo was made the architect in charge of St. Peter’s in 1546, the completion of the masterpiece came long after his death.† (When In Rome, Visit St. Peters Basilica - A Vatican City Delight) Thus, it was Giacomo della Porta, one of his students, who went on to complete the work in 1590, following the death of the great master and the design plans of the brilliant architects have been modeled in other famous buildings of the world. â€Å"From distance one can clearly see the dome of St. Peter’s r ising above the nave and wide faà §ade, although Michelangelo’s dome, designed for a naveless church gradually recedes from view as one comes closer to the building.† (Moffett, 357) Therefore, the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica is a magnificent construction which has great historical and architectural value and this paper makes an analysis of the work of architecture to comprehend the historical facts as well as the factors that influenced its design, etc. The dome of St. Peter’s Basilica has been so well designed that the first two centuries since its construction found no cracks or other issues. In a reflective analysis of the architectural value of the dome, it becomes lucid that St. Peter’s Basilica served as a model for churches as well as government buildings and the dome of the church is its most magnificent construction. Significantly, the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica illustrates the relationship between politics and power and it is important to realize the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica as

Your pick of this week's news Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 2

Your pick of this week's news - Assignment Example Donor nations particularly face challenges while dealing with the receptive but discriminating nations on the grounds of sexual orientation. The main idea of the article is that with the growth in the acceptance of gay rights globally, donor nations and organizations are facing more challenges in establishing the limits to which they can extend help to the nations that impose ban on homosexuality. The author has given enough factual material to support the ideas e.g. latest estimates of the UN, and quotations of important figures. The author appears to have obtained information through review of literature and latest news. The reportage is true and balanced because it is based on facts. The author has identified the dilemma donor nations are caught in as they feel pressurized to stop aid to the discriminating nations to take their stand for gay rights on one hand, and to continue aid for the health and social wellbeing of these nations on the cost of gay right

Founding Brothers Essay Example for Free

Founding Brothers Essay The book, Founding Brothers, tells about the struggles of the American leaders after the revolution to establish a new government and the events that occurred during this time. Famous Americans such as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams along with their opposite points of view about the Constitution are given equal focus. The author brings to light the amazing ability of the colonies to come together, bring about change and break away from England to establish a nation built on democracy. This story is one that every American will have a stake in, as it forms the backbone of our national history. The author of Founding Brothers is Joseph Ellis, who has degrees from Yale and the College of William and Mary. His writing centers on American history, and he won the National Book Award in 1997 for his work American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. One of his other works is titled Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams (Ellis, 2000, title page). Ellis goes right into the details of the debate that was fueling between the two sides in reference to the new American Constitution. He talks about James Madison who, with Alexander Hamilton, wrote the Federalist Papers. Madison was pushing for compromise on the Constitutional question and was doing his best to create a middle ground (2000, p. 52-53). Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and many of the others were already seeing a small example of the legacy they were creating, but didn’t fully understand it yet. The author points this out by saying: Men make history, and the leading members of the revolutionary generation realized they were doing so, but they can never know the history they are making (2000, p. 4). Ellis also points out how important that the decade in which the Constitution was written was to American history. According to him, these ten years of dealing with many of the issues that face the nation set the stage for future events to come, such as the Civil War (200, p. 9-10). During the debate of the Constitutional convention, slavery was a major obstacle and one that would not be settled completely here. The debate that took place in 1790 between those for and against slavery shows not only the struggle to create a new nation but also the fact that these leaders were considering what would happen as the nation grew and changed (200, p. 88). Another major aspect of this time period that the author addresses is the presidency of George Washington and the political divide that began to form among the nation’s leaders. Throughout his role as the first president, Washington was seen as an immortal figure that was beloved and respected. When he decided to retire as president in 1796, he left a strict warning for those he was leaving in charge: to avoid breaking apart and political parties in taking sides against each other. He wanted the nation to be united as one, and also to have its leaders be united as well (Ellis, 2000, p. 128-129). The author gives the reader an interesting view of these major characters by providing behind the scenes details that is often opposite to the stereotypes they are seen as now. For instance, Ellis goes into detail about George Washingtons character during his time as president. For instance, the author says: First, it is crucial to recognize that Washingtons extraordinary reputation rested less on his prudent exercise of power than on his dramatic flair and surrendering it. He was, in fact, a veritable virtuoso of exits (2000, p. 129-130). Along with relevant details about Washingtons health and personality, the reader sees a different side of this famous individual. Throughout the entire novel, Ellis organizes the book in a way that makes it easy to follow the events that occurred right after the revolution up to the time when the Constitution was being written. He provides personal quotations and references from those involved that gives the reader a deeper understanding of how they felt and what they were thinking when living through this time. He also provides the reader with enough information on the historical events that were going on in the country that helped to frame the interactions of the founding fathers. Founding Brothers adds to other his storable writing of this time by giving an inside view of not only the events but also the people who helped to create America during the revolutionary period. He makes it clear how certain obstacles, such as slavery, were not completely agreed upon or settled and how this affected the nation later on in its history. Ellis is able to explain both the short-term view of the founding fathers and the long-term view of the Constitution that they were trying to take. The debates and compromises that made up the writing of the Constitution and the establishment of a new government are laid out to support these points. As a history book, this novel will give the reader a good understanding of what was going on behind the scenes as the nation was born. Its clear explanations and interesting takes on the first leaders will hold the readers attention throughout the book. It is a valuable addition to the many writings that have been done on the revolutionary war and the writing of the Constitution. References Ellis, Joseph. (2000). Founding Brothers. New York: Vintage Books.

The Abnormal and Unusual in Othello :: Othello essays

The Abnormal and Unusual in Othello  Ã‚         In how many Shakespearean tragedies is there a noble hero will falls into an epileptic seizure – as we find in Othello? Let us consider some of the more abnormal occurrences in the drama.    In Act 4 the evil Iago works up Othello into a frenzy regarding the missing kerchief. The resultant illogical, senseless raving by the general is a prelude to an epileptic seizure or entranced state:    Lie with her? lie on her? – We say lie on her when they belie her. – Lie with her! Zounds, that’s fulsome. – Handkerchief – confessions – handkerchief! – To confess, and be hanged for his labor – first to be hanged, and then to confess! I tremble at it. [. . .] (4.1)    Cassio enters right after the general has fallen into the epileptic trance. Iago explains to him:    IAGO. My lord is fall’n into an epilepsy. This is his second fit; he had one yesterday. CASSIO. Rub him about the temples. IAGO. No, forbear. The lethargy must have his quiet course. If not, he foams at mouth, and by and by Breaks out to savage madness. Look, he stirs. Do you withdraw yourself a little while. He will recover straight. (4.1)    Epilepsy on the part of the protagonist is unusual and physically abnormal. But the more serious abnormalities in the play are psychological. Iago is generally recognized as the one character possessing and operating by abnormal psychology. But Lily B. Campbell in Shakespeare’s Tragic Heroes tells of the time when the hero himself approached â€Å"madness†:    Othello himself cries:    thou hast set me on the rack. I swear ‘t is better to be much abus’d Than but to know a little.    And then we find him torturing himself with the thoughts of Cassio’s kisses on Desdemona’s lips, and he reiterates the property idea in his talk of being robbed. From this time on, Othello has become the slave of passion. As he cries farewell to the tranquil mind, to content, to war and his occupation, as he demands that Iago prove his love a whore, as he threatens Iago and begs for proof at the same time, he is finally led almost to the verge of madness [. . .] . (165)    Fortunately the protagonist regains his equilibrium, and when he does kill, it is for the noble reason of cleansing the world of a â€Å"strumpet.

Fahrenheit 451 Essay

Fahrenheit 451 is a book that was published by Ray Bradbury in 1953. This book tells the story in which intellectual thought and books are illegal. According to the book, the futuristic firemen have the responsibility of setting fire to the books and any place that they reside. Numerous significant symbols occur in this book. In my opinion, fire, the Hearth and the Salamander, and the Phoenix are three of the most important symbols. The title of the book is an important symbol in and of itself. Ray Bradbury titled the book Fahrenheit 451 because 451 degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature at which paper burns. Fire is a symbol of destruction. It’s significant because the main character, Guy Montag, and the rest of the firemen burn books because they are illegal. When seventeen-year-old Clarisse McClellan asks if Montag ever reads any of the books he burns, he laughs and replies â€Å"That’s against the law!† When Clarisse and Montag begin to talk more, Montag is taken aback by the different knowledge that Clarisse expresses to him. She tells him that firemen used to be sent out to stop fires, not start them. Montag couldn’t fight the sudden burning curiosity that over took all of his past beliefs. He began to collect books from each book burning and read them. The Hearth and the Salamander is the title of the first section of the book. Hearths are fireplaces that are traditionally placed in the center of the home and are a source of warmth. They represent the constructive use of fire, which Clarisse unintentionally shows Montag. After walking and talking with Clarisse, he realizes that he is not happy. The book states, â€Å"He felt his smile slide away, melt, fold over and down on itself like a tallow skin, like the stuff of a fantastic candle burning too long and now collapsing and now blown out. Darkness. He was not happy.† The salamander on the other hand was once believed to be able to live in fire without being consumed by it. This represents the destructive side of fire. Salamanders are the names given to the fire trucks and are the official symbols of the firemen. When Clarisse meets Montag for the first time the book describes her as being, â€Å"hypnotized by the salamander on his arm.† The Phoenix is a huge symbol that is mentioned in the novel. Toward the end of the story, the city is completely destroyed. The Phoenix was a mystical bird that would burn itself up and then rise again. Granger explains the legend of the Phoenix to Montag when they are watching the fire. It’s used to symbolize the renewal of mankind. Like the Phoenix, they have the ability to rise from the ashes, and rebuild their society. These extremely significant symbols are what make the novel a fantastic story. Fire, the Hearth and the Salamander, and the Phoenix are three symbols that I chose to go into detail about. They each express a different meaning of the book. The thought of firemen starting fires is something that could possibly change when rebuilding the city. At the end of the book they have one thing in mind and that is to change people’s minds about books.

Four Types of Organisational Structure Essay

Organising is therefore the method by which an organisation is formally controlled into divisions or operational units and the structure of the firm is established. The end product of management process is organisational structure. Organisational structure binds the all level of management personals together and brings them into proper development and co-ordination of organisation. It is tasks arrangement which is break up into a few divisions or departments and grouping it together under the management hierarchy to achieve the organisation objectives. Under the organisation structure, one single path will create to attach the tasks, work flow and communication channels between the personals and the various divisional peoples of organisation. Organisation structures smooth the progress of efficient management, direction and control. Every administration has to set up its own organisation structure for well-organized perform of business actions. An organisation structure usually represent in graphical form which is called an organisation chart. Usually, the chart illustrated in the form of vertical, horizontal or concentric to define the authority and responsibilities of personals in various levels. The chart always created according to the existing departmentalisation of organisation. In departmentalisation, each personal from different job segments will work to achieve an aim of pre-determined organisational objectives. The departmentalisation is based on five structures, which is functions, products, consumers, geographical and matrix. In these papers, we will go through the justification of four structure which is function, product, geographical and matrix with sample organisational chart on each structure. Â  Sample Organisation Chart of Functional Structure. Source: SIA Cargo Pte Ltd Functional organisation structure is the most common and logical type of business unit that adhere by companies. In this structure, people are group together based on common skills and work activities. It focuses on single service and doesn’t need frequent changes in organisational hierarchy. Base on above organisational chart, we can notify that the total organisation system is coordinating by top management. For a proficient management function, the organisation breaks up into a few departments such as marketing, engineering, technology, operational and etc. Each departments lead by a senior manager or vice president who are reporting to a single authority, top management. As the simplest approach, a functional structure sort well-defined channels of communication and influence relationship. Each department’s staff needs to report to their only functional unit’s manager and by doing this, the various business unit’s prevent any kind of misunderstanding or conflicts among them. The chart hierarchy is simplified, well-organised and the separation of tasks also well defined with layer by layer. The fewer layer of management will ease the expectation of top management and also improve the task co-ordination. Decision making process is swift and authorities in functional structure. Because of the staffs in functional structure come from similar background and perspectives, so it wills faster the process of the decision-making without waste of time. Since the every business units in structure workout in similar background, it might cluster the processing of the papers together and highly improving the knowledge sharing between co-workers. Sharing knowledge make the organisation more productive and competitive where the experience personals such as managers often coaching and mentoring the less experience personals of each units through seminar or workshop. Functional structures produce clear career hierarchy organisation members to go after. Managers within a functional structure are generally skilled within their particular unit. They were hiring to lead the units due to their tremendous performance. These managers have a better-quality skill level that facilitate make their profession easier and makes them better capable of to monitor the individual act of their team members to allocate credit, rewards and penalty accordingly. A functional structure may draw some setbacks to organisation. It controls people and assets and build up core competences. As a company develop and becomes more difficult, each function tries to retain the company’s situation. Increased order may strain manufacturing to manufacture products quick enough or in sufficient capacity may lead to control problems. When control problems arise, it also strains the situation in evaluating the cost and contribution of each function. Other drawback is communication problem. Poor communication occurs within the organisation due to subunit orientation. The top management find it hard when balancing the process of decision making between centralise function and regional managers. The top managers might disrupted by solving a daily problems and may loss focus on long term strategic issues, resulting in long term strategic direction. Â  Sample Organisation Chart of Geographical Structure. Source: SIA Cargo Pte Ltd Geographical organisation structure is usually used by big firms whose operations are spread out over a large geographical area, for instance, multinational companies which market their service worldwide. Hotel, retail, food and transportation are among the industries which is widely using the geographical structure in their management. The whole organisation will lead by a president and one person will be responsible for an each particular region. According to above SIA Cargo chart, business units were set up at six different geographic locations and each regional branch head by Regional Vice President. The branch Vice Presidents will report to Senior Vice President. The expansion of business units can be local, national or international. In geographical structure, the organisation stick on company strategies and values although operates individually. It operates as its own unit based on where it located. In this structure, each personnel from various departments have prospect to work together. Working as a group will form a strong teamwork effort and keep them in the process of planning and decision making. Beside this, everyone in the departments will have an ability to recognize the personalities and values of each individual. Close working proximity lead to decentralise the process of decision-making and make organisation to settle in rapid changes in divisional goals. In each region, a local or personnel who familiar with local business environment and culture will be employ to head the business units. It ensures that the company well understand the customer expectation and needs. Base on local knowledge, the departments heads able to create a high coordination and effective process of decision making across the functional units. The regional heads ensures the company strategies adaptable to local culture and suit to fast change in unstable environment. In divisional structure, usually the departments act as a group. It allows the responsible personnel to put on better focus in their resources and results. It also makes the performance easier to monitor the customer service quality. A personal that understand and speak the local language, will satisfy the customer expectation because the contact points are clearly explain. Customer service personnel will also have better access to personnel from other units, which can allocate them to handle the customer matters much more efficiently. With geographical structure, following the routine of individual markets and task groups is cut down, as metrics such as revenues, profit margins, costs, and routine enhancement can be attached to particular regions. It is a most important strategic advantage of this structure. Many problems might incur for the companies whom use geographical based structure. Some companies may find it complicated to run a geographic organizational structure because it duplication of works and disagreement to centralized decision-making. The top management must rely on other regional heads to take counteractive actions and look up operations rather than giving a command from the company’s main office or headquarters. It may lead the company top management loss the authority in controlling the divisional units. Another limitation is expansion of knowledge. Usually, the structure does not maintain the knowledge sharing between people working in the same line of work because part of them is working in one division and the others are working in other divisions. Sample Organisation Chart of Product Structure. Source: Arla Foods Ingredients Above chart is an Arla Food Ingredients organisation chart. The chart is a product based organisation structure. Product-based structure means the regrouping of a functional structure and uses to organise employees and work on the basis of different type of products. This type structure brings together all those involved in the production skills, technical skills and marketing skills of a particular product or set of related products. Each division in structure has its own internal departments and function as self business unit. Companies that manufacture a wide variety of products such as cars and foods would find this type of structure appropriate to their organisation. Many companies tend to shift to product based structure as they expand, and as new products range are developed and new markets entered. Product based companies have no direct contact with their customers. Initially, they need to assess the market segments and develop the product from their assessment. Follow that, they must determine the price of products in line with the customer’s expectation and produce the products to sell in the market. Product based structure is also have a similar function as geographical structure. In Arla Food Ingredients, both product structure and geographical structure group together in the organisation. It will add much better clear focus on market segments and help to meets the customer’s expectation. Each division of products will be operates base on individual performance. It keeps up the positive competition between the divisions and allows the directors or managers to have better be in command of each division can act as separate profit centre. In this structure, division members are more likely to be persistent on products. It deals with the technological transform by grouping personnel with skill and their specialised equipment in one business unit. So, the division heads have a lot of control over operations and will not necessary to depend on another, separate area to get things done. The department managers will keep an eye on design and manufacturing activities, and employees become reliable to product not to function. It also allows the managers and employees to improve and expand their skills and knowledge in the organisation. The customisation of more products into division will lead to save time and cost. Decentralisation of process of decision making will facilitate rapid decision making results with effectively. It will reduce the risk of product failure and also bring on improvement in employee morale due to divisional decision making. Instead of better operational controls, the organisation can avoid the poor communication within the personnel’s which is bring to slow development of products. By the way, there is some limitation might happen when use the product base structure. An example, each product division has R;D department. When product expansion incur, number of personnel in R;D will increase. This increment will happen to each product divisions. So, it will lead to duplication of works and increase the costs of staffs. Since the divisions separately monitor, the difficulty might happen to top management to coordinating them together.

Africa and Colonialism Essays

Africa and Colonialism Essays Africa and Colonialism Paper Africa and Colonialism Paper When we look at Africa for that past couple of years wee see Genocide in Rwanda and Darfur ,instability in Sierra Leone, lack of a government in Somalia, Civil War in Sudan , land grabbing and AIDS in Zimbabwe, Diamond and Oil wars in Angola, Crime in South Africa. . Not to mention the problems caused by foreign debt, and affected by international ignorance and exploitation. In this paper I will try to you asses the political economic legacy of colonialism in Africa. he legacy is substantially based on the fact that that the Europeans wanted to extract resources from Africans by any means possible, even if that would lead to the instability in and destruction of the content political, economic, and social institutions up to the present time. The most crucial economic legacy that colonialism left on Africa’s economy was the integration of the African economy into the world economic system. n the Conference of Berlin in 1884-85, europians established the rules by which Africa wo uld be involed in the world economy ,these rules forced africa to produce raw materials and agricultural goods to meet the needs of Europes industries and consumers. what resulted is that traditional agricultural economies were forced to specialize in cash crops meant for export. This transformation led to dependence on foreign distribution and consumption. So there system brought all the economic benefit to the Europeans at the expense of their colonies by making them dependent on the europian seystem. Presedent Munro, for example, argues that integration into the international economy was the key factor that exacerbated colonial dependencies; He said â€Å"Being unprepared to compete in the global market, the integration of these new states into the world economy merely deepened their colonial dependency† This impact of colonialism effected both the internal and external causes of underdevelopment in africa today . Internally, the political and economic structures of the colonial state were bult to meet the needs of the europians ,which left africans with no abilitilty to develop after the fall of the british empire empires. And Externally, colonialism created dependencies that african states faced after the fall of formal colonial control, I say formal colonial control because many say that africa now is living in a stage of neo-clonolism since their substanstilly depend till now on many europians countries. So, if we take a step back and take a look at africa we see that all components of modern social and economic life in Africa are a direct or indirect result of colonialsm Its very important to maention that a lot of African countrys economies depend fully on one single export. The integration of the these economies to the world market made these countries fully dependent on the world price of its single export. Abid Rashed in his essay â€Å"The Enduring Impact of Imperialism and Colonialism on Africa â€Å" said â€Å"if the world supply of copper were to double because of new deposits in Brazil or Chile; the boom in Katanga and Zambia would quickly come to an end. Similarly, the prosperity or poverty of Ghanaian farmers depended directly on the price of cocoa on the world market†. And also, many of the African countries produce the same export, escpicially in the agricultural countries in east Africa and West Africa, so colonialsm forced them into an economic system that is based on competition while they don’t have the ability to compete with each other. Africa, as a result of all that, became so weak to the ups and downs of the world market Also, colonialism made African economies end their reliance on local manufacturing in . Most manufactures currnely are controlled by multinational corporations, and a lot of African countries are welcoming these corporations more and more because they want to get a share of the outsourcing that these corporation are involved in, in places like India and China, to manufacture their goods cheaply. The involment of multinational corporations in Africa might bring some money and revive the economy to a certain extent, but it also increases africa’s dependency on these these corporations and their producat. These corporations are creating the era of Europeans neo-colonialism in Africa . to the present day, most African countries get their goods from the europians that colonised thri country in the past and rely on these goods to continue surviving ; which make you think that nothing peobably changed except that the direct control of europians and the physical presence of their people Colonialism made Africa get trapped in a system where they will lose all the time , as long as they cant manufactoer their goods locally without depending on the Europeans. It would be very difficult to get out from the world economy because of there dependence on imports from europians (cars, machines, food) this reliance fro survival was unheard of in pre-colonial Africa. Famines, for example did not exist in pre-colonial Afrca, which gives you a sensed of the huge negative impact that the europians had. ). The importation of cars, machines, food- which was unheard of in pre-colonial Africa is needed for daily survival. There were no famines in Africa prior to colonialism Also, the ways in which the domestic economies of African states are structured is also shows effect of colonialism on Africa For example, colonialism extended commerce and the money economy into the interior of Africa. This process led to the creation a common currency which limited barter exchange â€Å"To trade goods or services without the exchange of money†, which are some of the basic components of pre-colonial African economies. 5- In addition, the commercialization of land, labour and produce o attached money to activities that had been for social use before. In pre-colonial Africa peasants and farmers would produce for there own use and maybe a little to trade for some goods but farming was for subsistence, there was no conception of production for the global market. No one owned the land in pre-colonial Africa; farmers had use rights over the land but could not sell the land One important economic benefit was the provision of infrastructure of roads, railways, harbours and ports, the telegraph and telephone. The basic infrastructure of every modern African state was completed during its colonial period. Politics Pre-colonial Africa had a large number of independent states. Some of these states were large and powerful; others were small land weaken. When the Europeans finished drawing their lines of partition, these states had been condensed into about 50 pieces of territory. This (scramble) that happened at the Berlin conference was drawn without any attention or care or consideration of the ethno cultural, geographical and ecological realities of Africa. Africa had different ethnic groups (tribes) with different historical traditions, cultures and speaking different languages. This destroyed the political development of these social groups; furthermore, ethnic groups were split into fragments in different countries for example the Ewes ere divided by the boundary between Ghana and Togo while akan are found in the ivory coast and in Ghana. The Senufo now live in Mali, the Ivory Coast and in Burkina Faso. This explains the border disputes between Burkina Faso and Mali ect. Nigeria under colonial rule brought more than a hundred ethnic groups into the colonial sphere. This colonial sphere included the theocracies of Northern Nigeria, the Chiefdoms of the Yoruba, Edo, and Itskiri, in the South, and the Ibo and Ibibio, in the East The scramble also led to the uneven sizes of and unequal distribution of natural resources in African states. Some got a lot of benefit like Nigeria with an approximated area of 357,000 square miles, while Gambia with an approximated area of 4000 square miles. Some states have few boarders e. . Gambia with one boarder whiles others had many boarders e. g. Mali with seven boarders. This makes it difficult to check the problems of security and smuggling. All this clearly would lead to many problems. Ethnic problems, economic problems, and corruption â€Å"We must remember that the European agreements that had carved up Africa into states paid little attention to cultural and ethnic boundaries and ethnic groups had little opportun ity or need to form political alliances or accommodations under repressive colonial rule. Think of countries such as Canada, which has been trying for hundreds of years with mixed success to accommodate only two linguistic groups - English and French - and you get an idea of the problems of African states with far greater cultural and linguistic divisions. † Africa certainly has more than 2 languages and more than few ethnic groups Also, to understand the political legacy we need to understand that many European countries like the British did not have any goals of assimilating Africans to thrir culture or giving them citzinship. It was a purely economic plan focused on maintaining stability and getting money and resources out of africa . To do that the brits divided colonies along social, cultural, or ethnic lines and maintained control by playing these groups against each other. With this system , the need for direct government intervention from the British government was less common. This worked well for the British government, in that it was cheaper to put select locals in charge rather than import European bureaucrats. And it also prevented any effective challenges to the colonial power To better understand the affect of that scarmbel on africa Consider the extent to which the Second World War of just 6 years duration has effected the developed world for 2 generations. Africa had 4 centuries of colonialism. When you get that you might be able to imagine how that might have affected the entire social, cultural, political, and economic structure of an undeveloped continent. In some parts of Africa, colonial administration had almost erased cultures and community with an â€Å"education† and â€Å"civilizing† program that gave Africans only a minimal skill set that served European colonial interests. Europeans started customary laws; notice the word customary laws to link it with tradition but it was all a new invention; Europeans started costmary land-rights, customary political structure. Like every Europeans belongs to a nation, every African belong to a tripe, the restructuring of these tribes imposed new political geography, which created social higherarchy which enabled ambitious individuals and groups to achieve positions of status, dominance, and wealth that might otherwise have been unattainable. To counter all that tribalism, some leader started a single party system, but without any decisions or moral check made by shared community (like it used to be in pre-colonial Africa) it turned out to be just another tool of oppression. If we look at African leaders we see that Of the 107 African leaders overthrown between 1960 and 2003 two-thirds were murdered, jailed or slung into exile. Up until 1979 59 African leaders were toppled or assassinated. Only three retired peacefully and not one was voted out of office. No incumbent African leader ever lost an election until 1982.

Americas Backlog on DNA Research Proposal Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Americas Backlog on DNA - Research Proposal Example Consequently, there has been a backlog in the laboratories and state departments that handle criminal justice cases. The improvement in the efficiency of the technology to reduce cost and time taken for DNA analysis and the increase in the number of DNA testing and analysis facilities and resources can tremendously wipe out the backlog that is already piling up. This document seeks to present how the improvement in efficiency and proper implementation of the DNA technology can help clear to backlog of DNA cases and to recommend the possible ways of ameliorating the situation. The evidence provided by the DNA testing is the most compelling and is steadily becoming inevitable in court cases. Despite this fascinating nature of DNA technology, it has been threatened by the buildup backlog of DNA case files or experiments in the testing facilities. The problem of backlog has been a vicious challenge as a result of ever growing large number of cases which primarily require the use of DNA to provide strong evidence. The resources, the facilities and the efficiency of the technology may have been growing at a relatively lower rate, leading to delayed process of handling DNA cases especially at the testing and analysis stage. DNA is renowned for its unchallenged evidence on identity. This has sparked scramble for the DNA technology in various fields of which criminal justice is the leading consumer owing to the fact that the ultimate focus of criminal justice is the undisputed evidence. Criminal justice is a busy field, always handling numerous cases as offences that require such strong evidence keep proliferating on a daily basis. This also contributes to it being the largest consumer of the DNA technology. With its domineering quality of providing immaculate evidence which gives the court an easy task of making a decision over a case, the DNA technology has taken a center stage in criminal justice. The