Sharing Ideas through the Internet Research Paper

Sharing Ideas through the Internet - Research Paper Example Sharing Ideas through the Internet Due to the ease of access, some people possess impure intentions as they log onto cyberspace with everyone else. Communication and information sharing are two of the internet’s greatest advantages. Sharing of information and ideas across localities, countries, time zones, and computers occurs over the internet. This sharing allows multi-national corporations to keep projects going all the time by moving it between stations of work electronically by using the internet. Communication can occur through e-mail, file sharing, or instant messaging. The internet can now be used to make telephone calls via a process that is known as Voice over Internet Protocol, or VOIP. Sharing ideas over the internet also enhances play. Sharing of videos, pictures, and music over the internet with a worldwide audience enhances information sharing, allowing individuals to preview new music free. Website hosted games are also available for people across the world, enabling someone in Australia to play with an Austrian. Online gambling and dating are two popular attractions to the internet. However, sharing of ideas over the internet possesses a dark side. If one is capable of covering their cyber address, then they become tempted to carry out things they would not normally do such as spread malicious information and pornographic material. In addition, people with technical knowledge and skills may compromise unsuspecting users sharing information on the internet, which they may use to infect your correspondent’s computer with malicious software. ... However, this paper seeks to prove that by, taking proper precautions, one’s internet experience, could prove enriching, with the pros far outweighing the cons. Social networking and potential for collaborations brought about by blogs; provide a decidedly human side to the publicizing of ideas and information (Bruns & Jacobs 4). Via the personalization of content, blogs do much more than play an informative role. They provide a platform for expression, deliberation, and debate. Blogs have come to replace outdated personal websites and email lists as vehicles for the idea and information exchange, giving authors an opportunity to connect with their audience in ways that would have been impossible before. At the same time, they retain control over their space’s creative space. The blogosphere is unique due to its structure as a fluctuating, decentralized, and distributed ad hoc network of personalized websites that inter-create, interact, and interrelate with each other. Herein lays the power of blogging. Rather that the individual blog, it is the tapping of thousands of weblogs collective power that brings about the emergence of blogosphere’s â€Å"magic†. Blogs enable weblogs to become more than its part’s total. Anyone with access to the internet in this environment can participate in idea and information exchange, with the low level of entry barriers and lack of a central authority to grant accreditation or publishing rights ensure that bloggers are not prevented from linking or responding to ideas or information found on or off-line (Bruns & Jacobs 5). In a time of value system redefinition, global threats, and competing belief networks, bloggers now have the opportunity to question their view on issues, as well as grasp some sense of hope and

Childhood and Adolescent Animal Cruelty Methods Research Proposal

Childhood and Adolescent Animal Cruelty Methods - Research Proposal Example Further research is obliged to inspect the components related to why people take an interest in youth animal evil and what are the behavioral and social viewpoints identified with this sort of conduct. Hirschi's social holding hypothesis is actualized into this study as an intention to address social bonds amid youth and their general significance in connection to creating withdrawn behavioral qualities. Hensley and Tallichet (2009) evaluated the relationship in the middle of youth and juvenile demonstrations of creature mercilessness in connection to interpersonal savagery towards people that happens further down the road. Mead (1964) attested that there was a relationship between youngsters who take part in demonstrations of creature cold-bloodedness to that of assaultive character issue. This behavioral theory pondered how youngsters could be aided by right on time conclusion when exhibiting this kind of maladjusted conduct in which may help in avoiding further inclusion in interp ersonal savagery and murder later on. The exploration address inside this study tended to a connection between the sorts of creature torment to best anticipate later interpersonal brutality in grown-ups. The type of creature torment that was considered by the specialists included demonstrations of creature pitilessness, for example, 1) Drowning, 2) Hitting, 3) Kicking, 4) Shooting, 5) Choking, 6) Burning, and 7) Having sexual relations with the creatures (Hensley &Tallichet, 2009). Inside the domain of sociology exploration, analysts normally coordinate a subjective examination configuration to build general exhaustiveness into the range of human and social association, with the objective of applying intending to these ideas in the development and acceptance of human learning.

The Battle of Mogadishu Essay Example for Free

The Battle of Mogadishu Essay The Battle of Mogadishu took place in the narrow streets of Mogadishu, Somalia October 3-4 1993 over 17 hours. 160 United Nations combatants under the command of US General William Garrison fought an estimated 2000 supporters of the warlord, General Mohammed Farah Aidid, head of the Somali National Alliance. The Battle generated considerable public interest and debate, impacting US foreign policy and future UN missions. Among many books on the incident are those by Mike Durant, a combatant and Mark Bowden, who conducted extensive interviews. Parker’s Military History online contains useful data. The background was the outbreak of civil war after dictator Mohammed Siad Barre had been ousted by clan chiefs in January 1991, who set their differences aside long enough to topple him. Their unity did not survive and civil war began. Two parties emerged, one under Aidid and one under Ali Mahdi. The civilian population, caught in the middle, experienced severe hardship. More than 300, 000 died from starvation (Durant 2). Thousands crossed into neighboring states as refugees. When the international community responded with food aid, warlords hijacked supplies to use them to purchase arms. The UN launched Operation Provide Relief (United Nations Operation in Somalia – I) in April 1992. This did little to halt the crisis because hardly any food actually fed anyone. The United Nations then requested members to send combat troops to Somalia, to protect the food convoys. President George H. W Bush of the United States agreed to deploy 250,000 US troops. Known as Operation Restore Hope, or UNITAF (United Nations Unified Task Force) the mandate, dated December 3 1992, was restricted to supporting the humanitarian effort. This mandate was extended in March 1993 to include â€Å"nation building†- ending the war, establishing a stable state and a democratically elected government. When Bill Clinton became President, he reduced the level of US involvement to 1200 combat and 3000 support troops. Italy, Pakistan and Malaysia also joined the UN force, now called UNOSOM-II, established in March 1993. UNOSOM-II consisted of 15,000 military and police personnel. Fifteen of the sixteen clans agreed to cooperate with the UN force. Aidid refused. The UN subsequently ordered its forces to disarm Aidid’s militia. On June 5 1993 a contingent of Pakistani soldiers engaged in this task clashed with Aidid’s troops in Mogadishu, suffering 24 casualties (Bowden 427). The UN responded by ordering the apprehension of those responsible for their deaths, so that they could put on trial. US troops received intelligence that Aidid’s foreign affairs advisor and chief political advisor were at the Olympic Hotel in Mogadishu to attend a high level meeting, possibly with Aidid himself. Based on this intelligence, a US led strike code named Operation Gothic Serpent was planned for October 3, 1993. The force consisted of 160 men drawn from Delta Force (US Special Operations Force), Rangers from the 75th Regiment, Navy SEALS and from the Air Force, supported by 19 M H-60 Black Hawk helicopters from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. The plan involved personnel fast-roping down from the helicopters, securing the targets so that they could then be retrieved by ground vehicles (12 in number) then transported back to the US headquarters. The Humvees were due to reach the Hotel shortly after the operation began. Under Captain Michael Steele, four Rangers secured the perimeter to prevent anyone entering or leaving the Hotel. Another Ranger blocked the road, while the Delta team entered the Hotel at 15: 32 (Bowden 4). Colonel Danny McKnight commanded the ground convoy, whose SEALS were meant to assist the assault team (Bowden 59). At 15: 42, the first Delta operatives hit the Hotel, capturing both men and 22 other senior Aidid aids. One Ranger, Todd Blackburn lost his grip and fell 70 feet, injuring himself (Bowden 4). By 15: 47 Somalis had crowded the area around the Hotel, impeding the progress of the ground convoy, making it impossible to keep to schedule. At 16: 20, an enemy rocket hit Black Hawk Super 61, which crashed five blocks North of the Hotel. Both the â€Å"ground assault element† and the â€Å"exfil convoy† were â€Å"ordered to re-group† at the crash site (Durant 20). Although the supporting helicopter crews tried to send warnings about roadblocks and detour information to the convoy, the communication system was too slow. The helicopters could not speak directly to the convoy but had to do so via their commanders. By 16: 35, the convoy had lost its way. Search and rescue teams were dispatched to assist the stricken helicopter, which resulted in the US switching â€Å"the point of attack† from the Hotel where the prisoners and their Delta force captors were waiting to be retrieved to â€Å"three hundred yards West† (Stevenson 94). At 16: 40, Black Hawk Super 64 was brought down a mile to the southwest of the Hotel. Again, a rescue team was sent to retrieve the crew. As soon as the aircraft hit the ground, hundreds of armed Somalis, some civilian some members of militia, appeared at the scene. 99 US personnel were surrounded at the first crash site. At 16: 42, two members of Delta force volunteer to lower themselves to the second downed helicopter to help defend the injured crew. At 17: 40 both were killed, together with all members of the helicopter crew except the commanding office, Mike Durant who was dragged away by militia. The ground convoy and a rescue convoy failed to reach their targets, returning to HQ at 17. 45. At 19. 08, Black Hawk 66 dropped supplies and ammunition to the soldiers trapped at the first crash site. A new rescue squad, including Pakistani and Malaysian soldiers, left HQ at 23. 23, reaching the trapped men at 1. 55 October 4. At 5. 30, the troops are able to begin to leave the city on foot heading for the Pakistani compound. By 6. 30, it had been confirmed that 13 US soldiers were dead, 73 injured with six missing. The final toll was 18 dead. Durant was released on October 14. March 24, 1994 all US troops left Somalia, followed by all UN troops the following year. Between 200 and 500 Somalis died. Subsequently, the US and the UN became reluctant to commit forces where little real agreement exists on the ground between rival parties. Washington became reluctant to commit troops to situations that present no direct security threat to the US itself. In addition, strategic lessons have been learned from the battle. These are especially relevant in situations where insurgents blend with local populations. First, intelligence – the US did not know that Aidid possessed rocket propelled grenades. Aidid planned to neutralize US air support, then flooded the battle zone with superior numbers. He was also prepared to use civilians as â€Å"human shields† (Stevenson 94). Claims have been made that Italian soldiers tipped Aidid off about the operation, which would explain why militia with rockets reached the scene so quickly. Also, better knowledge of â€Å"Somali city streets† would have helped the ground forces reach their targets (O’Hanlon 119). The Somalis had the advantage of local knowledge. Second, direct communication from air support to ground may have prevented convoys from getting lost. Thirdly, too few troops were deployed against a much larger foe – albeit crack troops against irregular and poorly trained insurgents. The basic plan, though, was sound, the type of extraction for which the forces involved were well trained. Technically, too, the operation was successful, since 24 insurgents were taken into custody. References Bowden, Mark. Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1999. Durant, Michael J. , and Steven Hartov. In the Company of Heroes. New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 2003. OHanlon, Michael E. Technological Change and the Future of Warfare. Washington, D. C. : Brookings Institution Press, 2000. Parker, Larry. The Battle of Mogadishu. Military History Online http://www. militaryhistoryonline. com/general/articles/mogadishu. aspx Accessed April 25 2009. Stevenson, Jonathan. Losing Mogadishu: Testing U. S. Policy in Somalia. Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press, 1995.

Cosmopolitanism Ethics In A World Of Strangers Philosophy Essay

Cosmopolitanism Ethics In A World Of Strangers Philosophy Essay The book, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, is a clear and well-written book which is enjoyable to read. K. A. Appiah is himself a citizen of the world: a professor of philosophy at Princeton, with a Ghanian father and an English mother, he was raised in Ghana and educated in England, and also lived in Africa, Europe and North America. After reading this book, I have to say that Appiah skillfully blends his philosophical ideas with anecdotes about his own life and background. It brings us too many places and we come to know him a little and also his father, mother, and various other kinsfolk and tribe members. He introduces us to many traditions, practices and ideas of his African ancestry to clarify his ideas on human interactions, conversations, and globalisation. It reassesses the case for reviving an ancient stream of thought in a world full of strangers, and finds that Cosmopolitanism is a universal trait of humankind. The overall scheme of the book concerns the p rinciples of the existence of different people bound by a simple nexus of common values and humanity.   1.1 Introduction: Marking Conversation Appiah starts with the fact that our ancestors lived in small tribes where they interacted with a small set of people who they knew. Others were of rival tribes and to be viewed with suspicion. Information about other ways of life didnt really flow into the village. That was in the old days. Nowadays, our human world is getting smaller now, because people have more access to each other than ever before in history. We are getting to know and access each other through migration, international trade, tourism, and the worldwide web of information, which comes from radio, television, telephones, and especially the internet. This mass media and the amazing cyberspace give us plenty of opportunities not only that we can affect the lives of others everywhere but that we can to learn about life anywhere, too'(p xiii). The world is getting smaller and we are living in a new global tribe in the face of the world globalization. How are we to deal with these new circumstances? What ideas and institutions can help us to live together in this global village? Appiah addresses the notion of cosmopolitanism, that is the challenge to take minds and hearts formed over the long millennia of living in local troops and equip them with ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become'(p xiii). The notion actually combines two inter-related strands: One is the idea that we have obligations to others, obligations that stretch beyond those to whom we are related by the ties of kith and kin, or even the more formal ties of shared citizenship'(p xv). The other is that we take seriously the value not just of human life but of particular human lives, which means taking an interest in the practices and beliefs that lend them significance (p xv). Appiah believes that it is an obligation to understand those with whom we share this planet. People are different, and there is much to learn from our differences. Because there are so many human possibilities worth exploring, we neither expect nor desire that every person or every society should converge on a single mode of life. Appiah also stresses that whatever our obligations are to others (or theirs to us) they often have the right to go their own way (p xv), it is respect for difference. According to Appiah, cosmopolitanism is more accommodating of diversity than the current liberal consensus but does not fall into moral relativism. Cosmopolitanism embodies two core values: universal concern for all humanity above family and nation and a respect for legitimate difference. Appiah recognizes that these two values clash, and as such cosmopolitanism is the name not of the solution but of the challenge (p. xv). Appiah takes a step further to summarise the challenges, which are: (1) to avoid falling into moral relativism while respecting difference; (2) to find a middle way between an unrooted abstract universalism and self-interested nationalism; (3) to recognise that cultural difference has been exaggerated by an order of magnitude (p. xix); and (4) to work for conversation, in the sense both of association and exchange of ideas, while realising that humanity will never arrive at an agreed hierarchy of universal values. Cosmopolitanism is a process involving the human co mmunity in habits of co-existence, of conversation in its older meaning, of living together, association (p. xix). The crux of getting along is to recognise that while one might live with integrity in accordance with ones own beliefs, one does not need to share the same rationale with someone else to develop this habit of conservation. In the interpretation of cosmopolitanism, Appiah is sympathetic to the view that local loyalties and allegiances are important because they determine who we are. So he encourages us to embrace both local and universal loyalties and allegiances and denies that they necessarily come into conflict with each other. He holds that we need to take sides neither with the nationalist who abandons all foreigners nor with the hard-core cosmopolitan who regards friends and fellow citizens with icy impartiality. The position worth defending might be called (in both senses) a partial cosmopolitanism. So he stakes out his middle ground of partial cosmopolitanism more by talking about what its not. On the positive side, we get a lot of generalities: its important to talk with people from other cultures, to maintain mutual respect, to learn about other ways of life. We need the curiosity inherent in a partial cosmopolitan outlook so that we can get used to one another and live peacefully together. We do not, he stresses, need to share underlying values or agree on everything. 1.2 The Shattered Mirror Appiah argues that looking at the world clearly shows that there are a variety of ways of life and thought. Human beings are different and that we can learn from each others differences (p4). When we are exposed to the range of human customs and beliefs, a cosmopolitan openness to the world is perfectly consistent with picking and choosing among the options you find in your search (p5). However, such exposure to different human customs and beliefs hardly leaves the traveler unattached from his own. Thus, not all disagreements can be resolved and it urges us to accept differences. (pp.4-7) Appiah holds that a complex truth is like images of the shattered mirroreach shard of which reflects one part of a complex truth from its own particular angle. He supposed the deepest mistake is to think that your little shard of mirror can reflect the whole. Actually, Appiah points out that there is no singular truth. In that case, theres no one shattered mirror; there are lots of mirrors, lots of moral truths, and we can at best agree to differ (p11), therefore, we need to embrace pluralism, and adopt a live-and let-live attitude. Appiah cites works by ethnographers, and draws a number of persuasive parallels to establish universality and shared values (good and bad). He stresses that people in far-flung places are the same in that [they] have gods, food, language, dance music, carvings, medicines, family lives, rituals, jokes and childrens tales.   They smiled, slept, had sex and children, wept, and in the end, died (p.14). Another commonality according to Appiah, is that a lot of what we take to be right or wrong is simply a matter of customs.   His argument about ideas and concepts which are common to most cultures in the world, draws further on acts like good parenting, as well as taboo, which exists in his native Ghana (akywandee), or in Igbo land (nso), but is Polynesian in origin. 1.3 The Escape from Positivism Appiah writes of relativism, positivism, and particular the fact and value distinction in this chapter. Appiah claims that the influence of positivism has led to value relativism by splitting values (or ends) from facts about the world (or means), in other words, what philosophers have called the naturalistic fallacy, or the inability to derive an ought from an is. Appiah avers that relativism and positivism often get in the way of the cosmopolitan project and undermine conversation across boundaries. Because every people finds its own ways (to be) good (p16), this conversation is important. It helps us to know others who are different and to learn from them. Simply put, if when we disagree we are both right, then there is nothing to talk about. if we cannot learn from one another what it is right to think and feel and do, then conversation between us will be pointless (p31). From a positivist slant, Appiah observes that what is custom is linked to values, which in the end, guide our acts, thoughts and our feelings (p 25). It is in this context that he underscores that being kind is an attribute of experience more than any other variable since people learn to be kind by being treated kindly and noticing it.   Appiah also emphasises the way our values are shaped by conversations with others, in which we try to shape each others views and feelings, but relativism of that sort isnt a way to encourage conversation, its just a reason to fall silent (p 31) because of the relativists toleration. 1.4 Facts on the Ground The chapter is an attack on the positivist notion of fact. Appiah argues that facts are not as solid as we may suppose. He tries to show that facts are on no more solid ground than values. He uses the example of trying to persuade a traditional Asante (his kinfolk) that witchcraft cannot harm people, to show that facts largely depend on what you already believe and what ideas you already have. 1.5 Moral Disagreement In this chapter, Appiah goes on to look at the various ways we can come in conflict over values, which are more likely to arise between people from different societies. They are: (1) no shared vocabulary of evaluation. Value terms are essentially contestable and they will always be argued about both across cultures and within them. (2) Even when we share the same moral vocabulary, conflict over values might come in varying interpretations of the same vocabulary and (3) giving the same values different weight. However none of this is insurmountable: we can agree to do things without agreeing on why (p67), but more important is Appiahs point, pace Samuel Huntingdon, that most conflict is not articulated through warring values in the first place. In fact, intense conflict may arise through dispute over the meaning of the same values (p67), e.g. on abortion, American pro-lifers and pro-abortionists both respect the sanctity of life, but differ on why it is precious and on when life begin s. To better understand this point, Appiah gives us other example that, the US and Iraq being at war is not because the people of the two countries have different values. But this is not a point the politicians in Washington would readily accept, certainly, not the ideologues.  Here, Appiah analyses that the Golden Rule-what you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others- requires that we should take other peoples interests seriously, take them into account. Appiah suggests that encouraging cosmopolitan engagement, presupposes the acceptance of disagreement.   Perhaps, this is why cosmopolitans endorse as a key aim, that we learn about other peoples situations and then use our imagination to walk in their Moccasins (p.68). He also exposes the failings of the Golden Rule as a principle to live by. Its just that we cant claim that the way is easy. 1.6 The Primacy of Practice Appiah argues that even though moral disagreements can happen and are real, crosscultural conversations about values do not have to end in disagreement, because it is often possible to agree about what to do even when we do not agree on the reasons behind it. For example, we can live in peace and harmony without agreeing on the underlying values. (pp.69-81) Appiah discourages us from insisting on reaching agreements on values by means of reasoned arguments and persuasion. These very often fail to move people. Moreover, if we make this insistence, then we will lose what is worthwhile about conversations across boundaries. As Appiah avers, conversation is hardly guaranteed to lead to agreement about what to think and feel. Yet we go wrong if we think the point of conversation is to persuade, and imagine it proceeding as a debate, in which points are scored for the Proposition and the Opposition. Often enough, as Faust said, in the beginning is the deed: practices and not principles are what enable us to live together in peace (pp.84-85).When Appiah proposes conversations between people, what he has in mind by conversation is really an engagement with the experience and the ideas of others (p85). In this sense, conversations do not have to lead to consensus about anything, especially not values; its enough that it helps people get used to one another (p85). 1.7 Imaginary Strangers Appiah argues that the points of entry to crosscultural conversations are things that are shared by those who are in the conversation. They do not need to be universal; all they need to be is what these particular people have in common (p97). And human beings everywhere have so much in common. These include everyday activities, such as buying things, eating, reading the paper, laughing, going to movies, parties and funerals. They also include universal values such as kindness and generosity. He argues that these can be entry points to cross cultural conversations, because once we have found enough (things which) we share, there is the further possibility that we will be able to enjoy discovering things we do not yet share'(p97), and we can open up more to other ways of thinking, feeling and acting. That is one of the payoffs of cosmopolitan curiosity. Appiah also notes that the problem of cross-cultural communication can seem immensely difficult in theory, when we are trying to imagine making sense of a stranger in the abstract. But the great lesson of anthropology is that when the stranger is no longer imaginary, but real and present, sharing a human social life, you may like or dislike him, you may agree or disagree; but, if it is what you both want, you can make sense of each other in the end (pp.98-99). 1.8 Cosmopolitan Contamination In the seventh chapter called Cosmopolitan Contamination, Appiah argues against those who criticize globalization for producing homogeneity and getting rid of cultural differences. He claims that globalization is also a threat to homogeneity because it creates new forms of difference (p101-105). He thinks that instead of the talk of preserving diversity and trapping people in conditions they want to escape from, we have got to let people choose for themselves. He mentions that cosmopolitans think human variety matters because people are entitled to the options they need to shape their lives in partnership with others (p104). Appiah also writes of the trouble with cultural imperialism, he believes that people in each place make their own uses even of the most famous global commodities (p113). Such as the fact that Levis are worn on every continent. In some places they are informal wear; in others they are dressy'(p113).They are not blank tablets on which global capitalism can write wh atever it wants, they are not fools but they can resist. That is why something does not ever change, like the identity of a society can survive when cultures are made of continuities and changes. 1.9 Whose Culture Is It, Anyway? Appiah begins by pointing out that some of the museums of the world, particularly in the West, have large collections of objects and artefacts which were looted from poor and developing countries. He then asks: who owns these cultural artefacts and properties? Our first answer may be that since they make up the cultural heritage of a people, they belong to the people and culture from whom they were taken. Appiah disputes this and argues that the right way is to take not a national but a cosmopolitan perspective: to ask what system of international rules about objects of this sort will respect the many legitimate human interests at stake (pp.126-127). If some cultural artefacts are of potential value to all human beings, they should belong to all of humanity. He thinks that when they make a contribution to world culture, they should be protected by being made available to those who would benefit from experiencing them and put into the trusteeship of humanity (pp.130-134). Appiah argue s that rather than focusing on returning stolen art and putting a lot of money and effort into it, it may serve the interest of those whose artefacts were stolen better to be exposed to a decent collection of art from around the world, like people everywhere else. 1.10 The Counter-Cosmopolitanism Appiahs writing on Believers without Borders as in Doctors without Borders is instructive in explaining universalism as well as its driving motives and consequences: They believe in human dignity across nationsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ share ideals with people in many countries, speaking many languagesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ they would never go to war for (a) country, but they will enlist (in a) campaign against any nation that gets in the way of universal justice.   They are young, global Muslim fundamentalist; they are the recruiting ground of Al Qaeda (pp. 137-138). Appiah goes on to suggest that such fundamentalism exemplifies the universal ethics, which inverts the picture of Cosmopolitanism and in the absence of toleration, turns easily to murder (p141).  For example, Islamic and Christian fundamentalists who seek a community of those who share their faith and reject all national and local allegiances have no tolerance for religious difference. We should be wary of and reject universal community, because they can lead to bloodbaths, which is one lesson we can learn from the sad history of Christian religious warfare in Europe (p141). Then Appiah turns to argue that their universalism is contrary to cosmopolitanism which embraces pluralism and promotes the view that our knowledge is imperfect and provisional and that we might learn something from those we disagree with. As he writes: to say what, in principle, distinguishes the cosmopolitan from the counter-cosmopolitan, we plainly need to go beyond talk of truth and tolerance. One distinctively cosmopolitan commitment is to pluralism. Cosmopolitans think that there are many values worth living by and that you cannot live by all of them. So we hope and expect that different people and different societies will embody different values. (But they have to be values worth living by.) Another aspect of cosmopolitanism is what philosophers call fallibilism the sense that our knowledge is imperfect, provisional, subject to revision in the face of new evidence (p 144). If cosmopolitanism is, in a slogan, universality plus difference, there are the other enemies of cosmopolitanism. They reject universality altogether, and claim that not everyone matters. One such inescapable obligation is this: when you do something that harms someone else, you must be able to justify it. Those we think of are willing to claim that not everyone matters. They tell us why. Such and such people are destroying our nation; they are inferior; It is not actually that they dont matter; its that they have earned our hatred or contempt. They deserve what we are doing to them (pp.150-152). Appiah avers that the real challenge to cosmopolitanism isnt the belief that other people dont matter at all; its the belief that they dont matter very much. Its easy to get agreement that we have some obligations to strangers. We cant do terrible thing to them. (p153) 1.11 Kindness to Strangers Appiah looks at the question of what do we owe strangers? His answer is mainly negative. Appiah begins by referring the viewpoints of Peter Singer and Peter Unger. The Singer principle (from the works of Peter Singer) states: If you can prevent something bad from happening at the cost of something less bad, you ought to do it (p 160). Unger takes it a step further by stating that it would be immoral not to donate all of ones wealth to organizations, such as UNICEF and Oxfam, which benefit less fortunate people. Based on these beliefs, Singer and Unger would likely agree that it would be wrong to spend money on the opera if that money could otherwise be used to save the life of a child (p159-162). Appiah, however, doesnt agree with that decision. He believes that Singer and Unger are missing a key piece of morality and human nature: It is illogical-and just plain wrong- to assume that a person values all lives equally. In reality, a person is likely to value the people around them, su ch as family and friends, and even themselves, over those whom they have never met. Thats not to say that such a person does not care about other, unknown people; it is only to reaffirm the fact that humans prefer familiarity. Cosmopolitanism cannot and does not demand from us to have more sympathy and concern for strangers than those close to us. In addition, Singer and Ungers principles are vague and without exceptions. They dont seem to consider all possible situations and they fail to account for human nature. As Appiah mentions, if everyone spent all of their money to save starving children and none on activities they enjoy, the world would be a flat and dreary place. (p 166) No one would want to live at all if they werent able to do things other than saving other peoples lives. People need entertainment and joy in their lives in order to be happy and successful. These thinkers are mistaken to burden us with incredible obligations which would dramatically reduce the quality of our lives (pp.156-166). It is much more helpful, as Appiah believes, to contribute, in whatever way possible, to a cause that will focus on improving the general living conditions of a location, which, in turn, will eliminate the hunger of the children living there. Providing clean water or a better education system to Third World children will do more for their future than simply feeding them for a day, which, as Appiah points out, may actually be detrimental to the farmers and the economy of the area. And it wouldnt necessarily require all of ones wealth to be donated to the cause in order to make it happen. As Appiah points out, Singer and Unger seem to imply that all values can be measured in a single thin currency of goodness and badness and those decisions should be made based on a comparison of the amounts of this currency for each possible outcome (p 166). That theory is a misguided and an inaccurate one, as it fails to account for outside forces. All decisions must be made by considering the many variables involved; this morality price, as one might call it, is only one such variable. According to Appiah, whatever our obligations are to strangers, they must not be too burdensome because these are not the only obligations that matter. As such, Appiah is correct in his conclusions that neither the Singer principle nor Ungers beliefs should be the sole guiding force in ones decision-making process. While it may be appropriate to assign the morality price a heavy weight when it comes to making a decision, it is impossible to force the human mind to think only of such a value. As Appia h argues, human values and decision making processes should be based on more than just one specific rule-designed by one specific human. The world is too complex for one sentence to handle. Appiah also makes an argument based on the saying that the end justifies the means. Slavery, in and of itself, is wrong; the existence of the pyramids or of the United States, however, is not. Plus, it is unreasonable to assume that giving away all of ones wealth will cause any permanent change. It is more likely that doing so would simply prolong the possibly-dreadful life of a starving child for a set period of time. After that, the living conditions of the child would simply return to their previous state. 2 Evaluations 2.1 The Notion of Cosmopolitanism Appiahs chosen word to describe this task in this book is cosmopolitanism. This term can be traced back to the founding father of the Cynic movement in Ancient Greece,  Diogenes of Sinope  (c. 412 B.C.). Of Diogenes it is said: Asked where he came from, he answered: I am a citizen of the world (kosmopolità ªs)  [1]  . The word of Cosmopolitan derives from Greek  cosmos  (the  Universe) and  polis (city). Appiah picks this term to suggest the possibility of a cosmopolitan community in which individuals from varying locations (physical, economic, etc.) enter relationships of mutual respect despite their differing beliefs (moral, religious, political, etc.). According to the meaning which is intended , he finds cosmopolitan superior to globalization, which is an overused word that can mean everything from a marketing strategy to an economic thesis, or multiculturalism, which he says is another shape shifter, which so often designates the disease it purports to cure. App iah admits that cosmopolitanism can have elitist connotations. But its actually a term rooted more in the idea of cosmos the universe: talk of cosmopolitanism originally signaled a rejection of the conventional view that every civilized person belonged to a community among communities. In order to better understand the notion of Cosmopolitanism in the book, it is necessary to make a brief survey of the differences in meaning among some conceptions, which are: relativism, universalism, nationalism, patriotism and liberalism. Relativism refers to any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions  regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures. Universalism is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for all similarly situated individuals, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or other distinguishing feature. Nationalism  involves a strong identification of ones social identity with that of a  nation  or state.  Patriotism  is love and devotion to ones country.  Liberalism is the belief in the importance of  liberty  and  equality. And, Cosmopolitanism is in a slogan, universality plus differen ce (p151). 2.2 Relativism and Cosmopolitanism Relativists claim that not everything is local custom, and they argue that education must be morally neutral, and that all values are situational and negotiable. Appiah thinks it is mercifully fading out. Appiah rejects cultural relativism, he pushes it further toward obsolescence and denies a key tenet of relativism, which he describes as the basic suspicion that moral claims just reflect local preferences rather than universal truths. Before relativisms destruction, its proponents relied on the comfortable certainty that tolerance trumped all other values. For relativists, dealing with multiple cultures was easy: Just tolerate everything. But in the absence of that idea, how do we relate to what Appiah calls a world of strangers? Since there are some values that are, and should be, universal, do we deliberately rinse away all expressions of cultural diversity that dont uphold those universals? If values are universal, how can we maintain them while still respecting cultural distinctness? How can we avoid the pitfall those relativists feared, that of imposing our values on others? Appiah makes it work. He avers that Cosmopolitanism helps us find ways to consider such conceptual complexities. As mentioned before, Appiahs cosmopolitanism intertwines two ideas, obligations to others and value of particular human lives. For the cosmopolitan, then, no local loyalty can ever justify forgetting that each human being has r esponsibilities to every other. Those responsibilities are best played out in conversations across differences where the language of values helps us coordinate our lives with one another. 2.3 Globalization Appiah talks about globalization in chapter 7. He is dismissive of those who are critical of globalization and focuses only on one aspect of their criticisms, namely their worry that globalization wipes out local cultures. So he does not address the worry that the global financial institutions and multinational corporations want to expand the world markets for their own interests and that they undercut and weaken local governments, laws, and decision-making. Western industrial nations promote free trade, but this in fact benefits them and makes them richer and more powerful. The agriculture and export subsidies in the West are one of the main causes of agricultural decline in many developing countries. So globalization per petuates and worsens the unequal balance of power between rich industrial and poor developing countries, rather than addressing it in any way. Appiah casts the critics of globalization as people who are afraid of change, but some of the critics are legitimately con cerned with global justice and local sovereignty. 2.4 Cosmopolitan Justice Cosmopolitan justice is discussed in Chapter10, but it is a little weak. One of the main components of Appiahs cosmopolitanism is ethical commitment to strangers. But his view of what this amounts to is very thin. Instead of speculating about what commitments we incur if we want to make the world a substantially better place, Appiah comes up with a list of constraints. He is very critical of the idea of world government as a vehicle for upholding and guaranteeing peoples basic rights. For Appiah the primary mechanism for ensuring basic rights is the nation-state. Appiah then warns us about those who want to burden us with too much and urge us to overlook our obligations to those close to us and to our own self and projects. It is difficult to see how the concerns which underpin cosmopolitan ethics or justice can be addressed solely in the context of national politics. Those who are passionate about cosmopolitan justice are concerned about extreme poverty, tyranny, oppression, and environmental degradation. Seriously addressing these seems to also require working with international organizations which go beyond national borders and forming connections and associations with others elsewhere who have similar goals. Moreover, despite Appiahs legitimate worries about establishing a world government, it is clear that world governing bodies and institutions, such as United Nations and World Bank, already exist, deal with cosmopolitan justice issues, and have much power. At the least, making the world more just would demand that these institutions become more democratic and fair and do a better job of protecting peoples rights. 2.5 Global Conversation Cosmopolitanism works because values like courtesy, hospitality, generosity and reciprocity are widely shared, alongside other basic concepts and social customs, to enable differences to be explored. Appiah thinks that we share enough to work through human differences. Commonality allows for a global conversation. In the end, attaining a state of peaceful, diverse co-existence is more important to cosmopolitanism than resolving all conflict over human values either philosophically or politically. Appiah calls for a global conversation to make our world suitable for coexistence and living well. But he does not refer to appropriate ways. When we look for some enlightenment in the context of Chinese Confucianism, we can find that Confucian toleration has some characteristics of engagement in such conversations; the characteristics are: openness to t

Biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt Essay -- FDR American President

Biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt Franklin Delano Roosevelt, (1882-1945), 32nd of the United States. Roosevelt became president in March 1933 at the depth of the Great Depression, was reelected for an unprecedented three more terms, and died in office in April 1945, less than a month before the surrender of Germany in World War II. Despite an attack of poliomyelitis, which paralyzed his legs in 1921, he was a charismatic optimist whose confidence helped sustain the American people during the strains of economic crisis and world war. He was one of America's most controversial leaders. Conservatives claimed that he undermined states' rights and individual liberty. Though Roosevelt labored hard to end the Depression, he had limited success. It was not until 1939 and 1940, with the onset of heavy defense spending before World War II, that prosperity returned. Roosevelt also displayed limitations in his handling of foreign policy. In the 1930's he was slow to warn against the menace of fascism, and during the war he relied too heavily on his charm and personality in the conduct of diplomacy. Still, Roosevelt's historical reputation is deservedly high. In attacking the Great Depression he did much to develop a partial welfare state in the United States and to make the federal government an agent of social and economic reform. His administration indirectly encouraged the rise of organized labor and greatly invigorated the . His foreign policies, while occasionally devious, were shrewd enough to sustain domestic unity and the allied coalition in World War II. Roosevelt was a president of stature. The future president was born on Jan. 30, 1882, at the family estate in Hyde Park, N.Y. His father, James (1828-1900), was descended from Nicholas Roosevelt, whose father had emigrated from Holland to New Amsterdam in the 1640's. One of Nicholas' two sons, Johannes, fathered the line that ultimately produced President Theodore Roosevelt. The other son, Jacobus, was James' great-great-grandfather. James graduated from Union College (1847) and Harvard Law School, married, had a son, and took over his family's extensive holdings in coal and transportation. Despite substantial losses in speculative ventures, he remained wealthy enough to journey by private railroad car, to live graciously on his Hudson River estate at Hyde Park, and to travel extensively. Four yea... ...nd front greatly intensified Soviet suspicions of the West. But it is easy to second-guess and to exaggerate Roosevelt's failings as a military leader. The president neither invited nor welcomed the Pearl Harbor attack, which was a brilliantly planned maneuver by Japan. He worked with Darlan in the hope of preventing unnecessary loss of Allied lives. Unconditional surrender, given American anger at the enemy, was a politically logical policy. It also proved reassuring to the Soviet Union, which had feared a separate German-American peace. Establishing the second front required control of the air and large supplies of landing craft, and these were not assured until 1944. In many of these decisions Roosevelt acted in characteristically pragmatic fashion--to win the war as effectively as possible and to keep the wartime alliance together. In these aims he was successful. By 1945, Roosevelt was 63 years old. The events early in that year added to the strains on his heart, and on April 12, 1945, he died suddenly at Warm Springs, Ga. Three days later he was buried at Hyde Park. Despite his limitations, he had been a strong, decent, and highly popular president for more than 12 years.

Databases :: essays research papers

databases The Many Faces of Databases Large databases can contain hundreds of interrelated files. Fortunately a database management system can shield users from the complex inner workings of the system, providing them with only the information and commands they need to get their jobs done. In fact, a well-designed database puts on different faces for different classes of users. Downsizing and Decentralizing The earliest file management programs could only do batch processing, which required users to accumulate transactions and feed them into computers in large batches. These batch systems weren't able to provide the kind of immediate feedback we expect today. Today disk drives, inexpensive memory, and sophisticated software have allowed interactive processing to replace batch processing for most applications. Users can now interact with data through terminals, viewing and changing values in real time. Batch processing is still used for printing periodic bills, invoices, and reports and for mak ing backup copies of data files. But for applications that demand immediacy, such as airline reservations, banking transactions, and the like, interactive, multiuser database systems have taken over. Until recently most databases were housed in mainframe computers. But for a growing number of organizations, the traditional centralized database on a mainframe system is no longer the norm. Some companies use a client/server approach: Database software in client desktop computers works with files stored in central server databases on mainframes, minicomputers, or desktop computers. Other companies use distributed databases that use data strewn out across networks on several different computers. From the user's point of view, the differences between these approaches may not be apparent. Tomorrow's Databases? Many computer scientists believe that the relational data model may be supplanted in the next decade by an object-oriented data model, and that most future databases will be object- oriented databases rather than relational databases. Instead of storing records in tables and hierarchies, object-oriented databases store software objects that contain procedures (or instructions) along with data. Object-oriented databases often are used in conjunction with object-oriented programming languages. Tomorrow's databases will be able to respond intelligently to commands and queries issued in natural human language. Rules of Thumb: Dealing with Databases A few common-sense rules when working with file managers or relational database management systems are: o Choose the right tool for the job. o Think about how you'll get the information out before you put it in. o Start with a plan, and be prepared to change it.

New Coke Case Study

1.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   When Ted Levitt posed the question, â€Å"What business is it in?† he was blurring the distinction between â€Å"industry† and â€Å"market.†Ã‚   Rather than limiting corporate scope, this question challenges companies to look beyond their immediate material product or service and examine the spectrum of ways they can (and should) target the greater public appeal. Coca-Cola is in the beverage industry and in the market of appealing to nostalgia and personal emotional connections to its international patronage.   Coca-Cola’s â€Å"business† is to offer a sweet, fun, memory-inspiring portable beverage that inspires nostalgia for a carefree time gone by.   Coca-Cola is a sense-memory product that relies on a perception of indulgence and comfort. 2.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   From its beginnings as â€Å"†Pemberton's French Wine Coca,† in 1886, Coca-Cola’s brand building strategy relied heavily on appealing to the national emotion and current conviction of any given time period.   â€Å"†Pemberton's French Wine Coca† was advertised as a â€Å"nerve tonic,† good for alleviating morphine addiction.   When the nation turned to temperance, Pemberton reinvented the brand appeal by advocating Coca-Cola as a non-alcoholic enjoyable substitute.   Likewise, the ingredient cocaine was removed in response to the public sentiment.   In 1904, the name Coca-Cola appeared, in essentially the same script format as is used today.   By generally maintaining visual continuity, Coke achieves a connotation of timelessness. Coke’s meanings all stem from an emphasis on wholesomeness and small town Americana images.   This was best captured during the Great Depression, when Coca-Cola used the slogan â€Å"The Pause that Refreshes† paired with a seemingly carefree Everyman heading to work.   This contradiction in marketing and real life worked for Coke, which did not suffer a devastating economic impact as a result of the depressed country. Coke began its Santa Claus campaign in the 1920s, but it was artist Haddon Sundblom’s now classic 1931 image of a jolly old man in a bright red suit that solidified the connection between Coke and â€Å"The Most Wonderful Time of the Year.†Ã‚   The iconic figure of the generous and loving figure of comfort matched with Coke’s image as a drink for every good American citizen.   Latching onto the cultural and emotional connection of Christians to St. Nick proved critical to Coke’s attempts to forever connect with the rosy yester-year. This strategy is not replicable in today’s marketing environment.   Socially, the target audience(s) is too polarized for a specific iconic image, particularly an over-commercialized figure associated with a specific religion.   Post Cold-War America is less responsive to over-romanticized images, and given the divisive nature of religious images in the secular marketplace, the response Coke garnered in 1931 would not be the same for a new, less acculturated product. 3. Coke’s advertising stresses brand engagement, emphasizing consumer loyalty and a positive personal image that is common to â€Å"Coke drinkers.†Ã‚   The advertising capitalizes on the cultural desires for conformity, connection to a greater social idea, and purchase with a common and â€Å"more desirable† past; these impulses are satisfied by images and well-crafted slogans or jingles. Coke’s visual art/image campaign directly taps into a level of communication that transcends language barriers.   Their choices reflect strategic attempts to align with patriotic, socially commendable images, including well-known and powerful entertainment luminaries who may have commanded additional financial support. When Hollywood influences fashion, language, behavioral or religious trends, it is widely considered the natural order of the beautiful, wealthy elite modeling correct behavior for the lower, coarser classes.   In contrast, marketers are perceived to be embodying the unethical pursuit of money when they more overtly sell the same trends.   In our consumer-driven culture, however, marketers are fulfilling the edicts of capitalism more legitimately than celebrities. 4.   In contrast to Coke, Pepsi cast itself as the youthful drink: fresh, light, and savvier than antiquated Coke.   Slogans targeted a specific young adult market, and advertising featured pop stars and current sports celebrities.   It was a threat to Coke, though it became much more of a threat due to Coke’s reaction. Coke had built its reputation on core stability, and in response to a legitimate competitor, Coke radically violated the very principles that kept it at the top of the beverage market.   Coke could have reemphasized its history, it’s longevity, it’s fidelity to the taste generations of consumers appreciated and expected; consumers had proven over the years that while other products may gain popularity, Coke would remain a solid choice in the market. 5.   Both Keough and Goizueta assumed that change meant positive progress, and that if Pepsi was succeeding at any level, it was because consumers craved something radical.   The advent of calorie counting led to the boom of diet drinks, and Goizueta had already enacted a shift in corporate philosophy by green-lighting Diet Coke.   In the framework of the Coca-Cola advertising history, these assumptions were directly violating all of the brand building work.   New Coke philosophically undermined what the meaning makers intended. 6.    This case reveals that powerful brand meaning is a double-edged sword:   if a product hinges its campaign on comforting emotional continuance, there will be a logical backlash against change, even in the name of positive progress.   This case demonstrates the role of brand loyalty in the negative light; that is, the consumers’ â€Å"passion† (as Keough suggests) can work swiftly against a favored product due to years of brand meaning cultivation. 7.New Coke failed because it directly conflicted with the brand meaning that executives had worked for decades to confirm in the public consciousness. 8.   Keough is correct, but the statement is misleading to some extent.   Research demonstrated that people didn’t reject the taste of New Coke:   people resented a perceived betrayal by what they were encouraged to believe was the most moral and patriotic of beverage-producing companies.   Coca-Cola’s original, consistent and effective marketing succeeded only too well, effectively destroying the New Coke campaign. Emotional attachments may not be quantifiable within traditional statistical methodology, but Coke had significant data to support the effectiveness of their nostalgia connection to inform them of the customer’s product loyalty.   The customers were simply behaving in the way Coke had spent nearly a century urging them to. Bibliography Fournier, Susan. 1999. Introducing New Coke. Harvard Business Review.