Pop Culture Advertisement for Lynx Shower Gel Essay

Pop Culture Advertisement for Lynx Shower Gel - Essay Example The product featured is in a small blue bottle with a black lid and its name inscribed in white against black is placed on the bottom in the right side. The caption reads: â€Å"LYNX Shower Gel. Get Dirty.† The setting implies a bathroom and has overtones of kinky sex which is used as an excuse for the Shower Gel product, which is supposed to serve as a sex appeal embellishment. The impact of the advertisement is based solely on its ostensibly clever message through the striking image that begs a second look. However, a deeper analysis will reveal the fallacies on which it depends and tries to communicate. It does not make any attempt to feature the functional advantages the product has over similar products in the market. It takes for granted the new-age notions of advertising for the youth that no information regarding the product’s chemical composition or explanation on why it would be a perfect choice is needed as long as the brand name imposes its power over the customers. Moreover, the advertisement seems to be based on the false assumption that attention from women bothers its prospective customers – men in this case – of all age groups and personal sexual choices. Though it could be assumed that the product aims at the youth as its customers, the advertisement restricts its appeal as it addresses only the heterosexual youth. It a lso assumes that the representation of the female body in an exotic setting catches the eye of all its customers. It could be argued that the popular advertisement culture has, in fact, made the female body a marketing tool, and this advertisement just follows the status quo. But a logical analysis will reveal that it fails to establish a pertinent relationship between the product and the image presented. The intended pun in the caption â€Å"Get Dirty† reiterates the sexual overtone which is already obvious through the image. But the implication is quite ambiguous.  Ã‚  

Research and Analyse an organisation in Business Finance and Law Essay

Research and Analyse an organisation in Business Finance and Law - Essay Example In this context, Barclays Bank operates in 60 countries worldwide with the primary focus on Europe. The institution is among the largest lenders in the world based on the market capitalisation measurements. The core operations of the bank are the investment and retail banking in various parts of the world. However, different forces acting on liberalised economies in most of the European Union nations due to the introduction of Euro and globalisation (Barclays.com, 2015) are influencing investment banking. The Barclays Bank provides services to multinational corporations operating different market models worldwide. The bank plays a great role in the banking sector by financing various government projects in different regions worldwide. Moreover, the bank provides services to individuals and corporations in the emerging economies in Africa, Asia and Europe. The operations of the company comprise of two major business that include the commercial and global retail banking (GRCB) as well as the investment banking and management business (IBIM). The strategy of the organisation aims at enhancing growth by diversification of their profit base. In addition, the organisations approach focuses on benefiting the customers through time and market-based growth. The management strategy of the Bank is its primary driver in the world banking industry (Rao, Rao and Sivaramakrishna, 2008). The strategy of the Barclays Bank is to provide a complete portfolio of services in various countries in the world. In addition, the strategy entails different concepts of providing a wide range of opportunities in order to facilitate growth by enhancing its market share and diversifying its products. Furthermore, the banks strategies encompass three primary concepts that include invest, learn and grow. The success of the bank is also facilitated by the ambition of the group to be one of the major

Civil War Position Paper Essay Example for Free

Civil War Position Paper Essay The American Civil War almost tore early America and its population apart. Still today people debate weather slavery was the primary cause for the war. In this paper I will explain why I believe slavery was not the primary cause of the American Civil War. Also I will point out many other factors that may have played a bigger role in the cause of the Civil War. Southern states believed STRONGLY in states’ rights. States’ rights are the belief that one should be loyal to their state instead of the country as a whole, also they believed that states should be able to make their own laws to their liking without having to answer to the country. This alone created tension between the southern states and the northern states for northern states felt that the constitution clearly stated that states can create laws as long as they do not conflict with the laws of the country. In addition to the tension between the north and south congress placed a tax on goods bought outside of the country otherwise known as tariffs. In 1828 and 1832, congress raised tariffs higher and higher. These taxes were hated by the southern states for they did not have many factories unlike they’re northern counterparts, and thus they paid tariffs more often. In one instance a southern state refused to pay the tariff nullifying the tax congress had placed this event known as the nullification crisis drove the wedge between the north and south further The bloody fighting between northern and southern voters in Kansas was another step in the path of the civil war. Due to the popular sovereignty act suggested by Senator Stephen Douglas the people where able to vote on whether that territory would’ve been a free state or a slave state, this caused voters from both the north and the south to pour into these states hoping to tip the scale in their favor in doing this conflict between the two erupted as homes were burned and people were murdered. In conclusion I do not believe that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war. My reason for thinking this is because of all the events that the country had to push though on top of slavery. For starters states rights, tariffs, nullification crisis, the Kansas Nebraska act, and the bleeding Kansas scare all played a bigger part in the cause of the civil war rather then slavery.

Roe Vs. Wade Essay Example for Free

Roe Vs. Wade Essay Roe v. Wade is a United States Supreme Court case in the year 1973 that resulted in a landmark verdict regarding abortion. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated one of the most important fundamental constitutional right – right to privacy. The verdict overturned all state and federal laws banning or restricting abortion that were found to be incompatible or inconsistent with its holding. Roe Vs Wade case raised huge controversies. It is considered to be is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in the history of U. S. Supreme Court. It gathered huge historical significance. The central verdict that came out of the Roe Vs Wade case made abortion permissible for any cause that a women shows, up until the point at which fetus becomes viable or potentially able to survive outside the mother’s womb. The Court’s verdict also permitted abortion after viability for those cases, where abortion becomes necessary to protect a woman’s health. The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was incorrect legally and constitutionally.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Roe Vs Wade decision prompted huge debate on several issues regarding abortion on a national level. Debated issues include whether abortion should be illegal; if abortion is deemed to be illegal, then to what extent it should be illegal; who has the authority to decide whether or not abortion is illegal; what kind of methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional settlement; and what should be the role of religious, or moral views in area of politics. Many people expressed their dissents on the verdict of Roe Vs Wade case. For example, associate justice Byron R. White gave vigorous dissenting opinion over the Court’s decision. What he suggested is that although one might agree with the court’s values and priorities, there is no constitutional justification for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the states.[1]   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Roe Vs Wade has been criticized immensely on various grounds. One of the major criticisms is that inviolability and personhood have not been satisfactorily recognized. The argument of some of the pro- life supporter is that life begins the moment mother conceives, therefore, the fetus should be provided legal protection. Other pro-life supporter’s argument is that, when there is lack of exact knowledge of when life begins, the best thing to do is just to avoid the risk of doing harm. The decision is also criticized on the ground that the decision has no constitutional foundation. The supporters of the decision, however, challenge this criticism by arguing that the decision has a valid constitutional foundation, and the justification of it could be found in the constitution, not in the articles referenced in the decision. In spite of having been criticized so much against its decision, the Supreme Court, however, struck down numerous restraints on abortion imposed by states in a long series of cases stretching from the mid 1970s to the late of 1980’s. Legal basis of the criticism   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Roe Vs Wade is more of a legal issue rather than a moral and religious one on the public ground, even if moral and religious values are strongly related to the question. Therefore, if Roe vs. Wade is to be defeated and revoked, it has to be examined on a solid juridical ground and have has to show that the decision has violated a basic legal principle, bound up in the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, a clear idea about the whole history of jurisprudence of America comes to our help in examining legal justification of the Roe Vs wade decision.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The abortion issue, on legal ground, is not actually a right to life issue; it is in fact a right not-to-be-killed issue. The Right not-to-be-killed is part of a larger right- the right of dominion. It is the law of dominion that is the basis of all constitutional government states. The law states that as a human being, one has dominion over his or her total person, as well as the free exercise of that dominion, a right given to him by the very Law of Nature. This law guarantees the right to dominion in any constitutional state. The purpose of all human law is to protect this right, to defend it whenever denied or ignored by any action of government or someone else. When one talks about liberty, he or she actually speak of his or her freedom to the right of dominion over his or her person, in his or her beginnings as a human being and in those stages of human growth by which he or she emerges into the human community. A human being emerges in the human community by the process of conception, i.e. conception is the starting point of one’s existence in the human community. One person has dominion over his or her person from the very first moment of his or her existence, and in the initial stages of growth, when one cannot exercise that dominion by himself or herself, it is kept in trust by his or her parents and by the law.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Roe vs. Wade, however, has given another human being, basically one’s mother, and rights over one’s personhood in the embryonic moment, a right that permits the termination of his or her existence. Roe vs. Wade has actually placed the right of dominion over the unborn human being in the hands of the mother, and it has been done under the claim of the right to privacy. Consequently, Roe Vs Wade decision has provided mothers with the right to destroy the life of the unborn. The right of dominion, however, belongs to a human being from the very first moment of his or her existence as mentioned earlier. The function of law and the parent is only to protect this right. That is the bottom line of the legal challenge to Roe vs. Wade. The Supreme Court gave its verdict unlawfully in granting to a woman the right of dominion over her unborn child. That dominion belongs lawfully only to the unborn child.   Ã‚  Ã‚   Embryonic Law, then, has been set up upon the Law of Dominion, the basic law of every Western system of jurisprudence and this Law states. This acts as the basis of any legal confrontation to Roe vs. Wade. It is on this ground that the debate over abortion takes place. The debate is not a Catholic or religious issue, but a human and legal one. Some viewpoints on Roe Vs Wade:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   While some reporters and journalists may argue that abortion has not been identified as murder by the law and therefore such an opinion is entirely based on the fact that whatever court decides is to be accepted or taken for granted and that is the sole law. According to Frank Morriss, â€Å"It is the same philosophy that dominates the present U.S. Supreme Court, and contradicts the philosophy that declares that all men possess certain unalienable rights given by their Creator.†[2]   Morriss also argues as follows:   Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"What is democratic about the majority of a nine-person court declaring the killing of the unborn not to be murder, or in fact not to be illegal in any way at all? Those in authority being answerable to nothing but their own intellects and will is not democratic; it is a dictatorship of the arbitrary. Mere opinion, whether that of a legislature, or the majority of a court bench, or in fact of the populace as a whole cannot determine right or wrong, truth or nontruth, justice or injustice.†[3]   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Some views, as upheld by Stevens Clifford says that the verdict was one sided –â€Å"The abortion issue is a national dispute, a dispute between those who oppose abortion and the members of the NARAL, the National Organization of Women and Planned Parenthood. At this point in adjudicating the dispute, only one side of the issue has really been heard, the views of those who support abortion. The only history of the question that has been examined, or even aired, is the history of the abortion laws, with an erroneous conclusion drawn from those laws.†   Ã‚  Ã‚   The annual March for Life rally in January 2008 took place stood against the least restrictive abortion laws of the Supreme Court. According to the President of the rally, Nellie Gray, referred to the judgment as the genocide pre-born and said, â€Å"We have a genocide because, after 35 years, it’s estimated that 48 million pre-born children have been killed†¦ So we’re coming together at the nation’s capital once more to petition Congress to enact legislation to stop the genocide here.[4] However the establishment media does not talk much about these marches.   Ã‚  Ã‚   After the verdict on the Roe v Wade case, the federal court has not decided in favor of pro-life friendly decisions and such decisions have been ‘virtually nonexistent’. John A. Boehner, representative of Ohio and the minority leader of Republican House commented, â€Å"I applaud the court for its ruling today. My hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nations laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life.[5] Analysis of Catholics’ standpoint:   Ã‚  Ã‚   From the very moment of its initiation, it was subject to many controversies. This controversy or debate led to the evolution of two groups, namely, pro choice and pro life. The pro-choice movement extended huge support to abortion and regards that it is morally permissible. On the other hand, the pro-life movement denies the access to abortion and regards it as morally wrong. Over the time both the movement gathered their supporters and often move to the court to attain legal approval. Following these two movements even the world seems to be divided into two groups. For instance, in Canada, abortion is permissible while in Nicaragua it is strictly illegal. Some of the nations even took a midway like USA where abortion is legal but it is constrained by certain restrictions as well as certain circumstances. Though the debate on abortion encompasses issues on political consensus, infiltration of privacy, religious and ethical issues. However the ethical debate on the permissibility of abortion has been most important with most number of opposite thinkers.   Ã‚  Ã‚   According to Natural Law, five primary precepts and corresponding secondary precepts may be drawn. Abortion is not supported by two of the primary postulates Continuation of human species through reproduction (implies no abortion, contraception or homosexuality) and self preservation and preservation of the innocent (implies no abortion).[6] On the basis of Kant’s deontological moral theory it may be claimed that a person should act according to his or her duty irrespective of the consequences. In this case, we may therefore say that it is the mother’s duty to give birth to the child irrespective of what consequences she might have to endure. Thus, sticking to her duty the mother should not deviate from childbirth and hence should avoid abortion.[7] This would certainly support he Catholics’ standpoint and their activities and involvement are appreciable in dealing with the case of abortion. Their activities have brought about mass awareness and at least those who are true to their religion and roots shall certainly be averse to abortion and also assist the Catholics in their sincere efforts. Although some of the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle commended abortion, the Pythagoreans criticized it and the clause of the Hippocratic Oath would help support it. The Oath states: â€Å"I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion† and â€Å"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.†[8]   Ã‚  Ã‚   The court argued on the basis of the term ‘person’ used in the 14th constitutional amendment. This may be stated as follows: â€Å"All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word â€Å"person,† as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.†[9]   Ã‚  Ã‚   Interestingly, if we agree with Warren’s definition of personhood then we have to disqualify two kinds of born human beings as ‘person’, namely, reversibly comatose patients and human infants. Both of them, like fetus are bereft of any of the characteristics mentioned by Warren. Warren moves further to justify her claim when she justifies even infanticide as morally acceptable under certain circumstances such as severe physical disability or in order to save the lives of a group of other infants.[10] At this point it is clear that Warren is suffering from severe complexities coming out of her thoughts. First of all, if the patients in coma especially those who are reversible, may come back to normal life as it has been seen in several medical case histories. Then, justifying his death will be the other name of killing. Miracle does happen and it is not that rare to ignore. In America, a patient in coma responded after more than 30 years. If he had denied the right to life at the very moment when he underwent the coma, then it would be denying life a chance to prove itself that it is stronger than death. Similarly, with the enormous advancement of medical science, even most severe of the physical disabilities can be cured or a supportive system can be provided so that the concerned infant, even with his disabilities, can perform most of the normal works. In a very recent issue in India, a two-year-old girl child who was attached with a parasitic twin underwent a twenty-seven hour operation to be freed from her additional outgrowths and after the operation, she is alive and seems to be behaving normally. Following Warren, if she would have been provided with a â€Å"justified medical death sentence† even with the consent of her parents, it could not be termed anything less than killing. Conclusion   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Abortion can never be morally acceptable and it may be termed as the other name of killing. However, under certain circumstances abortion is a necessity. Therefore we may say that the decision of the Supreme Court is both legally and constitutionally incorrect. Often, after conceiving due to several complexities, the condition of the mother’s health deteriorates to that extent that moving forward with that pregnancy may only result in the death of the pregnant woman. In such a case an abortion could save the life of that woman. In case of forced pregnancy that may be out of rape, the woman must be given the liberty to choose abortion as she has been forced to carry that baby. In conclusion, we may say that a fetus is a seed of life, yet to flourish and see the lights of the sun. It has not come at its own will and the people involved knew at some point that it might happen. We cannot offer life and so we do not have the right to take it away. Moral or ethical justification of abortion seems to be a ‘Reverie of Poor Susan’ that can never be accepted under any justification. The catholic protests and the rallies have succeeded to some extent in awakening the consciousness of the media and the mass.    References 1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"Abortion and Ethical Theory† (2008), retrieved on May 29, 2008, from: http://www.tutor2u.net/newsmanager/templates/?a=775z=62 Clifford, S. (2008) â€Å"ROE v. WADE: the Catholic Dilemma†, retrieved on May 29, 2008 from: http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/stevens4.htm Clifford, S. (2008) â€Å"The Rights Of The Unborn†, retrieved on March 24, 2008 from: http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/therightsoftheunborn.htm#basis Mass, W. (2007), â€Å"Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban†, retrieved on May 29, 2008 from: http://thenewamerican.com/node/3526 Morriss, F.(2008) â€Å"Court Rulings Cannot Negate the Law of God†, retrieved on May 29, 2008 from: http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3122 Newman, A.(2008) â€Å"March for Life in D.C. Gets little Media Coverage†, The New American, retrieved on May 29, 2008 from: http://thenewamerican.com/node/6955   Ã¢â‚¬Å"Supplemental Notes on Kant†, (1999), retrieved on March 25, 2008 from: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/ebarnes/205/205-sup-kant.htm Sungenis, R.A. (1993) â€Å"Abortion: The Reasons We Should be Against It: A Critique of the 1973 Supreme Court Decision, Catholic Apologetics International†, retrieved on March 25, 2008 from: http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/1973.htm â€Å"U.S. Supreme Court: Doe V. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179† (1973), Find Law, retrieved on March 24, 2008 from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=USvol=410invol=179 Warren, M.A. (1973), â€Å"On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion†. Thomas A. Mappes, David DeGrazia Biomedical Ethics, McGraw-Hill [1] â€Å"U.S. Supreme Court: Doe V. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)†, Find Law, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=USvol=410invol=179 (March 24, 2008) [2] Morriss, Frank. â€Å"Court Rulings Cannot Negate the Law of God†, 2008, http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3122 (March 24, 2008) [3] Morriss, Frank. â€Å"Court Rulings Cannot Negate the Law of God†, 2008, http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3122 (March 24, 2008) [4] Newman, Alex. â€Å"March for Life in D.C. Gets little Media Coverage†, The New American, 2008, http://thenewamerican.com/node/6955 (March 24, 2008) [5] Mass, Warren, â€Å"Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban†, retrieved on March 24, 2008 from: http://thenewamerican.com/node/3526 [6] â€Å"Abortion and Ethical Theory†, http://www.tutor2u.net/newsmanager/templates/?a=775z=62 (March 24, 2008) [7] Supplemental Notes on Kant, 1999, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/ebarnes/205/205-sup-kant.htm (March 24, 2008) [8] Sungenis, Robert A. Abortion: The Reasons We Should be Against It: A Critique of the 1973 Supreme Court Decision, Catholic Apologetics International, 1993, http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/1973.htm (March 25, 2008) [9] Sungenis, Robert A. Abortion: The Reasons We Should be Against It: A Critique of the 1973 Supreme Court Decision, Catholic Apologetics International, 1993, http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/1973.htm (March 25, 2008) [10] Warren, Mary Ann, â€Å"On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion†. Thomas A. Mappes, David DeGrazia Biomedical Ethics, McGraw-Hill, 1973.

Truman Doctrine And The Marshall Plan History Essay

Truman Doctrine And The Marshall Plan History Essay On the eve of their victory in World War Two, the leaders of the so-called Big Three nations (Winston Churchill from Britain, Joseph Stalin, from the Soviet Union, and Franklin Roosevelt from the United States) met to negotiate the post-war administration of the vast European territories liberated from Nazi occupation and the captured territories of the Axis nations themselves. The two meetings at Potsdam and Yalta were actually the second and third (respectively) following the first of the Big Three meetings at Teheran in 1943. At the time of the final meeting at Yalta, all three leaders expressed genuine optimism that a peaceful and fair collaboration that had begun of necessity in their combined effort to defeat Hitler could last beyond the war years and into a prolonged period of international peace thereafter (Alterman, 2004). However, there were fundamental conflicting interests and concerns that had begun to develop even before the conclusion of the war. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had already begun to view one another as rivals in Europe, both for territory captured from the Germans as well as for the technological spoils of war, such as German aviation and ballistic rocket technology in particular (Roberts, 2000). During the last year of the war, the Western Allies had feared that Stalin would continue his advance well into central and western Europe and all the way to the Mediterranean (Alterman, 2004). To a large degree, those fears were unfounded as Soviet troops halted after occupying the Baltic States and territories in Germany, Poland and the Balkans (Alterman, 2004). Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did also exert continual pressure elsewhere, particularly in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Greece, and Turkey. When Britain could no longer afford to support the needs of Greece and Turkey, the U.S. stepped up and in 1947, announced a broad approach to providing economic support to those regions (and others believed by the Truman administration to be potentially at risk of Soviet domination) economically in what came to be referred to as the Truman Doctrine (Gaddis, 1997; Judge Langdon,). That same year, U.S. Secretary of State, General George C. Marshall, introduced an even broader approach, that came to be called the Marshall Plan which included all of the mechanism outlined in the Truman Doctrine, in addition to a comprehensive fight against hunger, desperation, poverty, and chaos and whose aims included the revival of a working economy across the European continent but also in all the nations of the world ( Gaddis, 1997; Judge Langdon,). In fact, the principal motivation for this plan was a policy analysis authored by George C. Kennan, counselor in the U.S. embassy in Moscow entitled The Sources of Soviet Conduct (Roberts, 2000). That analysis led directly to the adoption of a containment policy by the Truman administration (and subsequent U.S. presidential administrations designed expressly to oppose perceive Soviet expansionist aims everywhere in the world (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Roberts, 2000). Throughout the Cold War, the official position of the U.S. was that its policies with respect to the U.S.S.R. were strictly defensive and designed, of absolute necessity, to prevent the global domination sought by Soviet Communist leaders (Alterman, 2004; Gaddis, 1997; Judge Langdon, ; McNamara, 1995). In truth, the U.S. policies to oppose Soviet Communist expansion and the imposition of Communism beyond Soviet borders were not unfairly viewed by the U.S.S.R. as an expansionist attempt to export and impose Western Democracy beyond U.S. borders. The Deterioration of Relations between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. after 1945 Even before the end of World War II, the provisions of the February 1945 Yalta Conference set in motion conflicting priorities and zones of occupation that helped trigger the eventual deterioration of the wartime alliance between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). Specifically, the agreement left Britain, France, and the United States in charge of Western Germany, Italy, and Japan while the Soviets controlled Eastern Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. By comparison, the territory controlled by the Western Allies was much more valuable in terms of its economic potential than that held by the Soviet Union. The same was largely true in connection with the relative economic potential of Western and Eastern Germany. Under the terms of the Yalta Agreement, the Western Allies administered what later became West Germany and the U.S.S.R. controlled what later became East Germany. Even the capital city of Berlin was divided into zones o f occupation; within a few years, the geographical layout of Berlin and the shared occupation between the Western Allies and the U.S.S.R. would trigger a prolonged crisis as well (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). Although perceived by the West as being stubborn and acting out of a specific motivation to dominate Europe, Stalin expressed genuine confusion over the inability or unwillingness of the Western Allies to appreciate the importance of Eastern Europe from the Soviet perspective, particularly with respect to Poland (Alterman, 2004; Judge Langdon, ). Recent and not so recent history demonstrated full well the vulnerability of the Soviet Union to hostile invasion through Poland. Moreover, Stalins liberation of Poland from the Nazis had cost the Soviet Union as many as 20 million dead, making it the costliest war campaign in the entire history of warfare, by far. From the Russian point of view, Poland should rightfully have remained under Russian control for those two specific reasons alone (Alterman, 2004; Judge Langdon, ). In other respects, the Western Allies may have been right to question Stalins motives. During the war, both Churchill and Stalin had sent troops to occupy portions of Iran to prevent their rich oil fields from falling into the hands of the Nazis (Alterman, 2004; Roberts, 2000). Already at Yalta, Stalin had begun demanding oil concessions as a condition of removing Russian troops from Iran. Likewise, Stalin had insisted that Turkey permit the Russian Navy permanent unrestricted passage from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean through the Dardanelles. Stalin yielded on both accounts only after the U.S. expressed its intentions to back Iran and after the U.S. sent its own Naval warships to the region. Nevertheless, U.S. foreign policy thereafter would reflect the growing fears over such incidents that Stalin expressly intended to capitalize on any perceived weakness on the part of the West to oppose Communist grabs for global territories and resources (Roberts, 2000). The Importance of Kennans The Sources of Soviet Conduct In 1946, the U.S. State Department received a very long telegram from George C. Kennan, counselor in the U.S. embassy in Moscow, detailing his analysis of what he called The Sources of Soviet Conduct (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000). Among other conclusions, Kennan wrote that the Soviet Union was eternally committed to global expansionism and to the spread of Communist ideology at all costs. Kennan warned that the Soviet Union would never stop probing non-Communist societies for weaknesses and that the Western democracies had no other choice but to remain vigilante in their opposition to Communism lest is spread throughout the entire world to the extent efforts toward that end were not opposed appropriately by the West (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000). Kennan concluded that what would be necessary and appropriate to prevent Communist expansionism from dominating the word would be a comprehensive policy of global containment of any efforts toward that end by the Western democracies (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000). At approximately the same time, also in 1946, Winston Churchill delivered his infamous Iron Curtain speech in which he warned of the same danger with respect to the European continent and advocated a strong opposition on the part of the Western democracies. (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000; Westad, ). In principle, this containment strategy would be adopted by the West, most immediately in the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. The Truman Doctrine By 1947, Greece was in the midst of internal warfare between the government and Communist rebels (Alter, 2004; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Roberts, 2000). Britain had been funding the counterrevolutionaries but eventually announced that it could no longer do so for economic reasons. The U.S. administration argued to Congress (and to the American people) that the fall of Greece to Communism would lead inevitably to the subsequent fall of Italy, France, and the entire Middle East to Communism as well (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000). Truman succeeded in obtaining congressional authorization for $400 million to fund anti-Communist rebels in both Greece and Turkey as well. This was the first implementation of what came be known as the Truman Doctrine, according to which It must be the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pres sures. Truman went on to say that this support from the U.S. should be primarily through economic and financial aid, which is essential to economic stability and orderly political process (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). Officially, the Truman Doctrine focused on economic assistance to the needy populations of the struggling nations; unofficially, the real purpose of the Truman Doctrine was to fund anti-Communist forces and virtually any related effort to undermine Soviet attempts to spread Communism anywhere in the world. While being promoted primarily as a humanitarian gesture, the principal purpose of the Truman Doctrine and the reason for its existence was to oppose Soviet Communism (Gaddis, 1997). To be fair, there were reasons that the West was right to be so concerned about Soviet Communist expansion but there were also reasons that, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the West in general and the U.S. in particular overreacted in implementing the Truman Doctrine. The Western Allies had only recently learned a very difficult lesson after failing to respond appropriately to the rise of Nazism throughout the 1930s and to the expansionist aggression demonstrated by Hitler for years before the outbreak of World War II. Undoubtedly, that was foremost on the minds of Churchill and Truman and everyone else in foreign policy-making positions in the post-war era (Alterman, 2004; Roberts, 2000). The Soviets were hardly innocent either. In addition to the attempted exertion of influence in Iran over the removal of their troops and over control over shipping lanes in the Dardanelles, they also aggressively supported Communist revolutions anywhere they could in Eastern Europe, particular ly in Bulgaria and Romania in connection with Communist takeovers and in Poland by helping to eliminate the last source of political opposition to Communism (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). On the other hand, and again, in retrospect with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the Western Democracies were also somewhat blind to apparent signs of Soviet restraint and concessions to the West. After initially insisting on shared control over defeated Japan, the Soviet Union eventually accepted exclusive American control over that nation (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000). Likewise, they withdrew their troops from Manchuria, allowed free elections in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and a neutral democratic Finnish government, and they also withdrew significant numbers of their forces that had been assembled in Eastern Europe since the end of the War (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). It may be unfair to re-evaluate tensions of the time with the benefit of historical records available today (including those pertaining to Stalin that only became available after the collapse of Communist Russia). However, objectively, and with the benefit of hindsight, it would seem that a more measured and objective response on the part of the U.S. and her allies in the post-war years other than the full implementation of the Truman Doctrine might have allowed for a much less costly and potentially dangerous outcome than a four-decade-long Cold War with the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan One of the major initiatives implemented within the general framework of the Truman Doctrine was General George C. Marshalls European Recovery Plan, which quickly became known as the Marshall Plan (Gaddis, 1997; Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ; Roberts, 2000). In principle, the Marshall Plan aimed to do the same thing (i.e. contain Soviet Communism from global expansion) although through incentivizing cooperation and conciliation on the part of foreign nations in return for U.S. economic assistance. It was, in essence, a tremendous carrot instead of a stick-based approach to encouraging foreign nations to implement democratic governments and to reject Communist overtures (Roberts, 2000). The U.S. even invited the Soviet Union to participate but they refused, believing (probably correctly, given the overall objective of the Truman Doctrine) that the terms in connection with which Soviet participation was being welcomed would have undermined Soviet control over the Eastern European countries under Soviet influence (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; Judge Langdon, ). Two years later, the Soviet Union would create Comecon, their own plan for an Eastern European Mutual Economic Assistance organization. The Marshall Plan was an unparalleled success in Western Europe: it facilitated infrastructure recovery in war-torn countries; it enabled economic growth while simultaneously reducing class conflict. More importantly, from the U.S. perspective, it established an economic dependency for U.S. goods and industrial machinery and for the U.S. goods, services, and labor to support it (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005). Certainly, the Marshall Plan was a more humane approach to expanding U.S. influence and discouraging Communist tendencies among Western European populations than the Soviet Union had employed in Eastern Europe. However, its fundamental purpose was much more similar. Moreover, the U.S. was guilty of the same degree of meddling in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations as was the Soviet Union, albeit through much more peaceful means that relied upon the carrot rather than the stick. Nevertheless, from the point of view of exporting its own political ideology to other nations, the U.S. was actually engaged in the same business as the Communists that the West continually portrayed as expansionist (Hunt, 1987; LeFeber, 1994; McDougall, 1997). For example, because of the dependence of Italy on American foreign economic aid and supplies of goods and services, the U.S. was able to convince the Christian Democrats to oust the Communist Party out of it governing coalition. In fact, General Marshall personally warned the Italians that continued economic aide was directly dependent on the Communists not succeeding in the elections of 1948. At the same time, the U.S. State Department recruited Italian relatives in the U.S. and Italian-American organizations in the U.S. to influence Italian political outcomes as much as possible (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005; LeFeber, 1994; Hunt, 1987; McDougall, 1997). Ultimately, the U.S. cannot claim to have meddled or micromanaged Western European political affairs any less than their Communist counterparts in Moscow. While there is a strong argument that the methods chosen by Moscow were less humane, it would be a fiction to suggest that the Soviet Union exported Communism and was expansionist while the U.S. merely supported political self-determination and opposed the imposition of political ideology from abroad. Certainly, from the Soviet perspective, Washington was engaged in very similar processes that differed much more in their means than in what they hoped to achieve. Moreover, whereas the U.S. had the choice between brutality and economic pressure and incentivization, the U.S.S.R. had no such choice, at least not that could have competed against the economic and industrial strength of the U.S. Conclusion Throughout the Cold War, the predominant view in the Western hemisphere was that the Soviet Union was continually engaged in an aggressive campaign to export Communism while the West, led by the U.S. was merely resisting that expansion by supporting the freedom and self-determination of those nations that would otherwise have been at the mercy of Communist takeover. In reality, the U.S. was no less aggressive in exporting Democracy, although it had the economic means to do so much more gently and humanely, and by inviting membership in their democratic vision rather than by coercion and brutality. However, in terms of precipitating what became a four-decade-long Cold War between East and West, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the policy of containment first articulated and promoted by George Kennan in 1946 were no less responsible than Soviet expansionism through intimidation and force. The Cold War eventually resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union by virtue of the strength of the U.S. economy and industrial capacity. However, it was really only a matter of luck and restraint on the part of Soviet leaders that prevented the Cold War from suddenly becoming anything but cold particularly in connection with the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Cuban Missile Crisis. In both cases, Soviet forces were armed with tactical battlefield nuclear weapons and authorized to use them on U.S. forces. Ironically, those facts only became public as a direct function of the fall of the Soviet Union and the doctrine of Glasnost instituted as a result (Gaddis, 1997; Judge Langdon, ). The Cold War grew out of a combination of factors and was probably not as inevitable or as much the result of aggressive Soviet expansionism as is widely believed in the West. To be sure, its roots were partly the result of the paranoid personality of Joseph Stalin. Similarly, the U.S.S.R. had given the Western Allies reason for concern over Stalins intentions in the Middle East (and elsewhere) even before the end of the war. The historical record suggests that at the time of the final Big Three meeting at Yalta, Stalin genuinely hoped for a collaborative and cooperative relationship with the American and British governments. On the other hand, even during those most hopeful of times, Soviet spies were busily at work successfully and thoroughly infiltrating the Top-Secret U.S. Manhattan Project at Los Alamos. However, the relative insensitivity of Western leaders to appreciate the legitimate historical basis and geographical realities facing the Soviet Union, especially in Eastern Europe is equally to blame. To a much greater degree than is often acknowledged by Western historians, the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan were, in fact, less about achieving the specific objectives laid out publicly as their fundamental purpose than they were about implementing a global containment strategy designed expressly to counter perceived Soviet expansionism. It is likely that but for paranoia and overreaction on both sides, the legitimate geopolitical concerns of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. could have been negotiated more successfully and at far less cost to both sides. In that regard, the long-term effects and consequences of the American foreign policy approach with respect to the U.S.S.R. that was outlined and established by the Truman Doctrine and by the Marshall Plan within the first few years after the cessation of World War Two hostilities would have to be considered as responsible for the development of the Cold War as Soviet Communist expansionism.

Social Work :: Graduate College Admissions Essays

Social Work    It was the shrill ringing of my pager that jarred me out of the deep sleep I had been enjoying. The clock beside my bed read 3:30 as I fumbled around in the dark, reaching for the insistent pager. As I saw the code that flashed on its tiny screen, my heart sank. I thought of the sleet that had been falling as I had fallen asleep a few hours before, and of the warmth of my cozy bed. The very last thing I wanted to do at that moment was to get up and go out in the cold. Unfortunately, there was little choice; I was the only Crisis Companion available during the week between Christmas and New Year. Within a few minutes, I was dressed and en route to the hospital to pick up a woman and her small children, on the run from an abusive husband, and take them to our shelter several miles out of town. As both a hotline operator and Crisis Companion for a community organization called Avalon, I had been trained to be an active listener, crisis counselor, and advocate for survivors of domestic v iolence and sexual assault. I thought of all the training I had received, as well as the passion which had driven and encouraged my work with Avalon, as I neared the emergency room of the hospital and prepared to meet my newest clients.    Every 15 seconds a woman is battered. 1 in 3 women and 1 in 10 men will be sexually assaulted during their lifetimes. 4 women in the United States are killed every day by their husbands or male partners. When I first heard these statistics in a Women's Studies course my Freshman year, I was astounded and thoroughly incensed. The more I read, the more committed I became to doing something which would bring about a positive change for survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence. It was then that I learned about and began working with Avalon, which was active on campus and in the community. Through its outreach programs, Avalon is dedicated to educating the community about the issues of sexual assault and domestic violence. It also offers a shelter, as well as advocacy and education, to survivors and their families.    As a volunteer for Avalon I have answered a crisis hotline, acted as a court advocate, helped clients apply for food stamps, and been on call in the hospital to work with women and children.

Responses to Persecution :: Jews Judaism Religion Suffering Essays

Responses to Persecution Jews are no strangers to suffering. Throughout the ages, many others have also been victims to unspeakable cruelty, but the judgement of Winston Churchill is almost certainly the definitive description of the uniqueness of the Holocaust: "The Final Solution is probably the greatest, most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world." Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt points out two reasons why the German program of genocide remains in a class by itself as an example of evil: "It was the only time in recorded history that a state tried to destroy an entire people, regardless of an individual's age, sex, location, profession, or belief. And it is the only instance in which the perpetrators conducted this genocide for no ostensible material, territorial, or political gain." In fact, the Holocaust remains incomprehensible. But that is all the more reason why it must at the very least be remembered. Hitler played heavily on the anti-Semitism already rooted within his people. He resurrected ideas that a previous king of Germany, Frederick the Great, had introduced. There were distinct categories of human beings. Essentially, the Germans were Aryans, and everyone else was sub-human. Hitler took these ideas and embellished them. He blamed the Jews for "two great wounds upon humanity: "Circumcision of the Body and for the conscience of the soul.† As Hitler gained popularity, his hatred of Jews spread and became a rallying cry. The Nazi propaganda paper, Der Sturmer, revived the "Blood Libels." The church would warn their constituents: "Watch your children 6-7 weeks before Passover†¦ Everyone knows that just before Passover Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah." The attitude taught to the children was, "Just as one poisonous mushroom can poison a whole family, one Jew can poison a whole town or a whole country!" Der Sturmer was running contests encouraging German children to write in. One little girl wrote, "People are so bothered by the way we’re treating the Jews. They can’t understand it, because they are God’s creatures. But cockroaches are also God’s creatures, and we destroy them." Words can create an attitude. If a person says something loud enough and often enough, he creates a climate. And under that climate, all sorts of things can happen. This was one of the was the Jews where terribly and horrifically persecuted.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The German scientific community got on the bandwagon with scientific presentations.