Survey Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 2

Survey - Essay Example These three types are following: Here I will discuss the entertainment poll that was published in Los Angeles Times. It is a Bloomberg survey of pop culture and entertainment in the United States. Population of this survey is teenagers between age of 12 and 17 and young adults between age of 18 and 24. Old age is not considered in this survey because age limit is most important in entertainment industry. In this survey they want to know the opinions of young people either the entertainment industry release the music for downloading or for CD sales, either they release the movies to DVD for downloading when the movies are screened first time in theatre or not, is piracy affect their profit margin or not. These are all the questions of poll that is published in Los Angeles Times. The target group is young people and teenagers because they are the people who run and shape the entertainment industry. Young people demands multitasking in the entertainment industry. They demand downloading and CD’s of music at a time. They demand movies on DVD and in theatre at a time. Teenagers do their homework while listen the music that’s why they demand multitasking art in entertainment industry. Most teenagers reported that they listening music most of hours in a day therefore they demand multitasking art in music. Computers and cell phone are playing biggest role in entertainment industry. Now the teenagers download music and videos from their computers and spend most of the time on it. Sample of this survey is 1904 respondents from which 1650 was qualified. From the qualified respondents 839 were minors from the age of 12 to 17 years and 811 were young adults from the age of 18 to 24 years. This sample was selected because it presents the benchmark according to the U.S. Census population. Most newspaper not provides information on the basis of number of people responded because from the respondents some of them not qualify

Trusts Law And Reasons For Appeal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Trusts Law And Reasons For Appeal - Essay Example 2. The facts of the High Court case are as follows: Vallee the plaintiff was an adopted child of the deceased. She was staying in France, but one day she called on the deceased before his demise in the third quarter of 2003. She promised him that she would return during Christmas, to which he answered that he did not contemplate to live up to the time and that his desire was to hand over his house to her upon his death. The deceased handed over the title deeds to the land on which the house was built and a key to the estate to her. He also gave her a plastic container with his war treasures and a photo album. Four months later, he passed on. The defendant was informed of her father’s demise by the Coroner’s Office, which regretted that the deceased had not left any valid will specifying how the estate would be divided. 3. In 2006, the defendant directed lawyers, who contacted the treasury solicitor in writing to claim the property on the grounds that her father had given it to her by a donatio mortis causa; which is a gift whose ownership remains conditional until the death of the donor. The treasury refused her claim and proceeded with an advertisement for any potential claimants.  The defendant, a clinician who was running a business organization named â€Å"Celtic Research Limited†, established through his â€Å"heir hunting† that the deceased had a surviving male sibling, Mr. Mykola Bogusz. He acquired a power of attorney from the surviving Bogusz and made applications for, and was given documents for administering the property on October 8, 2009, â€Å"for (his) use and benefit.† The treasury solicitor permitted Mykola Bogusz’s claim and placed a caveat on the property against further claims. Ms. Vallee filed proceedings in court seeking to claim the property by a donatio mortis causa. 4. The case came before the Oxford County Court on 26th October 2012 and was presided over by Justice Harris.

The Delian League Essay Example for Free

The Delian League Essay Explain the methods used by the Athenians to transform the Delian League into the Athenian Empire. (25 marks) There is certainty no evidence to suggest that the Athenians had any long-term plans, in the years 479-470 BC, to change the Delian League into an empire, although from the beginning the potential to develop into an imperial power were there. Because from the beginning, Athens had considerable power as she was the permanent hegemon. The most important aspects involving the transformation of League into empire was the changing relationships between Athens and her allies, Pericles? mperial policy, Athens selsh self interest in gaining more power by using the Leagu   power and establishing laws onto her allies such as the Coinage Degree and the Chalcis Degree. These aspects had portrayed Athens? gradual alteration of the Delian League into an imperial power. Originally the Delian League was formed as an alliance of free and equal states. At there were only two types of members of the League; those contributing ships (larger states) and those contributing money. But over time when Persian threat were no longer in sight, allied states started to leave the League. Athens then force the allies back into the League as tribute paying subject allies. This caused these states to pay tribute with nothing in return and lost their autonomy. The event with Naxos, as they were the ? rst to leave, was a warning to other ally states of the consequences of breaking the oath of the alliance. Additionally, the use of the League? s power to reduce the state Thasos to subject status because of a personal quarrel with Athens, indicated a change in the nature of the League. And by 446-445 BC, there is no longer any doubt or pretence about Athens? imperial position. Although in the beginning, the Athenians did not aim for an empire, these events did however, depicts the starting point of the transformation of League into an imperial power. Furthermore, the boost of the deteriorating relationship between Athens and her allies can be seen between 450-446, when Athens launched a system of cleruchies, which were settlements of Athenian citizens on con? scated land of subject allied states. The establishments of cleruchies had cause much resentment from other Greek states towards Athens. According to Plutarch, this system had relieve â€Å"the city of a large number of idlers and agitators and raise the standards of the poorest classes†, but at the same time it implanted amongst the allies â€Å"a healthy fear of rebellion†. It also allowed Athens to gain more numbers of hoplites, as only Athenian men with money can become a hoplite soldier. This had increased the military force in Athens and had strengthened Athens? old on her empire, as they were located at strategic points in the Aegean. The worsening relationship between Athens? and her allies in the League is due to Athens? sel? sh self interest in developing her imperial power, and this had allow Athens to gradually grow into an empire. This sel? sh self interest can be seen after the Peace of Callias. At the aim of the League was, according to Thucydides, ? to compensate themselves for their losses by ravaging the territory of the King of Persia? but in 449 BC Persian lost the battle against Cimon in Cyprus and signed a peace treaty called   Peace of Callias. Although this meant that the League? s aim had been fullled, the Athenians argued that the Persians would strike again if the Greeks appeared weak. This argument from Athens had an underlying aim, that was so the Greeks states would not leave the League, or else Athens would lose its? power as hegemon and to continue to pay tribute to the League, or in a more accurate sense, to Athens. Athens? gradual sense of alteration of League to empire is also seen in Pericles? imperial policy. The end of the war with Persia and the 5 year truce with Sparta confronted Pericles with a major problem. Thousands of soldiers and sailors, previously away on summer campaigns and supported by League funds, were now unemployed. He used the Temples on the Acropolis that had been in ruins since the second Persian invasion as a way to deal with all the unemployments. However this required funds. Pericles then called on a Panhellenic conference of all Greek states of the mainland and the Aegean to discuss the rebuilding of all temples destroyed by the Persians and the security of the Aegean sea as an underlying intention to get support for the rebuilding of Athens? temples and for the recognition of the Athenian navy as protector of the Aegean. This excuse used by Pericles was to force the allies to continue their contributions in order to further his policies of carrying out a building program, developing democracy, and maintaining Athenian forces over a wide area. Plutarch records how Pericles? enemies, denounced his actions as â€Å"barefooted tyranny†. Pericles replied that â€Å"the Athenians were not obliged to give an account of how the allies? money was spent†, and as long as Athens provided the services paid for, she could use the surplus any way she wished. Therefore, the tribute from allies was not used for the Delian League, but to be used for Athens? interest in building up their city. By passing out laws, it had restricted Athens? allies of their freedom by obliging to Athens? rule. This is seen when Athens had passed out a Coinage Decree in 450-446 BC, enforcing uniformity of coinage, weights and measures among the members of the League. This measures had made trade much easier to handle, it was a further example of the allies? loss of freedom. Furthermore, the Chalcis Decree, issued after the Euboean cities revolted, required the inhabitants to take an oath â€Å"not to revolt against the Athenian demos† and â€Å"to be obedient to the Athenian demos†, which revealed no doubt that the original members of the League were now very much subjects of an imperial power. In conclusion, Athens? gradual transformation of the Delian League into the Athenian Empire can be seen in the deterioration of her relationship with her allies due to her arrogant actions on bene? ting her own interests, Pericles? imperial policy which further his policies of carrying out a building program, developing democracy, and maintaining Athenian forces over a wide area, but also the establishing of laws onto her allies such as the Coinage Degree and the Chalcis Degree. There is no evidence to say that the Athenians had any long-term plan in turning the League into an Empire, but according to Thucydides, Athens had â€Å"three very powerful motives security, honour and self-interest†, which were the reasons why the Athenians took control of an empire. These events and actions by Athens had led the Delian League, which was once an alliance of free and equal states, into a tyrannical imperial power known as the Athenian Empire.

Marriage Between The Prophet Hosea And Gomer Religion Essay

Marriage Between The Prophet Hosea And Gomer Religion Essay At the centre of the Hebrew Bible in the book of Hosea chapters one and three, lays a controversy about the marriage between the prophet Hosea and Gomer the harlot. But Hosea 3:1 seems to be an interpretation of Hosea 1: 2. Taking these passages as historically true may defeat the nature of the righteousness of God. Moreover, the name, Gomer, also seems to be not historically true because of its being both a masculine and feminine. Therefore the narratives may not be a real historical reflection of the marital unfaithfulness but it may have meant to convey the message of Yahweh. The discussion of this subject will therefore, include; who was Hosea, who was Gomer, the metaphor for the unfaithful marriage and then conclusion. HOSEA: Hosea (Hoshea-saviour) was an eighth century prophet -a mouthpiece of Yahweh. He prophesied in the Northern Kingdom, which was under King Jeroboam II (Hosea 1: 1). The reign of Jeroboam was characterized by material prosperity but it was morally reeking and rotten due to idolatry as attested in Hosae 4:2 and 2 Kings 14: 23-29 (Halley, 1957: 321). Israel had committed great harlotry by forsaking the Lord (Hosea1: 2). The great sin that Israel had committed, compelled God to command Hosea to demonstrate it through his personal life. Hosea, a prophet and a staunch patriot of Yahwhism, received the message from Yahweh. The prophet was commanded to go and marry Gomer, a prostitute (Hosea 1:2). The marriage between the prophet and a prostitute is surrounded by controversies as recorded in Hosea chapters One and Three. The controversies include the doubtful possibility of Yahweh to expose Yahwehs prophet to a prostitute. However, scholars have said that the drama between Hosea and Gomer is a metaphor that demonstrates the unconditional love of God for Israel and humanity at large. The message was complex as Hosea spoke both of disaster and hope for restoration. By disaster he warned that the Assyrians would come to invade them. The demonstration involves the unfaithful marital drama between Hosea and Gomer his wife. This is seen in Hosea 1:2 and 3:1-2 where God commands Hosea to marry a prostitute and he repeated the command saying go again and love a prostitute. From these two texts, Gomer is seen as a prostitute before marrying Hosea. And she continued being unfaithful to her husband to the extent of defecting him for other men. Speculatively, the harlot in chapter three whom God commanded Hosea to marry again may be Gomer though the Bible does not mention the name Gomer. GOMER: The name seems to be masculine (Genesis 10: 2), but Hosea depicts it as a feminine name. Gomer was the wife of Hosea. She had three children and only the first-born is portrayed as a legitimate child of Hosea. The other two children were born out of wed log. The scripture records that Gomer left her husband-Hosea for other men. Therefore, the Bible depicts Gomer as a prostitute. Therefore, it is vital that the type of prostitution she indulged in is stressed precisely from scholarly point of view. Scholars have interpreted the first three chapters of Hosea in different ways (Hinson, 1992: 168). However, James Hastings suggests that Gomer was a temple prostitute (Hastings 1963: 398). This type of prostitution was common in Canaan as Werner Keller puts it; In Canaan in those days the cult of sensuality was regarded as the worship of the gods, temple took the place of brothels, men and women prostitutes ranked as sacred to the followers of the religion, their rewards for their services went into the temple treasuries as an offering for the god (Keller, 1956: 262). From this understanding, it is possible to conclude that Gomer could have been a temple prostitutes as Hastings puts it, Gomer was, before marriage, a temple prostitute (Hastings, 1963: 398). Further, it is uncertain that Yahweh, who is worthy, could allow his prophet to marry a prostitute. Prostitutes or adulterous women were deserved to be stoned to death and not to be take back to their marital homes (Psalm 85; Deuteronomy 22:20). Nevertheless, it has been the nature of God to reveal His plan in both words and actions as seen in Isaiah 20:1-6 and in Jeremiah 28:10f. Therefore, the metaphor could mean that Yahweh was transmitting his message through this drama. THE METAPHOR FOR THE UNFAITHFUL MARRIAGE: In this drama, Hosea is the representation of God who loves both the righteous and the sinner but hates sin. Gomer represent the Israelites who became broke the covenant made between them and God. The names of their children signify the attitude that God had developed against Israel due to idolatry (Hosea 1:4, 6, 9). Meanings of the names; The names of the children born in this unfaithful marriage show that the time of God (kairos) to punish Israel had come (Jezreel). Lo-ruhamah meant that God had no longer mercy for Israelites and Lo-ammi meant that Israel had rejected God. But later, Yahweh changed His mind and decided to forgive Israel (Halley, 1957: 317) as demonstrated by Hosea who redeemed his wife from playing harlotry. Hosea also is depicted as having accepted to keep the two illegitimate children. This shows how inclusive the love of God is. Hoseas attitude towards Gomer; Though with great pain and love of losing her in such a dramatic way, Hosea followed, called and redeemed his wife to himself. This is the exactly picture of God who is constantly mindful of human kind as portrayed in Psalm 8: 4. This is also depicted in the incarnation of Christ in the dispensation of salvation for humanity. As Hosea redeemed his wife, so is God ready to redeem humanity from any apostasy life as well as the bondage of sin despite being sinful (Romans 5: 8). In this view, the marital unfaithfulness represents how Israel became unfaithful to God by broking the Sinai covenant that was made between them and God as seen below. Defection and restoration of the covenant; The drama was the reminder to the Israelites that they were a holy nation. They were unique by having entered a relationship with God through a Sinai covenant. John Miller states that God, in the wilderness, initiated the covenant after the Israelites escape from Egypt. God showed the tender love for Israel. And this love is likened to the love for an infant who is dearly loved by the parent (Miller, 1987: 80). In this exclusive covenant, Israel is seen as a wife while Yahweh is the husband (Hastings, 1963:506). But Israel broke this covenant and became unfaithful to God by indulging in idolatry. This departure from worshipping Yahweh to other gods is likened to prostitution, which was rampant in temples (Miller, 1987:82). And of course sexual activity is a natural pattern of humanity. From this explanation, sacred prostitution implanted a belief of increasing prosperity and fertility, for example, agricultural product, as Israelites were an agrarian people. They depended on agriculture. Therefore they could not avoid adopting worshipping of Baal; a fertility god as Israel pursued material goods from other gods (Hastings, 1963:506). Attached to this worship was the belief concerning the cycle of growth and decay, birth and death and success in war. But in Canaan, they were openly shameless such that mother goddesses were branded as whores. (Keller, 1956: 262-263). This worship was connected to everyday life to ensure that by having sex in the temple; success was certain. As sex was performed in the temple, the god of fertility was impregnating the earth for farms to have good produce and success in trade. This is seen in how trade was conducted as goods probably food was sold by the rich to foreigners like Tyre; neglecting the fellow poor Israelites who could have worked for it. The seller-buyer relationship is also viewed as prostitution. These were the activities that penetrated Yahwism. And it was at this that the prophets were raged with patriotism zeal to fight the survival of Yahwism. The metaphor also refers to alliances with other nations on political basis. These alliances are likened to lovers whom Isaiah condemned. These foreign alliances brought idolatry into Israelites faith. Thus the depiction of Israels unfaithfulness to God (Jeremiah 2:18, 36-37; Hosea 5:13; 7:11-12). That is the breaking of covenant or the seal of salvation. As seen in this way, Israel committed adultery by being idolatry. Israel also followed the gods of violence, assassination and injustice. They totally rejected the precepts of Yahweh as stipulated in the Decalogue- Ten commandments (Hosea 4:2). Miller also points out thatWhen the austere worshippers of Yahweh entered Canaan from the wilderness of Sinai and first encountered such practices at Baal Peor, they were both shocked and intriguedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦. numbers 25: Hosea 9:10 (Miller, 1987:82). Miller clearly states that Israel was a monotheistic nation. But the influence of the Canaanites swayed her away from Yahweh like a woman who leaves her only husband for other men. Iam therefore contend with the drama itself that demonstrates how loving Yahweh is. Yet even the changing of the names of Hoseas children from abandonment to embracing from not being my people to being my people is also a good honour to show that God cares. (Halley 1957:317). This shows that there is no slave or free person in the sight of God (Galatians 3). Though the children had no paternal inheritance because they were born out of wed log, they were also given access to inheritance in the house of Hosea. This is how Gods nature is (Hastings, 1963: 506 ). God wants a relationship between Godself and human beings. That is why God instituted the covenantal law to be the cord of bondage in this relationship. But this bondage has been weakened due to sin (Isaiah 59: 2). The sending of Hosea to remarry his wife demonstrates the concern of God for liberation of humanity. On the other hand God is reminding the people to return to God as Revelation 2:4-5a attests. This was the desire of Hose to see the salvation of Israel. He wished that Israel would be reconnected to the covenant. CONCLUSSION: The unfaithful marriage between Gomer and Hosea represents the broken Sinai covenantal relationship between Israel and God. The Sinai covenant was meant to be a practical, functional and a permanent-self definition and self-understanding of Israel as a chosen nation. But they forgot that God had entered into a covenant with them in the wilderness, which was their guide in political, social and religious spheres. Israel lost the morals. This resulted into idolatry, oppression and injustices. They forgot that they were a chosen nation that was required to live an exemplary life to the surrounding nations. It was the neglection of this covenant that God was displeased with the Israelites that his wrath raged against them. Yet, he brings word of compassionate hope for restoration and encouraged Israel to uphold the covenantal law, as Israel was a chosen nation who should have lived exemplary life.

Allisons Foreign Policy Models

Allisons Foreign Policy Models Graham Allisons Essence of Decision offered alternative conceptual models on foreign policy decision making and a specific discussion on the Cuban missile crisis; and has been one of the influential book in history of foreign policy analysis. It gives a significant contribution to political science study, as it has been heavily cited in most international relations textbook and also discussed by foreign policy analysts. However, despite the models strong influence in foreign policy study, it has been heavily criticised by foreign policy analysts about its utility and value in decision making analysis. Number of criticism has risen regarding Allisons conceptual framework, ranging from its originality until the problem of evidences that have been used by Allison in explaining the Cuban Missile Crises. Cornford and Horelick, for example, argue that Allisons model is not wholly original work, rather than it is developed from previous study. Moreover, another group of criticism have questioned the account of the Cuban Missile Crises that explained by Allison. Despite these two criticisms, there are number of criticism that will be discussed in the following section. By looking at number of criticism about Allisons model, there is a big question about the usefulness of the model in foreign policy decision making process analysis. This essay aims to evaluate the utility of Allisons conceptual policy in foreign policy decision making. This essay will also critically discuss each of the three models by looking from some perspectives. Moreover, taking into account that this essay relies on Allisons Essence of Decision, this essay will also look at the decision making process regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Allisons Conceptual Framework Model I: The Rational Actor (RAM) Model I is the basic yet critical conceptual framework that mostly utilized in foreign policy decision making analysis. RAM is the best model in explaining and predicting of an individual behaviour, as well as purpose generalization in states action. The model reduces the organizational and governmental political complications by looking at government as unified actor.  [1]  Thus, a complete-informed government -regarded as black box- will process information to optimize rational action. The internal structure within decision making process will calculate theà £Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€š ¬pros and cons, and afterward, rank all the options by their chance to succeed.  [2]   Its feature of being simple and easy to utilize, RAM could be useful when a state has limited or even no available information about the enemy. Moreover, RAM which stresses on interaction among states, will immediately produce prudent decision after considering the pro and con. Therefore, since it does not require much information to analyse a case, RAM would be very suitable in a crisis situation. Its simplicity in analysing a case makes RAM one of the popular methods in foreign policy decision making process. On the other side, some foreign policy analysts argue that in the real foreign policy formation, number of external and individual interest factor will eventually impact the policy making process. Moreover, RAM tends to ignore a large state with complex bureaucratic nature that has various kinds of departments with their own different political and ideological perspectives.  [3]  Therefore, along with the argument that intra-national factors are very importantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦yet critical when one is concerned with planning policy, Allison has proposed so-called, Bureaucratic Politics Model.  [4]   Model II: Organizational Process Difficulties will arise when the cases that are going to be examined is not the behaviour of an individual or a state with simple bureaucracy model, but the behaviour of one organization or government with a complex structure inside. Therefore, Allison provides two alternative conceptual frameworks that will open up the black box to evaluate internal structure inside the government, which is later known as Model II and Model III. Model II or Organizational Process Model focuses on the existing organization and their standard operating procedures (SOP) for gaining information, defining possible option and implementing programme.  [5]  Each organization has its own mission and function and series of program are developed to carry out those missions. In defining feasible option, Model II is restricted based on SOP that they believe, will enhance performance and efficiency. Moreover, Model II is not optimizing rational actor, as model I does, but rather, it is satisfying decision making actors. Its account that foreign policy outcomes are derive from bureaucratic programs, routines and SOP, produces some advantages. It emphasizes the importance of domestic political influences in foreign policy decision making process that sometimes missed out in RAM. Therefore, model II reminds the analysts that the policy was formed not only by a high level decision-maker, but sometimes it is formed by organization.  [6]   Nevertheless, a set of criticism has arisen in the utility of model II. Its emphasis on organisational culture may ill-serve higher level officials and finally can lead to impair the analysts understanding of organizations and their behaviour.  [7]  Even though this kind of problem does not occur for most of the time, but we can take it as a consideration of the effectiveness of the model II. Model III: Governmental Politics Governmental politics or government bargaining model focuses on key individual decision makers with their great influence in deciding on organizational action. Moreover, the model assumes that decision makers have different perceptions, priorities, commitments and also organizational positions (where you stand depends on where you sit).  [8]  Therefore, model III assumes that governmental actions are the result of a political bargaining process among key players. Furthermore, bargaining and negotiation processes will result in satisfying rather than optimizing decision making result. It obviously explained because personal ambition of key actor may diverge from public policy position and may lead to personal power considerations when making decision.  [9]   Between Allisons three conceptual frameworks, model III adds important detail about domestic politics that obviously, cannot be found in model I. In addition, model III does not only explain the roles of key individuals, but it also explains why sometimes individuals are working at contrary purposes to the interest of the government as a whole. Lastly, model III gives us explanation why policy sometimes appears to be irrational if we look it from a unitary government perspective. Nevertheless, model III also received many critics, especially on the complexity of the model. It is focus on individual key actor that makes it difficult to study and analyse. Moreover, it requires too many variables, some variable are unknown and it is hard to apply for other countries with unclear bureaucratic politics inside. Criticism toward Allisons conceptual framework Allisons conceptual framework has been attacked by number of criticism, varying from the originality of the model, different interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the US political system, and also methodological criticism. As Stephen D. Krasner has argued that Allisons model à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is misleading, dangerous, and compelling.  [10]  Therefore, in this section, number of criticism of Allisons model will be critically discussed and assessed. Some foreign policy analysts, such as, Cornford, Horelick, Ball and Art have claimed that Allison did not present a completely brand new approach to analysing foreign policy process; but rather it just development from previous theories. Cornford has claimed that organisational process mode is previously done by writers such as, Simon, March and Simon, Cyert and March.  [11]  Furthermore, Cornford has claimed that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Model IIIà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is pure Neustadt.  [12]  Horelick et al. supported Cornfords argument by suggesting that the bureaucratic model is closely related to previous work done by Kremlinologists.  [13]  Ball and Art also mentioned names of analyst that originally make the bureaucratic policy model, such as Huntington, Hilsman, Schilling, and Neustadt.  [14]   Nevertheless, Allison has dedicated a section in his book to acknowledge previous scholars that become his foundation in developing his methods. He is fully aware that he utilized and developed earlier scholars work as he mentioned in his book, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦this encourages much repackaging of existing theoriesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [15]  Therefore, he identifies a group of writers such as March and Simon, Barnard, Cyert and Simon and so on for foundation of model II.  [16]  Furthermore, Allison also acknowledged his intellectual debt to previous scholars that related to model III paradigm, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦model III variety have attracted increasing attention since 1960à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ the publication of Presidential Power by Richard E. Neustadt.  [17]  Moreover, Bernstein has argued that the model is a helful summary of earlier decision making research to present a practical mode of analysis and guide to understand business and organizational decision.  [18]  Hence, we coul d argue that Allisons originality does not claim the originality of development of the model. The originality does not lie in his model, but rather in his approach to apply his models consistently to one particular case study, the Cuban Missile Crisis.  [19]   Another criticism can be seen from methodological perspective; numbers of similarities between model II and model III have shaped ambiguity between those two models. In many occasions, some foreign analysts will combine model II and model III to analyse a case study, including Allison himself. In his article with Halperin, Allison combines those two models and become one major model the bureaucratic politics paradigm- as an alternative model to RAM.  [20]  As Cornford argues that the three models is not totally incommensurable model to analyse foreign policy making process.  [21]  Therefore, even though Allison distinguishes three kinds of model in foreign policy analysis, those models is not easily separable in their actual application. In bureaucratic politics model, decision is not arise from one unitary actor, but through some bargaining between organisation structures with their own agenda. Model II and model III have identical characteristics that enable them to be grouped as bureaucratic politics model. The two models are similar in a sense that both models focus on departments and organizations inside the decision maker; however, it is slightly different, in a sense that, if model II will reach a decision through Standard Operation Program, model III will make a decision through bargaining between various players within government. Despite the insignificant difference between those models, they are usually combined as the bureaucratic politics model.  [22]   However, Caldwell has raised bureaucratic politics models major problem regarding the use of evidence and data. The model requires detailed data that hardly available in term of quantity and quality. In addition, Caldwell argued that there is huge possibility for analyst to imposing the model on the evidence rather than testing the model against it. Therefore, bureaucratic politics model has significant problem in analysing the data and evidence, since previous empirical problems show that data was made to fit the model.  [23]   Allisons alternative model has also been argued that it eliminated decision-makers responsibility toward the policy. The strong criticism has risen from Steel and Krasner, which argued that no one, even the President, holds responsibility of the policy as the outcome from bargaining process among bureaucratic groups. As Steel argued that, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦where everyone is responsible for a decision, no one is responsible.  [24]  The same argument also comes from Krusnet who argued that bureaucratic politic eliminates the importance of election: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Elections are a farce not because the people suffer from false consciousness, but because public officials are impotent, enmeshed in a bureaucracy so large that the actions of government are not responsive to their will.  [25]  In contrast, Smith argues that criticism regarding the elimination of bureaucrats responsibility à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is only valid to the extent to which the President is unable to get his wishes carrie d out.  [26]  In some cases, the President still has the power and responsibility in deciding the final decision and for most of the cases, the President will be the one who chose the key group of decision maker. Therefore, even though Allisons model can be an excuse for bureaucrats, we can argue that the criticism from Steel and Kranser is not applicable for all cases and need to be modified. Furthermore, following previous criticism, there is criticism about Allisons model utility to other countries. Even though Allison clearly points out his intention to present two additional frameworks to other countries foreign policy analysis (not only limited to the US and Soviet Unions policy making)  [27]  , a group of writers has argued the inability of the model to analyse foreign policy behaviour in other countries, to be precise, un-industrialized countries. As Hill has noted that there is a growing consensusà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦over the inapplicability of the insights of Allison, et al. to foreign policy-making inside less modernised states.  [28]  Migdal has also argued that the model cannot be applied to the countries that do not have stability of organizational structure, routine, and even bargaining process.  [29]  Moreover, Brenner also argues that Allisons model is not a universal model and à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦more distinctive in the United States than elsewhere.  [ 30]  Despite all criticisms regarding its utility to other countries, Weil has proved, in fact, the model could be utilised in the North Vietnamese foreign policy analysis; as he has noted that examining North Vietnamese foreign policy decision making from a governmental politics perspective complements understanding gained from a rational actor analysis.  [31]   Nevertheless, some analysts have argued that the model is not even applicable to the Soviet Union, although the Soviet Union foreign policy has been heavily discussed in Essence of Decision. It is not only because the model requires more specific information than is available, but also as Dawisha has noted that the bureaucracy in some countries (e.g. the Soviet Union) is fundamentally different from its position in the United States because the persistent influence of the Communist Party.  [32]  Therefore, there is a doubt about the utility of Allisons model in other countries, as Wagner has pointed out, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the extension of Allisons model III to other countries may be a less straightforward enterprise than he implies.  [33]   Case Study: Singapores Defence Posture Change In the early 1980s, Singapore announced a major important change in its defence policy, from a defensively deterrent strategy (poisonous shrimp) to a more actively deterrent strategy (known as the porcupine). In an article done by Pak Shun Ng, he applies Allisons model to analyse Singapores domestic decision making process. Pak Shun Ng treats Singapore as unitary rational actor to utilizing model I (RAM); the military organisations as the unit of analysis for model II; lastly, the military and political party leadership (including senior military leaders and civilian leaders of Singapores ruling party, the Peoples Action Party (PAP)) as units of analysis for model III.  [34]  The article argues that model II and model III provide the most reasonable explanation of the change in Singapores defence position in the 1980s; while model I has failed to fully explain the change in its defence posture from a poisonous shrimp to a porcupine. Model II first reveals the appropriate developm ent of both Singapores military capability and military planning ability. Furthermore, model III then proves details how the Singapore Armed Force (SAF) could announce the change convincingly to improve its stature among Singaporeans and foreigners by persuasive them that Singapore has appropriate capability to defend and survive any potential threat.  [35]  Even though the article heavily honours the utility of Allisons model, but it still proposes modification of the models in order to be able to analyse a decision making process in a small and non-western states under absence of crisis condition. Pak Shun Ng has argued Allisons assumption that policy is the outcome of bargaining process is not applicable policy making in reality. In fact, decision makers do not automatically have different missions.  [36]  Therefore he argued that political bargaining model assumptions are too restrictive to explain real-life government decisions sufficiently, they should be relaxed so as to increase the explanatory power of the model.  [37]  Furthermore, the case study of Singapores policy making shows the evidence of model II and III complete each other and make one alternative model against RAM. Therefore, it supports the criticism that previously discussed that Allisons models, especially model II and III, have strong similarities and hardly separate. Conclusion The essay has discussed Allisons conceptual frameworks, by looking at each model and its pros and cons. Moreover, a number of major criticisms about the utility of Allisons model have also discussed and critically assessed. The first criticism is regarding the originality of the model, which has been criticised that, in fact, Allison did not bring anything new to the table; instead the models are just developed from earlier scholarship. However, we can argue that the originality of Allison model does not lie in the formulation of the models, but at the consistency in applying the model to one case study, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hence, the fact that it focus on Cuban Crisis has leaded us to the following criticism, the flexibility of the model to be utilized to other countries. Some foreign policy analyst have argued that Allisons conceptual framework is not applicable to other country that is not industrialized enough to have a complex bureaucratic politics, like the United States. A group of analyst also argued that the model actually is not applicable for country with strong influence of communist party, namely the Soviet Union, even though it is heavily discussed in Essence of Decision. Another criticism also attacked the relationship between Allisons model, especially model II and model III. There is an argument that model II and model III are hardly separated from each other, and in some cases, they are combined into one major model, the bureaucratic politics model. Moreover, problem arose from the model about the availability of the data. The bureaucratic politics model requires specific data and evidence that hardly available. The model has also been argued to eliminate responsibility of top level bureaucrats in policy making. However, we can argue that in some cases, the President will be the one who holds the final decision and responsibility toward the outcome (policy). In the final section of the essay, there is a case study about Singapores policy change in early 1980s. By looking at the case study, we can conclude that after some modification, we can apply Allisons model to small and non-western countries like Singapore. Moreover, after Ng modified the model to be more applicable to non-western countries, he argued that model II and model III give better explanation on the policy change, rather than model I. However, from the case study we can also point out that model II and model III are completed each other and hardly separated. This essay has discussed some general criticisms, aside from specific criticism about its utility on Cuban Missile Crisis. Even though its a complex model and has been heavily criticized by some analyst, Allison has successfully provided fresh yet provocative alternative conceptual frameworks in decision making process. Allison does not intend to supplant any previous model, rather just provide a supplement framework in decision making study. Furthermore, in his book, Allison strongly emphasized that the model itself is unfinished; therefore he encourages foreign policy analysts as well as the reader to join and carry on the discussion about the model. Moreover, even though it cannot be fully utilized in all states, as case study of Singapore has shown, with small modification, the model can be utilized and proved to give better explanation than RAM.

Free Raisin in the Sun Essays: Bad Dreams :: Raisin Sun essays

Bad Dreams in A Raisin in the Sun The issue of racism is one of the most significant themes in Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun. Many black men have to deal with inherent racism. The frustrations that they deal with does not only affect them, but it also affects their families as well. When Walter Lee has a bad day he can't yell at his boss for fear of loosing his job Instead he takes it out on his family, mainly his wife Ruth. Walter is thirty-five years old and drives a limousine for a living. This job provides just enough for his family without there being extra money left over to spend. It is so bad that when Travis asked his mother Ruth for fifty cents she said she couldn't give it to him because they couldn't afford it. Walter hears this and gets a little upset with Ruth and gives Travis a dollar instead. Walter tells Ruth that she shouldn't tell Travis that they can't give him fifty cents because they don't have it. I believe Walter is upset because he realizes that he isn't able to provide his son with pocket change without becoming broke himself.   What kind of man would he be? What kind of role model would he be for Travis if he can't bring home enough money to support his family? How would he be a strong black man for his family? It's obvious that Walt er is not able to provide his family with what is considered the "American Dream". Walter complains to Mama about the way he feels about his job. I open and close car doors all day long. I drive a man around in his limousine and I say, "Yes sir no sir very good sir shall I take the drive, sir?" Walter wants to be the one sitting in the back of that limousine while someone else is doing the driving. Walter wants financial freedom, he doesn't want just enough money to provide for his family but rather he tells his mother "I want so many things." Walter is materialistic and greedy, he has been corrupted by a superficial â€Å"American dream†. Walter has no desire to find out about himself through his African American Heritage. He believes he can define himself through money, money is everything to this man. Money is status, money is wealth, money is happiness, money is almost God to him.

An Inspector Calls as a Tool for the Political and Social Criticism Ess

An Inspector Calls as a Tool for the Political and Social Criticism of the Elite "An Inspector Calls", by J.B. Priestly, is in effect a method the playwright uses to convey an imperative political and social message to his readers. John Boynton Priestley was born in Bradford, West Yorkshire, in the north of England. After finishing school, he decided to abandon education to pursue his passion for writing and literature. In 1914 at the age of twenty Priestley was called to fight in the First World War. As one may expect, the years Priestly spent on the frontline, had an immense impact on his ideas towards the social and political system in Britain, and are what fuelled his great politically charged writings. Priestly began to ponder the state of society and the way the social system worked. Perhaps most importantly, he realised that while large numbers of people were suffering, there were many egocentric individuals who were enjoying grand luxuries. "An Inspector Calls" was written in the very week that the Second World War culminated. This shows the urgency with which Priestly wanted to communicate his message. This play, like some of Priestley's earlier work, explores the concept of time, and the phenomenon of how someone's actions can affect someone else's life in the long run. The play is set in an industrial Midlands town in 1912, just before the First World War started. There are 5 main characters, other than the inspector who appears at the very end of Act 1. These are Mr. and Mrs. Birling, their children Sheila and Eric Birling and Sheila's fiancà © Gerald Croft. All of them are upper class citizens and are shown to consider themselves to be part of the social elite. Priestley uses this soci... ...of pay. In his defence, Mr. Birling says: "Well, it's my duty to keep labour costs down, and if I'd agreed to this demand for a new rate we'd have added about twelve per cent to our labour costs." (Act 1, pg 14) Again greed and egocentricity is shown among the higher class. Birling says he had to come down sharp or else they would have been asking the Earth. To this the inspector replies: "They might. But after all it's better to ask for the Earth than to take it." (Act 1, pg 15) Here Priestley is bluntly expressing his anger at the exploitation of the poor by the rich. At its simplest, "An Inspector Calls" is just another moral story, no different from Aesop's Fables. Priestley is trying to teach his audience that individualism and narcissism are one of the greatest evils. He wants us to be aware that our actions today immensely affect events tomorrow.