Eddie Lyons Essay Example for Free

Eddie Lyons EssayThe musical play Blood Brothers, written by Willy Russell, is the story of twins set-apart at birth. Mrs Johnstone, a works- physique Liverpudlian mother of seven children, agrees to give one of the twins she is expecting to her wealthy unless barren employer, Mrs Lyons. The infant kept, Mickey Johnstone, grows up in poverty while his twin, Eddie Lyons, enters a privileged life. Bound by fear of disco truly, and superstition that should either of the boys learn he has a twin, both will die on that day, so the mothers keep the exchange secret. Completely unaw be that they are brothers, Mickey and Eddie meet as seven-year-old children and form friendship that lasts until the day they die. It is that cogitate tragic event in fact, that is the opening scene of the play, which then backtracks to recount their separate and interwoven lives of success and despair. Willy Russell wrote Blood Brothers in the 1960s. He was born in 1947, in Whiston which is just outside L iverpool, and has based the story here around his own give births.He grew up in Liverpool in a working class family, singing in clubs to earn a living and at the age of 22 he worked in a warehouse to raise gold for college. He was confronted even from an early age with the injustice of the two-class society. Thus there are clear biographical parallels to the character of Mickey. He was also influenced by females during his life therefore the strong relations to the mother in this work. Liverpool in those days was split according to social class.This means people in that time were divided along the lines of being rich and poor, the educated and non-educated etc. Liverpool has been the home base to one of the highest levels of unemployment in the developed world, with over 25% of the workforce out of a job, and it is important to conduct this when taking account of Russells depiction and own views of class and unemployment The main theme of Russells play is based on this social c lass difference although there are strong elements of fate and destiny, superstition, surrogacy, childhood and adolescence, humour and tragedy.Blood Brothers is more than a simple morality tale of twin brothers separated as infants, who, after radically different upbringings, reunite (oblivious of their blood bond) as closest friends. It also focuses on two very different mothers, one-the birth mother- unselfishly giving and accepting, while the others bonk is neurotic, stifling and ultimately destructive. These two mothers lived all their lives close or near to each other, but in terms of class they lived miles apart. Mrs. Johnstone a single and working class woman is earning a meagre living as a cleaning lady at the home of the affluent Mrs.Lyons. We are first introduced to Mrs. Johnstone, who describes her experience of a halfhearted marriage and the arrival of her numerous children. It is with a bittersweet attitude of acceptance that she explains the moment her husband deserts her, the costs of living for which she has smallish means and the news that she is expecting not one more mouth to feed but two. Mrs. Lyons does not need to go to work, only shopping. In contrast to this Mrs. Johnstone cannot even pay the milkman, she says, I said, I said, look, next week Ill pay y. We see the contrast of social classes between Mrs.Johnstones home and the home in which she cleans, the home of Mr. and Mrs. Lyons. Whilst the home of the Johnstones plays host to the constant clamour of childhood Games and battles, Mrs. Lyons is often alone whilst Mr. Lyons is on business, in an impeccable house that suffers somewhat from a cold and stereotypic atmosphere. The opening scenes develop this theme. All through the play we see significant differences between Mrs. Lyons and Mrs. Johnstone. In the beginning the Narrator describes Mrs. Johnstone as the mother, so unrelenting but this is not actually what he means. For instance, the fact that Mrs.Johnstone allows the boys to go to the cinema to watch the Swedish Au Pairs film could be seen as negligent, and we know that Mrs. Lyons would have by all odds not been so liberal. In reality we see that Mrs. Johnstone has a better understanding and acceptance of the fact that young boys will be sexually meddling and she does not try to suppress their curiosity. She is depicted as a down to earth and the more approachable mother- she of course gains instant credibility with her two sons. This attendant also exemplifies that happiness when growing up is not assured by social status or wealth. Instead of viewing Mrs.Johnstone as a cruel character, we are lead to sympathise with her dilemma. We see her handle her house full of children with endless patience and tenderness. Despite being trapped by her social lay out and her lack of funds, she is down to earth and does not see money as the answer to her problems. We see her refuse money (for giving her child a look) from the desperate Mrs. Lyons MRS LYONS Thousands Im public lecture about thousands if you want it, and think what you could do with money like that. MRS JOHNSTONE Id spend it. Id buy more junk and trash thats all. I dont want your money. Ive made a life here.Its not much of one maybe, but I made it. In contrast, Mrs. Lyons is very aware of her social position and the above scene indicates that she sees money as a solution to the problem of Mrs. Johnstone. Mrs. Lyons is also portrayed as a cold woman who doesnt show much emotion. She is very over-protective of Eddie and fears his bond with the Johnstones. afterwards in the play this fear becomes more evident and she appears as a troubled, weird character that appears to be losing control this is evident when she attempts to attack Mrs. Johnstone with a kitchen knife. Mrs. Johnstone is very strong not only physically but also psychologically.She is not a person who cries for help and gets depressed and upset if something goes wrong. An example of this is highlighted on the way she copes ( laying on a smile for him ) with the judge when Sammy gets into trouble. In contrast to this Mrs. Lyons asks for help from her husband every time she has difficulty. She gets depressed very easily e. g. when Eddie isnt in the garden because he went away to play with Mickey, so Mrs. Lyons forces her husband to leave work during the day to find Eddie. She also runs away from problems whenever she can, rather than dealing with them e.g. she was alert to move homes to split Eddie from Mickey.

A stressful life is an inevitable consequence

A adjudicateful life is an inevitable consequenceIn our vocation-driven community, take toilet be a pervasive source of focus. According to a report cited in an edition of the Financial Times, stress at go away is virtuoso of the biggest problems in European companies. It is evident that the prevalence of stress at wager majorly influences job satisfaction, work military operation and productivity (Mullins, 2002). The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) specify stress as the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them (ISMA, 2004). Stress can be accumulated through constant tension and frustration, and can arise from a number of issues including individual, group, organizational and environmental portions. In this essay, I am going to dispute the implications that stress incurs on the individual, and on the organization as a whole by look at some of the most important issues much(prenominal) as cost, stress-related illnesses , and how to tackle stress in the workplace for a better and healthier workforce.With the changing lifestyles of people today (25-year mortgages, easier credit arrangements, etc.) most people be looking for permanent, full-time employment. Nevertheless(prenominal), with the current economic crisis, legion(predicate) headachees are cutting back on staff and many jobs are being lost. This has lead to an increase in stress levels. An article published by the Daily Mail on 5 November 2008 (National Stress Awareness day) stated that almost 2/3 of 2700 workers polled verbalise that they felt more run down, stressed and habituated to illness than they did three years ago. This has resulted in many of them putting in seven hours of unpaid extra time a week. The article urged employers to tackle this problem as the research shows the credit crunch is having serious implications on the nations workforce, with people working and worrying more (Daily Mail, 2008). As these findings demonstr ate, the stress caused by the current economic situation will lead to grave consequences for both individuals and organizations if the individual suffers, the organization is inevitably going to suffer, and vice-versa.Certainly, a wakeless workforce gives a larger contrisolelyion to a business. Working in a stressful environment means that not only performance is decreased, but productivity is also reduced. So what causes stress? Some would say that being under a lot of pressure causes one to be stressed. However, there is a difference between working under pressure and working under stressful conditions. It is said that a certain level of pressure is needed in our daily life to motivate us and enable us to perform at our best (ISMA, 2004). Cooper et al. (1988) have identified six major sources of stress at work intrinsic to the job, role in the organization, relationships at work, career development, organizational structure and climate and home-work interface. He also added that conflicts, such as bullyrag and harassment, at work are another cause of stress. However, stress is said to be a very personal experience as individuals respond and get laid differently with the causes and effects of stress.One major source of work stress develops from role incongruence and role conflict. When workers are not clear about their roles in the company, it creates difficulties in communication and interpersonal relationships. In addition, it can have an emotional impact on morale, performance and effectiveness at work, and health. In monastic order to improve business, many organizations restructure and reduce staff, leading to more pressure on the remaining staff. This often results in an increase of work-related health problems, work stress and a less efficient workforce (Mullins, 2002). Handy (1993) has suggested five organizational situations that are likely to produce role problems, and olibanum stress for the individual having responsibility for the work of oth ers such as reconciling conflicting objectives of groups and organizations conflict between the routine aspects of the job and the creative side being the outside contact is particularly stressful collect to the lack of control over demands or resources relationship difficulties in the company, such as problems with a boss or colleagues and last but not least, having career doubts if future career prospects are uncertain. Role ambiguity has greater effects on the physiological and psychological well-being of the individual, among them being low self-confidence, low motivation, exalted(prenominal) job-related tension, and even depression (Handy, 1993). Karasek and Theorell (1990) have predicted that the most unpleasant reactions of psychological strain such as fatigue, anxiety, depression and physical illness, occur when the psychological demands of the job are high and the workers have low freedom in deciding the task. This model of the high strain situation suggest that arousal energy is transformed into damaging, unwarranted residual strain because of an environmental constraint on the persons optimal retort (e.g. trying to get lunch and queues are very long, travelling distance involves a crowded, heavy traffic road this results on the residual strain which lasts longer than a normal arousal reaction). Basically, this model implies that environmental stressors that we are presented with in our common life can leave us aroused for hours, thus leading to psychological strain and therefore stress. This has great implications for individuals that tend to be more change by these environmental factors than others. The burden of strain that workers experience on a daily basis has therefore an indirect implication for the organization as performance is affected by the unpleasant, unproductive, and in the long term, unhealthy state of workers.In respect to the unhealthy state of workers and psychological strain, extended exposure to stress has been cogitate to almost every(prenominal) illness imaginable heart disease, high- phone line pressure, metabolism problems, colds, depression, obesity, memory problems and migraines (Jaffe-Gill et al. 2007). It all comes down to the biological response to stress, Fight or Flight mechanism, which prepares us for emergency. When in danger, the hypothalamus in the brain sets off a chemical alarm. The sympathetic nervous system responds by releasing a flow of stress hormones, including adrenaline, nor epinephrine, and cortisol, which cannonball along through the bloodstream, preparing us to either escape the scene or battle it out. However, the more the stress response its activated, the harder it is to shut off which causes the stress hormones, heart rate, and blood pressure to remain elevated even after the crisis has passed. In addition, continuous activation of the stress response causes havoc on the body. This implies that workers who are continuously responding to stress are damaging their bo dy the stress response system will eventually become exhausted causing the immune system to break down, thus making it easier for various illnesses to attack the body. Consequently, this will have enormous effect on the individual, leading to reduced performance in every domain of their life, in particular work. Not to mention the number of increased absence from work that will affect the organization, financially as well as performance wise.In the December 2008 issue of Glamour Magazine, there was a very interesting article about the consequences of stressful life situations. Research shows that women are more prone to negative effects of stress as they tend to be more emotionally tuned in than guys. Women seem to stress more over a problem, they slide by thinking about it over and over in their head. The stress caused by a bad day at work is an example of what experts call vivid stress, which triggers the fight-or-flight response, but it is temporary and therefore it is harmful as such. It only leads to a tiring day as it burns up a lot of energy. However, when every day at work is a bad day, the acute stress turns into chronic stress, which could cause a lot of damage to your body. As mentioned before, this leads to the fight-or flight response being constantly activated and thus causing strain on the body which in turn can lead to stress-related illnesses. All body systems are affected by this. Recent British research found that while stress doesnt necessarily cause cancer, women that have high-pressure jobs had at least a 20% higher risk of breast cancer than those with less job strain. Research also shows that we are getting more stressed with each decade.In a report that looked at the incidence of work-related stress and mental ill-health in the United Kingdom (1996-2001), an estimated annual modal(a) of 3624 new cases were reported by psychiatrists (reported higher rates for men), and 2718 by occupational physicians (reported higher rates for women) . Anxiety/depression or work-related stress were mainly diagnosed, and post-traumatic stress accounted for 10% of cases reported by psychiatrists. organic to the job factors (for instance work overload) and interpersonal relations problems were generally the most common causes. Nevertheless, those in personal and protective services and professional workers also showed high rates of ill-health (Cherry et al. 2006). Managing mental ill-health requires the adaptation of the workplace to meet legitimate expectations and capacities of the worker, as well as the adaptation of the worker to increase his/her capacity to cope with work demands, through training and cognitive therapy. Therefore to be able to do this, workers and managers need to collaborate together in order to ensure that both parties get it on what is expected, thus stress levels reduced.In collaboration with stress management professionals, the Health and Safety Executive has developed the Management Standards approach to reduce levels of work-related stress. This approach displays wide practice through risk assessment, allows for the current situation to be measured using various data-collection techniques, and encourages active discussion with employees to help decide upon the practical improvements that can be made (HSE, 2005). This was developed after figures of stress have risen to 1 in 5 people finding work very or extremely stressful. The Management Standards include six key areas of work, which if not properly managed, can cause poor health, lower productivity and increased sickness absence. These first sources of stress at work are demands, control, support, relationships, role and change. As the main causes of stress are now well-known, managers can work with employees to find solutions in order to reduce stress at work, unlike in the past that modest attempts were made to deal with them. This approach will be excellent news for organizations if followed and employ in the right manner , as well as good news for the worker as hopefully, stress levels will be reduced.One huge factor that has lead to the development of such an approach is the financial cost that work-related stress incurs on the organisation and the society. Stress is the single largest cause of occupational ill-health in the earth sector, accounting for around half of all days lost to work-related ill health. In financial terms the estimated cost of sickness absence to the UK as a whole is around 12 billion a year, and around 4 billion of this has been attributed to the Public Sector (HSE, 2006). Each case of stress-related ill health leads to an average of 29 working days lost. A total of 13.4 million working days were lost to stress, depression and anxiety in 2001. Work-related stress cost society 3.7 billion a year in 1995, a figure which has undoubtedly risen in 2008, as stress levels have undeniably soared considering the sharp glow of house prices, cut of interest rates and the loss of nume rous job posts due to the current economic climate (HSE, 2005). The cost factor has great implications for organisations as they are spending unnecessary money which could instead be spent effectively to develop their business and create a less stressful work environment, rather than covering the costs of stress-related illnesses that workers seem to endure from working in a stressful work environment.Stress is upsetting to the individual and detrimental to the business at a time when the need to control business costs and ensure an effective and healthy workforce is greater than ever (Mullins, 2002). Much of ill-health is associated with the variate that is caused when changes in job demands exceed the worker capacities. Mental-ill health which arises from traumatic events at work can be avoided by employing good managerial techniques to tackle stress, and in the event of the occurrence, it should be dealt with promptly and effectively.

Can Torture Of Terrorist Suspects Be Justified?

Can Torture Of Terrorist Suspects Be Justified?In advancing into this essay, I sh totally discuss the memorial of prohibition of twist, the Utilitarian approach to agony which would include contrasts and postulates in favour of justification of ache by taking account of the ticking run out hypothetical, a case study of Guantanamo Bay and the result of torturing terrorist suspects in recent times. This essay would also examine the deontology approach to scud and make recommendations on an some other(prenominal) inwardness of getting info and truths from terrorist suspects.BACKGROUND TO PROHIBITION ON TORTURETorture and other cruel or in gaye servement has been internationally nix since the end of the Second World War and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights landed estated that No star shall be subjected extort or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It allows for no exceptions beneath any circumstances. This prohibition fag end also be f ound in Article 7 of the global Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 5 (2) of the American Convention on Human Rights which be both(prenominal) binding on the United States.In addition, Geneva Conventions III, IV and Optional Protocol I in Articles 17, 32 and 75(2) respectively prohibits physical or mental torture and any forms of coercion against a prisoner of war, they also prohibits an occupying power from torturing any protected persons and torture of all kinds and any other outrages on personal dignity, against anyone under any status.Also the 1984 Convention against Torture takes these general duties and conventions and codifies them into a to a great extent specific influence. It criminalizes torture and tries to prevent any exemptions for torturers by disallowing his access to eery possible refuge. The convention states categorically that there will be no circumstances peace time, war time, or even war against terror where torture would be permissible.Importantly even before September 11, the International Convention Against Torture (Art 2.2) states that no special circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.The word torture is clearly a subject matter in which International Law is clear just about. It does not matter who the person or persons involved are whether criminals, combatants, members of the Taliban or terrorist suspects, the rule is torture is not permissible for any reason. Anyone who threatens or participates in torture would be hardened as a criminal before the rightfulness.Sands (2004 208) furthermore explained that absolute prohibition is related to a second set of rules that deals with the status of the terrorists- whether they are to be treated as combatants or criminals. If he is a member of a regular armed force then he is a combatant and must be treated as such and is entitled to protection under International Humanitarian Law. But if he is a member of an Insurgency group such as Al- Qaeda, who is design to lead planned or is planning a suicide attack, International Law regards such people as criminals. The United States, Britain and over a hundred states support this approach. The 1997 International Convention for the suppression of Terrorist Bombings followed that analysis and made it a criminal offence to attack a government structure or facility, a public place or a state with the aim of causing death or damage. State parties to the 1997 Convention confound consented to subject anyone who is thought to have been involved in terrorist activities to criminal procedure, by either prosecuting them or extraditing them to another state that will eventually prosecute them. The convention explicitly guarantees circus treatment to anyone who is taken into custody under its provisions which includes rights leave behindd both under the International Humanitarian Law and the International Human Rights Law.Unfortunately, Lawyers in the Department of justice and in the administration of President Bush had provided detailed legal advice to the US government on International Torture Rules. According to Sands (2005205) they suggested that interrogation practices could be defined without mentioning the constraints placed on the United States as a result of its international obligations and that so long the practice was in accordance with the US law, it would be fine.This advice categorically ignored the 1984 Convention against Torture and all other international treaties and rules in which the US was bound. It plainly ignored the prohibition against torture in all circumstances, definition of torture, the classification of detainees either to be combatants entitled to prisoner of war status or criminals. Sands (2005 222)notes the followingOver time a coarse deal more information will emerge. But even at this stage it seems pretty clear that the legal minds which created Bushs doctrine of preemption in the white plague of goods and services of force and established the procedures at the Guantanamo detention camp led directly to an environment in which the monstrous images from Abu Ghraib could be created. Disdain for global rules underpins the whole enterprise. The deontologist-utilitarian debate over torture provides a useful background and reflects common reasoning when face with this dilemma. Our conterminous focus is on the inhumanity of torture ( markd by deontologists) and the numerically great threat to innocent people (emphasized by utilitarianism). However, the situation is presented deceptively simply the conterminous section will examine its flaws.THE DEONTOLOGY APPROACH AND ARGUEMENTS AGAINST TORTUREDeontology would place to prohibit torture in all cases. This approach invoking Kant as the traditional torchbearer of this approach, Kay (19971) describes Ka nts theory as an example of a deontological or duty-based ethics it settle righteousness by exploring the nature of actions and the will of agents rather than goals achieved. Roughly, a deontological theory looks at input rather than result. Kay (19971) noted that this is not to say that Kant did not care about the outcomes of our actionswe all wish for good things. Rather Kant insisted that as far as the moral evaluation of our actions was concerned, offsprings did not matter.Deontologism is an approach which seeks to create universal rules for the morality of human action its ideas of common humanity and vestigial human rights were very influential in the banning of torture. (Turner, 2005 7, 15) Kants deontological approach creates two universal rules by which moral questions can be addressed Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature, and Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. (in Turner, 2005 14) Under the inaugural rule, the act of torture cannot be justified as we would not accept it beingness universalized and potentially used against ourselves. Under the second, torture is wrong be create torturing a person for information is to use them as a means only. (Turner, 2005 15) Thus Kants logic leads to the conclusion that torture cannot be justified under any circumstances. The various(prenominal) who chooses not to torture makes the correct moral decision regarding their actions despite the terrible consequences that efficiency result.By torturing a cloaked, we are treating him as a means only (towards the acquisition of information) as he is definitely not being treated in a way to which he would consent. Torture fails to respect him and treat him inhumanely. Kershnar (1999 47) believes in some cases utilitarianism would support torture and that because Kantian deontologists would, in all cases, reject it, tortu re has the position of being a very interesting innovation for ethical inquiry. People no doubt have their commitments to utilitarianism or deontology solely, given the conflict, there is at least something to talk about and some debate inwardly which to advance opinion to maintain one conclusion or the other.Posner (2004296) clearly states that if legal regulations are propagated authorizing torture in definite situations, officials are bound to indispensability to explore the outer limits of the rules and practise, once it were thus regularized, it would likely become a norm, in other words, taking an extra step outside the approved situation which would result in abuse of the system.THE UTILITARIAN APPROACH AND DEBATES JUSTIFYING TORTUREThe utilitarian approach to torture according to Fritz (2005 107) argues that the right action is the one, out of those available to the agent, that makes the trump use of total aggregate happiness. We might to a certain extent simply imagine a situation in which the disutility of torturing a captive (his pain, the discomfort of the torturer, expense, permanent effects to both, chance of negative events causally connected to torture, etc.) is outweighed, or even dramatically outweighed, by the utility of torture (information is provided that saves many an(prenominal) lives and thereof acquires all of the associative utilities).This utilitarian approach is exemplified by one of the most controversial debates on torture which is the ticking time-bomb scenario. This scenario has been thoroughly discussed by Michael Levin and Alan Dershowitz (2002150) where they have both argued that torture is obviously justified when it is the only way to prevent a serious and impending threat and must regulated by a juridic ensure overtopment. The ticking bomb hypothetical tries as much as possible to depict torture as an exception in an emergency. This scenario arises where law enforcement officials have detained a person who suppos edly knows the location of a bomb set to explode, but who refuses to dis tightly fitting this information. Officials could apply to a judge for a torture blurb based on the absolute need to immediately obtain information which will save lives. In other words to avert a greater evil, a lesser evil needs to be done.Another school of thought under the utilitarian approach proposes retaining absolute ban on torture while executing off book torture (ex post). Gross (2004238) argues that in exceptional situations officials must step outside the legal structure and act extra- legitimately and be ready to accept the legal implication of their acts, with the likelihood that extra-legal acts may be legally (if not morally) excused ex post. Elshtain(200 77) in the same way advised that in conditions where we suppose that a suspect might have crucial information, it is usually better to act with harsh inevitability. To condemn torture is to lapse into pietistic rigour in which moral torture o f terrorist suspects purity is ranked over all other goods.The primary justification for the torture warrant proposal is that it is imperative to protect the public. On this view Saul (2004657) notes that violating the human rights of the individual is essential to safeguard the human rights of the many. Without considering if the information extracted from a tortured terrorist suspect is relevant or not, evidence obtained under torture is inadmissible in court under Article 15 of the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984). Article 15 reads Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.Dershowitz is of the opinion that there should be an exception to torture which would dislodge the actions of interrogators as essential to a vert greater evil to world. To him, it made no difference whether cases are real or imagined all that matters is the theorys commitment to the moral obligation to torture in cases of impending evil. Perhaps the general adherence to the rule torture is wrong is more likely than its negation to maximize happiness.Dershowitzs proposal was fortified by Fritz Allhoff in his article Terrorism and Torture Fritz (200517) concluded thatThe conditions necessary to justify torture are the use of torture aims at acquisition of information, the captive is reasonably thought to have the relevant information, the information corresponds to a significant and close threat, and the information could likely lead to the prevention of the threat. If all four of these conditions are satisfied, then torture would be morally permissible.Efforts to justify torture are oftentimes accompanied by rejection of any adverse physical condition effects of the selected torture methods used by interrogators.The ti cking bomb scenario makes for great philosophical dialogue, but it rarely arises in real life, at least not in a way that avoids opening the door to persistent torture. In fact, interrogators hardly ever learn that a suspect in custody knows of a particular, impending terrorist bombing. wisdom and information is rarely if ever good bountiful to display a particular suspects knowledge of an imminent attack. Instead, interrogators tend to use inferred evidence to show such knowledge, such as someones relationship with or apparent membership in a terrorist group. Moreover, the ticking bomb scenario is a riskinessously expansive metaphor capable of embracing anyone who might have knowledge not just of imminent attacks but also of attacks at undetermined future times. After all, wherefore are the victims of only an imminent terrorist attack deserving of protection by torture and mistreatment? Why not also use such coercion to prevent a terrorist attack tomorrow or next week or next year? And once the taboo against torture and mistreatment is broken, why stop with the alleged terrorists themselves? Why not also torture and abuse their families or associates or anyone who might provide lifesaving information?Dershowitzs arguments were faulted by Saul (2004659) for various reasons which include the threshold of suspicion whereby it is unfeasible for law enforcement officials or judges to know with any legally acceptable height of conviction that the suspect actually possesses the intelligence and information, or whether the suspect is in anyway involved with a terrorist activity. Dershowitzs standard of probable cause is much lesser than the benchmark of evidence essential in a criminal case which requires that you can proof beyond reasonable doubt and more relaxed than the civil benchmark that is based on the balance of possibility. This means that a person may be tortured because of unproven evidence which still poses a risk that countless innocent people will be tortured. Saul (2004659) notes that the uncomfortable probability of collateral damage is poorly dealt with by Dershowitz.Officials are faced with multiple unknown variables, including the existence of a bomb, interval of bomb explosions, the chances of neutralizing it, the identity of the terrorist suspect, the probability of the suspect being knowledgeable about the explosion, and the truthfulness intelligence gather from the suspect. Speculation, guesswork, and supposition will unavoidably play a part in law enforcement conceptions at every level due to the fact that accuracy of the information is not certain.The Geneva Convention IV (art3 (1)(a), for example, require that a person be definitely suspected of threatening State security before exceptional powers can be implemented. Saul (20041) believes that the border for error drastically multiplies in the pre-trial phase, where any available evidence is imperfect and unproven. The atmosphere of tragedy and emergency contac t the incident may encourage errors, inaccuracy or dependence on weak evidence, by law enforcement agencies and courts under pressure which may eventually produce sham results.Another major fault noted by Saul(20041) is the threshold of anticipated harm in which he seeks to question how many lives justify torture. Dershowitz limits his torture warrant proposal to the much-fantasized ticking bomb scenario. But he still acknowledges that very rare cases of actual ticking bomb scenarios have ever taken place. Benvenist(1997) evaluate to give a concrete Israeli example, but the harm averted was the prevention of the killing of a single kidnapped Israeli soldier which is not even close to the exemplary ticking bomb case hyperbolically referred to by Dershowitz as involving the prevention of thousands civilian deaths.Apart from trying to prevent thousands of deaths, Dershowitz provides few parameters for the ticking bomb scenario. How dangerous must a bomb be before torture is justifiab le? Does it only refer to weapons of mass destruction, or also conventional weapons? Is the danger supposed to be quantified by the number of lives threatened as Dershowitz appears to suggest? If so, how many thousands must be at risk before torture should proceed, and why is it thousands rather than hundreds of people, or less? What if the bomb causes major economic loss, but does not actually kill people? It is certainly very difficult to disclose a ticking bomb scenario or to place limits on the utilitarian calculation necessarily involved in torturing one to save many. The Isreali positive Court (1999) noted that the so called necessity defence could not be justified and prohibition of Torture is absolute and there is no room for balancing. Dershowitzs argument is built largely on faith that forcing torture into the open would reduce its use.Furthermore, given the decentralized nature of modern terrorism, it might be possible for law enforcement agents to dispute or conclude t hat every suspected terrorist act can be likened to ticking bomb, thereby justifying widespread preventive torture. A terrorist is likely to brand any location, within an unknown time interval, causing an indefinite number of casualties. There has not been any particular set of rules guarding issue of torture warrants to immediate ticking bomb scenarios. Torture warrants is open to flexible interpretation of the probable and expected harm to be done by the strike of terrorist suspects. Dershowitz also appears to emphasize that the consent of a democratic public are relevant to the justifiability of torture in a particular case and that torture should not be command out universally. In reality, we can say that torture has not been seen to give excellent intelligence and results. This would be discussed in the next section.RESULT OF TORTURING TERRORISTS IN RECENT TIMESThe issue of the efficiency of torture is complicated to conclude, since there are minute consistent and trustworthy facts accessible on the number of terrorists that have been tortured and of this number, how many offered information or intelligence that was subsequently useful in preventing deaths and a greater evil or gratifying the reason for conducting the interrogation. As a result of this we can say that torture has done more harm than good and its outcome over time has not been tangible enough to justify it.Payes and Mazzetti (2004A1) reported that in July 2004, an Army investigation of detainee operations in Iraq and Afghanistan exposed ninety-four cases of alleged abuse, as well as ixl deaths in U.S. detention. Twenty of the deaths were suspected homicides. The military was reported to have probed into, fifty-eight deaths in Iraq, which comprising nine cases of justifiable homicide, seven homicides, and twenty-one deaths from natural or undetermined causes. In one case of a detainee death, several soldiers have been charged with abuse rather than homicide due to inadequate evidence. I n a diametrical case, two soldiers were charged with intended murder. (Eric Schmitt, 2004A7). He also reports that a Navy SEAL, whose identity has not been released, is being court-marshalled in connection with the beating of Manadel Jamadi, who was later killed, allegedly by CIA interrogators, in Abu Ghraib (and who was photo-graphed there, packed in ice).Realistically, the abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib, Baghram, and Guantanamo pale by comparison with the death, maiming, and suffering in collateral damage during the Afghan and Iraq wars. Bombs crush limbs and hit the ceiling peoples faces off nothing even remotely as horrifying has been reported in American prisoner abuse cases. Yet as much as we may regret or in some cases decry the wartime suffering of innocents, we do not seem to regard it with the special abhorrence that we do torture (Luban 20055)Accounts have been given according to Wall Street Journal (2005 A16) which accuses United States interrogators to have used va rious interrogative techniques ranging from water boarding which was agreed to be most coercive technique ever actually authorised by U.S officials involves the submerging of victims face in water or wrapping it in a wet towel stirring up drowning feelings.Luban (200512) sees the principal scenery for torture to always be military triumph. In which the conqueror captures the enemy and tortures him. Torture to an narrow state as he is noted is not only to get and an extract information and intelligence but also to humiliate the loser, to terrorize the victim to submission and to punish the suspect. Whereas Torture to a liberal state is a tool used to gather or extract information and intelligence from a suspect who has refused to disclose information. This may seem to be the same with torture used by an illiberal state to extract exculpation but the fundamental variation lies in the reality that confession is retrospective as it concentrates on acts of the past while intelligence g athering is futuristic as it aims to gain information to avert prospect evils.Moreover, coercive interrogation creates a less safe environment by effectively preventing criminal prosecution of the detainees. Once a confession is gotten forcefully, it becomes extremely difficult to prove, as due process requires, that a subsequent prosecution of the suspect is free of coercion. As a result, Jehl(2005) believes that the Bush administration finds itself belongings some suspects who clearly have joined terrorist conspiracies and might have been criminally convicted and subjected to long prison terms, but against whom prosecution has become unfeasible. In February 2005, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began to worry openly about the problem. What happens, it worried, when continuing to detain suspects without trial becomes politically untenable, but prosecuting them is legally impossible because of taint from coercive interrogation?slippy slope arguments also address the wider imp lications of justifying torture. They are concerned with the gap between theory and practice arguing that the theoretical limits imposed upon the use of torture would never work in practice. It is well documented that torture spreads from one class of prisoner to others, from one type of treatment to harsher types, and from one emergency situation to fleck use. (Shue, 1978 141 Saul, 2005 3 Pfiffner, 2005 21)The Israeli experience demonstrates these dangers. In 1987, the Landau Commission advised that coercive interrogation of Palestinian terror suspects should be legalised in extreme cases. For moderate physical pressure to be used the interrogators would have to demonstrate a necessity such as a ticking bomb situation. (BTselem, 2006) However, by 1999, the evidence that this control was being abused had become so overwhelming that the practice was outlawed by the Supreme Court. (Bowden, 2003) It was estimated that during this period 66% to 85% of all Palestinian suspects were mi streat and that in many cases this amounted to torture. Supposed ticking bomb cases were pursued on weekdays but were not severe enough to warrant weekend interrogation torture had become routine, systematic, and institutionalized (BTselem, 2006). Though returning to a complete ban, the legal repercussions for potential torturers are able to act as a deterrent.Another consequence that is little considered is the impact that becoming a torturer would have on the individual responsible. Torture is not possible without the brutalisation of the torturer you must lose your soul if you are to save the victims. (Pfiffner, 2005 20 Meyer, 2005) To torture requires us to overcome our socially conditioned abhorrence of violence and to accept the psychological repercussions. Shue argues that torture carries a much greater moral stigma (and therefore requires greater brutalisation) than killing in war, for example, as it constitutes an act of violence against an entirely defenceless being. (Shue , 1978 130) The argument for legally sanctioned torture in some situations overlooks the secondary source of suffering it requires the harmful psychological and social consequences endured by people who must train in and practice torture. To require this of someone is morally very problematic.A further adverse consequence of allowing torture in some cases is the impact it would have upon the judicial system. The US has experience this problem in relation to its practice of extraordinary rendition. Secretly sending suspects for interrogation in countries known to use torture may occasionally provide useful information but torture evidence cannot be used in any reputable court. US government refusal to allow some of its prisoners to try in criminal trials has led many to believe that the US is hiding the evidence of torture. As a result, the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in relation to the 9/11 attacks was stalled for four years and, in 2004, Mounir Motassadeq, the first person to be convicted of planning the attacks, had his sentence overturned because the allowable evidence against him was too weak. (Meyer, 2005)CONCLUSIONDorfman(2004 17) expressed his opinion by saying I can only pray that humanity will have the courage to say no, no to torture, no to torture under any circumstance, no to torture no matter who the enemy, what the accusation what sort of fear we habor, no to torture, no matter what kind of threat is posed to our safety, no to torture anytime, anywhere, no to torturing anyone- no to torture.Torturing terrorists is a cruelty in which many prefer not to be faced with in the media. close to will counter it, some will openly justify it, and others will secretly go along with it providing that it is not sadistic and serves a useful, although unheralded, early-warning function in the war on terrorism. Those arguing for the justification of torture on terrorist suspects say it has helped prevent attacks. This cannot be asserted as evidence is unreli able and subjectively incompleteIn all likelihood, Dershowitzs proposals will remain only proposals and Allhoffs arguments, as convincing as they seem, will not change existing laws. If Deshowitzs proposal works, then judges would oversee the permission to torture while politicians pick judges. If politicians accept torture, judges would accept as well. Though we cannot be sure of the accurate motivation of the terrorists, one thing we know for sure is that violations of human rights and gathering of information through torture will not extinguish the threat they pose. Justifying torture is just replace a respect for human dignity with an accommodating, excusatory retort to abuse.The ticking bomb case provides perhaps the most convincing justification for torture that we have, the wearing away of the torture prohibition that could be caused by justifying and legalising the practice, and the slippery slope from exceptional to routine use of torture, would have very wide implicatio ns and could lead to the torture of many individuals across the world. There would undoubtedly be innocent victims faced with long-term suffering as a result, and these victims would include those required to carry out torture. Further, the use of torture makes it impossible to use any evidence collected in a criminal trial and the US has already begun to see key suspects being acquitted as a result.These arguments lead me to believe that torture is unjustifiable, even in extreme cases. However, because the immediate choice is so difficult and because the person devising it is possesses human emotions and instincts, I would not absolutely condemn the decision to torture provided it was made in an emergency situation and with the correct intention. To make prior judgment that torture is justified in some circumstances is dangerous and wrong torture must be prosecuted as a crime wherever it occurs. However, it is also important to recognize the mitigating circumstances when it occur s.

Principle of Separate Legal Personality

Principle of recognize Legal PersonalityPrinciple of Separate Legal PersonalitySeparate Legal Personality ideal developed in Comp all Law, relating to the legal status between a Company Limited by Shares and its professers. The Principle was first accepted in Salomon v Salomon, a landmark case which is often considered to find established one of the most important principles within Company Law A Company is a distinct legal personality from that of its owners. Because of this Separate Legal Personality is also known as the Salomon Principle.The appropriate entity doctrine (that the company is an entity separate to its shareholders) established rattling early in Salomons case (Salomon v Salomon Co 1897 AC 22).Each regular individual has a licit identity, importance it holds rights, commitments and obligations. At the depute when a Company is consolidated, that is enrolled in the Companies Office and issued with a Certificate of Incorporation it excessively has a legitimate iden tity. However a Company cant train all alone, obliging human intercession to direct business for its sake. The guideline of Separate Legal Personality builds that a Company has logical rights and commitments that are anomalous and separate from its part (holders/shareholders). Moreover the benefits and obligations of a Company Limited by Shares have a place solely to the Company and its parts cant be sought after as by and by obligated for the activities of the Company. This division of the Company from its parts is known as the Veil of Incorporation.ExampleThe guideline of Separate Legal Entity can been seen in play in the late Irish case Quigley Meats. The Plaintiffs for this situation (the Quigleys) supplied the Defendants with meat seduce for their restaurant. The Quigleys were of the feeling that they were managing the Defendants by and by, however instalments for produce were constantly made to the Quigleys from a Company account. The Defendants got into some money relate d trouble and quit paying the Quigleys for the produce. The Quigleys so chosen to seek after the Defendants done the Courts for the unpaid bills. The Court at first found for the Quigleys requesting the Defendants to pay the obligation of 26,000. However the respondents advanced contending that they couldnt be dis screen doored by and by at adventure as the obligation was for their Company to pay. The High Court concurred with the Defendants because when they did pay the Quigleys they had paid with checks which had the Companys name printed on them, in this manner they should have realized that they were managing a restricted obligation plaque and non people. (Quigley Meats Ltd v. Hurley 2011 IEHC 192)Piercing the Corporate of VeilThe lodestar of institution law has remained the honesty of the different identity of the organization the unified vest might be prepareed in the most compelling of circumstances. The result is an absence of clarity in the exact lawful privileges of the shareholders and their connection with the governing body.When to fig outThe case law has showed that the courts are by and large hesitant to lift the somatic shroud. Yet, the points of confinement of a periodic choice of a court to lift the corporate shroud is not closed. It is, hence, hard to foresee the circumstances in which the courts will puncture the corporate shroud, and in that respect is by all accounts an inclination to regress the wheel each one time it is contended.Courts have approached veilpiercing cases in an ad hoc manner with underlying policy considerations in mind. As Rogers AJA support in BriggsvJamesHardieCoPtyLtdThe threshold problem arises from the fact that there is no common, unifying principle, which underlies the occasional decision of courts to pierce the corporate veil. Although an ad hoc explanation whitethorn be offered by a court which so decides, there is no principled approach to be derived from the authorities(Briggs v James Hardie Co Pty Ltd Ors (1989) 16 NSWLR 549 at 567)When deciding to disregard the separate legal personality principle Jenkinson-J, in DennisWilcoxPtyLtdvFederalCommissionerofTaxation, stated that a court should do so,only if they can see that there is, in fact or in law, a partnership between companies in a group, or that there is a mere sham or faade in which that company is playing a role, or that the creation or use of the company was designed to enable legal or fiduciary obligations to be evaded or a fraud to be perpetrated(Dennis Wilcox Pty Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 79 ALR 267)FraudThe corporate veil may be lifted where there has been an extortion or different break of the law. The extortion and sham rivalry alludes to the utilization of a partnership by the subdueler to avoid a lawful or guardian commitment, where the company is utilized as an issue to cover genuine commitments.As the Full Federal Court noted in Donnelly-v-Edelsten the contention of fraud is, obviously roundabout. It can unspoilt succeed if the contention of sham succeeds. On the off chance that an organization is a sham or veneer then it has fused only to mask the truth of its operations or dodge commitments. (Donnelly v Edelsten (1994) 13 ACSR 196 at 256)To penetrate the corporate shroud for misrepresentation, the organization must(prenominal) have the plan to utilize the corporate structure as a part of such a route as to deny the offended political party some for every current lawful right. All the more particularly, the organization is consequently used in a way to evade a lawful commitment. To be clear, it is for the most part reasonable to structure organizations to dodge a future risk, for instance in a hazardous business wander that may come up short, however courts may not permit an organization to be structured to abstain from performing a current legitimate obligation.In any case, such contentions can be scrutinized for dismissing the different diviso r guideline. Concerning a sham go-ahead, Windeyer J has held if an organization is appropriately joined and enlisted under the Corporations Act and the exceed possible records are kept in due structure and the recommended returns made, it keeps on existing as an issue magnetic core. In that sense it is a reality and not a sham. (Peate v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1964) 111 CLR 443 at 480)Group EnterpriseAny uniqueness from the standard of independent corporate identity is prone to be joined by a recession of constrained corporate obligation. This is, maybe, most clear in a corporate gathering structure.The gathering endeavour commonwealth incorporates circumstances in which a corporate gathering is acting in such a way as to make every individual substance vague and, consequently, the corporate cloak is lifted to treat the guardian organization as subject for the demonstrations of the auxiliary. Figures that show that two or more organizations were occupied with a gatheri ng venture include ( Ramsay, I. Piercing the Corporate Veil in Australia (2001) 19 CSLJ 250 at 257) in that respect is an element of partnership or group account statement presentObvious influence of control extending from the top of the corporate structureThe extent to which the companies were thought to be participating in a common enterprise with mutual advantagesThe relationship between the two companies is that of enhance and subsidiaryoverlapping directors, officers, and employees,One company in the structure acts as agent for the controlling entity andThere is an element of sham or facade present, that is, the corporate structure is used to evade legal or fiduciary obligations.As Rogers AJA affirmed in Briggs-v-James-Hardin--Co-Pt-Limited--Ors the recommendations that the corporate shroud may be penetrated where one organization activities complete command and control over an alternate is alto dragher excessively short-sighted. Rogers AJA went ahead to perceive that it is a business reality that a guardian organization as a rule does activity complete control over a backup, subsequently, uncovering the immanent blemish of a strict application of the different substance standard to corporate gathering. (BriggsvJamesHardieCoPtyLimitedOrs (1989) 16 NSWLR 549)Commits a TortIn spite of the fact that the courts have been more slanted to penetrate the corporate cover in contract claims, there are signs that courts are readied to lift the corporate cloak and make a guardian organization subject in connection to torts submitted by a gathering organization which includes(a)Cases of agency, partnership or trust between the subsidiary and parent company Briggs v James Hardie Co Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 549 Spreag v Paeson Pty Ltd (1990) 94 ALR 674(b)attribution of direct liability by reason of the parent company and subsidiary both(prenominal) owing a duty of care to the tort claimant according to the limiting tests of reasonable foreseeability and proximity, chiefly demonstrable by a level of actual control over day-to-day operations of the subsidiary (CSR Ltd V Wren (1998) Aust Tort Rep 81-461) akin to the subsidiary being a mere faade (James Hardie Co Ltd v Hall (1998) 43 NSWLR 554 at 579-584)Effects of Corporate Separate PersonalityTransferable SharesThe way that an organization is lawfully separate from its parts encourages the reciprocation of shares. The issue of shares is viewed as an issue method for raising capital for the organization (albeit littler brokers are regularly pulled in by the idea of fuse just as an issue to ensure themselves from potential boundless obligation). The trading of shares on the open market additionally prompts straightforwardness since it goes about as an impetus for memorial tablet to lead the business in a sensible way. This straightforwardness empowers more prominent investigation by pariahs of the organizations undertakings and diminishes the opportunity for deceitful conduct, along these lin es enhancing the attractiveness of the shares. It additionally implies that financial specialists have the capacity get the imperative data they require keeping in mind the end goal to assess the organization in advance entering into business exchanges. From the organizations perspective, on the other hand, this straightforwardness can regularly prompt divulgence of data that they would have liked to withhold and place them in a more helpless stick with contenders.Ownership of PropertyWhere an organization holds property in its name, this has a place singularly the organization and the shareholders have no restrictive rights (other than for the estimation of the shares they hold). This gives shareholders and workers more security than if a chief decided to leave his position and had the capacity authorize a deal and division of any organization property or resources he possessed. This position thusly makes the shareholders ventures more appealing and secure. Notwithstanding, this may be to the impediment of a merchant who possessed the organization property before joining yet neglected to accordingly dole out the protection approaches to the organization. This was delineated in Macaura v Northern Assurance Co wherein Mr Macaura had protected timber under his name and this was then decimated by a blaze. The insurance agency declined to pay out on Mr Macauras case, expressing that he had no insured enthusiasm toward the timber as it was claimed by the organization. In the same way, a guardian organization does not have an insurable enthusiasm toward its auxiliary organizations, stock-still where they are completely possessed by it.Distinct legal identityA standout amongst the most noteworthy impacts of corporate separate identity is that the organization carry a different character from that of its parts. Regardless of the fact that an organization is possessed by and large by one shareholder, the organization has a totally separate identity from that singl e person. This is affirmed by the main instance of Salomon v A. Salomon Co Ltd in which the House of Lords held that the organizations demonstrations were its demonstrations, not those of Mr Salomon by and by. As an issue, Mr Salomon was not loosely subject for his organizations obligations. It is important, then again, that the Court did perceive that there would be circumstances in which they would be arranged to move far from that standard and lift the cover of fuse and discover people subject where they had acted insincerely, deceitfully or irrationally.Limited LiabilityBecause of the way that the organization is a different lawful individual, it takes after that its parts wont for the most part be subject for its obligations and commitments. This gives the shareholders an erratic level of security, since it implies that they find themselves able to benefit from the accomplishments of the organization whilst being protected in the breeding that their individual risk is constr ained to the estimation of the shares they have obtained. On the other hand it ought to be noted that those parts who take part in the brass instrument of the organization wont essentially be secured from individual obligation. Also, the idea of restricted risk may not be alluring to potential loan bosses who may require extra security for their credit.Ability to sue and liability of be suedThe primary advantage to brokers of joining is the idea of restricted obligation on the other hand, this can demonstrate to the impairment of outsider lenders who enter into exchanges with the organization. Whilst the leasers will have the capacity to sue the organization itself, they will most likely be unable to recoup their cash if the organization is wiped out. It ought to be noted additionally that an organization has the capacity sue its debt holders for non-instalment. So it is a lawful person that can both sue and be sued.Problem with the Salomon PrincipleThe focal issue with the Salomo n rule is a moral one. It is the backwards of the second advantage, talked about instantly above, when seen from the viewpoint of individuals managing the organization from the outside. In the event that Aron Salomons property is secured, then individuals managing the organization have just got the organizations own particular resources accessible to them if the organization goes into indebtedness.This implies that an ambitious person in the position of Aron Salomon may give less mind and regard for the need to arrange genuinely and reasonably with outsiders on the grounds that the business visionary confronts no extraordinary individual danger of misfortune, past injured pride and the trust of a beneficial business (aside from what is said beneath in regards to fake exchanging). Thus, different shareholders in an organization bear no individual danger of misfortune if the organization falls flat in light of the fact that the constrained risk which is allowed by our organization law by definition confines their individual liabilities. When we include the greater part of this together, we land at a position whereby the whole providence is inhabited by organizations whose shareholders and administration bear a minimal immediate moral obligation or misfortune if those organizations ought to fall flat. The morals of that economy get to be faulty if nobody confronts the danger of open finished, individual misfortune.ConclusionThe impacts of corporate separate identity are expansive. An organization is viewed as an issue element in its own particular right and, in that capacity, its parts have constrained obligation for its obligations and commitments. The organization has the capacity own property in its own particular name and issue shares to raise capital. It has the capacity sue debt holders and likewise be sued by its leaders. At long last, a central normal for corporate separate identity is that of interminable progression, which brings about a continuation o f the organizations presence paying little respect to its parts.

life of US soldier :: essays research papers

The quality of life of the single soldiers in the Army is at an all time high. Never before has there been much(prenominal) an effort to increase the quality of life as we have had in the last few years. From 1998-1999 the army spent nearly $600 million in brand-new barracks construction or renovations to older barracks, building 30,000 1 + 1 spaces for junior enlisted. The command here at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center has also move to backup the permanent party soldiers in a 1 + 1 style of living nonetheless though current events have forced some changes. Today we ar finding fewer places that mollify have 4 per room or a common latrine for the floor. We have kitchens, laundry rooms with swooning access, and a decent day room. And while they are not always up to a standard we expect, its only because the soldiers that use them fail to keep them clean or take care of the equipment in them.Unfortunately despite all the changes to recent policies and the continuing improve ment in the barracks there are still several playing fields that I would like to see improved. In terms of our living areas the main issue is privacy and morale. The command does not abuse the use of inspections because they are a necessity, but they do not consider the fact that some jobs in the hospital operate on a 24 hour basis. For usage while working night shift you may wish to quietus from 1000 till 1600. Since there are shift workers who are home during the day, or people who come home for their lunch break you are forced to deal with loud music or yelling outside, not to mention traffic. tho worse then that, if there is a room inspection or furniture check, you also have to deal with people walking into your room, usually somewhat 1100-1400. Its obvious where the problem is with shift workers. This could be easily fixed by starting earlier such as at 0830-0900 or even just starting at 1000 while going to the night shift personnels rooms first. This would eliminate bein g disturbed during sleep time and still show that the command cares about the welfare and morale of its soldiers.When considering the quality of life of single soldiers, you must also look at programs offered to them. This area we also find to be lacking.

Special Education Reflection Essay example -- essays research papers

Running Head REFLECTION PAPERReflection PaperEn Tseh WangLehigh University peculiar(prenominal) Education 332 (Education and Inclusion of Individuals with Special Needs) has been enlightening for me as a secondary mathematics educator. In the beginning of the semester, my feelings towards spare program line were those of apathy and in esthesia. I now understand that my feelings were due to my drop of knowledge and my judgment based on stereotypes.I always knew that making fun of students with breeding disabilities was wrong. However, I never felt that inclusion of special education students in general education classes was plausible or made sense. I felt that special education students belonged in their own classrooms and that is why we have special education educators.As a prospective secondary mathematics educator, I felt that it was unfair that I would have special education students in my classes. I would rationalize my attitude by saying that I signed up to teach normal st udents, and that the special education students were non my problem or responsibility. I did not want to deal with them. I did not see them as individuals who seek meaning through learning.As a constructivist, my goal as an educator is to provide students with meaning by imparting knowledge. As I reflect on my feelings towards special education students, I ask myself why do I not see them in the same way. If they are students as well, why do I discriminate against them? Why is it, when I think about pedagogy students with learning disabilities, I get uncomfortable? It is due to my lack of knowledge of students with learning disabilities.It was not until I saw the movie (before our class) I Am surface-to-air missile, my thoughts about heap with learning disabilities started to change. The movie changed my perception that mentally challenged individuals are strange by nature because they do not seem to understand when people talk to them and is different from myself. The movie show ed me that they do comprehend information, have feelings as I do, and most importantly, that I have wrongly stereotyped their differences.This course not only gave me the knowledge I needed to understand students with learning disabilities, I was also able to empathize with these students through active participation in the sensitivity activities. Participating ... ...ities and that I have done a complete one-eighty in my view of these students. There was several times where I caught myself using the term retarded, in describing something that was unintelligent. I must understand that my advocacy towards this issue will only grow if I continue to find out more about learning disabilities, to watch what I say, and to be careful when trying to teach others to change their views.Overall, I must admit that I have been blessed from taking this course. I feel that I have grown throughout the course of the class, where I once stereotyped students with learning disabilities to understandin g students with disabilities. Many people judge and associate what they do not understand, and through that ignorance is birthed. I am thankful that I have taken this class as I have become sure of my ignorance and have a deeper understanding and acceptance of those with learning disabilities, inside and outside of the classroom.ReferencesTurnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M., Smith, S.J. (2004). Exceptional Lives Special Education in Todays Schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson Education.

Driving Under the Influence Essay -- Driving Safety, Drinking and Driv

Drunk driving is an issue that effects many race across our nation. People do non realize the affects alcohol can shed on the body and mind that slow decision making objet dart driving. This issue begins in the home. Children see their parents, or other adults figures, have a beer or a cocktail and get in the car. Thus, making it seem like it is pleasurable to drink and drive. One in three people will be involved in an alcohol-related crash in their lifetime (MADD). Driving under the cast is measured by a persons blood alcohol level (BAC). BAC is determined by the concentration of alcohol in the bloodstream. Individual counties and states have their own legal level on blood alcohol percentages that they measure a persons BAC to determine if they are intoxicated while stinkpot the wheel. Everywhere in the United States it is illegal to drive with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (DUI Foundation). Once an individual makes the decision to get behind the wheel after consuming alc ohol they are not only putting themselves at risk but the lives of other people on the road. After reviewing the Annual subject of the calcium DUI Management I was astonished to find that in 2008 there were a total of 214,811 DUI arrests (Annual Report). Of those 214,811 arrests I was sickened to find that 38,266 of the drivers were a second-offender (Annual Report). This means that these individuals have had iodine DUI arrest within the previous ten years. It is disheartening for me to discover that 26.4% of the reported 214,811 arrests are due to individuals who were second to fourth-offenders. California obviously has an issue with people who in reality do not give a second thought to getting behind the wheel of their cars after partaking ... ... a week teaching kids the dangers of alcohol and drugs, is not the answer. Let us not just teach children to say, NO to drugs and alcohol, but say No to drinking and driving. I would much rather have my children and their frien ds facial expression no then making the choice to get behind the wheel under the influence and harm themselves or cause injury to others. Works CitedDUI_2010_MIS_AR.pdf. California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). Web. 11 Dec.By. MADD - Statistics. MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Web. 11 Dec. 2010. By. MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Web. 11 Dec. 2010.Home National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Web. 11 Dec. 2010.DUI Foundation Educate & Prevent. Web. 11 Dec. 2010.Century Council. Learn the Facts. Www.centurycouncil.org. Web.Warner, Veronica. Alcohol. Questionnaire. Fresno, 2010.