Child Beauty Pageants Essay Example for Free

Child Beauty Pageants Essay Sparkling tiaras, beautiful gowns, glamorous hair and make-up; One would believe that this would be every little girl’s dream. Unfortunately this dream often turns into a horrible nightmare. The popularity of child beauty pageants seems to be rising every year causing more and more controversy. There are many different views and concerns that people seem to have on these types of pageants. Many of them do not agree with children being forced to fulfill their parents dream by taking place in a beauty pageant. The history of beauty pageants became part of the American society around the 1920’s. They originated as a marketing tool in 1921 by an Atlantic City hotel owner who was trying to attract tourist. Since then, pageants have become a major event in the lives of Americans. The online article written by Kareen Nussbaum exclaims that it wasn’t until the 1960’s when child beauty pageants really began. Back then, child pageants consist of modeling sportswear, evening attire, dance, and talent. The judging was based on the individual’s looks, talent, poise, perfection, and level of confidence. Pageants were conducted at political, educational, and entertainment venues. Many were scholarships were being offered through pageants, and beneficial programs were being facilitated. The pageantry world helped introduced a face to the faceless troubles of racism, handicaps, and illnesses. Since that time, a lot in the pageant industry has changed. Nowadays, they are anything buy conservative. Beauty pageants, like the ones on the show Toddlers and Tiaras, are not about natural looks but are based on such superficial things such as who has the most make up and best tan. Parents have a major role in most child beauty pageants. There are very few children who participate in pageantry without their parents. They are the ones who provide the money and connection into the pageant world. Several families who start their child in beauty pageants have generations of competitors that include grandmas, mothers, kids, and grandkids. Many believe that the mothers of children that are involved in beauty pageants live vicariously through their children. Too often, pageant moms have only one thing on their mind and that is for their child to win! Having their own mother/parent as their role model, the child will most likely have that same kind of attitude causing many problems throughout their life. There are many other reasons why child beauty pageants are unnecessary in today’s society. As children, they are most likely forced into the beauty pageants. Being too young to say no, the parents take control. Beauty pageants also sexualize young girls too early. They are exposed and become familiar with â€Å"womanly† items such as padded bras, high heels, and make-up. Instead of acting like their own age, the little girls believe to think they are older than they really are. High heels aren’t made for small feet. They needlessly push the child’s weight forward causing lower back pain and hindering proper development of their feet. Sometimes younger girls are forced to wear heels outside of pageants, because their feet have grown in a way that makes wearing other shoes uncomfortable. Hairspray is the most common widely used product in child pageants. Unfortunately, too much hairspray can actually stunt growth. The Psychology Corner claims that it contains certain chemicals that act as hormone disruptors that could be harmful to the body, and is linked to stunted growth and even lung cancer! If child beauty pageants weren’t allowed, these kinds of troubles wouldn’t be so prevalent. Cognitive and emotional problems are probably the most dangerous problems that beauty pageants can cause. They are capable to leading to many different kinds of disorders that could ruin a child’s life. A 2007 report by the American Psychological Association found that the hypersexualization of young girls is strongly associated with eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression. Psychologists and psychiatrists largely agree that pageants reinforce negative female body image issues that result in eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia. Beauty competitions emphasize the barbie doll image of what a beauty queen should look like. The problem with having that image is that there is no way for a person to be able to look like that. Even 25 years ago, top models and beauty queens weighed only 8% less than the average woman, now they weigh 23% less according to the Oprah Winfrey Network. Although Zinzi Williams states that many of the beauty pageants take part in community service, delivering a social message and help in bringing up funds for charity, numerous of them are exaggerated and mess with a young child’s mind. For about fifty years, beauty pageants have been teaching children to behave as young adults rather than acting their own age. Rather than focusing primarily on the idea of competition, pageants for younger children should be created to concentrate on the child’s talent, intelligence, poise, and confidence. While there can be some positive aspects of children beauty pageants, the physical and mental health of the participants will only continue to exacerbate. Works Cited 5 Facts about Beauty Pageants. Oprah Winfrey Network. Harpo Productions, 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. Nussbaum, Kareen. Children and Beauty Pagaents. Beauty Pagaents. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. Toddlers and children beauty pageants – Risk factors for severe psychological turmoils. Psychology Corner. Psychology Corner, n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. Williams, Zinzi. Beauty Pageants and its Effects on Children. Purduecal. N.p., 6 Dec. 2010. Web. 3 Dec. 2012.

Jacques Lacan On Masochism Philosophy Essay

Jacques Lacan On Masochism Philosophy Essay A consideration of Lacans interpretation of the Oedipal complex will provide further support for the contention that homoeroticism is both internal to and disruptive of masculine identity. Lacan follows Freud in assigning a central role to the Oedipal complex and its relation to castration, but he articulates the phenomenon in terms of his understanding of the relationship between subject and signification. In Lacans account the subject finds his way to selfhood through the work of the signifying system. The subject does not employ the cultures signifying elements to construct an identity but finds itself in signification, spoken by the signifier. Given this relationship to signification, the subjects self, meaning and desire are articulated from the site of the Other. The externalised reference point for the subjects self-identity creates a gap, a loss, a lack, a sense of alienation at the heart of subjectivity. Forever trying to close the gap of subjectivity the subject is constant ly substituting objects for the phallus in an attempt to restore a fantastic wholeness that may never have been there in the first place. Although Lacan insists that the phallus is a pure and transcendent signifier, that it is neither an object nor an organ, but only a fantasy and an ideal he often describes the phallus using terms that evoke the penis. Also, his description of how the subject realises and overcomes the castrating, alienating loss that accompanies its entry into language establishes a strong equivocation, if not an identification, between the phallus and the penis. Although all subjects experience the alienation attending the entry into language and thus all subjects seek the phallus and its fantastic substitutes, the subject comes to realise something about where the phallus and is not, given that the Other is the source and site of desire. Given the desire of the Other for the subject, the subject comes to an awareness that the Other does not possess the phallus, but is searching for it; the desire of the Other creates a longing on the part of the subject to become the phallus for the Other. Although the structural terms of Lacans description are subject and Other, implying that any desiring other could come to be understood as lacking the phallus and requiring completion by and through the subject. Lacan exclusively describes the lacking Other as the lower-case other, or more precisely, the mother. Whereas neither the subject nor the Other have an official gendered identity when discussed in the most general terms, Lacans description of the symbolic order requires that desiring others be positioned in specific gendered roles so that the subject can imaginatively overcome its alienation. In fact, in order for the symbolic structure to operate on Lacans understanding the only answer to the ever-circulating lack generated by the self-alienation of signification that can serve to cover the gap in subjectivity is the Name-of- the-Father; there is no maternal or feminine equivalent. The actual father in a relation akin to that of the penis and the phallus is, of course, always a stand-in for the symbolic Father, a vague approximation of the figure that secures the Law and halts the flow of the chain of signification initiated by the desire and language of the Other. At the same time in an account similar to the admission that the phallus is the image of the penis where the actual father does not sufficiently approximate the symbolic Father, the subject is likely to succumb to psychosis, unable to find its moorings in the ever-flowing tide of language, unable to structure a stable self. Lacan identifies a number of ways in which the actual father can fail to resemble sufficiently or successfully the symbolic father. First, if the actual mother fails to treat the actual father as an authority figure, as a figure who could instantiate and enforce the Law, then the relationship to the symbolic Father will be marred. Second, if the actual fathers life is riven with failures to attain the achievements and successes culturally assigned to male subjects, then he will also falter in resembling the symbolic Father. Third, if the actual father is so overwhelmingly successful, establishes himself as such a close approximation to the symbolic Father, then he also presents a problem for the subject because the actual fathers inevitable weaknesses and flaws will appear that much more glaring and hypocritical in relation to the symbolic Father he almost exactly approximates. Given the multiple ways in which the actual father can fail to resemble the symbolic Father, given Lacans a dmission that the actual father is always an imposter for the symbolic Father, given his admission that even the symbolic Father is only a fantastic substitute for the phallus which is itself only an imaginary object, are we compelled to conclude that virtually all subjects must be psychotic to some degree or another? Regardless of how we answer this question, Lacans theoretical discourse reveals, at the very least, an attempt to secure a privileged function for paternal authority, a longing for the (f/F)ather to rescue the subject from the chaos, lack and loss that the (m)Others desire generates. In this way, although not explicitly acknowledged in these terms, Lacans theory of the subject betrays a desire for the father that Freudian discourse willingly admits. What is missing from this account of alienation, desire and the phallus is any explicit recognition that the subject could experience the father as the desiring other. The logic of the Lacanian structural order demonstrates why this must be ruled out as a possibility. On the one hand, if the father could be the other who desires the subject, then the father would be recognised as lacking the phallus in the same way that the mother does. In Lacans system, desire signals lack; if the father is (also) a site of lack then the symbolic order will collapse because the Name-of-the-Father exists precisely as an answer to the ever-present, ever circulating lack signified by the phallus. On the other hand, if the father is either the source of a homoerotic desire for the son or the object of the sons homoerotic desire, then, given the sexual order that Lacan assumes and the dominant fiction presupposes, the actual father is distanced from the symbolic Father because of the kind of sexual desir e circling around him. Insofar as homoerotic desire flows between the father and son, psychosis inevitably results i.e., homoeroticism makes the subjects achievement of a self impossible. At the same time, the subjects quest for an un-alienated sense of self is fuelled by a desire to rest secure in relation to the Father and the Fathers Law. The longing for selfhood is discursively represented by Lacan as a captivation with the (F/f)ather that both is and cannot be homoerotic. Freuds representation of normative masculinity can keep homoerotic desire discursively alive because it strives to make the objective facts of biology that institute the heterosexual and patriarchal organisation of desire and identity appear natural and inevitable. The boy will always choose the penis; the penis signifies maleness and implies heterosexual desire. Because Lacans account of subjectivity does not take anatomy as its foundation, it cannot admit the possibility of homoerotic desire into the realm of masculine identity without revealing the arbitrary resolution of the alienating effects of signification in favour of the heterosexual and patriarchal status quo. If the boy finds himself in a universe comprised solely of others, lack and desire, then there must be some mechanism for fixing the relationship between some others, some lacks and some desires, if the gendered and sexualised division of power is to be maintained. Taking Freuds thoughts on mourning and melancholia as her primary texts, Judith Butler argues in Gender Trouble that the lost, repressed, perpetually unacknowledged, eternally mourned object of homosexual desire is necessary to the consolidation of masculinity and that a strong sense of oppositionally defined gender identity serves to maintain the lost homosexual object through a constant gesture of disavowal. Butler also demonstrates through a close reading of Freud and Lacan on the Oedipal complex that the social prohibition on homosexuality is transformed by their texts into a heterosexual disposition that provides heterosexual desire with a natural rather than cultural origin. More importantly, however, Butler concludes her discussion of the relationship between heterosexual desire and the lost homosexual object with a consideration of the relationship between disavowed homoerotic desire and the construction of the female subject. The woman-as-object must be the sign that [the masculine subject] not only never felt homosexual desire, but never felt the grief over its loss. Indeed, the woman-as-sign must effectively displace and conceal that preheterosexual history in favour of one that consecrates a seamless heterosexuality. Butler contends that the construction of the woman as a sexual object and the repression of the homosexual substratum of masculinity are implicated. Given this mutual implication, it seems that tracing the figuration of homoerotic desire in representations of normative masculinity has the potential to alter the construction of womens relationship to sexuality and subjectivity. This section began with the suspicion that there might be sites in psychoanalytic theory, in addition to discussions of masochism, where the dominant fiction regarding masculine subjectivity could be unsettled. Through a discussion of both Freuds and Lacans understandings of the masochism and the Oedipal complex, I have sought to map one of these sites, to trace the presence of homoeroticism in psychoanalytic representations of masculinity, even where it is absent from the explicit terms of the discourse. Attending to this homoerotic substratum of normative masculinity provides three critical insights for the larger questions motivating the dissertation. First, based on this account of the relationship between normative masculinity and homoerotic desire, we can understand why masculinity resists being the object rather than the agent of the gaze. Where the masculine subject is exposed to the gaze, erotic desire is never far behind. When erotic desire envelops the male body, it often renders that body capable of homoerotic contemplation or at least suggests the possibility of homoerotic contemplation of the male body generally. Such a presentation of the male body brings to conscious attention the thin, if not discernible, line between normative and homoerotic masculinity. Castration, loss, lack, otherness, visibility; these are the characteristics that the dominant fiction attempts to exclude from its articulation of masculine subjectivity. What makes this task of exclusion, repression and displacement nearly impossible is the conjunction of masculinitys dependence on display for securing its privileged position and spectacles tendency for exposing the lack inherent in masculinity as well as the dependency of masculinity on the other to retain its ascendant position. Masochistic fantasies help to secure the venerable and desirable status of the paternal figure, but they do this at the cost of demonstrating the dependence of masculine subjectivity on the ever-receding, unattainable love of a masculine other. Phallic visual displays often serve to align the penis with the phallus, but they also function to expose the insufficient and paltry nature of the organ when placed alongside the imaginary ground of its significance. Narratives of womans nature as irredeemably and essentially castrated, as naturally and inevitably passive in relation to male (heterosexual) desire certainly constrict the cultural possibilities available to female subjects, but they often reveal the desperate anxiety to disavow the narcissistic, homoerotic dimensions of masculine subjectivity. Representation poses a dilemma for masculinity: the display of its power is both necessary for the justification of its privileges and an essential feature of its demise. Freud and Lacan have attempted to cover up the cracks inimical to their own enunciative function in order to secure an authoritative position for masculine subjectivity; like even the most masterful artists, however, the discursive elements exceed their progenitors; the device is, more often than not, in many ways laid bare. The dominant fiction of masculine power, privilege and plenitude is both more resilient and more vulnerable than it might at first appear. This can make a political project that depends on hermeneutic intervention as its primary strategy, like the one pursued here, seem astonishingly naÃÆ'Â ¯ve and refreshingly incisive in turn. As such a hermeneutically grounded vision of political change assumes, revelation of the dominant fictions fictional and political character can be accomplished only by a close examination of the fictions terms and structures. To state this claim in the terms of the material under consideration, perversion is intelligible and identifiable only in relation to the Oedipal drama; subversion is accomplished primarily through a diagnostic, symptomatic and internal critique of the dominant fiction. This is not an empirical claim about the veracity or universality of the Oedipal structure, but rather a methodological claim about how best to do the work of transfor ming the dominant fictions regarding masculinity, femininity, and subjectivity. The structuring and definitional terms of the prevailing discourse must often be taken as the starting points for any oppositional discourse, for the sake of intelligibility, legitimacy, credibility, authority. This strategy of close, but subversive, reading will continue to guide my interpretation of other representations of masculinity and the male body. The political work of reconfiguring cultural fantasies about the meaning of masculinity will depend, at least initially, on the ability to re-signify the features of the relevant hegemonic discourses. Without expecting a completely new narrative outside the reigning signifying practices, this perspective is informed by a belief in the possibility of variable narratives using the terms of the dominant signification system to disturb the hegemonic understanding of masculine identity. Whether such hope is fantastic or delusional will be demonstrated in pa rt by the analysis of the next chapter, but can ultimately be confirmed only by the fantasies and practices that such interpretive interventions instigate. 2,447 words

Business For the Glory of God | Book Review

Business For the Glory of God | Book Review For this assignment we are to read the book by W. Grudem, Business for the Glory of God: The Bibles Teaching on the Moral Goodness of Business. Mr. Grudem explores the Christian side of business which gives an elaborative explanation of what one might encounter. He clearly shows that in all the various aspects of business, which includes profit, ownership, money, lending, borrowing, and competition. Overall, the author clearly illustrates that people who work in the business world are generally made to feel guilty, because few people think instinctively of business as morally good in itself. (11). The main purpose of the book was to demonstrate that the various aspects of business activities are good and these good things will also bring glory to God. Book Review Business people are an imitation of Gods character by representing Him on earth through the approach of various business activities. Grudem reflects on each of the chapters categories, and clearly illustrates how each of the activities fall into these categories which represent a unique opportunity to bring Gods glory to the forefront: private ownership, productivity, employment, commercial transactions (selling and buying), profit, using money as means of exchange, producing inequalities in possessions, competition, borrowing and lending, and the reduction in the worlds poverty. In private ownership, this is where a person would imitate Gods sovereignty through the exercise of mankinds sovereignty over the creation. When a person cares for worldly possessions, Mr. Grudem makes an argument about people having the chance to imitate certain characteristics of God such as wisdom, knowledge, beauty, creativity, love for others, kindness, fairness, independence, freedom, exercise of will, blessedness (or joy), and so forth (20). When people have the desire to have their own things is not necessarily bad, but it is a representation of our overall desire to be ruler over things. The topic of private ownership also gives people the opportunity to do great things with their resources by sharing them with those who are in need so that others can see God in different ways. The word subdue in the book of Genesis implies to the greater good of human productivity. The main point to remember is that God expect for people to work hard at developing the world for Gods glory and for the sake of mankind. In reference to manufactured products, Mr. Grudem states, give us opportunity to praise God for anything we look at in the world around us (26). Typically, any item that is manufactured allows people to discover the wonders of Gods creation in the things that we have been able to make from the earth (27). When a person does productive work, this takes on the meaning of subduing the earth and it makes the resources of the earth useful for everyone. In reference to the rejections of Marxism, Mr. Grudem states, the Bible does not view it as evil for one person to hire another person and gain profit from that persons work (31). The Bible teaches us that employee to employer relationships are generally good and they are equally beneficial (Luke 3:14; 10:7; 1 Tim. 6:2). A relationship at the employment level can provide a context for mutual appreciation for the callings and pride of other people. The good of an employer can be easily seen by employees through hard work, and the opposite can be achieved from an employers perspective by issuing fair pay for a hard days work. Mr. Grudem made some observations about commercial transactions and he realized they has been a normal part of society since the very beginning (Lev. 25:14). The Bible teaches us that selling and buying are ethically right, because they both provided an opportunity for people to do great things for other people by providing the thing they need. People often imitat e God in places where they practice honesty, faithfulness to our commitments, fairness, and freedom of choice. (37). The use of money and profit are great, because they both entail that one has produced something beneficial to others who desire exchange. Not only is profit a clear indication that one is making efficient and great use of resources from God, but it also is encouraged in the teachings of Jesus Christ (Matt. 25:14-30). Money ultimately sets us apart from any animal kingdom, but in such a way as a tool, which makes voluntary exchanges more fair, less wasteful, and far more extensive (49). Money and profit can provide opportunities to glorify God by meeting our needs and those of others, providing charity, expanding our stewardship, and promoting the mission of the church throughout the world. Even though reading this book may seem as an unfamiliar language to most, Mr. Grudem illustrates how the inequality of possessions is fundamentally good and also pleasing to God. Passages in the Bible such as Luke 19:17, 19; 2 Corinthians 5:10 establish the fact of designed inequality, and many other passages from both the Old and the New Testaments. The author explains that inequalities are necessary in a world that requires a great variety of tasks to be done (52). In chapter 7, the author rejects arguments from a biblical perspective in favor of Christian communitarians, redistribution policies, and health and wealth teachings. The chapters about competition, borrowing and lending are basically a summary of the wealth producing topics. These chapters give an in-depth explanation about the good of competition, because it guides society in assigning jobs to those who are best suited for those jobs (62). In common business practices, competition can also decrease the prices of items over time, while in turn increasing the living standard for everyone. The author also notes that the Bible has no absolute prohibition on loans, but he also assumes them as a way of life. There have been many biblical discussions around loans, which focuses on the abuse and misuses of the process, not the actual establishment of the loan. There is a good rationale behind why charging interest is not only necessary for institutions jeopardizing the use of their money with others, but also how it can be reversed to help other people. Lastly, the goes on to discuss the necessity of moral goodness among the business people in an economy in order for things to operate more smoothly. This type of moral formation of a person would often lead to an overall greater respect for the dignity of mankind, and the increasing desire for their activities to bring not harm, but good to others while at the same time bringing glory to God. Mr. Grudem then goes on with an explanation at the very end of each chapter about how most business activities have great potential for misuse and wrongdoing because we live in a time occupied by entrepreneurs with a sinful nature. The sins of some people in business, however, should not make us assume all business activities are morally wrong. In my honest opinion, Mr. Grudem made great points about the abuses of business, and the ways in which we idolize success and money and become cordial by losing sight of the truth that everything belongs to God. The author continued to make comments throughout the course of the book on the concerns to balance the view, but the real wealth changing information comes from the fact that business practices can be glorifying to God. He also mentions in the text that we should not feel guilty about business, but we can take this as a stepping stone towards our common goals. The author explored the various topics that most business professionals have to deal with on a daily basis at work. He does an excellent explanation of the most common misconceptions about work and business, and then offers a way to look at everything from a different perspective. Mr. Grudem goes on to show how business is good and how it can be used to glorify God. Although this book was enjoyable and easy to read, this book was also very thought provoking and even life changing so to speak. I really could not find a bad point about the book and it was packed with plenty of insight about the moral nature of business. The thing I did not like was with his arguments, while most were very well written, are poorly supported with only a few bible verses and almost no logic whatsoever. In one section, he states that since Jesus gave laws on how employers should treat their employees, and God approves of hiring people and being an employer is good. On the other hand, he does not mention anything at all about the Sabbath, and this could cause someone to believe God also approves slavery. I honestly support keeping people gainfully employed, but some of the arguments in the book were lacking supporting facts. In conclusion, I truly enjoy reading this book and I would highly recommend it to any Christian who is working in the business world. I think the long term solution that the author proposes involves starting and maintaining a productive business organization. I think as these businesses are pursued to Gods glory, the positive effect of creating commerce and employment should also have a domino effect where the ability and the economic status of people should continue to prosper in ever-widening circles. Lastly, I feel this book does a great job of illustrating how everyday Christians can have a calling to business and in the midst of pursuing it; they can continue to glorify God, bless others and reflect His attributes. When it comes to money, work, finances and business, Ephesians 6:5-9 makes a great point when it states, Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. As slaves of Christ, do the will of God with all your heart. ; Work with enthusiasm, as though you were working for the Lord rather than for people. Remember that the Lord will reward each one of us for the good we do, whether we are slaves or free. Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Dont threaten them; remember, you both have the same Master in heaven, and he has no favorites.

School Construction: Wrong Decision :: Personal Narrative Argumentative Papers

School Construction: Wrong Decision My only ‘normal’ year of high school was my freshman year. I don’t know if any part of high school is normal, but the last three years for me were miserable. Those years were full of construction. Greeneville High School was built in 1950 and was in serious need of help. The town had to make a decision on what they wanted. They weren’t sure whether to build a brand new school in a new location or remodel and expand right where it is. They chose to rebuild and expand. That meant my last years there would be one big headache. I’m not saying the decision to leave the school in its existing location was wrong, but I do believe that no one really took into consideration the hassle it would cause. At the beginning of freshman year, the school system sent out surveys asking the parents what they thought of fixing up the school. Everyone in my town knew that something needed to be done years ago. I was surprised the building hadn’t collapsed already. You sat in class and looked outside through the cracks in the walls. Most of the town wanted to build a new school at a new site. It would help ease the overcrowding and parking conditions. They could build on at another location with no problem, as it became needed. That dream was shot down when the announcement came that the school would remain where it is. What happened? The two men that would pour money into the new school got to decide where the school went. (the men are not being named so no one is offended that may know them) They were afraid if the school moved from its existing site, the downtown area would lose money. These two men got to decide everything without considering the repercussion s. So with this decision, my high school years were forever changed.

Lab Report: Effect Pollution has on Water :: essays research papers

A. Question Being Addressed: The purpose of this research is to determine the relationship between pollution and water while the physical properties of water are held fixed. I am going to compare the â€Å"polluted† water with the purified water and see if it changed in anyway. For this experiment, I’m going to use water containing sand and oil to get â€Å"polluted† water. Also, I am going to use two methods of separation of substances, distillation to remove the oil, and filtration to remove the sand. Then I am going to use activated charcoal to remove any dissolved substances in the water. After that the water is purified. Independent Variable: Pollution Dependent Variable: Water Constant Variable: Physical Properties of Water Other constant variable include a graduated cylinder, 250 m beakers, pieces of filter paper, plastic spoons, a rubber band, washed fine sand and activated charcoal, plastic-foam cups. B. Hypothesis: â€Å"If the pollution is decreased then the water will decrease inversely because the removal of the pollutants from the liquid will affect some of water’s physical properties† C. Method and Procedure Materials: ï  ¶, Graduated cylinder ï  ¶, 4, 250 ml beakers ï  ¶, 2 plastic spoons ï  ¶, A small nail ï  ¶, 2, 8 oz. plastic-foam cups ï  ¶, 2 pieces of filter paper ï  ¶, Washed fine sand ï  ¶, Washed activated charcoal ï  ¶, Scissors, metric ruler, rubber band ï  ¶, â€Å"Polluted Water† Procedure 1. Measure 100ml of polluted water into a graduated cylinder and pour it into a beaker 2. Separate oil by pouring it into another beaker. Use a plastic spoon to remove the last bit. 3. Use the nail to pole 5 to 10 small holes in the bottom of the cup, and fit the filter paper in the inside bottom of the cup. 4. Set the cup inside another beaker, fill the cup with 2 cm. of wet sand. 5. Pour the polluted water and let it filter through. 6. Place 3 cm. of activated charcoal in an unused cup, pour the water and stir it with a spoon for about 1 minute. 7. Place a piece of filter paper on top of the cup and fasten it with a rubber band. 8. Let the water filter into a clean beaker. Method of Data Collection 1. Create a table-chart to record the observations 2. The color, clearness, odor, layers, solids and volume will be recorded in the chart for the water before treatment, after the oil separation, after the sand filtration and after the usage of charcoal.

Empiricism and Connie

Although Connie works hard to present the appearance of being a mature woman who is experienced with men, her encounter with Arnold reveals that this is only a performance. She has created an attractive adult persona through her clothing, hairstyle, and general behavior and gets the attention she desires from boys. But Connie confuses her ability to command attention from boys with her desire to actually have them pursue her in a sexual way.The love and romance evident in songs she listens to and images of pop culture that surround her are much different from the reality of adult sexuality. Although Connie does experiment with sexuality, such as when she goes into the alley with Eddie, she is fearful of actually becoming an adult. Arnold Friend takes her by force into adulthood, but this violent act represents a shift within Connie herself: the abandoning of childlike fantasy for the realities of being a mature woman.Although Connie works hard to present the appearance of being a mat ure woman who is experienced with men, her encounter with Arnold reveals that this is only a performance.She has created an attractive adult persona through her clothing, hairstyle, and general behavior and gets the attention she desires from boys. But Connie confuses her ability to command attention from boys with her desire to actually have them pursue her in a sexual way. The love and romance evident in songs she listens to and images of pop culture that surround her are much different from the reality of adult sexuality.

Hobbes` Rwandan Leviathan Essay

In 1994 the world publicity was shaken by the events in Rwanda, which later were written down in the history books as ‘Rwanda crisis’. According to the local sources, however, this tragedy had been rooted long before the indicated year, particularly it is reported to start in 1990. 1990 is marked by Uganda forces having invaded Rwanda. In addition, this was aggravated by the fact that two presidents of Burundi were assassinated. In order to get the more complete outlook on the situation before the crisis one should be aware that in 1994 (before the black day of the President of Rwanda, Habyarimana, killing) there were one million of displaced people in Rwanda constantly fleeing from the north of the country to the capital Kigali (1, 2006). Hence, to accommodate for all this vast mass a very huge refugee camp had been organized. After their President was killed these people rushed to the city to grab everything they could. As a result there were more than 300 000 deaths between 1990 and 1994, which prevents us from limiting the crisis to the year of 1994 only (1, 2006). But this was only a preface. In brief, the Rwanda crisis can be described as follows: â€Å"The lives of nearly a million people had been taken within 100 days in 1994, as extremist members of the Hutu majority turned on the Tutsi minority and moderate Hutus, vowing to exterminate the Tutsi and their influence on Rwandan society† (2, 1994:4). This massacre was stopped only when the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) threw down the acting genocidal government. Yet, that developed into another blood bath with over two million of Hutu refugees heading for Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda and Zaire (current the Democratic Republic of Congo), etc. Just five days from July 14 to 18, 1994 about 850,000 people crossed the border to Goma in eastern Zaire (2, 1994:5). Even today these to the great extent, innocent Hutus are deprived of basic human rights and numerous cases are known when their human rights have been abused by the RPF (that is now at the helm) and they were returned by force to their Motherland where they do not have any rights at all. The major part of the refugees fled out because of fear convinced (owning to Hutu Power propaganda) that the Tutsi were a â€Å"subhuman† race willing to enslave and extirpate the Hutu people. However, their genocidaires quickly took over the refugee camps. Instead of safety refugees found intimidation, starvation, tortures and death. International humanitarian organizations were powerless and forced to provide aid through the genocidaires or just leave hundreds of thousands of refugees in trouble and distress. The Rwanda crisis proved how unprepared was the international community to dealing with refugee crises that involved threats to peace and security in the world. What is more, the novel Rwandan government together with their allies from Zaire attacked and wiped the refugee camps off the face of the earth claiming that ‘the camps posed incredible and intolerable threat to Rwandan security’ (3, 2006). Thousands and thousands of refugees were killed. Thousands more fell victims to cholera that set in along with other contagious diseases (such as dysentery, malaria, etc. ) as a consequence of people’s exhaustion, lack of food and drinking water. One may suppose that the described above conflict and crises that follows may definitely be a vivid example of Hobbes’ ‘rational’ theory according to which every man lives in fear, as well as the father of rational philosophy did himself. Hobbes once mentioned: â€Å"Fear and I were born twins together† (4, 1996; I: 11). In his main theoretical work and his masterpiece, the Leviathan, Hobbes suggested that there are two methods of state formation: commonwealth by institution commonwealth by acquisition (4, 1996; XIX: 147). With regard to the former, Hobbes supposed that at the uprise of civilization, individuals existed in such state of nature, when life was a perpetual conflict in which men were one another’s enemies. Furthermore, different individuals had relatively equal power, thus being unable to guarantee actual personal security for themselves. As a result, due to such hostile environment, the individual, suffers â€Å"continued fear, and the danger of violent death † and a way of life that is â€Å"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short† (4, 1996, I: 12). Even more, â€Å"nature hath made men so equal in faculties of body and mind†¦Ã¢â‚¬  that no â€Å"man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he† (4, 1996, XVII: 118). In general, this may be regarded as a society without acting laws and authorities with â€Å"all man have a right to everything†, and situation when â€Å"no action can be unjust† (4, 1996, XVII: 118). Moreover, the described state of nature leads, according to Hobbes, to the condition of war – â€Å"war of all against all,† in which human constantly seeks to destroy each other in an incessant pursuit for power (4, 1996, XVII: 118). However, this is not the war we are used to denote with this word. It is rather a condition of awareness about enemies than the act of violence itself. Instead of promoting war, Hobbes emphasizes that war cannot bring any benefits or provide any additional security. His purpose is to convince the readers that ruling power would save people from those unnecessary perils caused by the state of nature. Hence, such unfavorable state of nature, as Hobbes puts it, should and will prompt individuals to organize a ‘civil state’ with a monopolistic sovereign on the head by means of force and coercion. Such monopoly with absolute power will be able to ensure to the individuals safety from other members of their society, as well as protect from external intrusion. Therefore, from the recognition of the necessity for social order and peace people consent to obey to the sovereign. (4, 1996; XVIII: 127). Therefore, it would be more accurate to consider Hobbes’s ‘war’ to be a kind of competition or contest not the real military operations involving victims and bloodshed. It can be compared even to the emulation between two men who want to attract some woman they both like. Moreover, the author of Leviathan himself drives us to this conclusion by the following words: â€Å"So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory† (4, 1996; XVII: 119). He explains this again by the human nature, namely its faults: â€Å"†¦ all men are by nature provided of notable magnifying glasses (that is their Passions and Self-love,) through which, every little payment appeareth a great grievance; but are destitute of those perspective glasses, (namely Moral and Civil Science,) to see a farre off the miseries that hang over them, and cannot without such payments be avoided. † From this point of view, it seems, to my mind, obvious, that Rwanda civil war is not the case of Hobbes’ ‘state of war’. For Hobbes seizure of power meant improvement of the living conditions of people, even more it was the only way of providing them. The best society organization, from his standpoint, was the commonwealth in the meaning â€Å"a multitude of people who together consent to a sovereign authority, established by contract to have absolute power over them all, for the purpose of providing peace and common defense† (4, 1996; XVII:124). As it has been mentioned, â€Å"the purpose of establishing a commonwealth is to escape the state of nature and to provide peace and the common defense of the people; the sovereign is responsible for ensuring this defense† (4, 1996; XVII: 124). Remarkably, that the so-called ‘sovereign’ should not necessarily be a single person – it (or ‘he’ as Hobbes uses denotes it) may be comprised of a group of people who purpose at a common aim. Moreover, the sovereign’s task is not limited to promoting safety of the people but according to Hobbes, it covers also promotion of economic well-being of the community, sufficient nutrition, etc. By the latter Hobbes implies â€Å"distribution of materials conducing to life : in concoction, or preparation, and (when concocted) in the conveyance of it, by convenient conduits, to the public use. † (4, 1996; XVII: 126). Furthermore, ruling from the fact that there is no such state that can fully supply itself with all necessary resources, as â€Å"there is no territory under the dominion of one commonwealth, (except it be of very vast extent,) produceth all the things needful for the maintenance of the whole body,† Hobbes supposes that the state will import goods or resources from other states through normal trade (4, 1996; XVIII: 137). Hence, as we can see the situation with Rwanda coup d’etat and Hobbes’ process ad goal of taking power are worlds apart. The same refers to the consequences. Whereas the latter should theoretically results in prosperity of the citizens, the former lead, in fact, to the numerous casualties, famine, etc. Furthermore, in Rwanda there was no realization of ‘rational choices’, rather it was the outburst of ethnic hostility than an effort to capture power in order to improve the welfare of the people. In addition, though Hobbes’ tenet primarily touches upon sovereignty established on the basis of agreement, the scientist maintains that sovereignty reached through acquisition i. e. force entails the same rights and obligations covered by the contract (also called ‘covenant’ or ‘social contract’, which is â€Å"the act of giving up certain natural rights and transferring them to someone else, on the condition that everyone else involved in making the contract also simultaneously gives up their rights. People agreeing to the contract retain only those rights over others that they are content for everyone else to retain over them†) (4, 1996; XVIII: 139). The only difference is the way in which the sovereign comes to power. If a sovereign comes to rule by institution he is supported because people fear each other. And, in contrast, if he comes to rule by acquisition he is supported because people are afraid of him himself, which does not goes apart with the theory of state of nature. Hence, in both cases, the people literally enjoy the same rights, whereas in Rwanda they were completely deprived of any rights. Nevertheless, for Hobbes the second method can be compared with slave-master relationships (without a slave having right to rebel), in Hobbes’s own words: â€Å"The master of the servant, is master also of all he hath; and may exact the use thereof; that is to say, of his goods, of his labour, of his servant, and of his children, as often as he shall think fit. For he holdeth his life of his master, by the covenant of obedience; that is, of owning, and authorizing whatsoever the master shall do. And in case the master, if he refuse, kill him, or cast him into bonds, or otherwise punish him for his disobedience, he is himself the author of the same, and cannot accuse him of injury† (4, 1996; XVIII: 141). David Gauthier also argues that â€Å"a servant is hardly involved in the decision making calculus of the master; instead the servant exists to carry out the former’s dictates† (5, 2000:114). Yet, on the Rwanda’s example, the people defended and rebelled against their genocidaires, thus, they refused to perform the role of servants presupposed by Hobbes. To sum up, the Rwanda crisis has nothing in common with possible transfer to Hobbes’ model of state organization. It was founded on the ethnic hostilities that caused in the long run change of ruling power. Moreover, the purpose of the new government, in my opinion, was not the welfare of the people and the country but mere revenge for years of oppression. What is more, the people, though proving to some extent their natural (in accordance with Hobbes) inclination to being enemies to each other, did not resign themselves to the fact that they should be obedient and humble servants but rebelled instead and fought until the last breath. Nevertheless, even if the conflict is motivated by not the ethnic animosity but the rational choice, I will not recommend Hobbes’ reform of the society organization. At first glance, the objective and functions of his Commonwealth seem to be very promising, for example, preserving the society, establishing an internal order or peace, defending that peace against external violence, etc so that after all individuals can live peaceably (4, 1996; XVIII:145). However, I do not believe in such Utopia as for me it is evident that Hobbes’ state has all features of what is considered or ca turn in future into the totalitarian state (recall those master-slave relationships, overall power of the sovereign, etc. ). Our history has already proven that this form of governing is not applicable and is out-of-date with regard to our world and our life. Whatever the conflicts are, and no matter what leaders come to the rule they should bear in mind that our future is democratic one and there is no place on the earth to dictators and totalitarianism. Bibliography 1. Rwanda the Great Genocide Debate. Retrieved from University of Dayton Library on February 14, 2006: http://www. udayton. edu/~rwanda/articles/genocide/noendinsight.html 2. Rwandan apocalypse by Chris McGreal in Goma, Ian Katz from Guardian, Saturday July 23, 1994, p. 4-6. 3. The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide 1959-1994, published by Hurst and Company Ltd, 1995. Retrieved on February 14, 2006 from: http://www. humanrightsfirst. org 4. Hobbes, Thomas (ed. ) Tuck, Richard â€Å"Leviathan†. Cambridge University Press, 1996 5. Gauthier, D. P. (2000). The Logic of the Leviathan: The Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 114-116.