Color Theory Essay Example for Free

Color Theory Essay Wonder Woman hated men when she first set off to the world from her home, Themyscira, but later understood that she was wrong in her initial assessment of men because she simply didn’t understand men. In Deborah Tannen’s essay, â€Å"Sex, Lies, and Conversation†, the often misunderstood forms of communication between men and women are explored. Gloria Steinem, American feminist who is a nationally recognized leader of the women’s liberation movement in the 1960’s and 1970’s, who expressed how she felt Wonder Woman is an exemplary model of what a feminist is. I believe Steinem would agree with many of Tannen’s views because they are rational, based on research and her essay is meant to bring the two genders to better understand one another. Steinem and Tannen both have the same goal; they both strive to find peace between men and women. Tannen discusses extensively in her essay about how if you understand that both men and women are raised in separate cultures, American man culture and American woman culture. An example of this would be how women place intimacy as the foundation of relationships, and talking as the cornerstone of relationships. The bonds between men can be as intense as women’s relationships, but they are founded less on talk and more on the activities they experience together. Both forms of communication are used to build bonds between peers but do so in different ways, and that’s a pattern that follows both cultures throughout â€Å"Sex, Lies and Conversation†. I believe that Steinem would agree that to have peace between the two sexes, there must be some sort of understanding of how the two sexes communicate with one another. Through that understanding, women would live far bette r lives in a world that seems dominated by men. Throughout her essay, Deborah Tannen is clearly explaining that the problem between the sexes is that there is much mistranslation but that it is reparable and she even goes to state â€Å"Once the problem is understood,  improvement comes naturally†. Her essay is something Gloria Steinem would agree on and possibly even recommend to members of her various organizations to help improve their relationship with the world around them. Wonder Woman’s values like self-reliance, peacefulness and esteem for human life are all values that Steinem believes that feminists are trying to introduce into the mainstream. Although Steinem focuses heavily on improving the lives on women, I believe she does that because women are at a disadvantage in today’s society and she’s looking to help bring equality between the sexes. The gap that only a few years separated women from men in society having equal opportunities and rights is slowly disappearing and I think its in large part due to the efforts of people like both Steinem and Tannen. People who are looking to both understand that although men and women are different, they should to be allowed access to the same opportunities. Steinem’s efforts to empower women correlates with Tannen’s effort to bring to light the need of a cross-cultural understanding between men and women because in the end, they just want to see improvement in communication. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to understand that Steinem would agree with Tannen’s attitude towards the failure of communication between the sexes. If people start to understand how to interpret how the two sexes communicate and educate themselves and others, The world would be a better place for everyone. Like Tannen says at the end of her essay, â€Å"like charity, successful cr oss-cultural communication should begin at home.†

recommendation essay :: essays research papers fc

Dear NCAA Executive Committee,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  My name is David Brown and I am the starting quarterback for the Nittany Lions here a Penn State University. I am writing to you on behalf of my fellow intercollegiate athletes, because I feel as though we are being used. Each year my Penn State teammates and I, as well as other high-profile college teams generate millions of dollars in revenue, yet we do not get paid for our services. Millions of dollars are made every year from food, drinks, tickets, and merchandise sales because of our strenuous work, not to mention the billions of dollars made from selling TV rights to our games to major networks. Intercollegiate sports are a big business in which the players are â€Å"slave laborers.† I am not suggesting that we be given an annual salary, but I feel that we should be given stipend or some financial assistance in addition to scholarship money. For the past few years many have argued that student-athletes should be thankful for their educational opportunities in college, including the cost of tuition, books, room and board (which would be around $17,000 here at Penn State). Many also argue that if we are paid for our performances, other college talents should be paid for their contributions to their schools. However, when one looks at the vast difference in the amounts of money that different groups bring in, it makes sense why we are resentful at the millions of dollars being made off of our sweat and tears. For instance my former teammate Larry Johnson put his heart and soul into playing for the past four years. His jerseys were sold for $50 each all year around, and he never saw a dime of that money. This is just one of the many examples of unfair compensation. Each year we are under enormous pressure to perform well in the classroom and in sports and I feel that if we were given a stipend it would help alleviate some of stress we go through. As college athletes we give up many freedoms. Going to parties, hanging out with friends, or relaxing is just a few of the activities that we are unable to take part in. One of the biggest freedoms we give up is being able to hold a part time job. Although the NCAA recently lifted the rule that stated â€Å"players are not allowed to hold jobs during their playing season,† it is nearly impossible for us to work.

Executive Power Concerning Essay

While the President has power under his right as the Commander- in- Chief, he is still subject to the interpretation of what is legally right based upon the laws of the Constitution. Such laws allow him the right to detain and try prisoners of war/ enemy combatants based upon military statutes and political authorizations. U.S. citizens hold certain civil liberties, one in particular being the right to know the charges brought against them in the event that they are detained for any crime. This civil liberty is commonly known as Habeas Corpus, and is extended to citizens who feel as though they have been wrongfully imprisoned. In times of constant conflict like todays War on Terror, one might wonder of the application of such rights to detained individuals. The title of President of the United States may mean reserved powers both appointed and implied but it does not mean exemption from constitutional separation of powers or complete subordination to the same. The President may hold the right to detain and try these prisoners, but he/she should not be allowed to abuse given powers by implementing means that will withhold the rights of Habeas Corpus whether the accused is a U.S. Citizen or not Habeas Corpus dates back to the early 14th century, debuting with the formalization of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. American colonist sought this act as a means to evade wrongful imprisonment by the British government, and due to the common suspension of this right, the early framers ensured that â€Å"The Privilege of the Wirt of Habeas Corpus† was incorporated into the Constitution, to include that such rights should not be suspended except in cases where Rebellion, Invasion or Public Safety requires it (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2012). Since then, habeas corpus writs have evolved in American tradition, dating to the Lincoln and  Roosevelt Presidency and as recent as the George W. Bush Presidency. Many texts even show how these Presidents regard the writ of habeas corpus, with the greater conflict of executive power against this right lying in the actions of President Bush and his stance on detaining captured enemy/suspected enemy combatants. Levin-Waldman (2012) illustrates the actions taken by earlier presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt, suggesting a trend in presidential abuse of power when it comes to suspending habeas corpus writs. During the Civil War, President Lincoln took action against the accused, John Merryman, by having union soldiers stop his petitioned writ from delivery to the federal Marshal. Later on during World War II, President Roosevelt convinced the Supreme Court to defer to his wishes in the case of â€Å"Hirabayashi v. United States in 1943†, under the stance that certain Japanese- Americans who frequently contact family in Japan â€Å"might constitute a security threat† to America during a time of war. Hirabayashi’s violation of the in place military curfew at the time, which was determined by the Supreme Court as a â€Å"legitimate defensive measure during a time of war† landed him in a position where his civil liberty to seek habeas corpus as an American citizen was ove rridden (Ch. 5.7). The trend of Presidential abuse of power concerning suspension of habeas corpus writs continues even to this day. As stated earlier, the ability to petition for habeas corpus is one of Americas basic civil liberties afforded to every citizen, but how does this apply to current situations that involve non-citizens? Take for example the case of Lakhdar Boumediene v. Bush, where the U.S. government classified Boumediene and five other Algerian detainees as enemy combatants in the war on terror (Ozey, 2008). They were subject to indefinite detention at the well-known U. S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. The men petitioned for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging violations of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause which the Courts initially ruled in their favor. But in the end, and thanks to the â€Å"Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA)† spearheaded by President Bush, their petition was revoked and the Courts ruling was overturned because the MCA eliminated the jurisdiction of the federal courts’ to hear habeas applications from detainees who have  been designated as enemy combatants (Ozey, 2008) further illustrating presidential influence in such situations. Classification as an enemy combatant is used continuously to evade allowing detainees access to petitioning for writs of habeas corpus. Calling to question how relevant this writ is to today’s current conflict involving American government and the war on terror. The war on terror is such a broad topic, but one key thing about it that points toward relevancy to habeas corpus rights is that these enemy combatants â€Å"are neither soldiers, as they are not fighting for a nation state† (Levin-Waldman, 2012). Therefore because of the broad scheme of this war, it has the potential to go on indefinitely and because â€Å"enemy proceedings† may be tailored to alleviate their uncommon potential to burden the executive at a time of ongoing military conflict† (Levin-Waldman, 2012), the implementation of habeas corpus would help weed out the innocent detainees from the true enemies of this country if it were allowed and not deterred by the President through acts like the MCA. Overall the interpretation of the Supreme Court regarding who is afforded this basic civil liberty based upon the events of today’s conflict will pay dividends as to how much power the President can exercise in future cases, but that is only if their interpretation is met with open-mindedness rather than be shut down at every turn. Levin-Waldman (2012) tells us that, foreign policy presidents have greater power than domestic policy presidents, and often Congress tends to defer to the President during foreign policy situations. However it is safe to say that the war on terror includes both foreign and domestic considerations, which were affected by the actions of terrorists in the September 11th attacks and numerous other events since then. So what should be done about granting habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants? Looking further into the real situation taking place with detainees at Guantanamo Bay as a result of the MCA, this question is met with much friction. In the Rasul v. Bush case, the Supreme Court interprets the law in a manner that asserted that â€Å"the habeas statute extends to non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo† further relating to Boumediene alleging violation of the Constitutions Due Process Clause (Ozey, 2008). But as  stated earlier, this ruling was overturned by President Bush’s master minded MCA, whose sole purpose is to overrule the opinion of Supreme Court in doing their due diligence to interpret the law. However agitated the situation becomes, one must consider the perspectives involving habeas corpus writs in society as it has evolved from conflicts less complicated than todays. These perspectives include the role of the President as Commander-in-Chief, the Congress in determining when habeas corpus can be suspended, the role of the Supreme Court in protecting these civil liberties and one’s own opinion living in a day and age where the war on terror has made it well into its 13th year. Concerning the Presidents Role, the issue becomes whether he is succeeding his power or not. Ward (1990) tells us that during the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, ignoring the Chief Justices request, by claiming that â€Å"more rogues than honest men find shelter under habeas corpus†. On the contrary, in today’s conflict Foley (2007) begs to differ in that more honest men suffer the suspicion of being affiliated with Al Qeda and other terrorist groups because of the broad scope of the War on Terror, and are detained permanently, rather than the government properly identifying accurate procedures to determine actual terrorist from innocent citizens (p. 1010). This type of dentition gets its justification from an additional measure set in place by President Bush called the â€Å"Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CRST)† (Floey, 2007) which leaves the mind to wonder, how many innocent so called enemy combatants are held at Guantanamo Bay without access to habeas corpus writs? Though it is not clearly stated in the Constitution who can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and it only states when it can be suspended (Turley, 2012, p. 5), Congresses role in suspending the writ has taken place a whopping three times in American history. Their involvement in determining when to suspend this basic American civil liberty took place in 1871 in South Carolina, in 1905 in the Philippines and during WWII in Hawaii, in varying cases that fell under the constitutional guidelines of rebellion, invasion and public safety (Turley, 2012, p. 6). This lack of participation is attributed to the limitations in the number of challenges a petitioner can  make due to recent statutory changes (Turley, 2012, p. 6), but during the times of involvement, Congress deferred to the President, making way for controversial procedures and increased detention of prisoners accused of affiliation with known American enemies. The Supreme Court on the other hand seems to have had their hands tied concerning the rights of these enemy combatants in relation to petitioning for writs of habeas corpus. Referring to the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case in 2006, the Supreme Court’s ruling in an effort to protect Hamdan’s civil liberty as an American citizen expressed that the â€Å"President’s establishment of military commissions violated the requirements of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 36(b) and the Geneva Convention’s Common Article 3† (Dealy, 2007, p. 1071). But in doing so, they have been held at bay in their efforts to protect not only detained citizens, but have also been unable to make strides toward ensuring the government applies fair rules in identifying actual enemy combatants due to deferment to the president by congress and implemented rules like the MCA and CRST. With all the facts regarding the rules of habeas corpus and how it has played out in American history, one’s personal opinion of the matter ultimately determines how they view the purpose of protecting basic civil liberties and national security in today’s society. My view of this entire matter is filled with much anger toward the current situation and treatment of detained suspected enemy combatants. I have served on three combat tours while in the Army, and have worked very closely with Kuwaiti and Afghani nationals. I had to learn the hard way that all of these people are not Al Qeda members/ supporters and also that not all of them are out to hurt America and its citizens. My initial bias and clouded judgment based upon what was feed to me through what I though was once a justified approach by my government caused me to enter into an aggressive and fearful correspondence with these people on my first two deployments. It was all about national security and American safety until I learned otherwise, but what truly changed my mind about this vision I owned was the continuous attacks America faced regardless of the constant detention of enemy combatants under the suspicion of being an enemy of America. Foley (2007) put it best when he said that â€Å"not only is there no need to sacrifice civil  liberties for security, but that sacrificing civil liberties actually threatens public safety† (p. 1021). Such is the case in the governments dated approach to granting habeas corpus to enemy combatants and the treatment of these detainees whether they are U. S. citizens or not, hence the continued and progressive battle faced by the country with enemy personnel to this day. The rules that govern this nation are not always clear cut, and the government at times does more good at distorting public views by acting in ways that benefits the points they are trying to make. Every level of government, based upon â€Å"separation of powers and checks and balances† (Levin-Waldman, 2012) has specified jobs regarding protecting American civil liberties and the national security as written in the Constitution. When it comes to protecting these points and its relevancy to habeas corpus, the struggle remains as to how the government will do so as it pertains to the conflicts America is engaged in today. The rights of detainees whether they are American citizens or not, have fallen short of being totally ignored by most citizens, but has had the full attention of executive power for many years concerning how long and for what reasons so called enemy combatants can be detained. Despite the fact that the president’s power to imprison such enemy combatants is justified by the Constitution, it has never and most certainly will never state that there should be a use of abuse of executive powers to justify suspension of habeas corpus rights to these detainees. Regardless of how executive power in regard to habeas corpus writs have evolved over the years, the President should not be able to succeed his/ her power by manipulating the system through implementing a series of well drafted acts to permanently deter from what is written and determined as law in The Constitution of the United States. References Dealy, J. D. (2007). Subordination of Powers: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 30(3), 1071. Foley, B. (2007). Guantanamo and Beyond: Dangers of Rigging the Rules. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(4), 1010-1021 Levin-Waldman, O. M. (2012). American Government. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Oyez. (2008). Boumediene v. Bush. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. (2012). Habeas Corpus. Columbia University Press. Retrieved from http://www.infoplease.com Turley, J. (2012). Habeas Corpus. The Heritage Guide to The Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org Ward, G. C. (1990). Lincoln Suspends Habeas Corpus [Series episode]. In K. Burns, The Civil War: Episode 1 – The Cause (1861). Retrieved from http://digital.films.com.

Use Of Nuclear Energy In Modern World - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 801 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/08/08 Category Energy Industry Essay Level High school Tags: Nuclear Energy Essay Did you like this example? Nuclear energy is form energy produced when Uranium nucelli are combined or fused to form one large atom that when its split into smaller atoms, produces energy that when harnessed is used in multiple sectors. The process of splitting the Uranium atoms is known as fission or fusion, and in the process, heat produced is used to create steam that is used to generate electricity. However, radioisotopes in non-stationary power reactors have been used in different sectors such as industries, medicine and scientific research, transport, food and agriculture and consumer products. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Use Of Nuclear Energy In Modern World" essay for you Create order Due to high demand of energy to support everchanging global transformation, human beings have invested heavily in the production of nuclear energy to solve and meet demands in day to day life. The use of nuclear energy has come with its advantages and disadvantages. First, the most popular use of nuclear energy is the generation of clean electricity which is now more preferred to other sources such as fossil fuel (coal and oil). Nuclear energy reactors produce energy that is harnessed to heat water to form steam that is used to run turbines to generate electricity. Fossil fuels are combusted to produce electricity and carbon dioxide and other gases that are major environmental pollutants (Petrescu, 2016). Secondly,   it generates a large amount of electric power compared to other sources such as hydroelectricity stations as it runs throughout the year and it is not affected by weather or climatic change. During dry weather seasons, hydroelectric production is affected by low water levels and only rises during   the rainy or wet seasons when water levels are high. Therefore, comparative generation of electric power in a nuclear energy reactor plant is relatively higher than that of the hydroelectric plant. Thirdly, nuclear energy has become a significant sector that has resulted in boosting most of the economies of the countries that uses nuclear power due to source energy. This boosts creativity, innovative and industrial capability of that particular state leading to high production of goods and services at lower cost, which in turn promotes the economy of a country. Energy independence reduces the cost of, therefore, favoring the economic growth of a nation (Kok,2017). Finally, the Uranium core used in the reactors is not full burnt up in the process of generation energy meaning it is capable of being re-used as compared to fossil fuel, that when burnt or combusted only produces energy and they cannot be re-used. It makes it a renewable source of energy that does not only generates clean energy but also, it is environmentally friendly by the used of transition technology produces zero waste. However, some disadvantages have come along with the use of nuclear energy that have adverse effects on mother nature and humans, because of the production uses radioactive elements. In case of a nuclear reactor accident, leakage of radioactive rays has devastating impact on the shrouding environment. For instance, cases of death have been reported in Chernobyl, Ukraine and Japan not mentioning disastrous environmental effects when a nuclear plant accident happened (Aoyama, 2016). The wasted produced are radioactive, and they are not environmentally friendly and may produces radiations that are harmful to life. To put up a nuclear energy plant requires high initial capital cost making it not accessible to most economies which makes it a disadvantage to use nuclear energy.   Generally, to establish a nuclear energy plant is one of the most expensive investments that an economy needs spend on the project (El-Emam,2015). This makes it not accessible to most of the countries and those who have been capable establish the reactors have experienced high cost of maintaining the nuclear plant reactor. When materials, whether solid, gas or liquid are used for an extended period in a nuclear energy reactor plant, is considered as radioactive waste when changed. This wastes that come from the nuclear reactor plant need to be safely disposed of or stored safely and conveniently recognizing dangers they pose to the environment and human life due to the high rate of radiative element that they produce. Scientific research has proven that exposure to radioactive waste can result in many health hazards which include cancer, down syndrome, defective on unborn children among other defects. Nuclear energy is a modern form of energy production that every state is thriving to achieve and establish a nuclear reactor plant to have a sustainable source of energy for its industrial and commercial uses. Many advantages come along with the use of nuclear power when it is properly harnessed and used property similarly; it is disastrous when it goes into the wrong way. Therefore, it is left at a state level to consider putting up a nuclear plant having analyzed its capability to establish and manage nuclear energy plant and cope up with dangers that come along with nuclear energy production