Animal Testing is Unnecessary and Cruel Essay -- Animal Testing, Anima

Carrots the rabbit has been under experimentations for almost all of his life. He has to suffer so someone can wash his or her hair. The makers of Dove shampoo are probably going to shove shampoo down his throat his reaction to it. Even if the rabbit lives through the experiment, there still going to kill him to see what happened to his organs. If this were a human being experimented on, people would be mesmerized. Scientist are debating whether shoving shampoo down a rabbits throat is effective. Testing on animals is a highly disagreeable process that should not be allowed. An animal is a living thing and so is a human. They eat, sleep, and live their life. Animals have rights. Why is it allowed that animals have to suffer so a human can use Windex? It has been proven that animals are s...

Differences Between Capitalism And Marxism

In the wake of the current – and unprecedented – economic recession being felt not only across the United States but also the world over, it merits noting that the once-sound structures of modern economies are, more and more, being placed under the lenses of theoretical review and scrutiny. Concretely, there are those who seek to inquire – notwithstanding the risks of proffering politically unwelcome ideas about the current crisis – whether or not the world’s unqualified embrace of the principles of Capitalism has reached its limits, if not has finally backfired.Anthony Faiola for instance contends that the American â€Å"hands-off† – read: deregulated – style of handling its market economy is the sufficient explanation to the range of its present economic problems (2008, p. A01). Faiola’s review, more than anything else, should invite people to seriously question the structure of modern economies which has been in place for the longest time.In view of such felt need, what this paper attempts to do is to bring into the fore the contrasting themes of Capitalism and Marxist Socialism, in the hope of gleaning from such juxtaposition certain insights as to which economic structure best addresses the present crisis haunting the affairs of world economies in the present and in the near future. Differences between Capitalism and Marxism Capitalism is catchall term which pertains to the conduct of market economies marked by adherence to the laws of free trade and private operation.Under such scheme, private individuals act as the primary controllers of the prices of goods and services within a given economy; albeit, such control is confirmed by laws that stipulate the parameters and range of the conduct of free trade. Capitalism is thus a principle of economic affairs. And any country can adapt such principles according to its exigencies and needs, depending on which expression of Capitalist approach would benefit the people in the process.For as long as an economy subscribes to the fundamental affirmation of a private citizen’s right to freely conduct the nature, type and scope of his or her business affairs, such structure must be deemed an expression of Capitalism. Key to understanding Capitalism, as indeed any type of market economy, lies in identifying the locus of control being exercised between the private citizens on the one hand and the State regulators on the other hand. In a Capitalist economic structure, the locus of control leans towards the side of the private citizens.This is because private citizens have a right to dictate on the forces of the market economy according to their desire – e. g. , they can decide outright on the amount of the goods and services which they want to produce, inasmuch as they can demand the correlative prices which shall be exacted in view of the volume of their production. Conversely, the State does not enjoy significant latitud e in determining the prices of goods and services under the Capitalist model.While they can frame limits in respect to fair trade, it nevertheless cannot directly interfere with the more intricate details of a market economy, such as those that pertain to the determination of prices and volumes of goods. In a manner of speaking therefore, any market economy which operates under the banner of Capitalist foundation appears to operate a world of its own. Samuelson and Nordhaus, in evaluating the merits of Adam’s Smiths The Wealth of the Nations, have this to say:But of all his (Smith’s) contributions to economic analysis, the boldest was his recognition that the market mechanism is a self-regulating natural order that the price system organizes the behavior of people and does so in an automatic fashion without central direction. (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 1989, p. 824). In other words, most Capitalist economies operate under the a scheme where private individuals are free to take in as much as they want, so long as their efforts and resources permit. By way of contrast, the Marxist economic model – which too often is called Socialism – takes cue from Marx’s criticisms of unregulated Capitalism.It should be pointed out however that Marx’s critical take of Capitalism stems largely from his embrace of socialist ideologies. Early on in life, germinal seeds of anti-Capitalist leanings have already peppered much of Marx’s writings. Chief to his contentions lies in his belief that human persons are creatures necessarily called towards greater societal function. Says Marx: â€Å"man’s nature makes it possible for him to reach his fulfillment only by working for the perfection and welfare of his society† (as qtd.in Giddens 1).This is his basic ethical principle; i. e. , that persons are measured by how well they contribute to the wellbeing of society. And by putting higher premium than most on the welfare of the s ociety over the capricious desires of the individuals, Marx had therefore set the record straight about his stance on economics. According to Marx, the most viable way by which the world can ensure communal progress lies in the adoption of the communist ideals.This entails implementing a radical form of socialism – i. e., where private control is supplanted by State bureaucracy, where the right to own is overtaken by the State’s prerogative to allocate resources, as indeed where individual welfare is taken secondary only to the welfare of the majority (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 1989, p. 833). Marx further believes that this type of socialism must give way to Communism, where not only all productive individuals are considered as rightful citizens of a country, but all people – including those â€Å"which do not exist for a political economy† such as beggars, thieves, the unemployed and the underprivileged – are made to share the fruits of the economy (G iddens 10).By Way of Conclusion: A Path that Treads in Between Having presented thus the theories of Capitalism and the socialist ethics of Marx, it behooves us to therefore inquire – now that most Capitalist economies are at the brink of recession, if not already in a state of recession, which economic paradigm best represents the solution to our problem: Capitalism or Communism? I believe that the answer lies in how well our world governments are able to integrate the reasoned premises of Capitalism with the moderate truths espoused by Communism.Put in simpler terms, I believe that there is a wisdom that lays in taking both theories in moderation. On the one hand, the world needs to acknowledge that an unregulated type of Capitalism is bad for the country. This is what, in part, Fiola has in article contended. The extremely liberal conduct of economics, so much so that world governments are left in no position to regulate much of the affairs of a market economy, would end u p wholly unmanageable in the long run.The recent turn of events is a witness to this. The fact that many private companies are seeking for bailout only goes to show that government intervention is needed, not only in times when privately-owned companies are at the brink of collapse, but also in times when it is expansive and prolific. In this way, world governments can check whether the principles of free trade are translated into beneficial returns for all citizens.On the other hand, it is certainly not wise to adopt, in its entirety, the principles of Communism. Surely, governments cannot take over all private ownerships in a manner being radical and swift. Given that the operation of market economy is fueled by free trade, any hostile takeover would spell doom for all the constituents of a given country. Instead, world governments must learn that liberal trade does not give private citizens full and inviolable right to determine all the forces of a given economy.What this present economic turmoil teaches is summed in the idea that leaving private citizens to conduct all areas of the economy by themselves cannot serve the best interest of the society. Thus, there are reasons to think that what is needed right now is to correct the extremely liberal principles of Capitalism, by giving world governments greater latitude to regulate free trade in a manner that serves greater interests well.

A Framework for Thinking Ethically Essay

The article â€Å"A Framework for Thinking Ethically† analyzes the main concept of ethics. The authors explores the arguments of what ethics is and what ethic is not, why ethics is important, five sources of ethical standards, and advises a 10-step framework for making ethical decisions. First, this article helps identify what ethics is not. It points out that ethics is not based on the law and culturally accepted norms; it is neither religion nor a science; and it is not the same as peoples’ feelings. Moreover, the authors describe that many philosophers and ethicists around the world proposed five sources of ethical standards to help understand what ethics are based on. Secondly, the article identified the following five sources of ethical standards: the Utilitarian Approach, the Rights Approach, the Fairness or Justice Approach, the Common Good Approach, and the Virtue Approach. The authors state that using these five approaches helps peoples define what standards of behavior can be considered ethical. Once one puts all these approaches together, there are still problems to be solved. One of the problems is that it is almost impossible to agree to the same set of human and civil rights, and another is that the approaches to ethical behavior do not have the same explanation for particularly difficult situations. Finally, the authors recommend a 10-step process for making the ethical decision. This 10-step process include five activities; 1) Recognize the Ethical Issue, 2) Get the Facts, 3) Evaluate Alternative Actions, 4) Make a Decision and Test it, and 5) Act and Reflect on the outcome. Step 1 and 2 ask to consider the impact and repercussions of the decision. Step 3-5 stress getting all relevant information. Step 6 asks to evaluate the dilemma based on the different approaches. Step 7-8 forces to choose the best approach, and look at it objectively. Finally, Steps 9-10 urge the carefulness needed to implement the decision, and the honest reflection that must follow upon putting the decision to action. This 10 step process gives the decision maker a pragmatic way to debate, mull over, and thoughtfully consider when making ethical decisions.

Barack Obama - Daw Aung San Suu Kyi Joint Press Conference

Barack Obama Joint Press Conference with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi delivered 14 November 2014, Rangoon, Burma Daw Aung San Suu Kyi: I Im sorry if weve kept you waiting. Let me just begin by saying what a great pleasure it is for me to welcome President Obama again to my house, and to be able to meet all of you.I would just like to say that there have been those who have been saying that there is tension between the United States and the National League for Democracy or perhaps with me. I would like to make quite clear that the friendship between the United States and those who have been struggling for democracy in Burma is a very strong one. We may view things differently from time to time but it will in no way affect our friendship. And I have absolute confidence that the United States will continue to support us with regard to the democratic transformation and that when Burma becomes a fully functioning democracy in accordance with the will of the people, we will be able to say that among those friends who enabled us to get there, the United States was among the first. So please dont think please dont worry that there will be any problems between the United States and those working for democracy in Burma. We all believe in the same values. We all believe in the same principles. We may sometimes think that there are different ways of getting to the goal that we wish to achieve, but these differences are part of the democratic tradition. Democracy allows people to have different views, and democracy makes it also makes us also responsible for negotiating an answer to those views. I would like all of you to feel welcome in this country, and I would all like all of you to feel that you can join us in hoping for better days. But at the same time, I always warn against over-optimism because that could lead to complacency. Our reform process is going through, let’s us say, a bumpypatch. But this bumpy patch is something that we can negotiate with commitment and with the help and understanding of our friends from all over the world. So let us not exaggerate the differences, the difficulties. But at the same time, let us not exaggerate the rosy picture either. What we need is a healthy balance between optimism and pessimism. We need to view the the situation for what it was. But at the same time, we all have to be confident that we will get there we will get where we want to get to, because that’s what our people want. In the end, it’s the people of Burma who will decide where this country is going to and which way and how and when. So we accept responsibility for the fate of our country, but at the same time we welcome the support and the help of our friends. And we always appreciate them very greatly. Thank you. Barack Obama: Well, good afternoon, everybody. Mingalaba. It is wonderful to be back in Rangoon and to once more have the opportunity to spend time with Aung San Suu Kyi. As we know, it was in this house that she endured years of confinement never giving up hope, never wavering in her determination to build a free and democratic Burma. Daw Suu, you helped set this country on a better path. I’m grateful for your friendship and for the hospitality that you’ve shown in opening your home up not only to me, but to all these people. 3:46 When I made my first historic visit to Burma, this country was just taking preliminary steps towards democracy. And in the past two years, important changes have been made. The economy has begun to grow. Political prisoners have been set free. There are more newspapers and media outlets. Children have been released from the military. And these are all important changes that have opened up greater opportunity for the people of Burma. At the same time, as Aung San Suu Kyi just said, it’s clear how much hard work remains to be done and that many difficult choices still lie ahead. The process for reform is by no means complete or irreversible. For many, progress has not come fast enough or spread far enough. People need to feel safe in their homes and not be subject to arbitrary harassment by authorities or individuals acting with impunity. People need to be empowered to pursue their dreams. And as Burma approaches important national elections next year, it will be critical to ensure that all of Burma’s people can participate in shaping the future of their country. As a member of parliament and the head of the rule of law committee, Aung San Suu Kyi is working hard to make government more transparent, more accountable, to protect the rights of all the Burmese people, to promote reforms that would expand the political space for more people to contribute their voices. But implementing the major political and economic reforms that are necessary to keep Burma advancing toward democracy is going to take a great deal of political will and no small amount of determination. And we, as friends of the Burmese people, are clear-eyed about the scale of the challenges that remain, and recognize that we cannot remain complacent. Today, Daw Suu and I had a wide-ranging discussion about how the United States can help facilitate and bolster Burma’s democratic transition. We talked about the need for stronger rule of law, for elections that are free, fair and inclusive, and for continued constitutional changes that will move Burma more fully towards a civilian government. We spoke about how we can work together to promote national reconciliation and defuse sectarian tensions among Burma’s diverse ethnic groups. Specifically, I stressed the need to find durable and effective solutions for the terrible violence in Rakhine state solutions that end discrimination, provide greater security and economic opportunities, protect all citizens, and promote greater tolerance and understanding. Strengthening human rights protections for all of Burma’s people is an essential step to realizing the vision we share for the future of this beautiful country. The last time I stood here, I made a pledge to the people of Burma that if we continued to see progress toward reform, the ties between our countries would grow stronger, and the United States would continue to do whatever it could to help ensure Burma’s success. Over the last two years, I think we’ve made good on that pledge, and I want to reiterate the commitment to match continued reforms with greater support and friendships in the future. We’re committed to working directly with the people of Burma, and not just the government. So later today, I’m looking forward to speaking with representatives of Burma’s civil society groups and with young leaders from Burma and all across Southeast Asia who are working to create greater opportunities for themselves and for future generations. I think these new voices are going to be critical to making sure that reforms are sustainable and meaningful to people across the country and across the region. So, Daw Suu, thank you again for welcoming us here today. We continue to look to you for inspiration as well as resolve, and I know that you will continue to be a fierce advocate on behalf of the people of Burma, a future of democracy, and I know that you will be a strong partner with the United States. Thank you. Questions? Daw Aung San Suu Kyi: Who’s speaking? Barack Obama: I’ll go first. Christi Parsons. Q: You have been traveling in countries with long histories of repressing freedom of expression and censorship. And it was interesting yesterday that President Xi seemed to be saying that reporters who have problems have themselves to blame. And so I wonder to what extent you feel the need to contend with these ideas with leaders in this region as you travel. And what do you say to them? And by way of example, I might ask you Attorney General Eric Holder says no journalist will go to prison for doing his or her job, on his watch. And so I ask about the case of James Risen, the journalist who is facing this prosecution for not revealing his source in a leak prosecution. I wonder if that’s are you speaking specifically about this case, and is that your position as well? And if I may, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, ask you how concerned are you about the violence against ethnic minorities in your country, and specifically the Rohingya people? And what do you believe is your responsibility to speak out about it? Thank you very much. Barack Obama: The issue of press freedom is a constant concern in my interactions with the Chinese government. It’s an issue that I’ve raised with the President here in Burma. I’m pretty blunt and pretty frank about the fact that societies that repress journalists ultimately oppress people as well, and that if you want a society that is free and vibrant and successful, part of that formula is the free flow of information, of ideas, and that requires a free press. That is part of our tradition. As I explained to President Xi in China, it’s in our DNA. We believe in the primacy individuals being able to pursue their dreams, endowed with certain inalienable rights. And we believe that when governments censor or control information, that ultimately that undermines not only the society, but it leads to eventual encroachments on individual rights as well. I cant comment, Christi, on any particular pending case, as you know thats sort of an iron-clad rule or any particular prosecution. I can read back to you what Attorney General Holder has said, which is no journalist is going to go to jail for doing their job. And I dont think youre suggesting that theres that the two cases are comparable. But I recognize that in our own society we have to constantly balance the need for certain national security issues to remain secret with journalists pursuing leads wherever they can. And the good news is, is that weve got courts and weve got a First Amendment. And we got a whole bunch of tools to ensure that that balance is properly debated and adjudicated. But I think that when I am traveling, it is important as the President of the United States to not just talk about our interests, but also to talk about our values. Sometimes it has an impact; sometimes it doesnt. Although I was impressed that Mark Landler got an answer to his question from President Xi. It might not have been the one he was expecting, but he did end up taking the question. So you just keep on chipping away and seeing if we can make progress. Q: [Off-mic inaudible] Barack Obama: Hold on a second, Christi. Dont try to segue into a second question. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi: I think I better take over because Ive got to have my time as well. Barack Obama: There you go. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi: The National League for Democracy always has been against violence of any kind, either on racial grounds, or religious grounds, or ideological grounds. We do not believe that violence really resolves anything at all. Our struggle for democracy has been carried out with a strong grasp on the principle of nonviolence. And also, we believe in the rule of law. So if you ask how do we propose to resolve all of these problems of violence between communities, between different ethnic groups, weve got to start with rule of law. People have to feel secure before they can start talking to one another. We cannot achieve harmony without security. People who feel threatened are not going to sit down and sort out their problems. So I would like to recommend, as the chair of the Rule of Law and Tranquility Committee dont forget that tranquility is also included that the government should look to rule of law. It is the duty of the government to make all our people feel secure, and it is the duty of our people to learn to live in harmony with one another. If we want democracy, we have to be prepared to live by the principles of democracy. We have to dare to live according to the principles of democracy. I think well get there, but it will take us some time. But we will remain fully committed to the principle of nonviolence. Q: [inaudible] Mr. President, Id like to know about the Myanmar reforms. Youve been talking with the President and parliament speakers, and also youre going to talk with the civil societies group, and then youth. So my direct question to you is that: Have you got any specific agreement with the Myanmar government or President Thein Sein about Myanmar reforms such as constitutional change, and peace negotiation, peace process, and also 2015 general election? And also to Daw Aung San Sui Kyi, you have got a one-hour discussion with the President, and at the current political situation, as you said, it’s a bumpy situation. So if you didnt make amendment, or you didnt change constitution, the NLD and you, yourself, is going to be very difficult after 2015 elections. So have you talked about those issues with the President? Or the President talk to you about U.S. support for you? Thank you. Barack Obama: Well, the issue of making sure that reforms and the transition is fully realized was the main topic of our conversation and the main topic of my conversation with the President last night. As I indicated before, there are signs of progress. We shouldnt deny that Burma today is not the same as Burma five years ago. But the process is still incomplete. And I was very specific with the President in terms of how we will measure whether or not the transition has been fully realized. Number one, we expect elections to take place on time. We do not want to see delays, because its time for the voice of the people of Burma to be heard in a fair, free, transparent election. Number two, I indicated to the President that the constitution amendment process needs to reflect inclusion rather than exclusion, that there are certain provisions in the Burmese constitution that objectively dont make much sense. Ultimately, what changes are made are up to the people of Burma. But, for example, I dont understand a provision that would bar somebody from running for President because of who their children are. That doesnt make much sense to me. Number three, we are very much in favor of the peace process, and I encourage the President to move forward in the negotiations. He expressed some optimism about the ability to bring a deal to a conclusion. But as Daw Suu has indicated, you have to be skeptical until its actually done. Number four, I indicated that we are paying attention to how religious minorities are treated in this country. Now, I recognize the complexities of the situation in Rakhine state. On the other hand, consistent with what Daw Suu just said, I am a firm believer that any legitimate government has to be based on rule of law and a recognition that all people are equal under the law. And discrimination against the Rohingya or any other religious minority I think does not express the kind of country that Burma over the long term wants to be. And I know of no successful democracy in which sectarian or religious divisions are allowed to fester, or the people of different faiths are treated as second-class citizens. Ultimately, that is destabilizing to a democracy. And finally, I expressed to the President the need to continue to make additional progress on basic issues of freedom and personal security, that journalists cant be jailed simply because they were critical of the government; that arbitrary arrests or individuals being in some fashion abused by government with impunity rather than being respected and treated in accordance with law, that thats a test of whether or not a society is moving towards a genuine democratic process. And the President yesterday acknowledged that some progress has been made, and there was more to do. And our position will be to continue to measure whats happening on the ground, to consult with a wide range of groups here in Burma. We will strengthen our relationship where we see progress. Where we don’t see progress, then we will continue to express our concerns, and we will not be able to fully realize the kind of bilateral relationship that we want to have with Burma, the Burmese government, until we’ve seen some of these reforms completed. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi: Well, you asked whether its going to be fruitful for the NLD to win the elections if the amendments to the constitution are not pushed through. I think it’s too early to ask this question. We’ve just spent one afternoon debating the question of constitutional amendment. I think perhaps some of you may have heard that proportional representation is not going to be instituted. So when we started defending [inaudible] system against proportional representation, there were many who said to us, you are a very small minority in the legislature; how can you hope to win this case? It’s not a matter of wanting to win a case, it’s a matter of standing up for what you believe in, for what you believe is necessary for the future of our country. Now we are asking for a constitutional amendment not because we’re trying to win a case, but because we think that certain amendments are necessary if this country is to be a truly functioning democracy in line with the will of the people. Because of that, we will persist in our efforts to have the constitution amended in the right way and within the framework of the law. I’ve always put great emphasis on this because I want peace and tranquility in our country. I want our people to learn to live under the rule of law, and to support and uphold the importance of the rule of law. So with regard to the constitution, we know that the people support our wish to amend it in certain ways, and we are prepared to negotiate with those who do not wish to amend the constitution. I think that’s what democracy is all about. We need a culture of negotiated compromise as the foundation for our democratic union. So we would like to it’s not just a matter of debating the case in parliament and winning Brownie points or Boy Scout points, or whatever they’re called. But it’s just a case of standing up for what we think our country needs. And we would like to talk to those who disagree with us. That, again, is what democracy is about. You talk to those who disagree with you; you don’t beat them down. You exchange views. And you come to a compromise, a settlement that would be best for the country. I’ve always said that dialogues and debates are not aimed at achieving victory for one particular party or the other, but victory for our people as a whole. Whatever we decide on should be seen as a victory for our nation, for the kind of democratic union that we have been trying to build up for decades. So please don’t worry about whether or not we will win the elections in 2015. Of course, any party wants to win the elections. I’m sure the President will tell you that. But winning is not everything it’s how you win. I’d rather lose than win in the wrong way. And that is the way I want our party and our people to approach the problems that we have to tackle that we want to win in the right way. We want to bring the changes of the constitution about in the right way. We want to build up a strong foundation for national reconciliation, which means reconciliation not just between the different ethnic groups and between different religious groups, but between different ideas for example, between the idea of military supremacy and the idea of civilian authority over the military, which is the foundation of democracy. So we want to exchange views and to come to an understanding with all those who at this moment do not yet agree with us. And we are confident that we can come to such a settlement, come to such an agreement because, after all, I do believe that what all of us want is what is best for the country as a whole not just for particular individuals or groups or organizations. So while I tell you that you need not worry about what affects amendment or non-amendment to the constitution might have on the elections, I might as well ask you to vote for us when we do get there. Barack Obama: Pete Maer. Q: Mr. President, it seems the stage is set for even more confrontations between you and Republicans when you get home, if that’s possible. We’re told that you’re soon going to sign the immigration reform executive order. To what extent are you concerned about a Republican backlash from an action of that magnitude? And on two other issues, I’m wondering what your take is on the plan to pass a bill to build the Keystone pipeline that’s in the works now, before the State Department’s review process is over. And Senator McConnell is angry over the climate deal that you had made with China. How does all of this square with your post-election assessment that people want to, as you put it, get stuff done? And if I may also pose a question to you, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Thank you for hosting all of us here from the White House media corps. As the President mentioned of the constitutional barring of you running in your country’s election, what do you think the impact will be from the President’s statement that was made here today on his strong opposition to that constitutional wording? And what impact do you think it will have on the government here? And is there anything more that you’d like to see him do? Thank you. Barack Obama: Pete, the day after the election I said that there are going to be areas of agreement between me and Republicans, and there are going to be areas of disagreement. There are going to be actions I take they don’t like, and there are going to be bills they pass that I don’t like. And I think, moving forward, that’s exactly what’s going to happen. You’ve mentioned areas where we disagree. I believe that America is a nation of immigrants. Everybody agrees that the system is broken. There has been ample opportunity for Congress to pass a bipartisan immigration bill that would strengthen our borders, improve the legal immigration system, lift millions of people out of the shadows so they are paying taxes and getting right by the law. It passed out of the Senate. I gave the House over a year to go ahead and at least give a vote to the Senate bilaterally; they failed to do so. And I indicated to Speaker Boehner several months ago that if, in fact, Congress failed to act, I would use all the lawful authority that I possess to try to make the system work better. And that’s going to happen. That’s going to happen before the end of the year. But what I’ve also said to them and I said this during the lunch with the Speaker and Leader McConnell is that I am always interested in negotiating a legislative solution to the immigration problem, and that the minute they pass a bill that I can sign that fixes our immigration system, then any executive actions I take are replaced. So they have the ability to fix the system. What they don’t have the ability to do is to expect me to stand by with a broken system in perpetuity. And I would advise that if, in fact, they want to take a different approach, rather than devote a lot of time trying to constrain my lawful actions as the Chief Executive of the U.S. government in charge of our enforcing our immigration laws, that they spend some time passing a bill and engaging with all the stakeholders, the immigrant rights groups, the law enforcement groups, the evangelicals, the business community, all of whom have said this is something that needs to be done, is way overdue. And we’ve been talking about it for 10 years now, and it’s been consistently stalled. So with respect to Keystone, I’ve been clear in the past, Pete, my position hasn’t changed, that this is a process that is supposed to be followed. Right now you have a case pending in Nebraska, where the pipeline would run through, in which a state court judge has questioned the plan. And until we know what the route is, it’s very hard to finish that evaluation. And I don’t think we should short-circuit that process. I have also noted that, as policy matter, my government believes that we should judge this pipeline based on whether or not it accelerates climate change or whether it helps the American people with their energy costs and their gas prices. And I have to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States, or is somehow lowering gas prices. Understand what this project is. It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. That doesnt have an impact on U.S. gas prices. You know what does have an impact on U.S. gas prices is the incredible boom in U.S. oil production and natural gas production thats taken place under my administration. And if my Republican friends really want to focus on whats good for the American people in terms of job creation and lower energy costs, we should be engaging in a conversation about what are we doing to produce even more homegrown energy. Im happy to have that conversation. With respect to the climate change deal, I have been very clear that I have responsibilities as President not just to current generations, but to future generations. The science is indisputable. The planet is getting warm, and it is getting warmer in part because of man-made activity. And the release of carbon gases carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can have a potentially devastating effect that will cost our country, could devastate communities, could increase the impact of natural disasters, and will have an impact worldwide that is destabilizing and could affect our national security. Thats not my opinion, by the way, that is the opinion of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, that climate change is a direct national security threat. Now the argument that Ive received in the past has been either denial of the science or, alternatively, theres no point in us doing something about it despite us being one of the two largest emitters in the world, because if we do something and China doesnt do anything, well just put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage, well lose jobs to China, and the problem wont be solved anyway. Im not going deny the science, but I took seriously the notion that we want all countries to participate in solving a global problem. And so I engaged with China over a lengthy set of negotiations. And by all independent accounts, for the first time, we got China to make a very serious commitment to constrain its greenhouse gases. Why would anybody be against that? That sounds like the right thing to do to me. So thats a response to those specific ideas. But let me reiterate what I said at the top. The fact that I disagree or Republicans disagree with me on a certain set of issues doesnt exclude us working together on a whole range of issues where we do agree. Theyre interested in tax reform so am I. Lets get to work. Theyre interested in promoting trade that will create jobs and opportunity for U.S. workers and U.S. businesses all over it. Its part of what this Asia trip has been all about. Theyre interested in rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our ports, our airports, putting people back to work, making sure were competitive Im game. So the one thing that I think is going to be important for us to have a successful partnership over the next couple of years is not making disagreements on a single issue suddenly a deal-breaker on every issue. Democracy can never work that way because there are always going to be some differences. And when there are differences you cant elevate those differences above the commonalities. Im sorry that was a long answer, but it was a lot of questions. Do you want to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi: Im sorry the President cant get away from all those. Barack Obama: I know. But before Daw Suu responds to the point about the constitutional amendment, I just want to emphasize, ultimately its up to the people of Burma to make a decision about all these provisions. I expressed an objective view that some of current provisions dont seem to have much grounding in common sense or precedent when you look at other constitutions around the world, and seem more focused on advantaging or disadvantaging certain players. And one of the basic concepts of a constitution is that it creates a level playing field for all people, and then so I use that as an example not because I think my voice is the one thats most relevant in terms of the constitutional amendment process, but ultimately its up to the people of Burma. Q: [Off-mic.] Barack Obama: I did? It doesnt make much sense to me. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi: I believe democracy should stand up for that principle. Barack Obama: Absolutely. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi: Well, Ive always said that its somewhat flattering to have a constitution written with me in mind. But it shouldnt be done that way. Thats not how a democratic constitution should be written. And we object to that clause not because not because it debars me from the presidency as such, but because it is against the principle of democracy and also unconstitutional. The constitution says that all citizens should be treated as equals, and this is discrimination on the grounds of my children, my childrens spouses, et cetera, et cetera. Now, this is not acceptable. And our people are firmly behind us in our desire to change this clause. And if President Obama said anything about the necessity to change a clause like that, they will love him very much for it. So he will be very popular among our people. And as he said, in the end, it is up to our people to shape the destiny of our country, including the way the constitution is going to be rewritten. And I think the majority of our people understand that this constitution cannot stand as it is if we want to make the full transition to democracy; 59(f), as you know, debars anybody who is children of the spouses of the children belong to are citizens of another country. And according to the law and I think the President will know the law better than I do because Im not a lawyer according to the law, anybody who is over the age of 18, or whatever legal adult age may be in his or her country, is responsible for himself or herself. Nobody else is responsible for that person. So from that point of view also, you cannot penalize anybody for what his or her adult children do. From that point of view, its illegal, its against all norms of justice. And from the point of view of democracy, it is not right to discriminate against one particular citizen. You wouldnt like to be discriminated against, would you? So I think our people support the idea of amending this clause because not particularly because they want me to be president, perhaps because they do. But I dont think it is so much because of that, but because they realize that this is unfair, unjust and undemocratic. Q: Thank you. I am [inaudible] from 11 Media from Myanmar. And I wanted to ask the question to Mr. President. The question is, have you discussed about the [inaudible] situation in Myanmar [inaudible] president Thein Sein last night? Because more journalists than politicians have been arrested, particularly in [inaudible], under the present Thein Sein administration. And when you discuss about this, how did he respond to this discussion? Thank you. Barack Obama: I didnt bring up specific cases with him. I brought up a basic principle that I stated earlier, which is that a free press is a foundation for any democracy. We rely on journalists to explain and describe the actions of our government. If the government controls the journalists, then its very difficult for citizens to hold that government accountable. Its a fairly straightforward proposition. And I recognize that there is a transition process thats taking place, that there is a more robust debate today than there was the last time I visited. But to go back to what we said earlier, we cant be complacent. And we, as a government, are going to be troubled when we hear reports of journalists being imprisoned, being killed, being intimidated, or being censored. And when we engage with this government or any government and we have evidence that thats taking place, then were going to raise it. Thank you very much. Source: WhiteHouse.gov

Working in groups Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Working in groups - Assignment Example Working in groups can be powerful because the group can provide more experiences, insight and ideas than most individuals can create on their own. Multiple points of view and a variety of talents make working in groups a very productive experience. Instead of spending time tracking down information about the task, it is very possible that an individual on the team already has knowledge about it. Cooperative learning also allows a sharing of the work load that can be divided among the members according to their talent or preference. There are some real drawbacks about group work. One possibility is the danger of having group members that are lazy or unreliable. Having a team member that refuses to take on a fair share of the work or never produces their work on time or can derail the project for everyone. What usually happens is everyone else picks up the slack for this person. This rewards the individual for being slothful because they receive the same grade as everyone else. Another problem with cooperative learning is a strong personality can come to dominate the group. Some people have a strong desire to control others. Working with people like this in a group can be very discouraging. This was my experience in high school. By the end of the project, we all felt bullied by the assigned team leader. Our work was of poor quality and we nearly failed the assignment because we were all

Facial Reconstruction Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Facial Reconstruction - Research Paper Example Third is the measurement of the soft tissue thickness and marking of the anatomical locations (currently standard are 21 points). Finally, the landmarks are joined; spaces are filled in the lattice and model smoothed to produce a possible look of the deceased. There are both 2-D and 3-D manual and computer aided methods that support forensic facial reconstruction. Facial recreation are currently used for medical purposes and supporting legal issues in crimes and investigation, other than for retaining the historical memories of unknown past heroes from centuries ago. Keywords: Facial Reconstruction, Approximated Look, Skeleton, Skull, Victims, 3-D and 2-D Imaging, CT Scanning, Facial Soft Tissue Thickness, Modelling, Anatomical Locations, Landmarks, Investigation, Artists, The first ideas in the mind of unfamiliar people to the term facial reconstruction would be surgical operations to repair human faces. Such a need would be cosmetic purposes or to re-shape deformities of birth or accidents. Others especially in the fields of arts and law would relate the term to the identification of human remains using the skull. While some may view these two ideas differently, they are basically founded through a similar principle. It is possible to restore back the face of patient whose face has been severely disfigured in an accident, just like reconstructing the face of a deceased person based on the skull after the body’s decomposition over the years. The face has to be reconstructed through the available methods, before the reconstructive surgery is undertaken. According to Miller, Vandome and McBrewster â€Å"forensic facial reconstruction is the process of recreating the face of an unidentified individual from their skeletal remains through an amalgamation of artistry, forensic science, anthropology, osteology, and anatomy† (2009, n.p.). With additional information recorded or acquired from close family

The Calvin Coolidge Administration Research Paper

The Calvin Coolidge Administration - Research Paper Example As the report discussesin 1912, people elected him to the Massachusetts State Senate. From 1916-1918 he served as the lieutenant governor before moving to the executive's chair. Coolidge as governor supported the pay increment for public workers and reduced working hours for women and children. He also limited outdoor advertising. In the 1920 presidential nominations, he was voted in as Warren Harding’s running mate. As a vice president, he kept a low profile but dedicated a lot of time towards public speaking. In august 2nd 1983, President Harding died because of a heart attack. Coolidge was administered the oath of office by his father, as his father was a justice of peace. He then became the 30th president of the US.From this research it is clear that  Coolidge was one of the U.S presidents who put the interest of their country at heart. He was not willing to let the state get involved in any international relationships that did not address its interests. This was congrue nt with his pledge of ensuring that his country would not be in a position entangled with any other state. It was with this respect that he was reluctant for his country to join the League of Nations.  Coolidge did not agree with the notion that legislation may uplift all problems. He saw it as a pernicious doctrine. As governor and eventually being a president, Coolidge favored no legislative agenda in the broad sense because he generally did not believe in any legislation.