Marijuana for Recreational Use Essay Example for Free

Marijuana for Recreational Use Essay Abstract What is a Weed? A plant whose virtues have yet to be discovered. – Ralph Waldo Emerson. Weed the People: From Founding Fiber to Forbidden Fruit. It is the author’s intent to explain why marijuana should be legalized and no longer considered deviant behavior. This paper will show that the United States of America is moving, ever so slowly, in this direction. First with allowing the use of medical marijuana in 14 states and many other states are reducing the severity of punishment for possession of marijuana and now two states have passed laws allowing marijuana to legally consume for recreational purposes. Marijuana has been a controversial issue on our society for many years. Although there have been many negative claims regarding its effects on the human body people are learning the truths. Although due to many years of stereotyping people who smoke pot some would rather believe the untruths. There is a skewed perception of what a pot smoker looks like. Such as how they are portrayed in the movie, Reefer Madness. Pot smokers were automatically considered addicts that eventually turned to criminal activities or they took part in some sort of deviant behavior. It was after this movie that Regan began a â€Å"War on Drugs† in 1960’s which may have helped to brand pot smokers as delinquents or deviants. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028346/ Although we make think so, using marijuana for medicinal purposes is not new. The United States began understanding the benefits of the medical properties in marijuana in the 1800’s. Later there were many papers written by physicians on how marijuana can be used to alleviate a number of medical disorders, ailments such as pain relief, glaucoma and nausea to name a few. It is also a strong appetite stimulant. Recently this has been proven most beneficial for people who have diseases that suppress the appetite such as cancer or AIDS helping them to sustain their appetite and strength. (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5441#f2 Accessed on June 5, 2010). Currently it is thought that probably the most significant impact that the legalization of marijuana is that it would re-introduce the use of hemp into our society. This would be very beneficial to our economy. Hemp fibers are impressively strong, making the crop useful in the production of textile based products. This makes it ideal for the manufacturing of products like paper, fabric, and rope. It can also be used as a dietary supplement and has more protein than soy. Because of the higher yield per acre and the shorter growing cycle for Hemp, it is considered to be superior to cotton. According to the U.S Department of Agriculture, one acre of marijuana can produce four times as much paper and can be harvested quicker than an acre of trees. (http://cannabisnews.com/news/14/thread14829.shtml Accessed on June 5, 2010). Another very important benefit of hemp is that it has the ability to produced large amounts of cellulose. It has been recently discovered that the compound cellulose can be converted into a biofuel called cellulostic ethanol. This type of biofuel is able to power anything that gasoline currently does. This type of biofuel is typically produced by means of â€Å"energy crops†, primarily from corn or cotton. An energy crop is a plant grown as a low-cost and low-maintenance harvest used to make biofuels. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_crops) Hemp still reigns champion over cotton once again as it can be reproduced more often and it yields more than four times the amount of cellulose than from corn. A judge recently stated that the current marijuana laws are progressing much like those right before prohibition ended. The laws became more focused on taking down large operations, king pins and the like. It is estimated that the use of marijuana will be legalized in five years time. (http://www.wmur.com/news/national/Pot-advocates-hope-to-rise-from-prohibition/-/9857926/17619956/-/13figx9/-/index.html?absolute=true) As more and more states follow others, like Washington and Colorado and make marijuana legal for recreational use it will no longer be seen as deviant behavior. Well, no more than alcohol or smoking cigarettes. I have known many alcoholics in my lifetime but I have not known very many pot heads. I am not saying I don’t know people who smoke pot. I do, and they use it for recreational purposes and as a sleep aid. Smoking marijuana really is no different than consuming alcohol. There was a time when it was the â€Å"norm† for a man to go home after a long day at work and have a â€Å"high ball† or two. Some would rather go home after a long day at work and relax with a joint. Legalized marijuana should be treated the same as legal alcohol. Only those above a certain age will be able to purchase or use it and it will only be sold in licensed establishments. My question to society would be, do you want users consuming marijuana that has been grown illegally? Smuggled into the United States or would you rather they purchase their marijuana from licensed establishments that are regulated and contribute taxes to their community? REFERENCES http://cannabisnews.com/news/14/thread14829.shtml Accessed on June 5, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_crops http://www.wmur.com/news/national/Pot-advocates-hope-to-rise-from-prohibition/-/9857926/17619956/-/13figx9/-/index.html?absolute=true http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5441#f2 Accessed on June 5, 2010

Terrorism Definition Essay Example for Free

Terrorism Definition Essay â€Å"Terror or terrorism is one of the oldest disasters on the earth. It can be said that this system named terrorism is, for the centuries, here on this earth. But there have always been differences to define it. If you talk from the side of terrorists, you can hear different reasons of terrorism from every affected area of terrorism. If not going deep into, it can be understood, the affected victims of the society call it terrorism what the terrorists indulged in terrorism call it crusade, revenge or an offensive action to oppose. The worldwide terrorism has different reasons in different parts of the world. Somewhere the terrorism is to get freedom or somewhere to get sovereignty. At same place, these activities are being carried out to free the region from the opponents. At some places the basic reason of terrorism is poverty, starvation unemployment. But at international level, the media mostly talks of, that is so said the Islamic terrorism.† http://www.irfi.org/articles2/articles_2851_2900/American%20Target%20-%20Terrorism%20or%20Islam.HTM. â€Å"There were terrorist activities even before the 9/11 terrorist attack on America. But the form of terrorism was different from the form of terrorism prevalent now-a-days. Before 9/11, America was known as the spectator of so said Islamic terrorism or at some places it was known that it worked as a helper to organize it. But the event of 9/11 forced America to think that even America can fall victim to own pet snake. So on this day, American President Bush declared to start a worldwide war against terrorism. After the event of 9/11, America took a vow to uproot the tree of terrorism from the world. Most of the Muslim countries of the world strongly oppose the thought of strong religionist terrorism call it anti-Islamic. These Muslim countries openly favored America against terrorism after 9/11. Even the terrorists accused the rulers of these Muslim countries, who opposed terrorism, as anti-Islamic or Pro-American.

Globalization And Global Governance

Globalization And Global Governance Over the past years, global governance and globalization and the relation between the two, has become a much discussed subject. There are various definition of global governance; its role, its nature. Likewise, there are even more definitions regarding globalization. There are several strands of expert which disagree on when the origins are traceable, ranging even thousands of years and, moreover, some differentiate a range of separate fields to identify specifically the nature of globalization during time. Research has brought up various issues in the relation between global governance and globalization and whether or not this relation has been always even. The main question; has globalization rendered global governance ever more essential than in the past, is based on the metamorphosis of the state during the past decades, the economic crash and the massive progress in transport and communication. The aim of this essay is to understand how global governance has changed and how it imposed itself differently compared to the past decades and centuries. In order to answer this query about todays different influence of global governance over globalization, this essay will examine various theories and definition regarding globalization and global governance. As a result, the role of the state, the different kinds of globalization and governance will be examined. II: Globalization Global Governance Theory of Globalization Globalization is a very complicated matter: nobody seems to be in charge, yet it is progressing as we research it. What is behind the idea of Globalization? What do we mean when we talk about it? The term itself was introduced just recently. Globalization lacks in fact a main definition still today. McCrews shortest definition given is: Globalization can be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa (A.McCrew, pp.60) The term Globalization as a matter of fact, includes a wide variety of theories and view of what is essentially reality; another definition could also be Globalization is a global movement which aim is integration, whether economic or financial or in communication. Another broad definition could be Dirk Messner view over globalization: Globalization denotes a process in the course of which the volume and intensity of transboundry transportation, communication, and trade relations are rapidly increasing (Dirk Messner, pp.29) However it has been agreed that Globalization has, is and will, without doubt, massively increase speed of global interconnections in most aspect of life. This includes culture, which spreads from a country to another throughout television and internet; or finance, which throughout a wider connection over the world, finds different markets. Technological progress rushed globalization in a world that from day to night has given new perspective to virtually anything. Even though Globalization might be a recent topic, its nature is traceable to pre-modern history. Clearly traveling very short distance, by settling in other areas, people would bring along their culture and traditions as well as their products and technologies. Globalization starts as a mixing and adaptation of culture, knowledge and also languages of outside influences which interconnect with local population. A.McCrew, in fact, redefines his previous definition by saying that: Globalization can usefully be conceived as a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions, generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction and power. (Mc Crew, pp.43) However, as McCrew realizes later: Globalization today is different from the globalization of the 19th century, when European imperialism provided much of its political structure and higher transport and communication. Cost meant fewer people were directly involved. (A.McCrew, pp.77) In fact, globalization today, yet again according to Mc Crew, must reflect four general characteristics: it must involve social, political and economic activities across political boundaries, regions and continents; a strong intensification of interconnectedness and flows of trade, investment, finance, migration, culture etc.; these connections are related to a speeding up of communication and transport which carries ideas, people and goods; the interconnection and interaction globally are so intense that the effects of a distant event can be highly significant elsewhere and even the most local development may come to have enormous global consequences. However, Joseph Stiglitz describes globalization differently, as an: [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] international flow of ideas and knowledge, the sharing of cultures, global civil society and the global environmental movement.(J.Stiglitz, pp.4) Therefore from Stiglitz point of view, Globalization can be divided in to various branches: Economic Globalization, so covering international flow, trade, foreign assistance; Social Globalization, caused by the interconnection of more societies and cultures; and Environmental Globalization, where the challenge is global warming. This differentiation turns out to be very useful to understand how globalization affect or is affected by global governance, specifically from an economic point of view The Three visions of Globalization There are three different points of view regarding the contemporary nature and meaning of globalization: the Hyper globalist, the Skeptical and the Transformationalist. The first stand for a world which is increasingly global, and where political and economic processes and pressure have changed the state. To them the nation-state is deteriorating shown by the fact that the state decision making has vanished and national representatives powers are weaker. The second, skeptical, have a total opposite view to the Hyper globalist; they claim in recent times the states have actually acquire even more power even though there has been some major swift in the international scene. The third, the Transformationalist accept globalization as an actor which has indirectly created new economic and political scenario but that even so, this scenario has actually come in handy to states range of powers. Moreover, Transformationalist, despite arguing a major predominance of the state, declares that politics must overlap the nation-state concept. All of these contemporary points of view can be considered to some extent confused: the hyperglobalist do not realized the new position the states are assuming in global governance, skeptical possibly still live in the Cold War and declare globalization a new form of imperialism, and finally Transformationalist, who totally forget about the traditional force. These are some of the critics put in place by the Constitutive, a fourth point of view: Constitutive consider globalization as product of millions of factors and therefore couldnt emerge by applying one of the three traditional aspects. Possibly one of reason between many, above all, is the fall of USSR and the US reorganization of the global architecture. Theory of Global Governance Before explaining Global Governance, it is fair to split Global from Governance. Therefore, what is Governance? According to Vayrynen, Governance is: [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. (Vayrynen, P.25) Governance, as the word itself suggest, is the act itself of governing, the process or power of governing. These processes are normally exercised by a government. Essentially, Governance is the result of the government. However, governance is different to politics, which is the process in which different group of people with different opinion, meet to reach a compromise. The process of Governance normally doesnt spark from a group with different opinions but still uses the same means. Accordingly, Global Governance refers to the: [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] collective actions to establish international institutions and norms to cope with the causes and consequences of adverse supranational, transnational of national problems. (Vayrynen, p.25) Global Governances collective decisions are aimed to shape and define a goal or goals at the global level. Global Governance forms a series of rules which purpose is to work globally no matter what the national laws are. This global level characteristic is the reason why it is frequently associated to Globalization, as the two influences one another as much as they are associated. However where and when did really Global Governance started to matter it is not certain. Possibly at the beginning of the 19th century. What is certain is that after the belle à ©poque, the world started to crash. A new era of highly interrelated global interdependence had begun and the worlds answer had been international institutions. The first and most important post World War I institutions was the League of Nations, which was supposed to maintain peace but miserably failed giving us World War II. The second attempt shows much more success with the United Nations. Between WWI and WWII, we have the first modern economic crash and the Great Depression. On the same wave of new international institutions, IMF and WB are born for a higher economic protection. However, this time round, the economic institutions have failed: nations which have followed IMF had economic crisis, the WB is mainly divulgating American economics and yet today, developing countries (which in some cases thank s to the combination of over speeded up globalization and bad governance) have even worsen their situation and still have little representation. Finally, the Cold war. According to the commission on Global Governance, after the Cold war, global governance was the new beginning of a new era, supposedly of peace and international political progress: [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] international developments had created a unique opportunity for strengthening global co-operation to meet the challenge of securing peace, achieving sustainable development, and universalizing democracy (Commission on Global Governance, 1995) The Nation-State The peace of Westphalia is the origin of the a system of nation-states. These then evolved in the 19th century as the main actor of territorial policies and subsequently passed to the welfare state. Before the massive expansion of political, economical and social benefits and issues around the world had started due to globalization, and before the progress in transport and communication had opened markets to the world, the Nation-State was the center of everything. Certainly, because of globalization, States have been weakened due to the fact that some of their actions have either been diverged to international institution or have become of international interest. While the State would act in favor and interest of the Nation, now a more collective action is requested and national issues are shared between numerous populations, converting therefore to a global level. As a result, on one hand, Nation-States today comprehend how their actions may concern numerous other nations and population, in fact: state will come to function less as all-purpose providers of governance and more as the authors and legitimators of an international quasi polity; the central functions of the nation state will become those of providing legitimacy for an ensuring the accountability of supranational and subnational governance mechanism which exercise various forms of private authority (P.Hirst, p219-220) However, on the other hand, there is yet no real international actor, no global level democratic institution, which is supposed to take care of the national and international issues, spread and caused by globalization. In effect, quoting yet again Hirst: while the capacities of the states for governance have changed in some respects, and many states have lost the ability to act independently, they remain pivotal institutions, especially in terms of creating the conditions for effective international governance (P.Hirst, p219) Under a more national point of view, the States still today have full authority over its own territory, an viceversa: Globalization is deterriorialization. (Mc Crew, p86) Therefore, the state is somehow going back to the middle ages, searching for a monopoly of power over people living on the national territory. People are in fact less mobile than money, goods and ideas, which thanks to globalization are easily transportable and therefore they remain nationalized. Yet today they are dependent on visa and passport: This role gives the nation the exclusive legitimacy of regulating its territory and the population which lives within it and internationally. (P.Hirst, p221) In any case, the Nation-State still exercise its power over military power. Many have argued how from the 15th century to today, the main power defining a state, was the capacity of declaring war. The last glimmer of this capacity had been kept alive by the Cold War, even though, because of massive progress in military technologies, it wasnt really the power of declaring a war but rather the power to threaten one and the capacity and possibility of destroying a nation, if not the globe. Therefore military power and the capacity to declare war of the modern states, has become so destructive that it is almost impossible to really exercise it. Anyways: Armed forces will not cease to exist but they no longer decide matters between advanced states. (P.Hirst, p227) Furthermore, the state exercises and important role over economy, even though globalization has massively enlarged the markets. Still today, markets and companies possibly cant exist without a state or public power protecting them. The States guarantee for most of the national credit. The government still regulates banking over the national territory. The effects of Global Governance over Globalization. First of all we can say that the processes of globalization are conceived as only capable of being worldwide and therefore in relation to Globalization, Global Governance must do the same. Second, it is recognized that globalization is likely to be the bases around which the course of events are organized and therefore it is virtually a relentless process and must be taken care of by Global Governance as if there was no other choice. Third, globalization is now out of control and the only tool which can regulate it is governance. Global governance and globalization are in fact clearly highly related between each other. It is easy to think global governance is another way of saying global government, but in fact it couldnt be further from the truth. Global governance is not a global government and does not even consider a world government or even some sort of dominant power or authority, meant to regulate issues to a global level. There is no global government which promotes international standards to all nations. In fact, global governance acts by itself. But then who is holding the reins of governance? Power today is in economy: Globalization of the international financial market, which started after the fall of Bretton Woods, has significantly speeded up the formation of a global economy, which likely to the European Union, has become a point of reference of the worlds economy search for development. The liberalization of worldwide trade is a main element of globalization or at least of economic globalization and it is mainly regulated by global governance. International trade has created a major period of growth but its liberalization has had some issue over the global level. The intensification of world trade has required a new institution, the WTO, which clearly, by regulating trade, plays a major role in global governance. Actually, WTO is the only institution regulating worldwide trade which in fact promotes worldwide trading system helping to raise economic efficiency and decrease costs by major principles established by the themselves: non-discrimination, transparency, increased certainty in trade, reduction of corruption and of poor governance. The WTO could be an example of good governance which perfectly relates to a globalizing world. However, because there is no central global power, talks like the Doha round are failing. Also liberalization of capital flow has had major issues due to massive speculation and volatility in currency and financial markets. The IMF, a major actor of global economic governance, managed to liberalize capital by simply removing restrictions on transactions while the liberalization of world trade was more of a consequence of globalization. This shows how Globalization and governance can work together, but also completely separately, not considering the effects on one another. In fact, globalization transforms economy from national to global and therefore any national economy is at least affecting global economy if not directly part of it. Therefore, national economies act as actors of global governance, indirectly by relating themselves to dynamics of globalization and consequently affecting directly global governance. States are no longer seen as actors of a system of states, as nation-states, but more as a system of markets. From this perspective, transnational companies become the States entities. As said in I4, globalization has weakened the state; in economic globalization, the States economic policies and the weight of them over national and international level, has been also weakened. The mobility of capitals and international trade has changed the national market. States have in fact realized they singularly could achieve much less than by unifying in international financial systems in order to renew their power over economy. However, according to Dirk Messner: Economic globalization is strengthening decentralization processes in nation-states and regional cooperation in the world regions: In the context of world economy central governments are coming under pressure from their regions, which are keen to promote their profiles in global competition. (Dirk Messner, pp39) In fact, globalization has actually created a strong current of localization, even though it is a mutual reinforcement. In a world of world markets, local or location specific advantage gain value, while in the meantime seeking transboundary partnership there for entering economy to a global level. Transnational economic spaces and communities have clearly increased due to the globalized markets. Concordantly, under a more political point of view, cooperation between globalization and governance must be very intense in order to achieve a global goal. According to P.Hirst: Governing powers cannot simply proliferate and compete. The different levels and functions of governance need to be tied together in a division of control that sustains the division of labor. [..] The governing powers need to be sutured together into a relatively integrated system. If this is not the case then gaps will lead to the corrosion of the governance at every level (P.Hirst, p 234) Global governance has also recently shown, under a political point of view and in a globalization context, a trend towards unilateralism. Clearly this model strongly weakens multilateralism necessary to make globalization work. However, even though nation-states tend to have a trend towards monopoly of power and unilateralism (which is typical in western countries) they are still very necessary since they are the only connection between national and supranational level and are of course the main actors of global governance architecture. This last role, in a direct point of view, has however changed because of the increasing discard of nation-states as direct problem solvers. Today Nation-states act indirectly via institutions and agencies, thus keeping their interest a priority. However, no singular nation-state could be considered to give a response to globalization because this egoistic trend used by most western states is virtually doomed. The national translates to international , due to a significant global impact that, associated with the openness of todays markets, are creating and affecting the future of globalization. Global politics is possibly failing because of the stubborn, but motivated decision of giving the least possible weight to developing countries, either because there is a massive fear of a power turnover from the South or to pursue the agreed combined western national interest in developing countries. Therefore, effectively, globalization has some effect on global governance but the opposite is more likely. Global governance has a wider effect on globalization even thought at the same time the processes and dynamics of globalization are controllable only to some extent , yet the different speed of propagation is the real challenge An answer to the challenge Ultra globalists have proposed to unify globalization and global governance by creating a massive central government, a global government. Obviously this is absolutely impossible or desirable; it is enough to imagine how a global election and president could be strongly interested in everything but global issues. As said, globalization has encouraged regional organization and localization: these could easily function as organizations aimed on national awareness and protection while acting globally. In finding new solution to a new problem such as globalization and global governance it is important to realize the greatness of the project: cooperation and collective decision making thanks to international organizations via States is surely complicated at the least. What has changed today, that open a new door to a future solution, is the different level of cooperation between governmental and non-governmental organizations and therefore between public and private, necessary in a rapidly globalizing world. In fact, yesterdays nation-states have stopped doing what they simply wanted; today, even though their authoritative power are still strong, they are at least taking decision on global scale as a global actor and are influenced by social groups which have some success in changing national policies that eventually may have global effects. However, is global governance really keeping up with globalization? Today, one countrys domestic policy is permanently constrained by external situations. National government can no longer ignore the international impact; international coordination is needed to solve these issues. It is true, sometimes national government enter international coordination just for profit or solving domestic policies because, with no doubt, the interdependence between states is now mandatory due to globalization which has increased this trend to a world wide scale. Therefore, even though global governance massively effects globalization, the second is faster than the first. Globalization is a huge new challenge to deal with; it has surely brought massive growth but has also exposed the poorer countries which were already unable of meeting western standards and that today, because of globalization, have further increased their gap between rich and poor. There are in fact today countries which used to be very poor and have enormously improved their market and may be considered rich, but are however populated by poor. Globalization has opened the world to new markets, markets such as poor countries which were maybe not even reachable or in war and are now used to produce at a very low cost. They are surely progressing economically but at what cost? At the moment there is no answer to this challenge but just a series of future solution, one of which is reorganizing the world economy, which how we have seen in recent crisis, keeps on making basic world economy errors on how to coordinate domestic economy without causing massive ruptures on a global scale. Conclusion Has globalization rendered global governance ever more essential than in the past? The short answer is yes, absolutely. Globalization is heavily influenced by global governance and is still a work in progress, however it is possible to see how global governance is molding and creating a future architecture that will surely change the world of politics, international organizations and the role of the nation-state. Compared to the past, there is a clear gap between the weight of economic governance and political governance. States have lost most of their political power outside their boundaries while still exercising national interest and more and more frequently yield some of their authorities to non-state actors in exchange for control of the economy by direct influence. There is in fact a predominance to economic power since the 1990s. Moreover, unfortunately globalization has created winner and losers. Since the 1980s most of the world countries have integrated themselves in the new world economy, but some have done so maybe too early and thanks to the thrust of globalization, have caused major disparities between rich (exploiter of the new economic context) and poor (exploited by the system). Multinational firms have seen a new way of producing goods at very low cost in countries which had been specifically configured to be exploited, realizing the upcoming benefits of globalization. Here the major blame is to be given to global governance, which is today a more responsible process but only due to pressures. To conclude, the answer to the question posed in this essay will always be affirmative. Furthermore, future globalization will be in the rise of developing countries but only if western countries will cede ground in the big arena of global governance. Realistically this will happen only if forced by the situation, but once developing countries will sort out their political and social issues, they will eventually have all their papers in order to enter the decision making arena inevitably dominated by western countries.

IndyCar Racing - We Need Speed :: Argumentative Persuasive Topics

Every year on Memorial Day auto racing fans around the world wake up in anticipation to see the most famous race in the world. The Indianapolis 500 is an annual IndyCar race that has been run since 1916 at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. It is a race of great tradition that is supposed to represent the fastest racers in the sport at the fastest raceway in the sport. However, Tony George, President of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and the IRL, is changing everything about the race and the sport. This year at Indy, Tony George and his Indy Car Racing League (IRL)) broke a long standing tradition at Indy and forced another race to occur on the same day. In Michigan the US 500 was raced on the same day by members of CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams) in protest to the IRL. It was the first time another race was held opposite of the Indy 500. There were a record 17 rookies starting at Indy because many of the more experienced drivers were racing at Michigan. There was only one driver in the race who had won at Indy before. The IRL had dramatically changed the Indy 500. The IRL and CART are two racing leagues with opposing views on where the sport of auto racing is going. CART is supporting the way the sport has been progressing in recent years. That includes trying to increase the speed of the cars at whatever means possible. The IRL was formed a few years ago under the direction of Tony George. He is trying to make the sport less expensive and safer by using different motors /chassis and slowing down speeds. Racing has always been about going faster than the next driver. It was about trying to beat course records and lap speeds. But if Tony George has his way, all course speeds will be reduced due to switching from turbo Indy V6 engines to normally aspirated V8's. The result is less horsepower, thus slower speeds. Records would never be broken, and the sport would lose some of its appeal. Racing has always been a strive to go faster; there is no real reason to change it now. One of Tony George's justification is that the sport would become safer. That is not true. The difference would not be much . The fatality rate for a 230 mph crash, and a 210 mph crash, is not that much different.

Leonardo da Vinci :: Essays Papers

Leonardo da Vinci Leonardo was born on April 15, 1452, near the town of Vinci. His artistic talent revealed itself early, for he was apprenticed in 1469 to a leading Renaissance master. In the Florence workshop, where he remained until 1476, Leonardo acquired a variety of skills. He entered the painters guild in 1472, and his earliest works date from this time. Works such as the Madonna with the carnation which although are traditional, include detail such as curling hair which only Leonardo could have done. In 1478 he was asked to paint an altar piece for the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. Three years later he painted the Adoration of the Magi for the monastery of San Donato a Scopeto. It is the most important of all his early paintings. In it, Leonardo shows for the first time his method of organizing figures into a pyramid shape, so that interest is focused on the principal subject. This project was interrupted when Leonardo left Florence for Milan about 1482. Leonardo worked for Duke Lodovico Sforza in Milan for nearly 18 years. Although he was still an artist, painting portraits, he began to become interested in the mechanic and scientific field. But these interests did not stop him from completing his most famous work, The last supper. In 1499 Leonardo left Milan to find another job. For about four years, he switched from job to job. He returned to Florence in 1503, and attempted several significant artistic projects, including the Battle of Anghiari mural for the council chamber of the Town Hall, the portrait of Mona Lisa, and the lost Leda and the Swan. Around this time he began to become more involved in anatomy and performed some dissections. Leonardo returned to Milan in June 1506. He was called to work for the new French government. He remained in Milan for 7 years. The artistic project on which he focused at this time was the equestrian monument to Gian Giacomo Trivulzio, which was also never completed. Around this time he became so involved in science that his art became a reflection of it. Leonardo da Vinci :: Essays Papers Leonardo da Vinci Leonardo was born on April 15, 1452, near the town of Vinci. His artistic talent revealed itself early, for he was apprenticed in 1469 to a leading Renaissance master. In the Florence workshop, where he remained until 1476, Leonardo acquired a variety of skills. He entered the painters guild in 1472, and his earliest works date from this time. Works such as the Madonna with the carnation which although are traditional, include detail such as curling hair which only Leonardo could have done. In 1478 he was asked to paint an altar piece for the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. Three years later he painted the Adoration of the Magi for the monastery of San Donato a Scopeto. It is the most important of all his early paintings. In it, Leonardo shows for the first time his method of organizing figures into a pyramid shape, so that interest is focused on the principal subject. This project was interrupted when Leonardo left Florence for Milan about 1482. Leonardo worked for Duke Lodovico Sforza in Milan for nearly 18 years. Although he was still an artist, painting portraits, he began to become interested in the mechanic and scientific field. But these interests did not stop him from completing his most famous work, The last supper. In 1499 Leonardo left Milan to find another job. For about four years, he switched from job to job. He returned to Florence in 1503, and attempted several significant artistic projects, including the Battle of Anghiari mural for the council chamber of the Town Hall, the portrait of Mona Lisa, and the lost Leda and the Swan. Around this time he began to become more involved in anatomy and performed some dissections. Leonardo returned to Milan in June 1506. He was called to work for the new French government. He remained in Milan for 7 years. The artistic project on which he focused at this time was the equestrian monument to Gian Giacomo Trivulzio, which was also never completed. Around this time he became so involved in science that his art became a reflection of it.

Literacy Essay -- Education Learning Papers

Literacy Why is literacy of such interest to postsecondary teachers of writing? If "literacy," as it might be defined by someone outside the field of English studies, is "the ability to read and write," then why are we interested in it when our own students presumably acquired this ability in the distant past, about the time they learned to tie bows in shoelaces? That we are interested in literacy, I take it, is obvious from the proliferation of books with the word in their titles, of conferences on topics in literacy (the Modern Language Association has now held two), and of review essays such as this one, commissioned by the editors of a journal that purports to deal in issues relevant to "composition theory" and "advanced composition" at the college level. Defining Literacy I might answer my opening question by redefining "literacy" from within English studies in such a way as to make it more complex and problematic, and thus to question the presumption that college students have already acquired it. Indeed, in these proliferating discussions of literacy, its simple definition as the ability to read and write is usually rejected at the outset. But in attempting to go beyond the simple definition, scholars begin to diverge. Consider, for example, the variety of essays collected under the title, The Right to Literacy (1990), a title which implies a unitary conception of literacy and a contest only over who possesses the desired object. In this volume, Andrea A. Lunsford, Helene Moglen, and James Slevin collect twenty-nine papers from the 1988 MLA "Right to Literacy" conference. Most of the essays, therefore, are short; and ranging through them, one gets a sense of the heterogeneous mixture of topics that accrue for Engli... ...Discourse Community." Curriculum Inquiry 12 (1982): 191-207. ---. "Literacy in Culture and Cognition." A Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers. Ed. Theresa Enos. New York: Random, 1987. 125-37. Brandt, Deborah. Literacy as Involvement: The Acts of Writers, Readers, and Texts. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1990. Hirsch, E.D., Jr. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. 2nd ed. New York: Vintage, 1988. Kintgen, Eugene R., Barry M. Kroll, and Mike Rose, eds. Perspectives on Literacy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1988. Lunsford, Andrea A., Helene Moglen, and James Slevin, eds. The Right to Literacy. New York: MLA, 1990. Stuckey, J. Elspeth. The Violence of Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton, 1991. Taylor, Denny, and Catherine Dorsey-Gaines. Growing Up Literate: Learning from Inner-City Families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1988.

Oedipus and Creon: Leaders of Thebes Essay

In the plays Oedipus the King and Antigone Sophocles portrays two characters, Oedipus and Creon, as rulers of Thebes. After the murder of Laius, former King of Thebes, Oedipus became leader when he successfully solved the riddle of the Sphinx. Some time later, Creon became King of Thebes as the result of his nephews deaths. â€Å"Oedipus is a good ruler in spite of his defects. Creon is a bad ruler in spite of his virtues.† This essay will discuss Oedipus and Creon as rulers of Thebes. In the eyes of the townspeople, Oedipus is seen as a good leader. He demonstrates the qualities any good leader possesses. When Oedipus learned of the plague that had spread through the town he immediately took action before the town confronted him with their fears. Upon meeting with the town, he notified them of his actions and his understanding of their concerns regarding the outcome of Thebes. Oedipus says, â€Å"You can trust me. I am ready to help, I’ll do anything. I would be blind to misery not to pity my people kneeling at my feet† (Sophocles 159). We see that Oedipus is sympathetic to their needs and concerns and dependable as he had already sent his brother-in-law to gain information from the oracle Upon Creon’s return from the oracle, Oedipus demonstrates his honesty, truthfulness, and determination as leader. Creon states, â€Å"If you want my report in the presence of these people†¦I’m ready now, or we might go inside† (Sophocles 163). Oedipus responds by asking Creon to report right then and there suggesting that he has nothing to hide and only truth to share with Thebes. The news from the oracle suggested that the only way to end the plague was to remove the source of Laius’s death, either by banishment or murder. Oedipus immediately seeks out to uncover the murderer of the former king. These qualities are those admired in a leader, like Oedipus, but hard to find in Creon. Creon, unlike Oedipus, is seen as a poor leader of the town, Thebes. The qualities with which he rules are unlikable. Creon immediately instills a sense of fear as he acknowledges the absolute power he possesses in his initial speech as ruler of Thebes. â€Å"Whoever refuses to adopt the soundest policies but fearing someone, keeps his lips locked tight, he’s utterly worthless. And whoever places a friend above the good of his own country, he  is nothing† (Sophocles 67). Furthermore, Creon issues a decree to his people that anyone who provides Polynices with a proper burial will face death. By enforcing the decree, Creon lacks sympathy for the beliefs of his town and his blood relatives, Antigone and Ismene. When the sentry enters with a message for the King we learn that Creon’s rule focuses on threats and violence. The sentry hesitates to relay this message to Creon fearing that he would react harshly. Creon then demands that the sentry tell all that he knows. The sentry informs Creon that someone has defied the decree and given Polynices proper burial. Creon irrationally accuses the sentry; although he has spoken several times that he is not to blame. The king threatens the sentry saying, â€Å"Well now, you just be clever about your judgments – if you fail to produce the criminals for me, you’ll swear your dirty money brought you pain† (Sophocles 75). Terrified by the King’s word, the sentry quickly leaves to keep watch of Polynices and later returns with news that Antigone is the culprit. We find that Oedipus is a good leader because he is honest, sympathetic, dependable and determined. On the other hand, Creon fails to sympathize with the citizen. The fear and violence of his absolute power became detrimental to his leadership. Despite these differences between Oedipus and Creon, the leaders did share some qualities that influenced the way they ruled. Oedipus and Creon both ruled with pride. Each individual was proud of their actions and the way they lead the people of Thebes. At times they were so proud that they failed to believe what was being told to them. Tiresias proclaims to Oedipus, â€Å"You are the curse, the corruption of the land† (Sophocles 179). Oedipus refuted the truth, â€Å"Aren’t you appalled to start up such a story? You think you can get away with this?† (Sophocles 179) Tiresias warned Oedipus of his family curse and the he was the cause of the plague, but he failed to see this. Similarly, Creon was warned by Tiresias in Antigone of the trouble that was to result from his injustice. â€Å"If he tried to make amends, however low he’s fallen, and stops his bullnecked ways. Stubbornness brands you for stupidity-pride is a crime† (Sophocles 112). Creon failed to accept the information told to him by Tiresias,  instead his pride prevailed until he admitted his wrongdoings at the end of the play, at which it was too late. The town of Thebes was also ruled by both with stubbornness. Once they had an idea set in their minds nothing could change it. Each had a firm belief in what they thought. Creon sentenced Antigone to death, since she was the individual who gave her brother, Polynices, a proper burial. Despite warnings from the town and Tiresias, Creon carried out the sentencing of his niece by sealing her in a cave. His stubborn character led to defiance of the Gods, which led to his downfall as King of Thebes. In Oedipus the King, Oedipus goal was to save his people from the plague by removing the murderer, who was present in the town. Oedipus was stubborn and refused to see the clues which revealed the source of the plague. Eventually, Oedipus overcame his stubbornness and accepted the truth that he was indeed the source of the plague by murdering his father and marrying his mother. Oedipus, being a good leader, remained true to his word and banished himself from Thebes. In conclusion, Sophocles portrays two rulers of Thebes in his plays Oedipus the King and Antigone. Oedipus and Creon share similarities and differences that characterize them as leaders of Thebes. Oedipus is seen as a good ruler due to the fact that he possesses the qualities the town seeks in a leader. Creon is deemed a bad ruler. He places himself above the state, people, and gods therefore being a feared and intimidating leader. Works Cited Sophocles. The Three Theban Plays: Antigone, Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus. New York: Penguin Books, 1984. Works ConsultedMcManus, Barbara. â€Å"Background for Antigone.† CLS 267 Topic Page. 1999. The College ofNew Rochelle. 20 April 2005 Mitchell-Boyask, Robin. â€Å"Study Guide for Sophocles’ Oedipus the King.† Department ofClassics. 2002. Temple University. 22 April 2005