Analysis of Bahrain's Economy's strength and weakness Essay

Analysis of Bahrain's Economy's strength and weakness - Essay Example Crude oil derivatives produced from imported crude oil form a significant part of exports. Many industrial projects are under way. Unemployment {mainly among young Bahrainis}, declining oil reserves and decreasing underground water resources comprise Bahrain’s three main problems with long term implications (Wikipedia.org). The first strength is the realization of the need for maximum oil conservation. It has stabilized its oil production at 6,400 m3 or 40,000 barrels per day with the aim of stretching its oil reserves to 15 years (Wikipedia.org). Secondly, it has realized it cannot depend on oil for long and should diversify its economy. It has made commendable progress in this direction. It is utilizing its idle oil refineries to refine crude oil imported from its giant oil producer neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia. Its ‘Persian Gulf Petrochemical Company’ is operating as a joint venture between Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, to produce petroleum derivatives methanol and ammonia. ‘Aluminium Bahrain’ is the largest factory of its kind in the world that produces 525,000 metric tons yearly. ‘The Arab Iron and Steel Company’ produces 4 million tons of iron ore pellets. Bahrain has a giant shipbuilding and repair yard that gets lucrative business from the hundreds of oil tankers and commercial ships plying to and from the Gulf nations. Its most commendable diversification is in financing: its impediment-free regulations have attracted more than 100 offshore banking institutions in ad dition to many onshore institutions (Wikipedia.org). Thirdly, it has provided an attractive setting to attract multinational firms. It has a modern infrastructure. Its airport serves 22 international carriers. Its seaports provide direct and regular links to Europe, the Far East and the U.S. It has a state-of-the-art communication network. These facilities have attracted a large number of banks and multinational

Feminist Philosophy Essay Example for Free

Feminist Philosophy Essay Mary Wollstonecraft was no doubt a great feminist and deserved to be called grandmother of the feminist thought. Her early experiences of an unsuccessful family life as well as the prevailing notion of the philosophers at that time about women shaped her views to become authentic feminist grand mother. Wollstonecraft’s feminist ideas affected the first wave of feminism through her arguments against the prevailing views on women most notably that of Rousseau’s which categorized women as subservient to men. Rousseau held that women’s education should be designed entirely to make them pleasing to men. Rousseau reflected â€Å"to please, to be useful to us, to make us love and esteem them, to educate us when young and take care of us when grown up, to advise, to console us, to render our lives easy and agreeable—these are duties of women at all times†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (Feminist Philosophy). Against this view, Wollstonecraft work hard to emphasize that the role of women in the society were not simply an ornaments and playthings of men as they are also capable of attaining masculine virtues of wisdom and rationality â€Å"if society would allow those value to be cultivated† (p.475-476). Wollstonecraft pointed out that the prevailing views on women had bad implications not only on women but on society as well as they will only breed bitterness, jealousy, and folly. She affected the first wave of feminist by encouraging them â€Å"to restore women to their lost dignity by encouraging better ideas of woman hood† (p. 476). How did Simone de Beauvoirs writing shape the second wave? The second wave of feminism was a resurgence of early feminism as a result of various works of feminists during the 1940s such as her works. De Beauvoir writings shaped the second wave of feminism by shedding light about what is a woman in the concept of being other, and how men views women during this period. In her writings de Beauvoir shed social understanding on womanhood. She pointed out that the fundamental social meaning of woman is Other. She explained, â€Å"No group ever sets itself up as the One without at once setting up the Other over against itself† (p. 479). The thought that de Beauvoir was pointing out was that men do not view women as human being like them but as Others who are to be treated as stranger that do not deserve equal treatment. The implication of men’s treatment of women as Others according to de Beauvoir was that because women are others, they do not need to be given â€Å"equal weight to their preferences† simply because they are others (p. 480). Debeauvoir’s writings shaped the second wave of feminism through her unique way of providing social understanding about how women were regarded by men during this period. How did the events of the first and second wave affect each other? Apparently, the event of the first and the second wave of feminism affect each other in a way that they connect the second wave to the first. The second wave feminist was inspired by the events during the first wave to tag along their path of pushing for the recognition of women’s rights. Apparently, the events of the first wave feminist shaped the understanding of the second wave feminism about women’s rights, against the existing social and philosophical views on women. Thus, the events of the first wave serves as mirror for the second wave, and as inspiration for them to continue women’s struggle for the restoration of their lost dignity as women equal with men in many aspect, especially on human rights. Reference More-Bruder: Philosophy: The Power of Ideas (2008) Feminist Philosophy The McGraw-Hill Companies

Allisons Foreign Policy Models

Allisons Foreign Policy Models Graham Allisons Essence of Decision offered alternative conceptual models on foreign policy decision making and a specific discussion on the Cuban missile crisis; and has been one of the influential book in history of foreign policy analysis. It gives a significant contribution to political science study, as it has been heavily cited in most international relations textbook and also discussed by foreign policy analysts. However, despite the models strong influence in foreign policy study, it has been heavily criticised by foreign policy analysts about its utility and value in decision making analysis. Number of criticism has risen regarding Allisons conceptual framework, ranging from its originality until the problem of evidences that have been used by Allison in explaining the Cuban Missile Crises. Cornford and Horelick, for example, argue that Allisons model is not wholly original work, rather than it is developed from previous study. Moreover, another group of criticism have questioned the account of the Cuban Missile Crises that explained by Allison. Despite these two criticisms, there are number of criticism that will be discussed in the following section. By looking at number of criticism about Allisons model, there is a big question about the usefulness of the model in foreign policy decision making process analysis. This essay aims to evaluate the utility of Allisons conceptual policy in foreign policy decision making. This essay will also critically discuss each of the three models by looking from some perspectives. Moreover, taking into account that this essay relies on Allisons Essence of Decision, this essay will also look at the decision making process regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Allisons Conceptual Framework Model I: The Rational Actor (RAM) Model I is the basic yet critical conceptual framework that mostly utilized in foreign policy decision making analysis. RAM is the best model in explaining and predicting of an individual behaviour, as well as purpose generalization in states action. The model reduces the organizational and governmental political complications by looking at government as unified actor.  [1]  Thus, a complete-informed government -regarded as black box- will process information to optimize rational action. The internal structure within decision making process will calculate theà £Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€š ¬pros and cons, and afterward, rank all the options by their chance to succeed.  [2]   Its feature of being simple and easy to utilize, RAM could be useful when a state has limited or even no available information about the enemy. Moreover, RAM which stresses on interaction among states, will immediately produce prudent decision after considering the pro and con. Therefore, since it does not require much information to analyse a case, RAM would be very suitable in a crisis situation. Its simplicity in analysing a case makes RAM one of the popular methods in foreign policy decision making process. On the other side, some foreign policy analysts argue that in the real foreign policy formation, number of external and individual interest factor will eventually impact the policy making process. Moreover, RAM tends to ignore a large state with complex bureaucratic nature that has various kinds of departments with their own different political and ideological perspectives.  [3]  Therefore, along with the argument that intra-national factors are very importantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦yet critical when one is concerned with planning policy, Allison has proposed so-called, Bureaucratic Politics Model.  [4]   Model II: Organizational Process Difficulties will arise when the cases that are going to be examined is not the behaviour of an individual or a state with simple bureaucracy model, but the behaviour of one organization or government with a complex structure inside. Therefore, Allison provides two alternative conceptual frameworks that will open up the black box to evaluate internal structure inside the government, which is later known as Model II and Model III. Model II or Organizational Process Model focuses on the existing organization and their standard operating procedures (SOP) for gaining information, defining possible option and implementing programme.  [5]  Each organization has its own mission and function and series of program are developed to carry out those missions. In defining feasible option, Model II is restricted based on SOP that they believe, will enhance performance and efficiency. Moreover, Model II is not optimizing rational actor, as model I does, but rather, it is satisfying decision making actors. Its account that foreign policy outcomes are derive from bureaucratic programs, routines and SOP, produces some advantages. It emphasizes the importance of domestic political influences in foreign policy decision making process that sometimes missed out in RAM. Therefore, model II reminds the analysts that the policy was formed not only by a high level decision-maker, but sometimes it is formed by organization.  [6]   Nevertheless, a set of criticism has arisen in the utility of model II. Its emphasis on organisational culture may ill-serve higher level officials and finally can lead to impair the analysts understanding of organizations and their behaviour.  [7]  Even though this kind of problem does not occur for most of the time, but we can take it as a consideration of the effectiveness of the model II. Model III: Governmental Politics Governmental politics or government bargaining model focuses on key individual decision makers with their great influence in deciding on organizational action. Moreover, the model assumes that decision makers have different perceptions, priorities, commitments and also organizational positions (where you stand depends on where you sit).  [8]  Therefore, model III assumes that governmental actions are the result of a political bargaining process among key players. Furthermore, bargaining and negotiation processes will result in satisfying rather than optimizing decision making result. It obviously explained because personal ambition of key actor may diverge from public policy position and may lead to personal power considerations when making decision.  [9]   Between Allisons three conceptual frameworks, model III adds important detail about domestic politics that obviously, cannot be found in model I. In addition, model III does not only explain the roles of key individuals, but it also explains why sometimes individuals are working at contrary purposes to the interest of the government as a whole. Lastly, model III gives us explanation why policy sometimes appears to be irrational if we look it from a unitary government perspective. Nevertheless, model III also received many critics, especially on the complexity of the model. It is focus on individual key actor that makes it difficult to study and analyse. Moreover, it requires too many variables, some variable are unknown and it is hard to apply for other countries with unclear bureaucratic politics inside. Criticism toward Allisons conceptual framework Allisons conceptual framework has been attacked by number of criticism, varying from the originality of the model, different interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the US political system, and also methodological criticism. As Stephen D. Krasner has argued that Allisons model à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is misleading, dangerous, and compelling.  [10]  Therefore, in this section, number of criticism of Allisons model will be critically discussed and assessed. Some foreign policy analysts, such as, Cornford, Horelick, Ball and Art have claimed that Allison did not present a completely brand new approach to analysing foreign policy process; but rather it just development from previous theories. Cornford has claimed that organisational process mode is previously done by writers such as, Simon, March and Simon, Cyert and March.  [11]  Furthermore, Cornford has claimed that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Model IIIà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is pure Neustadt.  [12]  Horelick et al. supported Cornfords argument by suggesting that the bureaucratic model is closely related to previous work done by Kremlinologists.  [13]  Ball and Art also mentioned names of analyst that originally make the bureaucratic policy model, such as Huntington, Hilsman, Schilling, and Neustadt.  [14]   Nevertheless, Allison has dedicated a section in his book to acknowledge previous scholars that become his foundation in developing his methods. He is fully aware that he utilized and developed earlier scholars work as he mentioned in his book, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦this encourages much repackaging of existing theoriesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [15]  Therefore, he identifies a group of writers such as March and Simon, Barnard, Cyert and Simon and so on for foundation of model II.  [16]  Furthermore, Allison also acknowledged his intellectual debt to previous scholars that related to model III paradigm, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦model III variety have attracted increasing attention since 1960à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ the publication of Presidential Power by Richard E. Neustadt.  [17]  Moreover, Bernstein has argued that the model is a helful summary of earlier decision making research to present a practical mode of analysis and guide to understand business and organizational decision.  [18]  Hence, we coul d argue that Allisons originality does not claim the originality of development of the model. The originality does not lie in his model, but rather in his approach to apply his models consistently to one particular case study, the Cuban Missile Crisis.  [19]   Another criticism can be seen from methodological perspective; numbers of similarities between model II and model III have shaped ambiguity between those two models. In many occasions, some foreign analysts will combine model II and model III to analyse a case study, including Allison himself. In his article with Halperin, Allison combines those two models and become one major model the bureaucratic politics paradigm- as an alternative model to RAM.  [20]  As Cornford argues that the three models is not totally incommensurable model to analyse foreign policy making process.  [21]  Therefore, even though Allison distinguishes three kinds of model in foreign policy analysis, those models is not easily separable in their actual application. In bureaucratic politics model, decision is not arise from one unitary actor, but through some bargaining between organisation structures with their own agenda. Model II and model III have identical characteristics that enable them to be grouped as bureaucratic politics model. The two models are similar in a sense that both models focus on departments and organizations inside the decision maker; however, it is slightly different, in a sense that, if model II will reach a decision through Standard Operation Program, model III will make a decision through bargaining between various players within government. Despite the insignificant difference between those models, they are usually combined as the bureaucratic politics model.  [22]   However, Caldwell has raised bureaucratic politics models major problem regarding the use of evidence and data. The model requires detailed data that hardly available in term of quantity and quality. In addition, Caldwell argued that there is huge possibility for analyst to imposing the model on the evidence rather than testing the model against it. Therefore, bureaucratic politics model has significant problem in analysing the data and evidence, since previous empirical problems show that data was made to fit the model.  [23]   Allisons alternative model has also been argued that it eliminated decision-makers responsibility toward the policy. The strong criticism has risen from Steel and Krasner, which argued that no one, even the President, holds responsibility of the policy as the outcome from bargaining process among bureaucratic groups. As Steel argued that, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦where everyone is responsible for a decision, no one is responsible.  [24]  The same argument also comes from Krusnet who argued that bureaucratic politic eliminates the importance of election: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Elections are a farce not because the people suffer from false consciousness, but because public officials are impotent, enmeshed in a bureaucracy so large that the actions of government are not responsive to their will.  [25]  In contrast, Smith argues that criticism regarding the elimination of bureaucrats responsibility à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦is only valid to the extent to which the President is unable to get his wishes carrie d out.  [26]  In some cases, the President still has the power and responsibility in deciding the final decision and for most of the cases, the President will be the one who chose the key group of decision maker. Therefore, even though Allisons model can be an excuse for bureaucrats, we can argue that the criticism from Steel and Kranser is not applicable for all cases and need to be modified. Furthermore, following previous criticism, there is criticism about Allisons model utility to other countries. Even though Allison clearly points out his intention to present two additional frameworks to other countries foreign policy analysis (not only limited to the US and Soviet Unions policy making)  [27]  , a group of writers has argued the inability of the model to analyse foreign policy behaviour in other countries, to be precise, un-industrialized countries. As Hill has noted that there is a growing consensusà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦over the inapplicability of the insights of Allison, et al. to foreign policy-making inside less modernised states.  [28]  Migdal has also argued that the model cannot be applied to the countries that do not have stability of organizational structure, routine, and even bargaining process.  [29]  Moreover, Brenner also argues that Allisons model is not a universal model and à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦more distinctive in the United States than elsewhere.  [ 30]  Despite all criticisms regarding its utility to other countries, Weil has proved, in fact, the model could be utilised in the North Vietnamese foreign policy analysis; as he has noted that examining North Vietnamese foreign policy decision making from a governmental politics perspective complements understanding gained from a rational actor analysis.  [31]   Nevertheless, some analysts have argued that the model is not even applicable to the Soviet Union, although the Soviet Union foreign policy has been heavily discussed in Essence of Decision. It is not only because the model requires more specific information than is available, but also as Dawisha has noted that the bureaucracy in some countries (e.g. the Soviet Union) is fundamentally different from its position in the United States because the persistent influence of the Communist Party.  [32]  Therefore, there is a doubt about the utility of Allisons model in other countries, as Wagner has pointed out, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the extension of Allisons model III to other countries may be a less straightforward enterprise than he implies.  [33]   Case Study: Singapores Defence Posture Change In the early 1980s, Singapore announced a major important change in its defence policy, from a defensively deterrent strategy (poisonous shrimp) to a more actively deterrent strategy (known as the porcupine). In an article done by Pak Shun Ng, he applies Allisons model to analyse Singapores domestic decision making process. Pak Shun Ng treats Singapore as unitary rational actor to utilizing model I (RAM); the military organisations as the unit of analysis for model II; lastly, the military and political party leadership (including senior military leaders and civilian leaders of Singapores ruling party, the Peoples Action Party (PAP)) as units of analysis for model III.  [34]  The article argues that model II and model III provide the most reasonable explanation of the change in Singapores defence position in the 1980s; while model I has failed to fully explain the change in its defence posture from a poisonous shrimp to a porcupine. Model II first reveals the appropriate developm ent of both Singapores military capability and military planning ability. Furthermore, model III then proves details how the Singapore Armed Force (SAF) could announce the change convincingly to improve its stature among Singaporeans and foreigners by persuasive them that Singapore has appropriate capability to defend and survive any potential threat.  [35]  Even though the article heavily honours the utility of Allisons model, but it still proposes modification of the models in order to be able to analyse a decision making process in a small and non-western states under absence of crisis condition. Pak Shun Ng has argued Allisons assumption that policy is the outcome of bargaining process is not applicable policy making in reality. In fact, decision makers do not automatically have different missions.  [36]  Therefore he argued that political bargaining model assumptions are too restrictive to explain real-life government decisions sufficiently, they should be relaxed so as to increase the explanatory power of the model.  [37]  Furthermore, the case study of Singapores policy making shows the evidence of model II and III complete each other and make one alternative model against RAM. Therefore, it supports the criticism that previously discussed that Allisons models, especially model II and III, have strong similarities and hardly separate. Conclusion The essay has discussed Allisons conceptual frameworks, by looking at each model and its pros and cons. Moreover, a number of major criticisms about the utility of Allisons model have also discussed and critically assessed. The first criticism is regarding the originality of the model, which has been criticised that, in fact, Allison did not bring anything new to the table; instead the models are just developed from earlier scholarship. However, we can argue that the originality of Allison model does not lie in the formulation of the models, but at the consistency in applying the model to one case study, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hence, the fact that it focus on Cuban Crisis has leaded us to the following criticism, the flexibility of the model to be utilized to other countries. Some foreign policy analyst have argued that Allisons conceptual framework is not applicable to other country that is not industrialized enough to have a complex bureaucratic politics, like the United States. A group of analyst also argued that the model actually is not applicable for country with strong influence of communist party, namely the Soviet Union, even though it is heavily discussed in Essence of Decision. Another criticism also attacked the relationship between Allisons model, especially model II and model III. There is an argument that model II and model III are hardly separated from each other, and in some cases, they are combined into one major model, the bureaucratic politics model. Moreover, problem arose from the model about the availability of the data. The bureaucratic politics model requires specific data and evidence that hardly available. The model has also been argued to eliminate responsibility of top level bureaucrats in policy making. However, we can argue that in some cases, the President will be the one who holds the final decision and responsibility toward the outcome (policy). In the final section of the essay, there is a case study about Singapores policy change in early 1980s. By looking at the case study, we can conclude that after some modification, we can apply Allisons model to small and non-western countries like Singapore. Moreover, after Ng modified the model to be more applicable to non-western countries, he argued that model II and model III give better explanation on the policy change, rather than model I. However, from the case study we can also point out that model II and model III are completed each other and hardly separated. This essay has discussed some general criticisms, aside from specific criticism about its utility on Cuban Missile Crisis. Even though its a complex model and has been heavily criticized by some analyst, Allison has successfully provided fresh yet provocative alternative conceptual frameworks in decision making process. Allison does not intend to supplant any previous model, rather just provide a supplement framework in decision making study. Furthermore, in his book, Allison strongly emphasized that the model itself is unfinished; therefore he encourages foreign policy analysts as well as the reader to join and carry on the discussion about the model. Moreover, even though it cannot be fully utilized in all states, as case study of Singapore has shown, with small modification, the model can be utilized and proved to give better explanation than RAM.

A Tougher Death Penalty Will Reduce Crime Essay -- Expository Cause Ef

We Need a Tougher Death Penalty      Ã‚   Many people, in general, are trying to abolish the death penalty. Why? Why try to abolish something that is in need in our corrupt world? Like for instance, in the case of the monster named Westley Dodd. The death penalty is doing the world of crime some good. If the people could see the right in their negative outlook.       Westley Dodd had been imprisoned for child molesting in many occasions and in 1989 committed a crime that of horrific nature that made even the detectives cry. Westley Dodd preyed on children, one of the many, stuck out in everyone's minds. Dodd caught the attention of five-year old boy named Lee Islei, knocked him unconscious, then dragged him to his apartment. Dodd then tortured him and molested him repeatedly for several hours, and then had the obscurity to capture it all on videotape. Dodd ended up strangling the beat-up child to death and keeping his underwear as "a souvenir" (Lerch). In Dodd's trial, he explained that he could never restrain from committing brutal sex-homicide crimes. Thankfully, the jury sentenced him to death. He requested to be executed by hanging, and was, on January 5, 1993 (Lerch). This is a perfect situation that was in definite need of the death penalty. Believe it or not, many of these sick, perverted men get out of jail. Dodd did before he murdered Le e Iseli. That's why the death penalty comes in real handy in instances like these.       There are also many points that can be proven and objects that can be expressed concerning the death penalty. The one that is going to be the main topic of this paper is, Is the death penalty an effective deterrent in the outlook of the growing crime of murder? There is a tremendou... .... DiIulio Jr., John J. "The Death Penalty Is an Effective Deterrent." The Death Penalty; Opposing Viewpoints .California:Greenhaven Press, 1997.   "Friends For Life." "Friends For Life"--the organization. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.friends-for-life.demon.co.uk/. Search: Internet. Lerch , Randy. "The Pro Death Penalty Pages." [On-line] Available: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8169/. Search: Internet. January 31, 1997. Lewin, Tamar. "Punishable By Death: Who Decides Who Will Die?" New York Times . New York: SIRS 1995 Corrections. 1995. Sowell, Thomas. "The Death Penalty Is an Effective Deterrent." The Death Penalty; Opposing Viewpoints .California:Greenhaven Press, 1997. Steamer, Robert J. "Furman vs. Georgia." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. 1995. Appendix A. New York: SIRS 1995 Corrections. 1995. A Tougher Death Penalty Will Reduce Crime Essay -- Expository Cause Ef We Need a Tougher Death Penalty      Ã‚   Many people, in general, are trying to abolish the death penalty. Why? Why try to abolish something that is in need in our corrupt world? Like for instance, in the case of the monster named Westley Dodd. The death penalty is doing the world of crime some good. If the people could see the right in their negative outlook.       Westley Dodd had been imprisoned for child molesting in many occasions and in 1989 committed a crime that of horrific nature that made even the detectives cry. Westley Dodd preyed on children, one of the many, stuck out in everyone's minds. Dodd caught the attention of five-year old boy named Lee Islei, knocked him unconscious, then dragged him to his apartment. Dodd then tortured him and molested him repeatedly for several hours, and then had the obscurity to capture it all on videotape. Dodd ended up strangling the beat-up child to death and keeping his underwear as "a souvenir" (Lerch). In Dodd's trial, he explained that he could never restrain from committing brutal sex-homicide crimes. Thankfully, the jury sentenced him to death. He requested to be executed by hanging, and was, on January 5, 1993 (Lerch). This is a perfect situation that was in definite need of the death penalty. Believe it or not, many of these sick, perverted men get out of jail. Dodd did before he murdered Le e Iseli. That's why the death penalty comes in real handy in instances like these.       There are also many points that can be proven and objects that can be expressed concerning the death penalty. The one that is going to be the main topic of this paper is, Is the death penalty an effective deterrent in the outlook of the growing crime of murder? There is a tremendou... .... DiIulio Jr., John J. "The Death Penalty Is an Effective Deterrent." The Death Penalty; Opposing Viewpoints .California:Greenhaven Press, 1997.   "Friends For Life." "Friends For Life"--the organization. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.friends-for-life.demon.co.uk/. Search: Internet. Lerch , Randy. "The Pro Death Penalty Pages." [On-line] Available: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8169/. Search: Internet. January 31, 1997. Lewin, Tamar. "Punishable By Death: Who Decides Who Will Die?" New York Times . New York: SIRS 1995 Corrections. 1995. Sowell, Thomas. "The Death Penalty Is an Effective Deterrent." The Death Penalty; Opposing Viewpoints .California:Greenhaven Press, 1997. Steamer, Robert J. "Furman vs. Georgia." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. 1995. Appendix A. New York: SIRS 1995 Corrections. 1995.

Filipino Games Essay

Like any other country in the world, Philippines have many different games that are played as a past time, or simply for recreational purposes. Some games are more popular and more well-known than the others, but the three games that stuck out at me were Tubigan, Sungka, and Culliot. Tubigan, also known as Patintero, is played outdoors. The players are divided into two equal teams. Based on a coin toss, one team becomes the runners, and the other becomes the tagger. The object of the runner is to get through all the lines back and forth without being tagged. To set this game up, the ground is marked off in a 5 or 6 meter rectangle divided into four equal parts. The taggers stand 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the marked lines. Tagger number 1 can go anywhere to tag the runners. Taggers 2, 3, and 4 must have both feet on the marked lines, and can only tag the runner as they cross their lines or as they get near them. As soon as the runners cross line 4, he must return to line 2 and call out â€Å"Tubig! † scoring a point for his team. The runners must score a clean pass within 2 minutes; otherwise a turnover will be called. Sungka, known as mancala in Southern Asia, has been around in the Philippines for as long as anyone can remember. The sungka board is a small treasure – the older it is, the more precious, it sits on a side table or a top bench, waiting to be played. The sungka board is a shallow boat made of solid wood. The whole length of the boat is lined in seven small bowls carved in pairs, with two large deep bowls carved out at both ends (bahay) for captured â€Å"sigay†. The props needed for this game are pebbles, â€Å"sigay† or shells, or seeds. In each small pit are initially 7 â€Å"sigay. † Sungka is always played by two people. At each turn a player empties one of his small pits and then distributes its contents in a counterclockwise direction, one by one, into the following pits including his own store, but passing the opponents store. If the last stone falls into a non-empty small pit, its contents are lifted and distributed in another lap. If the last stone is dropped into the player’s own store, the player gets a bonus move. If the last stone is dropped into an empty pit, the move ends. If the move ends by dropping the last stone into one of your own small pits you capture the â€Å"sigay† in the opponent’s pit directly across the board and your own stone. The captured â€Å"sigay† are deposited in your store. However, if the opponent’s pit is empty, nothing is captured. The first move is played simultaneously. After that play is alternately. The first player to finish the first move may start the second move. However, in face-to-face play one player might start shortly after his opponent so that he could choose a response which would give him an advantage. There is no rule that actually could prevent such a tactic. So, in fact, the decision-making may be non-simultaneous. You must move if you can. If you can’t a player must pass until he can move again. The game ends when no â€Å"sigay† are left in the small pits. The player who captures most â€Å"sigay† wins the game. The game culliot is similar to the game of tug-of-war. Two or more players can play this. The purpose of this team is to pull the other team over the borderline. The equipment needed is a 15-meter long rope with a diameter of 3. 81 centimeters. Each team must have an equal number of players. The teams are placed five meters away from each other. Both ends of the rope should be tied on the waist of the last player while the others hold on to the rope. A piece of ribbon or handkerchief is tied onto the centerline of the rope. Upon the signal to start, each team pulls the other, attempting to pull the opposing team over the borderline, thus becoming the winner. In my opinion, the cultural aspect of these games teaches teamwork, skill, wit, as well as strength. Growing up, I have played all of the above games. I had no idea that they were Filipino games, except for sungka. I like these games because it brought my family and I closer together; my cousins and I especially. These games taught us how to work as a team, think about our decisions before we make a move, and wit.

Its Cause and Impact in Society Essay

The Boston Massacre can be considered as one of the highlights of the American History. There are many speculations and documentations about the Boston Massacre. This would be further discussed in the paper. The Boston Massacre had happened in March 5, 1770. Based on the account of Mauricio Tellez, a number of soldiers had tried to help their comrade from the violent crowd which were throwing snowballs at the sentry. The squad released fire at the crowd, wounding three persons fatally and killing two people on the spot. Tellez had written that the first person to be killed was Crispus Attucks, an African American. In an account of Boston Massacre in Pamphlets and Propaganda article, the Boston Massacre was started by a barber’s apprentice. The apprentice has complained about the late payment of the captain’s bill. A soldier had bashed his musket on the youth’s head. Because of this, apprentices had rushed around the town center and had spread the attack. From then on the crowd started growing wild. Captain Thomas Preston had arrived with seven of his grenadiers and started dispersing the crowd. According to the article, it was stated that a private had shouted the fire signal that had triggered the others to fire their ammunition to the crowd. The Constitutional Foundation had featured the Boston Massacre in their article. In the article, the mob that had shown during the Massacre was around 300 to 400 people. Crispus Attucks, the first person who died in the battle was reported as the one saying â€Å"Kill them! Kill them! Knock them over! † It further noted, that Captain Preston was the one who instigated the soldiers to stop firing. After the incident, Governor Thomas Hutchinson made an agreement with the British army commander to remove the soldiers. Captain Preston and eight of the british soldiers were subjected for trial. The prosecuting attorney was Samuel Quincy and Patriot Robert Treat Paine. The Defense attorney was John Adams, Robert Auchmuty and Josiah Quincy. Preston’s trial issue was if the Captain has given the order to its subordinates to fire their ammunitions to the crowd. The outcome was not guilty. However, from the soldier’s trial for the innocence of murder, two privates were judged as guilty for firing their musket with malice. These are Private Montgomery and Private Killroy. Private Montgomery admitted to the fact that he was the one who shouted â€Å"Fire† that had triggered the band of soldiers to start firing at the crowd. II. Cause of Boston Massacre According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation article, customs collectors, conducted searches using writs of assistance. In the year 1768, the John Hancock’s ship was searched, wine was seized and charges of smuggling were given. A crowd had attacked and this had caused the British Government to bring 700 British regulars marched towards Boston. British taxes had been shouldered by the citizen. This had further enraged the citizens of Boston to rebel against the British. The Sons of Liberty had been formed which had been led by Sam Adams, the cousin of John Adams, which had been formed to end the military occupation of the British Based on the references gathered, it can be seen that the cause of the outrage from the crowd is the fact that the people in Boston do not like the British Rule. As discussed in a powerpoint presentation by Longhearst, it had been explained that Boston was full of tension. Both of the sides gather insults, the British called the colonists, â€Å"Yankees† which is considered as an insult. On the other hand, the colonies called the British soldiers â€Å"Lobster† because of their red uniforms. The article of Pamphlets and Propaganda had shown that there had been seventeen months of friction between the British troops. From the Mass Moments article, since the Bostonians had been used to self-government, it had been hard for them to recognize the British Rule. Townspeople were forced to provide lodging for Boston Soldiers who had a reputation of being an immoral. Through the insults and frustration of the Bostonians, their anger had accumulated and this had become a hatred that had led to violence. The Boston Massacre is an event that had been caused by the hatred of the Bostonians to the British. III. Impact of Boston Massacre in Society The Boston Massacre had inspired artists such as Paul Revere and and John Pufford. Mauricio Tellez had written in his article that Paul Revere had used his art to prove that the British are a bunch of people who are slayers and oppressors. The drawing is considered as a memento, that the freedom of America came by the price of blood and sweat of Bostonians. It had been further used to further anger the British and give awareness to the colonists about the nature of the oppressors. John Pufford’s work can be described as a proof of the Massacre in King Street. Unlike Paul Revere’s, John Pufford had shown a bias of the British against black men. Based on the documentation, Crispus Attucks was the first person to fall in the attack. It had been speculated upon that the death of Crispus Attucks was caused because he is black. The meaning of the art further boils down to the fact that Crispus Attucks had been the first one to die because he is black. Pamphlets and Propaganda article had shown that the event had also become a money-making profit for published newspapers. The report from Boston which they had given a title of â€Å"A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre†, had sent copies to London and American Colonies. Although the copies were not for sale, when a reprint had arrived from London, the copies were sold as imported papers. London had blamed the Boston crowd for the violence. In the same day of the massacre, the Parliament had revoked all duties and taxes except the Tea Tax. When the Americans have heard about the incident, they had boycotted the British. Topped by the massacre and the revoking of duties and taxes, this had led to the Boston Tea Party in 1773. The Sons of Liberty had commissioned an annual public statement for the victims of the massacre from the year 1771 to 1782. After the event, the Sons of Liberty had made moves in prosecution and the organization had made sure that there is a fair trial against the British. This had shown that the justice system during that time is not biased against the colonists. As stated in the same article, nowadays, American considers the Boston Massacre as a political violence. There are two sides on the incident. Some thought that the soldiers are the victims and others thought of it as the men who were killed for Independence. Boston Massacre had been an event that had caused the American Revolution. IV. Conclusion As a conclusion, the Boston Massacre is an event that had took place after the American Revolution. This event had been caused by the frustration and anger of the Americans against the British. It had been used as a tool by the colonists to further raise the hatred of the colonists against the British which had led to the American Revolution. As can be seen from the discussion above, there are many reasons as to why the soldiers and mob had acted that way. Some of the soldiers may have acted because of their personal vendetta against the insults that they had received ever since they had arrived in Boston. The crowd may have been infuriated by the soldiers because the soldiers think of them as vile creatures and people not worthy of respect. Crispus Attucks can be considered as a hero by the other Americans and some may have thought that it was right for the soldiers to shot the fellow because he was the one who started attacking. This had caused dilemma against what society thought of the incident. The list could go on and on. The event is a proof of acts of violence because of independence and frustration of two races against each other. V. Bibliography Tellez, Mauricio. â€Å"The Boston Massacre† Web pages: African- American History Through the Arts http://cghs. dadeschools. net/african-american/precivil/boston. htm (Accessed September 13, 2007) Liberty Public School District. â€Å"Boston Massacre†. Web Pages: Microsoft Powerpoint – 1. 2 Boston Massacr: 1. 2. pdf. http://www. liberty. k12. mo. us/~elanghorst/notes/1. 2. pdf. (Accessed September 13, 2007) W. M. Keck Foundation. â€Å"John Adams and The Boston Massacre Trials†. Web Pages: Bills of Right in Action http://www. crf-usa. org/bria/bria16_1. html. (Accessed September 13, 2007) Massachussetts Foundation for the Humanities. â€Å"Five Die in Boston Massacre† Web Pages: Mass Moments. http://www. massmoments. org/moment. cfm? mid=71. (Accessed September 13, 2007) Zobel, Hiller B. The Boston Massacre. New York: Norton, 1970.