Life Savers Soda - Marketing Plan Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 9750 words

Life Savers Soda - Marketing Plan - Essay Example The process entails hiring several food experts and a select few to criticize and offer suggestions that will improve the taste of the company’s beverage product. Price. The company will sell the Life Savers Soda products at reasonable prices (Gitman 295). The reasonable price does not necessarily mean the lowest price. The company will sell the prices at $ 1.0 lower than the top selling brand in the market. The low price will ensure easy encroachment into the competitor’s current market share. Place. The company will sell the products at a place that current and future customers can easily reach (Jooste 4). The products will be sold at grocery stores and other retail outlets. Initially, the products will be pilot-tested in the grocery stores and malls in Los Angeles, California. With the high population, the there is a projected high demand for the company’s life savers’ Soda products. Promotion. The company will advertise the products in the four media outlets. The company will advertise the many health invigorating benefits of drinking one Life Savers Soda a day. Likewise, the company will advertise the advantages of drinking the product’s vitamins and mineral increases. The company will advertise the product’s benefits in one radio station. The company will also advertise the health uses of the product in one television spot. The Company will send its promo sales persons to distribute leaflets or flyers to people visiting the mall and grocery entrance doors. The company will set up a website, www.lifesaverssoda.com or one of similar importance, to generate online revenues. After the three month Los Angeles pilot project, the company will replicate the same marketing plan within the California state. When the product sales figure is high enough to generate enough profits, the company will sell the product to all 50 states of our nation. Sports Promotion. The company

Banana Heart Summer Essay Example for Free

Banana Heart Summer Essay IV. Choose your favorite lines/quotations. Explain and justify. * Floating faith made us brave, made us endure consequences. I love this line because it is true that faith made us brave. I have my own faith that truly makes me strong and continue my life even lots of consequences come. I know that having faith gives grace in your heart and soul that keeps you to fight. * The journey of life is not any easy. Yeah, so true, that life is not any easy because we do not know what will come tomorrow or later. There are lots of things that may happen. Good or bad we can never say. But if we have faith, life will be at ease and enjoyable enough. Your faith will guide you and gives you inspiration to continue your life no matter what problems come. * Pride is a sin, dignity is salvation. I am my mother’s daughter. This one is kind of reflective one. It makes me to realize something. I believe that this justifiable self-respect is a sin especially if you are hurting somebody in a simple or hard way. And this dignity or the honor that you keep will save you from your sin like pride. The last line saying, I am my mother’s daughter gives me joy that Nenita shows great love because she’s proud that she is a daughter of her mother no matter what people say and even if her mother expresses disappointment towards Nenita. * â€Å"I’m afraid I could never find the balance between love and anger.† These two strong emotions are sometimes hard to control. I like this line because I can relate my own experience. Like being in love somehow gives happiness that can drive you crazy, do everything, sacrifices and all like. While being angry which I am scared of is really uncontrollable sometimes. It’s so confusing that you do not what will happen next if love and anger collides. * It was just rain, just water. Without sweets or spices or condiments, without our expert or fumbling interventions to make it taste better, without our need to disguise its nature, but how we reveled in each drop. It explains the significance of water in our lives. I love these lines because it expresses simplicity likewise in having simple life. Being satisfied even if you only have enough. * Sadly love is not just water; we do things to it. I laughed in this line because as to compare love in water, it is really different. Unlike in having water in your hand is so easy to possess and have it forever in just for example buying it while in love you need to give attention and effort until the end just to save and nourish it. * We understand that the devil and the angel were equal partners in the balance of the universe. I believe that there is devil and angel in this world. That is why there is good and bad, happy and sad, light and dark, love and hate. Sometimes we find our lives more meaningful if we realize that we do mistake and change it and be better next time. * First love is too confusing. As a saying, True love never die because this was the first time you fall in love to someone who you think is the best person ever that you want to be with forever and the last. It is true that first love is too confusing because it surely drives you crazy. Unstoppable care and worries at the same time. * They say there is love at first sight between a mother and her firstborn. A great blessing it is to have a baby. The most awaited gift from God that a couple want and need to. Yes, I believe that there is love at first sight between the mother and her first baby simply because they are alike. Having this powerful feeling that you can only find, Love. V. Think of the most appropriate sound track for Banana Heart Summer, state reason by giving ten lines or more from the song.

Defining The Concept Of Terrorism

Defining The Concept Of Terrorism The phenomenon of terrorism has become a major concern of the international community. It is elevated to the foremost foreign policy problem of the states. The terrorists power is growing day by day. The new and faster modes of transportation and communication technologies have made it easier for the terrorists to reach their targets and strike them without any difficulty. This has magnified the threat of terrorism and made it more sinister than it has been in the past. Although the menace is very dangerous and terribly affecting our daily lives, the states and even the academics have so far failed to comprehensively define and build a consensus on the term terrorism. The analysts face difficulty when it is considered that some forms and classes of terrorism are justifiable whereas others are not.  [1]   This article is an effort to highlight the complexities in defining terrorism, and to find out some ways to reach at least a partial consensus among states. The article is divided into four parts. The first part focuses on the definitional problems as far as the term terrorism is concerned. In the second part an attempt has been made to distinguish between terrorism and freedom fighting. The third part deals with the changing meaning and nature of terrorism over a period of time. And the last part discusses some practical approaches to reach a partial consensus over the definition of terrorism. II. PROBLEMS IN DEFINING TERRORISM Who will define terrorism? A victim state or a society, a stronger state, any international or regional organization, or the Super Power? Terrorism is a relative term and expresses different meanings to different people. To Israel terrorism means when a suicide bomber blows himself up in a market place. To Palestinians, it means when Israeli troops bulldoze a house or shoot stone-throwing kids. India views Pakistan sponsored militancy in Kashmir as terrorism. On the other hand, overwhelming majority of the Kashmiris calls it freedom fighting and resorts to the use of brutal force by the Indian troops as state terrorism. Terrorism is sometimes properly or sometimes improperly used as a synonym of rebellion, insurrection, guerrilla warfare, coup detat, civil strife, or any of many other related terms that produces fear or terror. Most of the times, such lackadaisical and random use of the term may make the understanding of the specific meaning and nature of terrorism more murky and intricate. Although the literature on terrorism offers plenty of definitions, most of them give a very narrow vision of the concept of terrorism. While some view terrorism in political terms, others insist that it should be defined in legal terms. Still some believe that it is related with morality. Undoubtedly, academics works on terrorism have helped understand the problem, but their contributions have not even materialized to create a consensus among the political circles. The academics themselves are divided on the very particulars of the concept. Experts on terrorism, such as, E.V. Walter  [2]  , Grant Wardlaw  [3]  , Leonard Weinberg  [4]  , Steven Spiegel  [5]  , Thomas Mathieseu  [6]  and Richard Overy  [7]  have all defined terrorism in the political context. (See Box 1). For them, terrorism is mainly a sophisticated violence, politically exploited by a group or organization with a religious, ideological or ethnic appeal. Box 1: Definitions on terrorism Terrorism is a process of terror having three elements: the act or threat of violence, the emotional reaction to extreme fear on the part of the victims or potential victims, and the social effects that follow the violence (or its threat) and the consequent fear. (E.V. Walter: 1969) Political terrorism is a sustained policy involving the waging of organized terror either on the part of the state, a movement or faction, or by a small group of individuals. (Grant Wardlaw: 1982) Terrorism is a politically motivated crime intended to modify the behavior of a target audience. (Leonard Weinberg: 1989) Terrorism is the use of violence by an individual or group, designed to create extreme anxiety in a target group larger than the immediate victims, with the purpose of coercing that group into meeting certain political demands. (Steven Spiegel: 1995) Terrorism is violent and arbitrary action consciously directed towards civilians, with a political or ideological goal more or less clearly in mind. (Thomas Mathieseu: 2002) Terror is not an organization or a single force. It is related to a variety of political confrontations, each of which has to be understood in its own terms. (Richard Overy: 2004) However, political biases increase difficulties in defining the term because of its subjective nature. The subjectivism is captured in a popular saying that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, for whom terrorism is a calculated tactic of the weak against the strong and established authority. The problem is how can one get out of this relativist enmesh? Similarly, the US State Department in its annual document, called, Patterns of Global terrorism, defines terrorism as politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.  [8]  The problem with this definition is that it does not clearly explain non-combatants, and the perpetrators, according to the definition, are non-state actors (sub-national groups and clandestine agents), while exclude the state terrorism. Moreover, the interpretation of political motivations is very broad. Some intellectuals have tried to define terrorism in legal terms and consider it a criminal act. J. Dugard notes that when a person commits an act which threatens the stability of other states or undermines the international order, he ceases to be a political offender and becomes a criminal under international law, like the pirate or hijacker.  [9]   But the problem with legal definitions is that they completely ignore the political aspects of violence. Treating a terrorist as a criminal undermines the legitimacy of political violence. In other words, the political notion in any terrorist activity cannot be discarded, which, again, becomes the major source of confrontation to reach an international consensus on the definition of the term terrorism. The moral connotations of terrorism have further divided the experts between right and wrong. Do all the nations take moral values uniformly or there are different patterns and orders of priority? Moreover, in this world of power politics, where states give priority to their national interests, what will be the extent of relationship between moral values and power? The common observation is that states are unwilling to give equal status to non-state actors which challenge their authority, and try to deal with them sternly by using brutal force. There are five major problems in defining the term terrorism and building a consensus. The first major problem faced by the academics and even the nations in defining terrorism is the relativist enmesh of the concept. For one it is a freedom fighting, while for the other it is terrorism. This aspect in defining the term has made the task more difficult. Second problem is related to the contents of the definition. If it is described as violence against the innocent people or non-combatants for achieving various goals, the application of the term, then, becomes too broad. It is very difficult even to define non-combatants. What if a soldier is not on the battlefield or he is performing peacekeeping duties under the aegis of the UN, attacked by a suicide bomber of a warring faction? Or would the terrorist attack on the U.S. Pentagon Building on September 11, 2001, not qualify as terrorist act? Moreover, the indiscriminate use of violence does not include those who employ terrorism against specific targets, such as, political assassinations. Third, when it is referred to spreading fear among the audience, one cannot distinguish between terrorism carries out by any individual, group or organization, and the state itself. This is also a major problem in defining terrorism that all the definitions portray non-state actors as terrorists, while completely ignore terrorism perpetrated by the state. Instead, it is called as the gross violation of human rights. It is also a fact that the incumbent political regimes have used terrorism as a means of repressing elements in their populations they view as a threat, real or imagined, to the continuation of their rule.  [10]   Amalendu Guha emphasizes that the recent use of power hegemonism by certain global nations, can be regarded as state terrorism, in the sense that its symptoms, behavior and actions as well as effects are, either the same, or, similar to the terrorism launched by fundamentalist beliefs or ideologies. Both are anti-human, anti-social and frightful.  [11]  The history is full of the tragic incidents, where state, instead of protecting its citizens, has unleashed reign of terror and has become responsible for their annihilation. The fact is that the state terrorism has killed more people as compared to terrorism by non-state actors. Fourth problem in defining the term is whether the act of terrorism is seen in terms of historical continuity or every incidence is considered as a unique in history and dealt with separately. Those who believe in the historical continuity, analyze this phenomenon since the French Revolution. They insist on the unity of terrorism throughout ages.  [12]  Others view each act a unique and absolutely different from the previous one.  [13]  So the rivalry is between the two extremes. Fifth problem in defining terrorism is: whether any act of violence should be analyzed by considering means or ends. As all ideologies sanctify the ends for which every mean is justified. The ideological indoctrination compels the terrorists to the righteousness of their cause and to justify any violent means to accomplish it. On the other hand, many researchers believe that the unethical means may also question the legitimacy of the cause. It is because of the above-mentioned problems in defining the term terrorism, that making distinction between terrorism and freedom fighting has become very difficult. However, there are some aspects which help differentiate between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. III. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TERRORISM AND FREEDOM FIGHTING It is a well-known fact that the subjectivity of the term terrorism has made it very difficult to distinguish it from freedom fighting. In this process, another difficulty is which forms of violence should be recognized as legitimate and which should not. Martha Crenshaw  [14]  opines that revolutionary violence and terrorism are two different phenomena and should not be confused with each other. The activities of freedom fighters cannot always be termed as terrorism, because their target is the repressive government. John Gearson raises some pertinent questions: What, if anything, is legitimate dissent using violent means? When is being a freedom fighter acceptable?  [15]  Labeling any group terrorist is very difficult particularly when the same group becomes the part of the negotiation process, and the governments have to sign peace deals with them. Nelson Mandela himself has provided perhaps the most satisfying answer to this perennial question. Pointing out that many people once described as terrorists are leading governments today, Mandela says: When you succeed people are prepared to accept you and have dealings with you as head of state. You become a terrorist if your aims and objectives fail.  [16]   In my opinion, the distinction between freedom fighting and terrorism must be made on the grounds of the legitimacy of the movement for independence, recognized by the UN. Article 1(2) of the UN Charter recognizes the right of self-determination of the peoples. It emphasizes the respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of the peoplesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [17]   Article 7 of the Definition of Aggression adopted by the General Assembly in 1974 authenticates the right of self-determination. It states: Nothing in this definition, and in particular Article 3 (which gives an inventory of the acts that are regarded as aggression) could in any way prejudice the right of self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination; or the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and seek and receive supportà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.  [18]   Similarly, Article 12 of the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages (1979), which came into force on June 3, 1983, clearly recognizes the means used by the people for their right of self-determination. It states: [The] Convention shall not apply to an act of hostage-taking committed in the course of armed conflicts as defined in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Protocols thereto, including armed conflicts mentioned in article 1, paragraph 4, of Additional Protocol of 1977, in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.  [19]   The liberation movements are deprecated as terrorists by the governments against which the struggles for independence are conducted. While analyzing the independent movements in Kashmir and Palestine, one may disagree over the means; it is beyond any doubt that both the movements are recognized by the UN. Terming these movements terrorist may also undermine and question the legitimacy of the UN itself. So, one can say, here, that the movements for freedom fighting are those movements whose legitimacy is recognized by the UN. Besides this, in both the cases, the role of state is very repressive and brutal. Both India and Israel have illegitimately occupied the land of the Kashmiris and the Palestinians respectively. Moreover, both states, since the inception of disputes, have been continuously denying the right of self-determination to these people. For this, they have also completely ignored the UN resolutions. So, if anyone calls struggle movements in Kashmir and Palestine as terrorists, it not only refutes the UN resolutions, which give right of self-determinations to the oppressed nations, but also legitimizes the power of the strong over the weak. According to Moulaye el-Hassen, the former Mauritanian Ambassador, The term terrorist could hardly be held to apply to persons who were denied the most elementary human rights, dignity, freedom and independence, and whose countries objected to foreign occupation.  [20]   Now the question arises why is there no consensus on the definition of terrorism? The most convincing reason is that the meaning and nature of terrorism have frequently been changed over a period of time. IV. CHANGING NATURE / MEANING OF TERRORISM The lack of consensus among the nations on the definition of terrorism has caused a continuous change in its nature and meaning. According to Jonathan White, the rise of modern terrorism in the West is linked to the struggle for freedom in the Western World in the 1700s and early 1800s when most Europeans did not enjoy freedom, and America was still only an experiment. A change in social perceptions and actions, however, revolutionized the system and structure of Western governments. Many forms of violence accompanied the struggle for democracy; terrorism was one of them.  [21]   The popular use of the term terrorism occurred during the French Revolution. Contrary to todays usage, terrorism at that time was seen in a positive context. The Jacobins reign of terror was purely a political in nature, which was a deviation from the old sacred terrorism. Also, that terrorism was unleashed by the State to protect the Revolution on the basis of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The terrorism during French revolution provided a model to the other revolutionary groups in Europe to use it as a strategy to transform their societies as they wished. But the failure of the 1830 and 1848 revolutions compelled the revolutionaries to change their strategy. However, the use of force to bring any revolution remained the main weapon at the hands of revolutionaries. The 19th century witnessed the rise of nationalist movements, which struggled against the colonial powers for the self-government. Although the nationalists adopted violent means to achieve their objectives, unlike anarchists, they considered themselves freedom fighters. Anarchists were socially isolated, but the nationalists could hope for the possibility of greater support. Governments labeled them terrorists, but nationalists saw themselves rather as unconventional soldiers fighting in a patriotic war. They opted only the tactics of anarchists.  [22]   During the inter-war period, a new form of terrorism emerged in Europe, known as Right-wing terrorism. The purpose of this terrorism was to preserve the status quo. There were two important factors, which contributed to the surfacing of Right-wing terrorism in Europe. First, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which gave confidence to the socialist movements in other European countries to bring a possible change in their societies as well. So, such movements were considered a great threat by the respective governments and the elements which wanted to maintain status-quo. A second factor was the establishment of fascist governments in Italy and Germany during the same period. They justified violence by uprooting the communists and anti-nationalist elements in their societies. The dominant form of violence in the post-War period, aimed at either de-colonization or social revolution, was rural-based guerrilla warfare.  [23]  The major success stories were those of Mao-Tse-tung in China, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and Fidel Castro in Cuba. But there were also less publicized failures. Guerrilla insurgencies were defeated in Greece, Malaya, and the Philippines. In some of these instances, both the successful and unsuccessful, terrorism was used by those groups pursuing national liberation (Vietnam) or social revolution (Greece).  [24]   During 1960s and 1970s, the world witnessed this sudden upsurge in the form of Left-wing terrorism. This confused the experts on political terrorism, who saw terrorism as a new and unprecedented phenomenon, something that was essentially a response to injustice.  [25]  This meant that the focus was on to address the root causes of terrorism, which could be political, economic, social or religious grievances. The end of Cold War was followed by an eruption of religious terrorism in a large number of countries, particularly in the Middle East, South and Central Asia. The Soviet disintegration provided an inspiration to the Islamic movements particularly in South and Central Asian regions to launch an organized offense against their respective states to: 1) seek freedom; 2) capture the state apparatus; and 3) replace the old communist system with the new Islamic order. The vacuum, which was created because of the Soviet disappearance, also provided a great amount of solidarity among the Muslims all over the world as it gave them a confidence that they were the main force behind the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, the American neglect to Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, added to the already existing political chaos. Out of this situation, the Taliban emerged as an organized political force with the support of Pakistan and to some extent Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan under the Taliban proved to be a place for socializing Islamic radicals from all over the world. The Saudi-born millionaire and Afghan war veteran, Osama Bin Laden, was one of them who took refuge in Afghanistan under the Taliban government. He had resentments against the Saudi Royal family for permitting the Americans to stay on the holy soil after the Gulf War in 1991. As his criticism against the Royal family got severe, he was compelled to flee Saudi Arabia. His nationality was cancelled. The stateless Osama then entered Sudan. But under the U.S. pressure, Sudan expelled him in 1996. Then he moved to Afghanistan, where the Taliban government was recently established. To run the state machinery, the new government badly needed financial assistance, which was provided by Osama and his organization, Al-Qaeda. Consequently, Osamas influence on the Taliban leadership increased. In a unique sense, Afghanistan became a terrorist-sponsored state. Taking advantage of his influence, Osama not only established links with other militant groups in Pakistan, Egypt and other Muslim countries, but also posed himself as a highly religious figure, who could issue a fatwa (Islamic ruling). In 1998, he issued a fatwa, stating, To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslimà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦until their armies, shattered and broken-winged, depart from all the lands of Islam, incapable of threatening any Muslim.  [26]  Since then, a series of terrorist attacks can be observed on the U.S. civil and military installations. The September 11 catastrophe could be seen in this connection, though Al-Qaeda did not take the r esponsibility of it. The September 11 incident has further changed the meaning and nature of terrorism. The incident has characterized terrorism as transnational with religious orientation. The purpose of these groups is not only to overthrow their respective governments, but also to establish a worldwide authority on the basis of their own religious interpretation. Today, terrorism has become very lethal and destructive. Technological changes in the fields of transport, military and communication have added to the strength of terrorists. In such a scenario, it is indispensable to evolve a consensus, at least partial one, over the definition of terrorism. V. HOW TO REACH A CONSENSUS: SOME PRACTICAL APPROACHES The world has now entered a New Age of Terrorism.  [27]  Three important factors confirm this hypothesis. First, the terrorists are equipped with deadly weapons and sophisticated technology at their disposal. Second, the religious orientation has compelled them to believe the rightness of their cause. In other words, the ideology and cause of the terrorist group or organization attracts the potential terrorists to join it. Third, the transcendence of national boundaries has further complicated the issue. In the presence of such emerging threats, it is necessary to evolve a working definition with little disagreement. Although it is extremely difficult for the nation states to compromise over their national interests, still there must be some starting point because there is almost a consensus among the states that the modern transnational religious terrorism is the major threat to the world peace and stability. To begin with, it is the responsibility of the academics to provide some basic roadmap which can help the states reach a consensus on the definition of the term terrorism. First, the academics task is not to label any individual or a group as terrorist but to objectively analyze circumstances which compel the weaker to take arms against the stronger. In doing so, we consciously or unconsciously put all the freedom fighters into the category of terrorist, as well as we also question their legitimacy. This must be kept in mind that a freedom fighter can be distinguished from a terrorist on the basis of the legitimacy and mass support to the organization and the cause. If these factors are absent, then a person or a group can be termed as a terrorist. Second, states must stop defining the term on their own, because the problem starts when two rival states or parties define terrorism by themselves and believe in the authenticity of that definition. In contrast, they should discuss and debate this issue in the UN, particularly in the General Assembly, to reach a consensus. It must be noted that there is no universal definition of terrorism that can be applied to every act of political violence. Besides, every act of violence should be analyzed separately, while keeping in view the motivations of the perpetrator. It means that there must not be any generalization. While analyzing any violent act to be qualified as terrorism, following aspects need to be kept in mind: If the motives are abstract, meaning if any individual or a group aims to commit violence with the purpose of achieving goals on the basis of religious interpretation of its own. If the struggle is transnational in character, meaning affecting the political, social and economic life of the other country. If the struggle is not recognized by the UN. If the violence is not aimed at against the repressive government. If the target is innocent people who have nothing to do with the government policies. So, if any violent activity fulfills any one or all the five aspects, should be considered as terrorism. VI. CONCLUSION As discussed above, todays terrorism is distinct from the past terrorist activities and tactics. The emergence of transnational religious terrorism, coupled with the advancement in military, communication and transportation technologies, has enhanced the power of the terrorists and intensified their brutalities. Despite all such known threats and hazards, the world community is still far from reaching a consensus on the definition of terrorism. The disagreement between one mans terrorism, another mans freedom fighting is still there. A collective and mechanized effort on the part of the international community is needed to overcome this relativist entangle. A genuine understanding of the phenomenon can only be achieved if it is considered beyond the propaganda purposes, and concerted efforts are made to discuss and analyze this menace at international forums, with the consideration that terrorism is equally threatening the peace and stability of the whole world.

American Education System Versus Asian Education System :: Compare Contrast School Asia USA Essays

American Education System versus Asian Education System   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Today the American education system is no longer the best in the world. With declining test scores and poor academic achievement, people have questioned whether our current educational system is working for us. On the other side of the Pacific, the situation is totally different. Students of Asian countries achieve higher academic achievements, and they rank at the top on math and science tests. If their educational system is better than the U.S system, should we adopt their educational system, or not?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  America the land of opportunity, which is famous for its democratic society and unique culture. People in America like to be free, to do whatever they want to do without any restrictions. This belief is reflected in the American educational system. In American schools, teachers and students are at the same social level. Students are encouraged to exchange their own opinions with the teacher. From an early age, students in the American educational system have been taught that they have the ability to achieve whatever they want to be, but rarely have been told how they can achieve their goal. This is because in America there are so many ways to achieve one's dream.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Because of this belief in natural born ability in the land of opportunity, students receive very little pressure in school, so whatever they do in school is totally based on their personal beliefs. If a student wants to be successful he or she can study very hard and get in to a very good college. On the other hand if a student doesn't have any self control and just wants to get school over with, it is OK too, because nobody cares. The advantage of this kind of educational system is that , it really developes student's individual thinking skills, they are encouraged to try out different options to achieve their goal. For example Bill Gates, who dropped out of college, started his own company, now he is one of the richest man in the world. That bad thing about this system is that not that many students don't have the responsibility to get good grades or become successful many believe that even if you don't have a good education you can still get a good paying job. That's why many students in school are doing poorly on their school work.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Asian countries, the cultures and social standards are totally different from the U.S. In those countries most of their values are based on Confucius which heavily stresses education and group values. One's social status is based on their education level.

Bad Nutrition

Food is one of the basic needs of man. From the creation of the world through the medieval ages until this period of globalization, this inevitable need has not left the tables. Besides other needs like shelter and clothing, food is one of the elements of survival. Nutrients available for human actions are obtained from food. As a living thing, man performs such functions as movement, respiration, irritability and response to the environment, growth and development, as well as excretion. Energy is needed for these functions. It is obtained from food.Without food, man starves and eventually dies of starvation. Worst still is a deadly death when he is exposed to bad nutrition. The question is: what is nutrition? What constitutes good nutrition? What is the concept of bad nutrition? What difference is there between good and bad nutrition. What are the effects of bad nutrition on the individual and locality where it is prevalent? What factors promote bad nutrition? What steps can be take n to reduce the incidence of bad nutrition? Definition of concepts Nutrition is the process of obtaining nutrients from the food we eat.It is one of the basic functions of man. Nutrient is obtainable from carbohydrates, proteins, vitamins, minerals, water, roughages and fats and oil. Each of this class of food is indispensable and anything that constitutes an imbalance in its proportion will cause bad nutrition. Good nutrition is when one consumes these classes of food in the right quantity; this implies that it is not too much and not too small. It also included balanced diet; this is ensuring that all classes of food are eaten in a meal session.Each class of food has specific role in the individual: carbohydrates are good sources of energy obtainable from rice, sorghum, yam, wheat, grains. Proteins can be of animal or plant source; they are found in meat, fish, egg, and are the precursors of amino acids, the building blocks of life. Proteins provide the framework for growth and de velopment. Fats and oil are also effective energy sources; while vitamins are useful for metabolism, minerals and water help to maintain homeostasis of electrolytes and fluids within the internal milieu of an individual. Taking each class in every meal in the appropriate proportion is good nutrition.On the other hand, bad nutrition is eating too much or too little. Epidemiology This problem is a cosmopolitan problem with a global distribution. Because of the affluence and wealth of developed countries, the challenge is that of consuming too much food. Most people patronize eateries and fast food centers to eat burgers and similar food stuff which do not contain all the classes of food in the right proportion. This leads to an increasing trend in the incidence of eating disorders such as anorexia and obesity with their concomitant psychological and physical ailments.This underscores the fact that bad nutrition is not restricted to any region of the world as it affects all. In view of this, bad nutrition is even a worse problem in less developed and developing nations where food is not readily available. Bad leadership constitutes the top factor here; it promotes corruption and misappropriation of public funds. Money allocated to provision of food is diverted to public pockets and who suffers for this? The citizens of course. They are left with no other option that to manage and service on the little meal they can provide for their family from subsistence farming.Wars and political instability in these nations also constitutes plaques that consume the land, productive forces and will that could have been useful in agriculture. Poverty and illiteracy form inseparable twins that perpetuate their bad nutrition. Besides, bad Nutrition plagues a large number of people in America. It is profound to note that quite a number of people in this country do not know what constitutes good nutrition; they only eat! The combinations of food they consume do not enrich the body with essential nutrients in a way.The age of fast foods, snacks and McDonald burgers have made life apparently ‘easy’ but this ease gradually paves the way for the accompanying effects of bad nutrition. Besides the fact many are not aware of good nutrition, those who know do not actually vigorously encourage its practice. The health education in this aspect of our lives is not sufficient. As a result, the problem persists. Unhealthy Nutrition Unhealthy foods are usually very easy to distinguish from healthy meals. The quantity is either insufficient or excessive. Bad food can be described as anything that produces an excess of nutrients or a shortage.The quality of meal also matters. When we eat the same type of food for a long period, it Is very likely that bad nutrition is in practice because some peculiar nutrients may be absent from what we eat. Food with large amount of fats and oil are not healthy; they are toxic to the blood vessels and promote obesity. Foods wit h copious amounts of carbohydrates, fast food, and sweets need to be avoid or eaten in small amounts. People respond to nutrition and the pressures of society in different ways. Food cannot be divorced from prevailing environmental conditions and social circumstances.While some people are able to adapt properly, others do not. Sometimes, social pressures force people to change their dietary habits especially when they see eating as an escape route from their life’s challenges. Such people end up becoming obese and with poor self-image. Apart from obesity, there are other eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa, bulimia, psychogenic vomiting and eating disorder not otherwise specified. Eating disorders Anorexia is a mental disorder causing the person to uncontrollably lose weight by refusing food. It is common among school girls and female university students.Its prevalence is more in the upper social class than the lower class, and more a problem in the developed nations. F actors that usually promote this include personality traits that drive the individual to look pleasant and fashionable; social belief that thinness is attractive among young ladies. Psychological basis for this disorder is more important: a struggle for control and a sense of identity lead affected individuals to relentlessly pursue thinness by eating too little. As a result, they are thin and weigh less than the standard for age and gender.There could also be other symptoms like depressed mood, social withdrawal and lack of sexual interest. To maintain this shape, they induce vomiting and engage in excessive exercise. On the other hand, Bulimia refers to episodes of uncontrolled excessive eating. The central features here include an irresistible urge to overeat and accompanying extreme measures to control body weight. There is also an overvalued idea concerning self-image and body shape. It is often confused with anorexia because both can occur at the same time. Episodes are usuall y preceded by stress and breaking of self-imposed dietary rules.Overeating relives tension but is soon followed by guilt and disgust. Subsequently the individual induced vomiting. In many cases, there are symptoms of depression but menstrual abnormalities are absent. Obesity constitutes an important disorder: it is a medical condition characterized by excess body fat. When the body mass index is greater than 30kg/square meters, the diagnosis of obesity can be made. At least, 20% of adults in the States will meet this criterion, as the case is in UK. It tends to be aggravated by environmental and social influence that encourage overeating of high calorie foods and lack of exercise.The psychological aspect is not significant, as the case is in anorexia and bulimia. Hazards of bad nutrition Certainly numerous problems can occur because of improper dietary habits. Some of these can be psychological as it is in cases of anorexia and bulimia. This will necessitate mental state and psychia try assessment. These conditions usually also present with disturbances of mood especially depression. They usually require behavior and cognitive therapies because of the devastating effects of the eating disorder may have on the individual.Obesity is closely related to diabetes mellitus as both conditions promote insulin resistance and a state of increased glucose level in the blood. The pancreas is therefore overworked and later ceases to produce insulin. Diabetes is a chronic debilitating disease that affects every organ of the body; it usually presents with neuropathy, retinopathy and nephropathy as a result of micro vascular disturbance caused by the abnormally elevated plasma glucose level. Patients are predisposed to infections, ulcers and immunosuppression.Bad nutrition also adversely affects the heart and blood vessels. Excessive consumption of foods with fats and oil can cause an elevated level of cholesterol. This leads to formation of atheromatous plaques that thicken a nd block blood vessels. Heart disease occurs when arteries near the heart are blocked by cholesterol. There is also increased level of bad cholesterol in form of low density lipoproteins LDL but an expected reduction in the level of good cholesterol in the form of high density lipoproteins HDL. This is closely related to the onset of high blood pressure-hypertensive diseases.Aggressive health education on what constitutes is a primary prevention strategy. Legislation to stop/reduce sale of ‘bad’ food can also help. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of eating disorders and the sequelae of bad nutrition is equally important. Reference ? Frances Sizer and Eleanor Whitney. Nutrition: Concepts and Controversies. Thomson and Wadswoth Publishing House. Ninth Edition. ? Good Nutrition. www. revolutionhealth. com/healthy-living/food-nutrition/food-basics/facts ? Breaking Bad Nutrition Habits. www. eating-healthy. org/breaking-your-bad-nutrition-habits

Exploring Human Nature in Macbeth

Exploring Human Nature in Macbeth Free Online Research Papers William Shakespeare’s Macbeth explores human nature, in particular the ambition of his main character Macbeth. Macbeth makes ill-fated decisions based upon ambitions to become King and retain that position. So throughout the play, Macbeth’s ambition clouds his judgment, which leads to eventual death. Although his fate is inexorable, Macbeth uses his ambition to fuel his evil intentions. This undertaking is the drive that seals Macbeth’s fate. At the beginning of 1. 3. , Macbeth’s ambition leads him to hear his fate given to him by the three witches: Stay, you imperfect speakers, tell me more. By Sinel’s death I know I am Thane of Galmis, But how of Cawdor? The Thane of Cawdor lives, A prosperous gentleman, and to be King Stands not within the prospect of belief, No more than to be Cawdor. Say from whence You owe this strange intelligence? Or why Upon this blasted heath you stop our way With such prophetic greeting? Speak, I charge you. (1. 3. 70-78) Immediately one can see that Macbeth wanted to hear the witches’ prophecies and not that he was forced to hear them. According to Harold Bloom in his book Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human â€Å"The witchcraft in Macbeth, though persuasive, cannot alter material events, yet hallucination can and does† (516). Macbeth is shrouded by his own ambitions of becoming King. Macbeth is intrigued that he will become King and astonished that he has another title of a man that he believes is still alive and loyal to King Duncan. Also one can see some foreshadowing in this excerpt because the Thane of Cawdor was a traitorous individual, and by Macbeth gaining that title it only strengthens his misguided ambitions. At the end of 1. 3. , Macbeth already attempts to go against human nature when he questions his own character: If good, why do I yield to that suggestion Whose horrid image doth unfix my hair And make my seated heart knock against my ribs, Against the use of nature? †¦(1. 3. 134-137) Here, Macbeth questions his very being by asking if he should against nature, by killing the King of Scotland instead of waiting out the prophecy given to him by the three witches. Human nature is questioned in this excerpt as well because the act of killing, or murder goes against human nature. Also Macbeth would be going against nature, or the natural course of things by forcing fate if he murdered King Duncan to become King. In the very beginning of Act 2, Banquo addresses Macbeth about the witches’ prophecies saying, â€Å"I dreamed last night of the weird sisters. / To you they have shown some truth† (2. 1. 21-22). Now that Macbeth has be granted the title of Thane of Cawdor, Banquo realizes that all that is left for Macbeth is to become King. This assertion also indicates that Banquo is also interested in the prophecies because of Macbeth’s prophecies are starting to be fulfilled, than so will his. Banquo’s prophecy was that his issues or bloodline would become King, so although he himself will not take the throne, he can be assured that his feature generations will. Now that Macbeth has claimed the throne threw unlawful deeds, he begins to wonder about the heirs to his throne. He is unable to conceive a male heir with his wife Lady Macbeth and begins to ponder about Banquo’s issue saying, â€Å"To make them kings-the seed of Banquo kings! / Rather than so, come, Fate, into the list, / And champion me to utterance! †¦Ã¢â‚¬  (3. 1. 70-72). Here, Macbeth formally states that he will go against fate, which as stated is inexorable or unchangeable. At this very moment, Macbeth has just sealed his fate, by trying to defy anothers. Shortly after, Macbeth claims the throne through the murder of King Duncan. Clouded in his own personal goals, Macbeth attempts to go against the prophecy given to Banquo: †¦ And with him- To leave no rubs nor botches in the work- Fleance his son, that keeps him company, Whose absence is no less material to me Than is his father’s must embrace the fate Of that dark hour. †¦ (3. 1. 133-138) At this point, Macbeth plots the murders of Banquo and his son Fleance, in order to stop Banquo’s issue from becoming heirs to Macbeth’s throne as prophesized by the three witches. He states he will leave no remnants of Banquo’s bloodline in order to stop that prophecy from becoming true. Macbeth’s ambition to remain King and do what he sees fit only further affirms his very own demise. Macbeth is becoming more ruthless as the play progresses. In 4. 1. , Macbeth is approached by three apparitions, all of which tell him more of his prophecy. Macbeth is told Macduff is the only man Macbeth has to fear despite the fact that another apparition tells him that no man born from a woman can harm him. Macbeth’s ambition leads him to make further irrational decisions concerning these prophecies: Then live, Macduff. What need I fear of thee? But yet I’ll make assurance double sure, And take a bond of fate. Thou shalt not live, That I may tell pale-hearted fear it lies, And sleep in spite of thunder. (4. 1. 82-86) Macbeth’s ambitious nature clouds his better judgment, which leads him to want to stop this prophecy from happening as well. He failed at killing both Banquo and Fleance but that does not alter his plot of killing Macduff. Macbeth gets some assurance from the witches however when they claim no man can harm Macbeth. For this reason Macbeth damns himself further by believing he is invincible. It is only a matter of time before Macbeth will fall by the hand of Macduff. When Macduff confront Macbeth, Macbeth is fearless because he was told he could not be harmed by anyone of being born from a woman. However, Macduff is an exception to this rule and tells Macbeth â€Å"Tell thee Macduff was from his mother’s womb / Untimely ripped† (5. 8. 15-17). Now Macbeth realizes that his judgment was incorrect, there nothing he can do that will save him from the ultimate mistake which ends his life. Not long after being confronted by Macduff, Macbeth comes to the realization that he is doomed saying, â€Å"Accursed be that tongue that tells me so, / For it hath cowed me better part of man!† (5. 8. 17-18). At this point Macbeth knows he cannot defeat Macduff because Macduff is the one exception to the witches’ prophecy. He can no longer cower away in his castle, nor make any more extremely misguided decisions. Perhaps if his ambition to be the best and the King of Scotland has not overtaken his better decision-making abilities, he would not have been damned to hell for murder, but he wouldn’t be slain for treason as well. Finally in his last action Macbeth makes one last charge toward Macduff despite the fact that all signs are pointing to his death and demise: Though Birnam Wood be come to Dunsinance, And thou opposed, being of no woman born, Yet I will try the last. Before my body I throw my warlike shield. Lay on, Macduff, And damned be him that first cries ‘Hold, enough!’ (5. 8. 30-34) Macbeth knows there is no coming back from his mistakes and decides to go out in a valiant clash of metal swords. Macbeth is slain, and Macduff is the hero. It is impossible to assume that Macbeth would have done anything different had he known Macduff would kill him because it is part of Macbeth’s human nature. In closing, Wendy Greenhill, in her book Shakespeare: Man of the Theater concludes that, â€Å"As the play unfolds the audience and with the Macbeths, become painfully aware that destiny and choice are two edges of the same sword† (18). In one aspect of human nature, ambition was able to take a once noble hero, and transform him into a ruthless King that sealed his own fate by following clouded judgment. Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead, 1998. Greenhill, Wendy. Shaespeare: Man of the Theater. Chicago: Heinemann Library, 2000. Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. Adventures in English Literature. Ed. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. New York: Harcourt School, 1996.179-249. Research Papers on Exploring Human Nature in MacbethComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows EssayHonest Iagos Truth through DeceptionCapital PunishmentBringing Democracy to AfricaCanaanite Influence on the Early Israelite ReligionThe Spring and AutumnTrailblazing by Eric AndersonWhere Wild and West MeetEffects of Television Violence on Children