Legalizing Marijuana in Canada Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Legalizing Marijuana in Canada - Essay Example One of the bodies that have been vocal on the issue of the use of marijuana in Canada is The Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). The body earlier this year introduced a new evidence based report for marijuana policy framework with recommendations of strict regulations on controlling the harm associated with the use of marijuana. In 1960s, the laws against marijuana were tough with where an offender found to possess small amounts of marijuana was to be sentenced for six months or a $1000 fine. However, in the recent past, pressure on the parliament to legalize marijuana has amounted with the House of Commons special committee on non-medical drugs releasing a report suggesting the reform of laws on marijuana possession and supply. Even as the issue of whether to legalize marijuana or not is debatable, legal access has been granted to people with HIV/AIDS and other individuals with serious illnesses.   With these deliberations on the policies that has been stipulating on th e control and use of marijuana in Canada, the focal point that has been echoed by different stakeholders articulates on the viability, and applicability of legalizing the drug. Factors to be considered when deciding on whether to legalize it or not are depicted below.      Evans and Berent (1992) argued that legalizing marijuana would lead to more jobs creation.   This would go a long way in growing the economy of the country. In addition, the government will be in a position to earn revenue from the taxes.

Is rationalism best understood as a rational phenomenon Essay

Is rationalism best understood as a rational phenomenon - Essay Example tion of the earth and the stars (the earth is the centre of the universe; the stars are fixed to a crystalline sphere and are unchanging and eternal) went on for about one thousand years. Even though scientific quests existed, it was not till the 16th century that our worldview actually began to change. A host of new thinkers made radical changes in the world by ushering in rational and scientific investigation. Let us take a look at the important path breaking events in the development of modern and scientific and rational view of the world: Thus with the new dawn of Rationalism in the 16th century came a new spirit. The Rationalists held the view that one could arrive at knowledge, not by religious faith and revelation, but by reason. Their faith in the human reason brought in a new phenomenon in the thinking trends of the world. Their basic principle as given by Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason was that everything taking place in this world can be explained rationally and that knowledge (truth) can be gained by deduction. This new phenomenon is also evident in the Rationalists’ implicit faith in human intellect and understanding power, which can also be termed as intuition. If a man throws a ball into the air, what can we expect? The ball will come back to the earth. I know that this incident is only confirming the truth about the laws of the world. But there are two ways to come to this ultimate truth. The man can throw the ball a number of times and comes to a conclusion that the ball does not stay up but comes back to earth, or he can understand that some basic principle or law makes the ball come back to earth. The thinkers belonging to the first school of thought are called Empiricists, who believe that law of gravity can be established by observation. Throwing the ball up countless times will give the same result. So, we see that the empiricists’ point of view is dependent upon experience. If experience changes in this regard, the

Connections Between Stalin And Lenin Regimes Politics Essay

Connections Between Stalin And Lenin Regimes Politics Essay If the words of traditionalist historians from the cold-war era are to be taken as fact, then the answer to the topic question dictates that there is a real connection that exists between Leninism and Stalinism. It was the socioeconomic and political base created by Lenin that became the plant from which emerged the excesses of Stalins era. Stalin promoted an entirely personal viewpoint when it came to his soviet policy i.e. he took on the role and accumulative advantages of being the Lenin of his rule. His behavior highlighted his own policies and made evident the failing totalitarian arguments resulting in his regimes being termed a nations tragedy (Ulam Stalin; the Man and His Era 12). There are several people who disagree with this view; mainly Trotskyitesis who put forth that Stalinism broke away from Leninism. They are in favor of the nature of Stalins rule; he pulled his regime away from the progressive and democratic nature of Lenins rule and pulled it towards a dictatorship that seemingly served his self-interest. It has been termed a Thermidorian negationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ [and] betrayal of the basic Bolshevik beliefs (Cohan 41). Deutscher further went onto state that Stalin was only able to maintain the status of a revolutionary leader because he was able to implement a new and fundamentally different practice of socioeconomic and political organization, as opposed to staying true to the older definition of revolution (Stalin; a Political Biography 550). Khruschev famously took up the vast break between the two regimes when he tried to validate the presence of his Leninist-Marxist regime. He went against the notion that Stalinsim exhibited any qualities of Leninism and by way of de-Stalanization promoted the concept of the excesses that occupied Stalinism. Some theorists attempted to elaborate the two regimes in a more neutral tone and point of view; however, the revisionists insisted that although there were discontinuities and continuities between the two regimes, Stalinism had been influenced heavily by other historical events from within Russia. The prevailing argument is now a balance of the straight line intentionalist theory that Bolshevik Marxism determined the character of post revolutionary Leninism as well as the main traits of what we call Stalinism, and the revisionist research that has shown the difference of extremity between the two regimes (Cohen Rethinking the Soviet Experience: Politics and History since 1917 42). While Leninism slowly began to work its way in the direction of political totalitarianism, economic liberalization did not necessarily have to result in Stalinist authoritarianism. The demise of the communist regime led to a kind of rebirth in Sovietology, and also set in stone the fact that distinguishing between a good and bad Lenin is becoming less and less sustainable (Pipes Three Whys of the Russian Revolution 84). Although it cannot be stated as fact that out of the totalitarian embryo would come totalitarianism full blown, it is certain that Lenin had played a significant role in creating Stalin. The one thing to note is however, that Stalin escalated politics and terror to an entirely new level. (Cohen Rethinking the Soviet Experience: Politics and History since 1917 43). Several people are in agreement over the fact that a significant change took place when Stalin introduced economic reforms which stemmed from a policy of concentrating peasantry into collective farms after collectivization the effectively abolishing private property and swiftly industrializing through five year plans. Stalin believed that it was a Great leap forward. Alev Nove came to the conclusion that Stalins economic policys infiltration was a great turning point in Russian history, whereby Stalin challenged the Marxist theory and turned it upside down to determine the character of the economic arrangement through political system (Hartfree 27). The collectivization policy initially was a change to the semi-capitalists policy of trading under the NEP. Stalin, while restructuring the USSR, portrayed that wholesale collectivization and industrialization were not only representing the continuation of the Bolshevik blueprints that were set by Lenin but in his words was A path of socialism. People like Trotsky totally disagreed with Stalin and his principals. Trotsky during the process of bringing about a change in policy portrayed how Stalin had deviated from the Bloshevik ideology and that opportunism à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ turned into its opposite à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ adventurism (Trotsky Eastman 45). Trotsky being an ex-Bolshevik in refuge, irrespective of everything would have still criticized Stalin out of personal revenge. Stalins contention of collectivization as a branch of Leninism did not hold much significance, even though it was coupled with Grain requisitioning tactics and Kulak liquidation during the Civil War. Stalin validat ed his actions using quotes by Lenin, who claimed collectivization as an eventual socialist goal and referred to Kulaks as bloodsuckers, vampires, robbers of the people (Hartfree 28). Stalin claim to his theory leading to the destruction of the last roots of capitalism in the country, to the final victory of socialism in agriculture, and to complete consolidation of Soviet power in the country side is unreal. The reliability of Stalins evidence was doubtful not only due to the omissions from some of Lenins writings (which were put away in sealed archives) also because of his selective manner towards economic arguments. Stalins reasons were based merely on words that strengthened his views and ambitions alone while completely being oblivious to Lenins wise warnings towards collectivization: coercion towards the middle peasant is a supremely harmful thing, to act here by means of coercion is to ruin the whole cause, and collectivization should be based upon not, pressure, but examples and persuasion (Hartfree 28). Deutscher, through the western study of Stalins economic policy, was identified as the first to object to the Soviet thought by stating that a breach in policy of communists had occurred and had claimed on noticing a Great Change. He further stated: Soviet Russia embarked upon her second revolution, which was directed solely and exclusively by Stalinà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ [and which]à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ was even more sweeping and radical than the first (Deutscher Stalin; a Political Biography 296). Deutschers distinction of it being the second revolution states his perceived difference that existed between both the revolutions. He stated collectivization as a Military operation, a cruel civil war (Full Text of Facts on Communism). Deutscher stated their experiment of placing 150 million peasants into 200,00 kolkhoz as piece of prodigious insanity, in which all rules of logic and principals of economics were turned upside down, (Deutscher Stalin; a Political Biogr aphy 326), he blatantly specified that Stalin undertook to drive barbarism out of Russia by barbarous means (Full Text of Facts on Communism). Even though Deutscher comprehended the price of such means, it is quite vague whether he possessed all the facts for writing in 1949, his prospect to view the material in person was quite limited, hence even while stating Stalin as having borrowed so much from Marxist thinkers and economists, that he might well be charged with outright paligrism he wraps Stalin up with a positive note (Full Text of Facts on Communism). Duetschers compassion towards the communist ideology reflects a socialist nature in his political inclination, he discusses the rewards of such policies and describes Stalins economy as the first truly gigantic experiment in planned economy, the first instance in which a government undertook a plan to regulate the whole economic life of its country, and to direct its industrial resources towards a uniquely rapid multiplication of the nations wealth (Full Text of Facts on Communism). He outlines that the plans had allowed Russia to modernize and develop into a society, and that a vague idea had been given practicality for the first time. For Duetscher the breach in policy was not as catastrophic as what later historians would describe it as, but he did consider that behind Stalin were tramping the myriads of weary bleeding Russian feet(Full Text of Facts on Communism). Intentionalists stated collectivization as useless and that it only damaged Russia, they classify the Stalinism perio d as a struggle on the same scale as of the First World War (Conquest The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the torror-famine). According to Ulam, when questioned if the Civil War had ever concluded, answered stating that collectivization as a war against peasantry (Lenin and the Blosheviks: the Intellectual and Political History of the Triumph of communism in Russia). According to the totalitarian school of thought, lenin and stalin both classified peasants as filth, flexible towards the disposal of the party. According to Ulam had Lenin lived he would have bought and end to NEP long before Stalin did. To both the revolution was taken over by financial radicals that handicapped the economy, and they initiated institutions which later provided as a form or advancement for Stalins revolution from above(Full Text of Facts of Communism). Conquest in order to link both the oppressors deduced that both had martyred almost the same number of people using their economic polici es. During the Peasant War of grain requisitioning held by Lenin, an estimate of 14 million people died where as in the Revolution from above of Stalin an estimate of 14.5 million were found dead. Conquests last words in respect to the Leninist-Stalinist policies were When the Stalin regime moved into excessive requisitioning in late 1932, it had the experience of 1918- 21 behind it. Then the experience had resulted in disastrous famine. If it was again to do so, this cannot have been for want of understanding in the Kremlin. (The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine). 1933s Terror Famine did it. He claimed that Stalin disregarded Lenins advice and embedded his own exploitation and destruction of the muzhik. This perspective further more damaged the Stalinists claims for further Bloshevik policies; which is clear to us that had they been accomplished NEP would have lasted. Ulam justifies his statement by stating that Stalins war was not for power alone bu t also did not support ideology, the faith of Marxism-Leninism (Ulam Stalin; the Man and his Era). Upon proper comprehension of Marxism, it would have required a safer, more reasonable method of transforming Russia into a modern industrial society (Full Text of Facts on Communism). Conquest grasps differences from both the Leninist and Stalinist policies and does not consider the Stalinist economics as an utter continuation of the Leninist war communism. He states that Although Lenin shared Bolshevik antipathy towards the peasants as the archaic element in Russia, his main concerns were to understand them in Marxist termsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ and to decide how to organize the countryside (The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine), whereas Stalin only wanted to, frighten the Kulaks into submission (The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine). The only factor that made up for Lenin was that he perceived peasantry in Marxist terms and his policy was based on trial and error, with a changeable mixture of ideology and pragmatism (Lee 180) and at the last moment, Leninà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ listened to the voice or reality (Conquest The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine). None of this stands as a justification to the policies but simply outlines the imperfect characteristics of the Stalinist policies, unlike Deutschers view, which werent simply a continuation but also an intensification of Stalins course which would end in A cruel mockery of the peasant (Ulam Stalin; the man and His Era). It is said that one cannot make omelets without breaking eggs. In that case, perhaps one should not make omelets, if the menu happens to provide other choices (Nove 379). Quite a number of eggs were broken when speaking in terms of Russia, which not only according to the totalitarians, but was later also accepted by the Soviets, like Gorbachev who persisted on introducing Lenin like perestroika and glasnost reforms to amend the Stalinists red tape. They claimed that a lot of stress had been placed on what Gorbachev described as the centralization and command system, and illustrated to the soviet people the horrific nature of collectivization: Flagrant violations of the principals of collectivization occurred everywhere. Nor were excesses avoided in the struggle against the kulaks. An atmosphere of intolerance, hostility and suspicion was created in the country. I am putting things bluntly- those were real crimes stemming from an abuse of power. Many thousands of people were subjected to whole sale repressive methods. Such comrades is the bitter truth (Gorbachev). In Noves words Stalin was required to bring Russia into the 20th century, loses were i mmense but such was the only available option for Russia. It had become more explicit that Stalin had taken the Leninist method and made it further extreme to a notch unconceivable under Lenin, and even though it is true that the foundations were there to be exploited, Stalin was not a Leninist but a Stalinist who was knowledgeable about Leninism, the events that followed would most probably not been approved by Lenin. According to the totalitarians, politically both of them were considered as dictatorships; each was a single party system, each had secret police apparatus; both inculcating ideas within their citizens; each had control over the economy and the political organizations of the country; both used terror as a practice; To be clear: Lenin bequeathed to his successors a fully functioning police state (Amis 32). Even though each had a one party state, Trotskyite Deutscher implied that Stalin was The rule of a single fraction [which] was indeed an abuse as well as a conseq uence of the rule of the single party (The Prophet Unarmed Trotsky 1921 1929). This was fully argued by Khrushchev who, claimed that in respect to political ideology, and procedures towards the party, Lenin was a true Marxist. In a discrete speech he justified this by stating that Lenin had upheld democracy and collegiality in the Communist Party or which he named The Leninist method of convincing and educating (Crankshaw). He concurs with Figes perspective who stated that, despite the ban on factions, the party still made room for comradely debate (Figes). The political behavior inside the part faced a direct split for Stalins heir. In practice Stalin ignored the norms of Party Life and trampled on the Leninist principal of collective Party Leadership. This was despotism for Khrushchev and Co. The totalitarians portrayed Stalin as someone who ruled with an iron fist from inside the party, but he ran the country much more brutally than the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This particular kind of Soviet judgment in the mix of the huge amount of writings by the Liberals is quite a minority. Liberals completely deny the split between the two political ideologies. On the other hand western historian had no reason to justify their beliefs like the Soviets, so stuck to agreeing with Pipes in his statement Stalins megalomaniac and other odious qualities should not obscure the fact that his ideology and modus operandi was Lenins. A man of meager education, he had no other source of ideas (A Concise History of the Russian Revolution). Historians that are persuaded by the American values of democracy consist of the same modus operandi as Lenin. His theoretical and practical solutions fueled the party which gave birth to the totalitarian Stalinist. Pipes does not indicate coming a cross any such signs that hint whether Lenin ever considered Stalin a traitor to his definition of Communism. According to Pipes the reason for this was the dictatorship of the proletariat which gave a rise to the dictatorship by the vanguard, and in both cases terror was struck by death. The odd fact was that these views were similar to those of the pre-revolutionary, utopian idealist Lenin, who was not affected by the hardships of the Civil War Government So long as the state exists there is no freedom. Pipes in particular did not have any freedom during the regimes of Lenin and Stalin. Another revisionist named Service, maybe not as intense as Pipes; but in accordance to recent archival research, shows that he sides with the totalitarians, and also indicates to the violent Bolshevik political ambitions. He explains the one party state as arbitrary rule, administrative ultra-centralism, and philosophical amoralism. Lenin was not graspable as it was first thought, and the specula tion that if Lenin had survived, a humanitarian order would have been established is hard to square with this garment of agreed principals of Bolshevism (Service). Volkogonov was a reformed communist who held similar totalitarian beliefs of the red tape, sabotage, and bureaucracy that was commonly railed against by Lenin was infused through the system that he had created. Peoples freedom, power, human rights were concepts deemed unnecessary (Volkogonov and Shukman 77-78). By Lenin, the party had become a state within a state, its dictatorship a fact Party absolutism replaced tsarist autocracy. Democracy and civil rights became bourgeois manifestationsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ [and]à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ human life a soulless statistical unit. (Full Text of Facts on Communism). This continued till Stalins death. On top of that revisionism proved that a instead of a continuation the finalized Stalinist product was poles apart of the primary Leninist system. Reevaluating the Soviet experience Cohen concluded that the party had a considerable amount of change from 1917 to 1921 alone, in terms of composition, organizational structure, internal political life and outlook. Stalins party was thoroughly different from that of Lenin. For, if ideology could influence events, then it was also shaped and changed by it, (Cohen). If Lenin was impacted by the Civil War, then Stalinist had gone through different stages of evolution as well. Stalinist ideology changed in essence and it did not represent the same movement as that which took place in 1917 (Full Text of Facts on Communism). Nationalism, conservatism, reactionism, and dogmatism was revived where as there was a switch in the prominence of proletariat to the leaders as creators of life. Cohen concluded that, disc ontinuities were secondary to continuities. (Full Text of Facts on Communism). Although in terms of political continuation the difference between both the terms is quantitative, not qualitative (Full Text of Facts on Communism), and, as Cohen states excess was Stalinism (Cohen), is what differentiates between the two. The extent to which they differed not the manner in which they differ. Essentially, the basic elements of the Stalinist regime were all in place by 1924, Stalin simply prolonged it to feed his own personal satisfaction (Full Text of Facts on Communism). Continuous and discontinuous can be found both economically and politically but it is risky to jump to a conclusion like the Soviets stating that no link was there between Stalin and Lenin or enforcing the fact that no difference is there between the two. It is vital for one to see and understand the link between the two regimes. Had precedents of economical and political nature not existed terrors such as those witness ed during Stalins time would not have existed. Conquest derives that Stalinism did not emerge from nothingness, like any other historical phenomenon, it had roots in the past, but it would be deluding to state like Solzhenitsyn who claimed that a direct chain of events led to Stalin (The Great Terror: A Reassessment). The terror of Stalinist made an impact on history and led to plain simple human barbarity which inhabits mankind. The Mongols, Ivan the Terrible, and many other dictators used Lenins Logic of the axe (Volkogonov). Although there is a similarity between the Cheka of 1918 and the NKVD of the 1930s, the core difference between Lenin and Stalin was the extent of how far either would go. As evidence has it, majority agrees to the fact that Stalin took things further, both hold records showing that they had killed but Lenin did not kill fellow Communists, and Stalin did so on a massive scale; Lenin spoke of collectivization whereas Stalin implemented it, Lenin commented over the bureaucratic red tape, whereas Stalin wrapped the USSR in it. (Pipes a Concise History of the Russian Revolution)

The Irrationality of Existence Essay -- Literature, Gilgamesh

One of the most fascinating traits of humanity is the tendency to reflect and to create art on the basis of that reflection. In the days before writing, cave paintings and the oral tradition of storytelling demonstrated ways that people expressed their feelings – taking the time after winning, even if only briefly, the struggle against the demands of subsistence to leave a product behind, for posterity. Even the earliest recorded examples of literature, such as The Epic of Gilgamesh, poignantly express the struggles that humanity faced when dealing with such abstractions like mortality and grief. The most recent bestseller books published last week may have cooler cover art and use figurative language more intricately than that ancient poem. But the anger and grief that Gilgamesh felt after a snake ate the plant of immortality was much greater and powerful. It was the plant he found after a long and bloody journey. Because of one careless moment when he stopped to take a quick dip in a pool, he lost it to the snake. The absurdity of life comes into high relief at this moment, and while the writings of Samuel Beckett, Joseph Heller and Sylvia Plath are just some of the many that express the same theme, none will be displayed more vividly than. Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and Michael Seigneur de Montaigne’s Of Experience also mirror the irrationality of existence. These books suggest that what is important in life, and what gives life meaning is much more than what we are able to accumulate and acquire during our time on the planet; it is how we respond to what Hamlet would term the â€Å"slings and arrows of outrageous fortune† (Shakespeare). The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio was written in the 1350’s... ...es. Throughout European history, such movements as the Age of Reason and the Romantic Era represented different schools of thought as the way to find happiness and contentment in life. Boccaccio, Shelley, and Montaigne are just three of the many writers who have taken on this idea as a theme. Ironically, there may be as many answers to the question of finding the significance of life as the number of people trying to answer it. Works Cited Boccaccio, Giovanni, and George H. MacWilliam. The Decameron. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 2003. Print. Montaigne, Michel De. "Of Experience." Essays By Michel De Montaigne: 633-88. Print. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Web. Retrieved 4 December 2011 from http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/hamlet/ Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Joseph Pearce. Frankenstein. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2008. Print. The Irrationality of Existence Essay -- Literature, Gilgamesh One of the most fascinating traits of humanity is the tendency to reflect and to create art on the basis of that reflection. In the days before writing, cave paintings and the oral tradition of storytelling demonstrated ways that people expressed their feelings – taking the time after winning, even if only briefly, the struggle against the demands of subsistence to leave a product behind, for posterity. Even the earliest recorded examples of literature, such as The Epic of Gilgamesh, poignantly express the struggles that humanity faced when dealing with such abstractions like mortality and grief. The most recent bestseller books published last week may have cooler cover art and use figurative language more intricately than that ancient poem. But the anger and grief that Gilgamesh felt after a snake ate the plant of immortality was much greater and powerful. It was the plant he found after a long and bloody journey. Because of one careless moment when he stopped to take a quick dip in a pool, he lost it to the snake. The absurdity of life comes into high relief at this moment, and while the writings of Samuel Beckett, Joseph Heller and Sylvia Plath are just some of the many that express the same theme, none will be displayed more vividly than. Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and Michael Seigneur de Montaigne’s Of Experience also mirror the irrationality of existence. These books suggest that what is important in life, and what gives life meaning is much more than what we are able to accumulate and acquire during our time on the planet; it is how we respond to what Hamlet would term the â€Å"slings and arrows of outrageous fortune† (Shakespeare). The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio was written in the 1350’s... ...es. Throughout European history, such movements as the Age of Reason and the Romantic Era represented different schools of thought as the way to find happiness and contentment in life. Boccaccio, Shelley, and Montaigne are just three of the many writers who have taken on this idea as a theme. Ironically, there may be as many answers to the question of finding the significance of life as the number of people trying to answer it. Works Cited Boccaccio, Giovanni, and George H. MacWilliam. The Decameron. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 2003. Print. Montaigne, Michel De. "Of Experience." Essays By Michel De Montaigne: 633-88. Print. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Web. Retrieved 4 December 2011 from http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/hamlet/ Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Joseph Pearce. Frankenstein. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2008. Print.

Decision making Essay

My personal ethics development has been a process and it has changed over the years from people influencing me and myself maturing. As a child, I was raised well by my mother who always taught me to do the right thing when no one was looking. She always made sure I respected my elders and had good manners. I went to a Catholic school when I was in grade school and high school. My family and I would go to church every Sunday and have dinner together every night. My family always taught me to have good values and morals, to be a part of the community in a productive way. The people that raised me in my earlier life played a huge importance on the man I have become. At this point of my life ,I thought my compass was true north as we heard Mr. O’Rourke talk about in the video lecture. I had strong values at all times or at least I thought I did. As my life went on I realized that my compass was north ,but it wasn’t true north. I still had room to grow and become more mature in my decision-making. Sometimes it can be very hard to judge how ethic you are like a person because you are judging yourself. I graduated high school and soon after that I decided that I was going to join the Army instead of going to college. I was 19 years old when I joined the United States Army and enlisted for four years. The minute I arrived to boot camp I was introduced to the seven Army values which are loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. We had to memorize these army values ,as well as The Soldiers Creed and Warrior ethos. The warrior ethos is, I will always place the mission first, I will never quit, I will never accept defeat, and I will never leave a fallen comrade. Every morning we would stand information and have to repeat these creeds and Army values as a group. At the time ,I did not understand why it was suppose important memorize all these things. They would make us do team building exercises, where you would have to trust your fellow Soldiers. Then the next six years of my life will change how I looked at my moral decision making for the rest of my life. I went to Iraq when I was 20 for a 15-month tour and came back 22 years old. Within those six years ,I deployed to Iraq three deferent times for a total of 33 months. While you are deployed in a war situation you will be faced with unethical decisions on a daily basis this is where you got to separate your religious and personal ethics with your jobs ethics. Sometimes you need to make a decision based on a duty-based principal, were right and wrong is determined by an outside source. You do things you don’t necessarily believe in ,but it’s for the better of the workplace, work or in this case for the Army. I look back to the days of basic training and throughout the nine years I have been in the Army and I realize why the Army puts so must stress on values. We have classes all the time on ethics, decision-making and critical thinking. The Army prepares you for the hard decisions you are going to have to make with using sound judgment and values. All the training I received from the Army and them instilling values and standards in my brain helped me to always make ethical decisions in the most distraught instances. It helped me that I was raised with good ethics, morals, and values. It made the transition in the Army easier for myself than some of the other Soldiers. The Army is a perfect example of just because you were raised with bad ethics or values do not mean that you will always live that way. People are brought in from all over the world and have to work with each other on a daily basis and trust each other. The Army will teach you how to have good ethics and values. I see people change all the time over the course of time. They will make you have a role model character once they make you believe in the values and ethics. I am not saying everyone will change or will be able to change but if a person truly wants to change they can change with strong leaders in place with good characters. Ethics is crucial in the business world because there is so much room for corruption and misbehavior in the workplace. There is many chances to make unethical decisions in business that is why it is so important to have mandatory training and have people who believe in you work for you. Every company or business needs to come up with some policy such as code to ethics in the workplace environment. Just cause someone grew up a bad apple does not mean that the person is going to be a bad apple there whole life. People who impact them throughout their lives can change them or a certain job with high ethic standards could change their point of view. It could be as simple as one person who influences that person for them to change to the perspective on their ethics. Without ethics in organizations, there would be no sense of trust among employees and as well with customers. You want to know your employees are making ethical decisions because you cannot watch everyone that works for you all the time. You want them to act the same way whether you are in a room with them or a thousand miles away. It is your responsibility as a leader to influence these people and instill these values and ethics in them. You need to make your employees believe in you and your ideas. Throughout my life ,I feel I have had strong morals but many people have influenced me in a positive way. Most people just need positive influences in their life to shape them to have good strong ethics. I was just lucky enough to have these people in my life from an early age and throughout my life. I have never been the person who does things for entitlement-based, I do not find myself making decisions solely on the basis of what is best for myself.

Brachiation Project

Postcolonial Indices: Brachia Index Monterey Peninsula College Keywords: Hummer, skeletal Indices, locomotion, arboreal, fabrication, Biped, Quadruped, Percolator Abstract I measured multiple Hummer and radiuses from multiple mammals Including H. S. Sapiens In order to correlate a hypothesis on how they move using their Individual brachia indexes. Generally speaking fabrication is associated with the major alterations in the arm, thorax and hand. The more powerful the arm movements, more robust and â€Å"stronger† the stabilizing musculature must be.Materials and Methods The materials I used included a lightweight field esoteric board, and a pair of spreading calipers. I measured the length of the radius from the Proximal Epiphysis to the Distal Epiphysis and recorded the length in millimeters. I then did the same for the hummers. I then found the fabrication Index by using the equation (R) Radius length / (H) Hummers length X 100 or R/H(OHIO). I did this for the Sea Otter (An hydride ultra), Human (H. S.It Is one of the many Indexes we use to see how the animal moves. For example we can assume that all of the mammals on the list above besides the human and otter, are in some form swinging from trees because of the higher index. We can take the assumptions to another level. If the arms are longer then the legs then we can assume the animal will be a knuckle walking and fist walking. If the legs are longer than the arm then we can assume bipedal. If the legs are longer then the arms then we can assume leaping and arboreal.Discussion I found that there are several types of fabricators. The gibbons and the signings primarily use arm swinging as a way of getting around and are said to be the best kinds of fabricators. Although the fabricator Indexes Imply that humans and chimpanzees are not the best on the charts they are certainly capable, but they do to practice this as their primary source of locomotion. We as humans are the only ones dedicated to only usi ng bipedal does not mean that the other primates are to upright almost human like. Non-human primates use bipedal locomotion when carrying food.One hypothesis for human bipedal is that it evolved as a result of successful survival from carrying food to share with group members. The Chimpanzees forearm is relatively long in comparison to the humans. The major differences between chimpanzees and humans limbs are contrasts in relative proportion. Some anthropologists believe that fabrication could be a premeditation o bipedal. It was astonishing to me that humans brachia index is so similar to an otters but the otter was in no way designed to swing from a tree.It is also baffling to understand that a ring-tailed lemur, highest on the brachia scale, is closer on this index to an otter then too human. But we have the ability to climb and swing if we so desire. So it poses the question as to why the brachia index of the otter says it could swing from trees but the otter has yet to evolve this desire to do so. So what we can conclude from the brachia index is that the environment plays a significant role in evolving the ways in which animals move. Reference Elaine N. Evident, W. C.