Technology and Technological Advances Shape the American Culture :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

Technological Advances Shape the American Culture People stay current with events that are happening worldwide in many ways. They watch the news on televisions, read the newspaper or go to news station's web sites. Looking back on the good old days, before television, cellular phones, and the Internet, life was simple. It is unbelievable how the little advances in technology since the late 1800s have shaped American culture. I remember 1948 well. This is when cable television had fifty stations across the country and one million receivers. From here the television industry grew to new heights. By 1951, Americans all over the country could watch the same thing. I recall CBS's attempt at broadcasting shows in color. This idea did not last long due to the use of technology mismatching with what was used in black and white television sets. One late evening in 1953, I saw on the news that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved the RCA compatibility system that made color and black and white kosher. The addition of color gav e a new meaning to television. Later in 1953, the first educational television (ETV) station aired. Being just a kid at this time, educational shows did not fascinate me, but my mother made me watch them. Despite attempts to ignore what was being said, I learned more than I could imagine. Around 1956, the first motion pictures were produced in Hollywood and sent out around the country. I remember watching this exclusive event on the family television. My parents did not understand the thrill of movies coming out. I guess it was because they were too old fashioned. The television stations that we watch today became national cable stations in the 1970s. I remember 1975 as if it was yesterday. During this year the HBO station became the first national cable network. Back then, HBO watchers did not pay extra for the movies or shows they watched. Now if you want to watch a movie on HBO you pay extra on your cable bill, that is, if your cable company provides HBO. Another cable network that went national during the late 1970s was TBS. The TBS superstation was one of my favorite stations during that time. The shows broadcasted have gotten better and the movies have gotten more interesting. Television channel selections were rare during the 70s, but then the 80s came and with this decade came others. Technology and Technological Advances Shape the American Culture :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers Technological Advances Shape the American Culture People stay current with events that are happening worldwide in many ways. They watch the news on televisions, read the newspaper or go to news station's web sites. Looking back on the good old days, before television, cellular phones, and the Internet, life was simple. It is unbelievable how the little advances in technology since the late 1800s have shaped American culture. I remember 1948 well. This is when cable television had fifty stations across the country and one million receivers. From here the television industry grew to new heights. By 1951, Americans all over the country could watch the same thing. I recall CBS's attempt at broadcasting shows in color. This idea did not last long due to the use of technology mismatching with what was used in black and white television sets. One late evening in 1953, I saw on the news that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved the RCA compatibility system that made color and black and white kosher. The addition of color gav e a new meaning to television. Later in 1953, the first educational television (ETV) station aired. Being just a kid at this time, educational shows did not fascinate me, but my mother made me watch them. Despite attempts to ignore what was being said, I learned more than I could imagine. Around 1956, the first motion pictures were produced in Hollywood and sent out around the country. I remember watching this exclusive event on the family television. My parents did not understand the thrill of movies coming out. I guess it was because they were too old fashioned. The television stations that we watch today became national cable stations in the 1970s. I remember 1975 as if it was yesterday. During this year the HBO station became the first national cable network. Back then, HBO watchers did not pay extra for the movies or shows they watched. Now if you want to watch a movie on HBO you pay extra on your cable bill, that is, if your cable company provides HBO. Another cable network that went national during the late 1970s was TBS. The TBS superstation was one of my favorite stations during that time. The shows broadcasted have gotten better and the movies have gotten more interesting. Television channel selections were rare during the 70s, but then the 80s came and with this decade came others.

Educational Implications for Heideggers Views On Poetry And Thinking E

Educational Implications for Heidegger's Views On Poetry And Thinking ABSTRACT: I discuss some of the educational implications emerging from Heidegger's views on poetry, thinking, and language. Specifically, Heidegger's views on the neighborhood between poetry and thinking suggest that most accepted methods of teaching poetry are in error, because they ignore this neighboring relation. The importance of this relation is presented and clarified. I then discuss the implications of Heidegger's view for teaching poetry. Heidegger's series of three lectures, later published as "The Nature of Language" has some very significant implications for education. (1) In this paper I focus on the second lecture. In opening his second lecture, Heidegger invites his listeners to think about the nature of language. Such thinking, he explains, has little to do with the quest for knowledge in the sciences. He cautions his listeners about the danger arising from the domination of method in scientific study and discourse. He cites Nietzsche who stated that what characterizes contemporary science is the victory of scientific method over science. By contrast, thinking, including thinking about the nature of language, has to do with a quite unique region in which thought exists. It is not dominated by or based on a method. Thinking is not even governed by a specific theme. In today's science, Heidegger holds, even the theme of study is a part of the method. The field of Computer Sciences, with which Heidegger was not well versed, since it flourished -- exploded -- after his death, is a poignant example of a contemporary science whose theme is controlled by method. Heidegger's description of science has proved quite true in the four decades s... ... 1997). (5) Pablo Neruda, "For All to Know" in Pablo Neruda, Winter Garden, trans. William O'Daly (Port Townsend, Wash.: Copper Canyon Press, 1986) p.19. (6) Martin Heidegger, "Letter on Humanism" in Basic Writings, ed. David Farrell Krell (New York: Harper & Row, 1977) p. 210. (7) Pablo Neruda, Spain in the Heart: Hymn to the Glories of the People at War, trans. Richard Schaaf (Washington: Azul Editions, 1993). See Pablo Neruda, Memoirs (Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1978), pp. 125-126. (8) Heidegger, "The Nature of Language," p. 93. (9) Hayden Carruth, Collected Shorter Poems, 1946-1991 (Fort Worden, Wash: Copper Canyon Press, 1992). p. 343. (10) Martin Heidegger, Aristotle's Metaphysics, Bk. IX Ch.1-3: On the Essence and Actuality of Force, trans. Walter Brogan and Peter Warnek (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1995), p. 109.

Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor Essay

Since 1991, the southern half of Somalia, a poverty stricken African nation, has seen various tribal militias battle for dominance and power over individual regions of the country. Violence has plagued Mogadishu, the capital, since warlords ousted the former president. Mere months after the collapse of the government, men, women and children in torn clothes ran helplessly towards packages dropped from military planes towards the hot sand of their tiny village. This action was one of many attempts to help underdeveloped nations receive food by the United Nations’ World Food Programme. Within his article titled â€Å"Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor†, Garret Hardin, a well-known philosopher of ecology, analyzes the difficulty and ultimate ruin associated with providing aid to these nations. Hardin’s argument for the preservation of well-to-do societies is embodied by his extended metaphor of each society as a lifeboat, with the citizens of developed nations riding calmly amongst a sea of drowning poverty-stricken individuals. Ultimately, Hardin argues for a very harsh thesis: regardless of the current situation, privileged nations simply should not provide aid to those individuals trapped within the vortex of underdeveloped nations. His argument is consequentialist: he claims that the net result of doing so would be negative and would, in the long run, court large-scale disaster. Although Hardin’s argument appears logic-based, his excessive metaphors fail when applied to real-life scenarios, for oftentimes he misconstrues facts to create a claim that may be perceived as more accurate than reality illustrates. Furthermore, any counter-arguments Hardin feels may refute his claim are pushed aside, avoiding factual evidence that may prove his argument inaccurate or misleading. Much like a lifeboat, Hardin leaves the assertions of the â€Å"humanitarian apologists† to drown so as to avoid the overturn of his claim. Within the section titled â€Å"Adrift in a Moral Sea†, Hardin reveals the lifeboat analogy upon which this essay is almost entirely founded, although shortly after it is presented one can see a loophole he cleverly ignores. The metaphor he creates is, nonetheless, coherent, and is used to describe the limited carrying capacity a lifeboat (rich nations), can hold:So here we sit, say 50 people in our lifeboat. To be generous, let us assume it has room for 10 more, making a total capacity of 60. Suppose the 50 of us in the  lifeboat see 100 others swimming in the water outside, begging for admission to our boat †¦ since the needs of all in the water are the same †¦ we could take them into our boat, making a total of 150 in a boat designed for 60. The boat swamps, everyone drowns. Complete justice, complete catastrophe †¦ we might let 10 aboard, but how do we choose? And what about the need for a safety factor? (1,2)Although logical, this metaphor is undoubtedly dubious. Hardin characterizes the safe and the drowning as rich versus poor nations, though in reality not all countries are deemed on one side of the scale, wealthy or impoverished. Many waver on the edge, needing very little aid to push over into industrialization and development. In relation to Hardin’s metaphor, these nations, in retrospect, require a short ride on the lifeboat before they may swim safely away. Furthermore, Hardin assumes the earth does not hold enough resources to provide for everyone, and although correct in stating we cannot sustain an unlimited number of people, he neglects the very definition of such a word. Exactly how many people are contained within an â€Å"unlimited number†? Hardin disregards any hint as to what this number is, a fairly important point when referencing a depletion of world resources. By disregarding the importance of such a number, Hardin influences the reader to believe helping impoverished nations is impossible, for, after all, an unlimited number of individuals would hardly be feasible. However, if the number of people that could be helped was presented, some may change their minds, recognizing that helping some is better than helping none at all. In knowing this, Hardin however, chooses to eliminate the statistic entirely. Within this scenario Hardin appeals to the readers with the presentation of a circumstance in which only two outcomes seem probable. Either the passengers help ten more individuals and drown, or they neglect to help any, and float securely away with the â€Å"safety factor† still intact. Hardin disregards the idea of helping some people, even if selected in a fairly arbitrary way: â€Å"Suppose we decide to preserve our small safety factor and admit no more to the lifeboat. Our survival is then possible although we will have to be constantly on guard against boarding parties† (2). He insinuates that once the decision is made to help some, the lifeboat passengers must attempt to save all of those drowning, which is clearly not feasible given the carrying capacity of the lifeboat. Although the boat’s capacity should not exceed the  admission of more than ten people, why not admit three, four, or even those ten? It seems rather unreasonable to deny help to every i ndividual, when, although not all can be rescued, the boat clearly holds the space for more. The same ideology may be applied in other philosophical debates, including the death penalty, as we discussed in lecture. Ernest Van Den Haag, a defender of the death penalty, explains in his article that the importance of punishment is not whether every individuals gets what they deserve, but rather that some, rather than none, of the convicted receive their rightful punishment. Professor Yaffe applied this to a smaller-scale, saying, â€Å"If you have three pieces of candy and four children, all equally deserving, it is better, according to Van den Haag, for three to receive their desert than for none to receive what is deserved.† This scenario can easily be applied to Hardin’s lifeboat metaphor. Hardin claims, â€Å"Since the needs of all in the water are the same †¦ since they can all be seen as â€Å"our brothers† †¦Ã¢â‚¬  (1), therefore one cannot reasonably argue the desert of the poverty-stricken varies. As a result, the argument can be made that pulling some into the lifeboat to be saved is far better than leaving all to drown. One may argue ignoring such a possibility serves as a way to avoid criticism from liberals who would quite obviously propose letting some individuals on board. Hardin realizes the difficulty in a rebuttal to this argument, therefore he chooses to leave out the situation entirely. Additionally, the carrying capacity of the wealthy nations is far underestimated, and entirely misleading, within this metaphor. Hardin’s philosophy regarding the swamping of wealthy nations does not seem remotely accurate when the feeding of underprivileged nations costs very little in relation to the finances of developed nations. According to past statistics provided by the Index of Global Philanthropy, â€Å"Of the 122.8 billion dollars of foreign aid provided by Americans in 1975, 95.5 billion dollars, or 79 percent, came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals, although U.S. government aid is only 22 percent of the Gross National Income.† Therefore, one can see government aid, the kind Hardin mentions will ultimately deplete our resources, is fairly little in comparison to the rest of our nation’s finances. Furthermore, there are numerous other  countries in the developed world that hold the potential to distribute more than the United States alone. Realistically, the capacity of a wealthy lifeboat would be close to double the capacity Hardin presents; the boat would be, at the very least, closer to a small yacht than a meager lifeboat. Hardin’s lifeboat metaphor not only conceals facts, but also misleads about the effects of its proposals. Within Hardin’s scenario, the rich lifeboat can raise the ladder and choose not to let any more individuals on. In reality however, the problem does not necessarily go away merely because it is ignored. In the real world, there are armies and domestic dissidents who willingly sacrifice their lives and those of others to oppose policies they view as immoral. It is ignorant to assume all of the lifeboat passengers will agree with the decision that is made. Some individuals may attempt to pull the drowning on board, and hostility would be inevitable. Ultimately, Hardin’s lifeboat metaphor cannot accurately be applied to policy-making as it obscures more than it reveals. Throughout the article, Hardin bolsters his assertions by reference to a â€Å"commons†, or the tragedy of, in which he explains a system of private property which, if open to all, † †¦ the right of each to use it may not be matched by a corresponding responsibility to protect it† (3). He creates a picture to the reader using an example of herdsman with a pasture of a certain capacity. Hardin writes, † †¦ the considerate herdsman who refrains from overloading the commons suffers more than a selfish one who says his needs are greater †¦ It takes no less than everyone to ruin a system of voluntary restraint† (3). This statement is, like many of Hardin’s, entirely logical. Hardin explains that under a system of private property, the individual more easily recognizes responsibility (3). Under communal ownership however, Hardin argues the herdsman who may choose to fill the pasture with more sheep than it can hold for his own benefit wo uld promote his interest at the expense of the community as a whole. It is clear Hardin attempts to propose that the commons created by aid is worse than the original problem. This may indeed be true if the tragedy of the commons were truly a â€Å"tragedy† as Hardin claims, or if it were impenetrable, but that is hardly the case, and Hardin neglects to address this exact issue. Hardin  lacks sufficient, concrete evidence for this claim; creating a hypothetical situation is hardly grounds for a generalization of a large-scale issue. The incentive to leave out such facts can be seen later in the section, when Hardin quotes Alan Gregg, the vice-president of the Rockefeller foundation. Hardin writes, â€Å"He likened the growth and spread of humanity over the surface of the earth to the spread of cancer in the human body, remarking that ‘cancerous growths demand food; but, as far as I know, they have never been cured by getting it'† (5). To recognize any factual evidence that the Green Revolution has, in fact, resulted in increased food production would refute this quote, which provides the main support for Hardin’s argument. When researched, one can see why Hardin would neglect such information. In actuality, communal ownership has been tried in some countries with successful results. According to â€Å"Population and Food: A Critique of Lifeboat Ethics† by philosophers William Murdoch and Allen Oaten, instances of communal ownership have seen success. In Peru, the ownership of the commons has benefited a previously private-owned fishery, and China’s implication of communal agriculture has yet to see over-exploitation. If, however, a nation’s agriculture does not have success parallel to that of Peru and China, Hardin believes experience holds the key to unlocking poverty. In his section titled â€Å"Learning the Hard Way†, Hardin explains how developed nations currently budget and prepare for infrequent emergencies substantially better than impoverished nations. Furthermore, he argues:If each country is solely responsible for its own wellbeing, poorly managed ones will suffer. But they can learn from experience †¦ the weather varies from year to year, and periodic crop failures are certain †¦ should those nations that do manage to put something aside be forced to come to the rescue each time an emergency occurs among the poor nations? (4)Contrary to his typical pattern or argumentation, Hardin acknowledges the universal response of â€Å"kind-hearted† liberals, who find it difficult to grapple with the concept of blaming poverty-stricken individuals for the faults of their governments. In response, Hardin answers, â€Å"The concept of blame is simply not relevant here. The real question is, what are the operational consequence s of establishing a world food bank?† (4). This response exhibits  two of Hardin’s profound faults. By claiming that blame, in this instance, is an irrelevant point to discuss, Hardin neglects to address a very important issue. Why are the liberals wrong in arguing that fault of government should not influence action in providing aid? One may argue that faulty governments are a mere consequence of industrial deficiency, that can easily be fixed if aid is provided to nations who can then use financial assistance for education, resulting in educated political elections with educated individuals on the ballots. These political leaders may then be able to readily plan for emergencies. Neglecting to answer this rebuttal however, results in the presentation of an argument that seems ill-prepared and unreciprocated. Furthermore, Hardin contradicts himself a mere one sentence later, writing, â€Å"If it [a world food bank] is open to every country every time a need develops, slovenly rulers will not be motivated to save† (4). In saying this, Hardin clearly puts the responsibility of the nation’s food supply within the hands of the incompetent rulers, thereby insinuating the blame lies within the government, and ultimately eradicating any piece of information that could have been deemed support for a strong argument. In actuality, Hardin does not put much faith in the reform of such corrupt or incompetent rulers, despite calling that section â€Å"Learning the Hard Way†. Rather, Hardin believes that if the rich countries would simply refrain from giving assistance, the problem would take care of itself as, â€Å"population growth would be periodically checked by crop failures and famines. But if they can always draw on a world food bank in time of need, their populations can continue to grow unchecked, and so will their ‘need’ for aid† (5). When analyzed closely one can see Hardin neglects to address yet another prominent issue within his argument. How are underdeveloped nations expected to set aside food for the future when they do not possess enough for the current population? Denying aid would clearly cause death amongst many individuals, in saying this Hardin is correct. In making this statement however, Hardin incorrectly assumes the dependence on aid would diminish. Although crop failure would reduce population size, a stabilized population does not coincide with a more successful agricultural system. As a result, food would remain scarce, for even a drastic reduction would not guarantee enough food for the new population. It is naà ¯ve for Hardin to view this  solution as an end to dependency. Clearly the reduced population will suffer problems similar to the previous, food production will remain in deficit, need for aid will persist, and the crisis will continue to revolve in circles. Although many individuals propose the Green Revolution will decrease aid as well as increase food production in underdeveloped nations, Hardin neglects, once again, the importance of such a proposition in the next section of his article. To help alleviate the problems associated with crop failure, many scientists have created â€Å"miracle† rice and wheat that promise a larger harvest and greater resistance to damage. Within the section â€Å"Chinese Fish and Miracle Rice†, Hardin, once again, ignores a significant issue in an attempt to hide behind the weakness of his argument. Hardin writes, â€Å"Whether or not the Green Revolution can increase food production as much as its champions claim is a debatable put possibly irrelevant point† (5). Although there is room to debate the extent to which the Green Revolution has increased the crop yields of developing countries, as well as the costs of the loss of biodiversity and other environmental concerns, Hardin neglects to even mention them; they are dismissed in a single sentence. The true issue resides in that simple, blunt statement, for these topics are exactly the point. What is that finite number of people who can be sustained, and can we nudg e it further in the direction of survival? To ignore this essential statistic is to, once again, provide an argument that lacks support and coherence. One of Hardin’s last arguments relates to what he refers to as the largest issue with providing aid: the rapid population growth rates within impoverished nations. Hardin explains, â€Å"The people inside the lifeboats are doubling in numbers every 87 years; those swimming around us are doubling, on average, every 35 years, more than twice as fast as the rich† (2). Hardin then implements a real-world example in which he emphasizes the correlation between population increases and the depletion of resources: â€Å"Every one of the 15 million new lives added to India’s population puts an additional burden on the environment †¦ If rich countries make it possible, through foreign aid, for 600 million Indians to well to 1.2 billion †¦ will future  generations thank us for hastening the destruction of their environment?† (6). Hardin overlooks the fact that population growth rates are affected by many complex conditions besides food supply. There are vast arrays of socioeconomic conditions that can be identified that motivate parents to have fewer children. Thus, Hardin neglects to realize that population growth can be controlled effectively by intelligent intervention that sets up these appropriate conditions, rather than a reliance upon the statistics of natural population cycles. These conditions include the improved education and equality of women, literacy, sexual education, and distribution of contraceptives, all of which are attainable through the foreign aid that may be provided by developed nations, and according to Murdoch and Oaten, â€Å"aid may encourage necessary institutional and social reforms, making it easier for poor nations to use their own resources and initiative to help themselves.† Hardin neglects to refer to the statistics that illustrate the positive effects on population growth within developing nations that have received aid. Costa Rica, for example, has a relatively large population a nd a low GDP, but the birth rate has declined by fifteen percent since the implication of foreign aid has increased industrialization. Hardin’s article, â€Å"Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor†, holds more than twisted logic and misleading metaphors; it encompasses irony. Although Hardin consistently refers to his lifeboat metaphor, he, like the individuals in the boat, neglects to mention counter-arguments or deems certain information â€Å"irrelevant† in the attempt to save his own argument from sinking beneath the depths of deceit. Hardin was correct in stating that a particular boat may only hold its limited capacity, but this article needs to push off the inaccurate claims and leave room for those that are relevant if our world is to find a way to end poverty.

Raising Children

OPINION Raising Successful Children Lizzy Stewart By MADELINE LEVINE * PHRASES like â€Å"tiger mom† and â€Å"helicopter parent† have made their way into everyday language. But does overparenting hurt, or help? Related * Sunday Book Review: ‘Teach Your Children Well’ by Madeline Levine (July 29, 2012) Related in Opinion * Room for Debate: Are Olympic Parents Supportive or Overbearing? (August 2, 2012) While parents who are clearly and embarrassingly inappropriate come in for ridicule, many of us find ourselves drawn to the idea that with just a bit more parental elbow grease, we might turn out children with great talents and assured futures.Is there really anything wrong with a kind of â€Å"overparenting lite†? Parental involvement has a long and rich history of being studied. Decades of studies, many of them by Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, have found that the optimal parent is one who is involved and responsive, who sets high expectations but respects her child’s autonomy.These â€Å"authoritative parents† appear to hit the sweet spot of parental involvement and generally raise children who do better academically, psychologically and socially than children whose parents are either permissive and less involved, or controlling and more involved. Why is this particular parenting style so successful, and what does it tell us about overparenting? For one thing, authoritative parents actually help cultivate motivation in their children.Carol Dweck, a social and developmental psychologist at Stanford University, has done research that indicates why authoritative parents raise more motivated, and thus more successful, children. In a typical experiment, Dr. Dweck takes young children into a room and asks them to solve a simple puzzle. Most do so with little difficulty. But then Dr. Dweck tells some, but not all, of the kids how very bright and capab le they are. As it turns out, the children who are not told they’re smart are more motivated to tackle increasingly difficult puzzles.They also exhibit higher levels of confidence and show greater overall progress in puzzle-solving. This may seem counterintuitive, but praising children’s talents and abilities seems to rattle their confidence. Tackling more difficult puzzles carries the risk of losing one’s status as â€Å"smart† and deprives kids of the thrill of choosing to work simply for its own sake, regardless of outcomes. Dr. Dweck’s work aligns nicely with that of Dr. Baumrind, who also found that reasonably supporting a child’s autonomy and limiting interference results in better academic and emotional outcomes.Their research confirms what I’ve seen in more than 25 years of clinical work, treating children in Marin County, an affluent suburb of San Francisco. The happiest, most successful children have parents who do not do fo r them what they are capable of doing, or almost capable of doing; and their parents do not do things for them that satisfy their own needs rather than the needs of the child. The central task of growing up is to develop a sense of self that is autonomous, confident and generally in accord with reality. If you treat your walking toddler as if she can’t walk, you diminish her confidence and distort reality.Ditto nightly â€Å"reviews† of homework, repetitive phone calls to â€Å"just check if you’re O. K. † and â€Å"editing† (read: writing) your child’s college application essay. Once your child is capable of doing something, congratulate yourself on a job well done and move on. Continued, unnecessary intervention makes your child feel bad about himself (if he’s young) or angry at you (if he’s a teenager). But isn’t it a parent’s job to help with those things that are just beyond your child’s reach? Why is it overparenting to do for your child what he or she is almost capable of? Think back to when your toddler learned to walk.She would take a weaving step or two, collapse and immediately look to you for your reaction. You were in thrall to those early attempts and would do everything possible to encourage her to get up again. You certainly didn’t chastise her for failing or utter dire predictions about flipping burgers for the rest of her life if she fell again. You were present, alert and available to guide if necessary. But you didn’t pick her up every time. You knew she had to get it wrong many times before she could get it right. HANGING back and allowing children to make mistakes is one of the greatest challenges of parenting.It’s easier when they’re young — tolerating a stumbling toddler is far different from allowing a preteenager to meet her friends at the mall. The potential mistakes carry greater risks, and part of being a parent is minimi zing risk for our children. What kinds of risks should we tolerate? If there’s a predator loose in the neighborhood, your daughter doesn’t get to go to the mall. But under normal circumstances an 11-year-old girl is quite capable of taking care of herself for a few hours in the company of her friends. She may forget a package, overpay for an item or forget that she was supposed to call home at noon.Mastery of the world is an expanding geography for our kids, for toddlers, it’s the backyard; for preteens, the neighborhood, for teens the wider world. But it is in the small daily risks — the taller slide, the bike ride around the block, the invitation extended to a new classmate — that growth takes place. In this gray area of just beyond the comfortable is where resilience is born. So if children are able to live with mistakes and even failing, why does it drive us crazy? So many parents have said to me, â€Å"I can’t stand to see my child unh appy. † If you can’t stand to see your child unhappy, you are in the wrong business.The small challenges that start in infancy (the first whimper that doesn’t bring you running) present the opportunity for â€Å"successful failures,† that is, failures your child can live with and grow from. To rush in too quickly, to shield them, to deprive them of those challenges is to deprive them of the tools they will need to handle the inevitable, difficult, challenging and sometimes devastating demands of life. While doing things for your child unnecessarily or prematurely can reduce motivation and increase dependency, it is the inability to maintain parental boundaries that most damages child development.When we do things for our children out of our own needs rather than theirs, it forces them to circumvent the most critical task of childhood: to develop a robust sense of self. There is an important distinction between good and bad parental involvement. For example , a young child doesn’t want to sit and do his math homework. Good parents insist on compliance, not because they need their child to be a perfect student but because the child needs to learn the fundamentals of math and develop a good work ethic.Compare this with the parent who spends weeks â€Å"helping† his or her child fill out college applications with the clear expectation that if they both work hard enough, a â€Å"gotta get into† school is a certainty. (While most of my parent patients have graduated from college, it is always a telltale sign of overparenting when they talk about how â€Å"we’re applying to Columbia. †) In both situations parents are using control, in the first case behavioral (sit down, do your math) and in the second psychological (â€Å"we’re applying. †) It is psychological control that carries with it a textbook’s worth of damage to a child’s developing identity.If pushing, direction, motiva tion and reward always come from the outside, the child never has the opportunity to craft an inside. Having tutors prep your anxious 3-year-old for a preschool interview because all your friends’ children are going to this particular school or pushing your exhausted child to take one more advanced-placement course because it will ensure her spot as class valedictorian is not involved parenting but toxic overparenting aimed at meeting the parents’ need for status or affirmation and not the child’s needs.So how do parents find the courage to discard the malpractice of overparenting? It’s hard to swim upstream, to resist peer pressure. But we must remember that children thrive best in an environment that is reliable, available, consistent and noninterfering. A loving parent is warm, willing to set limits and unwilling to breach a child’s psychological boundaries by invoking shame or guilt. Parents must acknowledge their own anxiety. Your job is to kn ow your child well enough to make a good call about whether he can manage a particular situation.Will you stay up worrying? Probably, but the child’s job is to grow, yours is to control your anxiety so it doesn’t get in the way of his reasonable moves toward autonomy. Parents also have to be clear about their own values. Children watch us closely. If you want your children to be able to stand up for their values, you have to do the same. If you believe that a summer spent reading, taking creek walks and playing is better than a specialized camp, then stick to your guns.Parents also have to make sure their own lives are fulfilling. There is no parent more vulnerable to the excesses of overparenting than an unhappy parent. One of the most important things we do for our children is to present them with a version of adult life that is appealing and worth striving for. Madeline Levine is a clinician, consultant and the author, most recently, of â€Å"Teach Your Children We ll: Parenting for Authentic Success. †

Justify a war Essay

If the character, Agamemnon, was seeking advice, which philosopher would he choose as best advisor and which of these; Socrates, Homer, Aristophanes, would he choose as least advisor? Why? First, it is necessary to remember that Agamemnon was a king. According the Homer, this man had extraordinary power and the highest social position. He had a great authority among his neighbors, which helped him to organize the army. However, Homer described him as a man who always needed the advice. Sometimes Agamemnon allowed his emotions to dominate over his wisdom and experience. He is powerful warrior and good command, but he is imperfect governor for peaceful life. If this character was seeking advice, he’d probably gathered all the wise men in his kingdom. Homer would likely tell him about the god’s will, which determined the actions of rulers. Socrates would call him to be the philosopher king – the wise ruler who thinks about the interests of the state in general and the common people on particular. And Aristophanes would probably be skeptical about the ideas of two previous speakers; he was known as the father of satire and his skepticism as for the issues of the wars, state governing and rulers was well-known all over ancient Greece. However, choosing the best advisor Agamemnon would probably choose Homer. Both Socrates and Aristophanes didn’t approve the idea of the war. Perhaps, their advices as for peaceful life and wise ruling could be useful fir Agamemnon, but he didn’t need such advices. It is known that every person hears what he or she wants to hear. Agamemnon the king seek the â€Å"casus belli†, the event to justify a war. The will of gods was the most appropriate philosophy for him, and the kidnapping of Helen was just the secondary reason. Homer. The Iliad. Richmond Lattimore, translator. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1951) 2 Compare and contrast Greek comedies and tragedies. Include choice of plays, production, plot subject material, audience participation, and costumes Aristotle was the first who compared Greek comedies and tragedies in his â€Å"Poetics†. â€Å"A tragedy, then, is the imitation of an action that is serious†¦ in a dramatic, not in a narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear, with which to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions† (Poetics, VI. 2) Both these genres had their beginnings in the Greek theater. The tragedy appeared in the middle of 6th century BC, the comedy followed the tragedy fifty years later (though these dates are very rough, we don’t really know much about these times). As for the choice of plays the tragedy is the serious play, which is based on the solemn issue of social, religious or personal nature. The comedy is the play humorous actions of characters solving the same personal, social and religious issues. The plot subject material was also different. â€Å"Tragedies were based largely on the myths or stories of the old narrative epic poems, of which only two main ones, the Iliad and the Odyssey, both written by Homer, survive. (Fornesca, 2010) â€Å" The first comedies were devoted to the god Dionysus, thus the plot of comedy was based on the festivals, the holidays in the wake of Dionysus In the center of tragedy usually was protagonist, the idealized figure who became the victim of fate. The center of the comedy usually is the figure who goes through all the troubles. The tragedies are focused on the feelings of pity and fear in audience; the aim of the comedy is the amusement and laugh. The characters of comedies and tragedies used different masks to show emotions. The clothes of tragic characters showed their social statuc and gender (women weren’t allowed to the stage). The clothes of comic heroes were different, initially they looked like satires, the disciples of Dyonisius. Rehm, R. Greek Tragic Theatre (1992) 3. How did Aristotle’s ideas about government and society differ from those of Plato? Which one fits the United States system of government best and why? Though Aristotle and Plato were closely linked, Aristotle was a pupil of Plato, they had different view, Aristotle criticized the ideas of his teacher. Political theory of Plato includes the description of ideal government for the utopian society. Based on the traditional for ancient Greece ethics of virtue, Plato created the prototype of communist or totalitarian state government. In the Dialogue â€Å"The Republic† he divided the ideal society on three groups: â€Å"rulers, auxiliaries and labourers. † (Gaarder 91) Rulers, according to Plato, should be the guardian class, they had to be educated and intelligent. The children in the guardian class should be learned how to rule from the early childhood. The consequence of this system is the absence of social mobility. This system is totally antidemocratic. However Plato was sure that every member of this utopian society can be happy knowing his in her position in society, as well as social function and the designated role. Aristotle disagreed with his teacher. He believed there is no single system of state government, which could be suitable for every society. The appropriate system of governing depends on the aims of the state. Aristotle described three good system of governing: monarchy, the power of aristocracy and the system he called polity, which corresponds to modern democracy. For every system Aristotle highlighted the weak sides. Thus, the monarch can become the tyrant who oppresses people, and the power of aristocracy can enslave the people they rule. As for polity both Plato and Aristotle both feared that this system of governing might lead to the rule of the ignorant many over the educated few. † It is clear that the modern system if governing in the USA corresponds to the views of Aristotle, and possible the fear of ancient philosopher wasn’t ungrounded. Gaarder, J. Sophie’s World ( Sofies verden Norw). Hardback & Paperback, 1991. 4 Using the play, â€Å"The Apology† define Sophist. According to that definition, was Socrates a Sophist? Give the reasons for your answer. The sophists were the group of philosopher contemporary to Socrates. Their task main was teaching the Athenian youth to create the convincing arguments and to convince the people. They taught their students to argue both sides on the issue. Their philosophy was the kind of relativism; they thought there is no truth, just the different and conflicting opinions. It the negative meaning sophist is the person who plays both sides. Plato in his â€Å"Apology† describes Socrates trying to convince the jury he was not the sophist. Perhaps the rhetoric of Socrates and the sophists had the common features; however sophists charged fees for their teaching, and Socrates stayed poor. The sophists used their knowledge for their own gain. They really taught their students to be prominent and to manipulate the people’s mind, the skills that could be used for political end, but enrichment was their primary aim, according to Plato. Plato thought that trading with the knowledge could be the field of bias and manipulation. He supposed sophists in telling their students the things that weren’t good for them. Unlike them, Socrates didn’t profit from his reaching. That is why Plato set Socrates apart from sophists. In many of Plato’s dialogues Socrates reveals the emptiness of their teachings. At least, the principal difference between Socrates and sophists was in attitude to knowledge. The sophists claimed that they gained access to special knowledge through the investigation and experience, and this knowledge could be taught. Socrates was confessed he knew nothing – he meant the more he learned the more he understood the infinitude of the knowledge. It is no wonder that sophists was among the people who accused Socrates and became the reason of his death. Rowe, C. J. â€Å"Plato on the Sophists as Teachers of Virtue. † History of Political Thought 4 (1983), 409-27.

The Increasingly Changing Immigration Policies Research Paper

The Increasingly Changing Immigration Policies - Research Paper Example The ‘Geneva Convention’ provided refuge to millions of Refugees in the post world war period until the Cold War of the 1980s and it set the basis of immigration policies and laws in most of the countries. But in the post-Cold War period till today it has been faced with a number of issues and as a result of a number of member states especially the European countries have begun straying away from the basic policy, in order to block the huge flow of migrants every year due to the insufficiencies of the convention. It is an undeniable fact that the ‘Geneva Convention’ was the foundation of the Refugee protection regime and was the one truly universal instrument that gave basic principles on which the international protection of Refugees was built. But the essence of disapproval of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention is that it is archaic. The treaty was formulated in and for a specific era. While Western countries' refuge structures might have managed well enough un til the end of the Cold War, they were not intended to counter the current mass refugee outflows and migratory activities. The United Kingdom had a long custom of migration. Due to its ownership of a large number of colonies all over the world, the UK has been the centre for asylum seeker, working immigrants and refugees. Despite the huge influx of refugees in the UK even in the post-cold war period, the policy system was rather reactive in nature and a decentralized approach was maintained to the refugee issue until 1993. Politicization of the migration policies in most of the European countries since 1970s was rather less intensified in the UK’s case.

Charles Messier's Butterfly Cluster Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Charles Messier's Butterfly Cluster - Essay Example He actually searched for comets and to avoid confusion between comets and Messier objects, he and his colleagues compiled them in a list in 1771. It was a remarkable achievement. The list is known as the Messier Catalog or Messier Object List. The list contains a total of 110 objects. The list contains nebulae, galaxies and star clusters. Body During the process of these observations, the first object they observed was the Crab Nebula (M1). A total of 103 objects were listed by Messier and his colleagues (Burnham 73). The Crab Nebula is a ball of gas left over from a supernova explosion. M2 is a globular cluster of stars in Aquarius, M3 is located in Canes Venatici, and Messier 4 to Messier 7 are located in the constellation of Scorpius. The Butterfly Cluster is Messier 6. This object can be seen by telescope clearly, and in the grayish color by naked eye. The Butterfly Cluster existence was first noticed by Giovanni Battista Hoderna in 1654. Ptolemy discovered it while he was observ ing M7, and declared it as a part of M7. After that, Phillips Loys de Cheseaux (1945-1946) observed it and recognized it as â€Å"a very fine star cluster.† And finally it was catalogued by Charles Messier in 1764 in the list of Messier objects (The Griffith Observer 259). The Butterfly Cluster is an open cluster of stars in the constellation of Scorpius known as Messier 6 or the Butterfly Cluster as it resembles a flying butterfly with open wings and antennae. The stars of the cluster twinkle, and it looks very beautiful in the sky. It is visually a very rewarding object; the butterfly pattern is very visible and obvious. It has been placed in the 6th position in the list of Messier objects. Scorpio is located in the Milky Way and contains many massive objects other than M6 and Messier 7. The Butterfly Cluster has a magnitude of 4.2, an angular diameter of 25 arc minutes, and lies at a distance of 1,600 light years with a luminosity of 8,300 suns. The Butterfly Cluster is ab out 50 million years old and can be seen in summer nights clearly with binoculars. The objects (M6 and M7) are the summer’s finest and brightest clusters. Different astronomers have different opinions about M6’s age. According to Burnham, it is 100 million years old; WEBDA estimates its age to be around 95 million years, and 51 million years according to the Sky Catalogue 2000.0. Messier objects of the â€Å"Messier Summer Chart† are clearly visible on summer nights. Messier objects help astronomers to adjust the distance scale of the universe. The above image shows the view of M6 (outcropped). The image was taken through the Astrograph, Takahashi E-180. How Can It Be Seen? It can be seen about 3/ 1-2 degrees northwest of M7 which is located near the tail of Scorpius. It appears as a hazy patch in the dark sky but it should not be confused with Messier 7. Messier 7 is brighter than Messier 6. M7 is seen in between and the Butterfly Cluster is on its lower side. Messier 6 contains many other Messier objects such as M21, M23, NGC 6167, and NGC 6193. Its magnitude is fainter than M7, and fills the field of 25 angular diameter. One of the ways to find the Butterfly Cluster is to identify the two well-known asterisms of Scorpios and Sagittarius. It has two irregular loops of blue and white stars on both wings and at 40-50x, it has three bright stars in the butterfly’s body. The Butterfly Cluster contains almost 80 stars (Plotner 400) with B type blue (hottest) and K type orange stars (BM Scorpii, HD 160371). The brightest K type orange star is a semi-regular