Fritzson Duclervil Essays - Hashtags, , Term Papers

Fritzson Duclervil English 101-n3-16 Professor Mrs. Dickerman July 25, 2016 Social Justice Paper Black Lives Matter Social justice is a topic that seems to be in our day-to-day news more every single day. According to Google definitions, social justice is "justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society." Off of the top of my head, I can think of many different issues that would fall under social justice, but in particular think of the Black Lives Matter movement. There are a lot of negative connotations that are associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, but unfortunately, many of those people do not know how this movement even started. The movement was started by three women to create a movement and call anaction for black people to make a difference after the murder of Trayvon Martin and the court decision for his killer, George Zimmerman. The idea behind this movement is an "ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise." (The Creation of a Movement). The debate of this movement, however, has turned into people taking sides between "black people" or "the cops," though; the cops never had anything to do with this in the beginning. People have a tendency to take an issue and add their own concerns to something that never existed, to begin with, this is one the largest problems with this particular movement. Black Lives Matter did not really take off until eighteen-year-old Mike Brown was killed by Officer Darren Wilson. The videos of this released all over the Internet and many people were outraged at what they say. This is when the divide of this movement was really started. Social media became a huge part of this movement and people started posting their opinions on siding with Mike Brown or siding with Officer Darren Wilson. However, like a lot of cases that include social media debates, these people were not there and did not necessarily know what happened between the two. Social media has created a huge divide and continues to make the movements fight against each other with little want to come together. Social media has shared so many videos of cop violence online and people use it divide them Thoughthe movement was started after the death of Trayvon Martin and took off after the death of Mike Brown, there was so much more cop on black people deaths in this last year that really made the movement come to life and start making some changes in the community. Personally, I think supporting the Black Lives Matter movement is extremely important. Our country made huge strides in racism since the 1960's and Civil Rights movements and unfortunately, this country and taking many steps in the wrong direction. The more people that fight this movement and push against each other, the more deaths that are going to happen and the more racism and segregation is going to work its way back into our world. There are many reasons that people should support the movement that people are not necessarily noticing. For example, these people are showing an irresistible call to action. These are hard times for people to stand up and give their voice, but those supporting this matter are not backing down. These people feel very strongly and are backing something that they firmly believe in. Another reason would be leadership by women and girls. Sexism is another huge social injustice, and Black Lives Matter is not only led by powerful black people, it is led by powerful black women. This is a huge step for women of all colors (Anderson). Another reason to support the movement is because they are self-funded. Though, they may have people donating money to them, they do not have a specific financial backing (Anderson). The news and social media continue to give many reasons why you should not support Black Lives Matter. One of the biggest reasons would be that it creates people to be "anti-cop" when they are being pro-black lives matter. People blame the problem on the protesters of the movement claiming that they are the reason people are turning against the support of the police. Another

Animal Farm Essays - British Films, Cold War Films, Animal Farm

Animal Farm Essays - British Films, Cold War Films, Animal Farm Animal Farm The main purpose of satire is to attack, and intensely criticise the target subject. This is superbly carried out in the classic piece of satire, Animal Farm. The main targets at the brunt of this political satire are the society that was created in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and the leaders involved in it. George Orwell successfully condemns these targets through satirical techniques such as irony, fable, and allegory. The immediate object of attack in Orwell's political satire is the society that was created in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The events narrated in Animal Farm obviously and continuously refer to events in another story, the history of the Russian Revolution. In other words, Animal Farm is not only a charming fable (A Fairy Story, as Orwell playfully subtitles it) and a bitter political satire; it is also an allegory. The main target of this allegory is Stalin, represented by Napoleon the pig. He represents the human frailties of any revolution. Orwell believed that although socialism is a good ideal, it could never be successfully adopted due to uncontrollable sins of human nature. For example, although Napoleon seems at first to be a good leader, he is eventually overcome by greed and soon becomes power-hungry. Of course Stalin did too in Russia, leaving the original equality of socialism behind, giving him all the power and living in luxury while the common pheasant suffered. Orwell explains: Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer - except of course for the pigs and the dogs. The perennial topic of satire is to point out the frailties of the human condition, and this is one of Orwells central themes in Animal Farm . That its not necessarily the system that is corrupt or faulty, but the individuals in power. Old Major, with all his good intentions, took no note of the crucial fact: whilst his ideals were sound and moral, corrupt individuals found ways and opportunities to exploit those ideals to suit their own purposes. So Orwell successfully points out the frailties of his satirical targets by using the satirical technique of the allegory. Another main satirical technique used to condemn these targets is the use of fable, or storytelling. A fable is a story, usually having a moral in which beasts talk and act like men and women. Orwells characters are both animal and human. The pigs, for example eat mash real pig food but with milk in it that they have grabbed and persuaded the other animals to let them keep (a human action). The dogs growl and bite the way real dogs dobut to support Napoleon's drive for political power. Orwell never forgets this delicate balance between how real animals actually behave and what human qualities his animals are supposed to represent. Lets just say Orwell hadnt used the technique of storytelling, and had painted an objective picture of the evils he describes. The real picture would probably be very depressing and extremely boring. So instead, he offers us a travesty of the situation. The primary reason for this abstraction was to move readers from the concrete reality. So whilst entertaining us through a fantastic setting, he provides us reader with a critical vision towards his targets. It is written for entertainment, but contains sharp and telling comments on the Russian revolution and its leaders, offering 'imaginary gardens with real toads in them'. Part of the fable's humorous charm lies in the simplicity with which the characters are drawn. Each animal character is a type, with one human trait, or two at mosttraits usually associated with that particular kind of animal. Using animals as types is also Orwell's way of keeping his hatred and anger against exploiters under control. Instead of crying, All political bosses are vicious pigs! he keeps his sense of humour by reporting calmly: In future, all questions relating to the working of the farm would be settled by a special committee of pigs. The story of Animal Farm is told in a simple, straightforward style. The sentences are often short and spare: Old Major cleared his throat and began to sing. It was a bitter winter. The story follows

EHR and Privacy In the World of Data Over Exposure Research Paper

EHR and Privacy In the World of Data Over Exposure - Research Paper Example al platforms, the stakeholders within the health sector face a myriad of factors to worry about pertaining to the security of their personal information (Skolnik, 2011). The areas of consideration bring the aspects of exposure for the patient data; hence, raising concern for the procedures of managing the electronic health records, as implemented in the various health factions in the world. Technical management affects the need to evaluate strategic procedures for successful management of the health platforms (Amatayakul & Medical Group Management Association, 2010). This paper explores the strategies within the health systems to manage and facilitate data privacy within the electronic health record system. The procedures of access and storage of the patient data records from the electronic health records systems indicate that by over 80% of the world physicians and hospitals possess the EHR systems (Vossler, 2013). Additionally, with the blinking-rate of technological advancement, the concerns over the advancements also cause considerations on the aspects of the benefits and risks of the information systems. Notably, technology with its positive impacts also presents significant risks to the privacy of the data for the patients. The non-wavering arguments into the elemental subject present the various sources of violations regarding the management of information. The responsible elements in the context of the electronic health records include factors of considerations such as high porosity within the healthcare enterprise network (Vossler, 2013). The healthcare sector contains a porous network, which invites the attacks and trusted insiders to pose the threats into the health record s ystems. Secondly, the element of low-level factor of ethics within the top executives causes the process of managing the electronic record systems difficult. For instance, within the compliance expectations as designated by the HIPAA, the top leadership as well as the employees,

Torts and Product Liability Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Torts and Product Liability - Research Paper Example Chris missed breakfast because they had to leave the house very early in the morning to the airport. After dropping Jim at the airport, the two (Stella and Chris) went to the McDonald’s drive-through for the breakfast. Stella ordered a McBreakfast and Chris her grandson, parked the car so that she could add sugar and cream to her coffee (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). She could not add the cream and sugar because there was no flat surface in the car where she could place the coffee cup and get the lid off. As an alternative, she placed the coffee cup between her knees and tried to get the coffee cup lid that way. As she tried to remove the lid, hot coffee spilled onto her lap (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). Chris got out of the car to help her; he pulled her sweat suit twisting it as the coffee (170 degrees) burned her inner thigh, buttocks, and groin. She was taken to the hospital and upon arrival at the emergency room; she was confirmed to have sustained third-degree burns. Stella spent a week in the hospital and three weeks at home nursing her injuries with the help of her daughter, Nancy Tiano (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). After a while, she was hospitalized again for skin grafts and during that period she lost around 20 pounds and at times she was practically immobilized. Though she was not willing to sue McDonald, her family was of the opinion that she had to be compensated for the out-of-pocket expenses and her daughter’s lost wages for the time she had stayed with her at home (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). On May 2005, Pearson took his pants to the Custom Cleaners for alterations. Roy Pearson was at that time the newly appointed Washington, DC administrative law judge. Pearson owned five expensive Hickey Freeman suits which he wore one for every day of the week. The pants had become uncomfortable and thus he took them to the local dry cleaning service (Custom Cleaners).

Pressure Canning Green Beans Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Pressure Canning Green Beans - Assignment Example Pressure Canning Green Beans To pressure can, one should gather the canning supplies that include the pressure canner, canning jars, canning funnel, jar lifter, canning seals and rings, a large pot or blancher, towels and dish cloths, bowls, sharp knife and large spoons. The ingredients needed will include green beans and canning salt, which is optional (Rombauer 37). Snapping the green beans involves breaking off the ends and breaking the remaining one into pieces. Snapping is not necessary do but it is preferable because it helps the beans to fit into the jar properly. The preferable size is 2 inches. One could pack the green beans either hot or cold depending on desirability. A cold pack can also be referred to as raw pack. Cold packing is quicker because it does not require heating of the green beans. In addition, in places of high altitude, cold packing is essential because it helps in achieving high pressure. The advantage with hot packing is that it allows more green beans in a jar. However, hot packing or cold packing all depends with ones choice. Both styles of packing require adding canning salt to the jar. The amount of the canning salt should be half teaspoon for pints and one teaspoon for quarts. The important point here is that canning salt is optional because it is meant for taste only (Rombauer 37). For hot packing, boil the green beans for 5 minutes before packing to the jar. One should then drain the water, pack the green beans to the jar loosely, and cover it with boiling water. One-inch headspace should be left on the jar.

Modern diplomacy

Modern diplomacy Introduction In its simplest form diplomacy is the maintenance of peace and the avoidance of war. But this is too simple a definition and denies the complexity inherent to modern diplomacy. Berridge (2001:1) provides more substance, writing that in its most recognizable state form, diplomacy is the term given to the official channels of communication employed by members of a system of states. Berridge (2002:1) adds that the chief purpose of diplomacy is to enable states to secure the objectives of their foreign policies without resort to force, propaganda or law. While this is certainly true of state-to-state diplomacy such Satowesque 5 definitions of diplomacy are rather exclusive in that they suggest no other international actors practice diplomacy. Such parochialism has produced a backlash. John Hoffman (2003:525), a less than traditional diplomacy writer, claims that the state is incoherent, and this incoherence necessarily extends itself to statist diplomacytraditional or conventional notion s of diplomacy must be avoided if the nature of modern diplomacy is to be truly understood. Diplomacy, Hoffman (2003:533) contends, functions much more fully and consistently in a stateless context than in a state centered one. (Hoffman, 2003) These two opinions indicate that there is confusion in response to the simple question what is diplomacyr In the twenty-first century, the traditional form of diplomacy is ubiquitous and increasing in practice. In addition, many nontraditional actors, such as NGOs, multi-national corporations (MNCs), and even individuals can be said to practice diplomacy. It is because of this plurality of actors that this article prefers Paul Sharps (2003:858) broad-and very diplomatic definition of diplomacy: The way in which relations between groups that regard themselves as separate ought to be conducted if the principle of living in groups is to be retained as good, and if unnecessary and unwanted conflict is to have a chance of being avoided. Significantly, Sharps definition suggests that the modern diplomatic environment is not one dominated exclusively by states and their diplomats. A sketch of the modern diplomatic environment confirms this observation. The Modern Diplomatic Environment For most of the twentieth century, the state and its traditional diplomatic institution were the primary conduit for most matters international. However, a snapshot of the modern diplomatic environment suggests a more diffuse landscape. In addition, this snapshot reveals the limitations inherent to the traditional, statist way of thinking and writing about diplomacy. In the modern diplomatic environment the state is the most dominant political actor while its diplomatic institution (Jonsson, Hall, 2005) (centrally orchestrated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) remains the most visible diplomatic actor. In the physical sense, traditional diplomacy has become a growth sector (Hocking 1997:169) and remains the engine room of international relations (Cohen 1998:1). Currently, there are 191 states operating in the modern diplomatic environment, compared to 47 in 1950 and 26 in 1926.8 All of these states interact diplomatically, all need to represent themselves, and all need continuously to negotiate advantageous foreign policy ends in a competitive and occasionally hostile environment. With over three hundred years of related experience, the foreign embassy endures as the leading diplomatic actor, where the conduct of relations on a state-to-state basis, via formally accredited resident missions forms the bulk of international exchange (Berridge 2002:105). Therefore, a traditional approach to writing and thinking about diplomacy must not be abandoned. This approach, with an emphasis on the state and its diplomacy, is ubiquitous, valuable, and necessary for the diplomacy studies field. And in terms of one actor-the state-it is both sufficient and catholic. When attempting to understand modern diplomacy and international relations, it is important to remember that at the heart of any worthwhile theory of international relations must lie a theory of traditional diplomacy (Sharp 2003:856). But all is not well in the traditional backyard. In the face of ever-tightening budgets and shrinking numbers of overseas missions and staff, the reinvention of the t?aditional diplomatic institution is apparent. Now these institutions have to justify their relevance to a more informed domestic audience. This justification includes two-way communication processes with domestic and global publics (instead of the traditional one-way processes which reinforced the hermetic image of many institutions); the inclusion of many nonstate experts into the sacred halls of diplomacy; and the shift in recruitment policies to build staffs truly reflective of the domestic societal strata they purport to represent, to name but a few changes. This snapshot suggests that the traditional gatekeepers are struggling to maintain relevance and are reforming in a bid to hang on to the keys to the gate. On the other side of the gate, energized, increasingly efficient, and numerous nonstate actors are gathering. There is a correlation between their rising numbers and growing influence. For example, the number of NGOs has risen from 997 in 1954 to 20,928 in 2005 / 2006 (Jonsson, 2005). The large numbers of MNCs is also noteworthy. At the beginning of the twenty-first century there are more than 53,000 MNCs, which have over 450,000 foreign affiliates (Kegley and Wittkopf 2003:173). These ever-growing numbers suggest that MNCs exercise significant clout in the modern diplomatic system, with global assets in excess of $13 trillion (USD) and global sales of more than $9.5 trillion (USD) (Kegley and Wittkopf 2003:173). And more than half of the worlds top economies are not countries but global MNCs, with waning affiliations to the nation-state. The growth of IGOs in the last hundred years is also significant. In 1909, there were 37 IGOs, by 1962 this number had risen to 163, and by 2005 / 2006 the modern diplomatic environment had 1,963 IGOs.( Jonsson, 2005) To representatives from this growing nonstate sector, the gate no longer looks so imposing o? absolute; there are many other paths around the side. In the modern diplomatic environment, these nonstate groups have adopted basic diplomatic functions such as negotiation skills, visible representation, effective communication, filtered information, and political reporting from overseas and symbolism (the Greenpeace rainbow flag is instantly recognizable, as are the ubiquitous golden arches). Large MNCs, as one example, are learning of the need to develop their own task-defined diplomatic structures to serve their particular needs and develop local expertise that national diplomatic services find hard to rival (Hocking 2004:149). Where before there was one path and one gate there are now many channels, networks and alternate environments through which to engage in diplomacy. Myriad patterns of asymmetric and polylateral diplomacy are appearing, involving not only state representatives but also representatives from NGOs, transnational organizations (the External Delegations of the European Union, for example), (Hocking 2004:149) and even famous though hardly effective movie stars. The Ottawa Process, the Kimberley Diamonds Process, or the Nazi Gold settlement-success stories of unconventional diplomacy-are regularly trumpeted and are used as evidence to suggest the ushering in of an era of new diplomacy (again!). Whether it is multi-lateralism or summitry or two individuals from different countries conversing on a plane, diplomacy is blossoming and clearly no longer axiomatically linked to the state. Traditional writing on diplomacy only tells part of this modern diplomatic story. It amply accounts for the historical and modern role of the state in diplomacy but fails to explain the proliferation and impact of unconventional, new diplomatic actors. A glance at the canon of diplomacy studies suggests that the traditional way of thinking and writing about diplomacy is being challenged. Beyond Modern Diplomacy Viewing diplomacy in representational terms provides a richer understanding of what diplomats do than does the conventional account of it as one of the lesser tools of foreign policy. The diplomats of the modern state system claimed that no one else occupied the position of detachment from the international society of states, or performed the role of representing its members to the world and the world back to them. Now, it is becoming increasingly plausible to claim that more people are so employed and more are diplomats. An obvious extension of the approach of viewing diplomacy as representation is to apply it to the new diplomatic actors of contemporary international relations. To what extent does their becoming diplomatic involve these actors accepting and internalizing the professional and political worlds as these are presented by diplomacy in the narrow senser To what extent do they bring something new to itr Could humanitarian agencies parlay a local and temporary acceptance, based upon expertise, knowledge, and control of resources, into a more lasting and extensive legitimacy-one recognized by states but not derived from statesr An obvious expectation of the approach outlined above is that the new diplomats, like the diplomats of revolutionary regimes before them, will do much adjusting. Their ability to bring about change in the professional and political universes of diplomacy will be limited. This is not an argument in any simple sense of that term. New actors do not have to conform to the rules of the game as it is played by old acto?s (read rich and powerful) because that is what the old ones want. rather, it is the representatives of actors for whom unity, autonomy, and identity remain important. They face similar predicaments, whether they represent the old or new, the rich or poor, the strong or weak. All face the problem of contributing to the production and reproduction of the identities they represent in, and by, their relations with one another. Other games-economic, military, political, and social-are going on too, but their significance varies by actor, policy, and context. representation, as a lready discussed, is common to all actors in international relations and is particular to it. This is not as big a claim as it may sound. The question of whether new diplomatic actors accept the political and professional worlds of diplomacy acknowledges that they also function in a wider world of international thought and action in which these other actors try to function with their own universesand associated operational codes. Consider two established concepts, sovereignty and nation. Both appear as prominent bricks in the edifice of diplomacys professional and political worlds, yet both also belong to other worlds where the systemic and moderating preoccupations of diplomacy seem to have very little place. In addition to how diplomacy tames, manages, and uses these two ideas for itself, it is worth examining how diplomacy copes when others have different conceptions and priorities. As James Mayall notes, diplomacy was one of the few international institutions to survive the onslaught of popular sovereignty and nineteenth-century nationalism. (Mayall, 1990) Mayalls diplomacy, and nearly everyone elses, is the diplomacy of the modern territorial state, with a practical and clearly identifiable sovereign site. We take this so much for granted that we may ask whether diplomacy in the absence of sovereigns may be properly termed diplomacy. Instead, we might ask, How did diplomacy survive modernityr Clearly the answer is adaptation. How will diplomacy survive encounters with concepts beyond which it has traditionally not claimed, such as race, class, gender, and civilizations (not Civilization)r It is beyond my competence to speak about these ideas, other than to note that even at conventional conferences on diplomacy, papers on issues like the problem of spouses and partne?s are often presented Mayall, 1990). Discomforting though these approaches are to some of the participants, neither these themes nor the universes of arguments and assumptions about social life from which they stem will go away. Establishing an effective diplomatic mission today involves addressing patriarchy and identity issues, as well as the problems posed for security and institutional memory by electronic mailing systems. The study of diplomacy and what diplomats have to say about it will appeal neither to structuralists nor to constructivists in their respective strong forms. Diplomacy presumes that structures do not explain all outcome s, nor even just the important ones, but it also takes existing structures seriously. Structures may be constituted by the practice of agents. In acknowledging this, diplomats are unlikely to concede that we have learned much about the likelihood of particular structures cohering, evolving, or collapsing-even if their own instinct is to bet on cohering. And Outcomes Of Diplomatic Interaction The outcomes of diplomatic interaction between governments and NSEEs vary enormously, primarily according to how powerful the particular state is, and seconda?ily according to whether the NSEE is an MEI that holds heavy purse strings on which a government may depend. Weak states and developing countries are often in the position of supplicant before MEIs such as the IMF, World Bank and regional development banks, whose representatives often wield great power over developing countries domestic economies (Strange, 1996). On the other hand, powerful states and creditor nations interact with NSEEs more as equals or as masters. In terms of power relations and accompanying diplomatic practice, governments of states view MEIs not as a global government, so the analogy is not that of U.S. states or German LÃ ¤nder dealing with their respective Federal Governments. Nor can MEIs any longer be seen as uniformly subordinate bodies to nation-state governments, so a Federal Government to U.S. sta te or German Land analogy, in which administrative considerations might tend to predominate over the political, would be equally off the mark. NSEEs are likely to view governments according to whether the government is a net provider or recipient of the institutions funds. A better analogy for NSEE-government interaction would be the way that nation-state governments regard other governments: each pairing of governments will reflect a different distribution of power, both relational and structural, between them, a different historical and cultural background to the relationship, a different institutional evolution of the relationship. Hence diplomacy between nation-state governments, considered as a group, and NSEEs, considered as a group, is likely to varry in terms of power distribution, institutional compatibility, and other relevant variables in much the same way that diplomacy as traditionally conceived between nation-state governments varies. An understanding of how diplomatic interactions between NSEEs and governments translates into outcomes requires drawing upon the range of theories of power from the International relations/International Political Economy literature. Theoretical approaches such as Neoliberalism and Institutionalism are well adapted to diplomacy between states and non-state economic entities because they presuppose the role of institutions in promoting cooperation between states. A Neomarxist-Gramscian approachs understanding of the material bases for state power offers a way to differentiate between the power of states, and its logic of transnational historic blocs seeking the consent of the governed can explain the motivation to create NSEEs to facilitate diplomacy and one of its main objectives, cooperation and the consensual exercise of power. From Social Constructivism we can draw upon ideas of how states and NSEEs alike c?eate and re-create their identities through their public presentation of th emselves and through negotiations, which in turn can shift power between them (Ford, 2002). From Postmodernism/Post-positivism, conceptions such as time-space compression can explain how the institutional organization of representation has changed and how the speed of diplomatic interactions has accelerated, each of which favour some actors at the expense of others (Harvey, 1990). Neorealisms state-centric focus applies less well to the explanation of power in a diplomatic system in which states themselves do not speak with one voice to NSEEs, and at the same time NSEEs are both venues for multilateral cooperation and actors with agendas and objectives distinct from those of any state. Despite being difficult to place within any single theoretical tradition, Stranges notion of structural power as power to shape the parameters within which others must make decisions seems particularly useful in explaining power in government-NSEE diplomatic interactions (Strange, 1994, 1996). Using Stranges four interlocking structures of knowledge, production, finance and security one can account for disparities of power between states, the particular power of MEIs concerned with global finance, and even the impact of the variability in skills of diplomats on different sides of a negotiation. For example, Stranges approach would expect MEIs to tend to prevail in negotiations w ith developing countries. Conclusions: Power as Mobilization While the scope and visibility of what I have termed the new public diplomacy is novel, the mechanisms that it employs are not. Persuasion, framing, and agendasetting are the basic tools of political influence. However, focusing on them tends to change our understanding of how power operates. The changes in the political and communications context of international politics change make their operation more visible and accessible to more agents. Power is not a magic bullet that can render the interactions of international politics immediately comprehensible, but serves as short hand for what agents do. The analysis presented above suggests that we have been looking for power in the wrong places. IR theory tends to start from the presumption that military power is the ultimate determinant of the outcomes in IR. This military bias results in power being thought of in terms of confrontations between well defined positions. The image of power can be illustrated if we think of the forces ne eded to move a huge boulder securely embedded in a mountainside. Yet if the boulder is already rolling down the mountain, the forces needed to push it in a new direction are very much less. We may be unable to move the boulder, but if it is already in motion, we may be able to move it onto a new course. Human society (and particularly the small sections of it that represent political organizations) are already (and always in motion), thus, a relatively minor impetus delivered at the right place and time and can change outcomes. To think in terms of processes is to see that the mechanisms of soft power are not exceptional but the normal tools of politics. All that the new public diplomacy is doing is allowing more people to use them in a more public way. The consequence of the age of mixed media is that more people can do this changing the dynamics and the outcomes of politics, and that is no small thing. Anthony Giddens treats power and, by extension, agency, in terms of the capacity to use the rules and resources that exist in any social context to produce effects. What the new public diplomacy indicates is the way in which technological and political change is changing the possibilities to act within world politics. Power needs to be treated in terms of mobilizational processes rather in terms of structures or agents. The changes in the global media environment affect the political strategies adopted by both states as well as non-state actors. Analysis of these developments suggests that power in the info rmation age cannot be understood solely in terms of resources or structures without consideration of process issues such as mobilizing strategies and the ability of agents to set agendas and influence the framing of issues via the media. Such a perspective explains the ability of resource poor actors to exert influence in particular circumstances and the limitations of this influence.

community responsibilities :: essays research papers

Do you believe that our community should have leaders, or do you believe that everybody should be truly equal in our environment? The United States is living in an environment where there is a small group of leaders that make decisions for everyone else. When you hear somebody say they are going to make decisions for you, you might be thinking you would have to tale that decision no matter what. Well, that’s wrong, there is still an opportunity on weather you have to take the decision or not. There are votes, when you vote you either agree of disagree with any decisions. If there were more people that disagree than there were people that agree, then you were left with what you wanted. You still had the opportunity to choose what you wanted. Being with a group of leaders to make decisions for a society doesn’t necessarily mean that you would have to take the decision. No matter what you still have the chance to decide. A group of people needs to be over others to help g uide and make decisions because with no leader everything would be out of control, everybody’s decisions would not be heard, and a group with no leader would never be efficient. A group of people needs a leader because without a leader everybody would be out of control and nobody would be able to deal with them. Without a leader not everything would be controlled. Anybody in a society with no leader would not know what he or she is doing. They won’t know what doing because there is not one decision maker that has good reasons for those decisions. Groups of people would gather around making chaos about everything. Some people make chaos and act wild because they don’t have a leader to till them what is right and wrong. People would be wild because they wouldn’t be controlled and it is impossible to get a big group of people together at the same time to be dealed with. Being out of control is not the only problem with being equal, but everybody’s decisions would not be heard. Without having a leader not everybody’s decisions or opinions would be heard. A group of people or society always needs a leader so everybody’s decisions would be heard. Without a leader there would not be much communication. If a person comes up with a good decision or idea that person would not be able to let the whole society know about his or her ideas. community responsibilities :: essays research papers Do you believe that our community should have leaders, or do you believe that everybody should be truly equal in our environment? The United States is living in an environment where there is a small group of leaders that make decisions for everyone else. When you hear somebody say they are going to make decisions for you, you might be thinking you would have to tale that decision no matter what. Well, that’s wrong, there is still an opportunity on weather you have to take the decision or not. There are votes, when you vote you either agree of disagree with any decisions. If there were more people that disagree than there were people that agree, then you were left with what you wanted. You still had the opportunity to choose what you wanted. Being with a group of leaders to make decisions for a society doesn’t necessarily mean that you would have to take the decision. No matter what you still have the chance to decide. A group of people needs to be over others to help g uide and make decisions because with no leader everything would be out of control, everybody’s decisions would not be heard, and a group with no leader would never be efficient. A group of people needs a leader because without a leader everybody would be out of control and nobody would be able to deal with them. Without a leader not everything would be controlled. Anybody in a society with no leader would not know what he or she is doing. They won’t know what doing because there is not one decision maker that has good reasons for those decisions. Groups of people would gather around making chaos about everything. Some people make chaos and act wild because they don’t have a leader to till them what is right and wrong. People would be wild because they wouldn’t be controlled and it is impossible to get a big group of people together at the same time to be dealed with. Being out of control is not the only problem with being equal, but everybody’s decisions would not be heard. Without having a leader not everybody’s decisions or opinions would be heard. A group of people or society always needs a leader so everybody’s decisions would be heard. Without a leader there would not be much communication. If a person comes up with a good decision or idea that person would not be able to let the whole society know about his or her ideas.