The Rule :: essays research papers

The Rule   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When one turns eighteen years old they are looked at, by many, as an adult. They can vote, probably stay out later, receive more responsibilities because now those responsibilities can be handled. They will soon leave home and start a journey to college. They will be on their own, free to make their own decisions. They will rely on no one but themselves.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  If we are given in college the freedom to do as we please then why are their rules when we get there? I am not talking about drinking, or smoking in the rooms. Or how much noise we can make after a certain hour. Colleges have to be strict on those issues because they can be unsafe to the individual or people around them. By keeping the noise down we are only being considerate to other people.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The rule that I feel is ridiculous is the visitation rule. Why can a guy be in a girls room all day, or a girl be in a guys room all day, but must leave at night? Their is no harm being done if he or she stays. If your roommate doesn't mind then their shouldn't be a problem. If we are told that we are responsible enough to go and live away from home, then why does it matter who we live with? Why aren't we trusted when it comes to that issue? I feel that one should be trusted until one proves otherwise.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The rule may forbid boyfriends, girlfriends, or just friends to stay in a room, but why family members? Have a heart. Your family member drives all the way to your school to see you and they must sleep some where else, why? Didn't your brother or sister come to visit you in college? Didn't you want him or her to stay with you? If they were a younger sibling wouldn't it make you feel safer if they were by your side all night?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Listen, I am not attacking your decision pertaining to this issue. I am simply asking reasonable questions and stating reasonable ideas on why I feel

Natality, the Capacity of Being Oneself, and a Ban On Instrumentalization :: Ethical Issues

In modern day society with our rapid development of scientific capabilities, Jurgen Habermas raises our awareness on developing biotechnology and human genetic engineering. He brings up a question pertaining not only to morals, but ethics of this newly developed technology. In this section of the book Habermas agrees that although some forms of genetic manipulations are morally acceptable for screening to rule out diseases, some unbalanced influences threaten future humans and the status of authenticity. However, the problematic character is the moral convictions and norms that situates in forms of ‘being’, which are reproduced through the members’ communicative action. First of all, natality is the production or birth rate of new individuals. Habermas interprets Hannah Arendt that, â€Å"every single birth, being invested with hope for something entirely other to come and break the chain of eternal recurrence, is to be seen in the eschatological light of the biblical promise: â€Å"a child has been born on to us† (H 58). Eternal recurrence also called eternal return per Nietzsche is the life you now live it and have lived it. Eternal recurrence implies a new morality-cheating life of its death. Each time a child is born, so is a new life history. Unfortunately, natural fate is essential for the capacity of being oneself and so the body doesn't lose its worth and feelings of authenticity. Ultimately, the modified person of a suffered socialized fate would see his â€Å"self† slip away and would not be the â€Å"author† of the decisions that affect their lives (H 59,60). It is a false belief that humans desire good things ( Socrates). â€Å"To avoid this, we can achieve continuity of a life history only because we may refer, for establishing the difference between what we are and what happens to us beyond socialization† (H 60). In addition, the capacity of being oneself or authenticity assumes we are inexchangeable. It is for this â€Å"capacity of being oneself† that the â€Å"intention of another person† and trading upon our life history through genetic programs might primarily turn out to be disruptive† (H 57). It fails universalizability test. It is like science is playing God and humans are disposable. Birth constitutes a beginning we should and cannot control. â€Å"No man could be master of himself, except of God's bounty, he was wise enough already to know where the gift came† (L, Augustine 46). Natality, the Capacity of Being Oneself, and a Ban On Instrumentalization :: Ethical Issues In modern day society with our rapid development of scientific capabilities, Jurgen Habermas raises our awareness on developing biotechnology and human genetic engineering. He brings up a question pertaining not only to morals, but ethics of this newly developed technology. In this section of the book Habermas agrees that although some forms of genetic manipulations are morally acceptable for screening to rule out diseases, some unbalanced influences threaten future humans and the status of authenticity. However, the problematic character is the moral convictions and norms that situates in forms of ‘being’, which are reproduced through the members’ communicative action. First of all, natality is the production or birth rate of new individuals. Habermas interprets Hannah Arendt that, â€Å"every single birth, being invested with hope for something entirely other to come and break the chain of eternal recurrence, is to be seen in the eschatological light of the biblical promise: â€Å"a child has been born on to us† (H 58). Eternal recurrence also called eternal return per Nietzsche is the life you now live it and have lived it. Eternal recurrence implies a new morality-cheating life of its death. Each time a child is born, so is a new life history. Unfortunately, natural fate is essential for the capacity of being oneself and so the body doesn't lose its worth and feelings of authenticity. Ultimately, the modified person of a suffered socialized fate would see his â€Å"self† slip away and would not be the â€Å"author† of the decisions that affect their lives (H 59,60). It is a false belief that humans desire good things ( Socrates). â€Å"To avoid this, we can achieve continuity of a life history only because we may refer, for establishing the difference between what we are and what happens to us beyond socialization† (H 60). In addition, the capacity of being oneself or authenticity assumes we are inexchangeable. It is for this â€Å"capacity of being oneself† that the â€Å"intention of another person† and trading upon our life history through genetic programs might primarily turn out to be disruptive† (H 57). It fails universalizability test. It is like science is playing God and humans are disposable. Birth constitutes a beginning we should and cannot control. â€Å"No man could be master of himself, except of God's bounty, he was wise enough already to know where the gift came† (L, Augustine 46).

Smoking Ban Essays -- Social Issues, Smoking, Nicotine

Smoking should be banned from public places. Studies show that smoking can lead to cancer. Not only does this put the smoker’s life at risk, it also affects the lives of non-smokers, including pregnant women. Smoking all together is a dangerous thing to do. It began thousands of years ago with the use or tobacco in South America (Libal 11). No one knew about the long-term health effects of smoking tobacco before the twentieth century. It was decades of cigarette use before society began to realize that a health crisis was emerging (Libal 13). The health crisis that was emerging was cancer, among other diseases such as heart disease, bronchitis, and lung cancer. Cigarettes contain many harmful substances that help contribute to the forming of cancer in the human body. Some of those substances are nicotine, black tar, and carbon monoxide. Nicotine is the drug that helps the body to become addicted. Black tar sticks to the lining of the lungs and makes it hard to breathe. Carbon monoxide and other chemicals help poison the lungs (Keyishian, 14). When black tar sticks to the lining of the lungs. While making it harder for the smoker to breathe, it also causes for the heart to work h arder than it normally should. Carbon monoxide prevents oxygen from getting to the heart. That could cause heart disease. Smoking is very hard on the heart also. There is a chemical in tobacco smoke that can narrow the veins in the heart, increasing the chance of a heart attack (Libal 28). Smokers do not realize that many parts of the body work together like the lungs, heart, and blood vessels. When smokers smoke, the body inhales the nicotine and carbon monoxide. Nicotine and Carbon monoxide makes the blood vessels smaller than usual. ... ...loyees and others in public places is of the extreme importance. Some people might argue that banning smoking from the public is not a good idea. There are many facts that prove why smoking should be banned. Smokers might even argue that they have a right to smoke in public places, which may be true. By smoking in public smokers do not realize how much he or she is endangering another individual life. There are several reasons why smoking should be banned. Smokers fail to see that by banning smoking it could be very beneficial to them also. When thinking about banning smoking from the public smokers should think about all the lives they could help save. Smoking should be banned from the public because smoking leads to cancer, puts the U.S citizens lives at risk that choose not to smoke, and it could also endanger a pregnant women’s health.

The Effects of The Television

The television is a two edged sword that has a lot of impact on our daily lives. It has caused some negative impact on human life. Since watching television is so attractive, people read less books or even do not read them at all, wasting time, and the level of communication with other people decrease with more time spent watching television.One impact of the television that it has replaced the importance of book reading in some societies that we live in today. People now prefer to sit lazily in front of the television and take what they need wither it was news, entertainment or education from the television rather than reading a book. This is due to the ease of access to these information and not having to work hard for what they need unlike the case of a book, where people need to find and lookup as well as research the information they need. But thanks to the television they can do that with a click of a button. Another negative impact of the television is the addiction and the ti me consuming that some people suffer from.For some people the television is a part of them, where they cannot be in their normal state without spending their time in front of the television. They just sit there for hours watching whatever is being given to them by the people behind the screen. In other severe cases the television becomes a true addiction and there are certain rehabilitations to help these people get rid of this bad habit. Last but not least, with all that time being spent watching television the social life of the person becomes smaller and the level of communication between the person and other people become negligible in some cases.The person becomes so attracted to the television that it becomes his/her lifestyle with nothing else they would care about more than the television. This negative impact of the television is the beginning of the addiction where it starts taking the person away from his daily life and make him/her a slave for the remote that they hold. In conclusion, the television has changed human life in many ways, but not positively.It has shown more cons than pros, and with those dangerous cons such as replacing the importance of books, spending hours of the individual's time and limiting the social life that a normal person needs, it can turn any individual from sane to insane within weeks of the addiction. In my opinion the television is a two edged sword like any other  device it has advantages and disadvantages. With moderate amounts of time the television is no danger but if it takes the majority of our time then it becomes an issue.

Crimminal Detection Essay

â€Å"Criminal investigations, in the standard case, are oriented towards cracking unsolved crime, identifying perpetrators, launching prosecutions, proving guilt at trial and bringing offenders to justice† (Paul Roberts in Tim Newburn et al, 2007: 95). How are criminal detection and/or investigation moulded and shaped by political, social and/or cultural forces? Criminal detection and proceedings never exist or function independently, the system, as a whole is an inherently complex network of interacting parties, procedures and forces. The shaping of criminal detection by both social and political forces arguably has positive and negative implications for the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The role and influence of information as knowledge or data shapes the investigation socially, there is a reliance on them to solve or reconstruct the crime in the most accurate way possible. The control of policy and legislation over the investigation both facilitates and constrains the pursuit of justice within the criminal justice system. The lack of research, transparency and understanding of investigative practices has resulted in a number of miscarriages of justice that evidently illustrate that politics has a substantial influence on the criminal detection and investigation process. Criminal detection and investigation is inevitably shaped by its social surroundings, as the nature of crime scene investigation has progressed and changed throughout history the external influences have also changed â€Å" criminal proceedings inevitably reflect their broader social environment â€Å" (Williams & Johnson, 2007). The reactive nature of criminal investigation calls for the collection of information in the form of data and knowledge. Knowledge is based around roles of individuals at the crime scene, potentially having beneficial and adverse effects on shaping the outcom e of the investigation. Police have the power to establish a crime scene under Parts 7 of Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 (NSW) however can failure to recognize and do just that. The recognition of a crime scene and the first respondents actions can shape the remainder of the investigation, failure to establish a crime scene can result in the loss of evidence and loss of potential witnesses â€Å"the sooner the recording of the scene begins, the more confident the crime scene examiner (and the investigator) can be in their perspectives and opinions regarding the event (Garrison 2003:73). Furthermore the effective control of a crime scene inregards to roles, coordination and order is shaped by the relationships and understandings between relevant parties. Not understanding the chain of command, policies and procedures can be problematic as each separate party acting as sole entities can result in a an inefficient crime scene and wasted resources. The reliance on expert opinion in today’s society is reflected in criminal detection, â€Å"evidence law requires opinions about forensic interpretation to be presented by a person with specialized knowledge based on training, study or experience that substantially or wholly supports the opinion.† (Gans and Urbas, 2002) However consequently there are issues of relevance, over extended expertise and disagreements or differing opinions on evidence presented. It is normal for reports to encourage the production of reconstruction account of the actions of suspects of crime without indicating how it was made possible, it is formulated general matter based on accumulation professional experts (Williams & Johnson, 2007). Problems with exerts is further extended by the relationship they may have with other parties such as police, pressure and anxiety on forensic scientist to make findings of certainty can result in the misinterpretation or intentional or unintentional obscuring of facts. â€Å"relevant body samples were obtained, their secure transportation to a laboratory, their analysis and the detection and recording of DNA profiles can all come under scrutiny in the court process.† (Gans and Urbas, 2002) The law under Police investigation and questioning powers – Part 9 of †¨Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 †¨(NSW) stipulates the way information can be gained from individuals however statutory safeguards such as the ‘right to remain silent’ and human nature (unclear memory or description) can result in false or fragmented information. The corroboration or falsification of knowledge obtained through interviews with suspects, witnesses, victims and experts is done through the collection of knowledge through data. Criminalistics and trace-centred forensics is motivated by â€Å" the desire to overcome the ambiguities and interpretative flexibility inherent in human perception† Burney and Pemberton (2013). Data is obtained through the collection of samples of blood, hair, finger prints etc. Data as a means of detection is grounded in Locard’s (1910) theory that if two or more items come into contact, there will be a transfer of material between the two. Development in technology has resulted in an  increased reliance on detection through forensic science measures such as DNA profiling and fingerprint analysis, with DNA featuring in Australian cases from 1989 to the present-day. (Freckelton & Selby 2002,) Forensic evidence and DNA matching from the scene can help to confirm suspicion if there is a posit ive match or insinuate innocence if the match is negative. As in a larger societal context there is an assumption that science deluges ‘ the truth’ in a criminal detection process this can have detrimental affects and has results in cases of miscarriages of justice â€Å"In Australia there have also been several prominent miscarriages of justice, including convictions based substantially on questionable scientific evidence (Carrington et al. 1991). DNA is not always relevant to cases and does not automatically correlate to guilt for example the presence of semen does not prelude rape, as the issue is based on consent. Criminal detection and investigation is shaped by the political landscape in which it exists. The polices, regulations and expectations set by the government and criminal justice system affect the manner is which the investigation is carried out there is a â€Å" background were biometric technologies have been eagerly embraced by the government, and where claims have been made about their efficiency and authorit y† (Williams & Johnson, 2007). The law both constrains and facilities the pursuit for justice in regards to investigation. There is a need for police to find those responsible for criminal actions and protection of the public but also maintain a balance with individual liberties and human rights legislation. The manner in which policing is shaped by policy is evident in the investigative process of obtaining DNA. Police are bound by the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW), under which they are able to obtain DNA from individuals in various forms through both ‘intimate’ and ‘non-intimate’ procedures. Magistrates can ultimately overall individuals who do not consent to testing, resulting in intrusive procedures and breach’s of privacy all in the pursuit if justice. The political landscape further affects the investigation process through the procedures surrounding the presentation of DNA in courts. DNA evidence can and has been misinterpreted by the Jury and the Magistrate, for example R v Doheny and Adams [1997] 1 Cr App R 369. Prosecutor’s fallacy evidently depicts the issue power and influence of DNA in regards to sentencing and the need to reach a conviction â€Å"an error in relation to  probabilities that usually favors the prosecution. The forensic scientist could make the error in presenting DNA evidence by misrepresenting its probative value.† (Australian Law Reform Commission, 44.28) Polices in regard to presenting DNA need to reflect the complexity and interpretive nature of criminal forensics. Politics significantly shapes the criminal investigative process, evidently not always in a positive way. There is an understandable need to protect the community, however the issues in retrieving and presenting samples of DNA raise serious concerns of human rights issues and politics shaping criminal investigation in an undesirable way. The criminal justice system does not operate in a vacuum; it is influenced by its surroundings in both a political and social way. Evidently individuals participating in the criminal detection and investigative process are influenced by their professional relationships, roles and duties they have. The collection of data to reconstruct crimes presents issues with establishment, control and coordination of crimes scenes and how the effectiveness and efficiency is shaped by the interaction of relevant individuals. Technology’s influence and prominent position within society and everyday life unmistakably influences the criminal detection process. With a shift towards relying on new technologies such as DNA analysis and finger printing to provide the ‘truth’. Furthermore the political context in which the investigation and detection process exist plays a major role. External political pressure to prosecute affects the investigative process. Politics shapes the way in which police can carry out their job, they are both constrained and facilitated by the law. in the same context individual liberties and rights are subject to manipulation during the investigative process in the search for justice. Social and political forces influence the criminal investigation and detection process in a multifaceted and complicated way, which changes as the external environment changes. Bibliography Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), Australian Health Ethics Committee (AHEC) of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia (ALRC Report 96), Part 44.28 May 2003 Burney, I and Pemberton, N ‘Making space for criminalistics: Hans Gross and fin-de- siecle CSI’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44: 16-25. 2013 Carrington, K., Dever, M., Hogg, R., Bargen, J. & Lohrey, A. (eds) , Travesty: Miscarriages of Justice, Academics For Justice, Kensington, New South Wales. 1991 Gans, J and Urbas, G ‘†DNA Identitifcation in the Crimminal Justice System No.226 Trends and Issues in the Criminal Justice System † Australian Institute of Criminology, May, 2002 http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/A/8/7/%7BA8774CDA-3A9A-4445-9D88-583757A48003%7Dti226.pdf Garrison D ‘Crime Scene Investigation as a Patrol Function’, Law & Order 51(11), 70–3, 2003 Freckleton, I. & Selby, H. (eds.) , Expert Evidence (looseleaf), Lawbook Co., Sydney. 2002 Locard’s (1910) University of Lyons, France, developed what is known as the Locard Exchange Principle in 1910 Williams, R and Johnson, P (2007) â€Å"Trace biometrics and criminal investigations† in Tim Newburn, Tom Williamson & Alan Wright (eds) (2007) H andbook of Criminal Investigation, Willan Publishing, UK, pp 357-380.

90s Fashion Trends: ‘Less Is More’

As we reflect on fashion history, there is not always a distinctive shift from one decade to the next. When transitioning from the 80s to the 90s, this was not the case, as there was an evident changeover from conspicuous consumer to ‘less is more. ’ When hearing this phrase and applying it to fashion, I think it can be viewed in two ways. The more literal interpretation can be restated as it is preferred to have either a more minimalistic and simple outfit, or that it is en vogue to wear skimpier clothing.Both of these descriptions can be seen in 90s fashion. Minimalism was a widely accepted trend of the 90s, as shoulder pads and off-the-shoulder sweaters became outdated and were replaced with cleaner lines and sleeker silhouettes. The excessive glamour of the 80s faded away, and jewelry became either non-existent or chic in its fineness and barely there quality. The only attribution to 1980s excess glamour was the bedazzling and embellishments to clothing or iridescent glitter shimmer on sheer and tulle fabrics and added to skin make up and hair spray.Designers such as Helmut Lang popularized this minimalistic trend by incorporating Japanese avant-garde aesthetics. Lang’s designs conveyed his view on how modern men and women want to dress. His clothes were without affectation and embodied an understanding that perfect cut, comfort, and ease of movement constitutes great fashion luxuries. Common examples of his key pieces slim mannish-shaped trousers for women, and sharply cut suiting that has a more androgynous shape. The minimalistic trend of the 90s was evident from head to toe and was even embraced by celebrities of the decade.Pop stars that had once worn frilly miniskirts adorned with suspenders, full faces of makeup and plentiful accessories were now embracing new, more simplistic styles. Calvin Klein’s infamous ‘Clueless’ mini dress, worn by Alicia Silverstone in the legendary film is a perfect example of the slin ky, body-con trend that became ubiquitous in the 90s. Hairstyles also reflected a ‘less is more’ vibe, and women styled their hair in a sleek manner like Jennifer Aniston, or short and funkier no-fuss style as channeled by Meg Ryan.I also think that ‘less is more’ can be applied to 90s fashion with respect to an attitude Americans felt at the time. During this 90s, people wanted easy clothing that was matched to their everyday lives and reflected an increasingly aggressive urban society. Business rules for dressing relaxed, and many people lost interest in fashion as necessary. This was a major change from 80s fashion where it what commonplace for yuppies to broadcast their wealth in expensive clothing. â€Å"1990's Fashion History – The Mood of the Millennium. † Fashion Era. N. p. , n. d. Web. 25 Apr 2011. . Sharma, Tanya. â€Å"1990's Women's Fashion . † love to know. N. p. , n. d. Web. 25 Apr 2011. . â€Å"clueless mini dress. † google. com. Web. 25 Apr 2011. . â€Å"The '90s Minimalist . † MSN Lifestyle. Web. 25 Apr 2011. .

Margaret Thatcher – Emancipated Woman

Even today in the year 2009 the top political positions in most countries are still male-dominated. Emancipation has made a lot of progress during the last decades, but woman in the prime political positions such as the president or the prime minister are still a rare sight. For example when Angela Merkel became the first female Chancellor of Germany in 2005 it was regarded as a milestone in German politics; and the USA, the country of freedom and sophistication has yet to experience a female president. One of the exceptions in this context is the UK. Not because of the UK itself but because of Margaret Thatcher.She took office as the first female Prime Minister of the UK as well as the first female leader of the Conservative Party already 30 years ago, when women in such high political positions were basically non-existent. She was one of the forerunners for the emancipated women in today’s world. She was nicknamed â€Å"the Iron Lady† and the term Thatcherism was inve nted to describe her distinctive style and content of her politics. So what set her apart from the others; how was it possible for her to become Britain’s first female Prime Minister, a feat that no other woman so far could duplicate?One reason for her inimitable success was definitely her steadfast character. She had a strong opinion and did not let others dissuade her from doing her thing. A prime example for this is her behavior in October of 1984 when the IRA made an attempt on her life, which became known as the Brighton hotel bombing. In the night of October 12, 1984, the IRA detonated large bombs in the Grand Hotel in Brighton/UK, where many high-level politicians were staying because of the British Conservative Party Conference the next day.The bomb detonated at around 3 o’clock in the morning, when Margaret was in her hotel room, still awake preparing a conference speech that she gave on the same day. The bomb badly damaged adjacent rooms and killed several of her fellow politicians, but she came away uninjured, spending the rest of the night at a police station for security reasons. The IRA claimed responsibility the next day, part of their statement was: â€Å"Mrs. Thatcher will now realize that Britain cannot occupy our country and torture our prisoners and shoot our people in their own streets and get away with it.Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always. Give Ireland peace and there will be no more war. † (IRA, 1984). One would assume that she needed a day off to assimilate the shock of the bombing, but Margaret continued to do business as usual, attended the Conference punctually at 9:30 (a mere 6 hours after the attack) and gave her speech which included the following statement â€Å"†¦the fact that we are gathered here now†¦is a sign not only that this attack has failed, but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail. (That-cher, 1984) Besides her resolute character, the other key component of her success was her political and economic philosophy. Thatcher was a firm supporter of democracy. She was anti-communism and in favor of free markets with little government intervention. In January 1976, as the leader of the opposition (before she became Prime Minister), she criticized the Soviet Union in a speech that included: â€Å"The men in the Soviet Politburo do not have to worry about the ebb and flow of public opinion. They put guns before butter, while we put just about. verything before guns. † (Thatcher, 1984). Other key elements of Thatcher’s philosophy included entrepreneurialism, monetarism, opposition to trade unions and privatization of state-owned industries Margaret Thatcher really was of the precursors of today’s emancipated women. She is one of the most influential British politicians of the last decades and the fact that she is a woman makes this even more impressive. Her incredib le success was mainly due to her unwavering character and the content of her politics and economic policies.The fact that Thatcher’s politics had a long-lasting effect becomes especially clear in a statement of Peter Mandelson, member of Parliament belonging to the British Labour Party: â€Å"we are all Thatcherites now. † (Mendelson, 2002) ? References Taylor, Peter. (2001). Brits : The War Against the IRA. 265-267. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 0-7475-5806-X. Thatcher, Margaret. (1984). Speech to Conservative Party Conference, 12 October 1984 Mendelson, Peter. (2002). Mandelson: we are all Thatcherites now. retrived on April 7, 2009 from: The Guardian, Website: http://politics. guardian. co. uk/labour/story/0,9061,730718,00. html